Category: Judge

The adversary system is the method of trial used within Australia’s legal system. Under this system, two sides come before an independent and impartial court to prove their allegations (Australian law, 2017). This process requires parties to prepare their own case and submit appropriate evidence to a certain standard to substantiate their claim (Year 12 Legal Studies, 2016). This system is utilised throughout all legal courts in Australia and was the system used for the Queensland case between JAA and R. The applicant, JAA, pleaded guilty to two offences; assault resulting in bodily harm, while armed and trafficking in a dangerous drug as a vicious lawless associate. After 5 months, JAA was sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment, suspended after two years have been served.

Previously, the applicant JAA had been sentenced to prison August 2017 under the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD) criminal law, after pleas of guilty for all the offences of assault resulting in bodily harm whilst armed as well as trafficking dangerous drugs. Under the VLAD act, the mandatory sentence for the serious organised crime aggravation was a cumulative sentence of seven years, served in a corrective services facility. However, JAA wished for a repeal of the VLAD Act as it had been replaced by Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Act 2016. This meant there was no power to impose any sentence as it has been discontinued. A repeal hearing was organised about this matter in the supreme court of Brisbane on 21 December 2018, with judges Sofronoff P and Douglas and Brown JJ. The new judge Sofronoff P, considered that if it were not for the simultaneous circumstances, the original sentence would have resulted in seven years’ imprisonment. However, the applicant made very substantial claims and cooperated significantly with the administration of justice. Combined with the circumstances of the assault and the aggravation involved, the honourable judges made the decision that a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for five years suspended after two years has been served would be suitable. Furthermore, the suspended sentences will have an operational period of five years. (Supreme Court Library Queensland, 2019)

Sentencing encourages the accused to never commit the crime against as they’ve been punished by having to complete an undesirable situation. In this case, JAA was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment (suspended after 2 Years) to encourage him to never participate in drug trafficking again or assaulting another person. Sentencing plays a large role as it is the outcome of the entire court process, it is the reason why it occurs. To find out what crime was committed and bring justice to the wrong doing. The sentencing process enforces the criminal to never commit the crime by subjecting a type of punishment. Thusly, sentencing is one of the most effective parts of the legal system as it punishes the offender, makes them rethink their action to never commit them again. The courtroom has very distinctive features, with the judge onlooking everyone within the courtroom. As the judge gives the verdict if the jury are not present, I would be necessary for the judge to be able to see everyone in court. As the accused has little interaction with the courts proceedings, there placement is pushed to the back. The bench is where barristers defend/accuse people of the matter. Thusly the location of the bench is closest to the judge. This layout allows for the most active roles to be closer to the judge which makes it easier to hear and not misinterpret.

The formatting of the courtroom with the judge sitting above everyone is indeed intimidating. Also, by pushing the accused to the back of the room (in the dock) makes them feel like the power has been taken out of their hands.

The Judge Associate plays a much larger role in the order of the court than at first expected. The Associate role is to give a confidential aide to the Judge if the judge is to have any concerns. However, the main roles include; conducting legal research, dealing with court staff, the press and the public and noting judge arraignments, recording of verdicts in criminal trials and recording orders (Queensland Courts, 2019). The Judge associate allows the court to run smoothly as the judge can put their focus towards the orders of the case and taking each fact into consideration and not waste time of extra organisational matters.

During our Courts systems and practices class, professor Blake-Larson had assigned our class a reaction paper. I personally thought to myself that it would make me look crazy walking into the courthouse asking if they had any public cases some classmates and I could sit in on and gather interesting information on to help include into the paper.

Entering the parking garage next to the Tim Curry Criminal Court building it was quite empty at 8 a.m. waiting until a couple others arrived I got out and walked to the Tim Curry building. I had never been to a courthouse prior to April 6th, 2018, drove past many times while in downtown doing volunteer work. I had no idea they sent you through a security checkpoint like the airports. It makes sense since some people go crazy while they’re there for what ever reason, i.e.: serving on a jury, seek protective orders from violence, getting married, witness of a crime, claiming money. Being completely honest it was the most nerve-racking thing I’ve gone and done. All these jurors standing in the longest line amongst the six elevators in order get to their assigned floor and courtroom. Every time one of the chrome elevator doors opened up it was completely full like nobody was exiting on the floors it was going up and down too. Sadly it felt like we waited, waited and waited until elevator one finally opened back up and four of us were able to squeeze in like sardines on the muggy elevator. That alone made the anticipation of finding our courtroom that much worse all of us thought they would have employees of some kind to help direct people in the right direction.

Upon walking the halls of the 5th floor looking for the courtroom they had previously told us over the phone which floor criminal court was held on. Finding CCC1 walking in the entrance was like a boxed in fish bowl with sea foam green metal supports holding the windows in. Looking through the windows so confused they had so many people sitting in the benches waiting to listen to the case we originally thought was going to take place. Going in to find an open seat away from all these people, everyone started staring as I sat down, the look of you don’t look like you should be here. The bailiff an Judge David Cook walked in from the front right hand corner and asked everyone to rise, sat down and asked everyone to take a seat. Something I noticed was that everyone who went to speak with the Judge Cook was addressing him by “your honor”. Judge Cook began reading off the court docket; similar to being in school when the teacher/professors take attendance seeing whom all had shown up. Before everything seemed to start beginning I went up to the bailiffs desk and informed him why I was there. I told him I had this reaction paper I needed to do and was required to have the Certification of Authentication signed by someone in the courtroom. I had bailiff, Deputy Lorenzo Macias sign my certificate before they started expecting that they were going to be doing a trial after people showed up.

There were tons of attorneys coming in speaking with a court worker at the stand, receiving paperwork and having their offenders sign and date the paper work before they were able to stand before the Judge Cook. The attorneys one by one went when he called the offenders name to speak with them in the hallway to discuss what was fixing to take place. Not realizing which courtroom we had gone into besides it being a criminal court, we were over hearing what they had been saying at the stand. And began charging them with all misdemeanor charges of all degrees. The first man to appear came in from behind the courtroom where a holding cells; I’m assuming were back there. He was wearing a grey and white stripped jumpsuit and was charged with a class B misdemeanor on a marijuana possession under 2oz’s. The maximum punishment of $2,000 or 180 days in county jail, Judge Cook only gave him 10 days time served. Additionally after he gets out he will be on 6 months suspended/cancelled drivers license. The second inmate came in after he dismissed the one before him was also in a grey stripped jumpsuit and was getting release on probation for destruction of a highway. He had previously been adjudicated and pleads guilty on free will. He received credit for time served while in jail. A third came in wearing a bright orange jumpsuit and was found guilty of interference of an emergency call; receiving a year in jail. A lady in street clothes walked up from the hard yellow bench seats when her name was called, proceeded to the Judges stand had been convicted of destruction of a highway sign involving a DWI charge. She pleads guilty to a class B misdemeanor with a $200 fine with a day in jail. Judge Cook gave her community service and a donation of $150 to the Tarrant County Food Bank. In fact Judge Cook had made multiple people make a $150 donation to the food bank plus pay their court fees, I thought it was weird but if people have to keep spending extra money to help get off bond or not go to jail then I guess its worth it. One of the larger set guy came and the sheriff asked what his name was and he proceeded to tell him, he then told him to go sit in one of the chairs next to the bailiffs desk and empty his pockets and everything on him; to put everything in a small 6×12 plastic bag. He went to the stand after being arrested behind the doors and was charged with assault against a family member which happened to be his mom. He was illegally restraining himself from authorities he was sentenced to 20 days in county jail for pleading guilty. The final offender was brought to the stand where he was found guilty of assault and harassment a class B misdemeanor with a fine of $500. Judge Cook put him on 20 months probation and if he had a reoccurrence he would be sentenced to 6 months in jail.

This was an interesting assignment that didn’t involve doing research. Aside from sitting through a docket court instead of sitting in an actual active trial was a little upsetting, I think it would have been really fun to experience an actual trial with a very tough Judge. I personally think some of the people that were being on the stand should have received a better sentence. I wish we were able to fly to Judge Judy and sit in on one of hers; sadly she isn’t in criminal court (sad face).

Today I will be telling the story of moments in my life where I have been judged on something other than my character. When I was in the sixth grade I was judged on how I was fat as the kids said. In the seventh grade as well as in eighth grade I was judged because I came out as pansexual. I have been judged my whole life because I was different. I have been judged because my mother is a teacher and I got treated differently than everyone else, I got judged because at recess I read instead of playing basketball or football. Everyone gets judged at one point or another in their life I just happen.

When I was in the sixth grade I was bigger than a lot of other kids and I was judged and made fun of for it. I grew up with kids that would always say that rhyme saying sticks and stones as if sticks and stones hurt worse than the names that I got called. Sixth grade was hard for me because I was also judged by one of my teachers someone who is supposed to guide me in life and teach me because she didn’t like me. I was a very talkative kid and I had trouble focusing and staying on task. Bullying happens and there will never be a way to change that but growing up being bullied sucked I was mentally hurt every day.

When I was in the seventh grade I came out as pansexual and at first, no one really said anything. But then kids would whisper and snicker as I walked down the hallway and then they started to voice their opinions. I was told that I would be going to hell or I was called a faggot. I was told that who I was, was wrong and that I either needed to pretend I was straight until it stuck or just never allow myself to be me. (People say kids will be kids but when according to the c.d.c. when over 14 percent of teens kill themselves because of bullying that’s a problem).

When I was in the eighth grade it just got worse I was judged on a daily basis, I heard snickers as I walked through the hallway, and I watched people talk badly about me. As the year went on I got bullied more and more and it got to the point where I was thrown into a siege of depression and that got so bad I wanted to commit suicide, and that sucked I gave all of those kids who hurt my power. One day the kid who had judged me 9 times out of 10 took a hat of mine that had extreme sentimental value to it and in response I punched him in the face and before it could go any further our English teacher yelled that’s enough. We both got sent to the principal’s office and I ended up getting two days of in-school suspension. I decide I was done dealing with the pain and anger pent up within me, so I decide to stop giving them power. Maybe there was something wrong at home but that gave them no right to mentally and physically harm me.

In conclusion, I have been bullied or in the case of this essay judged basically my entire life maybe because I like reading rather than playing football or maybe because I am pansexual and have blue hair, but that doesn’t make it right. If someone asked me today what I wanted to be I would say a teacher or someone who works in a school so If I see bullying I can do something more than yell at them to stop. in sixth grade maybe it was my fault that my teacher didn’t like me but that gave them no right to do what they did. In seventh grade I didn’t come out as someone new I came out as myself then the judges just got more ammo. I have been bullied I wear those scars but I will not let those scars affect me.

Whites are the superior race to every other race like blacks. Harper Lee made the book To kill a mockingbird about how one race gets all and the others get nothing. Tom Robinson is a black man and he went to court and almost won the case.

Don’t judge a book by its cover, because nobody is really who they seem to be.

Tom Robinson was a black man accused of raping a white girl and was sent to jail for committing the crime because he is black. Mayella Ewell in her final words said, “I got something to say and I ain’t going to say it no more. That negro over yonder took advantage of me.” (Lee, 181) In saying that sentence Tom gets sent to jail and later dies of a gunshot.

Dill was saying to Scout that Jem was acting more like a girl every day, and Scout agreed. It relates to the theme because it was saying that a guy (Jem) was acting more like a girl every day and it goes to show that you should never judge a book by its cover. Another example of this happening is that Scout, a girl, calls her older brother a girl every single day. Atticus was the best lawyer anyone could have asked for and he was assigned to help a black man. Atticus was accused of not being the best lawyer anymore because he was assigned to a negro and lost the case. Atticus was also called names like negro lover and other mean names by the people and this shows that not all people are good and people cannot be judged by a singular cover. Boo was a rare character and he was known in the book to be a bad character that ate others and never did any good. When Jem and Scout were walking home after a play they had, they were attacked by someone, and after Jem was knocked out Boo came and helped them both by killing the stranger who turned out to be Bob Ewell. Boo was said to be all mean and here he came killing to protect the people that protected him from himself, which is yet another way to show my theme. Scout is called a tomboy every day that she walks outside, and she likes it. Jem and everyone else in the book calls her a tomboy, and she then goes on as a tomboy for the rest of the book. She also likes to be called a boy sometimes and there is the last connection–to never judge a book by its cover.

Heck, Tate is the sheriff of Maycomb county and he will do whatever he can to protect Maycomb and its citizens. Heck, Tate has conversed with Atticus about cases for him to defend the accused or vice versa. First of all, he told Atticus he should oppose the accused for a case that was announced in the book. Second, off he tells Atticus to defend a negro after getting accused of rape. He also was the one to accuse the negro of raping an innocent white girl and he was also the one to tell robbers to get away from a store. Third off Heck Tate went to Bob Ewell’s house and saw Mayella Ewell beaten around the face and had hand and finger marks around her neck. Forth off he went to the store one day and there was a negro that worked at a grocery store Bob Ewell was following her calling her names and he saw the actions and told him to stay on his lawn when she walks by and stay there or he will get arrested. Heck, Tate goes up to give his testimony about Mayella and what happened the day she was supposedly rapped. He was telling the truth about what he saw and he saw her beaten on the floor with bruise marks around her face therefore he was protecting someone in his county. He went to help a negro girl feel safe going to and from work by telling people to stop bugging her. He was going to the grocery store when he saw a negro in a phone booth with a man outside looking into it and he told the man to back off and let her go and told him to go home. He told Bob Ewell to stop following the girl and leave her alone and stay at his home. The Doctor from the television show Doctor Who is a protector of mankind and has never let anything stop him. Heck, Tate and the Doctor are protecting something that they care dearly for and they will stop at nothing to protect it. Both have protected what they needed to for a long time and helped many people and have both fought battles and almost never lost.

In North Carolina, a judge of the state Supreme Court was blamed for delivering a verdict that apparently sides with pedophiles. In a different case, Illinois witnessed a bizarre attempt by the plaintiff’s lawyers to use millions of dollars to topple a judge who was hearing a case that involves large sums of money. These and many other examples illustrate just how the process of selecting judges has been interfered with by politicians, has become polarized, and is now the playground for special interests. With the majority of states using elections as the main process for filling judicial vacancies, the trends are not going to change any time soon.

Debates over how judges are to be selected are often framed as being a decision between hard-fought elections and selection by merit. In case of contested elections, the nominating commission approves or disapproves of those who are vying after they are appointed by the governor and then present themselves for elections (Neubauer & Fradella, 2018). Yet, the selection of judges based on merit is often structured in a way that reveals its weaknesses such as the application of retention elections which eventually become expensive and politicized, and the absence of sufficient processes for recruiting the candidates.

It is a matter of fact that states ought to consider coming up with a new blueprint for reforms in judicial selection. Such reforms should be premised on the knowledge that people already have about the current selection systems which inhibit the important values of the state. Failures of the current systems include impeding the independence of the judiciary, the legitimacy of democracy as well as the diversity of those occupying the judicial bench. More particularly, empirical evidence has proven that election for retention place a lot of pressure on the candidates and threatens the fairness of courts. Yet, it remains to be a process that demonstrates just how weak states are since judges are often reconsidered for retention. Reforms that would ensure that the country moves past these debates could involve coming up with better selection methods that would address the problems presently facing the courts.

The debates on the various strategies for selecting judges have also been based on whether merit selection ensures that fairness and diversity in the judiciary are maintained. There are those who suspect that the merit selection system will be biased against minorities and women. This thought arises from the fact that the commissions for doing the selection may be dominated by members who are from a particular social grouping (Goelzhauser, 2018). For example, there are commissions that have been formed with predominantly white people, males, conservative people, or even Protestants. This composition of the selection committee may bar women and judges from minority groups from getting an opportunity to serve in the judiciary (Carpeneti & Frazer, 2018). There must be diversity on the bench and therefore women and minority groups must be as represented as any other groups of citizens. Nonetheless, only a few empirical researchers have come out to criticize the merit selection process.

The merit selection involves choosing members of the judicial bench by applying a nonpartisan commission of lawyers as well as other people who may not be lawyers. The commission is the one that locates possible candidates, recruits, investigates, and evaluates them. The commission then goes ahead to submit the names of the people whom they have found to be most qualified to the governor of the state who is the appointing authority (Esterling & Andersen, 1999). The governor then appoints the persons who he or she deems fit to take the job. If the judges are to be selected for subsequent office terms, they are evaluated again either by the same commission or elected in an election that should not involve campaigning.

It should, however, be known that merit selection does not guarantee lifetime judgeship as it happens with the federal judicial system. While each state has its own details about the merit selection process, the systems ensure that the appointed judges are to be elected by voters once they have made a judicial record for themselves. The method of merit selection is also one that does not totally eliminate politics in filling judgeship vacancies (Neubauer & Fradella, 2018). Nonetheless, it minimizes the influence of politicians since it eliminates the need for candidates to campaign as politicians do. It means that a judicial candidate does not raise campaign funds, advertise himself or herself, or even campaign to get the attention of voters. If these activities are allowed in the selection of judges, the independence of the judiciary would be compromised.

Merit selection solves the problems that come with the election of judges. Democracy needs that people make choices based on information. Sometimes, the number of candidates in a large area can be so big that the voters cannot satisfactorily make an informed choice about them. At the same time, candidates in most states run unopposed and the voters find themselves not able to make a choice at all (Neubauer & Fradella, 2018). There are also other challenges that arise in such elections. First, the expectation of the public to get a fair judicial hearing becomes compromised due to the political pressure that comes with elections. In fact, there are certain states where a judicial candidate has to campaign in order to be nominated after which he can be elected or not. This has the potential to compromise the independence of the judge in the future.

In partisan states where the election is the process used to fill judicial vacancies, political credentials are given the first priority. In many states, judgeships are about political favors. As such, a judge who has been elected to the bench will be expected to carry with him or her, a load of obligations to the people who assisted him or her to win the election. In the same way, there are many qualified lawyers who do not have the right political credentials who miss out when an election system is used. Merit selection is therefore able to widen the pool from which the committee that chooses judges can make its choice (Goelzhauser, 2018). In addition, since most of those who campaign to get judgeship positions are not able to personally finance those campaigns, they will often find themselves having to raise that money. Much of the funds they get come from lawyers who will even appear in front of them while representing clients. This will most likely affect the fairness of the courts.

So, practically, the merit system is by far much better than the elective system. The elective system cannot satisfactorily uphold the principles of democracy whether it is partisan or nonpartisan. The traditional rhetoric that accompanies campaigns has no place in judicial elections since voters will not have sufficient information on which to base their decisions (Esterling & Andersen, 1999). Contrarily, merit selection is the best system because it gets rid of unqualified applicants and ensures that the most qualified applicants get a chance to be appointed. Additionally, those who seek to be judgeship candidates are spared the hustle of having to campaign and raise funds. Furthermore, the emphasis of the merit system is on professional qualifications rather than the connections that candidates have with politicians.

It should also be acknowledged that judges who take positions on the bench are selected in a manner that they find themselves free from the obligations that they would otherwise have on attorneys who financed them. A candidate who is highly qualified is put in a situation in which he or she will serve the people without being compromised by any special interests (Neubauer & Fradella, 2018). With the merit selection system, women and minorities stand a better chance of succeeding in their applications. Since merit selection emphasizes a person’s qualifications, women and people from minority groups will be considered in the process of selecting judges. A woman is more likely to become an appellate judge when chosen through the merit system than when elections are involved.

In conclusion, it is clear that the manner in which judges are selected greatly influences the kinds of courts and justice that America has. Numerous states have embraced various judicial selection processes which have turned out to be highly politicized and polarized. While there is a high level of awareness about the problems which face courts at the state level, the majority of the suggested solutions have not fully been able to solve the problems. It is time for America to rethink the judicial selection method, perhaps be more innovative and get the best selection method applied across all states. For now, the selection of judges by merit appears to be the best of those that are currently in place. However, this does not mean that selection by merit is a perfect method. By sifting out the unqualified judges and employing the most qualified, this process is better than the others. Merit selection ensures that emphasis is placed on the candidates’ qualifications and not on the political credentials they have.

References

1. Carpeneti, W. L., & Frazer, B. (2018). Merit Selection of Judges in Alaska: The Judicial Council, the Independence of the Judiciary, and the Popular Will. Alaska L. Rev., 35, 205.
2. Esterling, K. M., & Andersen, S. S. (1999). Diversity and the judicial merit selection process: a statistical report. Research on Judicial Selection, 2, 2-39.
3. Goelzhauser, G. (2018). Does Merit Selection Work? Evidence from Commission and Gubernatorial Choices. Journal of Law and Courts, 6(1), 155-187.
4. Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.

I believe in ‘Never judge a book by its cover’. This is a common statement made throughout our lives. It literally relates to reading a book before you make an opinion on it. But it also relates to individuals and thoughts. First impressions do have a huge factor in our generation today. We are human; it’s just a part of human nature!

Everyone can remember the school’s first days. We all went through the large gates, wondering what school would be like and who we’d meet. I remember thinking that I knew exactly who my friends would be, from the very first glance. But as days became months and months transformed into a semester, I knew some of my people’s first impressions were totally incorrect. Just look at somebody we believe we understand him/her, but the reality is the first impression that is nothing more than a cover-up of a profound and complicated tale.

There was a janitor in my elementary school who looked very old and crusty. He looked at first glance like an ancient, tall, and firm sea captain with a glimpse of history in his eyes. I was afraid of him when I first saw him, but as days went by I saw him in a new light. He knew the students’ names and addressed them politically with their names. He spoke kindly to everyone and often asked them about their school lives. I misjudged him, although he looked harsh and frightening on the outside, he had a golden heart inside.

My secondary school was the same as others; there were the jocks, the popular children, and the crazy children that most people always try to avoid. I had always labeled people in a different category. To me, everybody had a group to mingle with each other, but never with another group. However, one day during the PT class, I was proved wrong when some special-care students came to join us in cricket. Everyone was split into two teams, and the game started. As the game proceeded, one of the special-care boys came up to bat. He was mostly wheel-chaired bound, and other students had to help him do everything. With the help of some teammates, the ball was put into play, and in front of my very eyes, I saw my classmates from all the different groups working together. They held his hands and helped him walk from the crease to the crease; all the time, the other team was purposefully fumbling and trickling. Everyone was cheering for him from both teams, and as he passed the crease and settled back into his wheelchair, everyone came together to congratulate him, and I saw a smile of happiness for scoring winning runs.

We all see people in our own ways, good, bad, funny, or serious, but until we get to understand them better, or until something comes along and opens our eyes, we can not really know what they really are like. So, this is why I believe that we should never judge a book by its cover.