Within the judicial system context, fairness and justice are two concepts that are closely related. Treating everyone equally and without bias during a legal process is known as fairness, irrespective of their influence or standing. Access to the law on an equal basis guarantees that decisions are made fairly and without bias. Fairness requires transparency, meaning that every party involved in a legal proceeding should have an equal opportunity to access information and participate (Berk et al., 2021). Treating others how we want to be treated is a concept without prejudice or discrimination. Justice means giving individuals what they are entitled to or merit.
Considering factual data and legal regulations is essential to reaching an accurate conclusion for a specific circumstance. Accountability for one’s actions and upholding the rule of law are essential to justice. The main concept is providing everyone with their deserved portion of rewards and punishments. However, fairness demands fair and equitable treatment for everyone, while justice entails delivering deserved outcomes. A breakdown of the judicial system may occur if there is no fairness or justice present to maintain public trust.
Importance of courts in a democracy and how they impact individuals
Any functioning democracy requires courts to maintain the rule of law and provide dispute-resolution mechanisms that ensure accountability. The Judiciary’s role is critical in maintaining a system where individual rights are respected by providing checks on legislative and executive powers (Blackley,2019). The court significantly impacts individuals since they play an essential part in settling conflicts, determining whether or not governmental activities are legal, and safeguarding citizens’ liberties.
To be treated fairly and justly while having their constitutional rights protected is what people expect from the court. Far-reaching implications that significantly affect people’s lives can result from court decisions. Legal precedents that guide future decisions are often set by court rulings that shape public policy and influence social norms. Child custody arrangements and damage awards for personal injuries are just two examples of how courts can directly influence individuals’ lives through their rulings.
Concerns about “fairness” and “justice.”
In the Texas state court system, there is worry about whether or not judicial elections uphold principles of fairness and justice. Texas judges must run a campaign and gather money to fund it as elected officials. If political affiliations influence judges or feel obligated toward donors, the system risks being seen as biased. Diversity on the bench can suffer when candidates from specific backgrounds or political affiliations are not given equal opportunities for funding and election. One worry is how funding affects the quality of representation.
When someone cannot afford an attorney, they might need access to high-quality legal assistance, which can create imbalances within the judicial process. The federal court system may be more trustworthy than the state court system in Texas. Federal judicial appointees have lifelong terms, which means they are not obligated toward any particular political party or monetary gain. The perception of impartiality and independence can enhance the public trust that this creates. The relevance and accessibility of the federal court system to address specific concerns of Texans are not always assured.
State courts may significantly impact everyday legal issues like family and criminal law (Simard et al ., 2020). The state court system may be trusted more by individuals in these regions. Individual experiences and perceptions can cause variations in trust toward judges. The expectation is for judges to uphold the law without any bias or partiality. Most judges in Texas are committed to preserving justice and creating a just and unbiased legal framework, even though there may be apprehensions about the effect that political or financial considerations could have on their verdicts.
Community and Public Perception of Judiciary
Perceptions from both community and the public are important factors for the Judiciary. Public trust and confidence in the legal system are crucial for a functioning judiciary. Courts being viewed by the general public as partial or unjust could lead to decreased compliance with laws and reluctance to seek legal remedies. A breakdown in the rule of law and loss of faith in a democracy are potential consequences. The actions of judges and the court system may be impacted by how they are perceived publicly. The likelihood of judges prioritizing issues important to the community and considering how their decisions affect public perception may increase.
The court system’s effectiveness and accessibility may be affected by public perception influencing funding and policy decisions. Besides, this perception from society potentially affects diversifying the bench. People of various ethnicities may refrain from taking up legal professions or judge positions if they do not believe in and consider judiciaries unjust. With positive community and public perception, the Judiciary can function effectively. Ensuring that the court system is legitimate and effective requires trust and confidence.
Reasons why judges care what the public thinks
Since judges serve the public and their decisions affect people’s lives, they should be concerned about what the public thinks. Their role is crucial in upholding laws & serving justice, making it important for Judges’ actions to inspire public trust & confidence in Judiciary. If the court system and the rule of law are perceived as unreliable due to biased or unfair judges, it can lead to a loss of faith. Compromising the judiciary’s and democratic processes’ legitimacy may negatively impact society. Public trust and confidence in courts can be bolstered by perceiving judges as unbiased and fair.
Judges’ accountability lies with the public, who appoints or elects them. The failure on the part of judges to consider the community’s needs and concerns could lead them to receive criticism or even get dismissed from their posts. What people think matters greatly in influencing policies and funds allocation towards courts’ systems is why judges should pay attention. Ineffective or inefficient perceptions from the public toward courts may cause funding cuts and insufficient backing for beneficial policies.
How can the public perception of the courts be improved, and what would a well-functioning court system look like
Improving how the public views the courts requires using multiple methods. To improve how people view the courts, there are multiple key approaches: The transparency of the court system should be maximized. Court proceedings being open to the general public and having easy access to its records are essential. Building trust and confidence in the court system can be aided by this. Fairness and impartiality are key qualities required by judges when making decisions. In addition to this, the legal system needs to operate without showing signs of prejudice or favoritism. To guarantee that the court system is perceived as impartial and equitable. The court system should be accessible to everyone, irrespective of social status or income. Simplifying court procedures and providing legal aid for indigent individuals are necessary to achieve this.
Efficiency is crucial for the court system to make timely decisions. The court system can lose public trust and confidence due to delays and backlogs. Involving courts within communities can be done by having judges communicate more frequently with members of society so they understand how verdicts are reached. This could assist in establishing trust and confidence within the court system. When discussing a successful court system, one must consider its transparency, fairness, impartiality, and accessibility. Efficiency, along with engagement within the community, is equally significant. The court system’s essential role in a functioning democracy can be preserved by improving these key areas and enhancing public perception.
References
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2021). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 3-44.
Blackley, K. (2019). Court Curbing in the State House: Why State Legislators Attack Their Courts. Justice System Journal, 40(4), 269-285.
Simard, L. S., Robertson, C. B., Rhodes, C. W., Camp, B., Gugliuzza, P. R., Harrison, J., … & Shaughnessy, J. M. (2020). US Supreme Court Brief of Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368.
write