Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The problem of mandatory retirement age (MRA) for judges in the United States has been discussed for years. On the surface, there is little to no controversy in the very concept of retirement age; on the contrary, the very notion was created in order to ease the tension of the extremely complicated environment of justice system-related decision making. The choice of the proposal topic is, therefore, predetermined by the concern for the wellbeing of the stakeholders involved, i.e., the parties of an alleged conflict, the judge and the justice system of the United States.
Hypothesis
Despite the fact that the idea of introducing the concept of retirement age into the environment of the US justice system and applying it to the Federal Judge is currently viewed as a contradiction to the Fourteenth Amendment, a testing system must be established in order to define the proficiency of judges on a case-by-case basis so that the premises for an unbiased legal procedure should be created and that the choices made by the U.S. legal system should not be guided by the faults in the Federal Jurys concept of justice caused by the latters senility.
Goals
Proving the significance of the retirement age principle and promoting the specified concept as the amendment to the Constitution is the key goal of the given paper. Because of the drastic effects, which the mistakes made by elderly Federal Judges either due to their loss of touch with the current societal norms and principles or them developing physical or mental disabilities due to their age, the issue regarding the retirement age, which is omitted in the regulations of a range of the U.S. states, will have to be reconsidered. The paper in question, therefore, aims at promoting a new approach towards the advance of the principle of the retirement age.
Methods
The research to be carried out can be characterized as a qualitative one since there is no obvious need to establish quantitative relationships between the variables involved in the study. A combination of general research and a case study can be suggested as the possible framework for gathering data and analyzing it. Surveys can be used as the data collection tool, whereas a case study based on the information retrieved in the course of research will be the data analysis tool.
Definitions
The concept of mandatory retirement is traditionally identified as the age, at which employees are supposed to retire from state organizations due to possible health issues and the related incapability of handling professional responsibilities (Polanco 2). While the definition provided above cannot be considered all-embracing, as its components may vary depending on the job under discussion, the phenomenon mentioned above is typically identified as the age, at which a state employee is viewed as unable to handle the required tasks in an adequate manner.
Background and Literature Review
According to the U.S. law, particularly, the regulations for the mandatory retirement for court judges, the latter have to leave their position at a specific age, which ranges from 70 to 75 in most states; in other words, the concept of mandatory retirement exists in the U.S. justice system environment: Mandatory Retirement is the compulsory retirement of judges who have reached a specific age determined by a states constitution ( Mandatory Retirement par. 1). While some states, such as Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee and West Virginia ( Mandatory Retirement par. 2), do not have a set retirement age for Federal Judges, the rest of the U.S. states do; therefore, the American system of appointing Federal Judges and their further assessment as qualified specialists cannot be considered fully unbiased.
Arguments in favor of the retirement age
It would be wrong to assume that the concept of mandatory retirement age has never been considered as a possible transformation of the current U.S. justice system; of the opposite, numerous suggestions regarding the age, which should be legally viewed as the marker of a federal Judges professional
Apart from the issue concerning the possible lack of competence in Federal Judges, who have reached a certain age, the problem concerning the understanding of the contemporary cultural context needs to be brought up. As people get older, they tend to lose the touch with the objective reality and the world around them; instead, people in their seventies seem to place current events in the context of ethics and standards of previous decades. As a result, the verdict, which a Federal Judge passes, may turn out to be somewhat biased or, at the very least, lacking objectivity.
Moreover, seeing that the age of a person is typically in a direct proportion to the number of health concerns that the person in question has, it will be reasonable to assume that a Federal Judge aged seventy and over may suffer from the disorders and diseases that can affect their performance in court and, more importantly, the verdict that will be passed. For instance, in a case of a mental disorder, which elderly people may develop, a Federal Judge may resolve the case in an inappropriate manner and act not on behalf of common sense and law but on the premises of the psychological issues that they may have developed. A closer study of the recent instances related to the subject matter will reveal that the instances of misjudgment become a tangible threat once the Federal Judge approaches the age of senility (Blasdel v. Northwestern University par. 817).
Despite the arguments in favor of establishing a resignation age being rather few, they make a very legitimate point concerning the judges inability to make a valid decision based on the realities of the contemporary world. A recent case regarding the subject matter shows that the further promotion of the Federal Judges tenure as a reasonable and legally acceptable concept is likely to trigger drastic effects. According to the case, With mandatory retirement now unlawful, the grant of tenure is often literally a lifetime commitment by the employing institution, barring dementia or serious misconduct (Blasdel v. Northwestern University par. 817). According to the outcomes of the case, the effects, which the current approach towards the employment of Federal Judges has on the latter and their ability to make decisions, the concept of retirement age needs to be introduced into the U.S. judicial system. Otherwise, the threat of misjudgment, not to mention workplace burnout, will remain. In other words, the absence of the retirement age policy, which a range of the U.S. states can be characterized by, jeopardizes the lives of all stakeholders involved, including the well-being of both the parties, who are represented in a certain case and the judges themselves.
Despite the sensibility of the suggestion regarding the introduction of mandatory retirement age, the issue still needs further discussion, as the present-day U.S. justice system does not seem to take the needs of the parties to be represented properly in the court into account. According to the recent case law, In June, the states Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the mandatory retirement provision, dating to a 1968 amendment to the state constitution, did not violate their inalienable rights (Packel par. 4). By ruling in favor of abrogating the retirement age concept, the Federal Court basically acknowledged that Federal Juries will have an unlimited tenure in the legal system of the United States, which does not seem right given the influence that the loss of professional qualities may have on the choices of the Federal Judge and the further wellbeing of the stakeholders involved, including the plaintiff and the defendant.
Arguments against the retirement age
Nevertheless, as has been stressed above, the very Constitution of the United States conflicts with the concept of retirement age for the federal judiciary. The introduction of the age barrier will mean that people above a specific age will not be viewed as responsible and legally able citizens; in other words, people will be discriminated against based on their age. While presumptions concerning the generation gap and the decline of mental capabilities of people that become senile can be made, claiming that an elderly person is unable to perform the functions of a Federal Jury will mean disparaging people based on their age.
The very existence of the phenomenon in question, in its turn, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the original text of the document, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that the rights of every citizen notwithstanding their age, gender, race or any other distinctive characteristics should not be infringed. The text itself, however, provides a rather broad statement that can be interpreted in several ways and applied to a wide range of concepts, including not only the above-mentioned race and gender but also age differences and the related conflicts:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ( 14th Amendment Section I)
From the perspective that the Fourteenth Amendment gives it is quite clear that setting any age restrictions to the position of a Federal Judge will mean that the rights of elderly citizens will be abused. Seeing that the right to work can be viewed as one of the basic rights of the citizens of the United States according to the constitution, creating restrictions related to age for the position of a Federal Judge will presuppose that the rights of the people over the specified age group will be infracted.
The recent rejection of the concept of retirement age for the Federal Judge is graphic proof of the fact that setting certain restrictions related to age on the appointment for the position under analysis is beyond unreasonable. Indeed, the abrogation of the retirement age can be viewed as the extension of the principles stated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Indeed, seeing that the very concept of retirement age presupposes questioning the abilities of people belonging to a specific age group, it is possible to assume that the application of the specified concept infringes the rights of the group in question. By claiming that reaching a specific age means being incapable of handling professional responsibilities, one technically assumes a rather discriminatory position.
In addition to the above-mentioned issue, the fact that the U.S. federal system has designed a specific tool that helps replace the judges, who have reached a certain age limit, with new ones, creates a rather biased environment. Instead of promoting the approach that will allow for enhancing the productivity of Federal Judges, the American Federal Law builds obstacles in the way of experienced and highly qualified lawyers to operate in the U.S. legal environment. Regardless of the fact that the approach in question has certain benefits as far as the resignation of incompetent judges is concerned, the effects that it has on the development of the state justice system are drastic (Choi, Gulati and Posner 2). As reports show, the specified strategies, which are supposed to detect flaws in the present-day justice system, trigger significant side effects, such as the distortion of the current costs policy, as the alterations occurring in the aforementioned area require great investments:
These approaches are crude but effective ways to remove incompetent judges. But they are not costless. If a judge has a single term, then a highly competent and experienced judge cannot be retained. If the judge has a renewable term, then she might decide cases so as to please her political masters judicial independence is compromised. (Choi, Gulati and Posner 3)
As expensive as the programs under analysis might be, they still prove quite efficient in terms of the prevention of threats to the current justice system of the United States. For instance, the specified measures help avoid the mistake that is made in most cases involving mandatory retirement. Seeing that the latter is aimed at reducing the number of mistakes made in the course of the court proceedings, it is quite understandable that the aforementioned restriction is supposed to enhance safety within the environment of the courthouse by preventing incompetent judges to make essential choices. However, along with unqualified federal Judges, the experienced and knowledgeable ones lose their job after reaching seventy or seventy-five as well. Therefore, although the current approach can be deemed viable, it still lacks consistency.
Analysis
When it comes to the analysis of the issue regarding the retirement age and its feasibility as a concept, one must admit that individual specifics of ones intellectual and physical capacities should be viewed as the defining factor behind the choice of either suggesting the retirement option or allowing one to keep performing their duties. As recent studies explain, Some want to keep working; others would retire the next morning if they could (Polanco 2); in other words, the capabilities of the person taking a specific post, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to carry out an adequate assessment of the situation. The specified rule can be applied to the judicial system of the United States as well; particularly, the very concept of the retirement age should be changed to the age that requires carrying out additional tests for the federal judge and, therefore, the analysis of the latters professional competencies and expertise.
However, the above-mentioned tool admittedly has problems in terms of identifying the capability of judges to perform their duties. Since there are no specific criteria for the age test, which judges will need to pass in order to prove their abilities and skills as the representatives of the legislative branch of power, it is suggested that the retirement age should be reduced to 70 at the very most. As long as the federal Judge remains able to make the decisions that affect the lives of millions of people on a statewide level, it is crucial that these decisions should have a well-grounded line of reasoning. The issues regarding the age of the Federal Judge, in its turn, show in a rather graphic manner that age does affect the objectivity of the choices that the judge makes. In order to retain objectivity and pass sensible sentences, a Federal Judge must be mentally stable, which is a quality that people over the age of seventy rarely possess. In addition, the age of the Federal Judge often defines the ability of the latter to put a certain case in the perspective of the contemporary epoch.
Solution
The development of the testing program will not only help eliminate the uncomfortable issue of retirement age that borders age profiling but also improve the performance of the federal judge; for instance, the test will help identify the issues that the judge may need to work on in order to carry out the basic tasks in an appropriate manner and deliver high-quality results, thus, avoiding possible bias in the course of court proceedings or any other stage of a case analysis. Although the design of the tool in question will need extensive efforts, the result is likely to help handle the present issue regarding age and retirement in the judicial branch.
In other words, it is necessary to make an amendment to the current Constitution of the United States in order to address the issue regarding the lack of competence in aging federal Judges and the means of handling the situation.
Methods
Since the study is aimed at determining the qualitative relationship between the key variables, a qualitative design can be suggested. However, as the study will involve statistical data, elements of quantitative analysis will be required. Therefore, a mixed design will be used as the basis for the research.
Conclusion
The issue regarding the age of Federal Judges and the concept of the retirement age has been brewing for quite a long in American society. Since the problem concerning the possibility of making a mistake being raised as the Federal Judge is getting older, the significance of the issue under analysis can be deemed as very high. In a range of scenarios, peoples wellbeing and even lives depend on the choice that the Federal Judge makes; therefore, it is crucial that the Federal Jury should be capable of taking a legitimate step and evaluating the situation in a reasonable manner, which is barely possible once the judge reaches a critical age. Therefore, the retirement age principle must be incorporated into the U.S. justice system and be applied to court judges and especially Federal Judges.
Works Cited
14th Amendment 1867. Web.
Blasdel v. Northwestern University. 11-2075 FindLaw 1. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 2012. Web.
Choi, Stephen A., Mitu Gulati and Eric A. Posner. The Law and Policy of Judicial Retirement. n. d. 2015. Web.
Mandatory Retirement n. d. Web. 2015.
Packel, Dan. Pa. Judges Lose Mandatory Retirement Fight In Fed. Court. 2013. Web.
Polanco, Carlos. Considerations Concerning the Retirement Debate. Nature 1.1 (2015): 112. Print.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.