Ethical Issues for Judges

Описание: Perhaps the best-known symbol of justice is the judge in a black robe. Judges are expected to be impartial, knowledgeable, and authoritative. They guide the prosecutor, defense attorney, and all the other actors in the trial process from beginning to end, helping to maintain the integrity of the proceeding. This is the ideal, but judges are human, with human failings.

Judicial elections are increasingly funded with huge amounts of money. Special interest groups called political action committees (PACs) fund television commercials that are supposedly issue-oriented but thinly veiled attack ads on opponents. The attention to judicial races is largely due to the impact of decisions on civil matters, but the politicization of the bench has affected criminal law also. Judicial decision making seems to have become increasingly political. Judges are the arbitrators of law; when they become merely tools of the politically powerful, then “the rule of law” is threatened.

Despite the belief that simply applying the rules will lead to the right conclusion or decision, the reality is that judges and justices are simply human, and biases can influence their decision making. Another area of judicial discretion is in sentencing. Judges have an awesome responsibility in sentencing offenders and yet receive little training to guide their discretion. It is also true that judges’ decisions are scrutinized by public watchdog groups and appellate-level courts.

The other extreme is when judges have no discretion in sentencing. Federal sentencing guidelines were written by Congress requiring the judge to impose a specific sentence unless there was a proven mitigating or aggravating factor in the case. The sentencing guidelines did reduce disparity among federal judges.

If judges stay within statutory limits, their discretion is generally unquestioned when they make sentencing decisions.