Cell Phone in Court

Judge Robert Restaino of Niagara Falls City Court sent 46 defendants in domestic violence cases to jail after a cell phone went off in his court room and no one claimed responsibility for it.

There were apparently no less than ten amicus curiae briefs filed in his support at the New York Court of Appeals.

I don’t really know what to make of this case. I do sympathise with the judge knowing how superbly annoying cell phones can be. I remember having an extremely strong desire to ask people to leave class when their cell phones rang. I’ve never felt affronted or any such thing as many people who are in the middle of giving a lecture seem to feel. However, I do think that a cell phone should essentially be private and that it’s basic courtesy to ensure that it doesn’t create a nuisance in a public setting whether it be a classroom, cinema hall or court room.
That being said, my first reaction was that this judge had overreacted although, much to my embarrassment, I lost much of my sympathy for the defendants once I realized that they were there on DV charges.As unfair as this is, I believe that few men (whether or not accused of DV) are not guilty of being abusive – possibly because I’m used to the way things operate in India. A very large fraction of men are abusive, many of them without even realizing it simply because they cannot imagine living their lives any differently. And society being what it is, few women would dream of approaching the police / courts unless they were already in hospital or in very real danger. And even if they do approach the system, they rarely receive relief. Take these two cases for example:1. A husband committed bigamy, left his first wife starving on the streets where she ultimately killed herself. It was held that he wasn’t guilty of being cruel to her and thereby abetting her suicide.2. A wife who did things like refuse to make tea for her husband and who thereby supposedly denigrated his ‘honour’ was held to be guilty of inflicting cruelty on him in a divorce case.And with thoughts like that in the back of my mind, even thought this case occurred in another country, all I could think was: perhaps it is better that they go to jail for something even if that something is entirely ludicrous.
Nonetheless, I would support this judge’s removal. He’s acted in an arbitrary manner and while today his actions have generated a lot of publicity since, let’s face it, they’re so bizarre that they’re funny, tomorrow he could just as easily do something even worse which doesn’t get any publicity such as, well, not instruct a jury properly regarding something like the burden of proof or reasonable doubt if the defendant happened to tick him off, and that is something which has the potential to wreak havoc on an innocent person.
The reports I’ve read of him do say that he has a spotless twelve-year long record. That doesn’t change my opinion though because records are unlikely to pick up on anything which isn’t particularly absurd and also since people change over time. A judge’s job is far too important for him to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Links:
[1] http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2008/02/should-judge-wh.html
[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/20/two-hours-of-inexplicable-madness-or-something-else/