(b) According to the cases they try, courts are either civil (in which redress of private injuries is sought) or criminal (in which the community prosecutes public wrongs).
(c) According to the law which they use courts are ecclesiastical or secular.
(d) According to the form of procedure used and the remedies applied, courts in the United States are divided into courts of common law, courts of equity, probate, admiralty, and military courts.
1942. Jurisdiction.--Authority is necessary in a judge, for judgment is a binding decision that may be executed by force, and this supposes that he who p.r.o.nounces the judgment is the superior of the person on whom the judgment is pa.s.sed, Hence, he who acts as judge when he lacks jurisdiction acts invalidly (unless jurisdiction is supplied, as in common error for an ecclesiastical judge, in Canon 209), and offends against the rights of another judge and of the person on whom he pa.s.ses sentence. Examples would be secular judges acting in ecclesiastical cases or ecclesiastical judges acting in temporal cases.
1943. The Qualifications of a Judge.--(a) Mentally, he must be endowed with knowledge of the law and with prudence, so as to be competent to p.r.o.nounce correctly on the questions that are brought to him for decision; for, as being the authorized interpreter and custodian of the law, he is bound by quasi-contract with the community and with those who appear before him to be competent for these offices. If a judge realizes that he is incompetent in these ways, he must either resign his office, or make up for his deficiency by study or consultation with those who are more learned than himself. A juryman, being a layman to the law, is not expected to have the mental equipment of a lawyer; but it is his duty to give his attention to the statements, arguments and testimony and to the instructions of the judge.
(b) Morally, the judge must be a lover of justice, whether commutative, distributive or legal; for the proper office of the judge is to apply the law to particular cases and to declare officially the mutual rights and obligations of litigants who are before him. He must not be a respecter of persons, one who is moved for or against a man on account of rank, position or wealth, nor one who is swayed by fear or favor, by popular outcry or personal ambition. Not only legal but also commutative justice obliges him to perform his duties conscientiously; for in taking his office he enters into a quasi-contract with the community to execute his functions faithfully and well, and similarly by trying a case he engages that those before him will receive evenhanded justice. A juror should be a conscientious person who is openminded and free from prejudice for or against those on whom he has to vote.
1944. Conduct of a Judge.--A judge must be above suspicion, since respect for the courts is the very life of the State. But there is good reason to suspect a judge who judges in his own case, or in a case in which he will be naturally inclined to favor one side. Hence the duty of abstaining from certain things.
(a) Thus, he should avoid business, social and political activities that will give ground for belief that he uses his office for the promotion of private interests.
(b) He should not act in a case in which his own advantage or the advantage of his friends might appear to conflict with the duty of strict impartiality, as when he has personal litigation in the court, or when a near relative of his is party in a controversy, or when one of the contestants is his personal or political friend or enemy, etc.
Canon 1613 of the Code forbids a church judge to act in the case of a person related by blood or marriage in the direct line or in the first and second degrees of the collateral line, or of a person for whom he is guardian or administrator, or in cases in which he had previously acted as advocate or proxy, or from which he stands to profit or lose.
(c) He should refrain from conduct that would tend to arouse doubts of his impartial att.i.tude, such as incivility to counsel or witnesses, unexplained rulings that have the appearance of arbitrariness, private interviews or dealings with one of the parties before him in ways calculated to influence his action.
1945. Accepting Gifts from Litigants or Others.--May a judge take money or other goods from those whose interests are submitted to him, such as litigants or lawyers in his court or their friends?
(a) If the goods are extorted by threats or pressure or unjust vexation, the judge is guilty of robbery, since he forcibly takes that to which he has no right.
(b) If the goods are given as payment for the judge"s services during the trial, the judge sins against commutative justice in receiving payment for services already due, since his salary comes from the community and obliges him to administer justice without charge to those who seek it. Neither is it lawful to take money as compensation for trying one case before another, or for hastening a case, or for giving unusual diligence to a complicated case, or for deciding for one side when the evidence is equal on both sides. But the law could permit a judge to collect his expenses from both parties if the trial necessitated a personal outlay of money (e.g., for travel or hire of a.s.sistants) and there was no public fund to defray these costs.
(c) If the goods are offered as bribes, in order that the judge may be influenced to act against justice, it is clear that grave injustice is done both to the community and to the party who is injured.
(d) If the goods are given as free gifts, with no condition attached, some think they may be lawfully accepted, if there is little probability that they will influence the judge (e.g., because they are small or given after the trial has ended). But others hold, and it seems more correctly, that both natural and positive law forbids this.
Natural law forbids because of the danger ("Presents and gifts blind the eyes of judges, and make them dumb in the mouth, so that they cannot correct," Ecclus., xx. 31), and because of the mistrust and scandal that will result. It is incorrect to suppose that small gifts and gifts offered after sentence would not have influence, for the contending parties would soon come to vie with one another in making gifts, while judges would begin to think about the gratuities that might be looked for at the conclusion of a trial. Canon Law forbids all ecclesiastical judges and all who a.s.sist in court to accept any gifts whatever that are offered in connection with the trial (Canon 1624), and the civil law provides severe penalties for bribes offered as gifts.
(e) If goods are given as a mere alms or from civility or hospitality (e.g., food and drink such as is usually offered to a guest or visitor), it does not seem unlawful in itself to accept them, but, since there is a danger of suspicion and scandal, even this should be avoided.
1946. Obligation of a Judge to Restore Goods Received in the Above-Mentioned Ways.--(a) If retention of the goods is contrary to the reasonable wishes of the person who gave them, rest.i.tution is necessary. Hence, the judge must give back money that was extorted and the payments made by private parties for the exercise of his official duties.
(b) If retention of the goods is contrary to law, rest.i.tution is also necessary. Hence, if a judge has taken a bribe, he must give it back, because the agreement is null, and he cannot lawfully keep his part of the compact by acting contrary to justice. The same is true when the law voids the contract whereby he received the goods, or when a court decree obliges him to return a free gift bestowed upon him.
(c) If retention of the goods is not contrary to the will of the giver nor to the law, rest.i.tution is not necessary. Hence, if a judge has received a pure gift and no corruption was intended or practised, he sinned in taking it, but the donation was valid and there is no obligation to return it. And even though he has taken a bribe, and in consideration of it has acted against justice, it seems there is no natural obligation to make rest.i.tution to the party who gave the bribe, since the latter has received a consideration for his payment, but the judge is held to indemnify the injured party.
1947. Duties of a Judge in the Course of a Trial.--(a) The purpose of the investigation is to discover the truth in the matter before the court, and consequently it is the duty of a judge to give a case the study and attention it deserves.
(b) The method of procedure is intended to secure a fair hearing for both parties and so to expedite business that the litigants will not be harmed by needless delays. The judge should therefore observe the necessary and customary forms of law, while avoiding waste of time and unnecessary interruptions. "It is not the custom of the Romans," said Festus to the Jews who asked him to condemn Paul, "to condemn any man, before that he who is accused have his accusers present, and have liberty to make his answer, to clear himself of the things laid to his charge" (Acts, xxv. 15).
1948. Duties of a Judge at the Conclusion of a Trial.--(a) The sentence must be just, that is, it must be based on the law and the evidence.
Even though a judge does not personally approve of a law, thinking it unwise or unnecessary or over-severe, he should nevertheless enforce it; for he is appointed, not to change or reform, but to apply the law, yet so, however, that the spirit is not sacrificed.
(b) Sentence must not be relaxed as a rule, for otherwise the rights of the State or of the party winning the case will be harmed. But there are times when the public good or some other sufficient reason calls for relaxation, and in such cases judges have the power to refrain from pa.s.sing sentence or to suspend or respite a sentence already announced.
The defeated party should be allowed the opportunity which the law grants him for seeking a reversal of the judgment.
1949. Sentence Pa.s.sed under a Law Manifestly Unjust.--(a) If the law is manifestly opposed to divine or natural law and sentence under it would command the commission of an act intrinsically evil (e.g., cohabitation of those who are not really married, "mercy killing" of the physically or mentally incapacitated, eugenic sterilization of defectives or criminals), the judge should resign rather than give such a sentence.
(b) If the law is manifestly opposed to divine or natural law and sentence under it would inflict a grievous penalty (e.g., death or long imprisonment) on the transgressor of the law, sentence would be unlawful. But if only a light penalty would be inflicted (e.g., a small fine or short confinement), it seems that sentence might be tolerated; for the person condemned might be considered to yield his rights in such a case for the sake of the public good, which suffers from the loss of conscientious officials. The act of the judge in giving the sentence would be only material coperation, which is lawful for grave reasons (see 1515 sqq.).
(c) If the law is manifestly opposed to ecclesiastical law, sentence may be given lawfully, if scandal is avoided and the Church yields her right in the case, as is sometimes done in favor of Catholic judges, lest they be deprived of their positions.
1950. May a Catholic Judge Grant a Decree of Divorce?---Apart from scandal or a positive ecclesiastical prohibition:
(a) The judge may grant a divorce to a couple not married validly although they have had a marriage ceremony recognized by civil law.
This would occur in the case of Catholics married before a civil magistrate or non-Catholic minister. Also, when the Church has p.r.o.nounced a marriage invalid, civil divorce may be granted for the sake of civil effects.
(b) Divorce may be granted if the judge knows that one of the parties will invoke the Pauline privilege.
(c) If the judge is morally certain that neither party will attempt remarriage and that the divorce is being sought merely for the sake of civil effects, he may grant the divorce. In the case of Catholics the consent of Church authorities would be required for this procedure.
(d) If the marriage is valid and it is known that the parties will attempt a new marriage, some consider that a decree of divorce is intrinsically evil, since it but applies a law that attempts, contrary to divine right, to dissolve the marriage bond. Others (and this is the more common view today) distinguish and think that the decree of divorce does not concern the religious obligation of the pet.i.tioners, but is simply an official declaration that the state regards the civil effects of the marriage as no longer existing. Under certain circ.u.mstances, (e. g., loss of office for refusal to accept a divorce case, loss of prestige, antagonism, etc.), such a decree, in itself morally indifferent, may be permitted.
(e) If there is question of partial divorce (i.e., separation from bed and board) of Catholic spouses, a decree is lawful, the Church consenting, for a reason recognized by ecclesiastical authority, such as adultery.
1951. When Evidence Is Contrary to Personal Knowledge of Judge.--(a) In a civil case, the judge should follow the public evidence rather than his private knowledge; for he acts as a public, not as a private, person. Moreover, the State has the power to transfer property from one to another, when the common good requires this, and the common good requires that civil decisions be based on public evidence rather than on private information. Some moralists deny this conclusion on the ground that it is intrinsically wrong to force a person to pay who does not owe, even though the evidence is against him.
(b) In a criminal case, the judge should follow the evidence rather than his own knowledge, if the evidence calls for acquittal of the accused; for it is better for the public welfare that a guilty man escape than that the judicial order be neglected and a rule admitted that might convict the innocent as well as the guilty.
(c) In a criminal case in which the evidence points to guilt while the judge"s private knowledge a.s.sures him of the innocence of the accused, the judge must not condemn, if there is any legal way to avoid it. But if the evidence stands and the judge has to p.r.o.nounce sentence, it is not easy to determine the course that should be followed. According to St. Thomas, the judge should condemn, since he is a public official and must therefore be guided by the allegations and proofs offered during the trial, especially since public order and respect for law depend on the good reputation of the courts. If judges could disregard at will the evidence offered on account of private knowledge they claimed to have, the confidence of the public in the integrity of courts would be shaken, men would take the law into their own hands, and peace and order on which the happiness of the community depend would be at an end. Moreover, the judge is not guilty in sentencing in this case, since he does not intend evil and acts according to the principle of double effect (see 103 sqq.). According to a second opinion attributed to St. Bonaventure, the judge should acquit, since it is intrinsically wrong to condemn to death a person about whose innocence one is certain. According to a third opinion, which St. Alphonsus considers as probable, the judge should condemn in minor criminal cases in which only pecuniary penalties are imposed (for the State has the right to exercise eminent domain in order to safeguard an important public good like that of respect for the law and the courts); but he should acquit in major cases in which personal punishments are inflicted, for society has no right to deprive an innocent person of life or liberty.
1952. When the Judge Is the Unjust Cause of Damaging Evidence.--In some cases the judge may be the unjust cause of the evidence that convicts an innocent man, as when the judge has committed a crime and thrown suspicion on the accused (Dan, xiii), or when the judge has moved others to testify falsely against a man he knows to be innocent.
(a) One opinion holds that the judge would be obliged to condemn, on account of the reasons just given for the opinion of St. Thomas, if the judge were unable to overcome the evidence. But those who hold this add that this is purely speculative, for in a concrete case there would be many ways by which the judge could extricate both himself and the accused from the difficulty.
(b) Another opinion says that in no case could the judge of the present hypothesis condemn. Those who favor this opinion declare that St.
Thomas is to be understood only of the case in which the judge is not the cause of the unjust accusation; for one who has culpably placed a cause of damage is bound to remove that cause before it acts, if this is possible, and in the present instance it is possible for the judge, if all other things have failed, to free the innocent person by testifying for him, or even by acknowledging his own guilt.
1953. Practical Conclusions about the Three Controverted Opinions Given Above in 1951.--(a) In a case tried according to Canon Law, it seems that the opinion of St. Thomas should be followed, since Canon 1869, n.
2, declares that the ecclesiastical judge must not give sentence unless he is certain about the matter of the sentence, and that his certainty must be derived from the acts and proofs of the trial.
(b) In a case tried according to civil law, it seems that the whole controversy is today very often of little practical importance; for court decisions are now frequently left to jurymen, and these men must either have no private certainty before they are admitted to their office (as is the case in the United States), or they have the obligation of using private knowledge in casting their vote and of communicating it to fellow-jurors during the deliberations (as is the case in some other countries). Hence, the moral question whether it is lawful to decide according to private knowledge against the public evidence largely disappears. But when a case of the kind now considered does occur, the position of the civil law also agrees, it seems, with that of St. Thomas: "Neither the judge nor the jury can consider a private fact of which they have a merely personal knowledge, however important may be its bearing on the issue, unless it has been brought to their attention by evidence properly produced in open court"
(Robinson, Elementary Law, 334). But the lightest penalty allowed by the law should be imposed in such a case. If a judge were privately certain that a jury verdict was unjust, he could offer his own testimony or appeal to the pardoning power.
1954. The principle that a judge must be guided only by his public knowledge applies also to other officials who are required to follow the results of a public investigation, but not to those who are required to act according to their best knowledge, whether public or private.
(a) Thus, public knowledge must be the guide of those who are ministers of a court and on whom it falls to execute its decrees; for they are the instruments and subjects of the president of the court. If they have private information of a material and relevant kind, they should disclose it as witnesses.
(b) Private knowledge that is opposed to and more reliable than public knowledge must be the guide of those who are supposed to act according to the most trustworthy knowledge they have. Hence, a superior who has the power to make appointments to office should disregard the votes of his advisors, if he can prove that they are wrong in their opinions about a nominee for office. He may confirm or annul their choice according to his honest conscience.
1955. When Guilt Is Doubtful in Criminal Cases.--In a criminal case or a case in which punishment is inflicted, if the guilt of the accused is doubtful, the sentence should be for acquittal; for no one should be condemned unless his guilt is morally certain (see 1728 sqq.).
(a) Thus, according to Canon Law, an ecclesiastical judge who is not certain that sentence for the plaintiff will be just, must declare that the latter has not established his case and must dismiss the defendant, though exception is made for cases that have the favor of law (such as marriage, liberty, testaments, Canon 1869, n. 4). Canon Law places the burden of proof on him who makes an a.s.sertion, and it rules that the defendant is to be acquitted if the plaintiff or accuser fails to prove, even though the person on trial says nothing (Canon 1748).
(b) According to the civil law the rules on evidence also favor the accused in cases of doubt. He must not be held guilty unless the State has proved affirmatively and beyond reasonable doubt every material allegation in the indictment. In capital cases the evidence of guilt must be equivalent in weight and conclusiveness to the direct testimony of two competent and reliable witnesses. A reasonable doubt in the mind of a juryman is one for which he can give himself an adequate and satisfactory reason (Robinson, Elementary Law, 608).