Quote:
When considering duties on the criminal side such as death inquests, magistrate duty, issuing arrest warrants after deciding if probable cause exists, and protective orders, it isn't illogical by any means unless said lawyer had significant practice in criminal law (excluding Class C matters like traffic tickets).
Okay, so a lawyer needs more experience (or "significant practice") before he knows enough to do things such as death inquests, perform magistrate duties, or issue arrest warrants (after PC is found to exist). However, a LEO is more than qualified to do these things without any legal training.
Just want to make sure I understand the logic.
Quote:
Criminal and civil law are vastly different
That must be why they have different names for the two areas of law...who knew!?
Quote:
and a large reason in why it isn't very common to see a lawyer who practices both to any great extent.
Wait, this isn't common? I know a lot of attorneys who practice both criminal and civil (to a great extent).
Quote:
There's a reason our good District Judges have a background as prior prosecutors and defense attorneys, if not both.
"Good"(?) This is entirely subjective. However, I am not concerned about whether or not a district judge has experience as a prosecutor and/or defense attorney when there is a civil matter at hand. Further, this is entirely irrelevant considering we are talking about a JP judge and not a district judge.
Anyway, I am not sure I want a police officer (LEO) adjudicating my rights, or the rights of other citizens, as LEOs are not trained to argue the law in court or how to defend/prosecute someone in court. Further, they have not been trained in how a case (of any kind) should be litigated. There are things like evidence, admissibility, relevance, objections, burden of proof, civil procedure, jurisdiction, etc. which an LEO has little to no training on whatsoever.
In the end, I don't mean to focus so much on the lack of qualifications possessed by an LEO. I simply have a general objection to allowing anyone, who doesn't have a real legal education, to serve as a judge and rule on or adjudicate the rights of others.
Further, even if I were to concede the idea that a non-attorney could be qualified enough to serve as JP, I still have a hard time with the concept that somehow, a non-attorney (or someone with little to no legal training) would be more qualified than a lawyer (who does have legal training).
But...its an election, so we can all vote for who we want, no?