What motivates judges to rule justly?
<p>In a market every shop has an incentive to charge a fair price: Charge too little, they go bankrupt. Charge too much and they won't sell anything.</p>
<p>What mechanisms exist to encourage judges to rule justly, or to avoid ruling based on other interests than the law?</p>

<p>Motivation can reasonably be reduced to the question "What's in it for me?". If you conclude that an action is contrary to your interests (however conceived), you won't be motivated (moved) to take the action. What constitutes being "in your interest" depends largely on your value system (plus lots of philosophical stuff that we don't have space to discuss). One motivation is reducible to the question "How much money can I get?"; a distinct motivation is "What is right (proper)?" A third version is "How can I be upheld most often?". The first of these is generally abjured as corruption, although it is a real factor in some jurisdictions. The third alternative is a variant of the first, which we generally recognize as being a form of immoral corruption (since the value gained is money).</p>

<p>As for judges who rule in a particular way because that is how they can be upheld most often, that is a variant of the first motivation, which we understand as being economic corruption: rather than gaining dollars (rupee, yuan etc) they gain approval units. Which leaves us with judges that decide based on what is proper. In other words, the matter can be reduced to the choice "Do I decided based on what is?", versus "Do I decide based on what I want?". </p>

<p>As it happens, the notion of "being just" is extremely variable, since there is no generally-accepted understanding of what "justice" even means. Thus appeals to "justice" are pretty useless when it comes to understanding contemporary law.</p>

<p>[Addendum]</p>

<p>You can always complain to the media (I exclude jurisdictions where that is prohibited by law, and there is also a problem that <em>lawyers</em> don't get to fully enjoy the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment). Some judges are elected, so if you can manufacture a sentiment that a judge is unjust, they might be a 1-term judge. There is no such mechanism for appointed judges (which are the majority, as far as I know in all jurisdictions). If they don't correctly apply the law, they might be overturned, and possibly in extreme cases removed (by higher judges). The only other stick is prosecution, which is reserved for certain corrupt actions and not for misapplication of legal principles.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What mechanisms exist to encourage judges to rule justly, or to avoid ruling based on other interests than the law?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer depends largely upon the system for appointing judges.</p>
<p><strong>System 1:</strong> About half of the states elect judges. In such a system, election is one of the motivating factors.</p>
<p><strong>System 2:</strong> I'll use New Jersey to illustrates this. Judges are appointed but there are only two types of appointments: Supreme Court and all others. In the all other category there are different judicial roles:</p>
<ol>
<li>Appellate</li>
<li>Criminal</li>
<li>Civil</li>
<li>Family</li>
<li>Chancery</li>
<li>Chief Judge</li>
</ol>
<p>The Supreme Court assigns the judges to specific rules. Some roles are considered more prestigious or powerful or or more interest. Being a chief judge, appellate division judge, or chancery judge is generally considered more prestigious roles. Many judges consider family court to be purgatory while others love family. Judges are motivated to develop a reputation that will allow them to move into roles that that like.</p>
<p><strong>System 3:</strong> Judges are appointed to specific roles. The federal system is one example. In that system, there really are no mechanisms for reigning in judges, especially those who are not interested in a new appointment.</p>
<p>If a federal judge wants to be a nut case, there is nothing that can really be done.</p>

<p>Basic rule of thumb when it comes to judges addressing facts is a judge wears what is called "13th juror" hat - the controlling doctrine is "reasonable person" a jury is considered a reasonable person (judge's view of facts are controlled by "reasonable person's view"  so would a reasonable person agree or disagree with your contentions which boils down to the art of the argument - </p>

<p>the saying, "the play is the thing we shall use to influence the consciousness of the king." that is one I like to explain the art of the argument (are you believe able would a reasonable person agree with your stance  - as far as law that too rest greatly in one's research, on point case law - there is always more research that can be done on a case - more time to read, rest and reflect to advance one's understanding and use of relevant case law to set certain facts as fixed and so on  - complexity of common sense etc., rest in the beauty of law </p>

judge judging