Judicial Performance Evaluations

Judicial performance evaluations (JPEs) are essential “mechanisms used to assess how judges perform their jobs,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243). They assist the public by offering ‘judicial progress reports;’ whilst placing a personal obligation and accountability on the impartial nature of judges, and the execution of their duties.

California became the first state to create a judicial conduct commission in 1960; setting precedent, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243). JPEs combine, (1) the summation of interdependent analysis from lawyers, and the court of public opinion; and, (2) “objective metrics,” recording judicial efficacy. The union of these two components formulate an assessment of a judge’s impartiality, knowledge, legal reasoning, clarity, timeliness, and communication skills, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243).

Methods to Undertake JPE

The methods that undertake judicial performance evaluations can be “[f]ormal” utilizing “recall elections and impeachment proceedings;” though seldom used, (Neubauer & Fradella, Ch. 8–5c). The majority of methods for dealing with judicial misconduct impart “the judicial conduct commission,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 244). Thus, JPE’s are designed to target the actions of “corrupt judges”—not a judge’s distasteful behavior, or the unfavorable effects of aging, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 244).

Pros and Cons of JPE

Benefits. On one hand, JPEs favorably allow judges to correct their behavior, offering data to help improve their performance, and informs the public of a judges “attentiveness, preparation, control over courtroom proceeding, temperament, and demeanor,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243). Another benefit of JPEs are that once the commission closes an investigation, “the matter is permanently concluded,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243).

Detriments. On the other hand, JPEs unfavorably leave large disparities in the quantity of disciplinary actions are taken by state judicial conduct commissions. According to a recent study, the larger the commission’s budget, the more disciplinary actions that are taken, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 243).

Biblically, judicial performance evaluations comport with Scripture in that every assessment directs its focus on efficacy and impartiality of the judge’s performance. Jesus declared that “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me,” (John 5:30; ESV). So must judges make decisions that are based on law; lest supplanting delegation with preference. Moreover, judges are obligated to act righteously in order to gain clear provision, (Mat 7:5).

Conclusion

In sum, judicial performance evaluations serve as an assurance that the judiciary is operating within its jurisdiction and quantifying the impartiality of the judge’s adjudications. Judges bear an obligation for to exhibit honorable adjudicative behavior, thus JPEs are a necessary consequence to judicial misconduct. Moreover, JPEs have established formal expectations for impartial morality in adjudications.

Bibliography

ESV. John 5:30; Matthew 7:5

Neubauer, D.; Fradella, H. (2017, 2019). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Publishing.