Liber III, Pars II — Quae, et quot oporteat iudices habere, ut contingat eos bene iudicare. Cap. XXII.

Liber III, Pars II — Quae, et quot oporteat iudices habere, ut contingat eos bene iudicare. Cap. XXII.

We can identify four things that judges must have in order to deliver true judgments and to judge rightly. First, there must be the authority to judge. Second, there must be the wisdom of the laws. Third, there must be experience in matters that can be acted upon. Fourth, there must be the rightness of will. In every case of litigation (as far as the present matter is concerned), four things must be considered. These are: the parties involved in the litigation, the matter over which they are litigating, the laws according to which the disputes are to be judged, and the legislator or the king or prince from whom the authority to judge is granted. It is essential for judges to judge rightly, and for that, they must properly relate to all these aspects. For judgment should not be usurped, nor should it be rash, unjust, or presumptuous. Judges, if they do not properly relate to the legislator, make usurped judgments. Then indeed judges are said not to relate properly to the legislator when they exceed the authority entrusted to them. Secondly, judges are said to make rash judgments if they do not relate properly to the laws, as when they lack the prudence of the laws; for without knowledge of the laws, they cannot judge cases correctly. Thirdly, if judges do not properly relate to the litigating parties, they will make unjust judgments; for, as is clear from the established norms, a judge should be like a straight rule, mediating between both parties: therefore, if such a rule deviates from the middle and leans toward one side out of love, it withdraws from the other side out of hatred, and it is necessary for him to judge unjustly, because then the judgment does not proceed from zeal for justice, but from love or hatred of the parties. Fourthly, if judges do not properly relate to actionable matters, as if they are inexperienced in human affairs, they will make suspicious judgments, because sometimes they will condemn others based on trivial suspicion. Therefore, there will not be a just judgment unless there concur the authority of judgment, the prudence of the laws, zeal for justice, and experience in actionable matters. For just as in treating physical ailments, sometimes the expert is more effective than the craftsman, because he has knowledge of particular conditions, so in the judgment of actionable matters and in the discussion of cases, sometimes the experienced are more effective than those who know the laws; therefore, all the aforementioned are required for judging rightly and properly. It’s clear what kind of judges and what kind of examiners of cases the royal authority should seek: they should be humble, not exceeding the authority entrusted to them; they should be wise in the laws, knowing how to apply them to the disputes that arise; they should have a zeal for justice, not acting out of love or hatred for the parties involved, but out of a love for justice in their judgments; they should have experience in practical matters, so that they can better understand the specific cases they are judging.