JUSTICE UNDER LAW -- CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM IS WHAT MAKES IT WORK

Should judges follow the law or render justice?

It seems that those two values would be inextricably linked.

But it appears that some judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
consider them severable, if not wholly separate, concerns.

In recent years, the court has turned down several appeals in which prison
inmates have presented new evidence strongly pointing to their innocence.
Instead of granting new trials, the court has left the inmates to take
their chances with the state's system of pardons and paroles.

In some instances, even prosecutors and lower court judges have agreed that
new trials were warranted. But the high court has disagreed. Judges in the
majority have said they were just following the law.

Our society doesn't want judges to impose their personal views instead of
following laws passed by elected legislators. But neither should jurists on
the state's highest criminal court figuratively throw up their hands and
say, "Not my problem."

When the Court of Criminal Appeals was dominated by judges who were
Democrats, critics said it was too willing to grant new trials to convicted
criminals on technical points of law.

To some observers, the court's shift to all-Republican in the 1990s seems
to have turned it insensitive to some legitimate claims.

If the court has operated at the extremes, that has happened partly because
it gets insufficient public attention, despite its enormous impact on
criminal law.

All nine judges on the court are elected; three seats will be on the Nov. 7
ballot, and voters should not ignore them.

In any criminal case, it's crucial that the right person is accused and
convicted and that a proper sentence is imposed. It's just as crucial, for
everyone involved, that convictions have finality.

But to make that system work -- and to maintain public confidence and trust
- -- it's imperative that judges do justice under the law.