The election of judges is a very bad idea, at least for those who are not members of the Democratic Party (PDM). The authors of a new Sic! article say the invoking of the American model cannot justify this reform as it illustrates the main problems related to the election of judges, such as the caricaturizing of justice, legalization of bribe for judges in the form of electoral donations and influencing of court decisions by the public opinion, IPN reports.
The article authors noted the initiative on the election of judges in the best case is an electoral one and will not be implemented. In the worst case, it will be a new reform of the mixed system category. There are not many countries where the judges are elected, at least among the states that can be describe as “advanced democracies”. Japan and Switzerland are an exception. But the juridical and political particularities of these countries make the borrowing of their models difficult. The American model is preferred by the PDM with all its faults.
According to the Sic! authors, when the judges are elected, they should gain people’s votes and become engaged in an election campaign, with posters, advertisements and meetings with voters. The article is accompanied by a video where humorist John Oliver jokes about a campaign of American judges. One judge boasts that he named his child Justus that sounds like Justice (judge) in English. Another one boasts he is a volunteer diver in the local emergency service. Others advertise themselves by playing songs on banjo. In Moldova, this wouldn’t be a problem given the low level of confidence in judges.
The authors note that no matter how weird an advertisement can be, it costs money. This way, the election campaign for judges also means necessity of collecting money. Studies in the U.S. show the court decisions are influenced by backers. The judges tend to take decisions in favor of those who donated for their election camping. Sometimes judges almost blackmail lawyers. In other countries, such situations would be described as corruption and bribery. In Moldova, given the already existing corruption, the imitation of the American model would practically legalize bribe for judges.
Studies reveal the elected judges tend to pronounce harsher sentences and this tendency becomes more accentuated in electoral years. The judges boast of the number or severity of convictions they decided and tend to reject convicts’ appeals. The influence of elections makes them violate one of the essential principles of modern justice: presumption of innocence.
The Sic! authors believe the election of judges is risky in a country like Moldova, where corruption flourishes and elections are a compromised process. Some of the experts already opined that if politics is mixed with justice, judges will be fully under the influence of the Democrats. Obliging judges to take part in the same electoral processes as politicians would undermine their independence and would erode the separation of powers in the state. In the current situation, this would mean official subduing of the judicial system to the PDM.
The full article can be read here. Sic! is a fact-checking, synthesis and analysis project implemented by IPN with the assistance of Soros Foundation Moldova and the Black Sea Trust.
