South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law • Hacker News Board

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#11

Post by danielisaac » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #6

>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it. I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent…

> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.

The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people with legal authority that have no training applying the law.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#12

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #2

Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people, not clerics of the law who must undergo institutional evaluation and approval. That is why they are elected or appointed, as opposed to merited by some competitive process which sieves for competence. Still, > To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South Carolina…

[deleted]

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#13

Post by thawaway1837 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

elcaminocomplex wrote: post #8

thawaway1837 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.

> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.

Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case.

Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#14

Post by lurquer » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

danielisaac wrote: post #11

lurquer wrote: post #6

>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it. I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent…

> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts. The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people wi…

Criminal law is literally a set of statutes.

Small claims court (the name varies depending on the state, but we're talking about 'Judge Judy' type courts here) is for the quick resolution of minor disputes. In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply.

And, in nearly all the states, one can appeal de novo the court's judgment to a 'real' court.

My state recently implemented a requirement that these lower court judges have law degrees. The quality of the court ha suffered... instead of a retired businessperson who has an interest in his community, we end up with incompetent lawyers who can't make a living in private practice. Or, worse, some person straight out of lawschool with zero legal or life experience.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#15

Post by burnte » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

ruffrey wrote: post #4

Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”

No it shouldn't. Every state has elected judge positions, and they only require being able to win an election. In my home state of PA a local magistrate was caught by the FBI trying to fix cases of people who appealed her judgments, was removed from the bench for 6 months, and still ran for reelection unopposed. The people we let get elected to judicial positions is scary.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#16

Post by elcaminocomplex » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

thawaway1837 wrote: post #13

elcaminocomplex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.

Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.

Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement.

The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#17

Post by thawaway1837 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

elcaminocomplex wrote: post #16

thawaway1837 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.

Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might…

The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand.

Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#18

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

You should see some of the elected judges here. PA.

Nothing more than a high school education.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#19

Post by danielisaac » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #14

danielisaac wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts. The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people wi…

Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Small claims court (the name varies depending on the state, but we're talking about 'Judge Judy' type courts here) is for the quick resolution of minor disputes. In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. And, in nearly all the states, one can appeal de novo the court's judgment to a 'real' court. My state recently implemented a requirement that these lower…

> Criminal law is literally a set of statutes.

Simply untrue in common law countries (e.g. the US). Criminal law is absolutely driven by judicial opinions and statutory interpretation.

> In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply.

This isn't about evidence. It's about interpreting many doctrines that vary wildly between states. A single statute (re: defenses, attempt, conspiracy, the requisite mens rea to hold someone liable) can yield totally different interpretations.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#20

Post by chongli » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

burnte wrote: post #15

ruffrey wrote: post #4

Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”

No it shouldn't. Every state has elected judge positions, and they only require being able to win an election. In my home state of PA a local magistrate was caught by the FBI trying to fix cases of people who appealed her judgments, was removed from the bench for 6 months, and still ran for reelection unopposed. The people we let get elected to judicial positions is scary.

Judges shouldn’t be elected at all, they should be appointed in a non partisan process, from a pool of experienced and respected lawyers.