Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2007, which was published at the end of the week, indicates the slippery slope down which Israel is sliding in this realm. This year we were ranked in 34th place, compared with the 28th slot last year, out of 163 countries. (No. 1 on the list is the country with the lowest level of corruption).
Even if these statistics no longer have the ability to surprise us, the new report has placed at our doorstep a land mine that we have to try to dismantle: About one-quarter of the Israelis polled thought that it is necessary to bribe someone in the judicial system, including judges, to receive a fair trial. Our judicial and legal system received a grade of 2.8, in a ranking in which a 5 attests to an extreme level of corruption.
When senior politicians attack incumbent and former judges; when the prime minister appoints a justice minister whose agenda involves a battle against the Supreme Court; when the same minister suggests limiting the powers of that court, and reducing those of its members in the selection of judges - it is hard to be surprised at the views of the public.
 |
Advertisement |
|
However, even the judicial system must convince the public that it has done everything possible to increase its transparency, so that it will be clear that the selection of judges, for example, is carried out in accordance with the importance of the position under question, rather than being connected to the importance of the person who is interested in one appointment or another. When it comes to the election of Supreme Court justices, a particularly supreme effort is required to guarantee that those selected will be the most worthy candidates in terms of their professional qualifications.
The appointment of the Supreme Court justices is scheduled to take place in about a month. At that time five justices (at most) will be elected, from a list of 12 candidates. Although this list includes some very worthy candidates for the highest court in the land, there are, in addition, too many who are closely connected to senior members of the system (as described in the article by Yuval Yoaz in Haaretz on May 25). This list does not attest to a supreme effort being made to find the best judges in the judicial establishment, based on a careful perusal of the rulings they have handed down and their "record" in dealing with unreasonably heavy workloads. Instead, it seems that the selection is focused on the identity of the candidates and on "coalition" agreements of various kinds among members of the Judicial Selection Committee - while ignoring the needs of the Supreme Court.
The mixture of the 15 justices must be based on their individual judicial expertise in various fields, taking into account what exists and what is lacking. In the present composition there is a clear lack of experience in the field of taxation, which is particularly complex, and in the field of family law. The selection of a professor who is an expert in various areas of civil law - in advance of the anticipated adoption in the Knesset of a new and complex civil code - seems like a good idea. The complete disregard for the academic world, which the justice minister once considered an important reservoir of manpower, is quite surprising.
Among the kind of legal experts whose absence is particularly blatant on the Supreme Court, only those with experience in the civil arena are being proposed. Missing from the list are criminal defense attorneys, such as Yehuda Weinstein, Kenneth Mann, Avigdor Feldman or Dan Sheinman. This is evident at a time when the present Supreme Court includes a former attorney general, a retired state prosecutor, and other former members of the State Prosecutor's Office. As we recall, justice must be done, and justice must be seen to have been done.
The selection of justices to the Supreme Court, which determines our way of life on many issues, must take into account a wide array of considerations, including professional skills, granting expression to different viewpoints on basic issues of a legal nature, and must be a reflection of the face of law and society. It is not imperative to appoint the five missing justices now, all at the same time. It would be a good idea to hold another discussion before making a decision with such implications vis-a-vis the degree of trust in our judicial system.
|
