 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - February 23, 2001 Politics and Paranoia Have No Place in Judicial Reform By: Peter E. Hutchins The following article was published in the Union Leader on Feb. 5, 2001.A recent editorial in the Union Leader (Jan. 25, 2001) addressed the proposed new Judicial Conduct Commission. Currently, the Judicial Conduct Committee, under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, investigates and decides allegations of judicial misconduct made against New Hampshire judges. The proposal would make the JCC independent of the court, and would add to its membership a majority of lay persons and appointees of both the governor and the Legislature. Somehow, this thoughtful, far-reaching proposal wasn't enough for the Union Leader, which dismissed these significant and historical structural changes as further evidence of the nameless, faceless "good old boys'" club that traditional critics of the judiciary have dragged up every year. Unmentioned was the fact that this state's judicial conduct procedures are among the most open and accessible in the country. This unfortunate editorial, penned in the midst of a legislative session during which many judicial reform bills are being considered, serves only to further interject politics and paranoia into a serious process. Many people, including legislators, lawyers, judges and members of the business and academic community have worked long hours researching these issues to ensure that any judicial reforms that result address actual problems, rather than merely punishing a branch of government. Their work is aimed at improving the system of justice to benefit New Hampshire citizens who are the "consumers" of our courts and judicial system. This is a time for serious people with serious ideas, not for personal political agendas, innuendo and attack by anecdote. The stakes involved are high: the efficient, fair and dispassionate administration of justice in New Hampshire. To evaluate the state's courts and legal system objectively and accurately, it would be much more instructive to receive the input of jurors, witnesses and users of the court system rather than the complaints and/or letters of disgruntled litigants who disagreed with a specific decision. In virtually every case brought to the courts, just as in athletic contests, there is a winner and a loser. It is the duty of a judge to decide cases based upon the facts and the law, not to win popularity contests or consider the political consequences of the decision. The judiciary in New Hampshire works hard, often under difficult circumstances, including a lack of adequate staff and technological resources, to accomplish this end. While the impeachment proceedings of last summer revealed certain structural problems that need attention, it is wrong to condemn the entire judicial and legal system in New Hampshire that continues to serve our citizens well on a daily basis. In fact, the recent performance audit by the Legislature of the Family Division and the superior courts (published January 2000 and available at http://gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/fdpp2000p.html) resulted in extremely high performance ratings for both courts. Despite objective, empirical evidence such as this, it is frustrating to observe those not involved in the system or in efforts to improve it attempt to distort public opinion by inventing false premises, i.e., a present day "old boys' club," or a "corrupt" and "rotten" judiciary. They apparently believe that if this overblown rhetoric is repeated often enough, it will eventually be taken as truth, thereby eroding trust in an entire branch of government. Members of the legal profession do favor improvement of our legal system. We strongly desire to work with the other branches of government to make necessary changes. We support making permanent the governor's current merit-based judicial selection process. We support including members of the House and Senate in judicial rulemaking, We support an independent Judicial Conduct Committee, and we applaud the court's decision to seek public input on the proposal-the actual occasion for the Union Leader's derisive editorial. We support strict policies for recusal. We support the appropriation of funds to improve the technology of the court system to provide the public greater access to public court documents and decisions. We support enhancements that will better allow judges to handle their dockets. We support thorough study of our appellate structure and procedures to improve the ability of citizens to appeal decisions from trial courts that they believe are contrary to the law, while enhancing the ability of the appellate judges to decide these cases. We invite the assistance of anyone who truly desires to enhance judicial functioning and accountability while maintaining decisional independence. We look forward to working with members of all three branches of government and the public to achieve these ends. For those who wish only to promote political agendas and sow fear and cynicism, we ask that you subdue the rhetoric and allow thoughtful improvement of the system to move forward for the benefit of New Hampshire's citizens and government. Peter E. Hutchins, of the Hall, Hess, Stewart, Murphy & Brown law firm in Manchester, is president-elect of the N.H. Bar Association.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
