Ethics and Judges Federal Judges Are Duty

Ethics and Judges

Federal Judges are duty bound to adhere to a system of ethics, generally referred to as the "Code of Conduct for United States Judges," which has been officially sanctioned by the Judicial Conference of the United States. This code of conduct, based on a set of ethical guidelines, has been adopted for the purpose of informing Federal judges about what conduct is expected of them so that they may exercise their judicial duties in a fair and ethical manner. It also advises judges as to their behavior outside of their judicial duties so that not only will they act in an impartial manner when adjudicating cases, but will also maintain the appearance of impartiality as well. This is especially important since many judges engage in extra-judicial activities such as lecturing, writing, teaching, etc., and must maintain their impartiality when adjudicating cases. However, in the past, judges' personal feelings were often the basis for the sentences they handed out, and as a result, many different criminals, all convicted of the same crime, received very different sentences. Because the judiciary must remain impartial and fair, in 1984, the U.S. Congress enacted the "Sentencing Reform Act of 1984," which sought to remove discretionary power from judges and set a sentencing guide model by which judges are required to follow.

It is generally accepted that there are a number of guidelines by which codes of ethics can be judged to be effective or not. These include an established set of standards and procedures which effectively reduce the chance of unethical behavior, a system of oversight, the delegation of authority to responsible people, a system of communicating its code of ethics to its members, a system of monitoring and detecting unethical behavior, consistent enforcement of the code by an overall authority, and a willingness to make changes when violations occur. ("Section II") The Federal judiciary has adopted a code of conduct that is based on these principles, however, it was not the Judiciary branch of government that adopted the mandatory sentencing guidelines, it was Congress. This brings up an interesting question about the ethical behavior of Federal judges before the implementation of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act.

Because Congress was forced to enact a law that regulated the actions of judges, one must ask if the actions of the judges prior to the enactment of the law was ethical. According to the "Code of Conduct for United States Judges," Canon one states that a judge is responsible to "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." ("Code of Conduct for United States Judges") A judge should conform their conduct, both on the bench and off, to maintain that they do not tarnish the position of judge. Otherwise, a judge's rulings will not be seen as being fair and independent, and having possibly been influenced by an outside source. This is particularly important when comparing sentences for the same crime between judges. When different criminals receive different sentences for the same exact crimes, the integrity of judges comes into question and it appears as if the judges may have been influenced in their sentencing decisions.

The second Canon in the code of conduct for judges states that a "Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." ("Code of Conduct for United States Judges") Judges are expected to not only comply with the laws themselves, but should also not allow outside influences like politics, family, religion, financial issues or relationships to influence their conduct or judgments. It is very difficult not to make the case that different judges allow personal, or some other outside force, to influence their sentences when there was such a disparity among sentences for similar crimes. Next, Canon three of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires that "a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently." ("Code of Conduct for United States Judges") Not only does this require a judge to remain courteous and respectful to everyone in their courtroom, but is requires a judge to act in a fair and impartial manner. In respect to sentencing guidelines, this means that a judge should not be swayed by public opinion, political interests, or the words of critics. In the past, however, the high irregularity among sentences indicates that judges were possibly being swayed by these influences and therefore Congress was forced to act.

The final two canons of the code of conduct involves extrajudicial activities such as speaking, teaching, financial interests, social, political, and civic activities, and other such actions. Canon four states that "a judge may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of judicial office," while Canon five asserts that "a judge should refrain from political activity." ("Code of Conduct for United States Judges") While these too ensure that a judges behavior remains impartial, as well as retaining the appearance of impartiality, a judges financial and political activities had little influence over their sentencing of convicted criminals.