JESSE JACKSON is right about our judiciary.

South Carolina needs more black judges. As his attorney, Janice Mathis, explains, “it takes discernment by a prosecutor, a judge to tell which kids can benefit from rehabilitation,” and we need “judges who understand the community so they know which kid to give a break and which ones to slam the door on.” That means we need a diverse bench, with judges who look a lot like the state, in terms not only of race but also of gender and geography and life experience.

Our mandatory minimum sentencing laws — particularly those that relate to nonviolent drug crimes — are awful public policy. As Mr. Jackson told our editorial board last week, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s daughter didn’t need to be jailed; she needed medical treatment. And Rush Limbaugh doesn’t need to be jailed; he needs medical treatment. But those same principles apply to poor black kids and adults who have drug addictions but no social connections to buy that break.

Our judiciary is under the thumb of our Legislature, and that undermines the essential notion of separation of powers. While I don’t agree with the Rev. Jackson’s contention that the state’s bench is filled with jurists who have been “driven through a right-wing sieve in Columbia,” there’s no question that our judges know who brung ’em.

Need evidence? Look no further than the state Supreme Court’s rulings upholding the Legislature’s unconstitutional habit of bobtailing. Or consider the court’s rulings that found no separation of powers problems with the Budget and Control Board, where two legislators can overrule the governor on purely administrative matters if they can convince either the treasurer or the comptroller general to go along with them.

Mr. Jackson is right about the problems that our judicial and political systems create in the courtroom, and thus throughout our state. But his solution — public election of judges — is completely wrong.

Not only would it fail on most counts to solve the problems, but it would create larger problems.

I suppose it would make some sense if you believe that the judiciary should represent the public, just like legislators and governors. The emotional center of the Rev. Jackson’s argument is that there is “no democratic representation” in our judiciary and that our selection system is “fundamentally undemocratic.”

Well, yes, it is. And thank goodness for that. The judiciary is supposed to be fundamentally undemocratic.

Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary is supposed to be completely insulated from the whims of public opinion. Judges are supposed to make their decisions based on the U.S. Constitution, their state constitution and the laws. They are supposed to consider the evidence presented in the courtroom, and not opinion polls.

The framers of the state and federal constitutions deliberately saw to it that the judiciary would answer to a different constituency than the political branches, so it could serve as a check on abuses by those branches.

Do you really want the judge who is deciding your guilt or innocence or sentence to be worried about how his decision will play at the next election — about how an opponent might twist it to make him look soft on crime — instead of what the law requires, and what the evidence demonstrates? Do you want the judge who hears your lawsuit to be more worried about how his ruling will affect campaign donations from the lawyer on the other side — or from the big company you’re suing — than about the merits of your suit, and the validity of your lawyer’s objections?

That’s not to say our system is perfect. As the Rev. Jackson points out, it has numerous flaws.

So let’s fix them.

Let’s demand that our legislators do the extra work of recruiting, and then electing, more black judges and more female judges and more judges who don’t have a background of service in or work for the Legislature.

Let’s demand that our legislators pass some sane drug laws, to replace the ones that add 1,000 new inmates to our prisons every year and drain our ability to pay for a decent education and decent medical care for people who don’t break the law.

And yes, let’s take a look at the legislative control of the judiciary. We improved things tremendously when we barred sitting legislators from running for judgeships and created a Judicial Merit Selection Commission to vet the candidates (both of which legislators now propose to roll back). But the majority of commissioners are legislators, and the non-legislators are appointed by legislators. Shouldn’t the governor have a say — perhaps a significant say — in who serves on that commission, so that both political branches are involved in the selection of judges?

That final matter is no small concern. Most of the problems with our judicial system are policy problems, not constitutional problems. The question of separation of powers might be different. Legislators need to address that problem head-on, and come up with a solution that is compatible with the theory of our judicial system. Otherwise, they risk having a solution imposed on them by the courts — and it’s not likely to be one that they like or that serves our state well.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.