Lably
Skip to content

Judge

Person who is going to decide a decision according to the law in the court

  • 22 min read
  • 3 chapters
  • 3 labs on Lably
Public hearings of the Court presided over by H.E. Judge Rosalyn Higgins (February/March 2006) - Sixtieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice – Solemn sitting of Wednesday 12 April 2006
Jeroen Bouman · Public domain

Learn it on Lably

The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate. The presiding judge ensures that all court proceedings are lawful and orderly.

Powers and functions

The ultimate task of a judge is to settle a legal dispute in a final and publicly lawful manner in agreement with substantial partialities. Judges exercise significant governmental power. Depending on their position and jurisdiction, they may be able to order police, military, or judicial officials to carry out searches, arrests, imprisonments, executions, garnishments, detentions, seizures, deportations, and similar actions. However, judges also supervise trial procedures to ensure consistency and impartiality and to reduce arbitrariness. A judge's powers are checked by higher courts, such as courts of appeal and supreme courts.

A criminal court usually has three main legally trained court officials: the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney. The role of a judge can vary between legal systems. In an adversarial system (common law), as in effect in the U.S. and England, the judge functions as an impartial referee, mainly ensuring correct procedure, while the prosecution and the defense present their case to a jury, often selected from common citizens. The main factfinder is the jury, and the judge will then finalize sentencing. Nevertheless, in smaller cases judges can issue summary judgments without proceeding to a jury trial. In an inquisitorial system (civil law), as in effect in continental Europe, there is no jury and the main factfinder is the judge, who will do the presiding, judging and sentencing on their own. As such, the judge is expected to apply the law directly, as in the French expression Le juge est la bouche de la loi ("The judge is the mouth of the law"). Furthermore, in some systems even investigations may be conducted by the judge, functioning as an examining magistrate.

Judges may work alone in smaller cases, but in criminal, family and other significant cases, they work in a panel. In some civil law systems, this panel may include lay judges. Unlike professional judges, lay judges are not legally trained, but unlike jurors, lay judges are usually volunteers and may be politically appointed. Judges are often assisted by law clerks, referendaries and notaries in legal cases and by bailiffs or similar with security.

Requirements and appointment

There are both volunteer and professional judges. A volunteer judge, such as an English magistrate, is not required to have legal training and is unpaid. Whereas, a professional judge is required to be legally educated; in the U.S., this generally requires a degree of Juris Doctor. Furthermore, significant professional experience is often required; for example, in the U.S., judges are often appointed from experienced attorneys.

Judges are often appointed in an indirect election. Obstructionism during the nomination process can result in a partisan imbalance in the share of judges. In some jurisdictions, judges are elected in a direct election.

Accountability

In many jurisdictions judicial independence to avoid partisan pressures is paired with mechanisms to prevent judicial activism or sentencing disparities. Judges can differ in their leniency. Harvard Law Review notes that judicial immunity with ineffectual judicial oversight results in lack of deterrence for judicial misconduct. Judicial retention elections can improve judicial accountability.

Impartiality is often considered important for rule of law. A study found in pivotal court cases the personal political ideology of judges motivates their decisions. In political questions judges can prevent political bias by deciding along the preferences of the median citizen.

Judge as an occupation

Judges must be able to research and process extensive lengths of documents, witness testimonies, and other case material, understand complex cases and possess a thorough understanding of the law and legal procedure, which requires excellent skills in logical reasoning, analysis and decision-making. Excellent writing skills are also a necessity, given the finality and authority of the documents written. Judges work with people all the time; by the nature of the job, good dispute resolution and interpersonal skills are a necessity. Judges are required to have good moral character, i.e. there must be no history of crime. Professional judges often enjoy a high salary, in the U.S. the median salary of judges is $101,690 per annum, and federal judges earn $208,000–$267,000 per annum.

Gender identity

Women are overrepresented among the first instance judges in France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Serbia, Slovenia, contributed by overrepresentation of women among law graduates. In contrast in UK, Ireland and the United States men are overrepresented among first instance judges. In the supreme courts of the United States and some European Union member-states women are underrepresented, except for France with gender parity in 2018 and Romania, where men are underrepresented.

Age and retirement

The term of office for judges varies. In the United States, federal judges are appointed "for good behavior", which means in practice, that federal judges have life tenure unless they voluntarily retire or are impeached. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the office in 2020 and suspension of Pauline Newman in 2023 reinvigorated the discussion about mandatory retirement age for federal judges, but such change would require a constitutional amendment and is unlikely to be implemented soon.

States have more flexibility in establishing a mandatory retirement age for judges, as was confirmed by the SCOTUS in its 1991 decision Gregory v. Ashcroft. As of 2015, 33 States and the District of Columbia had mandatory retirement ages for State court judges, which ranged from 70 to 75 for most (but is as high as 90 in Vermont). A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found significant positive effects on the performance of state Supreme Courts with mandatory retirement age for judges. The authors advocated the adoption of mandatory retirement ages for all federal and state judges, although they felt, that the individual authorities should decide on the specific age for themselves.

Abbreviations

The abbreviation "JJ" or "JJ." is often used as an abbreviation for the plural form of judges or justices

In Australia, additional abbreviations used for various types of judges include:

  • JJ (Justices)
  • CJ (Chief Justice)
  • ACJ (Acting Chief Justice)
  • FM (Federal Magistrate)
  • JA (Justice of Appeal)
  • DCJ (District Court Judge)

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Law