NCJ Number
86319
Date Published
1981
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article advocates improving the quality of judges through the establishment of effective disciplinary and selection procedures.
Abstract
The litigation explosion in the United States has not just created choked courts and litigation delays but has also increased the power of judges. Within their courtrooms, judges are virtual autocrats, and stories of judicial arrogance and prejudice are commonplace. The combination of power and incompetence in judges has done much to undermine the quality and efficiency of court judgments. Much of the court backlog is due to the unwillingness or inability of judges to manage their caseloads with modern management techniques and technology. It is difficult to deal with incompetent and corrupt judges, particularly at the Federal level, because Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment, a cumbersome process. A Senate bill supported by Attorney General Griffin Bell would establish a court on judicial conduct to remove unfit judges. It is easier to weed out incompetent State and local judges. Since 1960, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have created commissions to discipline judges for wrongdoing. Still, there is little that can be done to remedy the circumstance of judges whose lack of scholarship, temperament, and lack of ability yields marginal performance. The selection process appears to be the point at which the quality of judges is most likely to be improved. Over the past 40 years, half the States have turned to so-called merit selection for at least some judgeships. Typically, a judicial selection committee nominates several names, the Governor selects one, and the judge runs unopposed on a yes-no retention ballot after a year or more on the bench. While selection committees generally weed out the clearly unqualified persons, they often settle for mediocre candidates, because many of the high-quality persons view judgeships as hard work at low pay rather than as a prestigious and challenging job. Something is seriously wrong with the incentives of the bench if it cannot attract and hold the very best the legal system has to offer.