On Public Trust of the Judiciary
A top news story recently talked of a presidential candidate 's closet of skeletons. Another spoke of a congressman 's scandal. How often do you see a judge’s name muddled in such controversy? Why is it people seem to react better to a court decision than an official 's statement? What accounts for this sort of behavior? I submit that people trust the courts more. To understand this phenomenon, it’s necessary to break down its factors. 1) The nature of the judicial work. 2) Public perception of the effects of that work. 3) The court’s place in the social ecosystem of the nation. The combination of these unique factors creates climate of trust in our judiciary system. Ironic, that it is perhaps the least democratic …show more content…
There is a saying about rose colored glasses that can be somewhat applied here. Everyone sees the world through glasses, tinted by opinions and allegiances and personal experiences. The court is no exception. For example, this is a big factor in the perception that the courts are impartial. People view the courts as somewhat neutral when it comes to political standings. The courts are viewed, as impartial interpreters of the law. In contrast, people perceive that lawmakers are political in excess. If a party has majority, it has to power to influence what kind of policy is enacted, or not enacted for that matter. Politics is how things get done in the legislative branch. Courts have no power to actually change law. Even the Supreme Court cannot change the law, merely declare it unconstitutional. This gives the illusion of having no need for politics in the judiciary. This is important when the people observe the courts in action. The courts were designed around people, and so the courts are at their disposal. Except for law enforcement, people will interact with the judiciary more than the other branches. The people are a big, interactive part of what the courts do. This gives the feeling of power to the people because they are an integral part of what the courts were created to do. They are the most accessible part of the government for an average citizen. To compound on that fact, this makes …show more content…
The courts are held in high regard, sustaining a level of prestige. It is a long standing institution dedicated to justice for the people. We have a respect for judges going back to before the birth of this country. We convey this by referring to judges as ‘the Honorable” and “your Honor”. The sense that lawyers are elite in society contributes to the status of the courts. The Latin lingo, quirky formalities, and judges robes all signify this status. Along with to these social details, there is also the concept of perpetuation. The longer the court is viewed a certain way, the deeper that norm will embed into the public’s opinion. When you ask why people trust the courts, the most basic answer is because we’ve always trusted the courts. The perpetuation of norm will continue as long as the court maintains the other two variables: good work, and good public
A top news story recently talked of a presidential candidate 's closet of skeletons. Another spoke of a congressman 's scandal. How often do you see a judge’s name muddled in such controversy? Why is it people seem to react better to a court decision than an official 's statement? What accounts for this sort of behavior? I submit that people trust the courts more. To understand this phenomenon, it’s necessary to break down its factors. 1) The nature of the judicial work. 2) Public perception of the effects of that work. 3) The court’s place in the social ecosystem of the nation. The combination of these unique factors creates climate of trust in our judiciary system. Ironic, that it is perhaps the least democratic …show more content…
There is a saying about rose colored glasses that can be somewhat applied here. Everyone sees the world through glasses, tinted by opinions and allegiances and personal experiences. The court is no exception. For example, this is a big factor in the perception that the courts are impartial. People view the courts as somewhat neutral when it comes to political standings. The courts are viewed, as impartial interpreters of the law. In contrast, people perceive that lawmakers are political in excess. If a party has majority, it has to power to influence what kind of policy is enacted, or not enacted for that matter. Politics is how things get done in the legislative branch. Courts have no power to actually change law. Even the Supreme Court cannot change the law, merely declare it unconstitutional. This gives the illusion of having no need for politics in the judiciary. This is important when the people observe the courts in action. The courts were designed around people, and so the courts are at their disposal. Except for law enforcement, people will interact with the judiciary more than the other branches. The people are a big, interactive part of what the courts do. This gives the feeling of power to the people because they are an integral part of what the courts were created to do. They are the most accessible part of the government for an average citizen. To compound on that fact, this makes …show more content…
The courts are held in high regard, sustaining a level of prestige. It is a long standing institution dedicated to justice for the people. We have a respect for judges going back to before the birth of this country. We convey this by referring to judges as ‘the Honorable” and “your Honor”. The sense that lawyers are elite in society contributes to the status of the courts. The Latin lingo, quirky formalities, and judges robes all signify this status. Along with to these social details, there is also the concept of perpetuation. The longer the court is viewed a certain way, the deeper that norm will embed into the public’s opinion. When you ask why people trust the courts, the most basic answer is because we’ve always trusted the courts. The perpetuation of norm will continue as long as the court maintains the other two variables: good work, and good public