Scott Turow Reflections on the Nature of Judging
Scott Turow’s appearance last night at the Forum was superb. As always, he was charming, engaging, and smart. He read an excerpt from his latest novel, LIMITATIONS, a terrific book and a breezy read that raises many questions concerning the nature of judgment and the illusion of objectivity.
Judges are not removed from the realm of human experience. They come to the bench with their own backstories, past experiences that inform their present thinking. For this reason, judgment can never be totally blind. There are biases and prejudices harbored by the very people who profess to be neutral and impartial. There are limitations to human understanding, even among judges, surely among judges. And the judges themselves face limitations in their own character–the flaws that we all have as human beings. And yet we ask them to judge. How can that be so? As the protagonist in LIMITATIONS, George Mason, a state appellate court judge, asks: “Who are we to judge?”
Rusty Sabich, the protagonist in PRESUMED INNOCENT, resurfaces in LIMITATIONS as a secondary character, the chief judge on the appellate court, and, when faced with this question, suggests that we want our judges to be plagued by the memories and traumas of their own personal lives when rendering judgment because such reflections and influences ultimately ensures the quality of mercy.
What do you think?
December 12th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Says:
The quality of mercy is not something the legal system is designed to employ. Mercy is for individuals; kings, dictators, James Bond, The Terminator. A system can’t institutionalize mercy. It’s a human trait, not an organizational one.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Says:
Do we want judges to be human? When they join the Legal System, shouldn’t they be something better than human. That is the case in many professions. We don’t want pilots to be “human” when the enter the cockpit, because in a circumstance of emergency the lives of the crew and passengers are dependent on him being more level headed than a human. Humans make too many mistakes.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Says:
The fact that there are limits to human understanding is the reason we do not want judges relying on personal opinions and “backstories” –including prejudice, bias, psat experiences–to make their judgments. If humans had limitless capacity to understand disputes and conflics, maybe we would encourage judges to use their “backstories” to do their job. Since that is not the case, neutrality and impartiality are supposed to protect defendants from judgments swayed by passions.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Says:
What’s with all the anonymous commenting?
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Says:
This is an interesting debate.