Section LC19

The speaker of American Justice for Sale, Carl Stranstrom, spoke about the idea of whether justice in America was something the citizens had bought with their own money or was it given to them from the start. Because America is a democratic country, candidates from parties are often voted through campaigns and popularity. In this case the judges as well have to campaign, even though they’re being selected by the state legislature. According to the discussion, people from private companies can contribute money to specific judge even if it doesn’t affect the outcome of the election. This idea of donating money to judges isn’t just about popularity, in fact, it’s more about bringing a particular judge to their side in times of settling cases.

One may think that such process is unfair and it’s indeed true. By contributing a large sum of money to a specific judge, it’s not only about supporting the judge’s ability to handle a case, but rather about bribing them. When the saying goes “there’s nothing that money can’t buy”, it’s what many contributors believe in. They expect that once the money was given to the judges, they’ll receive something in return and in this case, favoring their side of the court case. Therefore, the federal judge was forbidden to ask for any charitable contribution from anyone, as it was stated in the Code of Conduct that every case was to be processed in a fair trial without the idea of bribery.

In the workshop, Justice for Sale, Carl Stanstrom discusses whether or not a judge has the right to solicit people for money in order to pay for their campaigns.  Since judges are chosen by state legislatures, they have to campaign and the money used for campigning usually comes from private donators or companies.  People don’t usually just give away money, they expect to gain something from it.  So the question is, if the company that provided support for the judge’s campaign had a case that was evaluated by that same exact judge, would they be able to judge it by justice or would they just let the company win?

Since the legislature chooses the judge, they also set the rules for judiciary branch and they want the judges to evaluate cases by Code of Conduct.  Every case must be judged fairly without bias.  A federal judge is prohibited from asking for any type of charitable donation because justice is not for sale.  According to the due process clause, ajudge cannot process a case if he will benefit from it.  A citizen has the right to be processed in a  trial fairly without manipulation.

The workshop, American Justice for Sale, debates whether justice in America is really something that is guaranteed to us or something that has been paid for. For a many decades, America was the country with freedom and justice. But now, the question arises. Is justice something we have or is it something we buy with our own money? The discussion starts off with an evaluation of the history of the American judicial system. Judges are chosen by state legislatures and there are advantages and disadvantages to that. The advantages are that it is democratic, citizens get to know the judges, and judges can be ousted if they did not do well. The disadvantages are that judges have to campaign and popularity of judges may cause the election to be not as effective as hoped. The speakers then went on and explained how justice may be brought. Throughout election campaigns, judges often had money donated to them from different parties and companies. Sure, donating money does not affect the votes, but such donations may indeed allow parties and companies to bring judges on their side.

There are many arguments for and against the thought that justice is being sold out to the citizens of U.S. Over history, campaigns had been events where people spent the most money. Television broadcasts, radio messages, newspaper advertisement; these all require a huge amount of money. Without much money, is one candidate able to compete other candidates who has the ability to pay for all those expenses? If a judge is not as wealthy as another one does that mean his/her ability is not up to par with the other one? On the other hand, there is a huge possibility that parties and companies do use money to get on the good side of a judge. In one campaign, one of the parties spent approximately 3 million dollars on a judge. Is that really necessary? There may never be a answer to whether justice is being sold in America or not. People just have to know where to draw the line.