Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Judges be Elected or Appointed?
Judges should be appointed rather than elected.
Voters are likely to make bad decisions when electing judges.
Judges should be selected for their skills and experience in law, rather than their ability to run an effective election campaign.
Diversity quotas can, and should, be used when judges are appointed.
Appointment based systems are less likely to lead to the politicisation of the judiciary.
Encouraging judges to run election campaigns is likely to lead to a 'he who has more money wins' result. Few voters would take the time to learn about all candidates. The general public will vote for whomever happens to gain the most exposure through media and campaigns.
Regular judicial elections are a waste of valuable time and money.
Judges are likely to consider the impacts of their verdicts on their electability, which could bias their decision making.
Allowing the Government to appoint judges erodes the separation of powers.
People have a democratic right to elect their own judges.
Appointing judges encourages corruption and cronyism.
Electing judges inspires people's confidence in the law.
Judicial elections hold judges to account.
The interpretation of the law should reflect the will of the people.
Should Supreme Court justices be elected?
Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?
Should US Senators No Longer Be Elected by Popular Vote?