ten things about judges
Earlier this week, SelfHelpSupport.org added the document TOP 10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT JUDGES to its Library. The list was written by Kelley Carpenter, Public Information Officer, Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Court. This one-page document “provides insight into the limitations of judges by spelling out 10 simple things everyone should know” about them and their role.
All who participate in our judiciary/justice system [including judges] should keep these Ten Things About Judges in mind. Here are a few Things that may be especially relevant to the pro se litigant:
1. No matter what we decide, at least one side is going to be unhappy, sometimes all sides.
2. An “activist judge” is a judge that makes a decision the critic doesn’t agree with.
4. We have families and private lives we wish to protect, so please don’t show up at our homes.
5. We make decisions based on the law and the evidence, not public opinion or our personal views.7. Both Judges and the media are information gatherers, information disseminators and decision makers. We are both the messengers, and people often want to shoot the messenger.
9. The Judge can only consider evidence which is admissible in court. . . .
10. The constitution is not a “technicality!”
p.s. My only quibble is with #7, which seems to overlook the fact that, as “decision makers,” judges are not simply “messengers.” Finding facts and applying the relevant law are not merely the automatic functions of a mesenger.
Daniel Quackenbush
February 17, 2007 @ 12:43 am
No. 1: If the judge is fair to both sides, the losing party may not be happy, but at least they will often accept the verdict.
No. 2: Often true.
No. 5: I think judges often make rulings that they think will “pacify” the public or at least certain government officials (e.g., possibly Bush v. Gore).
No. 9: Unfortunately, many judges use their discretion in such a way as to favor one side or the other. I have observed this, especially when it’s pro per v. represented party, or when its State v. Defendant, whether or not the defendant if represented.
No. 10: Often judges are stingy at enforcing the Constitution, particularly (and among others) the Fourth Amendment in recent years. Judges usually treat the Fourth Amendment as a “mere technicality” that should be overcome no matter how illegally the evidence was gathered by the police.
david giacalone
February 17, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Thank you for taking the time to comment, Daniel. You are quite correct that the appearance of fairness is often highly important to the acceptance of a loss. #5 is one of the aspirational items that I hope judges will take to heart. In civil matters (except perhaps monumentally important political ones that get to the state or federal Supreme Court), I don’t believe the courts worry too much about pacifying the public.
Please come back and comment often.