More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the need for judicial diversity
Advantages of diversity in the justice system
What is the need for judicial diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
the different angles they can be connected to the judicial system. Diversity means acknowledging the differences between people also the ways in which those differences can supply a prosperous and more productive working environment. No matter what the work environment, diversity relative to social harmony. Queensborough Community College (2017) states, "Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because of valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic." By including a variety of people in a decision, we are more likely to agree as a result of all the different perspectives seem. By having many different perspectives, comprehending all the different view without being bias towards any. Diversity also includes the different experiences people have in their lives that they can relate to similar situations. They can take the knowledge that they learned as well as apply that in a case; therefore, only to an extent where they are not having a bias opinion. Merit is a term that can suggest many different definitions; therefore, in the legal context, merit refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth ample facts from which the court could find a valid claim of the straitened circumstances of a legal right. Merit is a subjective term that has a different meaning depending on the situation. Referring to a judgment, decision or ruling of a court based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case "on the merits" when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as either inconsequential or overcome (Hill & Hill, 2017). Using merit in the real world would reflect achieving the right action. Using merit means that your decision is based on the inherent right or wrong of a situation. The evidence is used heavily in this process without any emotion to bias the decision. This way the situation is dealt with a clear set mind together with the person gets what they deserve. Diversity in Appointing Federal Judges Connecting diversity of federal judges can be seen as an interesting process. We need to keep into account the vast range of the judicial system. We live in a time and place where we are connected to just about anyone in the world. People are used to seeing others from different regions, different cultures, and different walks of life every day through television, social media, and the Internet. What was once foreign or exotic is no longer so different. Now more than ever, constant engagement with diverse populations is considered the norm for many of us (Kang, 2016). From being exposed to the different cultures also religions, federal judges will have a better perspective on the reality of any situation. Being able to see every view, allows the judges not to be biased to anyone that may come into the court. They are able to think critically about the case, including giving the most appropriate sentence without being bias towards one party. Diversity also relates to the public as it encourages a variety of people. The more divergent the selection is the more comfortable people are to trust or believe this judge's verdict. Kang (2016) states "It logically follows that many individuals will expect to see a variety of people in law firms they are considering hiring. People from all walks of life require legal assistance in some capacity. When dealing with matters serious enough to warrant counsel, potential clients want someone who they feel comfortable with and can relate to." Having the variety of judge's displays of people that not just one point of view is being seen. Not everyone has the same view and the diversity of judges will allow a well-rounded conclusion to be made. All intersections will be looked at, so cerebration will occur. Overall, appealing to the majority of people is a top tactic of using diversity to appoint a federal or Supreme Court judge. Additionally, using diversity when appointing a federal judge eliminates overall hindrances seen in critical thinking. To be more specific, category 2 would initially be eliminated because of the diverse beliefs in addition to ideas throughout the appointed judges. In other words, Ha-Redeye (2016) states, "Having diversity at the heads of our social institutions, especially our judiciary, actually helps them do a better job. Diverse experiences, as a Canadian and as a lawyer, provide unique insights that other judges simply do not have." Intergrading diversity into the judicial system, allows a variety of perspectives and countless different arguments. After all, having the variety of perspectives will allow more evidence to support a claim making a valid deductive argument. Furthermore, a diverse group of judges will solely determine the process to be systematic as a consequence to allowing emotions to overtake any decision. In summary, hindrance's will be reduced greatly in the overall process of appointing of federal or supreme court judge. Lastly, diversity can be seen through the different life experiences the person has.
Relating these experiences to the judicial system can be a complex process by reason of we do not want our federal judges to analyze a case from a personal experience. As outlined throughout this article, increasing diversity brings copious benefits to the legal profession. Therefore, this can only be achieved through a steadfast commitment to diversifying the profession. Leaders in the legal field must recognize the value of having individuals from a variety of backgrounds contribute to their practice. From there, they must put those realizations into action and actually take the necessary steps to see improvement (Kang, 2016). Diversifying the judicial system has many benefits in the long run; appealing to more people, a vast range of ideas as well a better acknowledgment to the public. Appealing to more people is a prime reason for diversifying federal and supreme court …show more content…
judges. Merit in Appointing Federal Judges One the other hand, merit can also be used to appoint judges in the context of achieving the right decision. Merit represents a conclusion of right or wrong based on the worth of their morals. Judicial Appointments (2007) states "Those who interpret the laws must do so without fear or favour, and without regard to whether their decisions are popular... the most important goal in appointing a judge is that only those of the highest merit and legal qualifications are selected, independent of any political or ideological considerations." Judges appointed to perform for their high merit qualities have to be cautious when in the position. They are unable to allow their emotions to get in the way of any of their decisions on a daily basis. Plentiful decisions made are seen unsatisfactory of the majority of the public. Therefore, any decision make has to be done without any consideration of what the public will view. Equally important in the process of appointing a judge is the other sub categories in determining merit.
The person must have the ability to come to a conclusion with the proper support. Thinking critically is an excellent skill to have when considering judges. Ultimately most judges that can think critically can more than often apply merit to their decision. The fundamental importance of appointing only the most meritorious candidates, irrespective of political or ideological conviction, should guide all three branches of government in working together to serve the interests of all Canadians (Judicial Appointment, 2007). Judges are unable to have any interference with political or any ideologies they may believe in. Being able to examine every case with a clear mind and relying solely on merit, will produce a meaningful
conclusion. In the same fashion, committees thoroughly look for merit when nominating a judge. Merit is a high quality looked for as referred to in 'The Advisory Committees.' The Advisory Committees (2017) follow a strict set of assessment criteria; among the criteria for appointment, the uttermost important qualifications include professional competence, experience, personal characteristics, and overall merit. After evaluating the applicant’s file, the Advisory Committees assign the applicant to one of three categories – “recommended,” “highly recommended” and “unable to recommend” for appointment. The judges are appointed by the Governor General, acting on the advice of the federal Cabinet. As observed above the governor general assigns the judges in the federal system where merit is a top three characteristic that is looked for. During this process hindrances are not used; therefore, critical thinking depends on greatly. In this situation the public has to put their trust in the experts, in this case the governor general, that he or she will choose the best suitable candidate based on merit. Nevertheless, merit is influenced greatly by our background knowledge, additionally environments we grow up in. "I think it's sending a strong signal that for [the Liberals], merit involves considering the diverse perspectives that people bring to the law, and that includes the backgrounds and the communities they identify with," said Paul Saguil, a Toronto lawyer and board member of Out On Bay Street, who described Ms. McSweeney as a mentor to him. "That signal is important in instilling public confidence in the judiciary" (Fine, 2017). As seen the Liberal party enforces the knowledge that merit can be associated with information we know from a daily basis. Merit also comes from the area we grew up in or live in. Bountiful aspects can influence our train of to think conjointly on how we presume thought. So, when appointing a federal judge many different perspectives can be seen during the case. Not everyone will be from the same area, therefore everyone will have a different idea about the definition of merit. Complication arise trying to combine both merit and diversity when appointing a federal judge of Canada due to the multicultural society. Analyzing both areas, I can see the strengths as well as the weakness of either. However, having to choose one, I would agree with merit over diversity. Appointing a judge who is more qualified for his or her job is more realistic than having a diverse judicial system. Judges with high merit rely heavily on evidence to make the process to the conclusion of the case. These judges are less likely to let hindrances interfere with the thought processes. Unlike someone who is not as qualified they may allow their motivations, fears, beliefs and or ideas interfere with the critical thought processes. These judges must a minimal amount background information in making any verdicts and rely on critical thinking. Someone who has had extensive education, will be able to surpass any exterior influences furthermore relying on inference. Overall, appointing a federal judge of Canada by merit, allows a clear conclusion to be made.
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
A proper analysis of why this is so would require a book-length account of the constitutional and political history of Canada and the United States. It would include but would not be limited to the selection and role of judges, the role of legislatures and political leadership, the attitudes and practices of the police and administrative agencies, and, not least, popular attitudes towards rights, minorities, and government. In short, the whole of a person’s way of life. Bibliography McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
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
Ragers, Simon. / The Guardian (2012) White and Male: diversity and the judiciary. Available from: //www. Theguardian.com/news/databblog/2012/mar/28/judges-ethnic-sex-diversity-judiciary.
Torres-Spelliscy et al. (2010) encouraged diversity in the American court system and provided ten practices to attract the brightest female and minority candidates for the judiciary, and they are as follows: (1) grapple fully with implicit bias; (2) increase strategic recruitment; (3) be clear about the role of diversity in the nominating process in state statutes; (4) keep the application and interviewing process transparent; (5) train commissioners to be effective recruiters and nominators; (6) appoint a diversity compliance officer or ombudsman; (7) create diverse commissions by statute; (8) maintain high standards and quality; (9) raise judicial salaries; (10) improve record keeping (p. 3). Appointing minorities and females to the U.S. bench will increase public confidence, and it will also bring important value towards the representation of women and ethnic
In his novel, “Against Judicial Activism: The Decline of Freedom and Democracy in Canada,” author Rory Leishman explains how judges are essentially “let loose” on the judicial system, and are given freedom to create and interpret any laws they wish, right under society’s nose. Leishman writes, “Today, Canadians are living in a quasi-Orwellian nightmare, where freedom often means slavery and ignorance strengthens activist judges.” Judicial activism, in essence, can be described as the following: “. . . the tendency of courts to invalidate laws enacted by duly elected legislatures, since doing so ostensibly amounts to courts usurping the role of Parliament.” With such inconsistency in judges’ conclusions, the concept that citizens have no power
The supreme court of Canada has overruled numerous laws put forward by the Harper government. In 2010, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was opposed to the Vancouver Eastside supervised injection site. Stephen Harper took a conservative approach to the issue, he said that “we as a government will not use taxpayers money to fund drug use” (Rachlis, 2010). The Prime Minister did not recognize potential benefits to Canadian society as he focused on budgeting, without recognizing the benefit to public welfare that would reduce disease, death and have a rehabilitative effect on participants of the program. Judicial decisions play an influential role in the provisions of the Constitution because their interpretation is essential to understanding
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.