New York's system for selecting judges, particularly in city courts, is under scrutiny for allegedly prioritizing political connections over merit, leading to the appointment of judges described as "soft-on-crime." This method, characterized as a vestige of "Tammany-style bossism," is blamed for populating the judiciary with individuals who may not be qualified or may hold ideologically driven views that favor leniency in criminal cases.
The selection process predominantly relies on local Democratic Party leaders who control judicial-screening panels. These panels, according to critics, effectively determine who gets placed on the ballot, making it virtually impossible for insurgent candidates to win. This insider-driven system, it is argued, favors party loyalists and established figures.
As an example, one report cites Judge Janice Robinson, who allegedly has a pattern of releasing defendants, including those accused of attempted murder, without bail. The report states Robinson has never agreed with a prosecutor's recommendation to set bail or hold a defendant on remand. Judge Robinson is identified as the niece of a former assemblyman who later served as the U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica. Such appointments, critics contend, circumvent more rigorous scrutiny that might be applied to mayoral appointments, especially when facilitated through interim appointments.
This system is accused of rewarding "political hackery" and elevating judges who align with progressive criminal justice ideologies, such as "abolish prisons" and "decarceral justice." Beyond ideological alignment, some judges are described as being appointed due to venality or a simple lack of engagement with their duties beyond receiving a salary.
The state Legislature is noted for its role in altering criminal laws, but the burden on the courts from what are described as "worse-than-useless judges" is attributed to county Democratic Party chiefs. This practice, critics argue, undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial system by ensuring that judicial appointments are a product of political expediency rather than a commitment to justice and public safety.