Presentation Transcript

1. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary

2. Debates about the workings of government come up all the time, such as: THBT Judicial activism has hurt the gay right movement. THW implement a proportional representation voting system. THW abolish the monarchy. THW make certain election promises legally binding. It is therefore important to understand how the government works and what arguments can be used in a debate.
3. So what are the three sections of government? Executive The part of government in charge of putting into practice the laws and administering the country’s functions. Legislature The part of government in charge of creating, repealing and amending the laws. Judiciary The part of the government (Though this is a mischaracterisation) that enforces the law.
4. Executive In the UK: The cabinet and technically the Queen. In the US: The president. The executive is actually not elected in the UK, the executive is chosen by the Prime Minister who is selected by the Queen who is advised by the legislature (Parliament). However in the US the president is directly elected by the people. The executive has control over the running of the offices of state, it selects who will in essence carry out the administration of the laws.
5. Legislature In the UK: The house of commons and the house of lords. In the US: Congress, made up of the senate and the house of representatives. In the UK the house of lords has very little power and can only really postpone laws and suggest amendments using their expertise.The commons is generally led by the ruling majority and they will have the majority of power. In the US things are a little bit more complicated because laws can be proposed by either part of congress.
6. Judiciary In the UK and the US: The courts with the most powerful court being the supreme court. In the UK the supreme court is appointed by barristers, judges and experts, in the US the supreme court is appointed by the president. (FDR chat here) The judiciary administer the law in court and is able to interpret the law to prevent unconstitutional discrimination (US) and to determine the meaning of the sometimes vague laws passed by parliament (UK). These then become precedents.
7. The workings of democracy Voting systems Promises and lies
8. Voting systems There are three voting systems that you need to be aware of in debating: FPTP First past the post The candidate with the most votes wins the seat. Alternative Vote You provide an order of preference for the candidates, all of the first choice votes are counted up and if a candidate gets 50% of the vote they are selected. If no candidate gets selected in round 1 then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the ballots they received are re-allocated according to second preference. This continues until one candidate gets 50% of the vote. Single transferable vote The alternative to both of these options is STV, under this system everyone casts in order of preference. Once a candidate reaches the quota required to be elected then any surplus ballots are re-allocated, this continues until there are no candidates that reach the quota. If this situation is reach the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their ballots are re-allocated. This repeats until all seats are filled.
9. Problems with FPTP If a candidate wins with 30% of the vote then the other 70% of the population are having their preferences ignore. In reality 70% of people don’t want them to be elected. This gives rise to tactical voting, to prevent a candidate getting elected. Gives minority parties little to no chance of representation.
10. Problems with AV and STV They assume that a person’s 2nd preference is of the same value as their 1st preference. AV is less proportional than STV, why only go half way. They lead to more spoiled ballots, numbers are harder for a computer to decipher than a cross. The allow in dangerous minority groups, which forces larger parties to form coalitions with them for power.
11. Promises and lies Should election candidates be allowed to lie? Should election candidates be allowed to make binding promises? Should election candidates be forced to carry out everything they say they will during a campaign?
12. The common promise and lie motion This house would make politicians legally responsible for any intentional lies they tell during their election campaign. A few proposition arguments: When you elect someone you need to know what they stand for otherwise it’s an uninformed decision. Judges can determine through legal proceedings if a lie was intentional or not. If someone is elected and then carries out an action that is the opposite of what they said they would do then they have lost legitimacy. A few opposition arguments: People always have a political bias, judges included therefore their decision may be fallible. Elected representatives do not know the limits of their office until they hold it, they may not be able to bring about the changes asked for. Elected representatives may need to adapt pragmatically.
13. A deeper look at the judiciary Judicial discretion Judicial activism Judicial precedents Juries
14. Judicial discretion Judicial discretion is any situation whereby the judge gets to decide on the outcome of a decision and doesn’t have to consult some law that is set down. So for example at the moment there are minimum sentencing laws, if we gave judges judicial discretion in sentencing they wouldn’t have to follow them. There are benefits and disadvantages to this.
15. Benefits of judicial discretion The judges have more experience than parliament when it comes to legal sentencing and other matters. The judges do not have to take into account public opinion. Judges can take into account mitigating factors of cases if they have the ability to go below a minimum sentence. Judges have empathy with the criminals, they understand them as people not as statistics, this allows them to determine what is best for the criminal not just society.
16. Disadvantages of judicial discretion Judges can be politically biased and might bring that into their decisions, harsher sentences for a specific ethnic group for example. Judges will be completely ignoring the will of the people, the citizens should have the ability to determine which crimes offend them most. Judges can let their discretion lead to judicial activism, this can be bad for a number of reasons.
17. Judicial activism This is when a judge bases their decision on their own opinion, possibly for the good of a minority, instead of basing it on law and precedent. Some good examples of this: Roe vs Wade (Abortion) Gore vs Bush (Elections) Perry vs Schwarzenegger (Gay marriage) Judicial activism can sometimes be beneficial and sometimes harmful, it depends on the political persuasion and the group effected.
18. Benefits of judicial activism The judge can protect minority groups, in Perry vs Schwarzenegger the state was preventing gay marriage due to the majority of citizens voting against it, the judge overturned the law. The judge can choose to bring about social freedoms, in Roe vs Wade the state was preventing Jane Roe (not her real name) from having an abortion the case allowed her to have one (She didn’t have one) and it set a precedent that allowed everyone to have one. The judge can sometimes prevent unconstitutional actions from being carried out (US) if a state tries to pass a law that goes against the constitution the judge can label it unconstitutional.
19. Disadvantages of judicial activism Sometimes the judge isn’t biased in favour of the minority group, for example gay rights in America have been massively hampered by the political inclination of judges. Sometimes the judge is politically biased, for example in Gore vs Bush the supreme court judges voted ideologically to take an action which allowed Bush to be elected. There were 5 republicans to 4 democrats. The judge is not appealing to any moral authority except their own, the people haven’t given them permission to act like this.
20. Judicial precedents When a case is passed or rejected, particularly in a supreme court, barristers will cite that case as a precedent for how a judge should rule. For example any state that prevented an abortion after Roe vs Wade will have been in violation of the law, the plaintiff would have just cited Roe vs Wade and the court would have to overturn the ban. Precedents can be used to change the law based on a judges interpretation, for example prenuptials now carry weight.
21. Juries Juries are 12 people who are used in most serious cases to determine the guilt of the defendant. Juries have taken a lot of blame for giving incorrect not guilty verdicts in fraud cases due to a lack of knowledge. Juries are not always used but can usually be requested in most cases. Jury nullification is when a jury effectively makes a law null and void by voting not guilty in a trial where the defendant is obviously guilty, the ability to do this is controversial.
22. Taint of the jury pool Juries are drawn from the population of the country, this means they might in a lot of circumstances seen a newspaper before being drawn (They are kept away from media input afterwards). If this newspaper frames a defendant as guilty before a trial it can taint the jury pool, this is sometimes called trial by media. Juries are one of your biggest weapons in a criminal debate, because they are not trained like judges they are open to stigma and discrimination, use this to your advantage. Juries can be rejected by the barristers putting forward a case. Juries can be biased if a trial becomes political, this applies heavily in debates such as THW put Tony Blair on trial for war crimes.