Define judicial independence and judicial accountability. Explain the arguments for and against each method and which system is used in the courts today.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The method used to select judges has been hotly debated in the United States for well over 200
years. At the heart of the different judicial selection methods are the concepts of judicial independence
and judicial accountability. An independent judiciary is one that is free to make decisions without
interference from the other branches of government or concern for the popularity or the political
consequences. Judicial accountability, on the other hand, involves the ability of society or the government
to observe the performance of judges and remove from office those who are performing below acceptable
standards. Proponents of a strongly independent judiciary argue that the role of judges is to faithfully
interpret laws and the Constitution without considering outside factors such as politics or popular
sentiment. Advocates of increased judicial accountability maintain that since judges make policy on
behalf of the government, they should be directly accountable to somebody, preferably the electorate. In
reality, it is necessary that judges be both independent and accountable. Judges must be free to interpret
and apply the law fairly. On the other hand, there must be an effective method of accountability of a judge
who abdicates his or her role as a detached, neutral jurist or makes decisions based on individual beliefs
or opinions rather than the law and the Constitution. The debate centers on what point of the
independence–accountability continuum is appropriate.