Should judges be allowed to assign judicial authority to court employees?

Question

Missouri courts allow judges to assign judicial authority to juvenile officers (see http://www.civilgideon.com/portal/) although Missouri statutes don't specifically authorize this.

Should judges have the authority to assign certain authority to non-judicial and non-attorney employees?

If yes, what criteria should they meet and who should they be answerable to?

If no, who should be held accountable and how for failing to provide due process rights to its citizens?

(Note: This is NOT a mediation issue.)

Correct link I found is:

http://www.civilgideon.com/portal/

Clarification: The discussion is regarding judicial authority independent of the judge and the judge's authority. In Missouri, juvenile officers report to a District Judge; however, any so-called judicial decisions or actions are taken outside the court system, with no judicial signature or proceeding.

Answer 1

This is a classic collision between due process and judicial discretion. Set in the juvenile context, its ramifications are all the more disturbing.

First, the "whys" and "hows": Juvenile justice has been subject to the whims and panics of the day, and overall models have swung from this pendulum. For a good overview of how juvenile delinquency has been shaped by these forces over the years, check this site:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10120

Judicial discretion and the expansion and contraction of due process rights for all citizens is similarly subject to pressure from outside sources. A constant force is the overload of the courts. As this pressure increases, appellate courts tend to permit greater discretion on the part of judges to order their own business as they see fit, in the name of efficiency, often with a reduction of regulation and oversight by outside courts, government and agencies. This can, if abused, lead to the invasion and even elimination of certain due process rights protected by the 14th Amendment and other Constitutional safeguards.

In the example you raise, it could very well be argued that juvenile due process has been violated.

You are asking about the "shoulds" of the situation. If abuse of due process is shown to result from the judge's delegation of authority, then it follows that these abuses "should" be prevented. Courts are not likely to eliminate judicial discretion to delegate authority entirely. They may, however, limit the practice so that only attorneys or other fully-trained specialists may use judicial authority, and only in certain settings. For a complete revision of the practice, the legislative branch of government must issue new statutes. Since the judicial branch guards its power possessively, there is likely to be much outcry from judges and the courts unless the new legislation is backed with substantial funding to support a new system. And then, of course, there will be public outcry about "their tax dollars' being used to create "a new bureaucracy."

In the process, the juvenile rights in question are in limbo. Many people today regard juvenile "delinquency" harshly, with a "throw them all in the clink" mentality -- until their own child's rights are violated.

I'm sorry I can't define a perfect system for dealing with this one issue, because the reality of politics prevents it. However, if you are concerned about this situation in Missouri, as I believe you have a right to be, this is something that should be raised in both the courts and the legislature consistently and with patience. When it reaches a point of public visibility (i.e.: can be reduced to a recognizable sound-bite for the public's attention deficit disorder... don't get me started ...) then there may be some hope of change. What change, I can't predict. But history (see the article referenced above) shows that the models can be changed, over time.

Answer 2

judges do such all the time, but the judge is always the one held accountable.