Non-Lawyer Judges

[Introduction] I accept Pro's definitions; however, reject his assumption that deliberative bodies perform their purposes better when they have a diverse membership. I propose that this is only true of SOME bodies, and that judges are not one of them. For instance, would an NFL team want players who fundamentally knew how to play football via experience and special training (i.e. pro players), or would they want someone like me who technically knows how to play the game, but probably wouldn't be good at actually winning one at the professional level? The answer is obvious and it explains my point: Just because some people might know the laws, doesn't necessarily mean they know how to interpret them, implement them, or utilize the system and precedents as well as know when the lawyers are getting out of line. Lawyers (and thus judges) have particular and special training that allows them to perform their job in ways that non-lawyers might not recognize on the surface. Additionally, while diversity is often cited as a good thing when it comes to something like the appellate court, it must be noted that diversity does not include the devaluing of an in depth education and understanding of the law at a position of that level. Instead, it might mean that instead of the last 4 appointed judges having graduated from Harvard or Yale, that maybe they might choose someone who graduated from a school in the south west, for example [1]. Again, I don't think anyone would agree that a lack of formal legal training and probably experience would be something one should forfeit or not be expected as a judge. President Obama represents "change" and "diversity" but he still has an prestigious education. So, thus far I have negated the supposition that specific diversity is beneficial in all group situations or levels, such as high levels of the criminal justice or legal system of the United States. REBUTTAL: 1. The perspective of a non-lawyer judge will enhance the jurisprudence of a court. Pro contends that one's philosophy or ability to interpret the law makes them a superior candidate than a lawyer to act as a judge. However, this is undergoing the assumption that lawyers don't have these same abilities. Yes, a lawyer plays many roles in the legal system and often that is to exploit the law, manipulate the law, explain the law or enforce the law. However, when one becomes a judge, their role entails different requirements and it is assumed that a judge will adapt to meet those needs. For instance, any appointed appellate court judge should be able to clarify a law's philosophy just as well as Walter Berns. What makes Walter Berns superior? Moreover, even if one might have a good eye for the law or be able to make good contributions to the law, that doesn't mean that they should be judges. According to one government website, "When a judge convenes a case for trial before a jury, his or her mission is to organize, facilitate, and oversee a process that will render an outcome based on a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence in the case" [2]. Now how can one know how to properly oversee a process of the legal system if they are not educated in the law? Being a scholar of philosophy or political science as my opponent has suggested does not demonstrate an aptitude for any legal knowledge or disciplinary know-how, etc. 2. A non-lawyer scholar or judge can get a minimal competence in a new area of law through independent study. To demonstrate this point, Pro includes a real life example of a lucky scenario in which he was able to win a court case without any formal legal training. However, being your own representative in court (lawyer) is much different than being a judge. I would agree that one can defend themselves once they know or read up on the law; however, there's no guarantee that one would be interpreting the law properly - which is what a judge is for. As I said, understanding legal precedents and having an idea of what is kosher or not during a court case is of utmost importance in any trial if it is to remain objective and in accordance with constitutional standards. 3. Martha Nussbaum is indubitably qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. While Nussbaum undoubtedly has an extremely impressive resume and many of the qualifications necessary to be a judge, she doesn't have the primary one - a license to practice law. To become a judge, you must pass your state's bar exam and gain experience practicing law. Passing the bar = becoming a lawyer. The bar is an examination to determine whether or not a candidate is qualified to practice law in a given jurisdiction. While people may represent themselves in trial, who would represent the State? The government has set the standard of what constitutes as an official lawyer or what the proficiency for practicing law is in different areas. And because a judge's responsibility is to uphold the rules and regulations of the government, then it logically follows that one must also have to pass the bar examination (become a lawyer). Back to you, Pro. [1] http://sonoranalliance.com... [2] http://www.america.gov...