Should racial diversity in the judiciary be improved by introducing quotas?

The judiciary of England is often seen as predominantly middle class, white and male, and it is vital that this image and the reality that prompts it are changed. In the legal system - and especially the criminal justice system -justice must not just done but also seen to be done: those involved in a case and those observing should feel that the result was reached fairly. There is increasing public awareness that the legal system does not treat everyone equally, and that black men in particular are treated unfairly harshly. An increase in diversity could help reduce this image as well as helping to tackle genuine inequality in the system - whether that be in terms of facilitating better access to justice for those whose native language is not English, or simply allowing the judge to better understand the circumstances of those whom they are sentencing and so to give a more appropriate sentence in the circumstances. It could thus be argued that quotas would be beneficial, since it would allow an instant increase in diversity upon introduction. On the other hand, quotas are not necessarily effective in tackling underlying factors which cause lack of diversity, such as institutional racism, or a lack of role models leading to lack of confidence. Barristers and judges from minority communities should be encouraged to rise through the ranks of the judiciary on their own merit, and not simply to remedy under-representation for its own sake. The use of quotas encourages the idea that individuals from ethnic minorities would not be able to achieve their positions if they were treated on the same basis as their white peers, potentially perpetuating prejudices within the system. More effective methods of improving diversity in the judiciary might be providing resources to improve self confidence and self worth among individuals from ethnic minority communities, thereby encouraging these talented people to apply for positions. Mentoring schemes, application training days and other initiatives aimed at promoting a more inclusive culture among the judiciary might also be more effective than quotas in ensuring that the best candidates are applying for and getting positions, thereby encouraging diversity without compromising on the skill and professionalism of the judiciary as well bringing the benefits of diversity discussed above. These methods may not show instant results, but are likely to work well in the long term and improve long term job prospects and career satisfaction for a number of people. Accordingly, although quotas will improve short term diversity, other methods are likely to be more effective in improving the diversity of the judiciary in the long term and in addressing underlying issues and so would likely be more beneficial for the judiciary than the introduction of quotas.