The jurisdiction system is one of the foundations of any modern civil society. Its purpose is to provide fair and just conditions for resolving disputes between citizens. The majority of countries have age restrictions for judges due to the nature of their profession. Wisdom comes with age, and even though most states share this philosophy, age restrictions vary to a certain extent. Some countries allow qualified specialists to occupy posts in the court even in their 20s. This essay aims to examine age restrictions imposed on judges, provide arguments for and against the appointment of young specialists and discuss the redundancy of life-appointed judges.
The necessity of age restrictions in any profession is indisputable due to the nature of human thinking processes development. However, biological factors have a crucial role only before a certain age because once people become adults, they are capable of the same level of critical thinking. Experience and the level of proficiency in a particular field become a requirement for the appointment. Hence, judges’ age restrictions vary from country to country because many states do not necessarily draw a connection between experience and age. Young specialists might have a chance of getting the desired post, even though the probability of this happening is unlikely due to the number of specialists who are more knowledgeable than them.
The importance of personal experience in the field cannot be underestimated in the judiciary system. The main qualities the profession of a judge demands from its specialists are fairness and objectivity. It is typically impossible to achieve such feats without extensive practice. Higher judiciary education may give theoretical knowledge; however, it must be reinforced by years of practice. Hence, along with the age restriction, most judiciary systems also have an experience requirement for future judges: a person can only become appointed to the bench if they have worked for an extensive period of time in the field.
It is impossible to exclude bright talents among the youth, however. As previously mentioned, age cannot be equated to experience and proficiency since different people have varying skill levels. Knowledge is subjective, and sometimes a 25-year-old specialist may be more proficient than a man who has worked as a lawyer for a long time and meets the age requirement. It may also be argued that judges who have been working for an extended period of time in the same field grow too comfortable with their profession. Over time, people tend to develop their own working methods since it is natural for a human to look for the path of least resistance. As a result, their knowledge and skills stagnate, and their fairness and objectivity suffer. It is also worth the effort to promote young talents to higher positions since they can provide necessary feedback and a fresh perspective. Specialists who have recently graduated have the knowledge of the most recent changes in the legislative system and can potentially apply it better.
However, the value of experience is not to be underestimated. Every profession demands some level of experience in the field. Judiciary requires not only vast knowledge of the legislative system but also fair and objective judgment, and the human qualities, the possession of which cannot be proved instantaneously. It is a matter of personal reputation in the field, which is gained through extensive and effective work. Hence, older employees have an advantage in this aspect since they have proved their adequacy and qualification. Besides, there is also an argument that stems from human biology. Memory cannot hold vast amounts of information if theoretical knowledge is not utilized on a daily basis. Older employees have been working in the field for a long period of time; hence, their theoretical knowledge is less likely to be forgotten.
The age of appointment is not the only restriction imposed on future judges because their retirement age is also regulated in some countries. The rules for retirement are not as strict, often ranging from sixty to sixty-five years. However, some states practice the life-appointment for judges, which begs the question of why the age of retirement is not set and whether or not life-appointment is beneficial.
A life-long term for such an important position as a judge is unnecessary because it has multiple drawbacks and only one positive aspect. The only upside is an enormous amount of experience the life-appointed judge will have in their later years. However, the negative aspects include questionable objectivity, outdated knowledge, and young specialists’ inability to get a working place. The aging brain undergoes changes which reduce its effectiveness at learning and doing complex mental activities, which can affect the judge’s objectivity and decision-making processes (Vlassenko 893). Due to the decreased ability to acquire new knowledge, it becomes problematic for a senile judge to keep track of the judiciary system changes. Furthermore, life-appointed judges do not contribute to the development of young specialists because the number of working places is limited.
In conclusion, age restrictions are necessary for future judges because of the nature of their profession requiring experience, objectivity, and vast theoretical knowledge. Different states implement varying age restrictions because they consider different amounts of experience necessary for the appointment. However, retirement should be obligatory, and life-appointment should not be considered a viable option because of the decreased mental activity capabilities of elderly judges.
Work Cited
Vlassenko, Andrei, et al. “Aging Effects on Brain Metabolism and Its Response to Mental Activity.” Innovation in Aging, vol. 2, no. 1, 2018, p. 893.