Circuit Court Judge

Judge Joel Kessinger has seen all sides of the criminal justice system in his nearly thirty-five years of service, "I've prosecuted felonies, and I've defended the accused. I've sentenced convicted murderers to death and I've sentenced a man convicted of reckless homicide to repeatedly put flowers on the grave of the person he killed." Now 61, Joel has been a judge since 1989. He was elected to the Circuit Judge position in 1996, and will hold that position until 2002. When asked if he will run for re-election, Joel says, "It all depends on whether I feel like it. Being a judge is an awesome job, and an equally awesome responsibility." Just how Joel came to this position is a story full of twists and turns, and a life dedicated to a philosophy of learning from your experiences and seizing your opportunities, whatever they may be.

Joel was an involved high school student; award winning football player and student body president. He was also a young man accustomed to work, spending seven summers in the steel mills. In 1956 he graduated from high school and spent the next two years at an all boys junior college in Kansas. "I was really following my big brother," says Joel. After two years Joel graduated with a degree in arts and sciences and transferred to a four year university near home in order to complete his education. "I was majoring in English with a minor in education and history. My goal was to be a high school teacher in English or history, and to coach football. But during my junior year I was talking with a neighbor, a lawyer, about various things, including my education and my plans for the future. One thing became apparent. Most of the teachers I knew were also working in the steel mills during the summer, just as I had been doing. Here I was working as hard as I could to get a degree, and I could still end up back in the mill in the summertime. This was a disappointing realization. At the suggestion of my lawyer friend I began thinking about law. It was late in the summer before my senior year, nearly too late to do anything much different. Besides , I had never even thought of law as a career. But my neighbor went to bat for me, and I did have good grades. The result was that I was admitted to two law schools for the coming year. Of course, I'd had no idea that there were programs for admission after the third year of undergraduate studies. For very basic reasons, housing in particular, I stayed where I was and enrolled in the law school. However, because of my ignorance of the possibilities, I failed to transfer my first year of law school credits back to an undergraduate program, thereby completing an undergraduate degree. So, while I have a law degree, and six years of higher education, have practiced law, and now am a judge, I do not actually have a college degree!"

The path to law and the judges role, however, was not yet to be so direct. In Joel's last year of law school five of his friends were planning on joining the FBI. "They thought that law degrees would give them an advantage in being selected. Since I lived locally and had a car, my friends asked me if I would take them to the Federal Building where they could make application. They, of course, were dressed for the day and otherwise prepared for the process. As luck would have it I found a parking space right in front of the building, and it even had time on the meter! I wasn't dressed at all for a test, let alone an interview, but my friends persuaded me to give it a try. So I did. I went with them, tested, and had a brief interview. At the end of the day, out of six of us who applied, I was the only one accepted!"

Later that year Joel received his appointment letter to the FBI. In August of 1962 he entered the FBI Academy, then split between Washington, D.C., and Quantico, Virginia. "My main motivation at that time was economic. Remember, I had changed course in college due to my disappointment with the economic prospects of a career in teaching. With the FBI, I was offered a salary of $12,000. In 1962 that was a salary greater than all other of my fellow graduates from law school. However, near the end of my training my younger brother was killed in a football game. My father had died years earlier and my mom was really in need of help. I decided that I would see if I could get an assignment somewhere in the vicinity so that I could be near and take care of my mom. I found that was not an easy thing to do, and I even had two personal meetings with the Director of the FBI, Hoover. But it didn't work out. So, I resigned from the FBI, returned home, and went into private law practice."

In 1964 Joel started down a career path which mixed politics and law enforcement for the next 25 years, until he was first appointed as a judge. In that year he was appointed as an Assistant State's Attorney. The State's Attorney's office is a political office with responsibility for prosecuting crime in a particular county, or in some cases a specific district (hence, the D.A.). According to Joel, "Well, I had the law degree, and had passed the Bar, and I also had that identity of being with the FBI. Together, with my background in the local community, it was a rather natural fit." The position was actually part-time, so Joel kept up with his regular law practice. But it did allow him to begin learning the in's and out's of local politics and law enforcement. "Actually," according to Joel, "my work was concentrated in the felony division. My agreement called for work on 12-15 felony cases per month. I didn't work according to time. If I finished those cases early then my time was free to pursue other things."

Because of the political nature of the state's attorney's office Joel was not guaranteed a job. According to Joel, "I am a Democrat and as long as there was a Democrat in office then I had work. When a Republican took office I was no longer with the State's Attorney's office. In the 25 years prior to being appointed judge, I was out of office, so to speak for eight years. During that time I worked my private practice. Among other things, I defended accused felons. This aspect certainly gave me a rather unique perspective on how the court system worked, and what influence the community or political environment might have on the judicial process." Also during this time Joel kept busy by serving for a while as local city attorney, professor of criminal law, and other duties of a general law practice.

By having such an array of law related positions Joel came to understand critical skills in law practice. One was, every person is unique, and the circumstances in which they are involved are also unique. Generalization, while at times useful, nonetheless gloss over important aspects of any case. Because of this you have to be willing to, and learn how, to dig beneath the surface of any case. It is important to develop an appropriate sense of context. It does matter what else is going on in a person's life. Those other things certainly do influence how and why a person behaves the way they do. Further, a good historical perspective helps you understand any movement in society, including crime. This is not the same thing as an apology for the way things were done in the past. It is, rather, a means of better understanding the changes which we are constantly experiencing. Such things always impact how we perceive and respond to crime. An example, according to Joel, is the role of families in juvenile crime. "Over time what I have observed is the diminished presence of parents in the lives of children involved in crime. First it was fathers. Either by work, war, or just stepping out of family life, fathers have noticeably been removed from the lives of their children. This has obvious consequences, not the least of which is a missing adult role model for young boys and girls. These children do not know how an adult male should behave because they rarely see one. The other problem in this regard is authority. Whatever else fathers do, they establish and administer authority within the family. The fact is, it does make a difference in court whether there is a father in the family. Now, the father's role is no more important than a mother's role. History demonstrates that fathers have been periodically been absent in the lives of their children. But mothers have been the constant. You may not have a father, but you always have a mother. At least mothers seemed more present or durable in the lives of children. The more recent phenomenon is that as fathers continue to disappear, mothers have also begun to disappear. At the very least mom is at work, and children are left to other role models while they grow. Now, this does not mean that a mother who works will produce children in trouble with the law. But it does mean that if a mother's absence enhances the tendency of some to stray into poor choices and behaviors, the absent moms will accentuate this problem, especially if the father is already gone. In some cases, we just let the TV raise our kids." According to Joel, "It is obvious in my court, when a young kid is charged with a serious crime, that most often, father and mother, have been absent in that boy's life."

A second major skill, according to Joel, is communication. "You are always having to deal with all kinds of people. You must not just know how to speak, but you must be able to understand. This latter point is often overlooked when the issue is communication. The range of people and roles with whom you are connected in this field is really enormous. You have to be able to talk and discuss matters with all kinds of serious offenders. There are also the friends and family of those accused of crimes. Then you have victims, and those who care about them. Surrounding each of these are lawyers, prosecutors and defense, judges, and media. You have to be able to read what people mean, not just what they say. And, you have to be careful with what you say. If it can be taken wrong, it will. Experience is really the only effective teacher in this case."

In 1989 a trial judge position opened in the circuit where Joel had served. At that level there are two kinds of judges, associate and circuit. Qualified candidates are typically appointed by other judges, to the associate level first. Associate judges serve for four years before reappointment. Generally associate judges do not hear felony cases, or cases where money damages exceed $25,000. However, associate judges may be certified by the Supreme Court to hear such cases. Circuit judges, which do hear such cases, and cases with money damages over $25,000, are not appointed but elected on a partisan ballot. This means that they run for election associated with a party. If elected, they serve a six year term. Re-election in six years is based on a retain or not retain basis. The vote is non-partisan, and to be retained a judge must receive 60% votes to retain, out of all votes cast. In 1989 Joel's appointment was to an associate judge's position. In just a few months he was certified for circuit level work. Joel was also assigned to the criminal felony division. While judges do tend to rotate, for example among family or juvenile courts, Joel's expertise has focussed his work primarily in the criminal felony division. In 1996 Joel ran for circuit judge and was elected. His term will expire in 2002, but as mentioned, he is not sure at present just what he will do then. The typical salary at Joel's level is now about $120,000 per year.

As a judge, according to Joel, the skills are essentially the same ones he had been exercising all along. But the responsibilities are, as Joel says, "awesome." However, the focus of attention given to any judges are decisions they render. This is the most obvious point of attention to what judges do. So, how does Joel make such decisions? According to Joel, "As with the jobs of prosecutor or defense attorney, take each case on its merits. Treat each case as a unique case. You are dealing with real people and real lives. In many instances you are dealing with true tragedy. And, no matter how much you try, you can never put all things back as they were before some act, or crime, changes it all. All you can hope to do is make progress from where you are. In the states you tend to have more discretion, or latitude in deciding a case or a sentence. In federal court judges tend to be much more restricted. My mandate is to seek a rehabilitative solution, if not already required by law to impose certain sentences. To this end I have to use all that is available to me to make such decisions. What I rely on is life experience. I've raised a family of six and I understand a few things about why people do what they do. But I have also had a wealth of other life experiences. There is no magic wand. You can only do what you think is best. It really comes down to what I think is best in the particular case at hand. There are some trends, but you must be careful to decide only on the merits of the case, not the trends. Nonetheless, if there is a trend, it is that I've seen a reluctance on the part of all sorts of people in society to accept that actions have consequences. They do have consequences. If there is a perspective that I have, it is that people in my court must understand that their actions produce consequences, and they must somehow deal with them. In some cases this means prison and punishment, in others it means rehabilitation, or something still more creative. But if I can get people to take responsibility for their actions, and themselves, then we have made progress in their lives."

In conclusion, Joel's career has had both a logic, and its share of chance. Joel had made choices based on economic need and decisions based on the potential for someone to change their lives. Joel is simply trying to get others to see their own lives more clearly and to make good choices on that basis. In effect, a life not unlike Joel's. While it would certainly be difficult to map out in advance, it was a life thoroughly lived and full of productive choices.

What choices, according to Joel, can students now begin making which will produce the kinds of results desired? "Actually," according to Joel, "students from all academic disciplines are welcome. You can come to law school from a variety of perspectives. And, I see this as positive for the profession. We need broadminded people and clear-minded people in this position. In a classic sense, I'm talking about being well-read. But not all insight comes from class. It comes from life well-lived. Travel, work, take on new and challenging experiences. Each of these contribute to you in ways both tangible and intangible. Ultimately, they give you a wealth of perspective upon which you can make the best choices possible for yourself and others." When it comes right down to it, this is exactly what we ask a judge to do.