Associate Judge Joseph Polito is under fire this week after a FOIA request from the media revealed that someone using his computer login and password tried to access 243 hardcore sites as hugeheavybreasts.com, and portofdebauchery.com. Since this was a county computer, the matter has now been referred by Chief Judge Gerald R. Kinney for investigation with the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board.
The question is, if true, what would be the appropriate punishment. The Sun Times reports that “many of the websites have names that can’t be printed in a family newspaper.”
Public employees visiting porn sites is not exactly uncommon. In both state and federal agencies, blocks have been put into place to bar such access. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alone found widespread downloading and access to such sites.
What is intriguing is that the Sun-Times says that the court never proceeded to investigate until it filed the Freedom of Information Act request. The request covered a six-month period beginning in late 2010. The investigation however showed that someone only tried to view porn “on five days in January and April last year.” Polito handles divorce cases.
With the disclosure, former parties are coming forward to allege that the judge was influenced by sexual attraction in the courtroom.
Andrew Coleman went public to say that Polito gave the opposing party a huge amount of deference — describing her as a “young woman in a tight leotard” and Polito as sitting enraptured by her appearance.
The court has fired employees for using county computers for porn. Yet, this takes us back to the question of the appropriate punishment for a judge or county employee. Even if the judge is found to be responsible for the attempted access, the alleged wrongdoing involved only five days in two months. There is no question that there is a violation here, but is it enough to demand termination?
Source: Sun Times as first seen on ABA Journal
Does it strike anyone else that we are living through a kind of hysteria over the use, or perhaps mis-use, of computers in the work place.
Some time after the second world war telephones became common on just about every business desk and at every work station. There were concerns when use of the phone for none business purposes led to charges – usually long distance charges. But assuming that an employees work is satisfactory, I think is is fair to say that there was little focus of use of the phone.
With the advent of computers and the technical ability to monitor essentially every key stoke made by an employee, employers act as though personal use of the computer is a crime.
I suppose, in a technical sense, that may be true. But does it make any sense. My guess is that if monitoring computer usage required as much effort as monitoring phone usage did in the middle of the last century, then employers would not make the effort. I am also going to guess that productivity in business and government would not change very much.
Essentially what I am suggesting is that we ought to evaluate employees and their job performance and not worry so much about tangents like computer use. Those who disagree might point out that personal use of the computer is likely to increase cost for network equipment and service costs to ISP and other providers.
Still it seems to me that job performance is the key issue and if that is satisfactory everything else, including personal computer use, is likely to fall into place.
“Still it seems to me that job performance is the key issue and if that is satisfactory everything else, including personal computer use, is likely to fall into place.”
bfm,
I couldn’t agree with you more. To me the mark of a bad manager/supervisor is someone who concentrates on minutia like this, rather than focus on the quality of the work produced. I suspect they focus on stuff like this because they are ill equipped to evaluate effective performance and are themselves incompetent.
I read the article in the Sun Journal and saw the photo of the old fart. Some people drink coffee in the morning to wake up and some read the paper. This guy views some porn on his computer, or his staff does. No harm done.
id707,
I meant within the judicial system, but I suppose that statement could translate to the employment and compensation arenas as well. Women generally get rooked by employers. Overall our societal systems bias against women.
GeneH.
Thanks for the info.
Am not in a position to judge there at all.
Here, most seem satisfied with women in custody. Just as the men are happy with being weekend fathers. Perhaps a result of the Swedish conflict avoidance tradition.
Only some foreigners from Africa kidnap their children and flee..
Your last sentence was intriguing. I mean within the judicial system, not the employment and compensation one. Was that so, if you wish?
id707,
“Unless, and it is a big one; he is the type who favors men’s rights to child custody as revenge on mothers. That is said to be part of the system too.”
Actually if you talk to any divorce or family law attorneys, you will likely find the contrary opinion; that most judges tend to favor women in custodial situations. I’ve found it to be a common complaint among lawyers and their clients alike. It’s one of the few areas where gender discrimination/bias in the system tends to favor women over men.
Nothing other than public trust for our justice system and concern for the judges best otivates my suggesting that he get a personality adjustment and an 5 year review of his divorce decisions.
In the meanwhile, he should have mandated pauses for servicing of personal needs, and be equipped with a bliindman’s glasses and a sound and smell distortion system during sessions, so as to not disturb his juridicial capacity.
Unless, and it is a big one; he is the type who favors men’s rights to child custody as revenge on mothers. That is said to be part of the system too.
In such case, revealed by the review, he should be removed from service with pornography as visible cause.
This seems appropriate……
I think that pornography, with certain exceptions (pedophilia) is free speech. If that is the case than viewing it should not be an offense except in the minds of the prudish.
If a w-2 county employee would be fired for this violation elected officials should be also. Why should they be exempt or above the law. Sadly, it is often the case where elected officials can get away with much due to their position and the system / old boy’s network protecting them. Even having political connections gets you covered. Michelle Obama’s campaigning for a local politician at a polling station would have been considered Electioneering in most jurisdictions and would have subjected her to a misdemeanor citation. But, being who she was, the white house just dismissed this as helping her husband’s party. Anyone else would have been cited.
I will tell you from personal experience this happens more than what is acceptable. When you do speak out it is very possible you will be attacked in one form or another especially if the powers to be believe you are the only one speaking.
This is what really gets me going. Where is the justice when the most downtrodden and unfortunate in our society are cast aside or punished for doing things and our elected officials hide behind the system. It is abhorrent. But it is an entitlement too many believe they are coronated with. And it is only investigated if the publicity is afoot.
Here’s an example of this attitude. One night our department received a loud party complaint in a rural area. As I approached the house I could hear that it was exceptionally loud, being at recognizable hearing level of noise at almost a mile away. I came to the house and it was one of the county commisioners’ residences, a post HS football game party. I told the commissioner the noise was disturbing the neighbors half a mile away and let them know that it needed to be turned down because we didn’t want to have to come back here. Like everyone else, I gave loud partys one chance to quiet it down and the second visit got a citation. Then the commissioner pulls out a pen and paper and wants to know my name and said they would be talking to the sheriff. I gave it to the person, but also said there would be a citation if I had to come back.
The arrogance of some people. Just because a person conned enough people to vote for them in some backwater doesn’t mean they are a sovereign.
The porn industry has estimated revenues of $97 billion dollars. That makes it bigger than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. Somebody’s watching and likely many judges. Investigate it and reprimand him and be done with it.
Sure judge….. Just didn’t think you’d get caught……
“Public employees visiting porn sites is not exactly uncommon. In both state and federal agencies, blocks have been put into place to bar such access. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alone found widespread downloading and access to such sites.”
One has to wonder if The Supreme Five are into that, seeing as how they ruled that body cavity searches are ok even for parking or traffic ticket scenarios.
“There is no question that there is a violation here, but is it enough to demand termination?”
Something to that effect, especially when combined with the testimony of Coleman who seems to suggest that it impacts upon the judge’s ability to be neutral. That would violate due process, and hence, impair the business of the court.
Judges are elected in Illinois. Let the people be the judge.