The Israeli judicial system
The judicial system in Israel has come in for a lot of criticism in the past months. Tuesday five judges of the Supreme Court voted by 3 to 2 to affirm the deal that Atty. Gen. Meni Mazuz worked out with former Pres. Katsav. In exchange for his pleading guilty to the lesser charges of sexually abusing three former female staffers, Mazuz dropped the more serious charge of rape that had been brought on the basis of the evidence of one of the complainants.
However, many feel that this was an easy get-out for Katsav, while others are happy that the whole sorry case is nearing its end. There is one more possible appeal left, namely because the vote was 3:2, a larger Supreme Court quorom, say of 7 or 9 judges, could be asked to reconsider the appeal. The Organization for Quality in Government is going to lodge that appeal because they think that Katsav is being treated prefentially compared to any other citizen. Maybe so, but he was the President, and while some think that that means he should suffer more, nevertheless most Israeli citizens don't want the sordid details to be aired in a court case. On the other hand, women's groups feel that Katsav was let off too easy.
There has been an ongoing conflict between Chief Judge of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch and Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, who had often expressed his concern that the Supreme Court had arrogated to itself too much power and control over the political process before he was appointed to his position. In other words, the Supreme Court under its former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, mentor of Beinisch, was overly controlling which laws and their contents that the Knesset could pass and who the Atty. Gen. should prosecute.
Unlike the American system, where the three arms of Government (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary) are in principle co-equal, in the Israeli system, the Supreme Court is above the Knesset, but Friedmann feels, like many, especially on the right, that the left-leaning Supreme Court has been biasing the judicial/legislative landscape. So PM Olmert appointed Friedmann knowing that he would likely try to bring the Supreme Court under control.
One way in which he has done this is to establish a new Local Court in the Central region, separate from the four other local courts, that are under the Supreme Court. Now the question comes what specific jurisdiction should this court have, and who should set its agenda. The Judiciary Committee of the Knesset has been meeting to set into law these issues. Both Friedmann and Beinisch gave testimony before the Committee, and not surprisingly their opinions were diametrically opposed and they got into a nasty spat.
So the case of Katsav, where Mazuz has taken the initiative left the Supreme Court really with no other option but to endorse his decision. Whatever the final outcome, we are likely to see further clashes between Friedmann and Beinisch, who are trying to establish the boundaries between the Supreme Court and the Executive and the Legislature. One notable area that needs reform is that the Supreme Court justices appoint themselves, in other words they are a self-sustaining club. In a democracy, the Knesset should have a say in how Justices are appointed.
______________________________________________________
NB. The author does not claim to be an expert on the Israeli judicial system
However, many feel that this was an easy get-out for Katsav, while others are happy that the whole sorry case is nearing its end. There is one more possible appeal left, namely because the vote was 3:2, a larger Supreme Court quorom, say of 7 or 9 judges, could be asked to reconsider the appeal. The Organization for Quality in Government is going to lodge that appeal because they think that Katsav is being treated prefentially compared to any other citizen. Maybe so, but he was the President, and while some think that that means he should suffer more, nevertheless most Israeli citizens don't want the sordid details to be aired in a court case. On the other hand, women's groups feel that Katsav was let off too easy.
There has been an ongoing conflict between Chief Judge of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch and Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, who had often expressed his concern that the Supreme Court had arrogated to itself too much power and control over the political process before he was appointed to his position. In other words, the Supreme Court under its former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, mentor of Beinisch, was overly controlling which laws and their contents that the Knesset could pass and who the Atty. Gen. should prosecute.
Unlike the American system, where the three arms of Government (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary) are in principle co-equal, in the Israeli system, the Supreme Court is above the Knesset, but Friedmann feels, like many, especially on the right, that the left-leaning Supreme Court has been biasing the judicial/legislative landscape. So PM Olmert appointed Friedmann knowing that he would likely try to bring the Supreme Court under control.
One way in which he has done this is to establish a new Local Court in the Central region, separate from the four other local courts, that are under the Supreme Court. Now the question comes what specific jurisdiction should this court have, and who should set its agenda. The Judiciary Committee of the Knesset has been meeting to set into law these issues. Both Friedmann and Beinisch gave testimony before the Committee, and not surprisingly their opinions were diametrically opposed and they got into a nasty spat.
So the case of Katsav, where Mazuz has taken the initiative left the Supreme Court really with no other option but to endorse his decision. Whatever the final outcome, we are likely to see further clashes between Friedmann and Beinisch, who are trying to establish the boundaries between the Supreme Court and the Executive and the Legislature. One notable area that needs reform is that the Supreme Court justices appoint themselves, in other words they are a self-sustaining club. In a democracy, the Knesset should have a say in how Justices are appointed.
______________________________________________________
NB. The author does not claim to be an expert on the Israeli judicial system
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home