Judges Code of Conduct Improvement Strategies

A judicial impropriety occurs when a judge disregards existing legal standards expected of him /her when they are discharging their roles during judicial proceedings. For instance, a judge who does not base his or her ruling on the evidence provided and the applicable laws but disregards a defendant while giving undue advantage to the prosecutor or the litigant commits judicial impropriety (Leyland & Anthony, 2016). Judicial impropriety has been reported Judiciary of the United States on several occasions. For instance, Judge Sharon Keller of the Court of Appeal in Texas was accused of judicial impropriety when he ordered the closure of the courtroom by 5 pm. She did so with the intention of blocking an appeal by a person sentenced to execution (Equal Justice Initiative, 2015). Such cases exemplify the extent of judicial impropriety in the American judicial system.

Several factors contribute to the impropriety in the American judicial system. The first one relates to the method used in bringing the judges to office. At the state and federal level, judges come to office through an election system. Elections as a way of choosing judges greatly compromise their objectivity in carrying out their judicial duties. The process of campaigning requires enormous resources, and each judge may not have. Consequently, they largely rely on financial support from different people and groups with the promise of favorable judicial determinations. Consequently, the elected ones are often under political influence and may not be objective leading to judicial impropriety (Taylor & Denyer, 2014). Therefore, the appointment of judges via committee would be a solution to this threat of judicial impropriety. The committee would vet every applicant and choose judges on merit. This will eliminate a feeling of indebtedness that would compromise their objectivity in undertaking their judicial functions. Moreover, it will ensure that only judges of high integrity and highest academic and moral qualifications are appointed.
Although the committee can potentially suffer from graft issues, several stop-gap measures can help to prevent this graft. First, the committee should constitute of people with proven records of high integrity. A member of this committee should ensure that they are not accused of any ethical or moral misconduct. It also ensures that the public has trust in the integrity and the competency of the committee members. Secondly, the committee should comprise of people from diverse backgrounds. The strategy ensures that when a section of the committee is battling graft issues, the other section is flawless and able to check the other faction. Thirdly, there should be strict legal provisions that outline consequences for graft among the committee members. The consequences of any impropriety and compromise by graft must be so dire to prevent any person from engaging in such an action. Although graft can potentially compromise the committee, the stop-gap measures will prevent such influence and ensure objectivity in the process of appointing judges.

The American Constitution has provided recourse for a judge who violates the constitution and the rule of law. For instance, a person who fails to obtain justice from a court of law has the right to seek redress at the Court of Appeal and ultimately at the Supreme Court. This systematic system enables one to seek equality when he or she feels that the lower court has violated the provisions of the constitution and the existing law (Sharpe, 2010). Secondly, judges who violate the provisions of the constitution in their judgment and overall conduct must face prosecution. Whereas judicial immunity covers judges’ judicial functions, it does not cover their criminal activity. Judges who perpetrate judicial impropriety must face the full arm of the law. In the case of Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974), the US Supreme Court observed that when a judge violates the provisions of the Constitution, he or she puts himself or herself in a position that conflicts the superior power than what the constitution provides (Leyland & Anthony, 2016). Consequently, such a judge ought to be stripped off his or official power and face the legal consequences of their actions in their capacity.

Where a judge offers a dishonest ruling or abuses his or her discretion, the United States Constitution outlines a set of legal consequences. The constitution provides for the formation of an investigative committee to look into the complaints against the conduct of judicial officers. Each state has a board that investigates complaints against the judges. Moreover, U.S.C 372 (c) provides for a legal mechanism for an investigation into judicial misconduct (Taylor & Denyer, 2014). However, the consequence of such misconduct often is the removal from the office of a judge. In most cases, anyone who is found to have engaged in judicial impropriety is removed from office. The prosecutor must follow up with the judge and prosecute any such misconduct if they fall under criminal law. However, the judicial system does not initiate such investigation.

The legal consequences are not adequate in addressing judicial impropriety. Firstly, the review boards fail to deliver any meaningful justice in complains regarding fabricated ruling or abuse of court behavior. Normally, the boards do not have the jurisdiction to review the merits of the evidence presented before the court and the factors the influenced the judge to make particular decisions. They argue that doing so will greatly compromise the independence of the judiciary (Faragher, 2015). Therefore, these existing controls are not adequate in addressing the concern of judicial impropriety. Secondly, in cases where the judicial officer is found guilty, the law does not provide for the judiciary to indicate any criminal persecution against them. However, the judge can be dismissed from duty on ethical grounds. It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to pick the matter and prosecute if he or she so wishes. Therefore, there are no serious legal implications of judicial impropriety under the federal legal framework.

There is a need for reforms both a policy formulation framework and the legislative approach in dealing with judicial impropriety. Firstly, the Congress must consider enacting laws with strict penalties for individual judges found guilty of judicial impropriety. Such consequences must include intended years of imprisonments and high fines and financial consequences. This will deter judges from engaging in judicial impropriety and decide on cases before them objectively and by the laws and evidence presented. Secondly, the law must be amended to give the boards that investigate judicial misconduct prosecutorial powers. Therefore, if such a board determines that a particular judicial officer has been engaged in judicial impropriety, the board can prosecute them. Moreover, the board should have the discretion to review the merits of a case that was presided over by a particular judge without being perceived to have interfered with the independence of the judges. The judges must not be allowed to hide under judicial independence when committing judicial improprieties (Carmona, 2014). The two policy and legislative actions will empower the review boards to be more effective in regulating Judicial improprieties.

There should be no political or financial pressure put on judges in the course of their duty because the practice compromises their objectivity and the independence. For instance, a judge who is under political pressure will be forced to determine cases in favor of those political actors placing pressure on him or her. Consequently, this will undermine the impartiality of judicial officers, and hence the judiciary will fail to deliver justice, as it ought to. Therefore, judges should not be put under any political or financial pressure.

Lastly, judges should have higher ethical standards compared to people seeking other elective offices. The nature of work that the constitution gives judges is largely dependent on morality, ethics, and overall integrity of the individual judge. Unlike other political leaders, the judicial system has a role of self-regulation while rendering justice to the community. The ability to offer an impartial judgment largely depends on an individual moral ethics and integrity. Consequently, a judge whose integrity is questionable can easily be compromised and hence may not be able to give a fair ruling. On the contrary, other elective positions are not so much dependent on an individual’s judgment of facts and evaluation of law. Therefore, the public must demand high standards of integrity from those seeking to hold Judicial Offices.

In summation, judicial impropriety is an issue that continues to threaten the ability of judicial systems to dispense justice. The election system of getting judges to office largely predisposes them to be the political and financial influence that impairs their objectivity and impartiality. Therefore, there is need to consider constituting committees that will vet and appoint judges to office. Whereas the legal system provides for stopgap measures, such measures are inadequate in addressing the challenge of judicial impropriety. Lastly, there is a need to develop more legislation and formulate policies that will enhance integrity in the judicial systems.


References
Carmona, C. G. (2014). Enhancing the Capacity of Judges to Resolve Election Disputes. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(2), 112-135.
Equal Justice Initiative (2015). Arkansas Supreme Court Holds Miller v. Alabama Is Retroactive. Equal Justice Initiative. Retrieved from https://eji.org/news/arkansas-holds-miller-v-alabama-is-retroactive
Faragher, C. (2015). Grounds for judicial review: procedural impropriety, natural justice, and legitimate expectation. Public Law Concentrate, 165-178.
Leyland, P., & Anthony, G. (2016). 17. Procedural impropriety II: common law rules. Textbook on Administrative Law (DRAFT), 394-440.
Sharpe, S. (2010). Judicial Discretion and Investigative Impropriety. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 1(2), 149-158.
Taylor, N., & Denyer, J. R. (2014). Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety. The Journal of Criminal Law, 78(1), 43-64.