Author Question: Explain the purpose behind the establishment of a homeless court. What will be an ideal ... (Read 41 times)

NguyenJ · **on:** Aug 24, 2018

Explain the purpose behind the establishment of a homeless court.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Under what circumstances could a judge be considered not impartial (biased)? Cite relevant cases.

What will be an ideal response?

Eunice618 · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Many homeless people have outstanding misdemeanor criminal warrants. To best resolve these warrants, the homeless court recognizes two key factors that are not typically taken into consideration by a traditional court. First, many homeless people are content to remain living on the streets. Second, most homeless people lack the financial means to pay court imposed fines. To promote the homeless person's reintegration back into society, the homeless courts can assist the offender in finding gainful employment, or even receiving some type of social service assistance.

Answer to Question 2

Judges are not considered impartial when issuing warrants if they seek to gain financially from doing so. Likewise, judges presiding over criminal trial cannot have a financial stake in the outcome. For example, in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), the judge of court that heard the defendant's case was also the city mayor. In addition, he received the fines and fees that he levied against those convicted in his courtroom. The Supreme Court concluded that due process is violated when the judge has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.
A similar decision was reached in Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). However, in that case, the fees or fines collected by the judge did not go directly to the judge, but instead were paid into the town's budget. The amount of money collected was apparently substantial. The Court concluded, again, that due process was violated, this time stating that the mayor's executive responsibilities for village finances may make him partisan to maintain the high level of contribution from the mayor's court. Contrast this decision with that of Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U.S. 61 (1928), in which the Supreme Court held that due process was not violated because the judge was one of several members of a city commission and, as such, did not have substantial control over the city's funding sources.