No, in my opinion, the court should be independent and not answerable to any other department of the government in this case. Being free is not sufficient for the legal organization. Judges must be assured that they are free of any legal obligation to pass rules. Judges must be supposed to be impartial and fair (Talmadge, Philip, 1998).
Taking law seriously is opposed by the decision-making is based upon the personal views of the judge. This is what differentiates judges from other political officials. They must live their own lives in such a way as to stay away from all the unethical words, activities, and circumstances that may cause biases in their decision-making, which may cause them to sound one-sided and break the law that they are promised to maintain. They should treat legal analysts and observers with respect and must skip remarks that they passed the rule ahead of time. They must not get involved in any legal advisory outside the court, or they must not connect with other legal advisors associated with the case. Judges usually pronounce a disagreement or pull back from the case when any relative or companions are involved in the case. The same is the case when the convict is the previous customer or has any related terms with the judge. This is also the same for business-related or any other companionship that may bias the result.
Judges are associated with dodging customers or most group inclusion. The judge cannot offer lawful guidance in any regard as this may have a huge impact on decision-making. Judges are taboo for being paid to do things besides their legal obligations, yet they can acknowledge or set parameters to serve on imperial commissions and other authority examinations.
Work Cited
Talmadge, Philip A. “Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems.” Seattle UL Rev. 22 (1998): 695.
