Can someone tell me how to improve on this LNAT essay?
I have the LNAT in two weeks and I am really worried as to if my essay will bring down my LNAT. Could someone please read it and provide feedback?
“Explain
Judges have an integral role within every legal system, ensuring the preservation of the justice system and providing the sentence of many of those convicted amongst many other integral roles. As a result, there are several worries about how they should be appointed because any failures because of it can lead way into an autocratic and incompetent judiciary. Therefore, this essay is arguing for the three primary steps in appointing a judge.
*
First integral aspect into how a judge should be appointed is that they have experience in dealing with the law as well as with a clean slate. Although the years of experience that an aspiring a judge could vary, somewhere around 7-10 years would be ideal in their time as a lawyer. The reason for such as "long" amount of time is to ensure that a level of expertise remain amongst the aspiring judges, having a judge with little experience would mean an incompetent one that would constantly make mistakes, of which would be a very severe miscarriage of justice. As a result, having a significant amount of time as a lawyer would give a good amount of experience in meeting the very high demands that is required in becoming a judge. It also means that by being a judge, they must have a clean state. This may seem like an obvious fact, but that is because it's importance is monumental, many people are not perfect, and the justice system is there to ensure that everyone makes their time and if someone has done so, it should be considered that they have made up for it. However, this argument is only applicable to small crimes such as petty theft at a young age, to be appointed a judge, would mean that recognise the value of justice.
*
How should Judges be appointed?
As to how the next process of how they should be appointed, there should be a special and, most importantly, independent comission of expert legal professionals and former judges to make these recommendations and inspect the competitive pool of aspiring judges. This can be akin to the Judicial Appointments Comission that was established following the Constituonal Reform Act 2005 in the UK, albeit perhaps a bit more independent. This is because, it ensures that Judges are chosen by a number of experts, who can make those decisions because they have the intellectual ability to do so, and so recognise that aspiring judges intellectual ability as well. The reason as to why it would be vital that they remain independent is to avoid any political influence that may be involved in the appointing them. There must be a seperation of powers, especially when seperating the judiciary from all other branches. This is to preserve the rule of law, of which often defines what it means to be a democratic society. The UK is fortunate in the sense that the Prime Minister's role in choosing the Judges is based on "conferring" which lacks Constituonal standing. In comparison, the US has faced many problems of the Supreme Court acting as a political machine given that they are appointed by the President without a term limit. From this, it is incredibly important that in order to preserve the democratic element of many countries, that these Judges are appointed by experts who are not impacted by external influences, seeking to corrupt the justice system.
*
This next step may seem contradictory, but it requires that Judges, after having been shortlisted amongst the pool, are to be selected from either an legislative or executive leader. The reason for this is to hold some democratic element amongst the Judges, especially given that they have security of tenure and are for life. By having the commission decide who are the most leading candidates, it avoids the chance of external influences because they were selected based on merit which then leaves for the politician to decide who may be the best in ensuring an effective justice system. The Judge left has the most merit, avoiding the circumstance of a corrupted judiciary.
*
In conclusion, having the legal expertise, shortlisting from an independent commission, and final decision from the government provides the means of appointing a judge.
“Explain
Judges have an integral role within every legal system, ensuring the preservation of the justice system and providing the sentence of many of those convicted amongst many other integral roles. As a result, there are several worries about how they should be appointed because any failures because of it can lead way into an autocratic and incompetent judiciary. Therefore, this essay is arguing for the three primary steps in appointing a judge.
*
First integral aspect into how a judge should be appointed is that they have experience in dealing with the law as well as with a clean slate. Although the years of experience that an aspiring a judge could vary, somewhere around 7-10 years would be ideal in their time as a lawyer. The reason for such as "long" amount of time is to ensure that a level of expertise remain amongst the aspiring judges, having a judge with little experience would mean an incompetent one that would constantly make mistakes, of which would be a very severe miscarriage of justice. As a result, having a significant amount of time as a lawyer would give a good amount of experience in meeting the very high demands that is required in becoming a judge. It also means that by being a judge, they must have a clean state. This may seem like an obvious fact, but that is because it's importance is monumental, many people are not perfect, and the justice system is there to ensure that everyone makes their time and if someone has done so, it should be considered that they have made up for it. However, this argument is only applicable to small crimes such as petty theft at a young age, to be appointed a judge, would mean that recognise the value of justice.
*
How should Judges be appointed?
As to how the next process of how they should be appointed, there should be a special and, most importantly, independent comission of expert legal professionals and former judges to make these recommendations and inspect the competitive pool of aspiring judges. This can be akin to the Judicial Appointments Comission that was established following the Constituonal Reform Act 2005 in the UK, albeit perhaps a bit more independent. This is because, it ensures that Judges are chosen by a number of experts, who can make those decisions because they have the intellectual ability to do so, and so recognise that aspiring judges intellectual ability as well. The reason as to why it would be vital that they remain independent is to avoid any political influence that may be involved in the appointing them. There must be a seperation of powers, especially when seperating the judiciary from all other branches. This is to preserve the rule of law, of which often defines what it means to be a democratic society. The UK is fortunate in the sense that the Prime Minister's role in choosing the Judges is based on "conferring" which lacks Constituonal standing. In comparison, the US has faced many problems of the Supreme Court acting as a political machine given that they are appointed by the President without a term limit. From this, it is incredibly important that in order to preserve the democratic element of many countries, that these Judges are appointed by experts who are not impacted by external influences, seeking to corrupt the justice system.
*
This next step may seem contradictory, but it requires that Judges, after having been shortlisted amongst the pool, are to be selected from either an legislative or executive leader. The reason for this is to hold some democratic element amongst the Judges, especially given that they have security of tenure and are for life. By having the commission decide who are the most leading candidates, it avoids the chance of external influences because they were selected based on merit which then leaves for the politician to decide who may be the best in ensuring an effective justice system. The Judge left has the most merit, avoiding the circumstance of a corrupted judiciary.
*
In conclusion, having the legal expertise, shortlisting from an independent commission, and final decision from the government provides the means of appointing a judge.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT
- I got a 35 in the LNAT. Ask me anyting
- LNAT
- lnat
- LNAT forum!
- Demotivation with LNAT score
- LNAT last minute tips (URGENT)
- Oxbridge LNAT Section B Help
- Lnat help
- LNAT preparation method/tuition/coaching/platform
- Law Durham UCL and Bristol
- LNAT essay help :)
- gap year reapplicant for llb law
- LNAT
- LNAT Prep for 2023/2024 - Using Arbitio
- LNAT tips :)
- LNAT Advice (Section A)
- LNAT candidates 2024 (for 2025 entry)
- LNAT
- LNAT essay way over word limit
Latest
Trending
