Complete Plagarization to follow, these words
are not my own….they describe the treatment that rapists and child
molesters and murders are supposed to receive:
The requirement of judicial impartiality is at the core of our system of criminal justice. As our supreme court said in a much quoted and memorable passage:
"This Court is committed to the doctrine that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is the duty of Courts to scrupulously guard this right and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the judiciary and shadow the administration of justice. "It is not enough for a judge to assert that he is free from prejudice. His mien and the reflex from his court room speak louder than he can declaim on this point. If he fails through these avenues to reflect justice and square dealing, his usefulness is destroyed. The attitude of the judge and the atmosphere of the court room should indeed be such that no matter what charge is lodged against a litigant or what cause he is called on to litigate, he can approach the bar with every assurance that he is in a forum where the judicial ermine is everything that it typifies, purity and justice. The guaranty of a fair and impartial trial can mean nothing less than this."
This Court is committed to the doctrine
that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge. It is the duty of Courts to scrupulously guard
this right and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in
any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in
question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the
judiciary and shadow the administration of justice. “It is not enough
for a judge to assert that he is free from prejudice. His mien and the
reflex from his court room speak louder than he can declaim on this
point.
If he fails through these avenues to
reflect justice and square dealing, his usefulness is destroyed. The
attitude of the judge and the atmosphere of the court room should indeed
be such that no matter what charge is lodged against a litigant or what
cause he is called on to litigate, he can approach the bar with every
assurance that he is in a forum where the judicial ermine is everything
that it typifies, purity and justice. The guaranty of a fair and
impartial trial can mean nothing less than this.
We canonize the courthouse as the temple
of justice. There is no more appropriate justification for this than the
fact that it is the only place we know where the rich and poor, the
good and the vicious, the rake and the rascal—in fact every category of
social rectitude and social delinquent—may enter its portal with the
assurance that they may controvert their differences in calm and
dispassionate environment before an impartial judge and have their
rights adjudicated in a fair and just manner. Such a pattern for
administering justice inspires confidence. The legend on the seal of
this court—’sat cito si recte’ (soon enough if right or just)—embossed
on the floor in the rotunda of this building, encourages devotion to
such a pattern. Litigation guided by it makes the courthouse the temple
of justice. When judges permit their emotions or the misapplication of
legal principles to shunt them away from it, they must be reversed. The
judge must above all be neutral and his neutrality should be of the
tough variety that will not bend or break under stress. He may ask
questions to clarify the issues but he should not lean to the
prosecution or defense lest it appear that his neutrality is departing
from center. The judge’s neutrality should be such that even the
defendant will feel that his trial was fair.
The consequence of this departure from the role of apparent neutrality is that defendant must be afforded a new hearing on the alleged violations of probation before a different judge.
The requirement of judicial impartiality is at the core of our system of criminal justice. As our supreme court said in a much quoted and memorable passage:
"This Court is committed to the doctrine that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is the duty of Courts to scrupulously guard this right and to refrain from attempting to exercise jurisdiction in any matter where his qualification to do so is seriously brought in question. The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the judiciary and shadow the administration of justice. "It is not enough for a judge to assert that he is free from prejudice. His mien and the reflex from his court room speak louder than he can declaim on this point. If he fails through these avenues to reflect justice and square dealing, his usefulness is destroyed. The attitude of the judge and the atmosphere of the court room should indeed be such that no matter what charge is lodged against a litigant or what cause he is called on to litigate, he can approach the bar with every assurance that he is in a forum where the judicial ermine is everything that it typifies, purity and justice. The guaranty of a fair and impartial trial can mean nothing less than this."
Unfortunately, I feel I was in this category.
No comments:
Post a Comment