There is maxim of law - everyone is supposed to know the law.
Confidence in the establishment and in the Courts is at the lowest level ever! We have a crisis of confidence that is not only acute, but of epidemic proportions. Just about everyone complains = quite accurately -- that complaints against judges and corrupt attorneys not only goes nowhere, but the lawyer disciplinary commissions are criminal enterprises engaging in a cover-up of despicable corruption. For instance, the Mary Sykes and Alice Gore cases cannot be reconciled with America's core values. The Tim Lahrman arrest on 17 year old charges is outrageous and demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of the concept of Innocent until proven guilty and the presumption of innocence.
Each election we are faced with a judicial ballot that could choke a horse! Hundreds of names are listed on the ballot. Who these people are is anyone guess. Talk to you lawyer about who his voting for for judge and if he truthful he will tell you - judge x, judge y and whomever's name sound good to him. This means that competent people who want to be judges are over-looked and what we have is a lottery.
Such is not confidence building. When you appear before Judge x and he/she says something that you disagree with - rightly or wrongly, or rules in a manner that you do not like the first thought you have is "The Judge is wire" If the judge ultimately rules in your favor and you have not provided him with some extracurricular compensation you feel that this time you dodged a bullet.
Mark - you expressed the fact that all you wanted from the Court was a fair and impartial hearing by a judge who you were confident knows the law. I agree with you and think that it is not too much to ask.
Lawyers to maintain their licenses in most states have to attend x hours of continuing education courses. This requirement is mostly to assure that the public obtains competent legal representation. At least the public knows that the lawyer they hired has by osmosis at least heard some legal thoughts.
The Judge is a different story. Yes, we voted for him, but, we've all written at one time or another to the Judicial Inquiry Board. Has anyone every heard back?
Thus, the public has justified frustration.
I have no solution to this frustration; however, it has occurred to me that we can be assured that Judge x is not senile, not a robot, and has some knowledge of the law. We can do this by a simple and inexpensive test.
The judge has a finite term in office - except Federal Judges who are in office for life. Every lawyer in order to obtain a law license has to pass the bar examine. This examination is given annually to every applicant and is intended to weed out the individuals who lack sufficient knowledge to practice law. Just about every litigant wonders: "How did Judge x pass the bar?" When there are too many Judge X's around the public loses confidence.
I have no solution for Judge X being on the take, being wired, or having a conflict of interest. Those are case by case situations that the criminal justice system has to address. The presumption of innocence also applies to Judges. HOWEVER, I do know a way to assure the public that when they appear before Judge x that he is entitled to respect and knows the law.
99.9% of us what to know that Judge X is competent. We want to know that he was not a misfire in the lottery, but really knows the law. Simply put - he is not a hack or an accident. There is a very simple way to build up the confidence of the public in the judiciary. It is:
Prior to be slated (and/or sworn in) as a judge the candidate for judge or retention as a judge must pass the very same Bar examination as the lawyers who are candidates for admission to the bar.
To make lessen the stress on the judges and to reduce the time of the examination, the examination would be oral administered by three law professors (picked at random from a pool of all the law professors in the State) and be video recorded so that cheating is not only impossible but readily detected.
Thus, when I appear before Judge X I am certain that he is not senile, is not a hack **** and he knows the law. This gives me confidence. It also assures that State Senator Y's brother in law is not judging my case.
Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.