Judicial independence and impartiality are always the mantra, but within the cloistered walls of the judiciary, there’s a little judicial activism that no one talks about.

The National Center for State Courts is supposed to be an educational resource for judges.  When it comes to drunk driving, however, the lesson plan is written by prosecutors.  From The Newspaper.com, billed as a journal of the politics of driving, comes a post entitled Judges Taught to Help Prosecutors in DUI Cases :

While most Americans might believe judges are expected to consider all cases with equal impartiality, a prominent judicial standards organization suggests courts should treat differently any case involving driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Former Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger founded the National Center for State Courts in 1971 to provide educational services for members of the judiciary. The group is now working in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promote “efficient disposal of traffic cases.”

The center opened a website covering “The Court’s Role in Reducing the Incidence of Impaired Driving” as a well-documented multimedia resource. It urges lower court judges to adopt advocacy or “problem solving” roles.

I may be old fashioned about this, but I can’t help but think that judges really shouldn’t be taught that they are advocates in the war on drunk driving. 

It’s not that some judges, many judges, personally see themselves as the avenging angels of order, using the robe to impose their personal vision of retributive justice whenever possible.  But we have name for these types of judges:  Bad Judges.  Do we want the fair ones taught that being biased is part of the job?

“A partnership with law enforcement is a necessity for problem-solving courts…. Coordination on such matters as a concentrated enforcement event, like a saturation patrol, is useful so courts can be prepared for an increase in caseload. Any partnership must be careful to avoid the perception that courts are another agency of enforcement and ensure that courts retain their role as neutral arbiter.”

How exactly does one become a “partner” while retaining the role of neutral arbitor?  Apparently, this is easily accomplished when neutral arbitor means law enforcement facilitator.

“In DWI cases, courts can have a much broader role than in many other types of cases,” the site teaches. “Through its interaction with law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, the public, and the press, the court establishes a tone toward DWI cases in the community. This is evident when the court… explains to law enforcement procedural shortcomings following unsuccessfully prosecuted cases.”

After all, if the judge isn’t there to tell police how to better nail defendants, who is?

What makes this substantially more troubling is the fact that this isn’t MADD with another of its manufactured promotions to save humanity, but the NCSC, formed and existing to educate judges.  This is one of those places where we send our judges to learn how to better fulfill their duty.  And they are being told that their duty is to be part of the “drunk driving solution” and that it is legitimate for judges to assume an activist role.

But, in fairness, the NCSC drunk driving website does caution judges not to “go too far.”  That’s a relief.  We wouldn’t want any judges getting crazy while vindicating the public demand to convict.

Update:  Mike at C&F has a video from the NCSC of prosecutors judges talking shop about drunk driving.  Very serious.  Very sober.  Very misguided.  No matter how heinous you feel a particulr offense is, judges are still supposed to be judges, not the saviors of the public welfare.

With that in mind, a little traveling music.