Reference no: EM131573824

An activist judge is one who believes that concepts such as due process and liberty are always evolving. Activists believe that the founding fathers of our country did not mean for the rights referenced in the Constitution to remain static. Given this belief, activist judges tend to allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Activist judges realize that their interpretation of various laws will influence the manner in which laws are enforced. They believe this is an appropriate role for a judge to play.
A constructionist judge would argue that legislators should make law, not judges. Constructionists tend to take a much more literal (i.e., "black and white") and conservative approach when interpreting the Constitution and laws. Constructionist judges believe that all judges should avoid drawing inferences from a statute and focus only on the text itself.

Discuss some of the potential ethical concerns that relate to these two very different interpretations of the appropriate role of a judge.

2. You are a member of a jury. The jury is hearing a child molestation case in which the defendant is accused of a series of molestations in his neighborhood. In an attempt to ensure the jury is not unduly influenced, the judge instructs the jury and all officers of the court (any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel) not to discuss the case with anyone outside the courtroom - especially anyone involved in the case. After the fourth day of trial, you happen to ride on a very full elevator with the prosecutor. You are standing directly behind the prosecutor. The elevator is very crowded, and it is fairly obvious that the prosecutor has not noted your presence, and/or he does not recognize you as a member of the jury. You happen to overhear the prosecutor whispering to his lead assistant that the defendant has a previous arrest for child molestation, but the he is not allowed to mention this fact in court because the judge believes the information would unduly prejudice the jury. You were already fairly sure the defendant was guilty, but now you definitely believe he is guilty. What would you do?