After 14 months, it is finally official in the Ninth Circuit that federal judges cannot seize children quietly sitting in the courtroom and forcibly handcuff them to the jury box [Above the Law].
Back in February 2023, Judge Roger Benitez presided over a revocation hearing in San Diego. When the man on trial mentioned his daughter, the judge pulled the young girl from the gallery. He had a marshall handcuff her to the jury box, leaving her there to cry [Above the Law].
Despite the clear mental distress, the punishment for Judge Benitez has been null. This is one of several incidences that raises doubts on the credibility of the American justice system.
The Ninth Circuit announced its investigation into this Benitez incident in response to the media coverage of the event [Above the Law]. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit’s response has been lukewarm at best. They issued a public reprimand and have barred Judge Benitez from hearing criminal cases for the next three years.
The punishment seems more of a ceremonial gesture than a deterrent as Benitez had already stopped hearing criminal cases. The decision to not hear criminal cases was a personal decision, now officially approved as his punishment [Reuters].
The notable delay in the court’s decision also raises questions about the speed and efficacy of the judiciary’s reaction to such serious misconduct.
Federal courts have been known to refrain from disciplinary action, even in the face of solid evidentiary records and serious allegations. Examples of such leniency include the Alex Kozinski case that lingered for years without action [Above the Law] and investigations into egregious harassment evaporating when the judges voluntarily left their position [Above the Law].
The United States Supreme Court often avoids the toothless rules imposed upon other federal judges, with many instances of open violation of new ethical codes within weeks of their announcement [Above the Law].
The situation raises profound questions on the need for major systemic changes to ensure accountability within the judiciary.