The Emphasis on Diversity in the Judiciary Is Unnecessary. the Culture of Any Judiciary Is by Nature Conservative and There Is No Evidence That an Unrepresentative Judiciary Would or Do Come to Different Decisions Than

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 14
  • Published : December 20, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. We have what is known as an adversarial system of justice - legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures that evidence and legal arguments will be fully and forcefully presented. The judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts. If the defendant is convicted of a crime, the judge passes sentence. It is essential for them to be independent and impartial for sake of rule of law. The Rule of Law claims that no governmental figure shall be above the law. Keeping judges as unbiased mediators of the law helps this – dicey claimed “equality before the law- equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law. It is vital that the courts serve as an unbiased body independent of the legislature which is made the law, and that they act independently of the executive in interpreting the meaning of laws. Central to the general idea of the rule of law is the specific proposition that it involves a rule of law, rather than the rule of people. From this perspective , judges are seen as subservient to, and merely the instrument of, the law; and the outcome of judicial process is understood as being determined through the straight forward application of legal rules, both statute and precedent, to particular factual situation. In applying those rules, the judge is expected to act in a completely impartial manner, without allowing his personal preferences to affect his decision in any way. A further assumption is that in reaching a decision, the judge is only concern with matters of law and refuses to permit politics, economics and rather non- legal matters to influence his decision. The law is assumed to be distinct from, and superior to, those non-legal issues and the assumption is that the judge operates, in the words of Professor JAG Grifitth , as a political, economic and social eunuch. In reality, however, the judges have a large measure of discretion in determining which laws to apply, what those laws actually mean and how to apply them. In the lights of the potential creative power, it is essential to ensure that the judiciary satisfactorily represents society at large, in relation to which it has so much power, and to ensure further that it does not merely represent the views and attitudes of self perpetuating elite. This desideratum could be reformulated in a form of a stark question: are judges based, and do they use their judicial positions in such a way as to give expression to that bias? Bias can operate at two levels. The first is personal bias and occurs where individual judges permit their own prejudice to influence their understanding and implementation of the law. fact is that it is individual makes it more open to control and , in the long run, less serious than the acquisition of corporate bias. Corporate prejudice involves the assertion that the judiciary, as a body, do not decide certain types of causes in a fair and unbiased way; rather than as a consequence of their shared educational experience, shared training and practical experience at the Bar, along with shared social status, they have developed a common ideology comprising a homogenous collection of values, attitudes and beliefs as to how the law should operate and be administrated. The claim is that because, as individuals, they share the same prejudices, this leads to the emergence of an in-built group prejudice which precludes the possibility of some cases being decided in a neutral way. Further criticism of existing judiciary is its composition. The English judiciary is criticized as being white, male, barristers and Ox-Bridge graduates. The establishment of Judicial Appointment Commission is likely to reduce this...
tracking img