Difference

The Utah Bar collects demographic information as part of its annual fee payment process.  The announced purpose is an interest on the part of the Bar Commission (although I think the page uses the term "Bar Leadership" instead) in how the Bar membership reflects or fails to reflect the demographics of the state.  Quite usual, and so too are the categories, which are just the census categories.  The Bar Commission wants greater demographic diversity in the Bar and the Bench, along those lines anyway.  There is evidence that defendants in criminal cases have more confidence in the process when the judge appears similar to the defendant.  I suppose there is something similar going on in civil processes as well.  So one of the ideas is to shore up confidence in the legal system through changing the appearance of those in the power positions in the process.  I wonder whether the effects remain when the defendant learns the judge is a former prosecutor.  That history has an effect on the performance of the judge and how the judge will treat the defendant.  Maybe, maybe not; I don't know of studies on such topics.  My experiences in court led me to believe that prior practice was more important that race, gender, sex, ethnic identity, sexual orientation.  it was almost always trouble when a complicated financial case was before a judge whose prior practice was felony prosecutions or worker compensation. I never saw much difference on other dimensions, but then this is just anecdote.  It is possible I was blind to the differences or that the sample was too small or to subtle for me.  When I have talked with the Bar President about such things, she points to studies showing that better and more creative decisions come out of groups with diverse membership.  The ones I have looked at are not so helpful.  They are studies of business decision-making in medium and large companies, and concern problems where it is possible to make an ordering of decisions.  I don't know quite how that works for a courtroom, where there is only one judge.  There are some studies of jury decision-making claiming the same thing.  I am unsure how the assessments are made however.  Is it real cases that are looked at, or is it the abbreviated and tailored panels of jury advisors?  Presumable the latter are sufficiently reflective or what real juries do that there is a science involved.  One hopes so.  

Reflective of the demographics of the general population (of the state, I suppose).  Not too accurately reflective.  Do not want judges who did not go to college or law school.  Do not want people with substance abuse issues on the Bench or in the Bar.  And religious affiliation, that also is not a category the Bar Commission cares to collect information about, nor is political or social affiliations, or economic status.  Or background and identity that is more fine-grained than sexual orientation of non-Hispanic white.  It is curious kind of essentializing, or maybe just looks like essentializing.  There are lots of ways of being an outsider not captured by the survey.