SJC’s baffling decision flips scales of justice

So, this is how the Supreme Judicial Court “roots out” bias in the courtroom?

The state’s highest court reportedly issued a memo last summer urging judges and lawyers to recommit to the principles portrayed by that impartial blindfold on Lady Justice.

Given that directive, how would you expect a judge to be judged if she were referred to as a “dumb white b---,” in addition to some other invectives uttered by a 16year-old defendant who disagreed with the disposition of her case?

That teen should surely be held responsible — and legally liable — for such inexcusable behavior, right? Wrong.

As related by the Boston Herald, the SJC expunged a criminal-contempt finding, somehow inexplicably concluding that the judge — not the foul-mouthed teen — went too far in this case.

In its decision, the high court concluded the judge “had a mandate to treat the juvenile as a child requiring ‘aid, encouragement and guidance’ ” and also should have let a colleague take over the proceeding after being repeatedly insulted.

By encouragement and guidance, did the justices expect the judge to suggest other insults the teen could verbally hurl at her?

We’d also remind the court that a 16-year-old isn’t a child. In fact, someone that age in this state can legally engage in sexual activity.

Yes, there were some mitigating factors that a judge — one hard of hearing we’d surmise — could have taken into account.

This 16-year-old, a runaway from her state-run program in 2017, apparently lost her cool because this Plymouth County jurist set a $1 bail instead of letting her return from whence she came.

Any bail would trigger a Department of Children and Families detention order.

“Like, I don’t understand why I can’t get sent back to my program. This is my first case … my first case, girl,” the teen protested, according to the SJC decision. “You don’t even know me like that.

“Give me the (expletive) papers. (Expletive) you … And DCF ain’t paying my bill, you dumb, white b----. … You dumb b----,” the teen added for good measure.

Later this remorseful juvenile — no doubt after being advised by her attorney — apologized for her vile language after a recess, but the judge nonetheless found her in criminal contempt and continued the matter for sentencing — a perfectly reasonable decision to us under the circumstances.

Attorney Joe Schneiderman, who defended the teen in her appeal, told the Herald he thought the SJC “struck a thoughtful balance” with the way it adjudicated this courtroom outburst.

We’re hard pressed to find any semblance of equilibrium in this verdict.

And we’re not alone. Attorney Wendy Murphy, a well-known victims’ rights advocate, indicated to the Herald whom she thought the victim was in this instance, by reminding the SJC it must also weigh the necessity for order in the court.

“I know it was a 16-yearold, and kids don’t exactly have good impulse control, but anyone in a court of law who insults a judge in a racist manner should face immediate and serious consequences,” she said.

The juvenile, now over 18 and out of the state system, argued she didn’t want the criminal contempt to remain on her record — even sealed.

And now thanks to the

SJC — which gave her a virtual get-of-jail-free-card for her inexcusable behavior — she gets a free pass.

Efforts to enhance racial equity in the state’s judicial system can’t be accomplished at the expense of those judges who preside over these proceedings.

The high court whiffed on this one, an opinion we believe would be seconded by many in the state’s legal community.