Judges resolve disputes between people, and interpret and apply the law
by which we live. Through that process, they define our rights and
responsibilities, determine the distribution of vast amounts of public and
private resources, and direct the actions of officials in other branches of
government. Ethics might be more significant to judges than any other criminal
justice practitioner because a judge must interpret the law honestly and
independently without personal feelings, religious values or past experiences. According
to the State of Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, judges who serve in
Nevada must honor and obey five rules of ethics, including impartiality, no
deviance from the law, non-biased decision making, no involvement with special
interest groups in or out of the courtroom and participation in approved
campaigning strategies.
For many years the judiciary has been guided by principles: the
commitment to uphold the law and to do so in an impartial and unbiased manner.
These fundamental principles are affirmed in the Oaths of Office that are
required of judges. An example of the Oath required is that of the English
Judiciary:
“I do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign... and I will
do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm,
without fear or favour, affection or ill will…” (MacKay, 1995)
Despite the affirmation of these principles, they were not always
adhered to as I would have heard of many instances in Jamaica in which these
ethical guidelines are not followed. Judges instead filter in their personal
experiences and feelings when making a judgment. For example a female judge in
a case of child support being extremely harsh towards a father who fails to care for his
child because her (the judge) father did not care for her as a child either.
Regardless of changes and the easing of cultural and professional
restrictions on judges’ personal lives, judges must still take care not to
become complacent about their ethical and professional responsibilities. In
exercising such restraint, judges are bound to place some restrictions on their
personal and professional activities. They must accept the fact that their
chosen profession, which is so vital to society, demands their wholehearted and
complete efforts to make their judicial roles their highest priority,
regardless of the necessary personal sacrifices that this might require.
Please feel free to comment or share your views.
While judges are expected to be impartial in the judgement, there comes a time when experiences is needed to make certain decisions. While the example you mentioned above seem hashed, who are we to say it was because of that reason you gave that resulted in the decision of the judge? Having gone to the courts and observing some cases the attitude of the plaintiff and or the claimant in some cases, I am surprised the judge didn't lock the up (I know the judge knew that the prisons are over crowed and should be left available to person who commit 'serious' crimes). But I am assuming that the judge remove personal feelings and did what was required.
ReplyDelete