[This article was submitted in response to an op-ed published in the New York Law Journal on July 24 titled “Studying Judicial Decision-Making Is Not ‘Intimidation," by Oded Oren, executive director of Scrutinize; Chad M. Topaz, executive director of research at QSIDE Institute; and Courtney Machi Oliva, executive director of the Zimroth Center at New York University School of Law. That op-ed was itself a response to retired Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta's op-ed, "Report on 'Carceral' Judges Is Flawed and Dangerous," which the New York Law Journal published on June 13.]
Sadly, it has become common practice to attack judges with misinformation and mischaracterization of their records as the judges are restrained by the canons of judicial ethics from responding. This restraint makes them easy targets for the sensationalist media, politicians and, at times, academics, since judges are compelled to remain silent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
