In light of the recent International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, one of the most widely debated topics by the Israeli public is the judicial treatment of those accused of violence against women.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth even launched a media campaign, appropriately titled "Special Project," that listed so-called "compassionate judges," those that in the newspaper's opinion were too lenient in their sentencing of violent offenders.
The names and photos of those judges were plastered all over the front page, alongside a list of their "obviously lenient sentences," describing them as "judges who have compassion on violent men," "the serial liberators," and "a revolving door for criminals."
There is room for criticizing the justice system. At the same time, there's a difference between criticizing someone and outright shaming them. What is the fate of the next defendant in the courtroom, having to face judges trying to prove they are "not merciful?" How will other judges affect their sentencing after seeing what happened to their colleagues?
And if judge-shaming is acceptable now, why stop there? Let's shame judges who have too much empathy for traffic violators, judges who take into consideration a defendant's socioeconomic position, or judges who care about the human rights of terrorists too much!
There's no shortage of such judges. We all remember the judge who acquitted the terrorist who severely wounded Nirit Zmora because his knife "was too short" of attempted murder; or the Supreme Court judges who reduced the sentence of a terrorist convicted of attempted murder to one year in prison; or the judges that only recently sentenced two terrorists who ran over and severely wounded IDF soldiers to a ridiculous prison sentence.
Decisions like these not only put more human lives at risk but also cripple Israel's ability to actively fight terrorism. But a media campaign with the photos of these judges, titled "Meet the judges who feel sorry for terrorists" would never fly. There would be immediate public outrage and never-ending public discourse filled with shock and anger at the disregard of the law and damage to the judicial system.
But in the case of Yedioth Ahronoth there was no public outrage. Quite the opposite, the president of the Supreme Court was quick to admit that "judges may err."
The media campaign came and went without stirring too much trouble. It turns out, public lynching is acceptable, even of judges. When does this become acceptable? When we decide so. When, in "our" opinion, judges' decisions go against the social, moral, and political norms that "we" stand for. Then it is permissible to publicly question the integrity and fairness of the judges. Then there is no need to think about possibly undermining public trust in the judiciary. Then there is no need to fear a reality where judges decide a human being's fate based on the front page of the newspaper, not the law.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
