The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.
John Griffith’s thesis asserted that the English judiciary comprises of judges who as a whole are of ‘a unifying attitude of mind, a political position, to protect and conserve certain values and institutions’. Before the Judicial Appointment Commission was established conservatism was sometimes facilitated by various policies put in place by the Lord Chancellor . ‘Conservatism’ here is used to denote conformity to traditional values as opposed to political ideals. Lord Hailsham, the Conservative Lord Chancellor until 1987 had implemented a policy to appoint only married candidates. Professor Leslie Moran notes that this was clearly a measure to avoid a ‘homosexual controversy’. Only in 1991 was there an official announcement declaring that homosexuality will not be a bar to judicial office.
Kate Malleson remarks that even the current recruitment pool which is dominated by middle aged successful barristers does seem to evoke John Griffith's theory of judicial conservatism. However, the apparently conservative composition of the judiciary does not necessarily mean that it gives preference to traditional views. In contrast to the US Supreme Court, there is little concern whether a UK judge’s social and political views a...
... middle of paper ...
...ion
• Rackley, E (2010). In Conversation with Lord Justice Etherton: Revisiting the Case for a More Diverse Judiciary. Public Law
• The Report of the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity 2010 (Ministry of Justice)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/advisory-panel-judicial-diversity-2010.pdf
• Professor Martin Partington’s blog ‘Spotlight on the Justice System’
http://martinpartington.com/2010/03/18/developing-judicial-diversity/
• HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0057_Judgment.pdf
• Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v. K (FC) (Appellant) Fornah (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2006] UKHL 46
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd061018/sshd.pdf
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
A solution, based in precedent, must be found to illustrate that judges are not consumed by their own opinions and agendas. Setting new precedent in the courtroom is essential to
...te Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggested a resigning age for all elected judges. This suggestion was focused around an apparent need to keep up fiery and element courts in opening up boulevards for 'capable legitimate professionals' to attain legal positions. It is likewise focused around developing group faith in a necessary resigning age for judges and to dodge 'the sad need' of uprooting a judge made unfit for office by declining health.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
— Plato, Apology The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result — Justice Kennedy concurring, Texas v Gregory Lee Johnson. In the context of his experience on the bench and his interest in the general theoretical approach of "Law and Economics," Richard Posner has developed an important empirical theory about judicial behavior which has significant national and international implications.
Despite its remarkable conclusions, Dahl's article lacks the comprehensive inquiries necessary for examining the Court's role as a policy arbiter and creator. The systemic influences of Court decisions are inadequately measured in the study, thanks in no small part to the limiting specifications that prevent a broad, incisive discourse on the topic. However, the Court's influence pervades both federal and state law in both word and in deed. To cover only one part and not the whole overestimates its agency. Firstly, he inadequately assesses the role of the Court's decisions in both non-legislative cases and in state laws; for example, he mentions “its famous school integration decisions,” (i.e., Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County), but neglects Plessy v. Ferguson, t...
From this point of view, it is very naive to suggest, as some of the merit plan's followers do, that the plan takes the politics out of judicial selection. The merit plan is designed to put forth on the process of selecting judges, a variety of interests, that are considered to have a genuine concern in the matter and to depress other interests. Also, while the amount of studies and accessible information, regarding minority judges being elected, continues to add up, it still might be too soon to reach a conclusion regarding which selection process truly improves diversity. However, the merit selection is not a complication for diversity. When the merit plan is tied with the requirements that nominating commissions take diversity on the bench into account, when making their nominations, there is a far larger number of minority and women judges that will take the
However, the method of selection that would allow this is still a large debate. One article argues that the partisan election is the best method of selection because other methods, primarily the merit selection method, are not beneficial to the public, and that by attaching a partisan label to the election, the judges ideology and philosophy can be open to the public (Shackelford and Butterfield, 2010). However, the other article debates that the merit selection process allows for better public involvement, since the merit selection method allows for a vote from the public after the judge has been on the bench for a certain period of time. In the article, Champagne states that the “mainstream legal community” favors systems of judicial selection that “support independence from the electorate,” such as merit selection, whereas many political scientists support partisan elections (Champagne,
Mr Justice Wilson, ‘Lectures on Advocacy and Ethics in the Supreme Court’ (1979) 15 Legal Research Foundation Inc.
Canada is a multicultural country that strives high on merit and diversity; therefore, implying both into the judicial system is a little more complicated than we assume. While appointing a federal or Supreme court judge, the main question is do you focus on the merit or diversity aspect. Diversity can offer a variety of different views in the perspective of the case; however, merit can assure us with that the admirable decision will be made off of worthy evidence. Throughout this essay, the different perspectives will be addressed whether merit or diversity is the superior opinion when appointing a federal or supreme court judge. We will explore the meanings behind merit and diversity in the world along with in the federal court system, acknowledging
Lady Hale’s 2015 forward speech given at Birmingham University raised an important and controversial issue of diversity. It had created a new wave of discourse about diversity which increased the pressure for more representation, not only in the justices of the Supreme Court, but also in the justice system as a whole. Since then, another female supreme court judge, Lady Black was appointed, and the judiciary has been working with multiple organisations to improve the selection and appointments process. However, improvements in diversity statistics have not been impressive, with an average of 5% increase of female judges in all courts and even lesser increase for ethnic’s minorities in the courts. This shows that the issue is as relevant as
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Our Supreme Court, considered the most diverse in its history, has six Catholics, three African Americans, three women, three Jews, two Italian Americans, and the first Hispanic justices. While we have gender, racial, and religious diversity, however, all nine justices on the Roberts Court graduated from Yale and Harvard Law School. They all followed a narrow and similar professional career path. Our current bench not only lacks educational diversity, but also experience in politics, criminal defense, and as solo practitioners. For a well reflected understanding of the communities the Supreme Court serves, educational and professional diversity on the Supreme Court is imperative.
The UK judiciary has been continually under scrutiny over the fact that it is not a true representative of the multi-cultural society in which we live in. Some have argued that there is "limited empirical evidence that diverse judges can improve the decision-making process." However, this is a viewpoint that seems irrelevant in this modern day as the number of female judges has more than doubled to 23% from 1998 to 2011. However, the number of Black Asian and minority ethnicities is still only 5.1%. Therefore, the issue of judicial diversity is still very prominent today. Another issue is the fact that the majority of the judiciary come from a public school background, this is especially true for the Supreme Court who are mainly educated