
South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law - vo2maxer
https://www.propublica.org/article/these-judges-can-have-less-training-than-barbers-but-still-decide-thousands-of-cases-each-year
======
scottlocklin
>Their ranks include a Greenville lawyer appointed to the bench after
siphoning thousands of dollars from accounts he managed;

Yeah, OK, so they lead off with a guy who is actually a lawyer and did shady
things.

I'll give another example: 3 (elected) judges with law degrees who got into a
brawl involving pistols at a white castle:
[https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-
su...](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-suspended-
after-white-castle-brawl-that-left-2-of-them-wounded)

Here's another one:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/)

I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are
functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to
protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial
than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so
godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the
problem.

While I'm dropping links:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)

~~~
clairity
i don't agree with everything you said, but i do find it peculiar that lawyers
are paid to make things worse (that is, get in the middle of arguments and
escalate them). the more they escalate, the more they get paid. it seems like
the worst kind of misaligned incentive.

------
billfruit
Even to the Supreme court I thought the President could nominate anyone
irrespective of their qualifications, no prior experience as a lawyer or a
judge is mandated.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
The problem here is less the lack of experience but rather that many of these
judges are routinely violating the law and the Constitution. We cannot have a
functional legal system if judges do not follow the law.

~~~
basementcat
Judges interpret the law. The law and Constitution are not written in C (and
even if they were, we all know that every compiler has "undefined behavior"
that may need to be adjudicated) and we occasionally need a court system to
resolve disputes and clarify legal ambiguities.

If the affected parties believe a judge made an incorrect decision, there
exist procedures for appeal or even revisiting the question in a subsequent
case.

If judges in a jurisdiction are elected, it is the responsibility of the
electorate to make sure the judges they select are the most qualified (perhaps
by studying previous decisions, academic publications, etc). Analogously, if
judges are appointed by other elected officials, it is the responsibility of
the electorate to select public servants who are good at appointing competent
judges.

~~~
watwut
> Judges interpret the law.

That is possible only if you actually know the law. If you do not know it, you
cant interpret it.

So yes, people are needed to interpret the law, but not really anyone. Kinda
like we need programmers, but not really anyone.

~~~
basementcat
It is possible for competent programmers to interpret a vaguely written
specification in mutually incompatible ways.

~~~
kibwen
Yes, although the judges in the OP do not sound analogous to competent
programmers in this example. One would expect someone trained in software to
interpret software, in the same way one would expect someone trained in law to
interpret law.

------
michaelmrose
This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for
using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me
as I was walking home from work.

The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime.
They ignored 2 pages of precedents.

~~~
SkyMarshal
_> The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime.
They ignored 2 pages of precedents._

Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on
the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?

~~~
michaelmrose
After being stopped for no reason several times and held while they take their
time "running my license" AFTER they were done with the latest nonsense I said
"am I free to go" , they said "yes" , I walked off. When about 15 feet away
and walking away at a normal pace I said clearly and calmly "fuck off then"
they arrested me for saying the word fuck.

Swearing on the public street is disorderly conduct in the state of South
Carolina. The 2 pages of precedent is that you can't criminalize the word fuck
due to the first ammendment rendering South Carolinas law invalid.

Courts have repeatedly found that you can't criminalize speech save for very
narrow bounds. Using a bad word while leaving isn't "fighting words" by the
legal definition.

A variety of cases have gone as high as the Supreme Court for example City of
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)

> the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct
> or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered
> discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply
> annoying or offensive.

The constitution of the United States isn't a thing in SC unless you have
money sufficient to appeal matters until you get out of the state.

Kind of like Texas prosecuting gay sex

Another case more recently

[https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-
say...](https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-saying-fuck-
you-to-the-police-is-free-speech/)

However this has been a settled matter for decades which police keep ignoring.

------
alkonaut
Are there many places that have elected judges?

Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require
qualifications”?

~~~
erentz
It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but
also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.

~~~
Balgair
To be fair, with coroners it's more out of necessity than anything. One of the
counties next to mine has few coroners and it's something of a problem, as you
can imagine. We recently had a friend die and the coroner's report is still
not complete, three weeks later. We still don't know what the cause of death
is, and as it's suspected to to be a suicide, it's not been a fun time waiting
for the results to come out. An elected coroner could relieve the burden by
preforming reports on 'mundane' deaths and leave the more complicated cases to
more experienced people. Again, it's not a good solution by any means, but
it's a better solution than the one they have currently.

~~~
beagle3
But why elected rather than hired? It’s supposed to be a mostly scientific job
with no agenda.

~~~
t-writescode
Prestige of being an elected office might draw more candidates to an otherwise
undesirable job

~~~
Teknoman117
I would argue that we'd be better off not electing the prestige seeking
people. We want the best person for the job, not someone viewing high offices
as a prize.

------
mnm1
How is this different than being judged by a drunk king based on his whims?
It's not at all. So what happened to rule by law? How does such a system
exist? How does it have supporters? This is perplexing. Sure justice is not
valued at all in American culture but do south Carolinians not care at all
about justice or having a civil society? It is beyond appalling to give stupid
idiots (and there's no kinder way to describe someone with no legal training
acting as a judge) power over others based on whatever they feel like doing
since there is no legal framework in place.

In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a
crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill
the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without
even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's
just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act
ethically in such a horrific situation?

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
All of your questions can be answered by the fact that South Carolina today
and historically has been an extremely authoritarian state.

------
01100011
This is common in CA too, apparently.

When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background
on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to
appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that
group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless.
That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a
high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the
lawyers on the cases they're overseeing.

Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.

~~~
masonic
When Governor Brown appointed Rose Bird to be _Chief Justice_ of the state
Supreme Court, she had never been a judge at any level -- not even municipal,
or traffic court.

------
Mathnerd314
I've often wondered why they don't teach the law in grade school or high
school, since it is (in theory) supposed to be known and followed by everyone.
The best answer I have so far is that education is in the public sector too so
it's subject to similar problems with lack of training and inflexibility.

------
lurquer
>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance
agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor.

Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of
'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's
judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it.

I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies
an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all
much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these
low-level courts.

~~~
thawaway1837
The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training.

No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as
my pharmacist without any training.

Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people
with no training or experience in law.

~~~
lisper
> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people
> with no training or experience in law

Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is
ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender,
skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or
any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good
outcomes for the oligarchs and those who are close to them, not so much for
everyone else.

~~~
pbourke
This conversation is a perfect illustration of the difference between a
significant part of US culture and that of many other western nations.

As a Canadian, even after living in the US for over a decade, I find your
comment baffling. For better or worse, the law is a complex subject both in
jurisprudence and process. If judges can be significantly less knowledgeable
than the attorneys that appear before them then how can the law be applied
equally?

The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law yet how can that
be realized if there are no minimum standards that apply to judges?

Two things that I cannot understand about the US: the election of judges and
outright politicization of the mechanics of voting.

~~~
lisper
Look, I don't disagree with you. I agree that electing judges is stupid.
Nonetheless, for better or worse, this is the result of democracy.

Note that you could apply the exact same principle to argue that _legislators_
should be lawyers. After all, if you're not trained in the law, how can you
possibly _write_ a law? Or understand the many subtle ramifications of the law
that someone else wrote that you're voting on? And why stop at legislators?
Why not accept, say, literacy tests? How can a citizen possibly make an
informed choice at the ballot box if they can't read a newspaper?

The point I'm trying to make is not that electing judges is _good_ , only that
it is, at least in the U.S., a direct consequence of democracy. You may decide
that democracy is more trouble than it's worth, and cite this stupidity as
evidence. But what you cannot do is say that electing judges is stupid and
also that you believe in democracy, because in the U.S. the one has followed
directly from the other.

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
How are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow
literacy tests?

~~~
lisper
Jumping? I'm not jumping, I'm applying the _principle_ that people who have
influence over the application of the law should have some training. If judges
need special training, why not legislators? And if both judges and legislators
need special training, why not citizens? Note that we already _do_ apply this
principle to naturalized citizens! It is only people who acquired their
citizenship by birth who never need to show any competence at anything in
order to vote.

And note well: I am not _advocating_ literacy tests. I am only pointing out
the logical consequences of adopting the principle that judges should have
special training.

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
There is nothing "logical" about your extending the idea that judges should
not have to have legal training before sentencing people to jail. Not to
mention, legislators are kept in check by another branch of government which
can strike down laws created by legislature. The indigent and commoners hauled
before these magistrates are granted no such meaningful review.

~~~
lisper
Not so. Judges can be impeached by the legislature and recalled by the voters.
And there are appeals.

BTW, one of the reasons things are the way they are is that the "indigent and
commoners" don't necessarily believe they'll get a fairer shake from someone
who has a JD from Harvard than someone who doesn't.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
You should see some of the elected judges here. PA.

Nothing more than a high school education.

------
ruffrey
Title should be adjusted to “Some South Carolina Judges..”

~~~
burnte
No it shouldn't. Every state has elected judge positions, and they only
require being able to win an election. In my home state of PA a local
magistrate was caught by the FBI trying to fix cases of people who appealed
her judgments, was removed from the bench for 6 months, and still ran for
reelection unopposed. The people we let get elected to judicial positions is
scary.

~~~
chongli
Judges shouldn’t be elected at all, they should be appointed in a non partisan
process, from a pool of experienced and respected lawyers.

~~~
SamReidHughes
That is by construction a partisan process, with the outcome matching politics
of the median lawyer, instead of the median voter.

~~~
chongli
Partisanship is a state of mind moreso than a formal system. Judicial
appointments in Canada are non partisan. The politicians who appoint them are
operating under the principle of “who would be the best judge from among these
candidates” rather than who is my closest ally.

Elected judges are entirely the opposite.

It sounds like the entire judicial branch of the United States has become
politicized. That’s really unfortunate. It’s not the case in other countries.

~~~
SamReidHughes
That's a result of how the federal/state constitutions here work. Judges don't
matter as much if Parliament is sovereign.

------
jasonzemos
> Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance
> agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor.

This is ironic for a conservative state because it's indistinguishable to me
from Soviet communism. I can't help but think about this scene from Chernobyl
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idb_qsAAe1c))
which illustrates the true tragedy of this broken system. Emma Goldman wrote
in "My Disillusionment in Russia" (1923):

> Bourgeois dictatorship is replaced by the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
> — or by that of its "advance guard," the Communist Party. Lenin takes the
> seat of the Romanovs, the Imperial Cabinet is rechristened Soviet of
> People's Commissars, Trotsky is appointed Minister of War, and a labourer
> becomes the Military Governor General of Moscow. That is, in essence, the
> Bolshevik conception of revolution, as translated into actual practice.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _it 's indistinguishable to me from Soviet communism_

Maybe it's time for you to read up on Soviet communism?

This is not how they killed 20m of their own citizens.

------
threatofrain
Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people, not clerics of the law
who must undergo institutional evaluation and approval. That is why they are
elected or appointed, as opposed to merited by some competitive process which
sieves for competence. Still,

> To better understand this system, The Post and Courier and ProPublica
> examined thousands of state records and compiled profiles of all 319 South
> Carolina magistrates. A reporter also visited courtrooms and interviewed
> legal experts, lawyers, lawmakers and defendants. Among the findings:

> Nearly three-quarters of the state’s magistrates lack a legal degree and
> couldn’t represent someone in a court of law.

> A loophole in state law has allowed a quarter of South Carolina’s
> magistrates to remain on the bench after their terms expired, letting them
> escape the scrutiny of a reappointment process. One controversial magistrate
> continues to hold court two decades after her four-year term ended.

~~~
faitswulff
> Judges are "meant" to be representatives of the people

Isn't that what "representatives" are for?

~~~
threatofrain
Yes, and judges are either appointed by your representatives or elected
directly. Does that smell like a process which coldly sieves for legal
competency, or a proxy for the will and moral style of the people?

That is why I say based on the look and feel of western law, judges are
proxies for the people, and not some paragon of legal competency.

