by RICH CASSIDY on DECEMBER 29, 2010
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony at which Robert P. Gerety, Jr. was sworn in as Vermont Superior Judge.
I have known Rob Gerety a long time. In fact, I met him when he was a law student. As I’ve remarked here before, see “Judicial Temperament,” November 5, 2010, I think the most important quality required to be an excellent judge is the right temperament. I feel confident that Judge Gerety has the right temperament.
His own remarks at the ceremony confirm my faith in him and make a broader point about the business of the law. Judge Gerety noted that Vermont’s Chief Administrative Judge for Trial Courts, Amy M. Davenport, had drawn the attention of the current class of new judges (Judge Gerety, together with Hon. Robert A. Mello and Hon. Timothy B. Tomasi were recently appointed by out-going Governor James H. Douglas) to this quotation drawn from an essay by G.K. Chesterton:
And the horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives, and policemen, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (several of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it.
Strictly they do not see the prisoner in the dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop.
“The Twelve Men,” from Tremendous Trifles (1909). Judge Gerety wisely pledged to hold fast to the humanity and individuality of the people who will appear before him and to the importance of the disputes he will be called upon to resolve. As a new judge of substantial maturity, who has spent many years representing people, not just entities, Judge Gerety has a chance to make good on his pledge.
The quotation is worth reading in the context of the short essay from which it was drawn. (And the American Chesterton Society has made “The Twelve Men” available on the web, so you can read it here.) It describes the author’s jury service. It argues that we have juries, rather than relying about the good character of judges, since there are some questions that are just too important to entrust to the good will and good sense of jaded professionals. As Chesterton puts it:
Our [civilization] has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing around.
Id. The English justice system has largely moved away from juries in civil cases. Thanks mostly to our Constitution, we in the United States have not. Good judges that I know are delighted to have the assistance of juries in resolving cases.
It is reassuring that our new judges, in the course of orientation to their roles, have been reminded of the wisdom underlying our system of limited judicial authority.
Rich