There is a real risk that defendants who take the religious oath when giving evidence may, by that very fact, enjoy more favourable verdicts and sentencing decisions than those who opt for the secular affirmation.
Supreme Court Allows Prying Into Jury Deliberations If Racism Is Perceived
One study gathered data about the children of US courts of appeals judges, and found that judges with daughters voted in a more feminist way on gender issues than judges with only sons. Psychologists and legal scholars Monica Miller and Brian Bornstein have also explored the role and effects of religion in courtroom scenarios. One of their mock trial studies showed that religious appeals for leniency by defence attorneys affected the decisions of jurors. Mock jurors were least punitive when a defendant was described as having converted to Christianity, compared to when the defence attorney made a generic appeal for Christian forgiveness.
In their book, God in the Courtroom , they conclude that while religious factors are less important at trial than the facts of a case, there are nevertheless numerous cases in which such factors can be decisive. This brings us back to the possible effects of the religious oath.
Ironically, it seems that part of the reason the oath was ultimately retained may have been because it bolsters credibility so effectively. This is another pointer to potential bias against those who opt instead for the secular affirmation. Doing so would also avoid the danger of a trial collapsing if the wrong oath happens to be taken — which happened in Liverpool in when a Muslim man swore on the Bible, rather than the Koran.
A culture of judicial impunity
A less radical modification would be to have witnesses sworn in where they cannot be observed by judge and jury — perhaps in a private adjoining chamber. The religious oath is an antiquated feature of many legal systems that needs reform. Given entrenched distrust of nonbelievers, continued use of the oath may undermine witness testimony and make justice more difficult to obtain for people who are not prepared to profess a belief in God.
Patricia Kent claimed she had never represented any of the properties her husband had ordered sold in divorce or other cases. A reporter informed her of the agency listing with her information attached to the Besen property. She said her photo could have appeared because she was a broker with the same firm as the agent who did have the listing. Patricia said William Kent was unlikely to comment. But when Margaret Besen protested, she found no relief.
- The Mystery of the Golden Amulet?
- Schaums Outline of Medical Charting: 300 Review Questions + Answers (Schaums Outlines)!
- FLAMES OF LIFE?
- How Bias Warps Criminal Justice!
- Abolish the oath: moral prejudice against atheists may bias courtroom decisions.
- Out with the oath!
When she asked Kent to recuse himself, he refused. When she complained to the state watchdog responsible for investigating judicial wrongdoing, writing two letters, they blew her off. When a panel such as the CJC declines to get involved, the plaintiff has little recourse. Donna Schuler, also a divorcing mother in Suffolk County, asked that judge Kent recuse himself from her case in after claiming his unwarranted delays and stalling had drained her financially.
Schuler was also rebuffed when she asked the commission to step in and remove Judge Kent from her case. McNulty went so far as to hit up attorneys for checks in the courthouse, a blatant violation of ethical rules. Indeed, even the US supreme court has been tarnished on this issue. And perhaps most famously, justice Antonin Scalia has participated in the Bush v. In another case, Scalia remained in the panel despite having gone on a duck hunting trip with former Vice-President Dick Cheney while he was being sued to reveal the details of secret meetings he held with oil company executives in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
After his vacation with Cheney was revealed, Scalia scoffed at the suggestion he was compromised and defended his decision to remain on the case.
- El sentido de la vida (Spanish Edition).
- Request Rejected.
- ‘I’m on food stamps’ and he makes more than $500,000 a year.
In fact, US supreme court justices enjoy a special privilege: Recusal issues often spur judicial complaints. Many do continue to fight. The online vitriol directed at unscrupulous judges, which began in the mid- s, has built to a howling digital crescendo.
Corrupt justice: what happens when judges' bias taints a case? | US news | The Guardian
Websites including The Robe Probe, The Judiciary Report and The Robing Room, which rate judges the way Yelp rates restaurants, are rife with railing as embittered, mostly anonymous plaintiffs rip into judicial decisions they feel were biased or corrupt. Mounting criticism led to a remarkable development last year.
The chief justices of each state gathered and declared that something had to be done. The decree was set in motion by a precedent-setting Supreme Court decision involving a dispute between two West Virginia coal companies that had done business with each other for years - until one went bankrupt - leading to a judicial scandal that inspired a John Grisham novel. In an appeal of a case in West Virginia court, A.
Benjamin rebuffed repeated demands that the newly elected justice recuse himself because of his obvious conflict. A further nudge for reform came last year when the Center for Public Integrity published a report on financial conflicts of interest.
It also created a grading system to gauge how diligent each state was in collecting personal financial information from its judges, including stock ownership and outside sources of income, and how accessible that data was to the public. The center said that 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, failed its test.
Six others earned a D grade, while two — California and Maryland — got Cs. Some of these have already been tested in certain districts or in other countries, like Europe or Australia, with impressive results. In Hawaii, a program that treats minor infractions of probation with a few days in jail instead of longer sentences has successfully reduced recidivism, and is now used in 17 states. In Texas, a program that has an independent team investigate questionable court proceedings has reduced wrongful convictions. And, in Europe, prisons that try to mimic the outside world as much as possible—i.
The answers for increasing fairness and humane treatment may be there; but sometimes we lack the will to change.
How Bias Warps Criminal Justice
Continuing like we are is a no-win situation, he argues. It seems that nearly no aspect of our current system is fair and impartial. But, I do feel some hope from the examples he cites in his book of people and institutions that have changed and improved their outcomes.
- Corrupt justice: what happens when judges' bias taints a case?.
- Supreme Court: Evidence Of Racism In Jury Deliberations Allows Court Inquiry : NPR.
- Atheists on the stand!
- Selvaggio Borchie e Haunting (Italian Edition).
If we—like they—can learn to tune into our biases and use reason when pursuing and dispensing justice, we may be able to find ways to increase public safety, reduce wrongful convictions, and make prisons more humane, all while helping to address the disproportionate numbers of African Americans killed or in prisons.
We need to make more effort to heal broken families and communities harmed by crime and to invest more in the programs that have been shown to prevent crime in the first place. But, that may take heart as well as mind. If you support the Greater Good by December 31, your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar.
We need your help to keep the "science of a meaningful life" coming.