In a bid to ensure justice, the judicial officers experience a lot of challenges. Some of them stem from ethics, independency of the judiciary corruption among others that affect the public confidence on the judiciary. Judiciary often experience a few restraints that affect its service delivery. This paper discusses the parts of the Constitution that provide for ethical practice of the judicial professionals; the efforts they make to ensure they espouse the Constitution; how they use the social justice ideologies of fairness as well as cohesion, and human rights to provide a more evenhanded society. In the second part, the paper explains theories of criminal behaviors and how the judiciary professionals use them in their practice it further explains the main issues that currently face judiciary professionals giving some of the proposals to address them.
Part 1
United States Constitution and how it relates to ethical standards of the judiciary professionals
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The constitution of the US is a major source for ethical standards. It provides ethical standards for both lawyers and advocates in the judicial service. The first is Article III Section 2, Clause 2. This section grants the Supreme Court an Appeal jurisdiction in both fact and law. This clause provides those criminally charged with a second trial at the appellate level. Section 2 extends the judicial power to all cases to be conducted in law and equity (Yang, Chen, & Bennett, 2015).
The second it the Sixth Amendment. This part of the US law accords criminal defendants liberties (Balkin, 2013). One of the liberties is a right to speedy trial. This right ensures that trial are not postponed but commenced to provide the criminal defendant with justice in a timely manner. When trial is postponed, often witnesses disappear, memory gets lost and sometimes evidences are destroyed hampering the delivery of justice (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). As such, to ensure that the judiciary acts with ethics, they need to speed up the criminal defendants a speedy trial. Also, the right to impartial jury as provided by the sixth amendment seeks to ensure that Judges act with impartiality in their ruling. The six amendment additionally provides the criminal defendant with a right to a public trial (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). This ensures that a criminal defendant or accused is informed of all the impending charges to be leveled against them to prepare adequately for their defense. Further, the defendants are accorded the right to cross-examine the witnesses as well as a right to coerce favorable witnesses to give testimony during trial through the subpoena powers. Finally, the right to legal counsel is granted to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment to ensure that they have a legal representation through the hearing to ensure justice (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). To provide all the provisions of the sixth amendments is to act in agreement with the ethics of the judicial profession.
The third is Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). The first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizens of the US from having either their privileges or immunities abridged or denied rights to liberties as well as due process of law and equal protection of law. Therefore, when the judicial professionals act in their profession, they are bound by the fourteenth amendment to ensure that US citizens do not have such rights denied or abused. The fourteenth amendment protects the US citizen’s fundamental rights also protected in the bill of rights. Others include the bill of rights which prohibits infringement, denial or abuse of an individual’s rights and liberties as per provided under the schedule. Finally, the supremacy clause of Article VI prohibits states from providing inadequate protection to citizens of the US as conferred by the sixth amendment.
Upholding the Constitution
The following are some of the ways Judiciary professionals use to uphold the constitution: the first is the principle of independence. Judiciary is only able to render justice when they stay independent. Independence grants the judiciary the impartiality needed in ruling on the basis of law (Ríos-Figueroa, & Staton, 2014). Consequently, they can protect the fundamental human rights and freedoms of every individual that appears before them. It follows that, judiciary professionals like judges cannot take an arbitrary action in making a decision about a case based on their own whims but that their duty remains guided by, and applies by the law. Also, judiciary professionals like prosecutors’ act with independence and impartiality to resolutely carry out investigations and prosecutions. On the other end lawyers also carry out their judicial roles with independence without any fear of reprisal.
The second is through applying the international law in practice. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that all judiciary professionals are bound by ensuring they uphold the constitution (International Bar Association, 2013). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes each individual to be equal before the courts and tribunals. As such, the treaty entitles every individual to fair hearings before competent judges who act with impartiality and independence. Judges are bound by the same treaty and therefore ensure they uphold the Constitution by carrying out their professional duties in accordance with the provisions of the treaty.
The third is through the code of conduct for the US judges. Corey, Corey, Corey, and Callanan, (2014) discusses: the code of conduct include ethical canons that guide federal judges in their official professional performances as well as their engagement in a variety of activities outside the official duties. The code of conduct for judicial judges was adopted in 1973 and has since been amended to widen its scope and ensure that judges within the US territories uphold the constitution. The Canon 1 of the judicial code of conduct requires all the federal judges to uphold the independence of the judiciary. The canons are a rule of reason consistent with the constitutional desires. Canon 2 of the judicial code of conduct also guides the judges’ conducts and requires them to avoid unseemliness in their activities. Also, judges are required to respect admonitions about ongoing cases until they are incomplete. All judges are required to comply with the code. As such, the code requires them to have respect for the law, avoid any outside influence and have a membership with a discriminatory group. To follow these standards helps the judges to uphold the constitution since they apply consistently with the constitution and aim at strengthening the ethics within the judiciary profession.
How the judiciary professionals use the social justice principles of equality, solidarity, and human rights to build a more just society
The principle of equality is a great tradition in the US civilization. Equality is the building block of social justice. Judiciary professionals ensure the use of social justice principle of equality through treating every individual equally before the law. Based on the constitution which is the guiding document for the judiciary professionals, equality principle recognized the equality of rights under the just rule of law. The judiciary professionals are bound by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure equal before the law (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). The first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizens of the US from having either their privileges or immunities abridged or denied rights to liberties as well as due process of law and equal protection of law.
Secondly, the right to an impartial jury as provided by the sixth amendment seeks to ensure that Judges act with impartiality in their ruling (Schultz, & Vile, 2015). To be impartial requires that the accused and the claimant are all regarded as equal before the law and that the law does not apply selectively. Under the sixth amendment, judges are empowered to ensure impartiality in deciding cases amongst individuals. Guided by the principle of equality, Independence grants the judiciary the impartiality needed in ruling on the basis of law. The principle of equality also enables judiciary professionals like prosecutors to acts with independence and impartiality to resolutely carry out investigations and prosecutions. Lawyers also carry out their judicial roles with independence without any fear of reprisal.
Judiciary professionals further use the principle of solidarity to build a more just society through using the twin role of the law: to express social values and to maintain a social solidarity (Libal, & Harding, 2015). Among some of the cases where the principle of solidarity will be required include when the minorities are trying to kill each other. However, a single judiciary must be the arbitrator and strikes a balance. The judicial professionals like judges thus strike a balance in a case by weighing the incommensurate and potentially incompatible values (Libal, & Harding, 2015). The court’s decision, in this case, are often informed by implicit as well as inarticulate considerations characterized by social values (Siegel, 2008).
The judiciary professionals also use the social justice principles of equality through the independence of the judiciary to achieve a just society. The independence of the judiciary allows the court an exclusive authority to make a decision based on their own competence in matters regarding civil rights and civil liberties (International Bar Association, 2013). Such rights include equality of rights without subjecting an individual to discrimination, protection against torture, protection of an individual against arbitrary arrest and hearing before an impartial and independent judge. The judicial officers rely on the constitutional empowerment by the fourteenth amendment to protect the US citizen’s fundamental rights (International Bar Association, 2013). Judges as judiciary professionals are the gatekeepers of justice and as such relies on the bill of rights which prohibits infringement, denial or abuse of an individual’s rights and liberties as per provided under the schedule to ensure the fundamental rights of every individual is not abused, infringed or denied.
Part 2
Why individuals commit crimes and criminal theory in practice
Reasons for individuals engaging in crime can be understood in five broad dimensions. According to Akers, (2013) they include an ordinary individual pushed by external circumstances to pursue crime, a normal person driven by impulse to commit a crime, neurotic criminals pushed by irresistible forces, the genuine criminal offender who takes pride in criminal activity and criminals whose crime tendencies result from a mental illness or disorder. Of this five criminals dimensions two aspects are fundamental, environment and genetics. From a sociological point of view, criminal behavior psychologies suggest that criminals engage in crime as a result of social, economic and political influences on their environment. As such, an individual with weak social abound is more susceptible to commit a crime as opposed to those with stronger ones.
Other theories that explain why people commit crime include the strain theory which suggests that individuals commit crime because they desire for success yet the opportunities are not equally available, and their abilities differ. Secondly, social disorganization theory explains a person’s environment to influence their criminal behavior. Thirdly, the rational choice theory which recognizes humans as rational beings who weigh the outcome of the criminal activity then decides whether to engage in it. The fourth is social control which suggest that majority would want to commit a crime but are controlled by the societal institutions like churches, families, etc. various theories have been advanced to try explain the criminal behavior of individuals (Akers, 2013).
In their practice, the judiciary professionals use the criminal theory. One of such is the deterrence theory. This theory closely relates to the rational choice theory of criminal behavior. The deterrence theory argues that punishment can be used to stop one from engaging in criminal activity (Akers, 2013). Specific deterrence suggests that an offender, when punished, will cease to commit a crime. The judiciary professionals like the judges convict individual criminals to a sentence commensurate to their crimes. For example, for those who murder, they can be convicted to life sentencing. Consequently, humans as rational actors will not opt to commit murder for fear of spending their entire life in prison. Crimes like rape may attract up to 20 years imprisonment. As such, an individual is expected to weigh the reward of rape versus the punishment, and by so doing, when the punishment is too stringent the crime will be deterred. Also, the criminal justice department may increase police population in a particular area prone to crime consequently based on the perception of the criminals that they will be caught the crime levels will go down.
Part 3
3 main issues facing judiciary professionals and possible solutions.
The first challenge is independence. Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that every individual is entitled to a fair hearing from an independent and competent judiciary. The independence of the judiciary by the humanitarian law as a precondition to the right to a fair trial. According to the International Bar Association, (2013, in the US today, judges are elected by a popular vote. This by itself is discordant with the fundamental principle of independent judiciary which are exemplified in the right to free trial. Also, the non-interference principle that anchors judicial independence is at stake. The judicial selection in the US involves a process of sort relating to electoral participation; the judges may be subjected to pressure or fear or removal or selection since their selection is based on the popularity approval on their actions. Sometimes impartial rulings have to disappoint a majority group. However, when a judge is subjected under such pressure, they may not rule impartially affecting their independence. Therefore as a solution, the selection of judges should not be made through a voting process. They should be vetted and appointed rather than voting.
Secondly, the issue of ethics where judges often make judicial decisions with a conflict of interest is an issue that affects the judiciary currently (Corey, et al., 2014). Compromises stemming from a lack of integrity by corrupt judicial professionals affect the delivery of justice. As a solution, the oversight body needs to tighten the loose ends on the judiciary code of ethics to ensure the judiciary professionals adhere to them. Thirdly, there is still the issue of corruption which compromises the decision making by the judiciary and thus hampering justice. There needs to be improved transparency and integrity among the judicial professionals to ensure corruption is greatly reduced. Corruption is an issue of moral integrity. Despite stiffer penalties for those found there is also need for a moralistic approach that can change the characters of individuals
References
Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation . London: Routledge.
Balkin, J. M. (2013). American Constitution as Our Law, The. Yale JL & Human, 25 , 113.
Corey, G., Corey, M. S., Corey, C., & Callanan, P. (2014). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions with 2014 ACA Codes . Ontario: Nelson Education.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (2014). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
International Bar Association. (2013). Challenges to the Independence of the Judiciary: A Case Study of the Removal of Three Judges in Iowa . Report of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) with the research assistance of IBAHRI interns Gabriela Maldonado and Juan M Zarama , 4-27.
Libal, K. R., & Harding, S. (2015). Human Rights-Based Approaches to Community Practice in the United States: A Call to Action. In Human Rights-Based Community Practice in the United States (pp. 1-17). New York: Springer International Publishing.
Ríos-Figueroa, J., & Staton, J. K. (2014). An evaluation of cross-national measures of judicial independence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , 30 (1), 104-137.
Schultz, D., & Vile, J. R. (2015). The encyclopedia of civil liberties in America . London: Routledge.
Siegel, N. S. (2008). The Virtue of Judicial Statesmanship . Texas Law Review , 961-1030.
Yang, Y. T., Chen, B., & Bennett, C. (2015). “Right-to-Try” Legislation: Progress or Peril? Journal of Clinical Oncology , 33 (24), 2597-2599.
