Judicial Impartiality

Judicial activism in American society has shaped legislation as interpreted by the view of justices in cases that have challenges current law. The practice of judicial activism has allowed judges to essentially create new bias legislation out of existing laws that may not possess explicit standards. In other words, existing law is expounded upon with personal or political consideration rather than what the law states and following it as specified. Moreover, judicial decisions usually determine future rulings that have resounding effects on society (Stephenson, 2013). However, does judicial activism depict good or bad judiciary practices? It does not take much to understand that partiality would exist in the answer to that question as each individual may answer

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

In the article, “A Judge Speaks Out,” Haddon Lee Sarokin discussed how the judiciary system works within the United States Court of Appels. In the article Sarokin expressed how America’s democracy faces problems of inequality and political withdrawal. Throughout the article, Sarokin implies that many decisions made by the judges are not necessarily decisions that would be made based off the Constitution as it should be, but based off the judges giving into the majorities opinions and desires. Sarokin expressed how it takes resilience and loyalty to follow the Constitution and to make decisions that are best for society, while sticking to the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not being influenced by others or one’s own desires.

The American people have high expectations for the government, especially our court system. The courts are expected to solve disputes through enforcing laws set forth by our legislators, and to do so without bias. Typically, the courts fulfill their purpose in this way, but the task becomes much harder when there is no precedent, or when a changing culture causes backlash to precedent. Furthermore, a vague law or ideological question may also make an orderly dispute resolution a more difficult task than the courts were designed to handle. As the constrained court view would suggest, these are hurdles the courts must overcome in order to solve disputes and keep the integrity of the court system. According to this view, judges don’t

These televised ads frequently air misleading slogans like ‘activist judges’ or ‘imposed verdicts’ just for the sake of the caustic reactions they engender. For instance, a televised ad aired in Illinois during the 2010 election season attacked the then supreme court justice Thomas Kilbride who was running for retention election for siding with felons instead of victims or the law enforcement based solely on the fact the he had questioned the misconducts carried out by the prosecution in some criminal cases. ‘Soft on crimes’ is one of the most popular and polarizing slogans used in these ads against judges. As mentioned above, these ads condemn judges for not being ‘hard on crimes’ further escalating the already existing blood-lust for criminals in society. These ads not only politicize the position of judges, but also significantly diminish the public integrity of judiciary because the public would be more unwilling to accept the verdict imparted by a judge who think is too lenient with criminals. Furthermore, these ads put undue pressure on judges to impart unreasonably harsh punishments to soothe the public hostility against

The U.S. justice system rests on the assumption that its court officials, specifically its judges, have the ability to reach a fair verdict in any particular case, regardless of the suspect’s race, gender, and social class. These officials are expected to possess impartiality at all times, and must be able to disregard any factor within the case that does not serve as pertinent information. However, there is no escaping the reality that many individuals possess unconscious prejudices, and these partialities that may or may not affect the way in which the individual reacts to the world around them. Therefore, it is crucial that a careful analysis of courtroom procedure is made regarding the consequences of judicial bias.

In recent history there has been noticeable reform to the way juries operate in the United States, and particularly in the need for unanimity to arrive at a verdict. In 1972, there were two notable cases that arrived in Supreme Court concerning the effectiveness of unanimity and whether the lack of violated the rights of defendants. The final decisions on these cases have left room for debate across the nation on whether unanimity is indeed a necessity to reach a verdict of quality, or if it was a goal. There are advantages and disadvantages to having unanimity a legal requirement, just as with if we did away with it, and there are still instances where the Supreme Court requires it, and should continue to do so.

To begin, in our justice system, judges who value the constitution and have a fair mind result in a fair decision. But today in our world, the justice system obtains some bias judges. In the U.S, people like to believe that the operation of the justice system obtains no flaws. But unfortunately, when looking at it more closely, there are a few cases that result as an unfairly decided decision. More importantly, judges should value The Constitution and have a fair mind when in the courtroom. To receive a bias judge, would result in an unfair decision to the opponent. In summary, the justice

A fair and independent court system is essential to the administration of justice in a democratic society. Exemplary conduct by court employees inspires public confidence and trust in the courts, and conveys the values of impartiality, equity, and fairness that bring integrity to the court’s work. Further, court employees are expected to adhere to a high standard of ethical behavior. To advance these values and to achieve justice we believe certain ethical principles should govern all that we

As cited previously, the minority opinion, the dissent, of the Supreme Court ruling identified the key implication of the decision; that being the corrupting effect of money. Further implications were identified by the press, media, politicians and academics and include sharp observations on the ruling itself and those that ruled on it. These implications include the bankrolling of elections on the treasuries of private, and possibly foreign, corporations; the noticeable growth of partisanship in the judiciary; and the detrimental growth in judicial activism and its dismantling of legislative action6.

Judges are seen as impartial and are relied upon on giving the ‘justified’ outcomes in the courts. A justified outcome to the offence an offender committed is often based on the severity of punishments the judge imposed. For example, lengthy period of time in jail, no probation, and other combinations of similar. It can be said that though judges are independent in their judicial decision making in trials, and it should be, but very often the process of deciding the punishment is affected by various external judicial pressure. These pressures can be from the public, politicians and media. Among these three types of sources, public pressure can be said to be the most influential to even politician pressure. Though it is being said that

Research has stated that even though judges may reflect the values of current society and that some are educated or have the prior knowledge of current issues and trends, it is that judges can be somewhat distanced from the concerns of ordinary people, but this is also stated as a criticism of their

Being a junior member of the Justice Department, I have evaluated such cases from Irons and Herman, along with the philosophical readings from Hume, Russell, Arendt, and Cox. With the different perspectives, but ample similarities between them all, we are able to tie in present day events with certain ban’s and policies implemented today. Iron’s prologue starts off by noting that the Supreme Court has so much power to choose what cases it sees and a majority of cases that have tried to be reversed, have not been. Iron’s goes on to mention that racial discrepancies, gender differences, background, and education all come into effect the outcome of cases. As seen in Hume’s writing, there are prejudiced decisions made by figures of authority

To ensure a fair trial, judges need to be independent and impartial. Judges must be screened by the Judicial Council, they all have to have been a practicing lawyer for at least 10 years and must be in good standing with the legal community. To remain impartial, judges are appointed until age 75 unless are they are proven incompetent or guilty of misconduct. This is to ensure that their employer cannot threat dismissal due to their decisions. Judges are also not allowed to contact government officials or politicians about the cases they are handing, nor are they allowed to participate in politics, other than voting. These measures are all taken to ensure that judges remain impartial and that everyone gets a fair trial.

Judges are the most prestigious members of the court system, but they are faced with challenges that reflect upon there ethics, and faithfulness to the people they serve. Often judges make careless misstates and forget that they are appointed or voted in by the public. Therefore some judges have been removed from the bench due to their behavior that includes, sexual allegations, taking cash, making racist and sexist comments, and lying to a grand jury just to name a few. Voters elect some judges, governors or the president of the United States appoints some and others are appointed through a merit selection.