Up for Debate: Selecting judges

Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:45am

Where should the power to select judges in Tennessee lie, with the governor or with the public?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

106 Comments on this post:

By: dargent7 on 2/23/13 at 1:29

If he told me what Island he was visiting, I could of given him pointers.
You left out a T-Shirt reads: "I'm With Stupid" with his matching wife's that have arrows pointing to each other...

By: Ask01 on 2/24/13 at 9:12

However we select judges, there will be no change until judges must answer to the public for obvious violations of the trust bestowed upon them.

So long as they are allowed to run their courtrooms like personal fiefdoms, they will maintain their undeservedly high self opinion, feeling they can beyond the reach of the people.

Making them subject to elections is a great step, as they will have to consider how they behave since they will have to always consider, if not the person on trial, but their family and friends.

So long as people are treated fairly and humanely, I don't see a problem. Most can admit when a family member or friend has committed a crime with no problem. But when a judge misbehaves, there needs to be consequences.

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 9:26

The court systems aren't perfect, Ask01. I've read where the prosecutor can deny evidence a defending attorney wants to present. I've always wondered why. I can only come up with the conclusion they don't want to lose a case: Any case They want to win regardless of how it may affect an innocent person.

If you recall, there has lately been a number of innocent people who spent many years of their lives in prison for something they were innocent of.

By: Ask01 on 2/24/13 at 10:14

While I am bashing judges, let me share some of that vitriole with other parts of the so called criminal justice system. Some seem to have taken only part of the system to heart; the criminal part, while justice seems to be optional.

First, lazy law enforcement, seemingly always aiming for the low hanging fruit, prefering those unable or unlikely to fight back, either physically or in the courts. After all, what is easier and safer, to lamely hide along the road, usually at the bottom of hills, to nab motorists who might speed up a little, or go after gang members and heavily armed drug dealers? (Hint: be careful on 8th Avenue by Demonbreun.)

Then, we have attorneys, all the way from hayseed local prosecuters to the attorney general. I understand their job is to allegedly represent the public in cases, but, considering we laughingly refer to this as the criminal justice system, shouldn't they be more interested in justice than just making sure they win and preserve convictions? After all, how is justice served if the wrong person is punished? To do so only erodes the public faith in the "system."

Everytime I hear of evidence being excluded, judges refusing to hear new evidence, and governors refusing to review a case, particularly when such might clear, or exclude a suspect, I lose more of an increasingly small amount of faith in the system.

I don't expect anything to change however.

Too many judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and corrections officers might end up behind bars.

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 12:34

I agree, Ask01, the "justice" system isn't for justice by the proscutors. Their only thoughts seem to be: How can I win?

The medical find of the DNA of a person has to be one of the best medical findings in history for the judicial system... for the defendants, not the prosecutors. They hate to loose.

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 12:47


Am I correct in thinking you're a veteran? If you are, what is your opinion of the governments moves to disarm veterans?

Could it be because of the government fears them if a civil war begins when they begin their confiscation attempt knowing they are well trained to defend this nation, not take it from their fellow citizens?

ref: www.teaparty.org/federal-government-moves-to-disarm-veterans-20530/