To the editor:

Voters in Douglas County should not punish Judge Paula Martin for sentencing decisions that appear to be unpopular with some.

Judicial independence is the keystone of our legal system. For more than 200 years, Americans have held to the idea that judges should decide cases based on the facts, the law and the judge’s conscience, free from fear of public reprisal. Consider the numbing effect on our democracy if a judge either polled the emotions of “the crowd” or waited for a phone call from “the party boss” before ruling.

Judge Martin’s duty is to the rule of law, not to special interest groups or the view of the majority. Recent news stories report that all 16 of the jurors from the criminal cases involved who could be contacted have “come out in defense of Martin’s sentences.” The opinion of these jurors should tell us a great deal about a citizen view of the fairness of the sentences imposed. These citizens, like Judge Martin, heard all of the evidence.

Appellate courts exist for review when a defendant or the state in a criminal case believes that the trial judge has not applied the law correctly. The cases in question are on appeal. Thus the appropriate oversight for the sentences is in place.

Douglas County judges should neither be intimidated nor removed for making decisions unpopular with some. In our community, we need impartial judges who, after reviewing the law and the facts, have the courage to make unpopular decisions.

Fred N. Six,

retired Kansas Supreme Court justice,

Lawrence