 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009) |
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. It is also known, and frequently referenced, by its domain name "J.A.I.L. 4 Judges." It is an American political organization that is attempting to pass versions of its initiative in all fifty states of the United States, and it has a federal version it would like to see passed as well.
Contents |
History
J.A.I.L. was founded by Ron Branson after his frustrated attempts to get a legal decision on a case of his in California. It was not that there was a decision for or against him that he was unhappy with, it was that there was no decision at all to conclude the case.[citation needed]
In 1960 there was a fundamental change in how the judges were disciplined in California. Prior to this judges were answerable to the same Grand Juries for any alleged crime that any other citizen was, and depending on Grand Jury findings, could be prosecuted just as any common citizen. In 1960 this was changed for judges in California so that the Commission on Judicial Performance [1] took over the function of the Grand Juries and their trials. Judges became immune from any attempt at justice through the Grand Juries and the conventional system of justice all other citizens must answer to. The other 49 states soon followed by creating their own equivalent of it and judicial immunity.
It is the goal of J.A.I.L. to irrevocably return to the era before 1960 by once again making judges answerable to grand juries. To do this the J.A.I.L. organization is attempting to pass initiatives in all states having an initiative process to amend state constitutions that would create special grand juries of lay people chosen at random to hear evidence of criminal judicial behavior.
The special grand juries would not replace any existing means of disciplining judges. They are intended as a last resort if all other means currently available fail. The Commissions on Judicial Performance currently in place would remain.
The special grand juries would have the power to strip judges of their protection of judicial immunity who are the subject of complaints for criminal acts, and to investigate, indict, and initiate criminal prosecution of wayward judges.
The special grand juries would also have the ability to overturn legal decisions judges have made.
The initiatives for each state and the federal one are available for reading at the J.A.I.L. Organization's website [2]
Controversy
The California Commission on Judicial Performance [3], for example, states it is an independent body able to effectively discipline judges. It is the position of the J.A.I.L. organization that the Commission on Judicial Performance is not a truly independent body in spite of the slight majority of six lay citizens over the other five members from within the judicial system. The five are composed of one justice of a Court of Appeals, two judges of superior courts who are appointed by the Supreme Court; and two attorneys who are appointed by the Governor. This position is because, of the six lay people, one is picked by the governor (who appoints these judges), another by the State Attorney General (who is the judge's defense counsel), and a member of the California Board of Equalization, (who J.A.I.L. views as a political hack), one by the California Bar Association (of whom all the judges are in practicality a member), and another by the Chief Justice of California. It is J.A.I.L.'s position that such lay people cannot remain independent of those that appoint them. It is J.A.I.L.'s position that such lack of independence has made possible unprecedented corruption in the legal system of the United States [4]. As an example of the principle that lack of independence causes discipline failure J.A.I.L. points to the Chicago Office of Professional Standards which was ineffective [5] when it was once part of the police department it oversaw and is now answerable to the mayor [6].
Detractors of J.A.I.L. find very disturbing that the special grand juries would have the power to reverse legal decisions judges have made [7]. This power would make the special grand juries more than just a jury, it would also make it the highest appeals court in a state. The federal version would make the special grand jury it creates, not just the highest grand jury in the United States, but also effectively the highest federal appeals court in the United States as well. To advocates this is a means of returning power to the people[8], while detractors are concerned that since the special grand juries would be chosen at random by lottery (for short terms) it would put a lot of power in the hands of a twenty five jurors untrained in law. Detractors are concerned the legal decisions, which would depend on the biases of untrained people who compose the jury at the time, would not be consistent and not always just. Advocates say this power is not meant for controversial points of law but clear misapplication of law such as has happened in tainted judicial decisions involving the California County Payment Scandal for example [9] [10]. Detractors point out that in spite of this, there is nothing in the initiative that would prevent this from happening.
Detractors are concerned that judges would be vulnerable to any errors in judgment they may make in the many decisions they must make daily. Advocates say the Special Grand Juries are for intentional misapplication of the law, as the initiative explicitly states, in accordance with the Constitutional principle of criminal intent.
Advocates of J.A.I.L. point to experience from the recent trend of jury questioning [11] as an indicator that special grand juries could be trusted. Detractors say that the experience is with the questions being screened by the judges and point to the state of justice in rural New York [12] as an example of what happens when people untrained in law make legal decisions.
J.A.I.L. is vehemently opposed by the judicial community and is one of factors that has prompted former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to speak out for judicial independence. [13]
Past Attempts at Passage
Efforts to get enough signatures by volunteer signature gatherers to qualify it to be on the ballot in California were made in 1996, 1999, and 2000. These attempts failed to get enough signatures. According to J.A.I.L. this was due to an inability to get enough volunteers.
In 2006 a J.A.I.L. initiative made it on the November ballot in South Dakota as Amendment E [14]. This time hired signature gatherers, financed by William Stegmeir,- a South Dakota businessman, were used.
The following paragraph was added on July 27, 2009: And though surveys showed that voters supported the judicial accountability law, they defeated it at the polls. But did voters have a clear picture of the four-page J.A.I.L. amendment? The Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of South Dakota gave an order, HU06-322 Stegmeier v. Long et al, on August 21, 2006 after Bill Stegmeir turned to the law, unsatisfied with Attorney General Larry Long's summary of the amendment, which the A.G. wouldn't change to more accurately reflect what J.A.I.L. really was before it went out to voters. When the court ordered barely no changes at all to Long's summary, Stegmeir appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, and the matter was rushed through so the ballots could be printed and elections held. The S.D. Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Interestingly though, the chief justice and one other justice disqualified themselves from the case. Acting as chief justice, Richard W. Sabers dissented in part. A note at the end of the judgment explains the reason why: "the attorney general's ballot explanation fails to state the purpose of the Constitutional Amendment E and, therefore, is not objective." At the J.A.I.L. 4 Judges website, under “Vote Fraud in South Dakota,” there's a link to the affirmation, which came on August 31, 2006, ten days after the August 21st decision by the Circuit Court [15]. It was Attorney General Long's version of the J.A.I.L. amendment which voters read at the polls, and defeated.
In September 2006 Stegmeir hired Zogby International [16] to do a poll. It found the J.A.I.L. initiative leading by 67% in favor, 19.8% opposed, and 13.2% undecided [17]. In November it failed to pass 89-11%. [18]. The J.A.I.L. organization attributes this to a media campaign against the measure the J.A.I.L. organization did not have funds to counter with their own. The J.A.I.L. organization also suspects that vote fraud was a contributing factor [19]. But vote fraud was never proven. An after election Zogby poll was consistent with the election result (reference needed). To counter any re-emergence of J.A.I.L. South Dakota has since initiated HB1184 [20] to require that an initiative originate within the state, and that the State Attorney General's synopsis of it be distributed with the signature forms.
Current Passage Efforts
There is an ongoing effort to get the J.A.I.L. initiative on the ballot in Florida [21]. So far there are not enough signatures [22]
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
