I need a mandatory retirement age to give

I would legitimately hold the view that the retirement age
for judges should be increased to 75. This is because if a person qualified at
the BAR or to be a solicitor, at age 40, which is possible. He or she would
need 20 years of court work as a barrister before thinking of becoming a judge.
These people would then start at the bottom of the court circuits at age 60 and
work their way up. By age 70 he or she might be an excellent judge at circuit
or high court level but be unable to continue up the ladder. Even for the
barrister or solicitor who started young, there is no justification why, if
they love their job and are good at it, they should be taken off duty at a set
age. This is seen a waste of knowledge and ability in an area that desperately
needs the very best of both. The law becomes more complicated every year. There
is a massive amount to learn and the best way to learn is on the job.
Therefore, the best judges are the most experienced. For those whose minds
remain sharp and focused at 70. It is not in our best interest to pension
people off at the peak of their careers and abilities. If a person wishes to
continue working, and is considered fit it is insulting to prevent the person
from doing so.

Many also argue that judges retiring at the age of 70 should
not be seen too negatively. Many people these days are consume by their careers
and the world of work. As more people live beyond retirement age, it should be
a time of stress free and strain from work. It provides time for people to give
something back to society by doing charitable work. Judges who are “workaholics”
need a mandatory retirement age to give them the spur to develop other sides of
themselves and broaden their lives. Other view this mandatory age retirement on
judges as too controlling. It treats judges as children. This legislation would
be an extreme measure characteristic of an overbearing ” nanny state” we must
let individuals decide for themselves whether they wish to devote their entire
life to their work or whether they want a break at the age of 70.

However, by freeing up more places in our professional
hierarchies, we give younger people with opportunities to reach the heights of
their career. Often in law, younger employees must wait for an elder respected
judge or consultant to retire in order to progress along the career ladder.
This is also fairer on the younger working population. This is to enable young
lawyers to expose their talent. A mandatory retirement age allows younger
employees with new, modern ideas to infiltrate the professions. On the
contrary, it is naive to assume that we improve the standards and quality of
the professions by introducing younger employees to the top positions. If we
consider that it does take a number of years to reach the top of a particular
field, it is unfair and to diminish their work at this level. Furthermore,
these experts are well-respected and highly skilled at their job, and bring the
valuable advantage of experience to a demanding job.

Others also argue that Mandatory retirement allows
opportunity for more employment of younger people, especially in the top jobs.
Considering the unemployment statistics in Britain, this will help to reduce
unemployment of the youth in the society and increase jobs opportunity for
those who are at the age of supporting themselves and setting up a home and
lifestyle, as well as those supporting a family. This will also boost the economy;
surely it makes more sense to pay more pensions, supplemented with private
pensions, than support the unemployed youth of the country. If they are not
given the opportunity to begin a career, or become established in a company, it
is far more difficult to encourage this later in life; we should try to utilise
the long term of the working population. On the contrary, the population of
Britain is ageing. People are living longer, and forcing people to retire
simply increases the heavy economic burden of pensioners on the state. The
ratio of the dependent population to the working population is increasing, and
a mandatory retirement age is an unnecessary measure which deteriorate the
issue. Therefore, we should be actively encouraging those who are fit to
continue working.

Someone might legitimately hold the opinion that the
retirement age for judges should not be increased to 75.This is because the
most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement
to a mandatory age of 70  is to safeguard
against the effects of old age of judges. The age 70 is said to be a stage
where a person experience problems with their physical or mental well-being.
Mandatory retirement would protect defenders/victims against the damaging effects
that could be the result of mistakes or misjudgements by elderly judges. Many
argue that judges have a great influence over the lives of many e.g. judicial
decisions and there are at present insufficient safeguards to prevent against
incompetence .However, there is no medical evidence to prove that judges over
the age of 70 are incapable to make judicial decisions. For example, Lord
denning was known as “the greatest judge of the century” probably the greatest
English judge of modern times despite retiring at the age of 83.In the professions
such as law, there are safeguards to identify incompetence, and these are far
better dealt with on an individual basis according to individual health and
fitness, rather than punishing those healthy capable individuals who wish to
work beyond this age.

The law on the age at which judges must retire is 70. Compulsory
retirement for judges of the High Court and above was first introduced by the
Judicial Pensions Act 1959, which set a retirement age of 75. Prior to this,
judges were not obliged to retire at, and could continue in office for as long
as they wished. Other judicial office-holders were subject to a variety of
different retirement provisions. Some were subject to a retirement age of 70,
others below or above that age. Some office holders had to retire at a
particular age; others continued until the completion of the year of service
following a particular birthday. For some appointments, particularly in
tribunals, there was no statutory retirement age at all. The mandatory judicial
retirement age of 70 was introduced by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act
1993. The reason behind the change was to introduce consistency to the judicial
retirement system. The age of 70 was decided by the Government of the day
following consultations between the Lord Chancellor and senior members of the
judiciary. However, this new retiremenat age only applied to judges first
appointed to office after the commencement of the relevant provisions (31 March
1995). As such, any judge first appointed to judicial office prior to 31 March
1995 is not required to retire until reaching 75. A number of judges remain
subject to this higher retirement age (including ten of the current Justices of
the Supreme Court.


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out