We have heard the term, Dispassionate Justice offered up by the Judicial system as the description of the method employed to render legal decisions. Judges have used this term to disassociate themselves from the litigating parties and the consequences of judicial decisions passed upon the guilty party. We all should recognize that judges are not machines and therefore are subject to emotionally driven responses. The Court speaks of dispassion to assure the public of the integrity of it’s decisions. However, dispassionate justice is something we the public define quite differently than judges, we use the same terms but not the same meanings. Dispassionate to the public means legal decisions without the influence of agenda or prejudice.

Dispassionate justice properly used brings about a just, fair and impartial decision based not on who the litigant is but on what the litigant did. This is very important since any decision based on the litigant’s make up or genetics, relatives, religion, politics or national origin does not serve the cause of Justice and invalidates the integrity of the process. Therefore, any use of stereotypes and it’s resulting emotional perceptions of individuals in making prejudicial legal decisions is contrary to the nature of justice. In fact, the US Constitution has codified this principal in the 14th Amendment by guarantying equal treatment under the law.

Perception therefore becomes the emotional factor every judge must control in order to render a just decision. The question then of dispassion is not of a decision based on a set of perceived facts but on method of arriving at the final judgment to be rendered and the consequences to the litigant. We see this is in total opposition to the current practice of the Court. This is evidenced by the disproportionate custody awards to women, the disproportionate DV findings against men, the disproportionate incarceration of blacks and men in general. Disproportionality is a marker of intent and emotional influence by decision makers, i.e. the judges. It should be clear that judges have allowed emotion to influence their perception of the facts given the disproportionality of their decisions.

We the public do want a human judge with emotions and not a machine, otherwise why not use a computer to mechanically arrive at the decision? Why? In order to render a fair decision a human must find the appropriate consequence to the unique set of circumstances each case presents, this is called the merits of the case. A computer can not know the emotional well being of a child in a custody case, and it can not tell if a person is misrepresenting the facts to alter the perception of the truth. But we can use a computer to verify the outcome of human activity, this why monitoring of judicial decisions for proportionality is feasible and necessary to ensure the integrity of the process.

It is imperative that judges and other court personnel regularly attend diversity training to help keep them aware of emotionally based perceptions. This is particularly true for civil cases since the standard is the probability of guilt. Probability is greatly determined by a person’s worldview and that is influenced by emotion. As a society, we cannot accept a judge with an agenda or prejudicial worldview rendering legal decisions. Integrity requires judges with an agenda engaging in social engineering and not deciding cases on their merits must be immediately removed from office. Judges who continue to use stereotypes in determining guilt are incapable of just and fair decisions must be removed from office. Dispassionate Justice is not about showing a callous disregard for the consequences of a decision upon others, on the contrary, it is about the emotional connection of a just decision upon the parties involved. It is an emotionally passionate desire for everyone to be treated equally and fairly using the same standards for all. The true character of a judge is measured by their emotional passion for equality, by diligently seeking the truth and humility supporting the overriding concern for the outcome in the face of error, anything less is unacceptable.