There can be a vast difference between a democratically elected government and a democratic government.

After an election, the hard work of governing under the rule of law begins. The task of ensuring fair application of specific laws and compliance with them falls to a team of legal professionals: prosecutors, attorneys and judges. Of these, the many roles a judge can play in a democratic system are under constant debate.

What powers do judges have to scrutinize and overturn decisions made by other branches of the government? Can judges be independent if their positions and budgets are solely controlled by an executive branch entity? In deciding a case, how can judges be shielded from political interference? Who determines whether a legal decision is in keeping with either a written constitution or previous judgments?

These questions are not academic. Judges in a democracy assume responsibilities not only for denying a person liberty -- or even life -- but also for determining a society's position on fundamental issues. Recent Supreme Court decisions in the United States, for instance, have dealt with abortion, discrimination and affirmative action, commercial and labor laws and intellectual property considerations. Like the thousands of judicial decisions made daily by courts large and small in the United States, these rulings touch the lives of all citizens.

This journal examines safeguards that establish and maintain a judge's independence in and out of the courtroom, and looks at some of the roles played by judges in the American legal system. Stephen A. Breyer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, surveys the legal protections underpinning judicial independence and the ways the American system attempts to assure the integrity of this office. Judge Cynthia Hall, in an interview with contributing editor David Pitts, describes some of the challenges faced by American and foreign judges in doing their jobs effectively. And three reports examine innovations in areas affecting the American judge of today: juvenile justice, sentencing reform and streamlining court procedures.

Though our focus is of necessity on the technical aspects of making justice work in the United States, the article on Judge Luis G. Perez of the Worcester (Massachusetts) Juvenile Court reminds us that behind the impersonality of legal decision-making is the individual character of the judge and the personal traits he or she brings to this sensitive work. A judge in the United States is, at the same time, a scholarly interpreter of law, a personnel manager, director of a trial s process, often an arbiter of leading social issues, always in the public eye. With this multitude of duties, the American judge at the local, state or federal level helps to ensure that a citizen s experience of democracy is not theoretical, but real.

The Democracy and Human Rights Team welcomes comments and/or suggestions. Readers may send e-mail messages or write to: