Judiciary

While there is an abundance of attention given to the rights of criminals, are there any of the judiciary looking out for the victim? What rights do victims have? Does the average citizen who has the misfortune of being a victim or a member of a victim’s family have any recourse toward a member of the judiciary dragging their feet or issuing rulings according to their personal agenda? The answer is, virtually no.

At the present there are two avenues available to the victim. First, the victim can work closely with the district attorney and urge him/her to partition the state Supreme Court to issue an order to the particular judge requiring him/her to speed up the process and/or abide by the law in lieu of their personal agenda. However, this has not been successful in the past. It appears that the Georgia Supreme Court is and has been extremely reluctant to intervene in the autonomy of the lower judiciary. Second, the victim may file a complaint with the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). While the JQC was created by a Constitutional Amendment in 1972 and states that it processes complaints of judicial misconduct, it appears that only ethical complaints are processed. The JQC reviews the complaint and determines if a violation has occurred. If it is determined that a violation has occurred, the JQC will make a recommendation to the Georgia Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court may or may not follow the recommendation of the JQC.

The JQC list the following areas of complaints that constitute judicial misconduct.

1. Failure to perform duties impartially and diligently.
2. Failure to dispose promptly of the business of the court.
3. Conflict of interest.
4. Conduct which reflects adversely on the integrity of the judiciary.
5. Impairment such as alcohol or drug abuse by a judicial officer.
6. Incapacity such as the physical or mental incapacity of a judge.

The following list is given by the JQC as not constituting judicial misconduct.

1. Rulings on the law and/or the facts.
2. Matters within the discretion of the trial court.
3. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
4. Rulings involving alimony, child support, custody or visitation rights.
5. Sentences imposed by the Court.
6. Believing or disbelieving witnesses.

After reviewing the above areas of judicial misconduct, it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that the JQC primarily processes ethical complaints. Also, it’s not difficult to surmise that much is left without oversight by the JQC. For example, suppose a judge sentences a child rapist to six months of jail time. This would not be within the purview of the JQC. If this is not a case of judicial misconduct, then misconduct has been narrowly redefined by the judiciary. It’s almost like defining the meaning of “is”. Moreover, how many citizens are aware of the existence of the JQL and the process by which to file a misconduct complaint? To be fair, the Judicial Qualifications Commission operates under the rules established by the Georgia Supreme Court and therefore is not a totally independent body.

While the establishment of the Judicial Qualifications Commission was a step in the right direction and this writer has found the JQC and its staff to exhibit a high degree of professionalism, competence, and courtesy, additional work is required to bring the judiciary out of the shadows. This writer believes a citizen panel such as a grand jury with subpoena power should be established in each judiciary district and this grand jury would be authorized to submit recommendations to the Georgia Legislature and/or Georgia Supreme Court. In addition, the grand jury would have jurisdiction to investigate areas that are out of bounds for the JQC.

While it is certainly important for our judiciary to issue rulings without fear of political retribution, our judges must realize that they are accountable. The Supreme Court does have the authority to oversee the lower judiciary. However, to intervene in the judicial affairs of a fellow judge appears to be taboo. And, that’s why a citizen panel should be established.

References:
The Judicial Qualifications Commission