N.Y. Criminal Justice Group to Push for More Scrutiny of Judges

The Court New York Deserves: Advocating for Scrutiny of Judicial Nominees

Introduction

The Center for Community Alternatives, a group advocating for criminal justice reform, has launched a campaign called “The Court New York Deserves.” This campaign aims to encourage elected officials in New York to closely evaluate judicial nominees and appointees across the state. The group argues that judges are routinely reappointed without sufficient evaluation, and that this practice needs to change.

Background

Last year, the Center for Community Alternatives played a significant role in thwarting the confirmation of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s nominee for chief judge, Justice Hector D. LaSalle. This rejection by the State Senate marked the first-ever rejection of a governor’s nominee for that post. The campaign comes at a time when judges in New York are facing increased scrutiny, particularly in the context of debates surrounding bail reform.

Evaluating Judges’ Records and Fitness to Serve

The Center for Community Alternatives argues that both New York governors, who have the power to nominate and appoint judges to several state courts, and the State Senate, which confirms these nominations, have failed to properly evaluate judges’ records and fitness to serve. The group believes that reappointments have become routine, with little consideration given to judges’ qualifications and performance.

The Call for Change

In a letter addressed to Gov. Kathy Hochul, the Center for Community Alternatives urged her to depart from the practices of her predecessors. The group called for a change in the nomination process, advocating for the nomination of judges who have demonstrated sound judgment, exceptional integrity, and a commitment to New York’s values.

Response from the Governor’s Office

A spokesperson for Gov. Hochul, Avi Small, stated that the governor will continue to select judicial nominees based on their experience, qualifications, and judicial temperament. The response suggests that the governor’s office is aware of the campaign’s concerns but maintains its commitment to appointing qualified judges.

Conclusion

The Court New York Deserves campaign seeks to bring attention to the need for closer scrutiny of judicial nominees and appointees in New York. By emphasizing the importance of evaluating judges’ records and qualifications, the campaign aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of promoting justice, peace, and strong institutions. It remains to be seen how this campaign will impact the nomination and appointment processes in the state.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article discusses the need for elected officials to scrutinize judicial nominees and appointees more closely, highlighting concerns about the evaluation process and the routine reappointment of judges. This aligns with SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

The article emphasizes the need for proper evaluation of judges’ records and fitness to serve before their appointment or reappointment. This relates to Target 16.3, which focuses on promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice. Additionally, the article highlights concerns about the lack of scrutiny in the evaluation process, indicating a need for more effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, aligning with Target 16.6.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms.
• Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but it implies the need for indicators that measure the proportion of judges who have undergone proper evaluation and the proportion of judges reappointed based on sound judgment, exceptional integrity, and commitment to New York’s values. These indicators would help assess progress towards Target 16.3. Additionally, the article suggests the importance of public satisfaction with the evaluation process and judicial appointments, which can be measured using Indicator 16.6.2.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: nytimes.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.