Attacking and Exposing Judges

[Pangloss]

Is our judiciary under seige, or is the extra attention warranted? That's the question I hope to focus on with this thread.

 

Bill O'Reilly does this quite often on the subject of child pedophiles, sending Fox News reporters to challenge judges in their own driveways when they let pedophiles go with sentences he feels are too lenient.

 

But it's not just him! I just watched an ABC News report exposing Texas judge Sharon Keller for closing her courthouse at 5pm rather than let it stay open a few minutes longer to hear a potential appeal on a Death Row inmate who was then executed shortly thereafter. ABC showed the judges photograph and even stationed a camera outside her home and showed her getting into her car. (Here's the print version.)

 

Isn't this just another form of ideological outrage? Are Bill O'Reilly and ABC News just looking out for you and me, or are they really demanding societal change on their respective pet issues? Sure, you can hammer Bill O'Reilly for chasing a conservative cause with the pedophilia thing, but if you say that then don't you also have to level the same charge at ABC News?

 

I haven't seen any personal telephone numbers or addresses in flashing lights or anything like that. But I can't help but wonder what adverse affect this might have on the process of judicial reasoning. I'm worried that smart people won't want to become judges anymore if they're constantly inundated by extremism.

 

I do think shining a light on the judiciary is generally a good thing, especially since many of them are elected without a whit of attention by the voting public. But I think we need to work out limits. This is not a democracy, and the judiciary and its value and functionality needs to be understood by the critical public BEFORE it levels its criticism. People need to understand that they're there to enforce the law, not respond to popular pressure.

 

I also feel that wayward judges, those who do step over the lines and make mistakes, have to be held accountable. But I think the judicial self-regulatory process is actually pretty darn sound. It's inherently objective and self-introspective, and seems to produce the correct result most of the time.

 

What do you all think?

[Blade]

here in the netherlands reporters would be fired in am instand if they did that.

[iNow]

Shows how pushy we are as a people, and how we refuse to accept the decisions of those put in place specifically to make them. It's akin to burning crosses to keep people out of schools. Unless, of course, those pressuring the judges happen to support positions with which I agree.

[Fred56]

How many parallels are there with what people have been doing for a lot longer (about perceived injustice)? Western law is the offspring of, ultimately Greek and Roman ideas of democracy and justice. I bet things like this probably happened back then, too.

[D H]

Our press accosts politicians, bureuacrats, and business executives in their driveways. Should judges be given protection from the press that applies to them only? I don't think they should.

[Phi for All]

While I can appreciate Pangloss' concern over scaring away smart judges, I always think it's good to bring questionable decisions on the part of elected officials to the public attention. Even though we elected them we need to keep tabs on their actions.

 

My biggest concern is that these tactics will find their way into the hands of those who want certain judges (and their judgments) discredited so they can reach into their pockets and pull out a different judge. Also, everyone makes mistakes but the media has a way of making it seem like one mistake is just the tip of the iceberg ("Is this just a one-time slip-up or is someone hiding the truth behind this judge and his errors? Tune in at 10 for the whole story").

[Sisyphus]

Our press accosts politicians, bureuacrats, and business executives in their driveways. Should judges be given protection from the press that applies to them only? I don't think they should.

 

I don't know about given protection (it would be wildly unconstitutional to make a law protecting judges from criticism), but I do think that kind of sensationalist hounding is more harmful when directed at judges than at politicians, etc., for the simple reason that the function of the judicial system requires that it be isolated from mob whim and mock outrage so it can safely make decisions that do NOT take into account what the public wants.

[Pangloss]

I agree with Sisyphus. Which still, I think, allows criticism and accountability for doing their jobs. Obviously nobody wants judges goofing off and playing golf when they're supposed to be sitting on the bench trying cases, but of course it also extends deeper than that -- bribery, favoritism, ideological partisanship, etc.

 

To me what it boils down to is that I trust the judicial process more than I trust ABC News, Fox News, or any news.