The New York State arms adopted on March 16, 1778, shows Justice wearing a gold-colored dress with a blue belt fringed in red. Her unbound hair is decorated with pearls, and there is a narrow band of cloth over her eyes. In her right hand she holds a gold-handled sword, and in her left, the scales. The message is obvious. Justice is supposed to be blind, with the weight of the evidence tipping the scales. And Justice’s hand being placed on the sword references arriving at a just punishment.

We have to wonder if it’s time for a new depiction of Lady Justice on the state’s arms, because in our view the state has been tipping the scales of justice too far in one direction in recent years. Now, the state court system is going to require judges to visit jails and prisons at least once a year starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Rowan Wilson, the state’s chief judge, said the new rule will keep judges better connected to what happens after sentencing in a criminal case, including the impact of jail or prison time on individuals, families and communities while giving judges a firsthand look at prison and jail conditions.

“The revised rule embodies the principle that judges are not distant arbiters but engaged stewards of justice, whose thoughtful determinations are grounded in reality. By doing so, it promotes confidence in the judiciary, not merely in those who are incarcerated or their families, but also in the public at large. Justice may be depicted as blind but should not blind itself to reality,” said Masters, who was appointed chief judge by Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The rule wasn’t changed on a whim. There was a public process that began in September 2025 and ended with approval by the Administrative Board of the Courts and the state Court of Appeals. It’s not as if the new rule was sprung on anyone at the last minute or without public input. On its face, we can’t disagree with the idea that judges can benefit from seeing what happens after sentencing. There is a human cost to the decisions judges make from the bench, and even the most reasoned jurist can use a reminder of those costs from time to time.

But the Part 17 regulation is, in our opinion, unbalanced. If it is fair for judges to be reminded of the impact their decisions have on the incarcerated and their families, then judges should also be reminded from time to time of the impact their decisions have on the families of crime victims.

We aren’t sure of the purpose of sending judges into jails on a regular basis. Judges already know they aren’t sending people convicted of crimes to a vacation hot spot during sentencing. They also know about the tinderbox that is the state Department of Corrections and the conditions that ongoing issues recruiting corrections officers are creating. If Wilson’s aim is to send judges into prisons with an eye toward lighter sentences, then he certainly is putting his weight on the scales of justice – and not in a way that benefits New Yorkers.