What's the point?

By Staff
Jan. 5, 2003
The state Supreme Court has ordered a private reprimand for an unidentified justice court judge who helped circulate a petition seeking the firing of a sheriff's deputy who had stopped the judge for speeding and a field sobriety test.
The judge denied he circulated or signed the petition or had retaliated against the deputy because of the traffic stop; however, a judicial watchdog agency said the judge admitted he participated in the writing of the petition and other testimony showed he asked others to sign it. While the petition was being circulated, the judge continued to hear cases that brought the deputy into his court.
The Supreme Court said a public reprimand sought last August by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance was not justified. We say private reprimands of public officials are a waste of time and effort. Either a public official is deemed "guilty" or he's not and, either way, the official should be identified. Otherwise, what's the point?