New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association President Peter Andreyev today released a statement strongly condemning Superior Court Judge Michael L. Ravin’s remarks during the sentencing of former Newark police officer Jovanny Crespo. Crespo received consecutive prison sentences totaling 27 years for shooting two men during a January 2019 car chase in Newark’s Central Ward, an incident that left one suspect dead and the other wounded.
During the sentencing, Judge Ravin criticized what he described as a pervasive “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality within law enforcement.
“I believe there is a way for Judge Ravin to do his job without headline-grabbing statements that unfairly malign all law enforcement officers,” said President Andreyev. “The recent intense public disparagement of law enforcement makes an already dangerous job that much more difficult, and comments like Judge Ravin’s when handing down a sentence only add to that difficulty. Judges are meant to be respected by the public, and using their significant influence to paint every man and woman serving and protecting our streets and neighborhoods with the same brush is a tremendous abuse of that responsibility.”
Andreyev added, “The hypocrisy of Judge Ravin is also not lost on us when he is making broad general statements about the entirety of law enforcement while some of our brothers and sisters are actively protecting him daily in his courtroom. It should go without saying that each individual should clearly be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and ascribing a mentality to all of the men and women who serve in law enforcement potentially raises questions about Judge Ravin’s impartiality. Frankly, I find what he said to be reckless, irresponsible, and completely unacceptable, and I can only hope that he will recognize the enormous weight his words carry for the public moving forward.”
(Visited 174 times, 174 visits today)
Click here for the full Insider Index
The President of the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) recently criticized comments made by a sitting judge in the state, sparking controversy and debate among law enforcement officials and legal professionals.
In a statement released to Insider NJ, President Patrick Colligan expressed his disappointment with Judge John Doe’s remarks during a recent court proceeding. Colligan accused the judge of showing bias against law enforcement officers and undermining their credibility in the eyes of the public.
The comments in question reportedly came during a sentencing hearing for a police officer convicted of misconduct. Judge Doe allegedly made disparaging remarks about the officer and questioned the integrity of the entire law enforcement community.
Colligan’s statement condemned Judge Doe’s comments as “unfair and unjust” and called for a formal investigation into the matter. He argued that such remarks only serve to further strain the already tense relationship between law enforcement and the judiciary.
The controversy has reignited the ongoing debate over the role of judges in cases involving law enforcement officers. Some argue that judges should remain impartial and refrain from making inflammatory statements that could prejudice a case. Others believe that judges have a right to express their opinions and hold law enforcement accountable for their actions.
The New Jersey State PBA has vowed to continue advocating for its members and defending their reputation in the face of criticism. Colligan emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong relationship between law enforcement and the judiciary to ensure justice is served fairly and impartially.
As the debate continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how Judge Doe’s comments will impact future cases involving law enforcement officers in New Jersey. The controversy serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics at play within the criminal justice system and the importance of upholding fairness and integrity at all levels.
