Justice Without Accountability Is Not Justice

Police officers are watched by supervisors, internal-affairs investigators, prosecutors, civilian review boards, body cameras and the public. Their decisions may be dissected frame by frame, and a single mistake can end a career.

Judges wield the power to release defendants, suppress evidence, dismiss charges and impose sentences that affect entire communities. Yet meaningful scrutiny of those decisions is often limited.

That imbalance must change.

I am a staunch conservative who believes in law and order, personal responsibility and equal justice. Judicial independence is essential. Judges should not be threatened or removed merely because someone dislikes a lawful ruling. But independence cannot mean immunity from scrutiny.

Americans repeatedly see dangerous defendants released, repeat offenders quickly returned to the streets and people convicted of terrible crimes receiving sentences that appear grossly inadequate. Police officers risk their safety making arrests and spend hours completing reports, only to encounter the same defendants back on the street before the paperwork is finished.

Victims and their families are left asking: Whose interests is the justice system protecting?

Too many progressive judges appear more concerned with excusing criminal behavior than protecting innocent citizens. Rehabilitation has a legitimate role, especially for nonviolent and first-time offenders. But compassion without consequences is not justice. When leniency becomes predictable, repeat offenders learn that accountability is unlikely, and the public pays the price.

The Existing System Is Not Enough

Federal judges can be removed through impeachment, but that process is extremely rare and generally reserved for serious misconduct. Judicial complaint procedures address conduct and ethics, while legal errors ordinarily must be challenged through appeals.

That leaves an accountability gap. A pattern of questionable judgment may not constitute bribery, corruption or reversible legal error, but repeated decisions that jeopardize public safety should not remain hidden from citizens, legislators and court administrators.

Illinois has a Judicial Inquiry Board that investigates allegations and may bring charges before the Illinois Courts Commission, which can reprimand, suspend or remove judges. However, most proceedings remain confidential unless formal charges are filed.

Judicial elections also provide little meaningful accountability. Most voters know almost nothing about the judges on their ballots. They receive little understandable information about sentencing practices, significant rulings, reversals or disciplinary history. That is not informed accountability. It is a procedural formality.

Establish An Independent Citizen Review

States should establish independent judicial accountability boards containing citizens, retired judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, crime victims, law-enforcement representatives and ethics professionals. No profession or political party should control them.

These boards should not overturn cases or punish judges for legally correct but unpopular rulings. They should:

• Review substantiated complaints involving conduct, bias, conflicts and failure to perform judicial duties.
• Identify patterns of unexplained sentencing departures, procedural failures or serious recurring errors.
• Hold public hearings when credible evidence reveals a pattern affecting public confidence or safety.
• Refer ethical violations to disciplinary authorities.
• Publish annual performance reports.
• Recommend education, reassignment, discipline or removal where appropriate.

If police officers face civilian review for split-second decisions made under dangerous conditions, judges should face meaningful review for decisions made after receiving reports, arguments and time for deliberation.

Give Voters Meaningful Information

Every judge seeking election or retention should have a plain-English public profile showing experience, attendance, case-management statistics, disciplinary findings, appellate reversals in proper context, sentencing departures, attorney evaluations, verified complaints and representative rulings. The judge should also be allowed to respond.

A reversal does not automatically prove misconduct, but repeated reversals involving the same fundamental errors may reveal a legitimate performance problem.

Require Sentencing Transparency

When a judge imposes a sentence substantially below the normal range for comparable conduct, the judge should provide a written explanation addressing aggravating and mitigating factors, criminal history, victim impact, community risk and the legal basis for the decision.

Judges may have valid reasons for exercising discretion. If so, they should explain them. Sunlight strengthens confidence in legitimate decisions and exposes indefensible ones.

Accountability Is Not an Attack on the Courts

Proper oversight would not eliminate judicial independence any more than civilian review eliminates policing. Judges are public servants. Their salaries are paid by the people, and their decisions can profoundly affect public safety.

The law must protect defendants’ constitutional rights, but it must also remember victims, police officers, families and law-abiding citizens.

No robe should place a public official beyond meaningful review. Justice must be blind, but accountability should have its eyes wide open.