The Economist provides the best introduction to this post:
"Judges may be trained...But they are also human, and thus subject to all sorts of cognitive biases..."
See Economist, April 16th, 2011, page 87.
The application of very simple logic to this fact--that the bench is really comprised of fallible animals, reveals that the time for extenive discussion on immunity and accountability has arrived.
First, immunity is unecessary given the availibility of Professional Liability insurance, or "E&O".
Second, judicial immunity creates a culture in which lower standards of judicial behavior can proliferate and thrive.
Third, judicial immunity shields corrupt judges from being prosecuted for their criminal misconduct.
Fourth, immunity prevents victims from pursuing justice or compensation for the more egregious and injurious misconduct.
Fifth, the fallibility of human cognitive functioning (for example, decision fatigue) warrants increased regulation and adherence to principles of accountibility--not decreased opportunity for regulation and accountability. These congnitive issues are addressed in other professions where denial of human imperfectibility could-and will, lead to failure to maintain professional standards, goals, and even to injuries or death. Studies suggest that judges' decision-making ability is increasingly impaired the longer they go from their last meal/snack, showing that even basic chemical/biological factors influence and contribute to a judge's action. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
There simply is no logic behind denying the biological and human aspects of this group of animals--judges.
No comments:
Post a Comment