Judged accordingly

One certain consequence of rendering judgment, as the apostles noted, is being judged. State Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery, being linked to a body of rather extracanonical correspondence, should be no exception.

Pornographic e-mails sent from McCaffery's personal account to government e-mail addresses don't just run afoul of common decency and sense. They also appear to be at odds with state standards requiring judges to, among other things, uphold the judiciary's impartiality, propriety, and dignity - concepts not readily reconciled with the sophomoric, demeaning messages at hand.

So it's appropriate that the state Judicial Conduct Board is investigating a complaint about the e-mails. It would also be fitting for McCaffery to offer an explanation to the people who elected him. So far, all we have from his camp are jabs at the media, its sources, and others who might venture to criticize the justice.

Some of the e-mails were uncovered by state Attorney General Kathleen Kane during a reinvestigation of the office's prosecution of Penn State predator Jerry Sandusky. Unfortunately, Kane has named only eight of the dozens of officials involved, all of them prominent employees of her rival and predecessor as attorney general, Gov. Corbett.

McCaffery wasn't one of the eight, but The Inquirer has reported that some of the messages were forwarded in 2008 and 2009 from his Comcast account to, among others, an Attorney General's Office address. The Inquirer reported Saturday that two more e-mails, bearing images of naked women and an off-color joke, were sent in January from McCaffery's account to the government account of his younger brother, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel McCaffery. A reply suggests the younger McCaffery at least had the sense to urge the sender to direct such mail to his personal account.

The version of the state Code of Judicial Conduct in effect at the time includes several provisions that discourage this sort of behavior. "Judges should avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in all their activities," the code says. They should abide by "high standards of conduct." And they should ensure that even their extrajudicial activities, including their social and recreational activities, "do not detract from the dignity of their office."

An updated judicial code approved by the state Supreme Court, which took effect in July and would not apply directly to the e-mails in question - but which does reflect current and proper standards - notes: "Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge's integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their ... sex, gender," and other characteristics.

E-mail and the Internet have helped make pornography more commonplace. For good reason, however, that has not made it acceptable in workplaces, much less those of government agencies entrusted with the administration of justice.

In short, we expect more of our judges. That's why the state has a judicial code and a system for enforcing it. And that's why any judge whose communications clearly violate its spirit must be judged accordingly.