Ethical Issues Publication

...

Influence From Private Correction Facilities

Technically, the owners of private rehabilitation centers play a significant role as far as human trafficking is concerned. Judges are human, and they are capable of receiving bribe from this faction of selfish individuals. Globally, the profits gained from human trafficking estimates at a figure of somewhere around 30 billion US dollars annually. Cases point to the possibility of some judges directly benefiting from human trafficking. In order to protect the integrity of the judiciary, judges can engage in extra-judicial acts in the event that the acts are deemed necessary in upholding the rule of law. By doing so, the judge can improve the overall performance of the legal system with regard to combating human trafficking.

Inappropriate Extra-Judicial Activities

Judges hearing a case involving a human trafficking victim may exercise duties that are beyond their jurisdiction. The sole role of deciding the case lies entirely with the judge. Skeptical human right watchdogs warn that jury can act improperly within their capacity. There are some reported cases where the presiding judge takes actions aimed at protecting trafficking victims. It is not within the law for a judge to make private meeting within the chambers with the prosecutors or the defense attorney. Moreover, judges should not advise prosecutor on matters pertaining to evidence needed to support a conviction. Reported incidences of such unbecoming behavior on the side of the jury are on the rise. Questioning either the prosecutor or the defense attorney privately is an outright bridge of code of conduct.

Various studies seek to redefine the judiciary as reactive rather than proactive in regard to human trafficking. For instance, if there is a suspicion that a criminal defendant is a trafficking victim, the judge is obliged to determine the appropriate victim protection steps. The steps taken aim at assisting the trafficking victim without compromising the fairness and the impartiality aspects of the criminal justice. Ethical issues are bound to arise in such situations especially if the judge’s concerns are on the outcome of the decision.

Public Speculations

The majority of the judges would not like their judgment to be predetermined on the basis that he or she has ruled the case as possible human trafficking. Such speculation may prevent judges from applying the proper ethical steps in the event that the defendant is still innocent to the trafficking allegations. A judge has all the capacity of helping a victim or defendant at sentencing. Therefore, within his /her discretion, the judge can mitigate the circumstances under evaluation. For instance, if a victim is convicted of robbery with violence, chances are that she can convince the jury by claiming that she was a victim of human trafficking and the pimp forced her to commit the crime. The judge can capitalize on the mitigating factor to determine the appropriate disposition measure for the victim. This act is an outright promotion of the crime.

Impartiality

The impartiality aspect may at time present a challenge to the judges. This perspective affects the hearing process in the sense that it limits the trial process (Vallentyne, 2000). Human trafficking is a case that requires both the parties to talk about the merits of the issue at hand. However, disregarding impartiality and fairness, the judge may be able to rule in a case that implicates that the defendant is a victim of human trafficking.

Trafficking Screening

Analytical methods and human trafficking tool proves vital in the provision of substantial information needed to support a ruling in the courts. Normally, judges would like to avoid speculations that may arise before their ruling. As such, human trafficking tools could be used to assess the status of the victim. According to scholars, human trafficking tool works well to identify the trafficking victim with the allegation. However, it remains unclear whether it is mandatory for a judge to take the screening to a more advanced level that requires the adoption of a standard practice. Some cases may demand screening, but the majority of them do not necessitate the need for the adoption of human trafficking screening.

Judges often find themselves in a dilemma when to carry out screening and on what type of cases. Sluggishness or the absolute failure by the judge to decide the appropriate method facilitates human trafficking in the sense that the trafficker may receive a lesser punishment. According to CJC Canon 4, the provisions outline when a judge can utilize quasi-judicial prerogatives. However, the provision calls for the adoption of precautionary measures. The majority of the judicial acts should strive at reflecting impartiality and neutrality.

Improper Ex Parte Communication

Efforts to address the vice in the judiciary face many challenges as well. Scholars argue against some of the measure put in place to address the vice. Most of the proposed remedies call for diligence from the judges. The big issues arise if the proposed mechanism conflicts with the interests of the judges. For instance, Ex parte communication in a committee meeting is an absolute violation of the rule of law if the judge realizes that most of the discussions are centered on an unofficial discussion of a trafficking case. According to Rule 2.9 (B), it is in accordance with the law for the judge to leave the meeting. However, curiosity may overcome the judge prompting him/her to overhear the conversation.

Bridge of code of Conduct

Judges should also avoid sponsoring human trafficking activities. Collaborative measures ranging from the unwarranted sponsoring oh human trafficking conference from the chambers compromises the judicial stand on the vice. For instance, a significant number of the judges may act improperly by engaging in fundraising activities. Rule 3.7 of the government statute outlines the actions of a judge with regard to fundraising activities. As such, according to the rule (3.7[(A) (1)], a judge can plan a fundraising event but according to (3.7[(A) (1)] it is not advisable for him/her to participate directly in the funding (Americanbar.org, 2015).

Conclusion

Judges can engage in any activity that promotes the integrity of the judicial system. Some of the judge’s deliberations and the ultimate decision should not be in any way capable of casting doubts on their impartiality. Judicial involvement

...