Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Your answer should include:
• Introductory paragraph with a thesis (yes or no!)
Short discussion of arguments in favor of judicial elections and against judicial elections (2-4 paragraphs)
• This section should reference (cite) at least two of the three readings
• Explanation as to why you think what you think with specific reference to the tension between judicial accountability and independence (1-3 paragraphs)
Which side are you persuaded by and why?
• Conclusion – short summary of what you argued (one paragraph!)

HOW TO WORK ON THIS ASSIGNMENT (EXAMPLE DRAFT/ESSAY)

Judicial Elections: Should Judges be Elected?

Thesis: Judicial elections, as a method of selecting judges, have been a subject of debate in the United States. Some argue that judicial elections increase accountability, while others contend that they decrease the independence of the judiciary. This paper will examine both sides of the argument and determine whether judges should be elected.

Arguments in Favor of Judicial Elections

Proponents of judicial elections argue that it increases judicial accountability to the people. In their view, the election of judges enables citizens to participate in the democratic process by holding judges accountable for their decisions. Supporters also contend that judicial elections increase transparency, as judicial candidates are required to disclose their views on various issues.

Arguments Against Judicial Elections

Opponents of judicial elections argue that it decreases judicial independence. They contend that judicial elections make judges susceptible to political pressures and lead to the politicization of the judiciary. They also argue that judicial elections may lead to the election of less qualified judges, as political campaigns may emphasize fundraising and name recognition over legal expertise.

The Tension between Judicial Accountability and Independence

The tension between judicial accountability and independence is at the heart of the debate over judicial elections. Supporters of judicial elections argue that it increases accountability, but opponents contend that it decreases independence. In my view, the independence of the judiciary is paramount, as it is essential to the rule of law. While judicial accountability is important, it should not come at the cost of judicial independence.

Which Side I am Persuaded By and Why

In my opinion, judges should not be elected. The independence of the judiciary is crucial to ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. Judges must be free from political pressures and campaign contributions, so that they can make impartial decisions based on the law. While accountability is important, it should be balanced with independence. Moreover, it is essential that judges be appointed based on their legal expertise and experience rather than their political views.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over judicial elections centers on the tension between judicial accountability and independence. While some argue that judicial elections increase accountability, others contend that it decreases independence. I am persuaded that judges should not be elected, as the independence of the judiciary is crucial to the rule of law. While accountability is important, it should not come at the cost of independence.

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now