Our judicial system is far from perfect. Yes, there are some pros and cons, such as, a Senior Attorney is looked at as qualified and can be elected or appointed as

a Judge in the US. In other nations, Attorney's are appointed by working their way up and focusing a lot of their time in school. By working their way up and becoming more seasoned, this can prevent a lot of corruption that we see here in the US. If we look at it through a more specific lens, A US judge is elected or appointed and does not necessarily need to work their way up the system, so basically any "Senior" Attorney can be selected and is more likely to hold personal biases and apply them to their decisions/rulings. Also, in the US, the states differ on how they elected Judges. What do I mean by this? For instance, in Missouri, Judges serve one- year terms and can be re-elected. In New York, Judges serve 14-year terms and Rhode Island provides a life term of office and is the only state that does this (pg. 24). Appointed Judges have been observed to be of higher quality, than elected Judges. In other countries, if we really think about it, are appointing the best quality Judges if those Judges have built time and experience and work their way up. No, they may not be perfect and could still be corrupt, but it lessens the likelihood of the latter.

Fig: 1