Judicial Independence and Accountability - Assignment Example

Law al Affiliation In the judiciary, judicial independence is given to ensure that justice is administered without fear or favor, as well as impartially and freely. Judicial accountability on the other hand places constraints on judges by holding them responsible for their behavior on both legal and political grounds. Judicial accountability and judicial independence are closely related and it can be said that they are mutually dependent. Therefore, judges and administrative law judges can be both independent and accountable. In regard to the judicial independence and accountability of executive branch judges and Constitution Article III judges, they enjoy the same levels of judicial independence and accountability. Government regulatory cases are concerned with laws and public policies while government entitlement/benefits administration cases are concerned with facts such as citizens’ welfare. In the United States, the policies and procedures in government regulatory cases and government entitlement/benefits administration case should be revised. The importance of regulatory policy also needs to be reassessed. Keywords: judiciary, judicial independence, judicial accountability, United States, judges, government regulatory cases, government entitlement/benefits administration cases Q1 Van Puymbroeck defines independence as “a state or condition of being free from the control, dependence, subjection, or subordination of an outside agency or authority” (2000, p. 268). In the judiciary, such independence is given to ensure that justice is administered without fear or favor, as well as impartially and freely. Failure to administer justice according to established procedures and in accordance with the law leads to judges being held accountable. Judicial accountability on the other hand places constraints on judges by holding them responsible for their behavior. This is done on legal and political grounds. Here it is judged whether judges have fulfilled their responsibilities and according to set standards. If the responsibilities are not met, sanctions are imposed. In the American government, judicial accountability helps prevent usurpations of power, corruption and other abuses hence protecting the interests of the public. In the rule of law, judicial independence is a feature in its own right. The two features of judicial independence are separation of powers and independence of judges. In the separation of powers, the concern is the independence of the courts as an organization. According to Alder, “judicial independence requires the independence of individual judges from pressures that threaten not only actual impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality” (2013, p. 132). Although judicial independence is a prominent feature in the rule of law, accountability is also important. Judges cannot fail to be accountable simply because there is judicial independence. Accountability can be defined in two ways. First, it means that “a decision maker must explain and justify his or her actions and secondly that a decision maker might be corrected or penalized if his or her actions fall short of required standards” (Alder, 2013, p. 134). It is a fact that in the first sense, judges are accountable. This can be witnessed from the way they have to disclose all information and materials given to them and the reasons for making particular decisions in public. In short, the decisions they make are subject to scrutiny both by the public and the media. Judicial accountability exists in different forms. These are accountability through reasoned elaboration, judicial review and that of “judges to the controlling codes of judicial conduct in their jurisdictions” (Felter, 2008, p. 1), which is the most important and compulsive form of accountability. From this discussion, it is clear that judicial independence and accountability are two different things. However, they are concepts that are closely related and it can be said that accountability and judicial independence are mutually dependent. Whittington, Kelemen and Caldeira state that “the notion that judges should be independent does not imply that they should be free to decide on the basis of whims, with no need for justification and no accountability” (2008, n.p.). Therefore, the answer to the question whether judges and administrative law judges can be both independent and accountable is yes. The two concepts are mutually dependent meaning that none can exist without the other. Forcing one to exist without the other or one to override the other would lead to problems in the judiciary and its mandate. For example, attempts to increase judicial independence could lead to conflicts with attempts to promote judicial accountability. In regard to how judicial independence and accountability are applied to the Constitution Article III judges (Judicial Branch) and the Executive Branch judges (ALJs), there are similarities and differences. The main similarity comes from the fact that both branches have powers, but they are different. The other similarity is in the fact that that both branches enjoy some level of judicial independence and accountability. However, while the executive branch can allocate money and enforce laws through sheriffs and the police the judicial branch lacks this. This makes the judicial branch the weakest amongst all branches of government, despite the fact that it has the last word in most matters. According to Felter, “the judicial power lies in the public’s silent and enduring agreement to abide by the decisions of the judiciary, and to treat the decisions as final unless appealed” (2008, p. 6). Therefore, for the judicial branch, public confidence is of utmost importance. He adds that “the administrative law judiciary is meant to represent a fair and impartial mechanism in the executive branch, whereby the individual person and the government agency stand on equal ground” (Felter, 2008, p. 6). The executive branch judges and Constitution Article III judges enjoy the same levels of judicial independence and accountability. This has not always been the case since before, Constitution Article III judges were always under the influence of the executive branch judges. There was a lot of government interference in all their matters. For this reason, Constitution Article III judges were given lifetime tenure and made independent. As it goes, independence comes with accountability so Constitution Article III judges are also required to be equally accountable. Reference List Alder, J. (2013). Constitutional and Administrative Law (9th ed.). Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers Limited. Felter, E. L. (2008). Accountability in the Administrative Law Judiciary: The Right and the Wrong Kind. Retrieved from http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v86_i1_felter.pdf. Van Puymbroeck, R. V. (2000). Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Development: Toward an Agenda for a Just and Equitable Society in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Whittington, K. E., Kelemen, R. D. & Caldeira, G. A. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Q2 Government regulatory cases and government entitlement/benefits administration cases are different. Government regulatory cases are concerned with laws and public policies while government entitlement/ benefits administration cases are concerned with facts such as citizens’ welfare. Government entitlement/ benefits administration cases comprise the biggest caseload in the United States. Government regulatory cases on the other hand are fewer although in regard to the impact they have on citizens and the economy, it is enormous. Government regulatory cases and government entitlement/benefits administration cases have a number of similarities and differences. The main similarity comes from the fact that both types of cases affect the citizens and the economy, but at different magnitudes. Both types of cases are also influenced by actions taken by the government. In regard to the differences, while government regulatory cases revolve around policies and laws passed or under discussion by the government, government entitlement/benefits administration cases revolve around benefits that citizens are entitled to such as welfare and social security disability. The other difference is that while government regulatory cases have a huge impact on citizens and the economy, government entitlement/benefits administration cases do not have an enormous impact on citizens and the economy. According to Kelly, as the United States gets into the twenty-first century, it is most likely going to get into more deficits (1992). Although this is beneficial in some ways and in the short term, its long term effects are burdened future generations and inhibited economic growth. For this reason, it is important that the United States addresses particular underlying problems in administrative policy. This is because the influence agency caseloads and resolutions to these caseloads. Among the issues to look into are the benefits programs to fund and their levels, the right role of government in the United States economy, whether there should be increased or decreased supervision and regulation of savings and loans associations and banks, what regulatory policies to pass for better environmental quality and “the role of the federal courts in reviewing agency policymaking decisions” (Kelly, 1992, p. 125). Kelly is of the argument that the policies and procedures in government regulatory cases and government entitlement/benefits administration case should be revised (1992). He points out that “greater attention needs to be devoted to what benefits we as a society are willing to fund and to improving the process of determining eligibility for those benefits” (1992, p. 126). This is because there is a lot of inconsistency and over-judicialization of benefits administration. This however does not mean that administration is the only process that requires revision. The importance of regulatory policy also needs to be reassessed. This is especially due to the fact that “over the last fifteen years, there has been a violent ideological swing in regulatory policy and a reduction in the federal courts traditional role of reviewing the legality of regulation” (Kelly, 1992, p. 126). Reviewing the legality and importance of some regulations will go a long way in ensuring that only the most appropriate regulations are passed. Among the remarks made by Judge Heifetz is that automated data processing and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are important in ensuring more efficient management of caseloads. Kelly however makes cautionary comments on this by saying that there is need to look beyond caseload management and that is, into particular fundamental problems that contribute to the volume of caseloads and the “fairness of agency decisionmaking” (1992, p. 126). According to Kelly, “it is the volume of claims processed by administrative agencies and their faithfulness to the statutory standard that are central to effective and efficient decisionmaking” (1992, p. 126). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is promising in terms of how it can reduce the expenses and time taken in some litigation. It can also lead to an overall reduction in cases that reach the hearing stage in courts. In fact, “it is likely to be an effective technique for resolving contract and tort claims against the federal government in a timely, inexpensive fashion” (1992, p. 128-129). Despite this, Alternative Dispute Resolution is limited in solving problems involving caseloads. In federal and state budgets, government entitlement programs claim the largest share of the budget. For this reason, “attention needs to be devoted to the volume of government benefit claims and the costs of determining whether a claim is meritorious” (Kelly, 1992, p. 132). With more attention being invested in this area, it is possible to reduce the growing United States deficit. Kelly concludes by emphasizing on the importance of preparing lawyers in the twenty-first century and making “public policy questions that underlie the volume and quality of agency caseloads part of administrative law” courses (1992, p. 146).It is importance for young lawyers to understand budgetary pressures, the political climate as well as the mission and history of an agency in order to be able to tackle future political debates on such issues. Reference List Kelly, J. P. (1992). The Future of Administrative Law: Reforming Agency Processes and Court Review of Administrative Decisions. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1858864. Read More