Dee J. Hall’s article Treat Ziegler like other judges, lawyer urges (Wisconsin State Journal, September 8, 2007) discusses how Attorney Jon Axelrod is urging that Judge Annette Ziegler’s charge for breaking Wisconsin’s conflict-of-interest law be handled consistently with how similar matters have been handled in the past. The defendant is seeking a public reprimand for her actions. In general, a public reprimand seems too weak of a punishment, but it is consistent with how other matters of similar nature have been resolved, specifically the case involving Judge Daryl Laatsch. The issue surrounding this matter stems from the fact that Ziegler is a junior justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and because of this higher position, should be held to higher standards. Would these higher standards warrant more severe punishments?
2 comments:
I think her punishment should be consistent with the punishment of other judges. Just because she is in the public eye, I don't think her punishment should be any more or less severe then another justice. I don't know too much about the case, but it sounds like what she did was wrong. At the same time, conflict of interest isn't something to make a huge deal about.
I don't think that Judge Ziegler should be above the law, however, she should be punished as other judges were in similar situations. It may not seem like a severe enough punishment, but a harsher punishment would not seem fair. What she did was wrong, but most likely she will not do it again.
Post a Comment