scrubbedexpat091

The system in California seems to work fine, lower level judges generally first appointed by the governor, and then only have to run for election if challenged, or they retire or resign close to an election.

The appeals court and state supreme court are all appointed and never elected.

Judicial elections also have strict ethics rules that politicians don't have, so they are not very exciting campaigns.

Almost Canadian

Did you ever vote in such an election and, if so, what made you determine which candidate was worthy of your vote?

scrubbedexpat091

Never. When I could vote in local elections, none of the judges in my court were ever challenged.

In the last election according to the link below of the 470 judges up for re-election only 10 faced a challenge of which only 2 were defeated.

I can't vote in state or local elections anymore, so it's not something I encounter. Being outside of the US, I can only vote in federal elections.

California judicial elections, 2014 - Ballotpedia

Tangram

Law and politics should not mix

BristolUK

Former Lancastrian

So the judge has now been removed and will not be hearing any cases nor sitting again until further notice.
Im assuming he will still be getting paid and now preparing for his defence and hoping that he will be found to have been removed illegally and is entitled to some form of compensation.
Federal Court Justice Robin Camp won't be hearing cases 'until further notice' - Calgary - CBC News

scrubbedexpat091

Interesting.


As mentioned in the article as well and still seems weird to me, is the fact acquittals can be overturned in Canada.

Almost Canadian

Why? An appeal is an appeal.

Almost Canadian

Aren't all civil servants afforded such?

scrubbedexpat091

Because I am used to the US system where a not guilty verdict ends the case. Very foreign to me that an acquittal can be appealed and over turned.

Former Lancastrian

No our Agency doesn't always subscribe to a suspension from work is that it is a paid one. Granted most are suspended with pay pending an investigation and don't most subscribe to innocent until proven guilty and therefore why shouldn't they be paid.

scrubbedexpat091

Private employers tend to not pay employees when suspended. Seems to be mostly govt who does such things as pay people not to work.

Dorothy

The US system doesn't make sense to me though. If the judge makes an error in law which sees the defendant acquitted when they should have been convicted then the crown should have the right to appeal. Same as if the judge made an error in law which saw a defendant convicted when they should have been acquitted the defence has the right to appeal. Justice is really only justice (IMO) when both sides are afforded the same rights.

scrubbedexpat091

At least in California, judges are not the ones deciding guilt. Most seem to resolve before trial, and the rest are decided by jury. For felony cases which are the most serious.

Almost Canadian

Any error of law may be directing the jury incorrectly or, as in the case being discussed, permitting evidence to be heard that it not permitted to be heard.