Does Religion Influence Judges In Their Decision Making?

Identifying Justice Decision-Making:
The Influences of Religion in Law
Abstract
This study determined if there is a significant relationship between religion and the decision-making duty of the judges and justices, particularly the Supreme Court. The researcher gathered all credible and reliable sources to establish first the relationship between religion and law, and thereafter, the relationship between religion and decision-making. Furthermore, the researcher went to study if there are other external factors affecting the way judges and justices make their decisions. An in-depth analysis of questionable appellate court decisions was made, as well as an in-depth analysis of the depositions and claims in some cases. In addition, civil liability cases were also included and investigated to support the researcher’s hypothesis that religion is in fact a main contributing factor when judges and justices make their decisions. After the analysis, the results showed that there is indeed a positive relationship between the two, which further strengthened the hypothesis.
Introduction
Religion and law are two of the most famous interdisciplinary studies that are commonly associated with each other. A lot of researches have already been done to see if religion indeed affects the law, particularly the way judges and justices decide on their cases. Some scholars suggest that probably, sometimes, the religion of a judge directly affects his decision-making when it comes to cases involving moral turpitude and grave abuse of human rights. While it may be true that there is the doctrine of separation of the State and the Church, there is still that so called ‘relation’ between religion and the law.
Most philosophers say that the foundations of law are based on religion. Relatively, religion is actually considered as one of the sources of human rights. Natural law, being the basis of religion, is also where law rooted from. Furthermore, aside from religion being a source of human right, it is also regarded to as the main foundation for the traditions of law, in general. Therefore, with these established facts, we can actually conclude that there is a big possibility that religion, in fact, affects the judges’ way of thinking in terms of determination of judgment. Since as of today, there are a lot of conflicts in between religion and human rights, judges are probably also having dilemmas as to whether or not to follow their religious instincts or to strictly adhere to the provisions of law.
Ideally, judges are supposed to be neutral when it comes to decision making, most specially the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, for they are the higher courts rendering almost all final judgments. Cases involving moral turpitude such as murder, homicide, rape, and other heinous crimes are usually in connection with a violation of human right; hence, it suffices to say that these cases should be decided objectively based on law, notwithstanding any other factors involved such as religion or cultural beliefs.
It is definitely an indubitable fact that the role of judges in the judiciary system is a vital one; therefore, it is a very important duty for them to render impartial judgments independent from all other external factors and pressures. The cases appealed to them should be decided fairly and in accordance with what the law specifically provides. As the chief driving force in the judiciary, they have to be the role models in carrying the proper execution of their judicial function. They must free themselves from improper influence and submit to the words and spirit of the law. How they carry these judicial functions should be in a practice independent from the influence of external controlling factors for they are at the peak of the judiciary branch. When we say external factors, we are not just talking about religion. We are also talking about other influences such as family, culture, public opinion, and personal background. It may also refer to any other matter that has something to do with the decision making of judges.
What this paper is trying to point is that judges should be able to decide cases presented to them in court by the parties in an unbiased manner and in accordance with law. There has to be an assurance that there is no bias in their part when it comes to decision making. An accused, for example in a criminal case, should be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proof beyond reasonable doubt may only be established by critically analysing the facts of the case. Thus, the judgment should be based on the facts and evidence presented by both parties, the accused and the prosecution, and not by what the judge think and feel about the case. While morality should be upheld, the foundation of such morality should be by law and not by religion alone. As the legal maxim, “Dura lex sed lex,” would suggest, the law may be harsh, but it is the law and the conviction or the acquittal of an accused should be based on what the violated law provided for.
The main question that this research would like to answer is, “Does the religion of the judge and justices affect their decision making?” It is very important for us to study this relationship between religion and law because deciding cases is not an easy task. Furthermore, it is not something you do just for the sake of fulfilling your duties as a judge or a justice.
For purposes of this research, the researcher concentrated on the justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals since they are the appellate courts. They have the highest ranks in the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court being the highest governing body responsible for rendering final judgments. The paper studied first related literatures in regard to the dependent variables, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and their respective decisions, and the independent variable, which is the Ideology of the Justices. Additionally, a brief discussion of the relationship between religion and law as well as law and politics was also included. A theoretical explanation was then provided for better understanding of this research, followed by the research methods and data. A summary of the findings and potential implications was provided as well to consolidate the gathered information. Lastly, the conclusion, which discussed the final findings and provided the general suppositions.
Discussion of Literature
Religion and Law
According to Chaplin (2011), it is possible that religion has an effect on the law. One of the examples he emphasized where religion took a big part in the decision making of justices is the same sex marriage issue that has been brought a lot of times since the beginning. We all know, of course, that the third gender community won the case. However, some justices of the Supreme Court still were not in favour of the decision rendered. According to some of these justices, the grant of such would be a flaw to our established religious belief that the holy sacrament of matrimony is exclusively for men and women, not men and men nor women and women. In relation to this, Chaplin’s (2011) analysis would be that such is improper. He said, “no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system.” Furthermore, he focused on John Locke’s theory which was written in Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” that “neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion.” (Locke, 1689).
In a separate article by Veselka (2011), there was an agreement on the stand of Chaplin that religion indeed has effect on laws. She even described this influence to be “detrimental.” According to her, religion should generally consider not getting in within the bounds of law and politics. Her example was that of the same as Chaplin, which is same-sex marriage. Her focus was on the separation between the Church and the State. She states that religion is a voluntary belief and that not everybody believes in religion; hence, no one can force another to believe in a certain religion, and therefore, religion should be independent from science and most specially, from law. Religion, according to her, is a belief and a tradition that explains our sense of morality and should be separated from law.
Religion, Politics, and Law
Law and politics are two disciplines which are deeply intertwined. It has been established that the law is an essential element for the government to implement the rules and regulations that they want to impose in the State. By way of law, the government is able to influence the inhabitants of its community. Relatively, law is also the main regulating factor that organizes and standardizes the composition and structure of politics. Consequently, how politics is being implemented and conducted is shaped by the scope and limitations of law (Whittington, 2012). In the same sense that religion has a relationship with law, the same also has an effect on politics. Since law and politics, as stated, are deeply intertwined and knotted, religion therefore has an influence on politics.
In an article by Kessler (n.d.), he said that “ethical values, based on religion and reason, shape the kinds of law and policy citizens desire to govern their community.” This give us further knowledge that religion, indeed, is one of the foundations of law and politics. As we build our nation with laws and policies to govern us, we base this laws and policies from religion. Kessler (n.d.) suggests that it is not just law and politics which are deeply intertwined. Religion has something to do with the implementation of both as well. While he, however, maintains that religion is one of the foundations of law, he also agreed that law and politics should not be affected by the beliefs and traditions of religion. According to him, both religion and law affects our sense of morality, but ideally, the implementation of these morals should be regulated. Religion is a suggestion to law-making, but it does not have to be associated with it. From there, it is notable that religion affects the making of laws based from what is good and what is right. However, it does not and should not affect the application of law itself. In layman’s term, it should not affect the judges’ and justices’ decision-making powers.
The Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is composed of nine Justices, with the Chief Justice as the main officer acting as the leader, and eight Associate Justices who work together to decide on highly meritorious cases. If you go to the Office of the Supreme Court, you will be able to locate the words “Equal Justice under Law” written above the main entrance of their building. This phrase symbolizes that the Court has the highest degree of responsibility when it comes to the judgement or determination of cases in the United States. Its main duty is to resolve cases involving the Constitution and the constitutionality of the laws of the country. As the highest tribunal, it serves as the final arbiter in dispute cases and is in charge in ensuring the equal protection of the law (Supreme Court of the United States, 2017).
Fairfield and Liptak (2014), in an article at New York Times, reported that the Court is actually divided into two: the liberals and the conservatives. On one hand, liberals are those who render liberal decisions such as favouring criminal defendants or those who claim that their civil rights have been discriminated or violated. Conservatives, on the other hand, are those who favour the government and the prosecution in most cases.
In relation to the question raised in this research, an almost similar study by Carver (2009), concludes that “faith traditions are significantly correlated to the Justices’ voting behaviour in religion cases.” Furthermore, his research revealed that this influence that religion has over Court decisions vary in a case-to-case basis. Usually, religion influences the Justices if the case involves a religious belief, particularly if it is about the separation of the Church and the State. In his section of “The Role of Religion in Government,” he described that America and its laws value the separation of both institutions. While it may be true that most of the world and even America, in the early days, valued religion as one of the sources of human rights, it must be considered that the Reformation brought a different view in America. It made the concept of religion a voluntary belief; hence, separating it fully with the powers and functions of law as a separate entity.
The Court of Appeals of the United States
The Court of Appeals is the second highest tribunal in the judiciary. In the United States, there are 12 federal circuits from the 94 judicial circuits who are part of the United States Federal Court System. These circuits, together with the Federal Circuit, is under the direct supervision of the Court of Appeals. Currently, there are thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. The thirteenth Court of Appeals, which is the United States Court of Appeals, exercises appellate jurisdiction nationwide. Its main function is to hear and decide cases elevated by the trial or lower courts. It also has jurisdiction over cases involving appeals from administrative agencies and other federal courts. Ultimately, District Courts are bounded to the decisions of the Court of Appeals (US Legal, 2016).
When it comes to decision making, most experts suggest that compared to the Supreme Court, religion and ideology has a minimal effect on the lower court judges and the appellate court judges. However, while religion and ideology minimally influences their decision-making, it must be noted that this is because there are number of other considerations that actually affects them. Notwithstanding their religious principles and beliefs, numbers of other factors are commonly associated with their determination of judgment. (Zorn and Bowie, 2010). An example would be their rank in the judiciary system. Most appellate courts and lower courts somehow decide based on how they want to be applauded by the Supreme Court. According to Zorn and Bowie (2010), judges in the midlevel zone are usually regarded as having a “narrower range of goals” compared to their colleagues in the district courts, whereas they have a “broader set” compared to the Supreme Court justices. This means that lower-ranked judges are most likely inhibited by their personal thoughts in regard to their ranks, and not in regard to their religious beliefs. Relatively, their decision-making practices are constructed mostly in response to the expected response from the people and the Supreme Court itself.
Ideology of the American Judiciary
Ufberg (2016), in one of his articles in...