One of the most troubling aspects of the kids-for-cash scandal that has shattered confidence in the Luzerne County court system is the failure of so many in positions of power to question the actions of two county president judges who allegedly pocketed millions for jailing juveniles in a for-profit detention center.

The kids-for-cash scheme thrived in a closed courtroom where children were denied counsel and jailed on minor offenses and court staffers were pressured to keep up the flow of juvenile detainees and illicit cash, prosecutors say.

Lawyers who appeared in juvenile court unquestioningly went along as Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. rode roughshod over the rights of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of juveniles.

The county’s other judges, except for Judge Chester B. Muroski, showed little interest in intervening despite public controversy over the for-profit center and the “zero tolerance” policies that kept it full, apparently finding it hard to believe two of their colleagues could be involved in such corruption.

Judges, lawyers, police officers and probation officials alike were involved in a massive exercise of groupthink, fueled by a lack of outside perspective, transparency and diversity.

In choosing two new judges on Nov. 3, voters ought to keep in mind the homogeneity of the exclusively male and overwhelming Democratic county bench and how that homogeneity might have contributed to the scandal.

We believe Tina Polachek Gartley, the only woman in the race, and Richard Hughes, the only Republican, will be able to bring essential new viewpoints to the court. We endorse them not because of gender and party, but because their legal experience and life experience give them the best chance of reforming the badly tarnished court.

Polachek Gartley, a mother of three, has been a tireless advocate for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence as a prosecutor, private attorney and instructor. The Citizens’ Voice editorial board was impressed by her passion, forthrightness and common sense.

Hughes, a father of three who is an assistant district attorney and has extensive experience in civil law, exhibits a fair-mindedness and even temperament that would be an asset to the court.

The third candidate in the race, Magisterial District Judge William H. Amesbury, has an impressive background as a social worker and youth volunteer in addition to his legal experience. However, his ties to the political power structure and his acceptance of a campaign donation from the wife of a businessman charged in the kids-for-cash scandal show he is still tied to the old way of doing things.

Amesbury argues the $500 campaign check was signed by Kim Mericle, not her husband, Robert, even though the check was drawn on a joint account. He says he has been close to Kim Mericle’s family and she should not be treated as an “appendage” of her husband.

But anyone who would sit on the county bench must be beyond reproach and under the judicial canons avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Amesbury’s refusal to return the $500 exhibits the same reluctance to offend the powers that be that contributed so much to the kids-for-cash scandal.

Amesbury would be a good fit for the court of the past, not the new, more transparent, more accountable court we believe Polachek Gartley and Hughes can help create.