Inquirer Editorial: Judges must be policed, too

No judge in Pennsylvania has gotten away with murder, so far, but that doesn't mean the state's system for policing judicial misconduct is not without its problems.

In fact, two new reports on the judicial disciplinary system - one by the American Bar Association and one by the nonpartisan reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts - explore the factors eroding public confidence in the procedures that should bring misbehaving judges to justice.

Exhibit A, and the catalyst for the state Supreme Court's bringing in the ABA, is the notorious kids-for-cash judicial scandal that snared two Luzerne County judges more than two years ago.

The pair were able to perpetrate their cruel scam for a longer period because initial efforts to blow the whistle did nothing to prompt action by the state agency that polices judges.

The former judges, Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., are facing sentencing. Conahan pleaded guilty and Ciavarella was convicted in federal court. Prosecutors say the two shared in a $2.8 million kickback scheme that railroaded hundreds of juveniles who were sent to jail.

The Luzerne scandal revealed a justice system that, at various points, looked the other way and allowed the teens' victimization to continue. Key stakeholders, including state high court justices, contend they couldn't intervene without evidence of wrongdoing.

But in a troubling disclosure by a joint court-legislative commission last year, it was revealed that the state's Judicial Conduct Board had indeed received complaints. The board took no steps to remove the judges, for reasons that have yet to be adequately explained due to secrecy rules that, in and of themselves, undermine public confidence in the system.

For Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (pmconline.org), the message conveyed by the conduct board's inaction was clear. It said the board's handling of the Luzerne case "undermined confidence in its willingness and ability to protect the public from judicial misconduct."

Beyond that, the disciplinary system has proven overly lenient when sanctioning some judges, letting one Philadelphia judge, for example, remain in robes even after he violated the law.

PMC and the bar both offer a menu of reforms that should boost public trust in the disciplinary process. First up should be a policy change on filing complaints that the ABA says now "chills complainants' willingness to come forward" in a kind of hear-no-evil, see-no-evil Catch-22.

One hopeful sign is that state Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille has pledged to continue work toward addressing the "many problems that were highlighted" by the Luzerne scandal.

Riding on the needed reforms is nothing less than Pennsylvanians' trust in their courts.