The Role of the Judiciary in Safeguarding Public Interests
The constitutions of many nations around the world have entrusted the safeguarding and defense of the public interests to the judicial systems. The criminal justice system plays a crucial part in making sure that both the accused and the appellant receive justice in a legal remedy. Judges and judges decide whether a statute is legal, form legal opinions, and determine the next course of action in a criminal case using the constitution and all other laws at their disposal. When dealing with criminal cases, judges have the authority to issue arrest warrants, accept guilty pleas, establish bail, make decisions, and impose sentences. The process of administering justice ought to observe due diligence as both the accused and the appellant deserve justice. The judiciary forms part of the three arms of the government. The separation of power as enshrined in the constitution is meant to create checks and balances in the government and prevent abuse of power. However, the nature of politics and government appointments has always been seen to hamper the independence and the integrity of independent institutions. Judges hail from different cultural backgrounds. Cultural backgrounds in most cases have been seen to influence the decisions of judges as they undertake their duty of administering justice. The judges in different contexts have been portrayed as under the influence of two forces; democratic subculture and the legal subculture.
The Legal Subculture in the Judicial Justice System
The legal subculture in the judicial justice system refers to the practices and the rules that guide judges in making decisions within a legal framework. The legal profession ought to observe the legal subculture at all levels. The functioning of the courts is subject to the provisions of the constitution that guide the judges on the type of decisions to make at any given scenario. The principle of 'stare decisis' within the legal system requires that the court judges should let the precedent or the decision made stand. The use of precedence in the legal frameworks is an example of legal subculture. Precedent in a court of law refers to a decision made by a court that will guide future cases which are similar or related to the case at hand. Judges are therefore committed to observe precedent in their decision-making process. On the other hand, democratic subculture refers to extralegal factors that emanate from political connotations that shape a judge's decision-making. An example of the democratic subculture is the strong association of democratic judges with supportive tendencies towards the rights of accused criminals in criminal cases that the republican judges in the United States of America. However, the levels of influence of both the legal and the democratic subcultures on judicial decisions vary. Legal precedence guides the court judges in making decisions pertaining both trial and appeal cases. It can be deduced that, the professional requirements from court judges make the judges rely more on legal subculture in legal decisions than on democratic subcultures.
Democratic Subculture and its Influence on Judicial Decision-Making
In the case of Darrell Kenyatta Evers, et al V. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, the decision of the circuit judge Griffin Boyette Bell in the year 1964 is seen as bearing a democratic subculture. Griffin Boyette Bell, who was a democrat, dismissed the appellants' case citing that there was no indication of denial of admission into the segregated schools. The judge states that the segregation in the schools was a voluntary move by the affected parties in that the law required the appellants to cite at least a case of denied admission into the school upon application. Also, the judge noted that no law compelled people to attend any given school. In this case, the judge cleared the way for the application of non-whites in the perceived segregated schools. Also, the judge cleared the defendant in the case of the charges of perpetrating segregation in the schools. Robert Carp, in his legal view, sees democratic judges as inclined towards the support of claims related to racial discrimination. Carp also identifies democratic judges as prone to making decisions in favor of the defendants in court cases. The case of Darrell Kenyatta Evers, et al V. Jackson Municipal Separate School District and the judgment made by judge Griffin Boyette Bell is a clear indication of the democratic subculture in the judicial process. The judge justified the claims against the democratic judges by ruling in favor of people who were feeling racially aggrieved and also by ensuring that the defendants were vindicated in the claims laid against them.
Public Opinion and Political Ideology in Judicial Decision Making
Public opinion is an aspect of influence in the judicial decision-making stemming from democratic subculture. Several judges would fear condemnation that results from making rulings that are contrary to the expectations of the general public. The general public expects elected presidents to acknowledge the loyalty of his supporters through public office appointments. The cultural loyalty drives people to act in favor of the beliefs and wishes of the cultures they hail from. As seen in the characteristics of the United States of American judges since 1981, the political appointments are dictated by party loyalty. Public opinion affects judges who are subject to periodical reviews and reappointments more than permanently serving judges. Judges are forced to conform to public opinion to avoid criticism and imminent impeachments. Also, judges who secure positions through political appointments are subject to conformity with public opinion to avoid breaking ranks with the people occupying high political positions who appointed them. A referendum in California that sought to amend the sentences meted on the use of marijuana affected the decision of many judges. Analysis indicates that the judges had to amend the sentences passed on criminal offenses on marijuana to conform to public opinion that led to the referendum.
Political ideology associated with different political affiliations affects the decision-making of many judges. Political ideologies founded on addressing gender parity, curbing racism, advocating for minority inclusiveness, and the preservation of the environment among others shape judicial decisions. William O. Douglas in 1974 is on record taking a stand based on the liberal political ideology. The liberal ideology was based on defending the minority communities and the preservation of the environment in the United States of America, which was contrary to the conservative ideology. Douglas claimed that in the event he could not see or write, he will just have to wait for the ruling made by Chief Justice Burger and rule against it. The belief in political ideologies by judges is seen as so much engrained in the judicial decision making that reason cannot be embraced. Political parties launch their manifestos during election campaigns. It is usually the norm that the political systems at any given regime work to further the political ideology enshrined in the party manifesto. Politicians at different levels are given the chance to nominate and vet the judges who will serve at the different levels of government. It is from the political appointments and affiliations that political ideology shapes the decision-making of judges.
The Path Towards Social Progress and Judicial Independence
The need to attain social progress and the growth in political tolerance is taking effect in the judicial systems. The observance of minority rights and gender equity is making progress based on the data from the judges appointed in the United States of America since 1981 to 2014. The growth in the percentage of women acting as judges from a mere 8.3% in 1981 to 41.2 percent in 2014 is a huge step towards curbing the democratic culture in the judiciary. Also, the reduction in the proportion of white people in the judiciary from 92.4 percent in 1981 to 63.8 percent in 2014 is an indication that minority races are securing slots in the judiciary as judges. Political liberalism is taking shape in that the proportion of the ruling party affiliated judges has reduced from 91.7 percent in 1981 to 80.4 percent in 2014. The data is depicting a highly politically inclined nomination process of judges across all sides of the political divide. The Democrats and the Republicans are seen to favor judges who are affiliated with the respective parties. The study into the qualifications of judges in service is depicting mixed results with President George W. Bush's regime being seen as having placed priority on the qualification of the judges despite being from his political affiliations. The difference in the inclination of judges in regard to their judicial decisions based on the provisions of the study reveals emanate from democratic subculture. The analysis of the 27 types of cases and decisions made by the different judges based on their political identities show Democrats as advocates for equality and human rights.
Conclusion
The law is subject to interpretation by the court judges. While the legal subculture takes a more important role in shaping the decisions of court judges, democratic subculture has a great impact on the judicial systems. The courts ought to play a neutral role in the administration of justice to the citizens of a country. The courts should be a representation of justice and equality to all people. The social progress will only be attained when the rights of all people are observed, and people feel that fairness is being served. The law provides for gender equity and equality. Despite the great progress that has been made in creating a gender-balanced judicial system, much more needs to be done to break the glass ceiling in the judicial system. Competence and balance should supersede political ideologies and affiliations during judicial appointments. Political ideologies are meant to further social progress and address inherent problems that are being faced by the citizens of a country. However, it is paramount that as various players in the judicial and the political field further their political agenda, justice should be served for all. The judicial system ought to uphold independence at all levels to ensure that the power balance between the various arms of the government is maintained. Judicial independence will help ensure that justice is served based on impartial decisions.
Work Cited
Carp, Robert A, Ronald Stidham, Kenneth L. Manning, and Lisa M. Holmes. Judicial Process in America. , 2017. Print.
Hooper, Michael, and Ruth Masters. The Criminal Justice System. , 2017.
