The Independence or Neutrality of Judges

346 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Importance of judicial independence

The Independence or Neutrality of Judges

Judges are supposed to be totally independent from the government.

They are there to protect the rights of citizens in Britain. The

government says that the Lord Chancellor despite the fact they are

appointed by the Government are still 100% independent and neutral.

This I personally find difficult to agree with as the government pays

the bills of the Judges, the government is able to sack judges and the

more the judges agree with the government the more the government

likes them. A judge liked by the government is more likely to be given

a higher position or more power than a judge who is disliked by the

government. I am sure that my cynical view on the judicial neutrality

is most of the time incorrect, but I cannot help feeling that in some

cases judges have benefited greatly from siding with the government in

certain cases.

The government at the moment is able to overrule any decision made by

the judicial system; this concludes that the government really has

very little power. Despite the fact the government claims they have

nothing to do with the system if it came down to a really important

decision they would have the power to alter the outcome.

Judges are paid a huge amount to prevent them from being tempted by

bribery. With the large pay check that they receive each year they are

expected to make calculated and fair conclusions.

In history the judicial system has never escaped the demand for

"modernization" through this problem the recent miscarriages of

justice have been remembered. In 1990 the "Guildford Four", who were

convicted of the IRA bombing in 1975 were released, this was a major

mistake but one of many. In the defense of the judges sometimes the

information given to them by the police is lacking in substantial

evidence and it therefore can lead to wrongful convictions.

Judges are almost all older wealthy men, with Oxbridge educations who

are popular with other Judges, making them normally right winged.

Show More
Related

  • Criminal Law: The Daniel Morcombe Case

    1231 Words  | 3 Pages

    As a Judge it may be challenging to be unbiased when sentencing convicted offenders especially on high profile cases such as the Daniel Morcombe one. As a stakeholder, the judge considers many perspectives when sentencing the convicted offender. The trial beginning on the 10th of February 2014 under Justice Roslyn Atkinson with the prosecution closing the case on the 7th of March (ABC, 2014).

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Federal Court Judges

    1751 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached

    Read More

  • Australia's Unfair Legal System

    821 Words  | 2 Pages

    They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values

    Read More

  • Advantages And Disadvantages Of Judges

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people

    Read More

  • Role Of Judges In Democracy

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    What is a democracy? The United Sates president Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (1863). The Oxford dictionary’s definition of democracy states that, “ A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (2015). Democracy plays a vital role in our nation. The citizens of the nation vote for who they believe is the best fit for government. The government appoints individuals to take down roles as cabinets and judges. What is the duty of a judge? The definition used by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) states, “Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented,

    Read More

  • Courts and Power Relations

    1420 Words  | 3 Pages

    Judiciary.gov.uk. 2014. Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates | Introduction to the justice system | Traditions of the courts. [online] Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/court-traditions [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].

    Read More

  • Federal Judges Pros And Cons

    220 Words  | 1 Pages

    Eliminating the lifetime tenure for federal judges to a 15-year term that is not renewed would be beneficial to the US Constitution. When judges are selected they are used for tactical behaviors that Presidents and justices have used. When the President appoints younger people they do this to capitalize on their capability to sway the Supreme Court. When Clarence Thomas was appointed he was 43, and John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801 by John Adams. Republicans average age for appointees is about 50, Anthony Kennedy was the last one nominated in 1988 at the age of 51, whereas 56.5 is the average age for Democrats, and Arthur Goldberg joined the Supreme Court in 1962 at the age of 54.

    Read More

  • Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government

    2619 Words  | 6 Pages

    Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.

    Read More

  • Should Juries Be Abolished?

    1260 Words  | 3 Pages

    From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...

    Read More

  • Why Is The Judicial Branch The Least Dangerous

    666 Words  | 2 Pages

    Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two

    Read More

  • Queensland Court System

    1158 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Queensland Court system follows a court hierarchy ranging from the Districts Court to the Supreme Court systems, each having a purpose of resolving disputes in a just manner. While the Queensland judicial system is often perceived as intimidating and out of touch, due to the increasing improvements in these factors, courts remain effective in their delivering of just outcomes. The improvements made to the issues faced by courts as intimidating and out of touch are investigated throughout this report to clearly emphasize that courts successfully deliver just

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

    614 Words  | 2 Pages

    Judicial Activism is the Supreme Court’s willingness to use its powers to make significant changes in public policy or creatively [re]interpret the texts of the constitution. Judicial Restraint is the Supreme Court’s willingness to limit the use and extent of its power avoid making significant changes in public policy. These two terms designate opposite approaches on how the judges interpret the constitution and public policy for different cases.

    Read More

  • Deuteronomy Assignment

    1258 Words  | 3 Pages

    These judges are to judge the people righteously. Justice should be ultimate and should not be changed or distorted. The judges are also to not take bribes from anyone or be partial. This they should do because bribing shows perversion of the righteousness, which should not be something that characterizes the judges. The main objective of these judges should be to only pursue justice in order to be able to “live and possess the land which the Lord” is giving them (NASB Deut.

    Read More

  • Judges Must Make Law

    2340 Words  | 5 Pages

    INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.

    Read More

More about The Independence or Neutrality of Judges

Open Document