Navigation
About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
Fan!

Become a Facebook fan to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 405. Consent defense | Main | 403. Le droit, c'est moi »
Sunday
08Nov2009

404. The highest standards

The last post described the crisis in Slovakia's judiciary, where ethical charges are being imposed to punish politically inconvenient judges.  The purge is being carried out by the Justice Minister of the governing coalition, which includes an explicitly racist party.  It was easy to compare the Justice Minister, Štefan Harabin, to a Stalinist thug, since he looks the very porcine picture of one.  Give him a hat and he's ready to watch a parade. 

But of course I was being ironic.  Slovakia's use of judicial discipline to punish political crimes is a testament to how far it's come.  Defining disloyalty to a superior judge as "unethical" is, of course, a characteristic shared by all judiciaries in developed countries.

Take, for example, the salutary example made of New Jersey's Judge Bill Mathesius, who spoke about a retired justice of the state supreme court without first planting the obligatory kiss on the justice's red shoes.  In New Jersey as in Slovakia, Mathesius was hauled before a disciplinary counsel chaired by the very man he was accused of dissing.  (See post 287.) 

Then there was Florida's Judge Michael Allen, publicly reprimanded for including in a judicial opinion factually accurate observations about a fellow judge and dysfunction on his court.  (See post 344 and post 272.)  Just as art historians can trace a teacher's influence in an artist's line or use of color, I think I can see where Harabin acquired the exemplary professionalism of his court administration.

And then there's Luzerne County's Judge Ann Lokuta (see post 390), removed from the bench for ethical lapses at the behest of the two child-selling judges whose activities she had reported to the FBI.  As Harabin knows, if you let reporting of crimes and that kind of thing get out of hand, there's no telling where things might end up.

So Slovakia and its Justice Minister Harabin should be saluted.  His determined initiation of judicial disciplinary proceedings to intimidate his enemies shows that his country can proudly compare itself to the ultimate high standard, that set by the United States.  On the 20th anniversary of the Wall coming down, too.  Brings a lump to the throat, it does.

AuthorJoel Jacobsen | CommentPost a Comment | | |
DateSunday, November 8, 2009 at 09:57PM in , ,

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.