Death investigation in America falls into two broad categories. Medical-examiner systems are run by unelected technocrats, physicians who probe deaths and draft certificates. Coroner systems are led by elected officials, who may or may not be medical doctors. Both are supported by forensic pathologists, specialists in autopsies.
About 60% of Americans live under medical-examiner systems, according to Jeffrey Jentzen, a professor at the University of Michigan and author of a history of death investigation. Coroners dominated during the early years of the republic, but were prone to corruption. Undertakers, law-enforcement officials and insurance agents all stood to gain by taking on a second job as a coroner. Issuing death certificates provided many potential avenues for profit, from determining insurance payouts to covering up evidence of a crime.
A push to replace coroners with medical examiners gained traction in the early 20th century, before losing momentum. Coroners attract little attention—about 80% ran unopposed in the latest electoral cycle. But polarisation has created more competition. When Bobbi Jo O’Neal ran for coroner in South Carolina’s Charleston County in 2020, after two decades as a nurse conducting death investigations, she faced a less qualified opponent. Yet as a Republican in an increasingly liberal area, she barely scraped through.
The Economist
One strange aspect of American society that I have only recently became aware of is the pervasiveness of elections in many areas of public life: state attorneys general, state judges (a notorious example was the judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial), and apparently coroners. In most other countries these positions would simply be filled through aptitudes tests, based on qualifications and experience.
I am sure most Americans imagine that their system works best but filling such positions in the justice system and health services through popular vote introduces a whole range of issues, some mentioned above. I would think that constant election cycles tend to desensitize voters to the importance of democratic processes. In the American dual-party system, political polarization could often prevent the better candidate from getting the job, as voters prefer to stick to party lines, or as a consequence of low turnout. Once in office, an elected official, instead of handling his responsibilities impartially, is likely to side with his political party and constituency, to preserve his chances of winning the next election and keeping his job. And when candidates run unopposed, the entire pretense of democracy flies out the window – before the fall of communism, we held regular elections in Romania, but since there was only ever one candidate allowed, the process was a travesty throughout.
Americans have a knee-jerk preference for elections and the democratic process. Letting the people vote on who holds a crucial position like a judgeship seems in keeping with the tradition of a representative form of government. Letting politicians anoint judges to the bench seems like cronyism.
Paradoxically, appointing judges may be the better system. When executives like the president appoint judges, those executives are held accountable. In the federal system, in which all judges and justices are appointed, the Senate conducts hearings and decides whether to confirm the president’s appointees. Consequently, the federal judiciary is bristling with the impeccable résumés of Ivy League graduates, published academics and former Justice Department superstars. Presidents know their selections have to withstand scrutiny, so they (usually) send only the best candidates to face the Senate.
Meanwhile, in states that elect their judges — 39 include elections as part of their selection processes for at least one level of court — there are few barriers to entry beyond cozying up to a ward leader to gain local party acceptance and cobbling together a few signatures to get on the ballot. It doesn’t hurt to have a pot of money to waste on a local campaign, either. But academic credentials and things like, well, merit are far down the list of requirements. Indeed, in states like Pennsylvania, where I practice law, you can be a judge without even having attended law school.
Danny Cevallos
Post a Comment