Introduction

Judges have impacted or influenced numerous lives through their decisions making in the courtroom. This is the main reason why this topic is being studied and prevalent in each and every society. The issue is very critical. It is not easy to understand why a judiciary is an isolated place which has formed a ‘class'  around a particular group of individuals yet it has an impact on the outside community. Isolation of the judiciary from the community is outrageous (Alarid, Cromwell, Carmen & Cromwell, 2008).

Different communities have varied expectations of individuals they have entrusted with any power or authority. Decision makers or ‘judges’ in this context are needed to be ‘in touch' with community, members. To be described as an ‘elite' is now a severe criticism. It is utilized as a form of condemnation when applied in the confines of the judiciary. Judges are supposed to be very upright people responding to a community's values. Knowing communities values is not an easy task, although it appears to be easy (Christensen, & Levinson, 2008).

 Whether right or wrong, it is evident that judges are ‘out of touch’ with the rest of the community hence their sentencing does not directly reflect the average individual's concern, safety, interests, and wellbeing. Sentences delivered by judges need to be impartial containing both values and interests of the public and, to directly reflect the proven legal fundamentals and principles that can only be applied by a brilliant  legal mind such as theirs. The Penalties and sentencing Act requires a judge to abide by or follow some procedures for them to come up with sound judgment. The act also requires specific factors considered when making a sentence. The elements may include an age of the perpetrator and the extent to which the offender is vulnerable, the existence of any mitigating and aggravating situations that may involve the o perpetrator and the bodily or physical and psychological or mental harm that might have befallen the victim of the crime (Coffey, 2010).

Reasons why judges make unsound judgments

The Judge is the senior most post in ‘corridors’ of law and order in any society. Therefore they should be ‘in touch' with their community and deliver an ‘up to date' or sound and satisfactory judgments. This does not necessarily mean that their judgment should be too harsh or too lenient, but the community should be able to apparently read between the lines and conclude that justice was delivered effectively.  Community have no reason to complain or think the Judge was incompetent or unfair in hire or her judgment (Collins & Ringhand, 2013).

Judges and lawyers are known for their lack of diversity. They wine and dine with other ‘learned friends'. Judges and Lawyers   do not take their time to interact with other people in touch with the community other than themselves. Birds of a feather flock together is the motto they live by. For instance, the Supreme Court bench of Queensland was accused of having only Anglo-Saxon Judges.  Lack of diversity limits their exposure since diversity comes with varied opinion on various issues affecting the society as a whole. Therefore this upbringing naturally separates judges from communities at an early start of their careers. Also   the nature of their work isolates them from their communities as they spend most of their time networking with other lawyers or people of the same career path. Hence, in the end, they run out of information that might assist them to become more relevant to a community. The environment created with other legal minds often limits judges becoming ‘all-rounded' individuals (Haggerty, 2003)

Few judges have experience of serving at courts located in multicultural communities or societies. For instance, helping at various international courts of justice or other similar places has a lot of advantages. One of them being that it might give them the expertise they require to understand multiple communities and their perceptions at once.   The judges have spent most of their lives serving ate one bar which limits their experience of what or how to handle a more globalized and multicultural nation. The fact that they have not served as or judged in other international law courts do not deny them the fact that they are great ‘legal Minds’ but it puts a limit to their  experience and this in turn affects their  judgment in important cases that they may require specific multicultural experience (Persily, Citrin& Egan,2008).

Being senior in the ‘world of law' is a fundamental unit lawyers use to judge other lawyers. The more senior one is, the more the respect, and the more he or she rises above the ranks. This actually means that they will address the judges first as compared to other lawyers hence giving them the chance, power, and persuasion to make a first good impression that will sway the judge to make a decision based on the merit of the lawyer rather than his own judgment. A judge is more likely to be convinced by a lawyer of higher standing and reputation than other people who may be more right than the other famous lawyer (Waldrep, 2010).

Some lawyers are accused of not having enough expertise as lawyers, yet they are promoted to judges without any consultations   from other main stake holders. This type of judges end up making very ‘reckless’ decisions that are out of touch with the community (Zuger & Mooney,2010).

 

 

 

Measures that judges can take to ensure that they remain relevant to the community.

May be one of the ways through which the judges can keep ‘ in touch or ‘stay relevant' with the community is by carrying out regular surveys that will give them public opinion of what the community thinks on their decisions or what they expect to from them as judges. They can also come up with ways though which they can get feedback from the litigants immediately after making a judgment these are just some of the ways that can assist judges to incorporate their decisions together with community expectations (Waldrep, 2010).

What is perceived as ‘public opinion' is a deceptive concept and it is not as simple as it tends to appear. It is okay to say that in relation of most of the daily activities of most judges, there is no room for them to incorporate public opinion into their judgement .Most of the members of some communities do not attend court sessions and for those who attend, it is a rare affair or a ‘once in a life time occasion' (Waldrep, 2010).

In the days when juries participated often in the delivery of civil justice, some community members had a different opinion of civil courts .participation of juries in civil courts gave the community an opportunity to know how the courts work and this shifted their opinion of the courts .Although some members of the community maintain their unfavorable opinion on the judiciary or on an individual judge. Presently, the community has very little exposure to the judicial civil structure and the way it operates .The society views judiciary system in terms of its outcomes and a place where disputes are settled .They do not think their opinions matters to the judiciary. individuals whose cases have been handled by a judge  and  they came out as winners are more likely to have a positive opinion of judges' decisions .On  the other hand ,losers might have a different opinion on a   judge's decision. Others might form a rather wider impartial perspective on the decision judges pass as they assume that the judge has a wise decisions due to his ‘hand –on' knowledge in law. Some may take a keen interest while others will mostly likely ignore. Nevertheless, the society normally leaves constitutional law to judges and other experienced personnel in the fields (Waldrep, 2010).

In order to catch the attention of a community and focus is interest on judiciary is through crimes and punishment. This topic normally gains and tractions in the public sector hence the community is forced to engage in it .Opinion on such a topics are widely and expressed   in an honest sincere manner. There is a lot of community participation in crime and Punishment type of cases. Serious crimes are normally handled with the help of a jury. Therefore to get the varied opinion on a judge's decision and the public attitude toward judges (Waldrep, 2010).

The claim that judges are ‘out of touch' is normally leveled at a judge due to sentencing served by the judge to a particular offender. A community will probably react to a sentence made by the judge without considering the underlying factors that contributed to the arrival of the decision. A community's attitude toward a judge's decision or sentencing can only change when the details of the case are laid bare I for the public to understand. The meaning of the charges. Indicators that reveal if the reason behind the charges are true or false .the circumstances that influenced the decisions. Some communities speculate that some sentences may be politically based, not in the sense of political parties but based on the relationship between the community and the judiciary system (Persily, Citrin& Egan, 2008).

Although some judges claim that they know and acknowledge community's values, they may be confusing their personal values with community values for rhetorical reasons and without any tangible evidence that the community share the same values. Judges do not have the ‘know-how' or techniques of evaluating public participation. They generally do not seek to sway public opinions (Persily, Citrin& Egan, 2008).

After acknowledging that there is a major disconnect between a judge's sentencing with the community, the first thing to consider are the implications. Some may be rumors meant to destroy the name of a judge with a good standing and might not have any grounds. If there is more than ‘meets the eye’, it actually means that some judges take some cases lightly as opposed to the public. For instance a murderer may be sentenced to less than ten year in prison yet the community expected a hung sentence to serve as a lesson to anyone who would try to commit the same mistake in the community. The repercussions may cause the community to react by taking laws into their ‘own hands’. They may need up killing people they think deserved a heftier price than the one judge granted them .A plausible sentence which id guided by principles and procedure of law will most likely reflect attitudes of a society toward crime and punishment .Of course nobody believes that a judge should make their decision d based on the roar of a crowd. On the other hand, if there is any part that the judiciary must always maintain contact with is the public ethics while making their decisions. Parliament has major role to play to ensure the public opinion is well represented in court .parliament ensures that sentencing, both maximum and minimum are done in the right manner. Even so, the major role is still with the judiciary (Persily, Citrin& Egan, 2008).

The community most of the times knows the manner in which judges arrive at their decisions .Unlike most decision makers or other forms of leadership, judges must give out reasons behind their sentences to the public to justify and solidify their decisions and assure the public that justice was indeed delivered .The public may end up being unsatisfied by the decision as nobody puts into consideration what the public thinks of the case. Therefore, there is a need to enlighten and bring into account public opinion issues that are crucial to the community .Passing of a judgement without having a  second thought of what the community, might be going through   can lead to a negative attitude toward an institution. Opinion of the public on the judiciary is an important aspect that needs to be looked into by law experts (Alarid, Cromwell, Carmen & Cromwell, 2008).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Alarid, L. F., Cromwell, P. F., Del Carmen, R. V., & Cromwell, P. F. (2008). Community-based corrections. Belmont, CA, Thomson/Wadsworth.

Christensen, K., & Levinson, D. (2008). Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world. Sage

Coffey, K. (2010). Spinning the law: trying cases in the court of public opinion. Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books.

Collins, P. M., & RINGHAND, L. A. (2013). Supreme Court confirmation hearings and constitutional change.

Haggerty, J. F. (2003). In the court of public opinion: winning your case with public relations.

Persily, N., Citrin, J., & Egan, P. J. (2008). Public opinion and constitutional controversy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Waldrep, C. (2010). Jury discrimination: the Supreme Court, public opinion, and a grassroots fight for racial equality in Mississippi. Athens, Ga, University of Georgia Press.

Zuger, M., & Mooney, S. (2010). Public attitudes toward civil justice: a report. New York, N.Y. (110 William St., New York 10038), Insurance Information Institute.