UKC

Following the Rifkind/Straw thread and a John Oliver episode highlighting how the US elects judges and how terrible this approach is:

Why do we elect MPs and think this is a good system but allow judges to be appointed and think this also a good system?

Has there ever been a high profile case of a judge being "bought" or otherwise abusing their position

In reply to MG:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/constance-briscoe-guilty-chris-huhne-b...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Ah yes, how could I forget! Although wasn't acting as a judge at the time (not that that makes it much better).

In reply to MG:


It think it reflects the different roles of the legislature & executive and the judiciary. The MPs make the law and run the country, and we have decided that the common people should have influence over that. The way they can have that influence is by electing the legislators. To paraphrase Churchill, it doesn't really work very well, but I haven't got any better ideas. The judiciary on the other hand are tasked with upholding and enforcing the law, which doesn't need the direct input of the common people, so we don't have to put up with the kind of hollow self-publicists that do well in politics. I suspect that well-chosen appointed legislators would do a better job than elected ones, but in that case who does the appointing? How does the government remain accountable to the people?

In reply to Jack B:

I suspect that well-chosen appointed legislators would do a better job than elected ones, but in that case who does the appointing? How does the government remain accountable to the people?

I suspect you are right, and certainly don't want elected judges. We do, I suppose, appoint legislators to the House of Lords and they aren't noticeably worse than the commons.

In reply to MG:


Not many and there has been a move away from this in recent years with the formation of the UK Supreme Court, which has rightly removed some judicial power from the legislature.

Various texts on democracy will stress the importance of an independent judiciary, clearly electing them makes them political, which reduces their independence.

In reply to The New NickB:


Rather the opposite surely, with the abolition of hereditary peers most peers are now appointed.


Independent of whom and why though? They are serving society in the same way as politicians so while I can see being independent of the legislature is a good thing, being accountable to society would seem to be beneficial on the face of it it, while inhabiting a parallel, self-appointing universe as judges do would seem a bad thing. That said, I can see it works reasonably and definitely better than elected judges, but why. Because texts say so isn't really an answer.

In reply to MG:

No, the role of the Law Lords has been significantly reduced.


Independent of the legislature and executive, it's checks and balances.


Behave, I'm clearly talking about the philosophical thinking that is the basis of our and most mature democracies. Read them and critique them, or adopt others critiques of them, but don't deny that they are part of the process in which an independent judiciary developed.

Here is what the government have to say on the matter:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-governmen...

In reply to MG:
I don't like the idea of judges and prosecutors allowing justice to be influenced by popularity, getting re-elected or kick-starting a political career. That's how it often* seems to work in the US so the parallel self appointing universe is preferable to me.

*it's probably that it works fine 90% of the time and we only hear about the exceptions

There is no absolute indpendence because ultimately the taxpayer pays the bills and Parliament could create a law or the government couild ignore the law to do what it likes. That happens to a degree here and is the main way of governing in places like Russia or North Korea (I expect both countries have legal systems, laws and constituitions guaranteeing all sorts of good things).

A tradition of respect for citizens & civic society, effective opposition in/out of parliament and a relative lack of corruption seem more important than laws & constitutions in determining if a legal system is independent.

In reply to MG:

They will be they let Jack Straw in, they then could be said to be worse than the commons.

He could be the straw that .............

In reply to MG:

In what sense would they do a "better job"? There certainly seems to be a meme at the moment that supposedly "independent" people would run things better than elected legislators, the NHS for example. I think the point is missed that you need someone to tell these appointed legislators what we want government to do. What happens when the independent person decides that the NHS isn't a cost effective way to provide healthcare and shifts to insurance?

Judges are supposed to make an impartial decision on how the law as it stands applies to a particular case, radically different position to being an MP.