Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How has judicial diversity been encouraged
Judiciary is the branch of the government that includes courts of law and judges. Diversity is important to the United Kingdom as it is not just a guarantor of public confidence in justice, it is also a characteristic of justice itself because it represents both fairness and equality of opportunity. However, the Lord Chief Justice has stated that “The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial roles on merit irrespective of background, but there is a real need to ensure that there is a level playing field and everyone has a genuine opportunity when applying for judicial appointment.” Judicial diversity is not just the combination of various judges from different background, it is the means to achieve the goal that a bench …show more content…
However, the court’s main purpose to promote judicial diversity as they believe judges from more diverse backgrounds will strengthen the legitimacy of the the judiciary. As well as the fact that the absence of judges from diverse backgrounds in the courts is too huge to ignore, especially considering it is now the 21st century. Lord Sumption has noted the sorry state of judicial diversity in UK during his lecture in the Bar Council Reform Lecture in November 2012, in England and Wales women make up 51% of the population while they only make up 23% of the judiciary the same can be said about the minority groups which make up 12% of the population but only 4% of the …show more content…
However, this cannot be seen as an actual concern for the JAC, as increasing the application pool to include various other minorities will just broaden the choices and bring about an improvement in the quality of appointments. The issues of diversity are different for each court for example in the magistrate’s court there is an overrepresentation of the women candidates, thus it is the job of the JAC to examine the the needs of various courts and accordingly go about with their selection
Legal system is a comprehensive term that is used to confirm the existence of the law; it also explains the law-making process and how this is enforced on everyone. The Australian legal system regulates all level of governments, organisations, and all people whether they are Australian born or have migrated here, and they must obey Australia’s regulations. The legal system here was developed from the United Kingdom’s legal system, as Australia was a colony of the British. At a glance, the British government granted restricted rights to their colonies, including Australia to set local government system. This was intended to developed laws in local area, also to deal with specific situation at that time. As a result, the legal system in each of the colonies started to develop separately. According to Carvan J (2010) the Australian law is adopted from several sources, including the rules of equity, parliamentary laws, delegated legislations, judge-made laws, and international laws. (Austrlian Legal System, 2007)
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Judiciary Branch offers checks and balances to the other branches of government. To both the Legislative and Executive branches, the Judicial Branch holds the power of judicial review. The Judicial branch can also declare existing laws as unconstitutional.
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
Under Article III of the Constitution the judicial branch was established, but rather implicit in proportion to the other two branches of government. This ambiguity allocates various opportunities for interpretation of judicial power. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton addresses the role of the judiciary branch within the federal government in regards to political immunity of judges through life tenure and contribution to checks and balances through power or judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall, in his ruling of Marbury v. Madison, established the principle of judicial review advocated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Originally designated as the weakest of the three branches in government by the framers of the Constitution, the Judiciary has accumulated an increase in political influence through judiciary review and has proven to be an essential institution in the separation of powers as well as an active participant in the system of checks and balances.
The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
Judges are typically white men with strong political connections. Do you see any problems with this in terms of fairness in sentencing?
The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
Ward, G., Farrell, A., & Rousseau, D. (2009). Does racial balance in workforce representation yield equal justice? Race relations of sentencing in federal court organizations. Law & Society Review, 43(4), 757-806. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00388.x
A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury
According to the duties found under the works of Article III, the judicial branch deals with defining laws and protecting the Constitution. Section 1 of Article III creates the Supreme Court, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court”. The Supreme Court is the paramount court, its role in the government is to take the appeals from the subordinate courts who are hoping to overturn the court’s decision, and construe and resolve any confusion of laws regarding the Constitution
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.
Undoubtedly, the judicial system itself practices and perpetuates racism against marginalized groups, demonstrating corruption. Action attempting to cure systemic racism should also dedicate effort to solving this element of corruption in the justice system. The methods of Canadian judicial appointment also demonstrate the corruption in the judicial system. According to the 2010 survey on good governance around the globe by the human rights group Global Integrity, “Canadian judicial