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.