Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 121 posts

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

#81

Post by basementcat »

watwut wrote: post #80
basementcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges interpret the law. The law and Constitution are not written in C (and even if they were, we all know that every compiler has "undefined behavior" that may need to be adjudicated) and we occasionally need a court system to resolve disputes and clarify legal ambiguities. If the affected parties believe a judge made an incorrect decision, there exist procedures for appeal or even revisiting the question in a subs…

> Judges interpret the law. That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you cant interpret it. So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda like we need programmers, but not really anyone.

It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written specification in mutually incompatible ways.

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

#82

Post by basementcat »

alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

I actually think the most troubling aspect of elected judges is the amount of money they have to raise every few years just to keep their job. I suppose this isn't all that different from technical fields (PI's have to write grant proposals, entrepreneurs have to give pitches) so maybe its not that big of a deal.

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

#83

Post by kibwen »

basementcat wrote: post #81
watwut wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judges interpret the law. That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you cant interpret it. So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda like we need programmers, but not really anyone.

It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written specification in mutually incompatible ways.

Yes, although the judges in the OP do not sound analogous to competent programmers in this example. One would expect someone trained in software to interpret software, in the same way one would expect someone trained in law to interpret law.

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

#84

Post by _sid »

basementcat wrote: post #81
watwut wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judges interpret the law. That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you cant interpret it. So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda like we need programmers, but not really anyone.

It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written specification in mutually incompatible ways.

I find it hard to believe that programmers could disagree with eachother.

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

#85

Post by BurningFrog »

chrismeller wrote: post #68
alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

This also applies to law enforcement. Many small towns have elected sheriff’s (or police captains or whatever they call them locally). How is that right? Sure, maybe they have to convince a county DA that there was a crime for actual prosecution, but the number of areas they could abuse their power before (or completely without) charges is insane. Look at it from the viewpoint of the Andy Griffith show... the circuit…

> How is that right?

It's democracy. It has its pros and cons.

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

#86

Post by BurningFrog »

jasonzemos wrote: post #71

> Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c ) which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote in "My Di…

> it's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism

Maybe it's time for you to read up on Soviet communism?

This is not how they killed 20m of their own citizens.

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

#87

Post by jMyles »

gamblor956 wrote: post #72
jMyles wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct. In every case so far, SCOTUS Justices have been attorneys by profession, but as the internet makes it much easier to research law and legal precedents, it might be interesting to see what happens if someone with a different background joins that club.

That is only true of living justices. A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.

> A number of SCOTUS justices in the past had no legal backgrounds whatsoever, with the last such judge serving until 1957.

What you are saying is strictly, clearly incorrect.

In fact, not only has every person who has served as a SCOTUS justice been an attorney, but every person nominated has been an attorney. [0]

Stanley Forman Reed, to whom you are referring as the person who retired in 1957, attended but did not graduate from law school - perhaps that's the source of your confusion? In any case, Reed had a long, storied career as an attorney before being nominated to the Court.

Again: every person for whom a nomination has been submitted by a POTUS to the Senate has been an practicing attorney, barred in one or more US States. There has not been a single exception. And certainly no nomination even approaching "no legal background whatsoever."

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_b...

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

#88

Post by michaelmrose »

This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me as I was walking home from work.

The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.

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

#89

Post by iam-TJ »

sonthonax wrote: post #65
alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

Britain’s lower courts are presided by magistrates. There isn’t even an election. It’s a simple interview and a application form. https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/apply-to-be-a-magistrat... While there are supposedly checks on their powers, abuses though sheer incompetence happen.

However, all Magistrate Courts have a Clerk to the Justices who is qualified and advises the magistrates on the law at hearings and handles other court functions.

"A person can only be designated if he/she has a five-year magistrates' court qualification, was a barrister or solicitor who had served for not less than five years as an assistant to a justices' clerk, or had previously been a justices' clerk"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justices%27_clerk

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

#90

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

lisper wrote: post #70
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow literacy tests?

Jumping? I'm not jumping, I'm applying the principle that people who have influence over the application of the law should have some training. If judges need special training, why not legislators? And if both judges and legislators need special training, why not citizens? Note that we already do apply this principle to naturalized citizens! It is only people who acquired their citizenship by birth who never need to s…

There is nothing "logical" about your extending the idea that judges should not have to have legal training before sentencing people to jail. Not to mention, legislators are kept in check by another branch of government which can strike down laws created by legislature. The indigent and commoners hauled before these magistrates are granted no such meaningful review.
Post reply on HN