To the editor:

Judge Paula Martin has been retained, thank goodness, but I remain disturbed by recent efforts to oust her because I am not comfortable with those who arrogantly think their views should prevail over the views of those who actually sat through the trial(s) and heard the evidence. Let us not forget that all 16 of the jurors who chose to speak publicly said they thought Judge Martin made the right decision.

Sadly, I didn’t hear anybody discussing this matter mention mercy. Apparently we were afraid of appearing “soft on crime.” For thousands of years, however, people have thought it is a good thing for judges to exercise mercy. Indeed, Christians, Jews and Muslims all share pride in the same merciful God. That’s why our judges are authorized to depart from “guideline” sentences; if the guidelines, without judicial mercy, were enough, we could just have a clerk read the sentence from the guideline chart.

Judge Martin’s detractors vow to continue their efforts to influence the decisions of our judges, noting that while they failed to remove her, they were successful in “putting the judge on notice,” presumably that they would be looking for reasons to remove her. One of Judge Martin’s great strengths is that she will not be swayed by such threats. Fortunately, our other judges, present and future, can see from this election that most of us want them to exercise their independent discretion, just like Judge Martin.

John Bodle,

Lawrence