Senate Journal: Page 58: Wednesday, January 14, 1998

  the citation into their computer systems.  At the end of the officer's
  shift, the
  information will be sent electronically to the appropriate clerk of district
  court office.
  The time consuming job of shuffling mountains of paper citations will be a
  thing of the
  past.

  It's easy to be overly enthralled by technology.  We're captivated by all
  the bells and
  whistles that promise to improve our productivity and public service.  While
  it's true
  that technology is dramatically changing the way the Judicial Branch does
  business,
  we must remember that it is just a tool to help us perform our basic
  function of
  resolving disputes in a dispassionate, well-reasoned manner.  It frees
  judges to perform
  their function in our independent branch of government.

  I was originally going to end my remarks here but I cannot cover the state
  of the
  judiciary today without talking about judicial independence.  The word
  "independence"
  refers to independence in decision-making.  Judicial independence means
  upholding
  the law without fear of the consequence of political retribution.  Judges
  are under
  constant pressure to surrender their judicial independence and decide cases
  based
  upon the popularity of a particular result or party.  Examples of this
  pressure are
  everywhere.

  Last fall, America watched as Louise Woodward, a young British au pair
  accused of
  shaking to death an infant left in her charge, was tried for murder in
  Massachusetts.
  Public opinion about the case seemed to change with the wind.  One day
  public opinion
  blamed the parents of the infant-especially the working mother-for the
  child's death.
  Another day, public opinion was sympathetic toward Woodward.  When the jury
  found
  Woodward guilty of second-degree murder, Woodward's supporters expressed
  outrage
  and condemned the justice system.

  One week after the jury verdict, the presiding judge, Hiller Zoebel, saying
  that he
  had erred, by not allowing the jury to consider the possibility of a
  manslaughter
  conviction, changed the conviction to manslaughter and entered a jail
  sentence for only
  the time Woodward had already served.  Immediately, Judge Zoebel's decision
  was
  criticized by the public as too lenient.  Arm chair legal scholars
  speculated that Judge
  Zoebel was swayed by public opinion.

  It would be inappropriate for me to join in the public debate about Judge
  Zoebel's
  decision, and I won't.  But it is proper for me to observe that this is a
  dramatic
  illustration of the impossibility of pleasing the court of public opinion.

  Judges must not test the winds of public opinion before entering a decision.
  They
  are bound by their oath of office to render decisions based on the
  constitution and
  statutory law.  When there is disagreement about the meaning or application
  of a law,
  judges turn to well-established legal principles to guide their decisions.
  This is the rule
  of law.  Without the rule of law, our legal system would be unstable and

© 1998 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Comments about this site or page? sjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

Last update: Thu Jan 15 13:40:17 CST 1998
URL: /DOCS/GA/77GA/Session.2/SJournal/00000/00058.html
jhf