>> If you're only getting your information about the Supreme
Court, candidates through attack ads, you would think both judges
are happy to give light sentences to pedophiles and
domestic abusers. Here and now, senior political reporter Zach
Schultz tells us why so many ads focus on sentencing decisions
and how that can impact how all judges in Wisconsin rule from
the bench. >> Susan Crawford, the radical
liberal judge who led the predator out in just four years.
[MUSIC] gave big plea deals to rapists,
domestic abusers, and even a man caught with child pornography.
>> Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County
Judge Brad Schimel have each been a circuit court judge since
2018. They've presided over thousands of cases and handed
out sentences for every type of offense, allowing their
opponents to cherry pick their record and find cases that make
them look soft on crime. >> Her criminal coddling record
is an injustice to us all. >> Schimel let domestic abusers
walk with no jail time. >> They've also been running for
a spot on the Wisconsin Supreme actively considering it for much
longer than that. But Crawford and Schimel deny that their
candidacy ever had an impact on the severity of sentence they
imposed. >> Well, from the time I decided
to run for Supreme Court, I've been in the Civil Division, so I
haven't handled any criminal cases. But no, you can't do
this. You can't put your. Your own personal political views or
interests in in place of doing justice.
>> Well, you know, I don't make decisions as a judge based on
what I think some future attack ad might look at. I make
decisions, particularly in that example of criminal sentencing,
based on what I believe is necessary to protect the safety
of the community, what's necessary to protect the crime
victims in a case. >> There is a lot of evidence
that when judges are approaching an election, they sentence
people more harshly than they do in other points in their term.
>> Zoe Engberg is an assistant clinical professor at the UW Law
School. evidence that shows that
negative campaign ads in particular, have a large impact
on how judges make decisions in cases.
Pennsylvania that examined a decade's worth of sentences from
every judge in the state to show the fear of attack ads and
reelection didn't just impact high profile judges who were
running for higher office. It affected every judge.
>> They were able to really see how these trends developed and
point to. I think it was about 2000 years of incarceration over
the space of a decade that was directly attributable to
reelection, and not just typical sentencing.
>> What's most concerning is typically the cases in the
attack. Ads aren't even egregious decisions by the
judges. >> A lot of attack ads of this
nature about individual cases, about individual decisions made
for judge by judges, often are attacking judges for fairly
typical decisions that almost any judge would have actually
made, given a similar case and similar circumstances.
>> Brad Schimel makes the same point, saying one of the
domestic abuse cases he's being attacked over involved a veteran
with PTSD, where the victim pleaded with Schimel to give the
man probation to get help. >> Any judge in their right mind
would have done the same thing I did that day and give him a
chance on probation to show that he is truly redeemed. And he did
it. He hasn't been in any trouble ever since, and he never
was in trouble before. >> But that didn't stop Schimel
from attacking Crawford over her sentencing decisions.
>> The law instructs judges in those kinds of cases to look at
all the relevant factors. What the defendant's rehabilitative
needs might be, that person's criminal prior criminal record.
And I make a decision that I believe is in the interest of
justice and will protect community safety and protect the
crime victim. >> Every one of those campaign
ads lack context. And while they'll likely help one of these
candidates win a seat on the Supreme Court, Engberg says the
impact of the ads will be felt in every courtroom in the state.
>> The impact of this is that I think it it motivates judges to
always on the side of being more punitive and make decisions,
kind of because in the back of their mind, they're thinking,
what will this case look like in an election ad in my next
reelection? >> Reporting from Madison, I'm