Judges and the The Judicial System Supporting Freedom

            Judges and the judicial system play a huge role in freedom, whether is it supporting it or limiting it. “The United States has a dual court system; state and federal systems of justice exist side by side” (Katznelson, 250). Each state is responsible for their own court system, but when things are that extreme, the case can be taken to the federal level. By allowing every state to be responsible for their courts, it allows some freedom in who is the judge. Thirty-nine states allow the people to vote for judges to be elected or reelected into office. However, some research has been done to find limitations, “the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, claiming that excessive campaign contributions to a judge create an unconstitutional threat to a fair trial” (Katznelson, 251). So by allowing freedoms for the people to vote, it is actually limiting the judges’ freedoms to a fair trial. As the book goes on it talks about the amount of money it takes to campaign and how judges start to become harsher with their punishments to bring the people on ‘their side’.

            The justice system here in America is much different than those in other countries. We are allowed to elect our judges, while other countries have somebody that may choose the judge for the people. This freedom allows us to see who we are voting for. “By contrast, in the United States the question of whether a law is constitutional or not is heard in the same court where all other types of cases are tried” (Katznelson, 281).  This is another freedom of our people that allows us to have a fair hearing because many other cases, probably some similar, have been heard and people are usually given the same sentence. In the courts, the person being tried has the right to speak and tell their side of the story, this allows for freedom of speech. Then the judge can take everything he has heard and examine the Constitution to decide on the punishment that should be given. Sometimes a jury is held which allows outside people to hear the case and view the evidence to determine what the person should be punished for.

When I was on jury duty myself, it took us a good 6 hours to determine the final answer of what this person should be convicted for. Without my own personal experience in a court room, I would not be able to understand what really goes on and what the judge’s role is. At first I thought that the jury was doing most of the work, but after reading this chapter, I see that the judge has to look over the laws and then have the jury duties opinion. From there the judge goes with the evidence that is seen most likely because he himself does not want to miss anything or elaborate. It was very hard to examine only the facts and to stop elaborating on what could have happened, versus what actually did. This freedom of allowing people to be on jury duty allows us to learn more about the judges and inside the judicial system.  


 Katznelson, Ira, Kesselman, Mark, Draper, Alex. (2011). The Politics of Power, Capitalism and Democracy. pgs 250, 251, 281. Norton & Company, New York.

Jury Duty Personal Experiences