# Proposal would ensure high standards for judges



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

*Proposal would ensure high standards for judges*

Sunday, April 05, 2009 By ANTHONY R. SCOTT

The current system of selecting and appointing judges is riddled with politics from beginning to end: Aspiring judges and their families and friends contribute campaign funds to governors to secure appointment and they seek out politicians to intervene on their behalf to enhance their chances of appointment. 
Senate Bill 25 does not turn judges into politicians nor does it call for the election of judges. This bill is labeled "Proposal for legislative amendment to the constitution relative to the election of Judges" by the General Court Clerk's office. This exact same bill was filed in 2007 as Senate Bill 15 and was properly labeled "Proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to the certification of judges." The bill calls for the certification of judges by the people of the commonwealth who pay their salaries and to whom they are accountable, as stated in the Massachusetts Constitution. Judges are supposed to be accountable to two bodies: the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, a non-elected body, and the Governor's Council, an elected body, neither of which have removed a judge in their history. 
The current method of selecting judges will remain the same with the judicial applicant's name and credentials presented to the JNC (Judicial Nominating Commission), a non-elected body that vets the applicants and produces a short list for the governor's review. Once the governor makes a judicial selection, applicants' names go before the Governor's Council, an elected body of nine individuals. Once the Governor's Council certifies the governor's selection, the applicant is then appointed a judge. This is where the change will occur: after serving six years, the judge's name will automatically go on a ballot before the electorate to determine whether or not he or she will retain his or her job. The judge will be unopposedthe sole issue is whether or not he or she will be certified (retain the position) or be replaced. The only opposition they face is themselves. If a judge receives less than 51% of the votes, he or she is replaced and the process to select a replacement begins again with the JNC. 















Massachusetts judges are not accountable to anyone, as is evidenced by some of the decisions and actions they have taken: 
December 1999: A criminal from eastern Massachusetts was arrested on dangerous drugs charges and released on personal recognizance. He defaulted on his court appearance and came to the Holyoke area where he was arrested on the outstanding default warrants and transported back. He was once again released by an unconcerned judge, again defaulted on the drug charges, and a month later, murdered a police officer. 
June 2001: Hampden County Family and Probate Court Judge Marie E. Lyons was suspended for three months without pay. The public was barred from the hearing room and behind closed doors a "plea bargain" was reached. She was returned to the bench to continue her attacks upon the people she was sworn to protect. 
August 2002: A Shirley police sergeant was shot and the perpetrator threatened to shoot any police officer he saw. The defendant was charged with other serious charges relating to assaults on young girls and attempted rape. The District Court judge set bail at $500,000, the defendant appealed to Superior Court, and a judge reduced the bail to $25,000. 
March 2003: Judge Peter Doyle of the Newburyport District Court permitted a proven wife-beater to walk free without posting bail for assaulting his wife and violating an order of protection. Three days later, he killed his wife and committed suicide. 
November 2007: Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman released a murderer on his personal recognizance who proceeded to Washington state and murdered a newlywed couple. 
November 2008: Judge Robert Greco overturned a jury verdict for a man accused of trying to lure a 14-year-old girl into his truck. 
These are but a few "bad" decisions an/or rulings that have been published. In courtrooms throughout the commonwealth, incidents occur daily that are not publicized and which negatively impact the lives and neighborhoods of taxpaying citizens and law enforcement personnel. Judges must be held to a higher standard and that standard is contained in Article V of the Massachusetts Constitution and it is we the people. 
The disingenuous editorial lead is "Don't turn judges into politicians." In order to get appointed, lawyers use politics. What I am proposing is not politics. What I propose is currently in place in some form or fashion in 47 out of 50 states. Are we saying that those other states are wrong and only the commonwealth, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are right? I think not. 
I challenge The Republican to find one time where I have called for the election of judges. I have called only for them to be accountable to the people. 
As others more eloquent than I have stated: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Anthony R. Scott is chief of police in Holyoke. 
Proposal would ensure high standards for judges - MassLive.com


----------



## Kem25 (Aug 7, 2007)

Maybe one of the Governors Councils functions could be to keep track of complaints from families, victims, ADA's and police officers of the occasions were judges make terrbile calls. Then the complaints filed over the six years are also weighed when deciding if this judge will retain their job.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

That, honestly, is an excellent idea, hence, NEVER HAPPEN.

We all know one of the few judges chased from the bench; now judge maria has her own TV show. WTF???


----------



## Trifecta (Mar 3, 2006)

I am one OUI NG away from Yelling WTF after each verdict. I am then going to say I am OfficerObie and scurry away


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

Kem25 said:


> Maybe one of the Governors Councils functions......


Stop yourself right there.....

They couldn't pick the winner of a one horse race. The only function they have is a malfunction.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Trifecta said:


> I am one OUI NG away from Yelling WTF after each verdict. I am then going to say I am OfficerObie and scurry away


Please note that that this would entail including OfficerObie into your incident reports to trigger a court summons for your OUI trial....Feel free to use my good name and then scurry about. I will gladly spend a few minutes in chambers in return for unsolicted court time....j/k

On a serious note, however, I think there are a number of other reforms that can be leveled far over this. Elected judges in any way, shape, or form are a bad idea, even just an incumbent referendum.

Respectfully, the good chief doesn't note all the huge issues with "a judiciary accountable to the people", as appear in those 47 other states. Trial attoneys, DA's etc., all donate. You think OUI benches are a b*tch now, wait untill Steve Jones is paying for a judges airtime in the October before the election. And how do you plan to restrict that? 1st AMD-violating campaign finance laws?

And democratic judges (who make the crazy decisions anyways) will be shooed in again and again. What about an independent or Republican judge? The liberal loonies will throw them out on their asses.

Also, very few voters give a sh*t about local elections anyways, and the ones that do--we all know who they are; they usually vote on our union contracts and stand up at every town meeting--well, I don't want them picking out my judges. The only way this will work is with a well-educated and well-engaged electorate....which we don't have.

A judiciary is NOT SUPPOSED to be accountable to the people, they are supposed to be independent.

Just because our judiciary doesn't respect this: ....


> Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.


...doesn't mean this should be thrown out:


> Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XXIX. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.


Without going on a full blown rant, that's my piece. I have more, but I'll see where this thing goes first.



Kem25 said:


> Maybe one of the Governors Councils functions could be to keep track of complaints from families, victims, ADA's and police officers of the occasions were judges make terrbile calls. Then the complaints filed over the six years are also weighed when deciding if this judge will retain their job.





USMCTrooper said:


> Stop yourself right there.....
> 
> They couldn't pick the winner of a one horse race. The only function they have is a malfunction.


So whose fault is that? Can you tell me off the top of your head--without looking it up--who your Governor's Coucilor is, how the district is composed, or how often the body meets? If you can, good for you, but ask your friends, some of whom are relatively engaged, and I bet you'll get a flock of "I dunnos", and your correct answer ratio will be less than 1 in 10.

My point here is that people get the government they deserve.

If you don't stay engaged, it's your own fault. Throw out your councillor in the next election.


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

OfficerObie59 said:


> So whose fault is that? Can you tell me off the top of your head--without looking it up--who your Governor's Coucilor is, how the district is composed, or how often the body meets? If you can, good for you, but ask your friends, some of whom are relatively engaged, and I bet you'll get a flock of "I dunnos", and your correct answer ratio will be less than 1 in 10.
> 
> My point here is that people get the government they deserve.
> 
> If you don't stay engaged, it's your own fault. Throw out your councillor in the next election.


I agree. I can name who they are, etc etc because Im weird like that. I also know that the oldest musical instrument is a 35,000 year old flute carved from a tusk but hey, I disgress....

The Governor's Council is just another elected non entity. Its antiquated at best. Abolish it and place the judiciary on the ballot. Other states do it and it works fabulous, not perfect, but what does? Set term limits and prohibit corporate/committee contributions (personal only with limit). Have judges beholden to the people not the hacks


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

I hate to throw cold water on the electing judges idea, but it is not a panacea. Remember the people elected Obama (technically they elected the electoral college electors who then elected him but that is almost the same), so why would the people elect just good judges? They might elect marginally better ones but we need more than that. What I think might is also needed is to limit the judge's terms (i.e., do not appoint them for life) and have the people (not politicians) periodically every 5 or 10 years vote up or down whether to extend their term for another 5 or 10 and to also allow for a recall vote by the people (not by a board of their peers) upon petition of a reasonable number of voters.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Elected judges would be a disaster. However, the idea of going over and reviewing performances, hell, that's better than nothing. Perfect, hell no, but better than NO checks and balances over these people.


----------

