Non-Lawyer Judges

So onto the final rebuttal. .. I agree with Pro that a court is a deliberative body, and even that diversity to some degree can enhance performance. However, Pro has not proven that (1) diversity is always effective, (2) diversity would be beneficial in court and (3) that diversity should include a discrepancy in education. As I said in previous rounds, it would be one thing to utilize judges with different backgrounds, i. e. from different schools, parts of the country, gender or race related, etc. However I am not willing to forfeit education and experience in a certain area in terms of being a judge in a court of law. Regarding interpretation of the law, Pro considers it an art and not a science. However, the law being an art implies a few things. First, that it is subjective - and not all laws are. Second, law interpretation is only a PART of judging. This does not address any of my other points about the duties of a judge. In addition to interpreting the law, judges are responsible for overseeing court cases. .. in other words, ensuring that the lawyers are acting appropriately and within the parameters of the law during a trial. One learns these laws and practices in law school, in which their knowledge is tested via the bar exam. If you'd agree that a judge should have this knowledge, then it logically follows that they should be expected to pass an exam testing this knowledge, i. e. becoming a lawyer via passing the bar. Now, regarding Pro's example of Justice Ginsberg and the 13 year old girl, you'll notice that this argument is completely irrelevant considering the fact that Ginsberg was a lawyer before she was a judge. Further, just because Con might agree with her assessment of the case does not mean that it was the correct one. All he succeeded in doing was proving that different judges can have different perspectives. Again, that is an obvious reality that I do not oppose. Instead, I am unwilling to sacrifice knowledge about the law when it comes to being a judge in a United States court. One significant and widespread way to test a government's official of the law is to issue them a standardized test (the bar) which they are expected to pass. Once they do, they become a lawyer. Next Pro writes, "Regarding non-lawyer judges (non-lawyer scholars who have a special interest and learning in the law), I argue that they would contribute unique insights and knowledge from their discipline (history, philosophy, etc. ) to the deliberations, decisions, and jurisprudence of the court. " Here you'll see that Pro is assuming that a lawyer cannot offer the same or similar perspectives. For instance, suppose I wanted to appoint a female Hispanic lawyer to be a judge in a case whereas Pro just wanted to appoint a Hispanic female. Who is to say that they wouldn't have a similar perspective except for one's credibility being enhanced by their law degree? Further, Pro is also assuming that a scholar can offer insight that a lawyer can not. I'd like to reiterate the fact that lawyers ARE scholars in their own right. Most law schools accept applicants who did not major in pre-law [1], so they tend to have degrees in other areas - i. e. political science, psychology or the #1 law school major: philosophy. As such, we can assume that lawyers have a well rounded education and are proficient enough to have their own opinions and draw their own conclusions just as a scholar can. I see absolutely no advantage to judging that a scholar has over a lawyer. In addition to already addressing the issues regarding diversity, the point is that there is no evidence that a lawyer's opinion would be so different or in any way unqualified. On the contrary, a scholar who is not well versed in the law could easily make a judicial mistake or other error regarding the legalities of a case. And moreover, Pro failed to address my argument regarding said scholar's probable lack of knowledge regarding legal precedents or court etiquette. Pro has reported that the benefit of having a non-lawyer judge would be their extensive knowledge in another field. While it's true that a lawyer might not have "extensive knowledge" in a particular area, i. e. history, the fact remains that using this premise alone is not enough to affirm the resolution. For instance, just because history knowledge might be applicable in one court case doesn't mean that it's relevant in other or most court cases. In that instance, you'd have a history master heading a trial - but not one who necessarily knows about the law. So, who is to decide who judges what debate and when and where that diversity is useful? And wouldn't that take up valuable time and thus money? It's far more realistic to have a history scholar or any scholar TESTIFY in a court of law so that their expert opinion is heard and conveyed. I would absolutely agree to that; however, deny that they should be responsible for making the final ruling decisions. The purpose of being a judge - which Pro should know - is NOT to implement one's own personal opinion in court cases. Instead, it's to provide a fair and impartial trial on the basis of what the law says - not what you think it should say. Regarding the bar exam, Pro says that he doesn't think one should have to sit through 3 years of law school in order to take the test. I would tend to agree, seeing as how I consider myself pretty well versed in the law and apt to make legal decisions. However, that's only because I don't know any better. It is widely agreed upon in any description of law school that it is there one learns how to "think like a lawyer. " Thinking like a lawyer should be a prerequisite to thinking like a judge. If thinking like a lawyer implies learning how to properly use logic and evidence to reason a side of a given case, then I believe this particular aspect of education to be important. -- CONCLUSION and RE-CAP -- Diversity is undoubtedly important; however, diversity should not include a lack of education or proficiency in terms of being a judge. While it's true that scholars indeed have particular areas of expertise, there's no reason why they cannot contribute their input via testifying their expert opinion. In that way, their insight is acknowledged but they are not given power over a court which they may know little about. Attending law school and passing the bar is a way to ensure that a judge is knowledgeable in areas of the law whereas a scholar may not be. A judge exists not only to interpret the law, but to ensure that the laws are being followed. You'll note that Pro never addressed my important contention regarding the defense nor prosecution having no say in who is hearing the case. In other words, it's not far to tax payers (and defendants, especially) to have a random scholar overseeing some cases; especially in situations where it could impact the case. If the judge messes up - which is likely to happen - it means a handful more appeal cases, which would only hurt the already over-crowded court system. A way to ensure that one has the proficiency to head a court is by earning a law degree and passing the bar. Sure, anyone could give you medical advice, but wouldn't you feel more comfortable getting advice from a licensed doctor? That logic is precisely why tax payers deserve a judge whose proficiency in the law has been tested explicitly. Law school teaches one to think like a lawyer. A judge should be privy to this way of thinking in order to better determine the proper outcome of a case. There has been no evidence that a lawyer would lack any knowledge a scholar would have; for instance a judge can just as easily know as much about history as a scholar of history. As such, I am in favor of expanding judging requirements, but not in favor of diminishing them. Thanks again for the debate! [1] . http://www.abanet.org...