Comment by skinfaxi
1 hour ago
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
1 hour ago
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
Looking at examples of honorific usage:
"yes, officer"
"yes, doctor"
"yes, madam mayor"
"yes, senator"
These are all examples where we do use honorifics. And now for ones where we don't.
"yes, planner"
"yes, assessor"
"yes, child caseworker"
In all the cases, the institution should have integrity and we're not interacting with them as individuals but as agents of the institution. Certainly tax assessors should not be acting on their own personal beliefs but are merely mechanical agents of an impartial tax machine (as judges should be in their domain). However, in some it sounds ridiculous and in others it's natural. The existence of "yes, chef" (in a kitchen) or "yes, coach" (on a team) points to a more general reason: this is a way of expressing that the person with the title has some degree of social standing in the context we're interacting with them in.
There might be a more specific reason we can come up with that is specific to judges, but the general reason suffices to explain it.
It is because they have power, and want to be addressed this way. And you are likely to lose your case if you don't follow their rules.
On some superficial level, sure: you have to follow the rules because if you don't, it won't end well for you. But the reason for these rules isn't just self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, the court is there to implement a procedure. The procedure wasn't invented by the judges; in criminal cases, it's there to give you some protection from the rest of the government, which could otherwise use its police powers to put you in prison based on a whim. The protection isn't perfect, but it beats the alternative.
The court would not be able to carry out that procedure if, for example, anyone could just constantly talk over the judges and not let them get a word in. So there is a pecking order in the courtroom, but mostly because you couldn't have courts without it.