The first ethical violation is that Judges must be "patient, dignified and courteous" to those involved in the court system. In the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and under Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently. (United States Courts, 1973) This means that everyone involved should be exhibiting signs of decorum in all kinds of court proceedings. In the Canon 3A (3) it states that judges need to act in such a manner that it protects the public’s confidence in the judge’s ability to be impartial and truthful. (SCR CHAPTER 60 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT)In all things dealing with judicial system, the judges need not be tainted with what could be interpreted as being prejudice, bias, and harassing. By this code violation, Justice Prosser was not dignified nor was he courteous. And Justice Prosser did violate the public’s trust in him to above reproach. By …show more content…
Per the SCR 60.04, a judge shall perform the duties of the judicial office impartially and diligently. And in Canon 2 (A) a judge shall…cooperate with the other judges. (SCR CHAPTER 60 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT) Justice Prosser opted to not be open to having discussions in the most appropriate manner. The fact he refused to communicate more effectively in manner fitting a Supreme Court Judge. In addition to the fact that Justice Prosser let his temper get the best of belies in his ability to remain impartial.
The third ethical violation is that judges should maintain high standards of conduct to ensure the integrity of the judiciary. Per the SCR 60.02, a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of judiciary. (SCR CHAPTER 60 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT)Further explanation is that judges must comply with the law itself. No one is above the law. By Justice Prosser assaulting another human being, he placed himself above the rules and regulations that govern the rest of the
Stevens (Agreed in part with the judgment): Agreed with the ruling, but did not feel the officers should be held liable for third party occurrences while doing their jobs (Pembaur v. Cincinnati,
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
The courtroom is not used for finding out the truth. It is used for power and gaining riches. Jerome Facher, a defendant in the Woburn case for Grace, was good wi...
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
Judge Danforth he too is concerned about his reputation. He is known for his decision-
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
In this exercise the judge was morally wrong to oversee a case if they are or has been in a relationship with either side of the legal counsel as it creates a bias in his decisions however in the case in question all the evidence can be gone over by an outside party or transfer to another judge and counsel to see if the conviction was just
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
In Woodlock v. Orange, the school counselor, known as N.W., was advocating for systemic change on behalf of her special education students. This was well within the code of ethics. N.W. was repeatedly expressing her concerns to the administrative intern and principal. Her primary concern was a lack of certified gym and art instructors, which violated state special education mandates and the children’s IEPs. She raised other safety concerns to the administration with little to no response. She began to document all of her interactions with the administration, leading to a written reprimand issued to her by the principal. This reprimand stated that N.W. was “taking it upon yourself t...
Judge proves to be a noble man and I think the choice he made was the
Linking this back to my previous statement, the accused needed to be trialed. The first problem that arises is the fact that the judges can rule how they please towards the accused. We all have times when we feel better than others and this can affect our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to the judges when they are in court. Naturally they are supposed to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime that has happened and come up with a reasonable and suitable punishment but some judges let their personal affairs get in the way. While this might sound strictly unjust to the accused, the judge displays signs of inequality when he or she lets signs of weakness from the victim affect their final verdict. The judge is there to assign a verdict as well as give out the proper punishment that is associated with the crime that was committed. If the judge changes their decision based on their point of view as well as how they feel towards the accused this means that the judge is bias. This creates an inequality between the accused members because if different people have been accused of the same crime and get the same judge they might get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria states that ‘‘we see the same court
What are the key ethical issues within the case? Are there other issues that are relevant to the discussion of the case?