Editorial:

Seamus McCaffery made a name for himself as the judge who ran a courtroom inside Veterans Stadium to deal with unruly fans at Eagles games.

The so-called Eagles court was a colorful yet sad commentary on the type of behavior typically displayed inside the stadium whenever the Birds were in town. But the notoriety helped the affable McCaffery get elected to the state Supreme Court last year.

Now, McCaffery is in the big leagues. The legal stakes are higher and more restraint is required. He must follow the rule that judges be impartial. The rule is what makes ours a nation of laws, not men.

McCaffery, a Belfast, Northern Ireland-born former Marine who spent 20 years as a Philadelphia cop, obviously has strong law-and-order beliefs. His "Hang 'Em High" philosophy was on full display during a hearing last week involving a death-row case.

The case involves Thavirak Sam, who was sentenced to death in 1991 after being convicted of murdering his mother-in-law, brother-in-law and 2-year-old niece.

The crimes were heinous, that much is certain. But Sam's mental state is in doubt. He was earlier found to be mentally incompetent.

Sam's delusional thoughts include believing that he is owed trillions of dollars in reparations and that the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered him freed, thanks to a Cambodian prince who intervened on his behalf.

The hearing last week focused on whether Sam could be forcibly medicated so that the appeal of his death sentence can proceed. It was during that hearing that McCaffery voiced frustration over how the case has dragged on.

"How about finality for these family members?" he asked. As a cop, McCaffery said, he often "picked up the bodies."

McCaffery's comments were out of place, given the narrow legal question at issue. In fact, Justice McCaffery came across as eager to cut to Sam's execution.

Some legal scholars questioned McCaffery's ability to be impartial in examining the legal arguments surrounding Sam's appeal.

More troubling is where this case is possibly headed. If the court agrees to allow Sam to be forcibly medicated with antipsychotics, the end result could be to pump enough drugs into him so that he appears to be competent enough for execution.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the execution of the insane was barred by the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. But it didn't say what it meant by

insane

.

Nor has the highest court said whether prisoners may be medicated in order to make them competent to be executed. But the court has held that prisoners may be forced to take antipsychotic drugs in some situations to ensure they are competent to stand trial.

This case illustrates not only the flaws in how the death penalty is applied, but also how electing judges isn't the best way to gauge their temperament for the job.