1. From my understanding, I would say that the court system is better suited to protect the individual. In a court, there is the possibility to review cases on which the supreme court used their discretion to take a previous decision in a similar case. This can change the suspected person’s outcome since there is the need to overview everything related to the case, and charges a person might be facing. I would say that the judge and the court have to apply the law in an impartial way, which is different from other branches of the government. Courts require a specific focus on each case. As an example, the Miranda case, from where the Miranda Rights got its name. Miranda was charged with kidnaping and rape. The lawyers, and the court, took the decision not to use Ernesto Miranda’s confession because the police did not let him know about his rights; this violated his fifth amendment rights and resulted in discarding his confession. Later he was charged and sentenced with those crimes, but they could not use his confession.
  2. I think that this becomes something interesting and very controversial. I think that if people are going to choose judges, people need to feel represented and need to know who is best suited for the position. This becomes difficult, since in the political context we are living today shows that people are very guided by hate, and misinformation. However, when I think about “Federalist #10” Madisson refers to the inherited talent of accumulating wealth and mentions who should be participate in democracy based on that idea. I agree that not being able to choose the judges is anti-democratic. Until today, people who are leading the country are people in higher socioeconomic status and are very difficult to relate to for the people. At the same time, those who are leading the country nominate the judges based on their own interests and use the court system as a method to favor them from the criminal justice system.

Leave a Reply