Attacking the bench
When a politician starts calling for accountability, this is what will usually quickly follow: a press release.
The latest reminder of this was provided by Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who wants to hold bad judges accountable. Predictably, she seems to define a bad judge as one who doesn't lock up bad people for long enough.
Judges are a big, fat target, especially in an election year. They are only in the news when people are mad at them. It isn't news when they do what they're supposed to do, which is most of the time. They have virtually no public profile. It's not as if they can call a press conference and rip Healey in response. That would hardly demonstrate judicial temperament.
There's a built-in constituency when you argue that the only unelected branch of government isn't accountable. Conservatives, especially, go on about how judges aren't responsible to the people. Without question, it is the least directly accountable branch. For better or worse, it's meant to be.
But if you believe Healey's suggestions are about prompting a serious review of the system, she faked you out. This isn't the product of the policy wonk who has often thought long and hard about criminal-justice issues. This is a campaign press release. This is the Kerry Healey who called on John F. Kerry to resign because he was spending too much time away from the Senate.
By that standard, Mitt Romney should leave office immediately. But I digress.
The debate about Healey's proposal took a bizarre detour yesterday. Paul Martinek, the former editor of Massachusetts Lawyers' Weekly, wrote a piece for the Boston Herald taking Healey to task for her proposal.
In response, his brother Dennis wrote a vitriolic letter to the editor ripping him for ''grandstanding."
''Paul Martinek hits it right on the head with his column -- unfortunately it's his own head that he's hitting," Dennis J. Martinek opined. His letter continues in a similarly analytical vein.
Paul Martinek told me yesterday that he and his brother often disagree on issues. Clearly, they aren't close. Paul Martinek described notions like Healey's as an attempt at intimidation. ''I disagree with judges sometimes, too, but you can't just threaten them to get decisions you want," he said. ''The only thing easier than going after lawyers is going after judges, because judges can't talk about it."
Healey is in an interesting dilemma. With no one to run against, with the possible exception of independent Christy Mihos, she is forced to invent ways to draw attention to her campaign. She has done this mainly by parting company with Romney on social issues. Maybe she's running out of issues on which she and Romney disagree.
Who should judge the judges and how is an age-old problem. It may be that judges in Massachusetts are insulated from public sentiment to an extreme. Many states elect judges. Sure, you get greater accountability that way. But turning judges into politicians doesn't get you to a better bench.
That leaves some kind of review as the only legitimate option for reforming the bench. But that can't be driven by outrage over a handful of cases. The test of judges isn't whether they're tough or lenient; it's whether they're knowledgeable and fair and can be trusted to run a fair trial. The kinds of inquisitions Bill O'Reilly conducts may be good television, but they're hardly a way to run a branch of government.
Ironically, one thing Healey would bring to the governor's office is a wealth of knowledge about public safety. As the campaign unfolds, it will be interesting to hear what she has to say about real issues like guns, drugs, and juvenile crime.
I suspect we won't be hearing all that much more about judges. The point has been made, and she hopes Republican and unenrolled voters have taken notice. Now she can move on.
After all, you can only write the same press release so many times.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com. 