Cincinnati Enquirer March 23, 2006

Judge-bashing crosses the line

Editorials

An Ohio judge's job appears safe, despite a recent flurry of calls for his removal over what many considered a too-lenient sentence for a man accused of child rape. But the episode raises concerns about political interference in judicial matters - and about the consequences of leaping to conclusions instead of taking a deliberate, balanced view of these matters.

Judge John Connor of Franklin County Common Pleas Court came under furious attack last week after it was learned that Andrew Selva of Hilliard, whom Connor had sentenced to treatment and probation for sexual battery against two boys, had been charged with child rape. When Connor was skewered by Fox News' bloviating Bill O'Reilly, several Republican leaders - notably Attorney General Jim Petro, Gov. Bob Taft and House Speaker Jon Husted - foolishly rushed to demand that Connor resign or be removed.

Connor's rebuttal was quick and convincing: Because of prosecution errors, he was not presented with any rape charges against Selva, only two charges of sexual battery. The sentence he imposed was at least arguably appropriate for sexual battery, following state guidelines. Even if it wasn't appropriate, that should be determined with due process, not by summarily throwing Connor out of office.

Husted dropped the idea of impeachment, but Republicans and Democrats continue to trade nasty charges over the incident, and lawmakers this week scrambled to introduce legislation to require prison time for sexual battery against children.

Although Republicans led the calls to oust Connor, a Democrat - and Petro even expressed disappointment that impeachment plans have been dropped - this wasn't strictly a partisan issue. House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty noted Tuesday that some members of her caucus would have supported Connor's removal, while some Republicans would have opposed it.

But in an election year, it was a politically driven issue - and a terribly misguided one.

What's more, it raised uncomfortable echoes of recent threats against judges, and of a short-fuse intolerance of the judicial process that seems all too prevalent these days. U.S. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her recently retired colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor, have spoken out recently against intemperate political statements that, intended or not, have spurred fringe groups to threaten violence against judges.

There's a fine - but rather clear - line here.

Judges are by no means immune from scrutiny. They are not legal high priests; they are not above the law. The public and elected officials have the right to criticize judges' actions, and a clear pattern of flawed decisions or bad behavior can and should have bearing on a judge's tenure.

But this sort of hasty, misinformed pillorying for political gain is way over the line. Judges should not have to fear for their jobs - or their lives - every time they make an unpopular or misunderstood ruling. The judicial system itself is generally able to correct errors in due course.

The iconic "scales of justice" would be a useful image for everybody to keep in mind. They symbolize the need for balance and deliberation, the obligation of all those in the public forum to weigh the consequences of their words and actions.

Disclaimer:    We are not attempting to practice law, give advice or represent ourselves as anything more than a resource portal with many unique features. Our design is copyrighted. We have no claim of any affiliation with any linked website nor any liability for anything they may say or do. We, and our contributing authors, offer no warranties of any type, to anyone, about anything express or implied.  What you see is what you get, we cannot afford to be your insurer.   

By going further into this site, you accept this complete waiver of all warranties.

© All material copyrighted, LawReader, Inc. 314 7th. St., Carrollton, Ky. 41008