Special parliament that controls and oversees the Justice and Law enforcement systems [closed]

Question

In countries like the USA many people are frustrated with the control of the legislative majority or head of state over Justice appointments and the Law enforcement agencies (accusing the law enforcement of bias etc.), while in countries like Israel many people are frustrated with the inability of the nation to influence the ethics, morals and common sense according to which the judges are judging, as well as concern/accusations that the law enforcement agencies are becoming corrupt and biased due to the lack of civil oversight.

The argument not to allow judges to be elected by heads of state or regular parliaments, is basically that it may become too politicized and contaminated with other personal political goals, selfish interests and deals between parties. (Like people who fear that some future American president may become some sort of Putinistic leader, who will get his police, his AG and his judges to persecute his opponents (or like the people who believe that this is the situation today)).

Would the best solution be to establish a separate parliament, of delegates elected directly by the people (maybe about 30 seats), which is not related to the executive or legislative branches of government, which would elect/approve new judges, approve constitutional laws and also oversee the police, investigation and prosecution agencies?

According to my understanding, this would ensure that the ethics and values of the sitting justices would reflect the value systems of all groups in the nation, as well as law enforcement integrity. While not being impacted by short-sighted coalition-opposition (pro/anti government) politics.

An argument in favor of this proposal, may be, that usually when people are appointed to positions that require them to be apolitical, like judges, diplomats and ceremonial heads of state, they adjust (or try to adjust) to that standard. Executive heads of state and members of legislative parliaments are not asked to be apolitical.

Can you see any possible problems with such a system?

Note: In this question, when I write Politics, I'm refering to personal politics, i.e. pro/anti a certain politician. Moral/ethical controversies are totaly legitimate issues when considering/debating the appointment of judges etc.

Answer 1

Such a parliament would be filled by the same politicial parties as the regular parliament in similar proportions. If you as a voter believe that a certain political party should be in the regular parliament and ideally be in control of the government then you would vote for that very same party in your judicial parliament.

As such it would be just as politicized and contaminated with other political goals as the regular parliament. This extra parliament would not solve the problems of political control of the judislative in any meaningful way.

Answer 2

united-states

Directly elected and decentralized law enforcement

The United States does something somewhat similar at the state and local level.

Many states directly elect the chief prosecutor at the state level (the Attorney-General), the chief prosecutor in each local trial court (the District Attorney), the chief law enforcement officer in each county (the Sheriff) of which there are typically several dozen in each state (with jurisdiction that is typically present only outside incorporated municipalities), and sometimes even the chief medical examiner charged with classifying cases as homicides (the coroner) in each county.

Every U.S. state also separately elects a Governor from its legislators, and that Governor typically appoints the chief of the state police.

In incorporated municipalities, the chief of police is typically appointed by the Mayor, who is either directly elected or is the leader of the city council, sometimes with input from the local city council.

Even a town of a few hundred people will typically have its own independently appointed police choice.

On Indian Reservations, law enforcement officers, misdemeanor prosecutors, and tribal court justices are appointed by the tribal government, and felony criminal justice enforcement is handled by the federal government in the federal courts.

State and local legislators, respectively, fund the personnel and facilities and resources of the criminal justice process in most cases, but don't administer the the process when there is an elected or politically appointed official who does so.

Also, in many states, especially in the Western U.S., some or all of the relevant officials can be recalled by voters before their terms end in a recall election called with a recall petition.

The Importance Of State and Local Criminal Justice Enforcement

The importance of these state and local level law enforcement and prosecution appointment should not be underestimated, because about 98% of criminal cases in the United States are handled at the state and local level, rather than at the federal level (under state and local laws, not federal laws). Moreover, probably 95% or more of law enforcement and criminal prosecution activity even at the state and local level is handled by local governments, rather than by the state government.

To be clear, state criminal justice enforcement officials don't report to federal criminal justice enforcement officials (although federal officials can take over their cases), and local elected criminal justice officials don't report to state criminal justice officials.

Elected And Randomly Selected Judicial Decision-Makers

Furthermore, in many U.S. states, a large share of judges who rule on criminal cases, both at the trial court level and the appellate court level, are elected. Where they are not elected, moreover, they are usually political appointees.

Two states (Texas and Oklahoma) also have separate appellate courts for criminal cases as opposed to civil cases, allowing those judges to be selected based upon their criminal justice jurisprudence alone.

In the U.S., unlike most developed countries, being a judge is generally a second career of an experienced lawyer and one does not work their way up the judicial hierarchy from lower courts to higher courts, although sometimes lower court judges are appointed to higher courts.

And, the lion's share of criminal cases presenting a possibility of incarceration are usually resolved by juries drawn at random from the general population in the place where the crime is being prosecuted.

Conclusion

It isn't a separate parliament, but a very large share of the key players are directly elected, compared to any other country, and law enforcement and criminal justice administration is highly decoupled from both federal and state politics. I am not aware of any country in the world that has a more decentralized criminal justice system than the United States, or that has more directly elected criminal justice officials.

The U.S. also make heavier use of lay jurors in criminal trials than in any other country. It isn't uncommon for even serious traffic offenses, like driving under the influence, to be resolved in jury trials in the U.S.

The issue in the U.S. is really the concern that it may be too decentralized.

Answer 3

In England and Wales, there are around 40 directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners who are responsible for policing in most areas. This system was probably inspired by similar American systems. However, unlike your idea of a "parliament" each police force has its own commissioner, who is solely responsible for that force. They also have no involvement with the judiciary. At present, all the commissioners in England come from one of the two main parties, although there have been independent commissioners in the past. Their background is often quite different from that of the party's members of parliament, with many having previously been police officers.

In Japan, the Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Cabinet, but they are also subject to a retention election. The election is held at the same time as the first general election after the Justice's appointment. If a majority of ballots cast in the election are opposed to the Justice, then they are dismissed. However, no Justice has ever actually been dismissed in this way.

Answer 4

Technically, half of the judges of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht are elected by a kind of “second parliament”, the Bundesrat. The Bundesrat is a chamber consisting of representatives of the federal states making up Germany.

The other half are elected by the parliament, the Bundestag.

From my observations what makes the elections quite uncontroversial are two different conditions:

1. a candidate has to be elected with a 2/3 majority. This forces all large factions to somehow cooperate and makes sure they do not damage the other sides’ candidates for political gains, and
2. an incumbent cannot be re-elected after their term of 12 years (or reaching an age of 68).

The combination of (1) and (2) makes sure, that there are ongoing elections in predictable intervals, which means the chambers and factions are forced to talk to each other to bring their candidates through the election process.

Elections of Bundesverfassungsrichter are a quiet affair regarding German media. The results are reported of course, but we do not have this extended public voicing of opinions and fighting that has accompanied the US Supreme Court in the last years. And given that the largest opposition faction most likely elected the judges as well, their sentences are well respected most of the time throughout the political spectrum.