Chief judge must abstain from political process

The first sentence of Chief Judge Rowan Wilson's annual report on New York's judiciary declares that "stare decisis" is overrated. Dismissing the foundational principle that courts follow past judicial decisions for stability and predictability is incredible, although it has been a hallmark of Wilson's jurisprudence of disruption.

Apparently, throwing out norms is how the state's top judge now views his role when it comes to the tradition of staying above and apart from legislative and political processes. His comments at a Queens CUNY School of Law symposium have resulted in a formal ethics complaint to the state's independent Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The CUNY forum was co-sponsored with the advocacy group Communities Not Cages, which says its mission is to "overhaul New York's racist and draconian sentencing laws that funnel thousands of New Yorkers into cages" and devastate families and communities. The group is pressing for the Second Act bill, first introduced five years ago, which gives someone serving a life or maximum sentence the right to seek release after serving 10 years.

Wilson, who endorses the bill and efforts at deincarceration, is a longtime critic of the state's sentencing laws and judges who give harsh sentences. "Everything we are doing here is stupid," Wilson said at the forum, noting that some lower court judges use "horrible language" to describe defendants. He then told the audience that even as head of the state's court system there was no way he could discipline those judges. "And one thing that all of you can do is find out who those people are when those judges come up to be elected, don't vote for them, get other people not to vote for them." He added, "That's something you can do for me." 

Are Wilson's words an improper endorsement of judicial candidates running against incumbents who are known to give harsh prison terms that are allowable under the state's sentencing guidelines? Some judges have a record of tough sentences often because they are more experienced and are assigned cases involving the most heinous crimes. As supervisor of more than 3,000 judges in the state, do Wilson's remarks to groups actively involved in efforts to remove these judges from the bench cross the line of impermissible political activity? 

And if the Second Look Act becomes law, how can he be fair and impartial should a lawsuit challenging it come before his court? Whether the tough on crime laws of the 1990s need to be revised, and whether the considerable financial and human costs of lifetime incarceration should be reconsidered, are valid public policy questions. However, the politics of that are the domain of the legislature and the governor. 

If the chief judge is allowed to wade into those politics, what is to stop other judges, so inclined, from shedding their robes of neutrality and getting into the fray? How can the rules be enforced against them if the top judge gets a pass?