Merely "fails"? That sounds like apologetic underemphasis to me, like so many other Times stories. The system described is more like active oppression.
> Like most Texas county judges, he does not have a law degree.
I'm sorry, what? Anyone off the street can be a judge? That one line begs soo many questions, and at least some outrage, which is simply glossed over.
Doing my own research, I guess I see why it's glossed over, because apparently this isn't uncommon - a quick search says that only 28 states require judges presiding over misdemeanors have a law degree. In 14 of the remaining 22, you can request a new trial from a lawyer-judge if you receive a jail sentence from a non lawyer-judge.
I take it for granted, to me it's common sense, that a judge should a law degree. I mean, how can one preside over and act as arbiter in legal matters without knowing the law?
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1454620/judge-qualifications-...
In a bench trial, the judge is both the fact finder and the law interpreter. The argument in favor of non-lawyer judges is that for misdemeanor cases the facts dominate the law, ie whom do you believe, not what's larceny or drug dealing.
Yes, and some can be very bad at their job. The goal of requiring one to pass a bar exam in order to practice law is to minimize the number of practicioners who are horribly incompetent, because of the serious damage it can do.
It seems to me that a judge who doesn't know how the law works can do even MORE severe damage.
A degree is ultimately just a piece of paper (or parchment, if they went to a fancy school). It’s not a guarantee that they’ll be any good at their job.
Would you be comfortable visiting a doctor who didn't have their "piece of paper"?
Obviously a degree is not a guarantee of skill or knowledge. No one is saying it is. However, a degree is a very strong indicator that the person is above some minimum level of knowledge.
The counterpoint of "there are shitty lawyers with degrees" is ridiculous. Remove the requirements and those same people would still be shitty lawyers -- you've just lowered the floor so that even more shitty lawyers can practice.
This is exactly what the piece of paper shows when you get it from an accredited and reputable institution.
What is your proposal? Do surgery until you stop killing people to prove that you can do them now?
Accreditation is an incredibly low bar; all it tells you is that the institution has the right number and type of courses. All a degree tells you is that the student passed some of those classes. But grades in classes do not tell you much about actual ability. And reputation just means that the school has good advertising. It’s not like you can sample a bunch of schools to find out which is actually the best.
Doctors still need to be trained before treating patients but there’s no reason we have to require them to attend so many years of school. If we use our imaginations we can probably come up with alternatives that still achieve that goal. Some of those alternatives would have fewer drawbacks than the system we use today.
For example, our existing schools have the drawback that the school itself decides whether the student was successfully educated. Just as when police departments investigate themselves after a complaint tend to determine that their officers did nothing wrong, schools that investigate themselves tend to find that their professors did all that was necessary and that their students are all perfectly educated. Accreditation was an attempt to solve that kind of problem but it is much too weak to be effective.
Notice also that schools mostly make their students pay up front before success or failure has even been determined. You wouldn’t pay a contractor up front to fix your roof because they’d be tempted to take your money and disappear. You might pay half up front if you’re feeling generous, but even that still has some risk.
Doesn't surprise me that a county that has both problems this exists somewhere.