Judicial Misconduct in the Context of Criminal Policy in Iran and the United States

Abstract

The extraordinary power invested in the judiciary necessitates a high standard of conduct, a commitment to upholding the law, and performing duties in an impartial manner. Appropriate behavior both within and outside the courtroom is a fundamental requirement of judicial duty. As judicial power increases, there is a corresponding need to adhere to clear ethical standards. When there are violations of laws and behavioral standards, accountability and disciplinary proceedings are essential. The Iranian legislator, through the "Law on Supervision of Judges' Behavior," seeks to regulate judges' conduct by monitoring professional behavior and imposing preventive and strict disciplinary sanctions. However, in many instances, there are still legal ambiguities that severely question the independence of judges. In the United States, at both the federal and state levels, criminal policy—considering higher-level documents and adherence to international standard principles—addresses the criminalization and disciplinary response to judicial misconduct. During the investigation of judicial misconduct, the principle of judicial independence is respected, and efforts are made to maintain public trust in the judiciary by ensuring transparency in proceedings and avoiding confidentiality in the trial phase. It is observed that U.S. criminal policy in dealing with allegations of misconduct by federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges (but not regional judges), tends to be lenient and overlook certain issues. However, at the state level, stricter oversight prevails, and more diverse responses are implemented. In many cases where the misconduct is minor, the matter is addressed informally and privately. This approach could be considered by Iranian legislators. Additionally, adopting disciplinary sanctions with a reconciliatory approach rather than merely a punitive one in dealing with offending judges could be a positive step forward.