Non-Lawyer Judges

Re: Assumption While I agree that the NFL was not a great example given my opponent's particular specification of deliberative bodies (whoops!), my same point still applies and I clarified it in the last round also -- just because diversity is good does NOT mean that the qualifications for a specific roles should be eliminated. As I said in the last round, 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. 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. Diversity is good, but so is knowing the law. Re: Scholars of the Law Pro specifies that he thinks only scholars with special interests in the law should be able to judge. However, this begs the question: Then why not a judge? What exactly is the benefit of having a non-lawyer judge if the scholar judge knows everything about the law? The only difference, then, seems to be the completion of law school and a passing of the bar. In that case, I propose that a lawyer is more experienced and educated to be a judge BECAUSE they have that extra training and knowledge. Also, they're privy to one of the best teachers in life - experience. Law school and the bar exam exist to serve as foundations for an understanding of the law and to ensure that the person has a vast understanding of the complicated system. However, it is through actually BEING a lawyer that you learn the intricacies of the field. Re: Pro's Question Where did I ever say that a court was not a deliberative body? Please show me where I said that and I will clarify what I meant. Re: Diversity on the Bench Contd. Pro says 2 things here: The position of judge should only be extended to law scholars, and that a situation in which there were 2 lawyer judges and 1 non-lawyer judge should be acceptable. A few things -- First, just because one might have a text book knowledge of the law doesn't mean that they have all of the things a judge should have (I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it) including, perhaps, the know-how to make proper and balanced decisions i.e. without as much bias as possible. These are things you learn in law school and the like; there's no telling that a scholar would have this ability naturally or have attained the know-how to know what's right or wrong. Second, while Pro gives us a nice scenario of 2 lawyer judges and 1 non-judge on a 3-judge bench, the fact of the matter is that the resolution is not specific and is therefore to be considered all-inclusive (especially since no clarifications were made in R1). As such, if you come to the conclusion that 1 non-lawyer judge can sit on a bench with 2 other lawyer judges, then you must also assume that 3 non-lawyer judges can sit together on the same bench. Further, if you come to the conclusion that non-lawyers are just as capable of being judges as lawyers, then this applies to trial court judges and ALL types of judges. How would the non-lawyer judge ensure that the court proceedings are fair and in accordance with the law? If they have all this knowledge, there's no reason why they can't just pass the bar. Re: The learning and perspective of a non-lawyer judge will enhance the jurisprudence of a court. Pro attempts to prove that I have manipulated his argument, by claiming that he didn't say that a non-lawyer judge would be *superior* to a lawyer judge but rather that it would *enhance* jurisprudence to have a non-lawyer judge. I apologize -- I assumed that if you believed 1 option would have an enhanced result over another option, that common sense explains that you believe 1 option is superior to the other (having lawyer only judges). Nevertheless, you'll notice that Pro hasn't given a response as to WHY non-lawyer judges are preferable. Instead, he gives us one example. Pro says, "I have proved that on the question of the constitutionality of capital punishment, Berns' interpretation of the constitution is superior to the interpretation of Justice Brennan. Unlike Berns' 'judicial restraint,' I would argue that Brennan was a 'judicial activist' on the issue." First, nowhere did Pro PROVE that Berns' interpretation was superior. All he did was essentially say that he agreed with Berns over Brennan and that he likes his book. This establishes nothing for Pro's case. Second, just because Pro has given us an instance where a political science professor's ideology was superior to a Justice's (allegedly), it doesn't actually mean anything. I could say that *I* or other people on this site have better ideologies in certain government issues than the politicians; however, that doesn't mean that I should be running the government or that I'm more qualified to do so. Third, this example only pertains to law interpretation at the highest levels; meanwhile the resolution must apply to courts at every level. Re: Independent Study I'm sorry - I fail to see how this is really relevant and maybe that's why I've been confusing things. From what I gather, Pro is trying to portray how someone with no legal background in a particular area can read up on something and learn the law on their own. If that's the only point, then I have certainly addressed it in other areas of the debate. Plus, Pro is a lawyer, so this type of thing isn't exactly foreign to him. Re: Martha Nussbaum and the bar. Pro claims I said something inaccurate when I noted, "To become a judge, you must pass your state's bar exam and gain experience practicing law." He writes, "The bar examiners can test an examinee's KNOWLEDGE of the law, but not his or her 'experience practicing law because no examinee has actually "practiced law." That's fine... because I said to become a JUDGE you need experience practicing law (re-read the sentence) -- I didn't say you needed experience to pass the bar; that would be non-sensical. Indeed if you look up judge qualifications for various states such as this one [1], you'll see that passing the bar is one of them. Martha Nussbaum is a brilliant lady who has not passed the bar ad is therefore ineligible. Critics note, "The stories of abuse of power, gross impropriety and ignorance in New York's tiny [non-lawyer judge] courts are rampant... Non-lawyer justices are not up to the task if we expect justice, as we understand it, to happen... Non-lawyer judges are unable to perform their function consistent with the law and Constitution. They simply don't know how, even if they are so inclined, and there is no quickie training solution that will provide these justices with the training and experience necessary to mete out justice in any cognizable fashion" [2]. Perhaps the very best reason to not appoint non-lawyer judges is that defendants are subjected to judges to decide their fates who may or may not be qualified to make those types of decisions; at least not decisions based on precedents (which you learn via formal legal training). Tax payers employ these judges, and defendants have no say in who judges their case (likewise, the prosecution has no say). I agree with lawyer Scott Greenfield when he says that it is fundamentally wrong to subject people to a system of justice with the same power as a legitimate system but neither the qualifications nor competence to fulfill its mission. Out of characters, so back to ye! [1] http://www.courts.state.md.us... [2] http://blog.simplejustice.us...