West Memphis 3 Freed

[Barrister]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

Good question.  Why don't all the European countries do the same thing?
Hola, Baltasar Garzon?

I know taking shots at Marty is fun and all, but

You guys have some of the least independent, least political prosecutors and judges going.  At the state level your Chief prosecutors are elected, and at the Federal level they are explicit political patronage positions.

[Ed Anger]

I was awaiting the hooting of the foreigners in this thread. And surprise, suprise, it is 'ol king Fag and Mart.

[Valmy]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

How exactly would that work?

[Barrister]

I was awaiting the hooting of the foreigners in this thread. And surprise, suprise, it is 'ol king Fag and Mart.

I wouldn't think it was surprising.  I would have thought it was terribly predictable.   

And I can't see how it's possibly any more "coercive" a plea deal than is any plea deal ever reached in any courtroom.

[Barrister]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

How exactly would that work?

Seriously?

Try soemthing like this for Prosecutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service

For judges, well, start by not electing them.  Then, have appointments come from a bipartisan committee, not from the executive.

[Ed Anger]

You have your ways, and keep your commie ways off mah flag. Commie.

[The Minsky Moment]

at the Federal level they are explicit political patronage positions.

?  where would you get that idea ?

In the SDNY US attorney's office - which I am most familiar with -- most of the appointed US attorney's were former assistants in the office.  Of course it helps to have connections in DC, but they are all experienced prosecutors.

And yes at the state level, the DAs are elected, but at least in NY county - the candidates are all experienced prosecutors and the electoral campaigns focus on substantive issues. 

You can't really judge an entire country by what goes on in certain counties in Arkansas.

Overall I would say that the US does not stand out for having a politicized judiciary.  No jurist in the US could ever exercise the kind of politically motvated authority like Garzon did in Spain.  And while I pick on him, I have seen other examples from Italy, France, Belgium.

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously?

Try soemthing like this for Prosecutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service

For judges, well, start by not electing them.  Then, have appointments come from a bipartisan committee, not from the executive.

The judge who gave Herr Schicklegruber an hour and a half in the pokey for trying to overthrow the state was appointed, no?

[Barrister]

at the Federal level they are explicit political patronage positions.

?  where would you get that idea ?

In the SDNY US attorney's office - which I am most familiar with -- most of the appointed US attorney's were former assistants in the office.  Of course it helps to have connections in DC, but they are all experienced prosecutors.

And yes at the state level, the DAs are elected, but at least in NY county - the candidates are all experienced prosecutors and the electoral campaigns focus on substantive issues. 

You can't really judge an entire country by what goes on in certain counties in Arkansas.

Clarify it for me though - on a change in the Whitehouse most of those USDA positions are fileld by the incoming adminisration.

Merely having experienced prosecutors is hardly the same as having independent prosecutors.

I can tell you that if the Alberta government were to change, I would expect our Deputy Minister to change, but that would be it.  When I was with the Feds, because of the Public Prosecution Service model nothing at all would change.

[Ideologue]

I'm not sure how it would interact with the Ark. Son of Sam law (Sec. 16-90-308) prohibiting profiting from a crime. 

As a statute limiting speech, I would imagine it would be narrowly interpreted to avoid burdening legitimate speech rights.

Statute says: "Any person  . . . convicted of or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to any crime who contracts to reenact the crime by use of any book, motion picture . . .[etc.] or from the expression of his or her thoughts, opinions, or emotions regarding the crime, l pay to the circuit court wherein the charges were filed any money or thing of value contracted to be paid to the defendant or his or her spouse, heirs, assigns, and transferees."

presumably they aren't going to "reenact" the crime since they claim they didn't do it.  The second clause about "expression of thoughts" is pretty vague -- maybe could be sidestepped by focusing their thoughts and opinions on their experiences in the justice system as opposed to the crime itself.

Good points all.

[The Minsky Moment]

Clarify it for me though - on a change in the Whitehouse most of those USDA positions are fileld by the incoming adminisration.

It is not that strict - for example, Bob Fiske was appointed by Ford but served throughout most of the Carter administration.  Mary Jo White was appointed by Clinton but served about a year into the Bush administration and was appointed by Ashcroft to do a special investigation of the Marc Rich pardon.  New administrations tend to move new people in but it not like the cabinet where there is immediate and automatic turnover.

Merely having experienced prosecutors is hardly the same as having independent prosecutors.

It depends what you mean by independent.  The US attorney's offices are all ultimately part of the Justice Department, and thus ultimately answerable to the President.  There is a good reason for having that structure -- accountability and ensuring the rule of law.  To do otherwise is to have prosecutors who can act autonomously without having to answer to the elected civil authorities -- IMO that is very problematic and considerably more dangerous, as the examples of overweening and uncontrollable European magistrates illustrates. 

the US atty appointments may be literally political in the sense that the political branch has the power to make the appointment, but they are not "politicized"  Key distinction.

[dps]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

How exactly would that work?

Seriously?

Try soemthing like this for Prosecutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service

For judges, well, start by not electing them.  Then, have appointments come from a bipartisan committee, not from the executive.

Bah, one of the reasons we (unlike you Canucks) threw out the British was so that we, the people, could chose our own judges, instead of having somebody appoint them to rule over us.

The problem with elected judges is that same as with any other elected public official--shitholes like Arkansas tend to elect shitty officials.

OK, both those statements were over-the-top, but there's some truth to them.

[Martinus]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

Good question.  Why don't all the European countries do the same thing?
Hola, Baltasar Garzon?

Seriously? Is this the best you can do? I'd take a prosecutor going after the mass-murdering leaders of nations vs. one that ruined the lives of a bunch of innocent teenagers.

[Barrister]

Clarify it for me though - on a change in the Whitehouse most of those USDA positions are fileld by the incoming adminisration.

It is not that strict - for example, Bob Fiske was appointed by Ford but served throughout most of the Carter administration.  Mary Jo White was appointed by Clinton but served about a year into the Bush administration and was appointed by Ashcroft to do a special investigation of the Marc Rich pardon.  New administrations tend to move new people in but it not like the cabinet where there is immediate and automatic turnover.

Merely having experienced prosecutors is hardly the same as having independent prosecutors.

It depends what you mean by independent.  The US attorney's offices are all ultimately part of the Justice Department, and thus ultimately answerable to the President.  There is a good reason for having that structure -- accountability and ensuring the rule of law.  To do otherwise is to have prosecutors who can act autonomously without having to answer to the elected civil authorities -- IMO that is very problematic and considerably more dangerous, as the examples of overweening and uncontrollable European magistrates illustrates. 

the US atty appointments may be literally political in the sense that the political branch has the power to make the appointment, but they are not "politicized"  Key distinction.

Oh I agree you don't want complete independence.  Even in the more hands off PPSC model, the PPSC is answerable to Parliament, the Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed by the government for a (I think) 5 year term).  But by adding one, or more, levels of separation it avoids the phone call from an MP or MLA saying 'drop this charge against my political contributor or I'll have you fired'.

POlitical, but not politicized - I don't think that's a distinction that's possible to make.  In any event often the problem is just as much one of appearance as actual bias.  You could have the most principled and upstanding prosecutor in the world, but when that person directly owes their job and livelihood to an explicitly political appointment process, how much faith can you have?


You'll note that I've focused much more on prosecutions than judges.  hat's where I see the much more substantial difference on either side of the border.  Our judicial appointments have gotten a lot fairer over the years, but can still be a fairly political process.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why doesn't America wisen up and have a system of independent, non-political judges and prosecutors?

Good question.  Why don't all the European countries do the same thing?
Hola, Baltasar Garzon?

Seriously? Is this the best you can do? I'd take a prosecutor going after the mass-murdering leaders of nations vs. one that ruined the lives of a bunch of innocent teenagers.

I do not think you understand the meaning of the term "non-political"
Hint: it does not mean "political agenda I agree with"