An Elected Judiciary

This paper explores the ethical issues involved in having elected versus unelected judiciaries and having a mandatory retirement age.

848 words () | 1 source | APA | 2008 United States

Paper Summary:

The paper reviews the ethical advantages and disadvantages of the practice of electing justices to the Supreme Court of Virginia, or of any American state. The paper considers the argument most commonly put forward by opponents of elected judiciaries but maintains that this argument is not as strong as its supporters might wish. The paper also looks at the ethical benefits to be found in having mandatory retirement ages imposed upon all presiding justices.

From the Paper:

"The distinguished career of Harry L. Carrico immediately brings to the forefront the issue of what ethical advantages may be found in having a mandatory retirement age in place for justices. Because Justice Carrico and his colleagues have all been elected to the Supreme Court of Virginia (after having been nominated by the Governor, of course) it may be said that their tenure is characterized by a democratic strain that is not to be found in other western democracies (such as Canada) where jurists are selected to appellate courts (most notably the Supreme Court of Canada) and do not have to go through the rigorous process of winning confirmation in both houses of a bicameral legislature. While the American (and Virginian) model may strike some foreigners as dangerously permissive (placing as it does great power in an elected body to determine the composition of a court when such a state of affairs can easily lead to politics being injected into the proceedings) it does have many advantages."

Sample of Sources Used:

Cooper, Alan. (2003, January 31). Carrico Ending 42 Years On High Court, Virginia's Chief Justice Retires After 42 Years of Judicial Service. Richmond Times-Dispatch: page number not provided by client.