The election of judges and sherriffs is important because appointed ones that can be fired at will (considered a good feature in this video, for some reason) follow their bosses’ whims. Like say the people appointed by Trump do.
If people can’t be bothered to elect a good sherriff/judge then their bosses didn’t get properly vetted either. But at least it’s more democratic and not authoritarian, and it is not contemptuous of the average citizen.
jrkrideausays
@ 1 seachange
I did not see the video as it is blocked where I live in Canada but my view, based on Canadian experience which is very different from US experience makes the thought of elected judges and police chiefs seem bizarre.
I do not want law enforcement and legal decisions being based on political expediency by someone with an eye on the next election or beholding to donors.
Of course, in Canada neither judges or heads of police organizations can be fired at will. Dismissing either would be a herculean task, especially for judges who are either federally or, for lower courts, provincially appointed. In the case of a Canadian judge think of academic tenure with teeth.
nerodensays
It’s excessively important that they be elected. We have addressed multiple corruption cases locally by voting out the corrupt sheriff.
By contrast, the NYPD, whose chief is not elected, is completely 100% corrupt at this point and seems to be threatening the elected officials. That’s not OK and may require a civil war to correct. Much better to have an elected sheriff.
The election of judges and sherriffs is important because appointed ones that can be fired at will (considered a good feature in this video, for some reason) follow their bosses’ whims.
That doesn’t seem to be an issue with other democratic countries.
By contrast, the NYPD, whose chief is not elected, is completely 100% corrupt at this point and seems to be threatening the elected officials. That’s not OK and may require a civil war to correct. Much better to have an elected sheriff.
Except there are completely 100% corrupt sheriffs.
One of the issues with elected judges, sheriffs, and prosecutors is that they have to be “tough on crime” to make the masses feel safe, and that gives a major incentive to railroad people. I once saw an American commercial for a judge running for re-election and he touted his conviction rate and that’s not the judge’s friggin’ job! They are responsible to not just ensure that justice is upheld, but that everyone’s rights are protected.
John Moralessays
It is silly for people such as seachange and neroden to imagine that election via popularity or influence is better than merit-based appointments on the basis that such incumbents can in principle be voted out, since merit-based appointments also have mechanisms for removing incumbents.
BTW:
By contrast, the NYPD, whose chief is not elected
Not elected nor appointed by merit, but chosen by the mayor.
AKA a political appointment, but certainly not the only other method.
(Could just have a lottery)
—
It’s excessively important
Heh.
It’s much more important than it should be for such as you.
The election of judges and sherriffs is important because appointed ones that can be fired at will (considered a good feature in this video, for some reason) follow their bosses’ whims. Like say the people appointed by Trump do.
If people can’t be bothered to elect a good sherriff/judge then their bosses didn’t get properly vetted either. But at least it’s more democratic and not authoritarian, and it is not contemptuous of the average citizen.
@ 1 seachange
I did not see the video as it is blocked where I live in Canada but my view, based on Canadian experience which is very different from US experience makes the thought of elected judges and police chiefs seem bizarre.
I do not want law enforcement and legal decisions being based on political expediency by someone with an eye on the next election or beholding to donors.
Of course, in Canada neither judges or heads of police organizations can be fired at will. Dismissing either would be a herculean task, especially for judges who are either federally or, for lower courts, provincially appointed. In the case of a Canadian judge think of academic tenure with teeth.
It’s excessively important that they be elected. We have addressed multiple corruption cases locally by voting out the corrupt sheriff.
By contrast, the NYPD, whose chief is not elected, is completely 100% corrupt at this point and seems to be threatening the elected officials. That’s not OK and may require a civil war to correct. Much better to have an elected sheriff.
That doesn’t seem to be an issue with other democratic countries.
Except there are completely 100% corrupt sheriffs.
One of the issues with elected judges, sheriffs, and prosecutors is that they have to be “tough on crime” to make the masses feel safe, and that gives a major incentive to railroad people. I once saw an American commercial for a judge running for re-election and he touted his conviction rate and that’s not the judge’s friggin’ job! They are responsible to not just ensure that justice is upheld, but that everyone’s rights are protected.
It is silly for people such as seachange and neroden to imagine that election via popularity or influence is better than merit-based appointments on the basis that such incumbents can in principle be voted out, since merit-based appointments also have mechanisms for removing incumbents.
BTW:
Not elected nor appointed by merit, but chosen by the mayor.
AKA a political appointment, but certainly not the only other method.
(Could just have a lottery)
—
Heh.
It’s much more important than it should be for such as you.
(Can’t dispute that)