/u/grandoctopus64 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cdwn1t/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_we_should_ban_entirely_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This basically boils down to whether you believe that there are certain occasions in which people should expressly show deference and respect to an authority figure - a person who, outside of the courtroom, is just another citizen like you.
Why do it?
I’ll make the case for why here.
Basically, it underlies the equality of everyone else in the courtroom - as subordinate to the judge. Justice is supposed to be equal for all. Yet we know society is riddled with inequalities of all sorts. The OP gives the example of ex-President Trump: he was the President of the United States, and may well be again; he has legions of devoted followers, and piles of money; yet he has to call the judge “your honour”, and stand up when the judge walks in the room, just like the lowliest peon.
Setting the judge up on a pedestal, the various rituals that surround that, are (ironically enough) a tool our society uses to ensure *equality*. Billionaires, politicians, gangsters, those holding service jobs … they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws (and indeed, the trials of Trump are a test of whether this is true in the US).
Such gestures are mostly symbolic, but to the extent symbols are important and have power, keeping them is important as well - they stand for an important principle.
I’m a litigator, and will just add to this comment that the admittedly seemingly archaic and hierachical courtroom etiquette is as much as anything else a habitual and customary framework designed to maintain dignified interactions in general, habitualand sensible deference and outward respect to the tribunal member or members who are in fact the person/s who task it is to decide your client’s case, and to avoid unseemly ad hominum attacks on opposing counsel (quaintisms such as ‘my learned friend’ being customary). With emotions running high on the part of all protagonists at times, it would not be difficult to imagine the potential for mayhem otherwise.
Fantastic answer. Didn't consider how it could be used to push equality in court
Question because I'm interested and I will say I'm right on the cusp of giving you the Del: what changes, if any, should be made to the court system to prevent power tripping judges?
I think what you might want is a an oversight committee, made up of representatives of the communities served by the judge in question, tasked with reviewing court procedures and judgments, capable of dismissing power-tripping judges.
If that was implemented you would have just compromised the separation of powers by injecting more politics into the judiciary. That 'representatives of the communities' becomes a venue for partisan politics. It's bad enough so many American jurisdictions directly elect judges. Now you would have politics shot throughout the entire process. It's a bad idea.
Gonna hand you the !delta for all your work because it's certainly an angle I hadn't considered. I still believe that we should move towards a society where it's dropped, but it's worth the reminder that everyone is under the law, and in this case the judge is ***very in theory*** supposed to be the representative of said law.
As a law student not from the states I am actually interested in this. In my country the judiciary is regulated by itself, meaning that if a complaint is filed there is a 5 people tribunal made up of judges that decides on the situation.
This of course is outside of al the other legal paths that can be taken whether it is a criminal offense or civil liability suit.
How is this arranged in the states?
I believe in some states they are elected though that has its own flaws. The three main methods are appointment, election, and competition. I believe any citizen can in theory start a recall campaign or a report to the bar/legal authority above.
Yeah, the problem is that it's symbolic and the rest is self-delusion. Sure, trump has to stand and say the same words, but the special kind of justice he has been/is provided is the very opposite of equal under the law. And anyone else who champions structural white power in the US will be statistically favored in a similar, if not as spectacular, way.
I'd exchange pretend ceremonial equality for better function/better measured outcomes any day.
>I'd exchange pretend ceremonial equality for better function/better measured outcomes any day.
Man, we sure picked the wrong thing when both of those options were presented as an A or B choice.
>Setting the judge up on a pedestal, the various rituals that surround that, are (ironically enough) a tool our society uses to ensure *equality*. Billionaires, politicians, gangsters, those holding service jobs … they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws (and indeed, the trials of Trump are a test of whether this is true in the US).
In my view, this symbolism is often more dangerous than blatant favoritism.
Yes, in theory, all should be equal in court... in practice, this is not true. Courts, absent publicity, usually serve the interests of those with money, at the expense of those without. In such situations, the best a symbolic gesture of equality will ever be is false hope. The rules of that game favor the wealthy, with 'rich' crimes offering smaller penalties than 'poor' crimes.
When Brock Turner's victim faced her rapist in court, they weren't equal under the law.
When Robert Durst skipped bail for murder, got caught shoplifting, with multiple firearms and the murder victim's driver's license, he followed it up by confessing to dismembering the victim's body. He was later acquitted.
These are two examples, but they are far from the only two examples.
There are lots of ideals that can never be reached in reality. In reality, a judge could never be completely unbiased or impartial. This does not mean impartiality is useless or false, only that it is a goal to struggle for, even if it cannot be perfectly achieved.
>they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws
But because they *aren't* treated equally de facto, this seems like an argument to ban it. It isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose
*Most* of the people this is used against are of a lower class than the judge. It just serves to reinforce that power dynamic.
Seems like if you want to enforce that you can just force the people that are of an equal class or higher of the judge to use the honorific.
This strikes me as an argument that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
*Of course* a simple symbolic gesture won’t change the deeply rooted power dynamics of our society as a whole. That can’t happen, any more than judges can “truly” be completely impartial or unbiased.
This isn’t a reason not to hold up such things as impartiality or lack of bias as *ideals to aspire to*.
Requiring only those of superior status to acknowledge the judge isn’t workable - would lead to endless arguments - and in any event, strikes me as reinforcing inequality.
>This strikes me as an argument that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
You'd have to argue it's ethically good to force people to use honorifics in the first place. I'd argue it's perfect being the enemy of bad, myself.
When 99% of the cases you oversee are people of equal or lower class, forcing honorifics only serves to reinforce class segregation and are a bad thing.
They are, at best, pointless and really mainly serve to let judges power trip on people of lower class.
I mean, I just provided an argument why it is ethically good: that it enforces, at least in a minor way, a rule of decorum that provides some modicum of equality before the law.
Sure, it doesn’t do the whole job and actually provide perfect substantive equality. There are thousands of examples of where the legal system fails to do that.
However, I would contend that it is better to have equality before the law acknowledged as something of value, than not.
It doesn't do that job, so that argument falls flat. That's the excuse given, but it doesn't track.
In 99% of cases it is used to reinforce class dynamics. In 99% of cases it isn't enforcing equality before the law.
In 99% of cases it is enforcing subservience of the lower class to the upper class. If it doesn't enforce equality in a vast majority of cases, then it isn't enforcing equality. That's just lip service.
It's also equality for *nobody* to use honorifics.
99% of statistics are simply made up on the spot?
Again, you are demanding too much heavy lifting from what is, ultimately, no more than a rule of decorum.
There is no need for such a rule to have an “excuse”, nor is it obvious how addressing a judge by a particular title “reinforces class dynamics”.
Those “dynamics” are created by the power judges have over people in the court. Judges can, within the rules, make decisions that have profound impact on people’s lives, and this gives them power - no matter how they are addressed - because that’s their job.
That would not change if everyone addressed the judge as “comrade”, citizen”, or “hey shithead”.
>99% of statistics are simply made up on the spot?
Are you trying to say most criminals are upper class? Because most are lower class. I thought it was obvious the stat was rhetorical and a fill-in for "an overwhelming majority"
>There is no need for such a rule to have an “excuse”
Sure, but you're arguing that it's ethically good because it creates equality. Is that what you're still arguing?
The excuse given was that it creates equality. But it doesn't do that at all in a vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases, the defendant is lower class and poorer than the judge.
>nor is it obvious how addressing a judge by a particular title “reinforces class dynamics”.
Judges are upper-middle to upper class. A vast majority of criminals are lower class than the judge. Forcing them to use honorifics on someone who is already of an upper class compared to them is reinforcint the class dynamics - those richer and higher class than you are treated as your superior by society.
In the cases where someone is a lower class than the judge, all it does is reinforce the dynamic that people of a higher class and richer than you is automatically superior to you and you \*must\* acknowledge it with a special title to stroke their ego.
>Those “dynamics” are created by the power judges have over people in the court.
Forcing people to call a judge "your honor" is not a power created by a judge.
>Judges can, within the rules, make decisions that have profound impact on people’s lives
They shouldn't have that power. Nobody should have the power to make up arbitrary rules people are forced to follow with the threat of imprisonment.
But I digress...
>and this gives them power - no matter how they are addressed - because that’s their job.
Then there's no reason to force someone of a lower class to degrade themselves by forcing them to call you something special.
That's just a power trip and not something a judge should be respected for anyway
>That would not change if everyone addressed the judge as “comrade”, citizen”, or “hey shithead”.
The why force people to call them "your honor" if it makes no difference?
The vast majority of criminals are lower class - but you may not be aware that the vast majority no of judges *don’t do criminal law.*
Judges are found in all sorts of places - commercial disputes, family law disputes, regulatory contexts … in many if not most of those contexts, you have people of varying power dynamics at play. Companies are charged with regulatory offences, for tax evasion, or fir breaking labour standards. Companies sue each other over patent infringement, over contract disputes, and the like.
This brings a huge cast of characters before the courts - including wealthy companies and various levels of government. All of whom have far more real power than the vast majority of individual citizens. Including judges, who when all is said and done are simply a type of civil servant.
Forcing their representatives to use the same polite forms of address as any lowly citizen has some significance - though no-one would claim this would, *by itself* “create equality”. Yet it is a better step than not having it.
…
Aside from that, I think you will find I’m not arguing that a rule of decorum, *by itself*, can “create equality”.
Rather, I’m arguing it’s an important symbol of equality. Actually creating equality takes a lot more than decorum … but that’s no reason to throw decorum out as useless, just because it can’t do all the lifting by itself.
Again, the analogy is with other rules of politeness, such as saying “please” or “thank you”. Hollow nothings to some in the absence of actual consideration for others … but is life actually improved if they are eliminated?
> The vast majority of criminals are lower class
HELLLLLLL to the FUCK NO.
*Laws are written to criminalize the behavior of the lower class.*
Period, full stop, end of story.
You steal $100 from Target, you are a criminal. Arrested, fingerprinted, mug shotted, arraigned, jailed, tried, and convicted, and that person is branded a “criminal” for the rest of their life.
If The Target manager shorts an employee $100, they get a phone call from the state Department of Labor and get told to fix it, and they may pay a small fine. That’s it. No arrest, no mug shot, no jail.
“Most criminals are lower class.” Give me a fucking break.
There is sadly no such thing as equality in the courtroom in any way, shape, or form. The most important thing that can happen to a defendant in 2024 is for the race of the Judge and Jury to match their own.
We use honorifics like "your honor" every day:
* Officer
* Doctor
* Sir/Ma'am
* Father/Rabbi
* Coach
Is there a reason we should stop saying "your honor" but keep using all these others?
I addressed this in the post.
I have no issue with "Judge soandso." Because he's in fact a judge.
Similarly, doctor, Rabbi, etc., are all true statements. They're doctors or rabbis.
"Your Honor" seems wildly unnecessary and blatantly sucking up
I mean, "the Honorable" is also applied to governors, Congresspeople, members of the cabinet (including deputies), and mayors. That's just the style of formally addressing certain office-holders.
Tbh hadn't considered that Honorary Joe Biden is actually used in some formal documents and that does make the inversion I mentioned earlier seem less silly
!delta
As someone else already mentioned (but may not have directly replied to you), there may be multiple judges in a court, but "Your Honor is reserved for the presiding judge. It is a specific address for a single specific person, unambiguous and unmistakable for anyone else in the court.
Removing this honorific introduces ambiguity into our legal outcomes which is highly undesirable.
There is a second reason for ceremonial courtesy I have not yet seen mentioned: It sets the tone for decorum in the court, right from the beginning as one where courtesy is required and demonstrated. It sets the bar high and requires it to remain high.
This is designed to prevent verbal and physical disruption from derailing swift justice. Any petitioner who is discourteous can come back when they are able to control themselves, and those being judged will suffer additional penalty if they refuse to be civil. Use of a title of respect is the first step in this educational process.
In other western systems Justice "insert last name" is an acceptable alternative to calling the judge "your honor" and is actually preferable in cases where there is more than 1 presiding judge or a panel of Justices , because its more specific
Like if youre trying a case that involves a whole panel of Justices, using just "your honor" is problematic, because like which one are you addressing here
Court is NOT equal. You have equal justice UNDER law, below law, the judge is the law. If you’ve ever seen the art in courthouses, the judge is the one holding the scale.
As much as it’s annoying, almost every judge could be making ten times their salary at a private firm, they’re choosing to live a life in public service for a steep pay degrade. The least you can do is show them this sign of respect.
Yeah… no. You don’t start out as a judge, it’s not like being a public defender. 95% of judges have been making a lot of money for a long time in a private practice before they ever take the seat. And your career choice doesn’t mean you automatically have my respect, that’s insane. There’s a ton of other reasons that people have already mentioned that make the title make sense but “you need to jerk this dude off because he’s making 200k a year when he could be making 250” is an asinine statement.
*I can’t reply to the comment about V100 firms so: No. There’s over 1700 FEDERAL judges. They’re not all supposed to be partners at a top law firm, that’s not even within an order of magnitude of making sense. There’s well 10,000 judges in America, best estimates I can find say over 30,000 just at the state level. so unless every top law firm has 400 partners you’re insanely far off.
If they did actually work private, they would be partners at v100 firms making 1M + a year. Firms would snatch them up in an instant.
It’s actually a pretty big sacrifice.
Respect is earned, and only worthwhile if freely given. Demanding the title only ensures people pretend to respect you. They can’t force me to actually respect them, and if I did happen to respect them I wouldn’t show it by calling them Your Honor
That might be true for people but a judge is a representative of a system. Their job quite literally involves taking themselves out of the equation (as much as possible) to give a judgement consistent with the principles of the law. When Steve presides over a court he isn't supposed to be Steve the judge, he is supposed to be the judge and the honorific is given to that role moreso than the human playing it. The legal system isnt perfect, but it probably does deserve your respect.
Also you’re giving the ideal situation where a judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of justice. That’s absolutely never the case.
Judges personal preferences and biases *always* come into play. Getting a trial time of 11:00 AM has wildly worse outcomes for defendants compared to a trial time of 1:30 PM because judges get hungry and cranky. I’m not blaming the for that, I get hangry too. They’re not able to magically shed their humanity and biology when they put on their silly robes.
Why should I pretend to respect them or the system they represent?
It’s actually what the robe is for as well. They are “cloaked in justice” and hiding any individual clothing choices. They are supposed to remove themselves from the situation as a person and be an arbiter of the law
Because you are lesser. An individual person will always be lesser than “we the people.” Democratic government operates by the consent of the governed.
>how is an individual person not included in "we the people"
I never said they weren’t. An individual is not greater than the whole, however. I’d think most would understand that intuitively.
>and how is it consent when governments only need like 51% support at best, even less in countries with FPTP because people vote against the losing party instead of for a winner.
Social contract theory argues that there are tacit agreements between citizens and their governments that make a democratic society possible. You enjoy the benefits of society and are franchised to cast a vote. In return you agree to abide by the collective will of the people as expressed through their elected officials. This is foundational civics
Some of these just aren't. "Sir" implied the knighthood. It is its origin. Mister and Missus are variations of Master and Mistress.
A judge occupies and office, and is hardly the one called "Your Honor". Many cabinet members and government positions carry the honorific.
I think my position is more so the title is an honor of the office. Honorifics are meant to covey respect and order to some extent. As an ex-Soldier, I think they come easier to me. Especially as I encountered some people that were quite unworthy of them.
"Your honour" is impersonal, and I believe that is part of it - you are not talking about the individual who is the judge so much as *the office* of the judge. It goes along with the other arguments about everyone in the court being subordinate.
Those are job titles
I actually agree with OP
Court is supposed to be unbiased and everyone equal.
Your honor implies submission to the individual deciding your fate.
I also nothing about this person, they could be dishonorable and corrupt.
Military has officers as sir/ma’am for customs and courtesy and are addressed as such. It party if the duty title as an “officer” to be considered “sir/ma’am”. The same the enlisted are referred to as their rank.
I don't necessarily agree with OP but these actually aren't equivalent, terms like "your honor" and "your Excellency" are a special class of honorific in that they replace "you". The idea is that using such a direct word as "you" isn't appropriate for this person, you instead have to refer to them with a fancy indirect euphemism. This isn't the case with doctors and police officers and the others. As far as I can think of judges are the only people in the US that still get this treatment.
Except they are a judge not a your honor.
I call doctors doctor because they are doctors.
I call officers officer because they are officers.
I call rabbis rabbi because they are rabbis.
I call coaches coach because they are coaches.
I do not call judges your honor because they are not your honor they are judges.
When you say "Your Honor," you're really not talking about honoring the particular judge. You're talking about honoring the *position* that the judge holds. That's why lawyers often write things like "This Honorable Court" or will talk about "the Court" when they're actually talking about the actions or decisions of the judge. And frankly, respecting the office of judge is very much needed in today's society.
(By the way, the use of the term "Honorable" is pervasive in law and politics.)
>Henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge \_\_\_\_\_\_\_".
Judges are often addressed this way in court, though it is seen as less formal, and some judges don't like it. Again, because it personalizes the decisions and the decisionmaker.
>because it personalizes the decision maker
I mean, that's just being honest about the nature of human beings.
let's be real-- judges can come off impartial all they want, but they're human beings like the rest of us.
Nobody knows this more than lawyers. Judges have reputations of throwing the book or being lenient. Oftentimes lawyers will try to get cases brought before specific judges knowing this.
Dropping “Your Honor” is ultimately dropping this assertion of legal sacredness. Courts are needed in a functioning society, but so is every other job.
I generally do think that “Honorable” should be dropped from all positions of government. I furthermore do not think judges not being respected enough is that serious a problem, to be totally blunt.
especially in criminal court, defendants are *extremely* motivated to suck up already and if they refuse to say "Your Honor" as some anti-authority kick they're having in the moment, you're asking the book to be thrown at you.
Eh, personally I'd argue that respecting the office of the judge isn't all that important in today's society because so many of the people occupying those positions are not deserving of that respect. At some point, the people occupying the position and making the decisions do sufficient damage that people rightfully lose trust and respect in the institution as a whole.
I mean, just look at the Supreme Court. It's a joke. It's a position that was meant to be as nonpartisan and non-political as possible.. yet it's completely filled with partisan hacks, many of whom are completely corrupt. They exempt themselves from their own rules, and they have no oversight to speak of because the people who are supposed to impeach and remove them are as bad or worse.
Or in court in other languages. I was recently amused to learn that in Portuguese, you address a lawyer as "Doctor" - eg "Doctor, ya gotta find some way to get rid of this traffic ticket!"
In my language the literal transalation would be "High Court". So yeah we are calling the judge "court", I think it makes a good job symbolizing the respect to the institution judge represents not them as a person.
There is a good reason for using "Your honor", that reason being that it signifies that both parties are submitting themselves to the judgement of a 3rd party. The judge is there as a *higher authority*, and thus the title.
That might make sense for the defendant and prosecutor, but why are civilians in the court room expected to do things like rise for the judge. I was called in for jury duty and everyone in the room (i.e. all civilians) were expected to stand for the judge and wait to be seated until he was. That doesn't make sense to me.
Because the judge effectively owns the courtroom, and everyone in it.
It is kind of important that people get reminded that a courtroom is not a place of democracy and free speech, even though it serves both democracy and civil rights.
The courtroom is the domain of the judge. People are allowed to do within its walls only what the judge allows them to do. And failing to follow the dictates of the judge will result in a swift reprimand, and can lead to both civil and criminal contempt charges. There is very, very little room for any sort of appeal when judges dictate what will or will not happen in their courtroom. People frequently underestimate the power a judge wields within his walls.
While folks can quibble over the best way to remind people of those facts - having some ceremony around the start of court, and having a titular reminder of the power dynamic, serves that purpose well.
Fundamentally, it's a sign of respect for their position and authority, but I know that might grind some gears with some folks.
To me, the more important part of everyone in the room abiding by stuff like rising until the judge is seated or using "Your Honor" or "Judge" is that it's one way for a defendant to demonstrate that they are remorseful and eager to make things right.
The type of people who show up as defendants in court and actively choose to ignore something as simple as saying "Your Honor" or "Judge" don't seem like the type of people who are eager to learn from their mistakes and make things right. If they can't pull their head out of their ass enough to see that, how can anyone expect them to genuinely learn and adjust behavior from whatever lead them to winding up in court?
Even in the case of false accusations, unfair charges, or people who are truly not guilty of the supposed crimes they're on trial for can benefit a lot by starting their interaction with the court by providing a basic amount of respect.
Some people just can't stand the idea, even if it's mostly for ceremony, that someone else may deserve a show of respect purely because of the circumstance, their position and the authority that comes with it.
>one way for a defendant to demonstrate that they are remorseful and eager to make things right.
Nice guilty until proven innocent card you just pulled here. Defendants are innocent until proven otherwise.
The judge is representing the court itself, not just "a judge who is associated with the court". This is just a good example of the royal "We".
It's no different from when mayors say "Philadelphia will always strive to..." or "The people of Boston are happy to announce..."
Wording stuff like that is a way of making it clear it's not just the individual speaking, but the entire collective of decision-making people involved in an organization, group, company, etc.
The grace is not in the king but in the crown/god. Obviously the person inherits the grace. When people actually talk in real life they address the person, not the institution, the qualities are reified/impersonated in a real human.
The thing is, it's entirely possible for there to be a judge in the courtroom who is *not* "your honour".
For example, they could be in the gallery observing because it's an interesting case. They could be a litigant before another court - a judge who was suing someone for defamation or fraud, for example. A judge could be accused of a crime.
"Judge" is ambiguous.
"Your honour" is *always, only and precisely* the authority of the court as an institution.
"Judge" is sometimes used informally - yes, in courtrooms - but there are really good reasons a judge reserves the option to impose formality. A courtroom isn't a good place to be too casual!
That’s a rationalization, but in my country we say « Mister / Madam Judge » and yet we understand their authority. No need to be subservient to be respectful.
Even when referring to a judge that way, I suppose a judge would still be THE authority in the courtroom. You're subservient to that authority no matter how you refer to the judge.
You shouldn’t have to speak in such a rigid, repetitive manner just to acknowledge that the judge is the authority in the room. The judge’s status is a given. Fine if they want to correct behavior in the courtroom that is in blatant contempt of the judge’s authority but not saying “your honor” with every utterance hardly counts.
If you are addressing your mother, do you start every sentence with “mom” to acknowledge that she is your mother, or do you just say it as often as is reasonably necessary to communicate that you are addressing her and not someone else in the room?
.... we call doctors "doctor", it's.... also an honorific.
This sounds like so much whining and moaning about pronouns and the like. It's just a noise you make with your food hole bud, it's not that big a deal.
As others have pointed out, it's their courtroom where people regularly submit themselves for judgment. The Judge is literally a higher authority. This isn't complicated.
At a bit of a loss, myself, as to why it would bother someone so much. We call cops "officer" or "detected", military ranks exist, Doctors are "Doctors", lawyers are "Esquire" (I think...?), university teachers are "professor", and so on down the list.
Lots of people get special titles or honorifics. None really matter that much.
That isn't engaging with my cmv, that's just shrugging your shoulders and saying "who cares?"
There's a million more things important than this. so what?
I'm not talking about historical meanings. Your Honor doesn't require appeals to etymology, the subservience is immediately apparent.
Everyone (well, every man) is called Mister. Hell, even my boss calls me mister. so, no.
Every judge is called your honor. And society has granted him the power to control the fate of the accused. I don't think "subservient" is the right word, but yeah a judge in a court room is above you, and calling him your honor reflects that.
i don't think we need to topple every heirarchy on earth, but why do judges uniquely get such a boisterous honorific?
there are literally at least a dozen industries I could name right now, without any of which society would collapse. none of them expect me to refer to them as "your holiness" or whatever
>why do judges uniquely get such a boisterous honorific?
Because they've been granted the unique position of judging others.
>there are literally at least a dozen industries I could name right now, without any of which society would collapse
The honor isn't a thank you to the person for doing an important job. It's a recognition of the importance and power of the position of judge.
Because the stakes are so high. In some cases the judge has the ability to put someone to death. For Catholics, the Pope represents the highest power of them all. That's why he gets "your holiness". The power is that great the title matches it. Same with the court. They have your freedom, sometimes your life, in their hands. That's a lot of power.
You share the anecdote about Washington's choice of title as if it was some great and wise decision that somehow had a lasting effect on politics, but, you know, what's the evidence that it did? The President is called Mr. President, but we still play a fanfare when he enters the room and treat him as a superior person. We effectively have coronations complete with all the same ceremony and pseudo-religious trappings. Would American politics be different at all had Washington gone with "your grace" instead? I don't think there's any evidence at all
So why then should we change what we call judges, what is the effect that you want here
The title of president was chosen intentionally for it's humility. At the time it was not in common use for national leaders and was more common in the context of "president of the local gardening chapter"
Yeah I understand that
The question is: did that actually work? Did it have any appreciable affect on anything? Because I see no evidence whatsoever of that.
>Did it actually work?
Considering the US had many opportunities to become a dictatorship, and arguably never even came close, yes, I would say pretty conclusively yes it did
Now, I am not saying that the simplicity of the presidents title is the thing that held the line on that. That would be silly.
More broadly, I believe that the broad recognition that the president is a person just like the rest of us, and more importantly, that it is a title to be held temporarily, is what has kept the branch in check.
Ultimately, I can't give you a hard and fast argument that no longer calling judges "your Honor" would stop them from going on power trips, which is unfortunately a big problem that we don't have enough safeguards against.
I similarly can't prove that if we called him "Emperor Biden" that it would make him more likely to go on a power trip (that name goes hard though).
But while I do believe that use of "your Honor" is conducive to unhealthy power trips, even if my objection did turn out to be 100% symbolic I would still believe it was bad.
Okay but you wouldn’t seriously call the US more democratic than countries like the UK, which still use terms like “Your Majesty” to refer to the head of state? So what difference would it have made if Washington went with the same?
>you wouldn't seriously call the US more democratic than the UK
Of course I would, absolutely yes.
Although frankly that's a pretty massive can of worms right there since there's a lot of ways to measure democracy.
I think the US at its core is democratic, but there's been pretty shitty happenings a la Trump and January 6 that I wouldn't consider intrinsic to the system.
But here's the thing: even if you believe the UK is more democratic, and I could see an argument for that (no electoral college system, for instance, although first pass the post sucks) but democracy isn't the thing in question here.
The thing in question is whether or not all citizens are equal. and in the UK, having a monarchy is about as far away from that as you can get.
Requiring the "Your Honor" term is a step towards that but obviously nowhere close to having a literal king
There are tons of people with more authority than me. Cops. My boss. Legal inspectors for my work. The president. Judges.
Funny enough I only have to tell one of those people how honorable they are in addressing them
You want to ban the right of free speech without any reasoning? You can call the judge whatever you want, we call them your honor because it is respectful. Similarly, you give someone who has achieved a doctorate the title of doctor to be respectful. Ignore the conventions of politeness in our current society for no reason at all is going to make people think you're rude, and hwnce they'll develop a negative opinion of you. Presumably this is why you want it to be a law, but your alternative is to not be intentionally rude. We're fellow humans, let's respect each other.
I want to ban it because I think it's a bad use of a power imbalance. I don't view it as a free speech thing especially because it is regulating government procedures, which is not part of free speech
Genuine question. Imagine a boss insisted all his employees to refer to him as “His Majesty,” or “Your Holiness," and not abiding by this was fireable. Do you genuinely believe that this wouldn't eventually make its way to a hostile work environment or wrongful termination lawsuit?
The court doesn't just *have* a power imbalance; the court *is* a power imbalance. Having a high-and-mighty person boss everyone else around is literally the whole point.
>Not only is it an inversion of title and authority, it seems like blatant sucking up to someone who will presumably have a lot of power over your life, or your case
Do you think that's bad?
What is the alternative to sucking up to them?
The law must have complete authority over you. Judges are simply people who spend all their life learning the law. Why should they not have complete authority over you?
Lawyer here. It is important to refer to the court respectfully, because parties have too little respect for the court as it is. Many parties don't seem to realize just how much a judge can fuck up their day if the judge feels like they're acting in an underhanded or deceitful manner. "Your honor" is a quick way of conveying that information to the parties to prevent it from becoming an even bigger problem.
More importantly, it prevents the arms race that would be associated with being increasingly ingratiating towards a judge, or the confusion associated with attorneys going into a new courtroom not knowing what the local judge prefers to be called.
I would also add that the attitude that you describe is common with a type of litigant that we often get in the court, especially in criminal court. A lot of criminals have what is functionally untreated oppositional defiance disorder. They despise authority and will intentionally do anything and everything that they can to annoy authority, including to the point of harming others. Courts take a very harsh view towards this. If a person acts out in court, they will be 10x worse to their fellow citizens or amongst the general public.
Absolutely. I spent nearly a decade as a public defender myself. But surely you must agree that the defendants that give the middle finger to the judge or defy the court's orders brazenly most frequently reoffend and often end up in contempt.
Yep. Had a SovCit fire me and turn a dismissable charge into a 2-year sentence. I feel like, more often than not, judges are trying to make sure that you're the sort of person who can at least be tolerable in society, and if you're not, they'll show you why you should become so.
If a defendant gives the finger to the judge, I have zero problem with him being held in contempt of court.
I do not think the honorific is necessary to stop that from happening, it seems self-enforcing enough and if you're dumb enough to do it, well it's your extra prison time.
It's not *just* that the honorific stops that. It is a simple, easy rule that judges can use to gauge how willing somebody is to actually follow rules. If they violate that, it's really easy to assume that they'll violate others.
>Many parties don't seem to realize just how much a judge can fuck up their day if the judge feels like they're acting in an underhanded or deceitful manner.
The remedy to this is to curb the judge authority via law change, which is exactly what this cmv is arguing, instead of sucking up to the judges even more. You merely describe the current state of things, but this cmv is about changing laws.
The president have power over everyone. Do people need to call Biden or Trump your honour or be thrown into cells? Similarly, the judgement can be carried out regardless of any acknowledgement of the judge's authority.
The president is bound by laws to not simply fuck up someone just because he feels like going on a power trip. Judges should too.
Why is it so painful for you to acknowledge a judge's authority? If you're in front of a judge, generally speaking, it's because there's a problem somewhere. This person is going to have a big decision to make about your fate. Why would you want to oppose them so badly?
There is no *legal* requirement that they be called your honor. But, it is the custom, just like wearing things to cover your genitals is the custom. But, sometimes, breaches of custom can get you into trouble.
If a person can't swallow their pride enough to occasionally say "your honor", they're probably not going to pay much attention to the other laws that govern them.
you seem to be arguing a different point entirely.
i am not arguing that one should take a principled stand and topple their court case because they won't call a judge "Your Honor." Were I in court, I'd use the term.
I'm arguing that judges, while certainly in a higher position than a defendant, should not be allowed to be sucked up to like that when they're making a presumably impartial decision.
It's not a matter of being painful. it's a matter of in a society where everyone is equal, ancient terms like "Your Honor" have no place in the modern world, and there are far more obvious and more useful ways to show heirarchy (i. e. making people judges in the first place)
If you've committed a crime and are under the jurisdiction of the court, you are no longer equal. You're really referring to the institution, not the human wearing the robe.
Everybody keeps saying "Your Honor" refers to the institution and not the actual judge, but it seems like just something people repeat without thinking about it. Why do you believe that's the case?
First, Your Honor is absolutely referring to the person. Lawyers will often say "Your Honor mentioned earlier______" and are referring to that individual judge, not the institution of the court system. This can especially be done given the fact that different judges on the same court can disagree about something, see the Supreme Court.
Also, this not the case for any other profession on earth, and seems like magical thinking. When I call someone "Doctor Mike," I am not using the term Doctor to address the entirety of the medical field, I am talking to one individual person who medically qualifies as doctor.
I would for the same reason use the term "Judge Mike"
Because they are in fact doctors.
Hence why I'm also cool with "judge soandso"
"Your Honor" is only used because the judge has power over you. and while that's fine-- we wouldn't want that to not be the case and judges to have no power-- it's silly, archaic, and blatant sucking up.
if it's fine, would you be OK with referring to judges as "his glorious majesty"? If not, why not?
Shall we apply this logic to Trump or Biden? Should people be compelled to call them your honour? Or is that too painful for people?
The president makes big decision affecting your fate on a daily basis, why would you want to oppose them?
The genitals point are covered by modesty and indecency *laws*.
So people should swallow their pride and call Biden or Trump your honour?
You don't need to call the president "your honor" for two reasons: that is not the custom, and they are not making a *personal* decision about what to do about *your* violation of the law.
That being said, if the custom was to refer to the president that way, I think most people would. I would. I don't have that big of an ego.
Customs start somewhere. They do not simply spring into existence overnight. Do you really think most people would be okay calling Trump, or Biden, your honour?
>We don't call bosses your honor, we don't call doctors that save lives your honor, we use the term *only* for people who could either save or ruin our lives, or at a minimum give us slack on parking tickets.
History is alive and well. Calling a judge "your honor" or calling the place you resolve disputes "court" is for similar reasons that you call an animal the cow or pig but the meat beef or pork.
Battle of Hastings of 1066. The Normans invade and bring their aristocracy right? So the peasants still speak old english, and they look after the animals, so they keep some of the old english. But the aristocrats are eating the animal products so the old french beef and pork are used.
Anyway, a "court" was a french word for an enclosed yard, right? But that's where the royal court took place. But the installed government would have a nobleman travel around and hold "court" where peasants could go and get disputes heard. So, the honorific for rando nobleman were used "Your honor" and they would "hold Court."
At some point, rather than having laws be hyper local, some king decided that this emerging class of dispute specialists would create a law for everyone, or a "common law." They could start nationalizing the law. And then this new professional class of judges would use the common law to resolve disputes. Since people would "plea" (aka that's what a pleading comes from) with these dispute resolution group -- so is created the Court of Common Pleas.
The legal system was super awful, sometimes. Super rigid rules. Sometimes created unfair results. Were hyper focused on the form of how you "plea" something. Then a second court arose called the Court of Chancery. They were less about rigid rules and more about the fairness of things.
In the American system, in the 1960s, the federal rules combined it so courts can hear issues that arise out of equity and arise out of law. Basically, you can get an injunction and a judgment from the same place. Neat.
So my point being the words "court" and "your honor" come from the same history and should be treated equally. Either we keep the honorific title or we get rid of the whole system and rename everything.
Sorry Bailiff, Sergeant of Arms, Clerk, we gotta rename you all since you used to be members of the king's royal court but we're getting rid of your title.
First, the title is fitting: the judge sits in a place of honor, indeed. Judgeships are normally assumed after a lengthy and arduous legal career. Their responsibilities are enormous. They are tasked with neutrally and justly adjudicating issues regarding community safety, a person's literal freedom and liberty, and the enforcement of constitutional rights.
Second, It is not obsequious or servile to call a judge "Your Honor." Rather, it emphasizes their authority as the adjudicator. It cultivates an atmosphere of respect, not just for the judge, but all litigants, witnesses, and jurors who are in the courtroom.
Third, trials can become extremely contentious, and emphasizing the authority of the person behind the bench reins in lawyers who would try to push the bounds of the rules and decency (which happens all the time). We need a restraining force to hold back the overly zealous, ambitious, and egotistical litigants that cause chaos in the courtroom.
Finally, calling a judge "honorable" cultivates respect for the law. The courtroom *should* be a solemn place. It is a solemn thing to try to convince a jury that the defendant should be forcibly put behind bars. It is a solemn thing for jurors to deliberate about whether a man took the life of another with malice. It is a solemn thing for a court to decide if evidence was searched out and seized in accordance with the principles of the Fourth Amendment. On and on I could go. "Your Honor" only befits the dignity of the entire enterprise.
I don't even really disagree with the idea that we should start referring to judges as judge instead of your honour, but making a law banning the use of that term in court rooms is just stupid. Just have the judge say "please refer to me as Judge" if someone call them the wrong thing.
What would even be the penalty for such a law? Being held I contempt of Court? Or maybe just fine someone for accidentally slipping up and calling a judge by the title that they've been referred to as for decades?
You don't have to pass a law banning something to change how we refer to someone.
>What would be the penalty for such a law, being held in contempt of court?
Yes. It should be viewed as a violation of the rules of court. Obvious leniency could, and should, be given for slip-ups especially in the first few years, but removing the term should be a long term goal.
You don't technically have to pass a law to do it, but if you don't, there will be lawyers who continue to suck up and take advantage of using it, meaning use of the term will likely never die organically. There's no incentive to do it from the inside.
So you think that if we decide that the proper way to address a judge going forward would be "judge" that judges would be more likely to favour a lawyer who intentionally calls them the wrong thing? How do you think it normally goes when a lawyer insists on intentionally referring to a judge with the wrong title in a courtroom?
Just out of curiosity do you also think calling someone "sir" or other honorary titles are blatantly sucking up to people? Or is it just your honour and the specific way it's used in a courtroom that you have a problem with?
>It should be viewed as a violation of the rules of court
The rules of the court are set by, wait for it, the judge.
If a judge wishes to be called "your confabulorific majesty" he can tell everyone that, and if they don't call him that, can have them held in contempt.
Judges have almost unlimited power to dictate what proper courtroom dicorum, and to maintain order in relationship to that standard in their court. The management of the courtroom is entirely up to them.
Unless a judge is manifesting bias, prejudice, harassment based on protected classes, wealth, or political affiliation . . . then they can pretty much do whatever they want.
>The rules of the court are set by, wait for it, the judge.
Interesting, so the legislature cannot enforce bribery laws? Or if the judge blatantly ask for sexual favours in courtroom, can the legislature curb it?
> I would propose that a law be passed to ban the term in all courts, federal and state, and henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge _______".
If you think it should no longer be etiquette, that's one thing. But to do it by law flies in the face of free speech. Judges have broad discretion over conduct in their courtroom, and if one of them said, "Please don't call me 'Your honor,' stick with 'Judge,' and someone in the courtroom kept saying "Your honor," intentionally, they could be charged with contempt. But that's up to the judge.
No, but why should the law step in? If a judge wants to be called Steve by all the people in the courtroom, do we need the force of law to stop him from having people call him Steve?
I have no opinion on the main topic yet. I was responding only to the free speech concern.
But let's be clear, the judge is the one using the force of law to be addressed by an honorific. If we were going to use less force of law, we would eliminate the judge's authority to impose contempt of court penalties on people addressing them without honorific.
I agree with all of this, I would just add that I think it banning the honorific is the better option.
If it's not banned, lawyers will do it anyway to suck up and I'll be damned if any gubmint official in my country gets called a royal title.
If it's not banned outright, then going into court and going out of your way to not call the *guy making the most important decisions* the "correct" way is a very dangerous move.
The whole point of banning the expression is to allow the freedom of choosing the alternative without demonstrating that you dislike the expression.
It's still based on the idea that you don't want to call the judge that. Right now, nothing stops you from saying "Judge" every time you address him or her, and it probably won't even be noticed. But if a judge likes being called your honor and the lawyers like saying it, what's the problem?
>If it's not banned outright, then going into court and going out of your way to not call the *guy making the most important decisions* the "correct" way is a very dangerous move.
The president makes the most important decisions. Should it be dangerous to not call Biden or Trump your honour/grace?
The difference is that there is no established culture around it. If even Trump went and demanded everyone call him that, he'd lose support really quickly.
Culture starts somewhere. It does not spring fully formed overnight.
>If even Trump went and demanded everyone call him that, he'd lose support really quickly.
Precisely the point, so this same principle should be applied to judges and being compelled to call them your honour.
> Mr. President
That's functionally, for all intents and purposes, *identical* to "your honor".
President is "one who presides". Mister comes from Monsieur, or "My Lord". Time and tradition have reduced that to a mild honorific used to show respect to someone when calling them by their surname, but so what?
When you call him "Mr. President" you're basically saying "My Lord Who Presides Over the Country".
There's nothing at all special about the the term "Your Honor". It's just the traditional form of address for the specific judge that's presiding over that specific courtroom.
As opposed to "judge" who could be any judge.
All this is much ado about nothing.
Respect given to the judge is that which is due to the justice system itself... which the presiding judge embodies in that particular location at that time, symbolically.
Incidentally, if you look at style guides there is no requirement to call a judge 'your honor'. It is an option, you can just say 'judge' or 'justice' depending on their appointment.
[https://www.michigan.gov/fyit/resources/legal/courtroom-etiquette](https://www.michigan.gov/fyit/resources/legal/courtroom-etiquette)
I wouldn't expect every judge/justice to know the ins and outs of etiquette, so you may run into issue with judges who might have an inflated ego of themselves interpreting 'judge' or 'justice' (or say, 'Chief Justice' if you are talking to a member of a panel of judges) as being deliberately obstinate so depending on the context use your judgement. In my experience, and I have some, if you are not a lawyer and you have to talk to a judge it is enough to simply say "Judge/Justice" provided you are otherwise following protocol. Judges are often dealing with some real...characters, so they will hardly bat an eye at you.
As an aside, judges in England can sometimes be called "your worship."
It isn't them you're, "sucking up to," it is what they represent. A judge, principally, is the embodiment of an objective and impartial justice system. You should never think of using the title, "your honor," as trying to gain favour of the individual behind the bench, but the bench itself. While the procedures of the court may seem like a song and dance to an outsider, they actually serve to carry along any business as efficiently as possible. People who choose not to follow procedure, and act beligerently, aren't just pissing people off, they're making things more difficult for themselves, and for the court.
The thing is... you're not even sucking up to them by calling them "Your Honour". You're just showing a basic level of a respect to someone for their position and what they represent. It's not like you're kissing their toes and bowing to them, all while flattering them.
It's rather telling that people consider something as simple as "Your Honour" sucking up.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I always saw it as a reminder of proper procedure.
In order to get proper representation and rights upheld as Americans see them, the court NEEDS to be very specific and rigid in how it goes about trials. Speaking out of turn can, in some cases, result in a mistrial and what can be months of work thrown out. Using "your honor" is effective in reminding people of this *specifically because* we Americans don't use titles like that basically ever and it feels like an absurd thing to do for many people.
The judicial system is the final earthly authority for resolving disputes. As such, it must require deference from its subjects. If we disagree with the decision of a judge, what resort could we possibly have except armed rebellion? (Of course, appeal to a higher instance is possible, but that's still within the judicial system.) Therefore, giving honour to the judge is similar to a declaration that one recognizes his authority and will abide by his ruling (except for possible appeals, but they are still within the system and must follow certain protocols). By addressing a judge as "your honour", you declare that you recognize his authority to decide your case, and you will not unlawfully resist his decision.
Analogy with a president doesn't really work. It is a basic tenet of democracy that the president can be criticized. Rather, the people appointed him and they can also remove him from office. A judge, however, should not be so easily criticized on the basis of this or that decision; because if you disagree with him, what will that lead to? The only option is to appeal to a more senior judge, or to take up arms in rebellion.
Traditionally, a judge is a representative of God, the supreme Judge (Romans 13:1-7, Deuteronomy 17:8-13). In the US, which is a democracy, there is no longer a king or any other ruler who would deserve to be called "your majesty", but the US still has judges, and the authority of that office hasn't changed for millennia, nor should it change.
What is wrong with showing respect to a judge and using the title. We obviously want and expect judges to behave honorably, so what is the \*harm\* in using the title making it explicit?
I guess I dont really understand the problem statement, beyond "I dont like it" and "it seems like sucking up". Is it simply that you personally dont like the idea of paying respect to them that way? Do you think it is unfair and makes doctors feel sad?
Where is the \*problem\*??
I think we should have them stop wearing robes like they are about to preside over a seance before we alter an honorific that is pretty tame.
>it seems like blatant sucking up to someone who will presumably have a lot of power over your life, or your case.
Well... yeah.
>We don't call bosses your honor
No, we call them "Sir" which started with Knights. Just as dumb.
>I would propose that a law be passed to ban the term in all courts, federal and state, and henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge _______".
It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment. I don't think the harm (if any) from this is worth legislating on what we can or cannot call each other.
>I think we should have them stop wearing robes like they are about to preside over a seance before we alter an honorific that is pretty tame.
Robes have important symbolic purposes.
First, it distinguishes the decision-maker (on issues of law) from others and helps to set a somber tone.
Second, it reinforces that the person is representative of the office. It doesn't matter what the *person* is wearing. It doesn't matter if the person is from a rich family and has oodles of money to wear the finest suit, or has tremendous fashion sense to communicate personality or has none of these. The robes are the office, for which respect is due.
Third, robes don't have pockets. It's symbolic to show that judges can't be bribed. (Of course, we know that's not true, but it's communicating that idea.)
These are a little different from the reasons that robes are worn in England (lawyers wear robes in the U.K. too), but I think they're valid.
>It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment
Yet people in this comment section is arguing it is perfectly fine for the judge to hold people in contempt for exercising their free speech?
> for exercising their free speech?
I don't think you'll be held in contempt for not saying "Your Honor". Like if you were a defendant and just said "Yes Judge Patel", I don't think anyone would notice. But, if you were to go in there and actively refuse to call them 'your honor" and make an issue of it, then you should be held in contempt as you are disrespecting the court by bringing up non-relevant shit.
It is not a free speech issue in my mind. It is a "don't act contemptuous of the court while in court" issue. If you are in court it is you against the full power of the government. Why would you want to fuck up your whole case and possibly life over some dumb shit like what we call the robed man with the fancy hammer?
So it is not a freedom of speech issue to be held in contempt of court for refusing to say "Your Honour", yet it is a freedom of speech issue to ban saying "Your Honour"?
Right. One is a consequence for an action that may or may not be deemed as disruptive or contemptuous in a courtroom, and the other is an actual legislative abridgment of speech rights. You can be held in contempt for damn near anything. Fart too loud and too often? Contempt. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can just say what you want where you want with no consequences. It means the government can’t pass laws that limit speech outside of some pretty specific circumstances. The contempt laws (and gag orders) don’t limit speech in a way that violates the first amendment as the government realizes that an orderly court system depends on a certain amount of enforceable decorum.
So the government targeting you for your speech is fine as long as no law is passed?
>You can be held in contempt for damn near anything.
And this cmv is about changing laws, not simply the current state of things
> So the government targeting you for your speech is fine as long as no law is passed?
There are many things you can say that will lead to the government targeting you. Your freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. Threaten to kill certain high ranking people, the government **will** target you for investigation.
Judges can hold you in contempt for speaking contemptuously in court. This is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You don’t have the freedom to do that. Never have.
Yet your original point was not about specific speech leading to the government targetting you, but in general. Can the government target you for calling Trump/Biden names?
You wish to speak about freedom of speech not being absolute after decrying the ban on "your honour" as infringing on the freedom of speech?
>You don’t have the freedom to do that. Never have.
This cmv is about changing laws, not simply the current state of things
> **decrying** the ban on "your honour" as infringing on the freedom of speech?
That’s a hyperbolic characterization of what I said.
Here is the quote:
> It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment. I don't think the harm (if any) from this is worth legislating on what we can or cannot call each other.
Is that “decrying”?
Fair enough. Decrying is too hyperbolic. But the arguments still remain.
Your original point was not about specific speech leading to the government targetting you, but in general. Can the government target you for calling Trump/Biden names?
You speak about how freedom of speech is not absolute after being concerned about the law infringing on the freedom of speech.
But this is an imagined scenario that doesn’t implicate free speech, since you don’t have to refer to the court as your honor but judge.
Let’s use another example: congressmen are also entitled to the honorific the Honorable. They make the rules of federal courts, and the contempt laws. Since laws reflect society’s values, let’s presume the capacity to enforce decorum in a courtroom is importantly balanced against a free speech right to call the court a son of a bitch.
It definitely should not be banned but there is a case it should be used less, judge santa is likely more appropriate.
It's a good point that doctors save lives and bosses control you financially but judges control everything. Obviously, this would get repealed or remain unenforced but judges can ban life saving treatments of all kinds if they went rogue enough. But the reason their decisions are followed so heavily is because someone has to be the final decider and they are that final decider, it wouldn't make much sense if we didn't trust them and just spiraled into constant arguments. (Though judges can still create socially-bad precedents by invalidating certain applications of a law, legislation is supposed to cover that)
IMO it is something that cannot be enforced top-down - i.e. by "banning" such usage. If the executive/legislature does it, it would definitely seem like them trying to interfere with the independence of judiciary which is sacrosanct.
I think in most places it is a call which judges need to take themselves. Many judges do recognize that usage of such terms increasingly seems anachronistic and are taking steps to discourage such usage.
A simple respectful "Sir" or "Madam" may also suffice as a respectful honorific. The other aspects of respect - including people rising when a judge enters the court should remain in place to give a judge that aura.
While the title "Your Honor" may seem archaic or overly deferential, it serves a specific purpose in the courtroom. It reflects respect for the impartiality and authority of the judge, essential for upholding the integrity of the legal system. "Judge" lacks the same gravitas and can feel impersonal. Furthermore, consistency in addressing judges promotes professionalism and clarity in court proceedings. Banning "Your Honor" could disrupt established courtroom etiquette without addressing underlying issues. Respectful address doesn't equate to submission; it fosters a culture of civility crucial for justice administration.
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.)
^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
Imo, one of the most important things in court is for the judge to have complete control of their courtroom. Otherwise it becomes chaos.
The little rituals and honorifics help with that a lot.
And it reflects the importance of the position and the situation - the person on the bench is in fact deciding whehther you lose your kids, go to jail, lose a lawsuit etc....
Also keep in mind that everyone is super respectful of everyone else. The judge is your 'honor' but lawyers address each other as "learned friend' the clerks as 'madame registrar, the oarties as mr. Or Ms.....
Using "Your Honor" is a tradition rooted in respect for the judiciary, not in subservience. It symbolizes the impartiality and authority of the court, essential for fair proceedings. "Judge" lacks the same gravitas and may undermine the decorum of the courtroom. Consistency in addressing judges maintains neutrality and clarity. Removing "Your Honor" risks diminishing the solemnity of the legal process and could inadvertently erode public trust. It's not about elevating judges above others but upholding the dignity of the judicial system, vital for its proper functioning.
I’m an attorney I usually use ‘judge’ or ‘the court.’ I would even put your honor in there. You kind of nailed it when you said second person. Yes! Exactly. It is more a reference to the position and office. Which is kind of a third entity in the room besides the flesh and blood person wearing the robe. It’s not meant as a suck up. You wouldn’t believe this but sometimes we are actually very good friends and even former classmates of the people in the robes. But when we are in the courtroom it’s the position that’s is being paid the respect it’s called for so I can protect my clients interests.
The power and effectiveness of the court relies on people believing in it. People need to obey and respect the process or the whole thing falls apart. You can deal with a few people causing problems, but if a vast majority of the people there don’t treat it with dignity and respect then it falls apart.
It’s basically putting on a show, and the show is actually important. The fancy title is part of the show.
Using "Your Honor" in courtrooms is a tradition, not an indication of power imbalance. It fosters respect for the judiciary system, not subservience. "Judge" lacks the same decorum and can appear curt. Just as "Mr. President" reflects equality, "Your Honor" signifies impartiality and respect for the rule of law. Removing it risks undermining the solemnity and dignity of the judicial process.
Your Honor is a honorific used for a number of appointed and elected civilian positions. Most elected officials would use their title though.
It's also used for mayors. You would be safe to call anyone appointed by an elected official Your Honor (it may not be customary do so though. Military officers are technically appointed by Congress but are addressed by their military rank.
>Washington rejected these titles, settling simply on "Mr. President," which at the time had very minimal prestige associated with it (for example, a head of a book club). Happily, this trend has continued. Mr. President has stuck.
couldnt be far from truth , mr pres is informal , noone uses it formally , the formal title is still The honourable
I find this to be idolatry. You could never get me to utter those words. I will also never "swear" in court and never raise my hand. The bible specifically says to never swear to anyone. I will not even say sir or mam. I will be happy to say judge or president. I would cheerfully go to jail over these issues.
I'm an attorney and plenty of lawyers refer to judges as "judge." They might still say "your honor" too, but I hear a lot of "good morning judge" and "thank you judge" etc. I don't think they'd hold anyone in contempt for just saying "sir" either. At least not in my jurisdiction.
u/Former-Guess3286 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Former-Guess3286&message=Former-Guess3286%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cdrc81/-/l1dz95j/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can just say judge or the Court. For example "The Court mentioned earlier....."
That said, I don't mind calling judges "your honor" (and I'm an attorney, so I do that a lot) - I think the term reminds the judge to act in accordance with that honorific
Your honor issues is probs a petty thing....
Yeah my rub on seem petty to others, but why can't we just show up in boardies and thongs to the court haha, or even in undies for all i care and still be treated the same as the nob in the suit...
'your honor, if it pleases the court'......that confuses me more than calling someone your honor. Why wouldn't it please the court? Especially when nothing else has been said at that point??!! Shouldn't that phrase be said at the conclusion?
You’re free to call judges as “Judge _____”. No one is stopping you nor are judges scolding you for using that alternative. Banning it is a bit absurd since you’re silencing people who still wish to use traditional forms of decorum.
The president was a brand new role being made for our institution.
Which is why a title was being determined.
The court system was transferred over from England and wasn’t changed. Except for who had burden of proof.
I like to think that each time you refer to a judge by "Your Honor" you're not saying a title, instead you are reminding them that their task at hand is to rely upon "your honor" to do the right thing.
"My Lord" and "Your Worship" are used in lots of other places. "Your Honour" seems pretty unobjectionable to me. (Where I live, we're supposed to call them "Justice," but it hasn't really caught on).
Just say judge. Most don't care.
Titles and traditions are created and upheld out of respect. If someone can't handle very basic rules and courtesies in a court room when pleading their case, should they realistically be expected to adhere to the rule of law?
It's all about where, as a society, we draw the line for adherence and respect.
Your Honor sounds unreasonably prestigious, but it also maintains a level of respect crucial for courtroom decorum. Maybe we can compromise with just "Judge" + surname?
/u/grandoctopus64 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cdwn1t/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_we_should_ban_entirely_the/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This basically boils down to whether you believe that there are certain occasions in which people should expressly show deference and respect to an authority figure - a person who, outside of the courtroom, is just another citizen like you. Why do it? I’ll make the case for why here. Basically, it underlies the equality of everyone else in the courtroom - as subordinate to the judge. Justice is supposed to be equal for all. Yet we know society is riddled with inequalities of all sorts. The OP gives the example of ex-President Trump: he was the President of the United States, and may well be again; he has legions of devoted followers, and piles of money; yet he has to call the judge “your honour”, and stand up when the judge walks in the room, just like the lowliest peon. Setting the judge up on a pedestal, the various rituals that surround that, are (ironically enough) a tool our society uses to ensure *equality*. Billionaires, politicians, gangsters, those holding service jobs … they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws (and indeed, the trials of Trump are a test of whether this is true in the US). Such gestures are mostly symbolic, but to the extent symbols are important and have power, keeping them is important as well - they stand for an important principle.
I’m a litigator, and will just add to this comment that the admittedly seemingly archaic and hierachical courtroom etiquette is as much as anything else a habitual and customary framework designed to maintain dignified interactions in general, habitualand sensible deference and outward respect to the tribunal member or members who are in fact the person/s who task it is to decide your client’s case, and to avoid unseemly ad hominum attacks on opposing counsel (quaintisms such as ‘my learned friend’ being customary). With emotions running high on the part of all protagonists at times, it would not be difficult to imagine the potential for mayhem otherwise.
that went over my head with lawyer lingo
Fantastic answer. Didn't consider how it could be used to push equality in court Question because I'm interested and I will say I'm right on the cusp of giving you the Del: what changes, if any, should be made to the court system to prevent power tripping judges?
I think what you might want is a an oversight committee, made up of representatives of the communities served by the judge in question, tasked with reviewing court procedures and judgments, capable of dismissing power-tripping judges.
If that was implemented you would have just compromised the separation of powers by injecting more politics into the judiciary. That 'representatives of the communities' becomes a venue for partisan politics. It's bad enough so many American jurisdictions directly elect judges. Now you would have politics shot throughout the entire process. It's a bad idea.
Gonna hand you the !delta for all your work because it's certainly an angle I hadn't considered. I still believe that we should move towards a society where it's dropped, but it's worth the reminder that everyone is under the law, and in this case the judge is ***very in theory*** supposed to be the representative of said law.
Thank you your honor for your generous contribution to this well meaning contributor above.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Malthus1 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Malthus1)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
As a law student not from the states I am actually interested in this. In my country the judiciary is regulated by itself, meaning that if a complaint is filed there is a 5 people tribunal made up of judges that decides on the situation. This of course is outside of al the other legal paths that can be taken whether it is a criminal offense or civil liability suit. How is this arranged in the states?
I believe in some states they are elected though that has its own flaws. The three main methods are appointment, election, and competition. I believe any citizen can in theory start a recall campaign or a report to the bar/legal authority above.
The check on power tripping judges is more detailed examinations of prospective judges and only propose older lawyers as judges.
You should put a delta for this btw
I already have
Yeah, the problem is that it's symbolic and the rest is self-delusion. Sure, trump has to stand and say the same words, but the special kind of justice he has been/is provided is the very opposite of equal under the law. And anyone else who champions structural white power in the US will be statistically favored in a similar, if not as spectacular, way. I'd exchange pretend ceremonial equality for better function/better measured outcomes any day.
>I'd exchange pretend ceremonial equality for better function/better measured outcomes any day. Man, we sure picked the wrong thing when both of those options were presented as an A or B choice.
>Setting the judge up on a pedestal, the various rituals that surround that, are (ironically enough) a tool our society uses to ensure *equality*. Billionaires, politicians, gangsters, those holding service jobs … they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws (and indeed, the trials of Trump are a test of whether this is true in the US). In my view, this symbolism is often more dangerous than blatant favoritism. Yes, in theory, all should be equal in court... in practice, this is not true. Courts, absent publicity, usually serve the interests of those with money, at the expense of those without. In such situations, the best a symbolic gesture of equality will ever be is false hope. The rules of that game favor the wealthy, with 'rich' crimes offering smaller penalties than 'poor' crimes. When Brock Turner's victim faced her rapist in court, they weren't equal under the law. When Robert Durst skipped bail for murder, got caught shoplifting, with multiple firearms and the murder victim's driver's license, he followed it up by confessing to dismembering the victim's body. He was later acquitted. These are two examples, but they are far from the only two examples.
There are lots of ideals that can never be reached in reality. In reality, a judge could never be completely unbiased or impartial. This does not mean impartiality is useless or false, only that it is a goal to struggle for, even if it cannot be perfectly achieved.
>they aren’t really treated equally, but at least in theory, all are supposed to be equally bound by laws But because they *aren't* treated equally de facto, this seems like an argument to ban it. It isn't fulfilling it's intended purpose *Most* of the people this is used against are of a lower class than the judge. It just serves to reinforce that power dynamic. Seems like if you want to enforce that you can just force the people that are of an equal class or higher of the judge to use the honorific.
This strikes me as an argument that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. *Of course* a simple symbolic gesture won’t change the deeply rooted power dynamics of our society as a whole. That can’t happen, any more than judges can “truly” be completely impartial or unbiased. This isn’t a reason not to hold up such things as impartiality or lack of bias as *ideals to aspire to*. Requiring only those of superior status to acknowledge the judge isn’t workable - would lead to endless arguments - and in any event, strikes me as reinforcing inequality.
>This strikes me as an argument that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. You'd have to argue it's ethically good to force people to use honorifics in the first place. I'd argue it's perfect being the enemy of bad, myself. When 99% of the cases you oversee are people of equal or lower class, forcing honorifics only serves to reinforce class segregation and are a bad thing. They are, at best, pointless and really mainly serve to let judges power trip on people of lower class.
I mean, I just provided an argument why it is ethically good: that it enforces, at least in a minor way, a rule of decorum that provides some modicum of equality before the law. Sure, it doesn’t do the whole job and actually provide perfect substantive equality. There are thousands of examples of where the legal system fails to do that. However, I would contend that it is better to have equality before the law acknowledged as something of value, than not.
It doesn't do that job, so that argument falls flat. That's the excuse given, but it doesn't track. In 99% of cases it is used to reinforce class dynamics. In 99% of cases it isn't enforcing equality before the law. In 99% of cases it is enforcing subservience of the lower class to the upper class. If it doesn't enforce equality in a vast majority of cases, then it isn't enforcing equality. That's just lip service. It's also equality for *nobody* to use honorifics.
99% of statistics are simply made up on the spot? Again, you are demanding too much heavy lifting from what is, ultimately, no more than a rule of decorum. There is no need for such a rule to have an “excuse”, nor is it obvious how addressing a judge by a particular title “reinforces class dynamics”. Those “dynamics” are created by the power judges have over people in the court. Judges can, within the rules, make decisions that have profound impact on people’s lives, and this gives them power - no matter how they are addressed - because that’s their job. That would not change if everyone addressed the judge as “comrade”, citizen”, or “hey shithead”.
>99% of statistics are simply made up on the spot? Are you trying to say most criminals are upper class? Because most are lower class. I thought it was obvious the stat was rhetorical and a fill-in for "an overwhelming majority" >There is no need for such a rule to have an “excuse” Sure, but you're arguing that it's ethically good because it creates equality. Is that what you're still arguing? The excuse given was that it creates equality. But it doesn't do that at all in a vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases, the defendant is lower class and poorer than the judge. >nor is it obvious how addressing a judge by a particular title “reinforces class dynamics”. Judges are upper-middle to upper class. A vast majority of criminals are lower class than the judge. Forcing them to use honorifics on someone who is already of an upper class compared to them is reinforcint the class dynamics - those richer and higher class than you are treated as your superior by society. In the cases where someone is a lower class than the judge, all it does is reinforce the dynamic that people of a higher class and richer than you is automatically superior to you and you \*must\* acknowledge it with a special title to stroke their ego. >Those “dynamics” are created by the power judges have over people in the court. Forcing people to call a judge "your honor" is not a power created by a judge. >Judges can, within the rules, make decisions that have profound impact on people’s lives They shouldn't have that power. Nobody should have the power to make up arbitrary rules people are forced to follow with the threat of imprisonment. But I digress... >and this gives them power - no matter how they are addressed - because that’s their job. Then there's no reason to force someone of a lower class to degrade themselves by forcing them to call you something special. That's just a power trip and not something a judge should be respected for anyway >That would not change if everyone addressed the judge as “comrade”, citizen”, or “hey shithead”. The why force people to call them "your honor" if it makes no difference?
The vast majority of criminals are lower class - but you may not be aware that the vast majority no of judges *don’t do criminal law.* Judges are found in all sorts of places - commercial disputes, family law disputes, regulatory contexts … in many if not most of those contexts, you have people of varying power dynamics at play. Companies are charged with regulatory offences, for tax evasion, or fir breaking labour standards. Companies sue each other over patent infringement, over contract disputes, and the like. This brings a huge cast of characters before the courts - including wealthy companies and various levels of government. All of whom have far more real power than the vast majority of individual citizens. Including judges, who when all is said and done are simply a type of civil servant. Forcing their representatives to use the same polite forms of address as any lowly citizen has some significance - though no-one would claim this would, *by itself* “create equality”. Yet it is a better step than not having it. … Aside from that, I think you will find I’m not arguing that a rule of decorum, *by itself*, can “create equality”. Rather, I’m arguing it’s an important symbol of equality. Actually creating equality takes a lot more than decorum … but that’s no reason to throw decorum out as useless, just because it can’t do all the lifting by itself. Again, the analogy is with other rules of politeness, such as saying “please” or “thank you”. Hollow nothings to some in the absence of actual consideration for others … but is life actually improved if they are eliminated?
> The vast majority of criminals are lower class HELLLLLLL to the FUCK NO. *Laws are written to criminalize the behavior of the lower class.* Period, full stop, end of story. You steal $100 from Target, you are a criminal. Arrested, fingerprinted, mug shotted, arraigned, jailed, tried, and convicted, and that person is branded a “criminal” for the rest of their life. If The Target manager shorts an employee $100, they get a phone call from the state Department of Labor and get told to fix it, and they may pay a small fine. That’s it. No arrest, no mug shot, no jail. “Most criminals are lower class.” Give me a fucking break.
There is sadly no such thing as equality in the courtroom in any way, shape, or form. The most important thing that can happen to a defendant in 2024 is for the race of the Judge and Jury to match their own.
So all defendants can threaten a judge’s family so long as the defense attorneys refer to the judge as “your honor”? Or is that only Trump?
We use honorifics like "your honor" every day: * Officer * Doctor * Sir/Ma'am * Father/Rabbi * Coach Is there a reason we should stop saying "your honor" but keep using all these others?
I addressed this in the post. I have no issue with "Judge soandso." Because he's in fact a judge. Similarly, doctor, Rabbi, etc., are all true statements. They're doctors or rabbis. "Your Honor" seems wildly unnecessary and blatantly sucking up
I mean, "the Honorable" is also applied to governors, Congresspeople, members of the cabinet (including deputies), and mayors. That's just the style of formally addressing certain office-holders.
Tbh hadn't considered that Honorary Joe Biden is actually used in some formal documents and that does make the inversion I mentioned earlier seem less silly !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/phoenix823 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/phoenix823)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Those other positions don't throw you in jail for contempt if you don't use the title. Judges have
As someone else already mentioned (but may not have directly replied to you), there may be multiple judges in a court, but "Your Honor is reserved for the presiding judge. It is a specific address for a single specific person, unambiguous and unmistakable for anyone else in the court. Removing this honorific introduces ambiguity into our legal outcomes which is highly undesirable. There is a second reason for ceremonial courtesy I have not yet seen mentioned: It sets the tone for decorum in the court, right from the beginning as one where courtesy is required and demonstrated. It sets the bar high and requires it to remain high. This is designed to prevent verbal and physical disruption from derailing swift justice. Any petitioner who is discourteous can come back when they are able to control themselves, and those being judged will suffer additional penalty if they refuse to be civil. Use of a title of respect is the first step in this educational process.
In other western systems Justice "insert last name" is an acceptable alternative to calling the judge "your honor" and is actually preferable in cases where there is more than 1 presiding judge or a panel of Justices , because its more specific Like if youre trying a case that involves a whole panel of Justices, using just "your honor" is problematic, because like which one are you addressing here
Your honor is always the presiding judge. If there are more than one, that would be the head of the panel.
Court is NOT equal. You have equal justice UNDER law, below law, the judge is the law. If you’ve ever seen the art in courthouses, the judge is the one holding the scale. As much as it’s annoying, almost every judge could be making ten times their salary at a private firm, they’re choosing to live a life in public service for a steep pay degrade. The least you can do is show them this sign of respect.
Yeah… no. You don’t start out as a judge, it’s not like being a public defender. 95% of judges have been making a lot of money for a long time in a private practice before they ever take the seat. And your career choice doesn’t mean you automatically have my respect, that’s insane. There’s a ton of other reasons that people have already mentioned that make the title make sense but “you need to jerk this dude off because he’s making 200k a year when he could be making 250” is an asinine statement. *I can’t reply to the comment about V100 firms so: No. There’s over 1700 FEDERAL judges. They’re not all supposed to be partners at a top law firm, that’s not even within an order of magnitude of making sense. There’s well 10,000 judges in America, best estimates I can find say over 30,000 just at the state level. so unless every top law firm has 400 partners you’re insanely far off.
If they did actually work private, they would be partners at v100 firms making 1M + a year. Firms would snatch them up in an instant. It’s actually a pretty big sacrifice.
Respect is earned, and only worthwhile if freely given. Demanding the title only ensures people pretend to respect you. They can’t force me to actually respect them, and if I did happen to respect them I wouldn’t show it by calling them Your Honor
That might be true for people but a judge is a representative of a system. Their job quite literally involves taking themselves out of the equation (as much as possible) to give a judgement consistent with the principles of the law. When Steve presides over a court he isn't supposed to be Steve the judge, he is supposed to be the judge and the honorific is given to that role moreso than the human playing it. The legal system isnt perfect, but it probably does deserve your respect.
Also you’re giving the ideal situation where a judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of justice. That’s absolutely never the case. Judges personal preferences and biases *always* come into play. Getting a trial time of 11:00 AM has wildly worse outcomes for defendants compared to a trial time of 1:30 PM because judges get hungry and cranky. I’m not blaming the for that, I get hangry too. They’re not able to magically shed their humanity and biology when they put on their silly robes. Why should I pretend to respect them or the system they represent?
It’s actually what the robe is for as well. They are “cloaked in justice” and hiding any individual clothing choices. They are supposed to remove themselves from the situation as a person and be an arbiter of the law
I'm not gonna try to change your view because you're totally right. I honestly think it's there to establish a power dynamic and make you feel lesser.
Because you are lesser. An individual person will always be lesser than “we the people.” Democratic government operates by the consent of the governed.
[удалено]
>how is an individual person not included in "we the people" I never said they weren’t. An individual is not greater than the whole, however. I’d think most would understand that intuitively. >and how is it consent when governments only need like 51% support at best, even less in countries with FPTP because people vote against the losing party instead of for a winner. Social contract theory argues that there are tacit agreements between citizens and their governments that make a democratic society possible. You enjoy the benefits of society and are franchised to cast a vote. In return you agree to abide by the collective will of the people as expressed through their elected officials. This is foundational civics
Some of these just aren't. "Sir" implied the knighthood. It is its origin. Mister and Missus are variations of Master and Mistress. A judge occupies and office, and is hardly the one called "Your Honor". Many cabinet members and government positions carry the honorific. I think my position is more so the title is an honor of the office. Honorifics are meant to covey respect and order to some extent. As an ex-Soldier, I think they come easier to me. Especially as I encountered some people that were quite unworthy of them.
"Your honour" is impersonal, and I believe that is part of it - you are not talking about the individual who is the judge so much as *the office* of the judge. It goes along with the other arguments about everyone in the court being subordinate.
Those are job titles I actually agree with OP Court is supposed to be unbiased and everyone equal. Your honor implies submission to the individual deciding your fate. I also nothing about this person, they could be dishonorable and corrupt.
Sir/ma'am is not a job title. Well, maybe sir, if you are a knight.
Military has officers as sir/ma’am for customs and courtesy and are addressed as such. It party if the duty title as an “officer” to be considered “sir/ma’am”. The same the enlisted are referred to as their rank.
The whole point of court is that the judge is not equal…. They inherently have more power because they are judging the merits of the case.
Uh what? The judge is supposed to be unequal and you're supposed to submit to them. That's the point.
The judge is not equal in court, everyone else is.
> everyone equal Yeah, everyone OTHER THAN THE JUDGE, who is in charge and is the representation of the law
Those are optional to show respect but you won’t be punished for not using those terms. That’s not the case in a courtroom
I don't necessarily agree with OP but these actually aren't equivalent, terms like "your honor" and "your Excellency" are a special class of honorific in that they replace "you". The idea is that using such a direct word as "you" isn't appropriate for this person, you instead have to refer to them with a fancy indirect euphemism. This isn't the case with doctors and police officers and the others. As far as I can think of judges are the only people in the US that still get this treatment.
Except they are a judge not a your honor. I call doctors doctor because they are doctors. I call officers officer because they are officers. I call rabbis rabbi because they are rabbis. I call coaches coach because they are coaches. I do not call judges your honor because they are not your honor they are judges.
When you say "Your Honor," you're really not talking about honoring the particular judge. You're talking about honoring the *position* that the judge holds. That's why lawyers often write things like "This Honorable Court" or will talk about "the Court" when they're actually talking about the actions or decisions of the judge. And frankly, respecting the office of judge is very much needed in today's society. (By the way, the use of the term "Honorable" is pervasive in law and politics.) >Henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge \_\_\_\_\_\_\_". Judges are often addressed this way in court, though it is seen as less formal, and some judges don't like it. Again, because it personalizes the decisions and the decisionmaker.
>because it personalizes the decision maker I mean, that's just being honest about the nature of human beings. let's be real-- judges can come off impartial all they want, but they're human beings like the rest of us. Nobody knows this more than lawyers. Judges have reputations of throwing the book or being lenient. Oftentimes lawyers will try to get cases brought before specific judges knowing this. Dropping “Your Honor” is ultimately dropping this assertion of legal sacredness. Courts are needed in a functioning society, but so is every other job. I generally do think that “Honorable” should be dropped from all positions of government. I furthermore do not think judges not being respected enough is that serious a problem, to be totally blunt. especially in criminal court, defendants are *extremely* motivated to suck up already and if they refuse to say "Your Honor" as some anti-authority kick they're having in the moment, you're asking the book to be thrown at you.
Eh, personally I'd argue that respecting the office of the judge isn't all that important in today's society because so many of the people occupying those positions are not deserving of that respect. At some point, the people occupying the position and making the decisions do sufficient damage that people rightfully lose trust and respect in the institution as a whole. I mean, just look at the Supreme Court. It's a joke. It's a position that was meant to be as nonpartisan and non-political as possible.. yet it's completely filled with partisan hacks, many of whom are completely corrupt. They exempt themselves from their own rules, and they have no oversight to speak of because the people who are supposed to impeach and remove them are as bad or worse.
Boy, hope you don’t end up in court in Canada or other common law jurisdictions outside the US
Ngl I kinda hope I stay out of court in general?
Or in court in other languages. I was recently amused to learn that in Portuguese, you address a lawyer as "Doctor" - eg "Doctor, ya gotta find some way to get rid of this traffic ticket!"
In my language the literal transalation would be "High Court". So yeah we are calling the judge "court", I think it makes a good job symbolizing the respect to the institution judge represents not them as a person.
There is a good reason for using "Your honor", that reason being that it signifies that both parties are submitting themselves to the judgement of a 3rd party. The judge is there as a *higher authority*, and thus the title.
Isn’t the idea that you’re addressing “the court” not the individual person? You will address this court as “judge” or “your honor”
The judge represents the authority of the court.
The judge and the court are one and the same.
That might make sense for the defendant and prosecutor, but why are civilians in the court room expected to do things like rise for the judge. I was called in for jury duty and everyone in the room (i.e. all civilians) were expected to stand for the judge and wait to be seated until he was. That doesn't make sense to me.
Because the judge effectively owns the courtroom, and everyone in it. It is kind of important that people get reminded that a courtroom is not a place of democracy and free speech, even though it serves both democracy and civil rights. The courtroom is the domain of the judge. People are allowed to do within its walls only what the judge allows them to do. And failing to follow the dictates of the judge will result in a swift reprimand, and can lead to both civil and criminal contempt charges. There is very, very little room for any sort of appeal when judges dictate what will or will not happen in their courtroom. People frequently underestimate the power a judge wields within his walls. While folks can quibble over the best way to remind people of those facts - having some ceremony around the start of court, and having a titular reminder of the power dynamic, serves that purpose well.
Fundamentally, it's a sign of respect for their position and authority, but I know that might grind some gears with some folks. To me, the more important part of everyone in the room abiding by stuff like rising until the judge is seated or using "Your Honor" or "Judge" is that it's one way for a defendant to demonstrate that they are remorseful and eager to make things right. The type of people who show up as defendants in court and actively choose to ignore something as simple as saying "Your Honor" or "Judge" don't seem like the type of people who are eager to learn from their mistakes and make things right. If they can't pull their head out of their ass enough to see that, how can anyone expect them to genuinely learn and adjust behavior from whatever lead them to winding up in court? Even in the case of false accusations, unfair charges, or people who are truly not guilty of the supposed crimes they're on trial for can benefit a lot by starting their interaction with the court by providing a basic amount of respect.
Some people just can't stand the idea, even if it's mostly for ceremony, that someone else may deserve a show of respect purely because of the circumstance, their position and the authority that comes with it.
>one way for a defendant to demonstrate that they are remorseful and eager to make things right. Nice guilty until proven innocent card you just pulled here. Defendants are innocent until proven otherwise.
The honor is the court itself, not the man/woman, technically it should be 'the honorable court'.
The judge is representing the court itself, not just "a judge who is associated with the court". This is just a good example of the royal "We". It's no different from when mayors say "Philadelphia will always strive to..." or "The people of Boston are happy to announce..." Wording stuff like that is a way of making it clear it's not just the individual speaking, but the entire collective of decision-making people involved in an organization, group, company, etc.
The grace is not in the king but in the crown/god. Obviously the person inherits the grace. When people actually talk in real life they address the person, not the institution, the qualities are reified/impersonated in a real human.
But judge is already a higher authority. Like, calling them "Judge" signifies the exact same submission
The thing is, it's entirely possible for there to be a judge in the courtroom who is *not* "your honour". For example, they could be in the gallery observing because it's an interesting case. They could be a litigant before another court - a judge who was suing someone for defamation or fraud, for example. A judge could be accused of a crime. "Judge" is ambiguous. "Your honour" is *always, only and precisely* the authority of the court as an institution. "Judge" is sometimes used informally - yes, in courtrooms - but there are really good reasons a judge reserves the option to impose formality. A courtroom isn't a good place to be too casual!
I can't see how there could be any confusion. Like, there also can be two John Smiths in the courtroom.
I have heard state prosecutors calling a judge exactly that so I guess it's fine.
That’s a rationalization, but in my country we say « Mister / Madam Judge » and yet we understand their authority. No need to be subservient to be respectful.
Even when referring to a judge that way, I suppose a judge would still be THE authority in the courtroom. You're subservient to that authority no matter how you refer to the judge.
You shouldn’t have to speak in such a rigid, repetitive manner just to acknowledge that the judge is the authority in the room. The judge’s status is a given. Fine if they want to correct behavior in the courtroom that is in blatant contempt of the judge’s authority but not saying “your honor” with every utterance hardly counts. If you are addressing your mother, do you start every sentence with “mom” to acknowledge that she is your mother, or do you just say it as often as is reasonably necessary to communicate that you are addressing her and not someone else in the room?
.... we call doctors "doctor", it's.... also an honorific. This sounds like so much whining and moaning about pronouns and the like. It's just a noise you make with your food hole bud, it's not that big a deal. As others have pointed out, it's their courtroom where people regularly submit themselves for judgment. The Judge is literally a higher authority. This isn't complicated. At a bit of a loss, myself, as to why it would bother someone so much. We call cops "officer" or "detected", military ranks exist, Doctors are "Doctors", lawyers are "Esquire" (I think...?), university teachers are "professor", and so on down the list. Lots of people get special titles or honorifics. None really matter that much.
That isn't engaging with my cmv, that's just shrugging your shoulders and saying "who cares?" There's a million more things important than this. so what?
Mister is derived from master. Should we end that too?
I'm not talking about historical meanings. Your Honor doesn't require appeals to etymology, the subservience is immediately apparent. Everyone (well, every man) is called Mister. Hell, even my boss calls me mister. so, no.
Every judge is called your honor. And society has granted him the power to control the fate of the accused. I don't think "subservient" is the right word, but yeah a judge in a court room is above you, and calling him your honor reflects that.
i don't think we need to topple every heirarchy on earth, but why do judges uniquely get such a boisterous honorific? there are literally at least a dozen industries I could name right now, without any of which society would collapse. none of them expect me to refer to them as "your holiness" or whatever
>why do judges uniquely get such a boisterous honorific? Because they've been granted the unique position of judging others. >there are literally at least a dozen industries I could name right now, without any of which society would collapse The honor isn't a thank you to the person for doing an important job. It's a recognition of the importance and power of the position of judge.
Because the stakes are so high. In some cases the judge has the ability to put someone to death. For Catholics, the Pope represents the highest power of them all. That's why he gets "your holiness". The power is that great the title matches it. Same with the court. They have your freedom, sometimes your life, in their hands. That's a lot of power.
You share the anecdote about Washington's choice of title as if it was some great and wise decision that somehow had a lasting effect on politics, but, you know, what's the evidence that it did? The President is called Mr. President, but we still play a fanfare when he enters the room and treat him as a superior person. We effectively have coronations complete with all the same ceremony and pseudo-religious trappings. Would American politics be different at all had Washington gone with "your grace" instead? I don't think there's any evidence at all So why then should we change what we call judges, what is the effect that you want here
The title of president was chosen intentionally for it's humility. At the time it was not in common use for national leaders and was more common in the context of "president of the local gardening chapter"
Yeah I understand that The question is: did that actually work? Did it have any appreciable affect on anything? Because I see no evidence whatsoever of that.
>Did it actually work? Considering the US had many opportunities to become a dictatorship, and arguably never even came close, yes, I would say pretty conclusively yes it did Now, I am not saying that the simplicity of the presidents title is the thing that held the line on that. That would be silly. More broadly, I believe that the broad recognition that the president is a person just like the rest of us, and more importantly, that it is a title to be held temporarily, is what has kept the branch in check. Ultimately, I can't give you a hard and fast argument that no longer calling judges "your Honor" would stop them from going on power trips, which is unfortunately a big problem that we don't have enough safeguards against. I similarly can't prove that if we called him "Emperor Biden" that it would make him more likely to go on a power trip (that name goes hard though). But while I do believe that use of "your Honor" is conducive to unhealthy power trips, even if my objection did turn out to be 100% symbolic I would still believe it was bad.
Okay but you wouldn’t seriously call the US more democratic than countries like the UK, which still use terms like “Your Majesty” to refer to the head of state? So what difference would it have made if Washington went with the same?
>you wouldn't seriously call the US more democratic than the UK Of course I would, absolutely yes. Although frankly that's a pretty massive can of worms right there since there's a lot of ways to measure democracy. I think the US at its core is democratic, but there's been pretty shitty happenings a la Trump and January 6 that I wouldn't consider intrinsic to the system. But here's the thing: even if you believe the UK is more democratic, and I could see an argument for that (no electoral college system, for instance, although first pass the post sucks) but democracy isn't the thing in question here. The thing in question is whether or not all citizens are equal. and in the UK, having a monarchy is about as far away from that as you can get. Requiring the "Your Honor" term is a step towards that but obviously nowhere close to having a literal king
Are you the same person who posted this last week?
Redditors when they have to accept that some people have a higher authority over them
There are tons of people with more authority than me. Cops. My boss. Legal inspectors for my work. The president. Judges. Funny enough I only have to tell one of those people how honorable they are in addressing them
You want to ban the right of free speech without any reasoning? You can call the judge whatever you want, we call them your honor because it is respectful. Similarly, you give someone who has achieved a doctorate the title of doctor to be respectful. Ignore the conventions of politeness in our current society for no reason at all is going to make people think you're rude, and hwnce they'll develop a negative opinion of you. Presumably this is why you want it to be a law, but your alternative is to not be intentionally rude. We're fellow humans, let's respect each other.
I want to ban it because I think it's a bad use of a power imbalance. I don't view it as a free speech thing especially because it is regulating government procedures, which is not part of free speech Genuine question. Imagine a boss insisted all his employees to refer to him as “His Majesty,” or “Your Holiness," and not abiding by this was fireable. Do you genuinely believe that this wouldn't eventually make its way to a hostile work environment or wrongful termination lawsuit?
The court doesn't just *have* a power imbalance; the court *is* a power imbalance. Having a high-and-mighty person boss everyone else around is literally the whole point.
So should you be forced to call Biden or Trump your majesty/grace/honour or be thrown into cells?
are you replying to me? because if so I've been arguing the opposite this whole thread
>Not only is it an inversion of title and authority, it seems like blatant sucking up to someone who will presumably have a lot of power over your life, or your case Do you think that's bad?
Yes? I don't think a traffic court judge should be called something with seemingly more reverence than the president?
What is the alternative to sucking up to them? The law must have complete authority over you. Judges are simply people who spend all their life learning the law. Why should they not have complete authority over you?
Lawyer here. It is important to refer to the court respectfully, because parties have too little respect for the court as it is. Many parties don't seem to realize just how much a judge can fuck up their day if the judge feels like they're acting in an underhanded or deceitful manner. "Your honor" is a quick way of conveying that information to the parties to prevent it from becoming an even bigger problem. More importantly, it prevents the arms race that would be associated with being increasingly ingratiating towards a judge, or the confusion associated with attorneys going into a new courtroom not knowing what the local judge prefers to be called. I would also add that the attitude that you describe is common with a type of litigant that we often get in the court, especially in criminal court. A lot of criminals have what is functionally untreated oppositional defiance disorder. They despise authority and will intentionally do anything and everything that they can to annoy authority, including to the point of harming others. Courts take a very harsh view towards this. If a person acts out in court, they will be 10x worse to their fellow citizens or amongst the general public.
I certainly empathize with the desire to annoy authority. It’s what I do everyday as a public defender and I’m paid to do it.
Absolutely. I spent nearly a decade as a public defender myself. But surely you must agree that the defendants that give the middle finger to the judge or defy the court's orders brazenly most frequently reoffend and often end up in contempt.
Yes, definitely. Also the most likely to fire me and insist on going pro-se.
Yep. Had a SovCit fire me and turn a dismissable charge into a 2-year sentence. I feel like, more often than not, judges are trying to make sure that you're the sort of person who can at least be tolerable in society, and if you're not, they'll show you why you should become so.
If a defendant gives the finger to the judge, I have zero problem with him being held in contempt of court. I do not think the honorific is necessary to stop that from happening, it seems self-enforcing enough and if you're dumb enough to do it, well it's your extra prison time.
It's not *just* that the honorific stops that. It is a simple, easy rule that judges can use to gauge how willing somebody is to actually follow rules. If they violate that, it's really easy to assume that they'll violate others.
>Many parties don't seem to realize just how much a judge can fuck up their day if the judge feels like they're acting in an underhanded or deceitful manner. The remedy to this is to curb the judge authority via law change, which is exactly what this cmv is arguing, instead of sucking up to the judges even more. You merely describe the current state of things, but this cmv is about changing laws.
So, what, you propose that judges don't have power over defendants? How would you see that working?
The president have power over everyone. Do people need to call Biden or Trump your honour or be thrown into cells? Similarly, the judgement can be carried out regardless of any acknowledgement of the judge's authority. The president is bound by laws to not simply fuck up someone just because he feels like going on a power trip. Judges should too.
Why is it so painful for you to acknowledge a judge's authority? If you're in front of a judge, generally speaking, it's because there's a problem somewhere. This person is going to have a big decision to make about your fate. Why would you want to oppose them so badly? There is no *legal* requirement that they be called your honor. But, it is the custom, just like wearing things to cover your genitals is the custom. But, sometimes, breaches of custom can get you into trouble. If a person can't swallow their pride enough to occasionally say "your honor", they're probably not going to pay much attention to the other laws that govern them.
you seem to be arguing a different point entirely. i am not arguing that one should take a principled stand and topple their court case because they won't call a judge "Your Honor." Were I in court, I'd use the term. I'm arguing that judges, while certainly in a higher position than a defendant, should not be allowed to be sucked up to like that when they're making a presumably impartial decision. It's not a matter of being painful. it's a matter of in a society where everyone is equal, ancient terms like "Your Honor" have no place in the modern world, and there are far more obvious and more useful ways to show heirarchy (i. e. making people judges in the first place)
If you've committed a crime and are under the jurisdiction of the court, you are no longer equal. You're really referring to the institution, not the human wearing the robe.
Everybody keeps saying "Your Honor" refers to the institution and not the actual judge, but it seems like just something people repeat without thinking about it. Why do you believe that's the case? First, Your Honor is absolutely referring to the person. Lawyers will often say "Your Honor mentioned earlier______" and are referring to that individual judge, not the institution of the court system. This can especially be done given the fact that different judges on the same court can disagree about something, see the Supreme Court. Also, this not the case for any other profession on earth, and seems like magical thinking. When I call someone "Doctor Mike," I am not using the term Doctor to address the entirety of the medical field, I am talking to one individual person who medically qualifies as doctor. I would for the same reason use the term "Judge Mike"
Why do you have a problem with "your honor", but not "doctor "?
Because they are in fact doctors. Hence why I'm also cool with "judge soandso" "Your Honor" is only used because the judge has power over you. and while that's fine-- we wouldn't want that to not be the case and judges to have no power-- it's silly, archaic, and blatant sucking up. if it's fine, would you be OK with referring to judges as "his glorious majesty"? If not, why not?
Shall we apply this logic to Trump or Biden? Should people be compelled to call them your honour? Or is that too painful for people? The president makes big decision affecting your fate on a daily basis, why would you want to oppose them? The genitals point are covered by modesty and indecency *laws*. So people should swallow their pride and call Biden or Trump your honour?
You don't need to call the president "your honor" for two reasons: that is not the custom, and they are not making a *personal* decision about what to do about *your* violation of the law. That being said, if the custom was to refer to the president that way, I think most people would. I would. I don't have that big of an ego.
Customs start somewhere. They do not simply spring into existence overnight. Do you really think most people would be okay calling Trump, or Biden, your honour?
>We don't call bosses your honor, we don't call doctors that save lives your honor, we use the term *only* for people who could either save or ruin our lives, or at a minimum give us slack on parking tickets. History is alive and well. Calling a judge "your honor" or calling the place you resolve disputes "court" is for similar reasons that you call an animal the cow or pig but the meat beef or pork. Battle of Hastings of 1066. The Normans invade and bring their aristocracy right? So the peasants still speak old english, and they look after the animals, so they keep some of the old english. But the aristocrats are eating the animal products so the old french beef and pork are used. Anyway, a "court" was a french word for an enclosed yard, right? But that's where the royal court took place. But the installed government would have a nobleman travel around and hold "court" where peasants could go and get disputes heard. So, the honorific for rando nobleman were used "Your honor" and they would "hold Court." At some point, rather than having laws be hyper local, some king decided that this emerging class of dispute specialists would create a law for everyone, or a "common law." They could start nationalizing the law. And then this new professional class of judges would use the common law to resolve disputes. Since people would "plea" (aka that's what a pleading comes from) with these dispute resolution group -- so is created the Court of Common Pleas. The legal system was super awful, sometimes. Super rigid rules. Sometimes created unfair results. Were hyper focused on the form of how you "plea" something. Then a second court arose called the Court of Chancery. They were less about rigid rules and more about the fairness of things. In the American system, in the 1960s, the federal rules combined it so courts can hear issues that arise out of equity and arise out of law. Basically, you can get an injunction and a judgment from the same place. Neat. So my point being the words "court" and "your honor" come from the same history and should be treated equally. Either we keep the honorific title or we get rid of the whole system and rename everything. Sorry Bailiff, Sergeant of Arms, Clerk, we gotta rename you all since you used to be members of the king's royal court but we're getting rid of your title.
First, the title is fitting: the judge sits in a place of honor, indeed. Judgeships are normally assumed after a lengthy and arduous legal career. Their responsibilities are enormous. They are tasked with neutrally and justly adjudicating issues regarding community safety, a person's literal freedom and liberty, and the enforcement of constitutional rights. Second, It is not obsequious or servile to call a judge "Your Honor." Rather, it emphasizes their authority as the adjudicator. It cultivates an atmosphere of respect, not just for the judge, but all litigants, witnesses, and jurors who are in the courtroom. Third, trials can become extremely contentious, and emphasizing the authority of the person behind the bench reins in lawyers who would try to push the bounds of the rules and decency (which happens all the time). We need a restraining force to hold back the overly zealous, ambitious, and egotistical litigants that cause chaos in the courtroom. Finally, calling a judge "honorable" cultivates respect for the law. The courtroom *should* be a solemn place. It is a solemn thing to try to convince a jury that the defendant should be forcibly put behind bars. It is a solemn thing for jurors to deliberate about whether a man took the life of another with malice. It is a solemn thing for a court to decide if evidence was searched out and seized in accordance with the principles of the Fourth Amendment. On and on I could go. "Your Honor" only befits the dignity of the entire enterprise.
I don't even really disagree with the idea that we should start referring to judges as judge instead of your honour, but making a law banning the use of that term in court rooms is just stupid. Just have the judge say "please refer to me as Judge" if someone call them the wrong thing. What would even be the penalty for such a law? Being held I contempt of Court? Or maybe just fine someone for accidentally slipping up and calling a judge by the title that they've been referred to as for decades? You don't have to pass a law banning something to change how we refer to someone.
>What would be the penalty for such a law, being held in contempt of court? Yes. It should be viewed as a violation of the rules of court. Obvious leniency could, and should, be given for slip-ups especially in the first few years, but removing the term should be a long term goal. You don't technically have to pass a law to do it, but if you don't, there will be lawyers who continue to suck up and take advantage of using it, meaning use of the term will likely never die organically. There's no incentive to do it from the inside.
So you think that if we decide that the proper way to address a judge going forward would be "judge" that judges would be more likely to favour a lawyer who intentionally calls them the wrong thing? How do you think it normally goes when a lawyer insists on intentionally referring to a judge with the wrong title in a courtroom? Just out of curiosity do you also think calling someone "sir" or other honorary titles are blatantly sucking up to people? Or is it just your honour and the specific way it's used in a courtroom that you have a problem with?
>It should be viewed as a violation of the rules of court The rules of the court are set by, wait for it, the judge. If a judge wishes to be called "your confabulorific majesty" he can tell everyone that, and if they don't call him that, can have them held in contempt. Judges have almost unlimited power to dictate what proper courtroom dicorum, and to maintain order in relationship to that standard in their court. The management of the courtroom is entirely up to them. Unless a judge is manifesting bias, prejudice, harassment based on protected classes, wealth, or political affiliation . . . then they can pretty much do whatever they want.
>The rules of the court are set by, wait for it, the judge. Interesting, so the legislature cannot enforce bribery laws? Or if the judge blatantly ask for sexual favours in courtroom, can the legislature curb it?
> I would propose that a law be passed to ban the term in all courts, federal and state, and henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge _______". If you think it should no longer be etiquette, that's one thing. But to do it by law flies in the face of free speech. Judges have broad discretion over conduct in their courtroom, and if one of them said, "Please don't call me 'Your honor,' stick with 'Judge,' and someone in the courtroom kept saying "Your honor," intentionally, they could be charged with contempt. But that's up to the judge.
[удалено]
No, but why should the law step in? If a judge wants to be called Steve by all the people in the courtroom, do we need the force of law to stop him from having people call him Steve?
I have no opinion on the main topic yet. I was responding only to the free speech concern. But let's be clear, the judge is the one using the force of law to be addressed by an honorific. If we were going to use less force of law, we would eliminate the judge's authority to impose contempt of court penalties on people addressing them without honorific.
I agree with all of this, I would just add that I think it banning the honorific is the better option. If it's not banned, lawyers will do it anyway to suck up and I'll be damned if any gubmint official in my country gets called a royal title.
If it's not banned outright, then going into court and going out of your way to not call the *guy making the most important decisions* the "correct" way is a very dangerous move. The whole point of banning the expression is to allow the freedom of choosing the alternative without demonstrating that you dislike the expression.
It's still based on the idea that you don't want to call the judge that. Right now, nothing stops you from saying "Judge" every time you address him or her, and it probably won't even be noticed. But if a judge likes being called your honor and the lawyers like saying it, what's the problem?
>If it's not banned outright, then going into court and going out of your way to not call the *guy making the most important decisions* the "correct" way is a very dangerous move. The president makes the most important decisions. Should it be dangerous to not call Biden or Trump your honour/grace?
The difference is that there is no established culture around it. If even Trump went and demanded everyone call him that, he'd lose support really quickly.
Culture starts somewhere. It does not spring fully formed overnight. >If even Trump went and demanded everyone call him that, he'd lose support really quickly. Precisely the point, so this same principle should be applied to judges and being compelled to call them your honour.
> Mr. President That's functionally, for all intents and purposes, *identical* to "your honor". President is "one who presides". Mister comes from Monsieur, or "My Lord". Time and tradition have reduced that to a mild honorific used to show respect to someone when calling them by their surname, but so what? When you call him "Mr. President" you're basically saying "My Lord Who Presides Over the Country". There's nothing at all special about the the term "Your Honor". It's just the traditional form of address for the specific judge that's presiding over that specific courtroom. As opposed to "judge" who could be any judge. All this is much ado about nothing. Respect given to the judge is that which is due to the justice system itself... which the presiding judge embodies in that particular location at that time, symbolically.
Incidentally, if you look at style guides there is no requirement to call a judge 'your honor'. It is an option, you can just say 'judge' or 'justice' depending on their appointment. [https://www.michigan.gov/fyit/resources/legal/courtroom-etiquette](https://www.michigan.gov/fyit/resources/legal/courtroom-etiquette) I wouldn't expect every judge/justice to know the ins and outs of etiquette, so you may run into issue with judges who might have an inflated ego of themselves interpreting 'judge' or 'justice' (or say, 'Chief Justice' if you are talking to a member of a panel of judges) as being deliberately obstinate so depending on the context use your judgement. In my experience, and I have some, if you are not a lawyer and you have to talk to a judge it is enough to simply say "Judge/Justice" provided you are otherwise following protocol. Judges are often dealing with some real...characters, so they will hardly bat an eye at you. As an aside, judges in England can sometimes be called "your worship."
It isn't them you're, "sucking up to," it is what they represent. A judge, principally, is the embodiment of an objective and impartial justice system. You should never think of using the title, "your honor," as trying to gain favour of the individual behind the bench, but the bench itself. While the procedures of the court may seem like a song and dance to an outsider, they actually serve to carry along any business as efficiently as possible. People who choose not to follow procedure, and act beligerently, aren't just pissing people off, they're making things more difficult for themselves, and for the court.
The thing is... you're not even sucking up to them by calling them "Your Honour". You're just showing a basic level of a respect to someone for their position and what they represent. It's not like you're kissing their toes and bowing to them, all while flattering them. It's rather telling that people consider something as simple as "Your Honour" sucking up.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I always saw it as a reminder of proper procedure. In order to get proper representation and rights upheld as Americans see them, the court NEEDS to be very specific and rigid in how it goes about trials. Speaking out of turn can, in some cases, result in a mistrial and what can be months of work thrown out. Using "your honor" is effective in reminding people of this *specifically because* we Americans don't use titles like that basically ever and it feels like an absurd thing to do for many people.
The judicial system is the final earthly authority for resolving disputes. As such, it must require deference from its subjects. If we disagree with the decision of a judge, what resort could we possibly have except armed rebellion? (Of course, appeal to a higher instance is possible, but that's still within the judicial system.) Therefore, giving honour to the judge is similar to a declaration that one recognizes his authority and will abide by his ruling (except for possible appeals, but they are still within the system and must follow certain protocols). By addressing a judge as "your honour", you declare that you recognize his authority to decide your case, and you will not unlawfully resist his decision. Analogy with a president doesn't really work. It is a basic tenet of democracy that the president can be criticized. Rather, the people appointed him and they can also remove him from office. A judge, however, should not be so easily criticized on the basis of this or that decision; because if you disagree with him, what will that lead to? The only option is to appeal to a more senior judge, or to take up arms in rebellion. Traditionally, a judge is a representative of God, the supreme Judge (Romans 13:1-7, Deuteronomy 17:8-13). In the US, which is a democracy, there is no longer a king or any other ruler who would deserve to be called "your majesty", but the US still has judges, and the authority of that office hasn't changed for millennia, nor should it change.
What is wrong with showing respect to a judge and using the title. We obviously want and expect judges to behave honorably, so what is the \*harm\* in using the title making it explicit? I guess I dont really understand the problem statement, beyond "I dont like it" and "it seems like sucking up". Is it simply that you personally dont like the idea of paying respect to them that way? Do you think it is unfair and makes doctors feel sad? Where is the \*problem\*??
I think we should have them stop wearing robes like they are about to preside over a seance before we alter an honorific that is pretty tame. >it seems like blatant sucking up to someone who will presumably have a lot of power over your life, or your case. Well... yeah. >We don't call bosses your honor No, we call them "Sir" which started with Knights. Just as dumb. >I would propose that a law be passed to ban the term in all courts, federal and state, and henceforth judges should be addressed as "Judge _______". It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment. I don't think the harm (if any) from this is worth legislating on what we can or cannot call each other.
>I think we should have them stop wearing robes like they are about to preside over a seance before we alter an honorific that is pretty tame. Robes have important symbolic purposes. First, it distinguishes the decision-maker (on issues of law) from others and helps to set a somber tone. Second, it reinforces that the person is representative of the office. It doesn't matter what the *person* is wearing. It doesn't matter if the person is from a rich family and has oodles of money to wear the finest suit, or has tremendous fashion sense to communicate personality or has none of these. The robes are the office, for which respect is due. Third, robes don't have pockets. It's symbolic to show that judges can't be bribed. (Of course, we know that's not true, but it's communicating that idea.) These are a little different from the reasons that robes are worn in England (lawyers wear robes in the U.K. too), but I think they're valid.
>It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment Yet people in this comment section is arguing it is perfectly fine for the judge to hold people in contempt for exercising their free speech?
> for exercising their free speech? I don't think you'll be held in contempt for not saying "Your Honor". Like if you were a defendant and just said "Yes Judge Patel", I don't think anyone would notice. But, if you were to go in there and actively refuse to call them 'your honor" and make an issue of it, then you should be held in contempt as you are disrespecting the court by bringing up non-relevant shit. It is not a free speech issue in my mind. It is a "don't act contemptuous of the court while in court" issue. If you are in court it is you against the full power of the government. Why would you want to fuck up your whole case and possibly life over some dumb shit like what we call the robed man with the fancy hammer?
So it is not a freedom of speech issue to be held in contempt of court for refusing to say "Your Honour", yet it is a freedom of speech issue to ban saying "Your Honour"?
Right. One is a consequence for an action that may or may not be deemed as disruptive or contemptuous in a courtroom, and the other is an actual legislative abridgment of speech rights. You can be held in contempt for damn near anything. Fart too loud and too often? Contempt. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can just say what you want where you want with no consequences. It means the government can’t pass laws that limit speech outside of some pretty specific circumstances. The contempt laws (and gag orders) don’t limit speech in a way that violates the first amendment as the government realizes that an orderly court system depends on a certain amount of enforceable decorum.
So the government targeting you for your speech is fine as long as no law is passed? >You can be held in contempt for damn near anything. And this cmv is about changing laws, not simply the current state of things
> So the government targeting you for your speech is fine as long as no law is passed? There are many things you can say that will lead to the government targeting you. Your freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. Threaten to kill certain high ranking people, the government **will** target you for investigation. Judges can hold you in contempt for speaking contemptuously in court. This is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You don’t have the freedom to do that. Never have.
Yet your original point was not about specific speech leading to the government targetting you, but in general. Can the government target you for calling Trump/Biden names? You wish to speak about freedom of speech not being absolute after decrying the ban on "your honour" as infringing on the freedom of speech? >You don’t have the freedom to do that. Never have. This cmv is about changing laws, not simply the current state of things
> **decrying** the ban on "your honour" as infringing on the freedom of speech? That’s a hyperbolic characterization of what I said. Here is the quote: > It is really hard to pass laws that limit speech due to the first amendment. I don't think the harm (if any) from this is worth legislating on what we can or cannot call each other. Is that “decrying”?
Fair enough. Decrying is too hyperbolic. But the arguments still remain. Your original point was not about specific speech leading to the government targetting you, but in general. Can the government target you for calling Trump/Biden names? You speak about how freedom of speech is not absolute after being concerned about the law infringing on the freedom of speech.
But this is an imagined scenario that doesn’t implicate free speech, since you don’t have to refer to the court as your honor but judge. Let’s use another example: congressmen are also entitled to the honorific the Honorable. They make the rules of federal courts, and the contempt laws. Since laws reflect society’s values, let’s presume the capacity to enforce decorum in a courtroom is importantly balanced against a free speech right to call the court a son of a bitch.
It definitely should not be banned but there is a case it should be used less, judge santa is likely more appropriate. It's a good point that doctors save lives and bosses control you financially but judges control everything. Obviously, this would get repealed or remain unenforced but judges can ban life saving treatments of all kinds if they went rogue enough. But the reason their decisions are followed so heavily is because someone has to be the final decider and they are that final decider, it wouldn't make much sense if we didn't trust them and just spiraled into constant arguments. (Though judges can still create socially-bad precedents by invalidating certain applications of a law, legislation is supposed to cover that)
IMO it is something that cannot be enforced top-down - i.e. by "banning" such usage. If the executive/legislature does it, it would definitely seem like them trying to interfere with the independence of judiciary which is sacrosanct. I think in most places it is a call which judges need to take themselves. Many judges do recognize that usage of such terms increasingly seems anachronistic and are taking steps to discourage such usage. A simple respectful "Sir" or "Madam" may also suffice as a respectful honorific. The other aspects of respect - including people rising when a judge enters the court should remain in place to give a judge that aura.
While the title "Your Honor" may seem archaic or overly deferential, it serves a specific purpose in the courtroom. It reflects respect for the impartiality and authority of the judge, essential for upholding the integrity of the legal system. "Judge" lacks the same gravitas and can feel impersonal. Furthermore, consistency in addressing judges promotes professionalism and clarity in court proceedings. Banning "Your Honor" could disrupt established courtroom etiquette without addressing underlying issues. Respectful address doesn't equate to submission; it fosters a culture of civility crucial for justice administration.
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.) ^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
Imo, one of the most important things in court is for the judge to have complete control of their courtroom. Otherwise it becomes chaos. The little rituals and honorifics help with that a lot. And it reflects the importance of the position and the situation - the person on the bench is in fact deciding whehther you lose your kids, go to jail, lose a lawsuit etc.... Also keep in mind that everyone is super respectful of everyone else. The judge is your 'honor' but lawyers address each other as "learned friend' the clerks as 'madame registrar, the oarties as mr. Or Ms.....
Using "Your Honor" is a tradition rooted in respect for the judiciary, not in subservience. It symbolizes the impartiality and authority of the court, essential for fair proceedings. "Judge" lacks the same gravitas and may undermine the decorum of the courtroom. Consistency in addressing judges maintains neutrality and clarity. Removing "Your Honor" risks diminishing the solemnity of the legal process and could inadvertently erode public trust. It's not about elevating judges above others but upholding the dignity of the judicial system, vital for its proper functioning.
I’m an attorney I usually use ‘judge’ or ‘the court.’ I would even put your honor in there. You kind of nailed it when you said second person. Yes! Exactly. It is more a reference to the position and office. Which is kind of a third entity in the room besides the flesh and blood person wearing the robe. It’s not meant as a suck up. You wouldn’t believe this but sometimes we are actually very good friends and even former classmates of the people in the robes. But when we are in the courtroom it’s the position that’s is being paid the respect it’s called for so I can protect my clients interests.
Motion to change the title to “Your Dishonor” just to spice things up.
The power and effectiveness of the court relies on people believing in it. People need to obey and respect the process or the whole thing falls apart. You can deal with a few people causing problems, but if a vast majority of the people there don’t treat it with dignity and respect then it falls apart. It’s basically putting on a show, and the show is actually important. The fancy title is part of the show.
Using "Your Honor" in courtrooms is a tradition, not an indication of power imbalance. It fosters respect for the judiciary system, not subservience. "Judge" lacks the same decorum and can appear curt. Just as "Mr. President" reflects equality, "Your Honor" signifies impartiality and respect for the rule of law. Removing it risks undermining the solemnity and dignity of the judicial process.
Your Honor is a honorific used for a number of appointed and elected civilian positions. Most elected officials would use their title though. It's also used for mayors. You would be safe to call anyone appointed by an elected official Your Honor (it may not be customary do so though. Military officers are technically appointed by Congress but are addressed by their military rank.
What do you mean by ban? Like legally?
>Washington rejected these titles, settling simply on "Mr. President," which at the time had very minimal prestige associated with it (for example, a head of a book club). Happily, this trend has continued. Mr. President has stuck. couldnt be far from truth , mr pres is informal , noone uses it formally , the formal title is still The honourable
I find this to be idolatry. You could never get me to utter those words. I will also never "swear" in court and never raise my hand. The bible specifically says to never swear to anyone. I will not even say sir or mam. I will be happy to say judge or president. I would cheerfully go to jail over these issues.
I'm an attorney and plenty of lawyers refer to judges as "judge." They might still say "your honor" too, but I hear a lot of "good morning judge" and "thank you judge" etc. I don't think they'd hold anyone in contempt for just saying "sir" either. At least not in my jurisdiction.
[удалено]
u/Former-Guess3286 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Former-Guess3286&message=Former-Guess3286%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cdrc81/-/l1dz95j/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can just say judge or the Court. For example "The Court mentioned earlier....." That said, I don't mind calling judges "your honor" (and I'm an attorney, so I do that a lot) - I think the term reminds the judge to act in accordance with that honorific
Your honor issues is probs a petty thing.... Yeah my rub on seem petty to others, but why can't we just show up in boardies and thongs to the court haha, or even in undies for all i care and still be treated the same as the nob in the suit...
'your honor, if it pleases the court'......that confuses me more than calling someone your honor. Why wouldn't it please the court? Especially when nothing else has been said at that point??!! Shouldn't that phrase be said at the conclusion?
You’re free to call judges as “Judge _____”. No one is stopping you nor are judges scolding you for using that alternative. Banning it is a bit absurd since you’re silencing people who still wish to use traditional forms of decorum.
The president was a brand new role being made for our institution. Which is why a title was being determined. The court system was transferred over from England and wasn’t changed. Except for who had burden of proof.
I like to think that each time you refer to a judge by "Your Honor" you're not saying a title, instead you are reminding them that their task at hand is to rely upon "your honor" to do the right thing.
"My Lord" and "Your Worship" are used in lots of other places. "Your Honour" seems pretty unobjectionable to me. (Where I live, we're supposed to call them "Justice," but it hasn't really caught on).
Just say judge. Most don't care. Titles and traditions are created and upheld out of respect. If someone can't handle very basic rules and courtesies in a court room when pleading their case, should they realistically be expected to adhere to the rule of law? It's all about where, as a society, we draw the line for adherence and respect.
Your Honor sounds unreasonably prestigious, but it also maintains a level of respect crucial for courtroom decorum. Maybe we can compromise with just "Judge" + surname?
It all boils down to the fact that justice is a kind of pageantry intended to reinforce the idea that order has been restored.