When soon to be former Chief Judge Judy Kaye calls for a special commission, we can be assured that it will be “special” indeed. As the term is used in conjunction with education, I’m afraid.
The verdict is in by the Special Commission on the Future of New York State Courts. Not guilty by reason of insanity. What else did you expect? As explained by Newsday,
A commission yesterday called for overhauling the troubled system of village and town courts, but stopped short of requiring that judges be lawyers.
In a 297-page report, the Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts touted judges’ work ethic but criticized the “few bad apples” who abused their authority.
There are examples of judges ruling on cases involving their families, police being ordered not to file charges against a judge’s friend, and judges lacking the legal knowledge to decide complex cases.
The commission also found that some courtrooms outside New York City don’t have security screening equipment or holding areas for prisoners. Trials in rural areas are often in town garages.
Now I haven’t read, and have no plans to read, the 297 page report. Still, I can’t help but admire the twisted logic that drives the commission to be more concerned about the location where cases are tried, magnetometers for villages with 7 residents, than about the fact that the local pump jockey is charged with safeguarding constitutional rights. Genius. After all, no particular reason why lawyers go to law school, whereas judges get to make it up on their way to the town garage.
Why, oh why, with all that we know about the foundational failures of lay judges, did this commission lack the body part necessary to reach a reasoned decision? Here’s Judy Kaye’s rationale:
“The justice courts are New York’s oldest tribunals, dating back centuries,” Kaye said, “and today continue to serve a critical role in the state’s justice system, handling more than 2 million cases each year and collecting more than $210 million in fees.”
Perfect. It’s like keeping mom around, even after rigor mortis has set in, just because she’s always been there. Hey, Norman Bates thought this made sense.
At the end of the day, the future of New York’s Courts is now made clear. Prettier courtrooms. More security. Judges who know nothing about nothing, but are politically popular because they are one of the locals and a regular Joe Six-Pack, just like the rest of the locals.
Funny. Where did I hear about this Joe Six-Pack recently. It will come to me.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I dunno. Seems to me that when it comes to elected officials, vox populi, vox dei as somebody or other said. I’m pretty sure that it would take a whole lot of persuading for me to vote in a judge who didn’t go to law school, but . . . (Similarly, I’d kind of like somebody who is going to be Commander in Chief of the US military to, well, have served in the military, but if the public decides otherwise, that’s the way it goes.)
That said, err…
I know that lots of folks have a higher estimation of their own knowledge than they deserve, (he said, looking in the mirror), but even if the people have goofed up and picked somebody who thinks its okay to preside over his kid’s speeding ticket, isn’t there some way to quickly get rid of the moron before he can even learn to spell “recuse”? Or does it take a three-hundred page commission report to consider the possibility of thinking about considering the desirability of contemplating making some changes?
I subscribe to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. One of the primary purposes of this commission was to respond to a New York Times series about lay judges. It’s a fun read, especially in light of the outcome.
Ah. I’d never heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect before, although I’ve witnessed it, from time to time; I’m now ever-so-slightly less ignorant than I was earlier today; thanks.
Count me among those who will not read the entire Report. But, I would nonetheless love to know the reasoning behind the proposal that all justices have at least a 2-year college degree. Did someone try to split the difference between a G.E.D. and a law degree?
I’m not going to read the report, either; the NYTimes article provided enough for my taste for the bizarre. (Including the story of the judge who brought home a couple of underaged girls. I can even see how that could easily be intended to be generous, decent thing to do — but, well, sheesh.)
Dear Professor,
I haven’t a clue, though that sounds like an exceptionally well-conceived rationale for such a onerous requirement on lay judges.
I knew you would like that Times article. Kinda explains it all.
Why is it that lawyers think that they are the only ones that know anything, especially NY City lawyers.
It might have something to do with the fact that courts deal with law. Do you ask your plumber to do your appendectomy? It might also have something to do with why non-lawyers might ask such an absurd question as yours.
So you don’t think that with proper training and experiance that a lay person could not handle the types of cases that are typically seen in most rural upstate town courts?
On the contrary, I do indeed think that they can handle cases with the proper training and experience. That training is law school, and that experience is as a lawyer. And beyond that, not all lawyers make good judges, as being charged with making decisions about other people’s lives goes beyond the mere education and experience in the law, but appropriate temperament, judgment and ethics.
While some, perhaps even many, of the cases heard in town and village courts are relatively simple (at least from a legal perspective), a large part of that simplicity comes from the inability to recognize legal issues, due process concerns and ethical implications. When someone lacks the ability to identify issues, it’s very easy to just breeze past them and go with one’s gut. But that’s not what judges are supposed to do. This isn’t about lay judges imposing their personal “common sense” in lieu of a law with which they are unfamiliar. Two week seminars aren’t a substitute for a real education and real experience.
As noted above, this is where the Dunning-Kruger Effect meets the lives of real people. Lay judges may think they’re doing a brilliant job, but that wouldn’t have the capacity to comprehend whether they are properly applying the law or not, no matter how self-satisfied they are. These judges affect the lives of real people. They don’t get to just make stuff up as they go along because it seems like a good idea to them at the time.
Chazy Judge Gets Smacked, But Not Nearly Hard Enough
Robert G. Dunlop is the local yokel