To the editor:

Judges make tough decisions every day. Most of these decisions are only scrutinized by the parties involved in the litigation. I must agree with the Journal-World’s recent editorial that Judge Martin should not be removed from office under these circumstances.

If, in fact, the sentences given by Judge Martin are not within the realm of statutory authority, the Court of Appeals will reverse them. That is why we have an appeals process; every case is subject to review if there is error by the trial court. Judge Martin’s rulings were based upon evidence presented in the courtroom. You and I may not agree with these sentences on their face, but removing a judge from office for a good faith decision made in a controversial case is not the right action.

If we are not pleased with the outcome of a case and the judge or jury rules against us, what is the appropriate response? Should we threaten the judge with ouster from the bench? How should we respond to a jury that decides against us? Or is our system based upon rule of law and the right of every party to a lawsuit to seek the review of an appellate court if an error has been made by the lower court? Clearly, Judge Martin, like all of our judges, is subject to reversal and correction when justice and the law require it. The appellate process is available to correct errors in sentencing, if they exist, in these cases.

Ronald Schneider,

Lawrence