Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Ben Forer
Current job title: Deputy District Attorney/Adjunct Professor
Age: 49
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: benforer4judge.com
What do you consider to be your judicial philosophy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My judicial philosophy is rooted in applying the law faithfully while understanding how technology reshapes crime, privacy and evidence. As a career cybercrime prosecutor and educator, I have spent decades translating complex digital issues into clear, fair legal decisions.
On the bench, I will bring that same approach: careful, methodical analysis of digital evidence, respect for constitutional protections in an era of rapidly expanding surveillance tools and clear rulings that law enforcement, victims and defendants can all understand.
Teaching law and technology at USC has reinforced my belief that judges must be both impartial and informed. I will not legislate from the bench, but I will ensure that our courts keep pace with modern crimes, from identity theft to cyber-fraud, by applying existing statutes and precedent thoughtfully to new technological realities.
How do you think your personal experience — legal or otherwise — would inform your decisions as a judge? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, in a working-class neighborhood where money was tight, and nothing was handed to you. Paying my own way through school and into this profession taught me resilience, perspective and respect for people who are doing their best under difficult circumstances.
For more than 20 years as a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County, I have handled everything from street crime to complex cyber cases involving digital evidence, online fraud and identity theft. In the classroom at USC, I teach students how technology, privacy and constitutional rights intersect, and my writing on cyber law and digital searches pushes courts and practitioners to think carefully about how old rules apply to new tools.
Those experiences (growing up without advantages, trying serious cases, teaching and writing) would ground my work as a judge in real life, clear thinking and respect for everyone who comes before the court.
How would you approach situations where you have judicial discretion within the law? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
When the law gives a judge discretion, I believe that discretion must be exercised openly, consistently and with humility. I would start with the statute and binding precedent, then weigh the specific facts of the case, the purposes of the law and the concrete impact on public safety, victims and defendants.
In criminal matters, that means considering factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s history and prospects for rehabilitation, any risk to the community and the expressed needs and rights of victims. I would explain my reasoning on the record in clear, accessible language so that everyone in the courtroom understands why a particular decision was made.
My background in trying complex and everyday cases, and working closely with both law enforcement and the defense bar, has taught me that similar cases should be treated similarly, and that departures, whether more lenient or more severe, must be justified by the facts, not by emotion, politics or personal preference.
How would you weigh your own personal beliefs against the law, should they conflict? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
If my personal beliefs ever conflicted with the law, I would follow the law. A judge’s legitimacy comes from applying the Constitution and statutes faithfully, not from advancing personal ideology. For over 20 years as a prosecutor, I have done exactly that in real cases: following the facts and the law even when the result was not the easiest or most popular.
My record has earned support from across the aisle and from both prosecutors and the defense bar, who know me as someone who listens, treats everyone with respect and applies the rules consistently. On the bench, I would continue to identify my own potential biases, set them aside and ground every decision in the record, the applicable law, and binding precedent, so that litigants can trust that cases are decided by neutral principles, not by who happens to be the judge.
As an existing member of the legal community, how would you handle potential claims of misconduct against local attorneys, law firms or law enforcement organizations? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
I would handle potential misconduct claims the same way I do as a teacher, parent, community leader and deputy district attorney: by gathering facts carefully, listening to all sides and then applying clear rules consistently. As a judge, I would make a full record, ensure notice and an opportunity to be heard, and decide based on evidence and law, not on friendship, politics or pressure from any side.
If misconduct occurred in my courtroom, I would stop it immediately, protect litigants and jurors and, when appropriate, issue admonitions, sanctions or referrals to the State Bar or oversight bodies. Allegations involving law firms or law enforcement agencies would be evaluated for credibility and relevance, with recusals or outside referrals where necessary to maintain public confidence. The same expectations of honesty, respect and accountability would apply to everyone, regardless of role or rank.
What is your philosophy on judicial activism and a judge’s potential role in shaping or setting public policy? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
My core philosophy is one of judicial restraint: trial judges should apply the Constitution, statutes and binding precedent, not pursue their own policy agendas. In most cases, that means leaving questions of public policy to the legislature and elected officials, who are directly accountable to voters.
At the same time, our history shows moments, especially in the Civil Rights era, where courts properly enforced constitutional guarantees when the political branches failed to protect fundamental rights. Those decisions were grounded in the text and principles of the Constitution, not in free‑floating policy preferences.
As a trial judge, I would see my role as faithfully applying those higher‑court rulings and constitutional protections, not trying to recreate a Civil Rights‑era role for myself in ordinary policy disputes. That balance — respect for democratic lawmaking, combined with firm enforcement of constitutional limits and individual rights — is how I believe judges best serve the public and maintain trust in the courts.