The saying “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a widely recognized adage that reflects a fundamental truth about human nature and governance. This phrase, often attributed to Lord Acton, encapsulates the observation that when individuals or institutions gain unchecked power, they are prone to corruption. However, the concept predates Acton’s famous quote and has been expressed in various forms throughout history by philosophers, politicians, and scholars.
Lord Acton, whose full name was John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first coined the phrase in 1857, later refining it in an 1887 letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, where he stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” While Acton is credited with the saying, he was not the first to articulate the dangers of unchecked power. His thoughts echoed those of earlier figures, including William Pitt the Elder, the British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, who stated in a speech to the House of Lords in 1770, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”
Even further back, ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle extensively discussed the risks of tyranny and the necessity of the rule of law. They warned that a government that serves its own interests rather than those of the people is inherently corrupt. Plato, in particular, described the cycle of political decay in which democracy can lead to tyranny if power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler who prioritizes personal gain over the common good.
The founding fathers of the United States were acutely aware of these dangers and took deliberate steps to prevent tyranny when drafting the Constitution. John Adams, for instance, observed, “My opinion is, and always has been, that absolute power intoxicates alike despots, monarchs, aristocrats, and democrats.” To mitigate the risks of concentrated power, the founders established a system of checks and balances by dividing governmental authority into three branches: the executive (president), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial (Supreme Court). Each branch was given the ability to check the others, ensuring that no single entity could become too powerful.
Additionally, the legislative branch was further divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate to prevent impulsive decision-making driven by popular sentiment. The Constitution also explicitly limited governmental powers by enumerating them, ensuring that the federal government could not overreach. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided further safeguards by protecting individual freedoms against governmental encroachment. In the judicial system, federal judges were granted lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure and ensure their rulings were based on law rather than political expediency.
One often-overlooked but crucial element of the judicial system that serves as a check against corruption is the role of court reporters. These professionals are responsible for creating accurate, impartial records of court proceedings, ensuring transparency and accountability. Unlike judges, court reporters operate independently and are not under direct judicial control. This independence allows them to serve as neutral guardians of the legal record. A judge may issue an order, but a court reporter has the authority to ensure that the record remains unaltered, a responsibility that is vital for upholding justice.
Court reporters ensure that legal transcripts accurately reflect courtroom proceedings, which can later be reviewed by appellate courts. Judges frequently acknowledge their importance, often stating, “The court reporter is the most important person in the room.” Without their meticulous documentation, rulings could be subject to manipulation, undermining the judicial system’s integrity. However, despite their crucial role, the importance of court reporters is often overlooked, and efforts to replace them with electronic recording systems threaten to undermine judicial accountability.
A recent example of the dangers of relying on electronic recording systems over human court reporters can be found in the case of Darrell Brooks, who was convicted of multiple counts of murder and other offenses for his role in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack on November 21, 2021. Prior to the attack, Brooks had been released on an inexplicably low bail of $1,000 after allegedly running over the mother of his child with the same SUV used in the parade attack. The circumstances surrounding this bail decision came under intense scrutiny, and media outlets sought the transcript of his November 5th bail hearing. However, they were informed that no record of the hearing existed due to a “failure of audio recording equipment.”
Further investigation revealed that hearings from two other days, before and after the bail hearing, had also not been recorded. This absence of records raised significant concerns about potential judicial misconduct and the broader implications of replacing human court reporters with electronic recording devices. Just a year prior, Waukesha County had removed court reporters from their courtrooms, despite warnings from the Wisconsin Court Reporters Association about the risks associated with electronic recording systems. Court reporters, often referred to as “Guardians of the Record,” provide a decentralized and highly secure method of preserving court transcripts. Each reporter independently maintains multiple backups of their records, ensuring that they cannot be easily tampered with or lost.
When Waukesha County transitioned to electronic recording systems, the responsibility for maintaining the court record shifted from independent court reporters to the court itself—a move that introduced a glaring conflict of interest. If the court is responsible for preserving records that may later be used to hold it accountable, the potential for evidence tampering becomes a serious concern. In Brooks’ case, Milwaukee County Chief Judge Mary Triggiano attributed the missing recordings to “human error” or “technical malfunction,” an explanation that many found insufficient given the high stakes of the case.
Had the records been available, they could have provided crucial evidence in potential wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of the victims. Wrongful death settlements can range from modest sums to tens of millions of dollars per victim. With six victims in this case, Waukesha County could have faced settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars—an outcome that may have been financially devastating for the county. The missing transcript of the bail hearing, which could have demonstrated negligence in setting Brooks’ bail, was therefore a highly consequential omission.
Given the significant implications, many observers suspect that the missing recordings were not the result of simple error but rather a deliberate effort to eliminate damaging evidence. If this is true, it constitutes evidence tampering, a serious crime that undermines the very foundation of the justice system. The absence of human court reporters in Waukesha County’s courtrooms allowed this potential corruption to go unchecked, highlighting the crucial role that court reporters play in maintaining judicial integrity.
This case serves as a stark warning about the dangers of removing human oversight from the judicial process. As courts continue to explore technological alternatives to human court reporters, the risks of record tampering, evidence loss, and judicial corruption increase. The ability to accurately preserve court proceedings is not a minor administrative concern—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny.
If we allow our judicial system to replace human court reporters with unreliable electronic recording systems, we risk eroding the very mechanisms designed to prevent absolute corruption. The case of Darrell Brooks and the missing court records in Waukesha County is a troubling example of what happens when those in power are allowed to control and potentially manipulate the record of their own decisions. The fight to preserve human court reporters in our legal system is not just about preserving jobs—it is about ensuring that justice remains impartial, transparent, and accountable. If we fail to act, we may find ourselves slipping further toward a system where absolute power, unchecked by independent oversight, leads to absolute corruption.
STENOIMPERIUM 