| Unaccountable |
4 August 2003
|
Arbitrary Government by Judges
Frederick Gannett is a judge in the sleepy mountains of Colorado where, unfortunately, basketball star Kobe Bryant is on trial for rape. Judge Gannett is probably a fine jurist for the sort of law Eagle County needs, but he's clearly in over his head when it comes to dealing with a case like this. On the one hand, he has permitted cameras into the courtroom while on the other, his "decorum" order bars journalist from using cell phones and tape recorders and from interviewing people inside the courthouse. No photos or video may be taken of witnesses, potential jurors and Bryant’s accuser and her family. But to be fair, the problems are less his and more those of the American judiciary in general.
Judges like the independence that they currently enjoy. No one can blame them. They are largely unaccountable. They may decide whether a reporter can use a camera at a public meeting, can decide to toss someone into jail without trial (contempt of court), and may adjourn proceedings whenever they feel like it without giving cause.
The popular belief is that independence of the judiciary is a vital part of any open society. That is not true. Accountability of officials is the cornerstone of such a society. Judges currently have the same sort of freedom of arbitrary action that led to the executions of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. The legislative and executive functions are subject to checks, but the judiciary in the US largely operates as it chooses.
A few reforms are in order. Congress must pass laws requiring cameras at trials, how they may be restricted and by whom -- no more judicial fiat. Judges must be moved from district to district over the course of their careers to prevent regionalisms in the national judiciary. States may wish to consider permitting judges from other states to practice within their jurisdictions as other legal professionals may do. Judges must be permitted to specialize as lawyers do in private practice. And judges must be encouraged to leave the bench after a certain amount of time. If the title of President-for-Life is offensive to American political sensibilities, why is Justice-For-Life any better?