Scrutiny and the Courts

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench

In a research article published by Reuters: (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/) They report on how too many judges at state and local level have been given immunity, impunity and passes to commit crimes themselves. Worse their victims have found it nearly impossible to get compensation or accountability when they've been clearly harmed by the behavior of the judges. The article sums itself as follows:

Reuters Report

The study showed that US Judges, especially at State and Local levels, were abusing power and getting away with it. Our current processes tend to be partisan or driven by press reports. People read these reports and say "Oh we need to pass new laws to stop it." Oftentimes the laws exist. Because no judge can be trusted to judge his own case, as a principle, the laws are inadequate. Judges, Policemen, etc... are like other lawyers and officers of government. As officers of the court they work for the people and they should be accountable to them.

Oversight is Mandatory

The article illustrates this subject in detailed graphical and numbers. This need for systematic reform in how we oversee our elected and appointed officials, extends to all levels of government;

Elected Legislative and Executive Officers

Appointed Officers

The Judiciary itself.

Accountability, Scrutiny and Vetting

In this country the principle that "no person is above the law" is so important, that abuses of this principle, even minor ones, are an administrative matter, where the administrators need to be held accountable every bit as much as the people they administrate. They work for the people. Therefore the bodies that scrutinize them should represent we the people. We need to apply the principles of Federation, Republicanism and Democracy to ensuring that all our officres are:

That candidates and officers are publicly!

vetted for office,

subject to periodic scrutiny and review,

accountable, periodically reviewed and scrutinized, and held to account when they fail to perform.

Congress, Administrators and the People

The primary responsibility for scrutiny in our country rests with legislatures under our current schema. This is fine, except we've ceded too much power to bureaucratic organizations and administrators, so the legislature doesn't usually even see the problems until the bureaucrats can no longer contain them. Secrecy rules, abusive "process rules" have been substituted for substantive due process and proper regular scrutiny. Congress has tried to remedy this by creating Inspector General jobs and whistleblowing laws. But as the Reuters study shows, it is ineffective in the face of systematic venality, malevolent racism and insiderism. The legislature should have a say in some of these things. But some of these are administrative matters that can't be trusted to administrators. The Ancient Athenians practiced scrutiny and periodic accounting. We should too.

Election and Oversight Courts

Administrative rules apply where law is not subject to the "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" rules. Hiring a niece may or may not be illegal. It is nepotism, but if the niece is fully qualified for the job and performs excellently, she may be the best person for the job. Whether to punish an official who hires his niece, in the hands of a review board, results in a firing. In the hands of an ordinary court it results in fines and jail time. In any cases this is a matter of judgment, which makes it a judicial power. It is insane that we leave those processes in the hands of people biased towards a private separate outcome. Elections are a judicial matter. Officer performance is a judicial matter. It needs a court.

I'd suggest that oversight courts be headed by an inspector general and also an Oversight Judge, with all the necessary powers (but no more than necessary) to conduct ordinary courts and uphold the law.

Oversight Courts Develop Information for their Fellow Citizens

We want citizen panel review boards to examine the evidence and judge fitness. They would not have the power to fire the persons scrutinize but they would have the power to forward findings to an ordinary court if law breaking is found. We want these panels to represent the people impacted by officials. We want them to have the power to inquire, look at finances, records and to produce a report with the help of a Judge and input from people representing the stakeholders involved directly. We need these courts to inquire into the performance and behavior of officials and to represent the views of the people who will be impacted by those officials. And to put judicial process into judgement matters.

Outcomes and Triggers

We don't need to usurp the role of the legislature. In the cases of courts, the Oversight court would be separate from the regular courts, it would employ Inspector Generals and these would use the oversight court to scrutinize Officers of the Court. Regular Scrutiny would result in a report. That report in turn would go to the legislature and the press. The Press would be in on the deliberations and able to ask for information that the panels could subpoena. The Panel would have the power to publish a report, forward their information to an ordinary court, and would automatically send the report to the legislature and to officials with the power to act on it.

The Officials in charge or the legislature would then be required to act on the report by statute.

Using Courts for Discipline

Where the Courts could be useful is when an official is charged with a crime or major breach of trust complaint. Then those courts can fine an officer of the courts, but fine or even imprison them. That would be acting as an ordinary Jury. By having the admin courts, separate from ordinary courts, judges and prosecutors can be held accountable. The admin juries would be selected from the Jury pool by a similar process to a trial court. Parts of the deliberations and the findings would be public.

Advantage of Administrative Panels

A formal review process is needed to keep judicial officers accountable, and hold them accountable if they abuse their power. Alternatives to the above might be to work with the Bar or something similar. But whatever is chosen, matters of formal judgement (administrative or legal) need a jury of some kind. Food for thought.

Holding Officers Accountable

The Reuters article shows the need for such scrutiny and accountability. It is rare that the victims of judicial misconduct are held accountable. They need to be caught and removed from office, before they harm large numbers of people.

Further Reading

Sources and related posts

Each Post has links to other posts:

Improving Scrutiny, Lessons from Trump

Election Judges! Election Courts!

Election Judges should be Judicial Officers

Economic, Democratic Subsidiarity and local democracy