Diversity In The Judicial System

Judges on Trial: A Reexamination of Judicial Race and Gender Effects Across Modes of Conviction

Elliot (date: 266) states that the candidates should have “awareness and understanding, acquired by relevant experience, of diversity of the communities which the courts serve.” This quote was a recommendation to amend the Judicial Appointments Commission merit criteria which was “ability to understand and deal fairly” to “social awareness, fairness and public

In the article, “A Judge Speaks Out,” Haddon Lee Sarokin discussed how the judiciary system works within the United States Court of Appels. In the article Sarokin expressed how America’s democracy faces problems of inequality and political withdrawal. Throughout the article, Sarokin implies that many decisions made by the judges are not necessarily decisions that would be made based off the Constitution as it should be, but based off the judges giving into the majorities opinions and desires. Sarokin expressed how it takes resilience and loyalty to follow the Constitution and to make decisions that are best for society, while sticking to the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not being influenced by others or one’s own desires.

Directing the nation’s path with their judgement, Supreme Court Justices shed light on the country in troubling times. The role of Supreme Court Justices are vital key to the complex society we thrive in, thus making this role one of the most prestigious positions in our country. From cases dealing with segregation in the school environment such as “Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka” to recent cases regarding affirmative action in universities such as in “Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin”, the Supreme Court Justices have seen it all.

Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of

A compelling public need existed with respect to the passage of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1989 (“the Act”). The basic provisions of Article III of the newly ratified US Constitution needed to be implemented and further defined (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73). Article III, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution prescribed: “[T]he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts” as Congress saw fit to establish. The Constitution, however, made no provision for the composition, procedures, jurisdiction or funding

will be examined. The court types, the qualifications that judges need to meet, as well as the

Drugs are a serious problem in today’s world; they are becoming more accessible and increasingly affordable to everyone, including teenagers, who seem to be especially vulnerable to falling into this endless pit of doom. In order to reduce drug offense rates, there need to be firm laws that dictate the consequences for major offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences effectively fulfill this, by instilling fear into those who contemplate abusing or selling drugs, and they make sure drug offenders are held accountable for their actions by punishing more reprehensible crimes and decreasing bias in the court setting.

Supreme Court Diversity The decisions that the Supreme Court Justices make are crucial to everyone who lives in this Country. Without the educational diversity and the work experience to expose them to the needs of the community, it would seem as if the justices come to a conclusion fully blind folded. Many believe that the Supreme Court is more diverse than it ever was but the reality is that it is less diverse.

In a perfect world, an impartial, well-educated judge would be the perfect arbitrator of the criminal justice system. However, since people tend not to be perfect, a jury system made of people representing their own communities with distinct thoughts, characteristics, and values helps to bridge the gap between perfect and imperfect as closely as possible. One of the great benefactors of a diverse society is a diverse jury. That judges tend to be old white men more often than not is no accident. The demographics of our

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The case in favour of diversity within the legal profession is incredibly strong. As Robert J. Grey JR, a partner at law firm Hunton & Williams argues, “diversity is a critical element of our society” . The reasoning for this has been illustrated in a blog post published by ‘Aspiring Solicitors’. It states how “diversity in the legal profession plays a very important role in regard to formulating new approaches and tactics”. This suggests that by bringing individuals together from different backgrounds and with diverse views, it could lead to more innovative ways of thinking. As a result, it may

The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.

The relationship between capital structure and firm value has been discussed frequently in the literature by different researcher accordingly, in both theoretical and empirical studies. It has also been discussed that whether the firm has any optimal capital structure that has been adopted by an individual firm, or whether the proportions of debt usage is completely irrelevant to the individual firm value.

The lack of diversity in the judiciary is deeply entrenched in legal culture. A profession that is intrinsically white, male, and middle class is an intimidating environment for those who fall outside this categorisation. The problem with having a single dominant group is not so much the lack of gender, ethnicity and social minorities in the judiciary but rather the lack of understanding of the various life experiences and perspectives of the diverse community the judiciary serves. An understanding that can only be acquired first hand from personal experience. While it is generally accepted that increasing diversity in judiciary will improve the overall quality of judgments there is not really any real sense of urgency to address this issue. A more diverse judiciary is seen as more of a desire than a necessity. This complacency can be partially attributed to an assumption that eventually the judiciary will balance itself but this has proven to be unsuccessful.