The fact that the Florida judge wasn't permanently removed from the bench and barred from ever presiding as a judge again is pretty astounding, but it seems like there are seriously unfit judges in every state, [such as the Montana judge who essentially blamed a teenage rape victim.](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/montana-judge-who-partly-blamed-teen-rape-victim-censured-n162621)
Apparently this is what happened in the aftermath in Florida:
>Judge Murphy, who had presided over criminal cases, came back to work last week after taking a four-week paid leave of absence, undergoing anger management counseling, and apologizing for his behavior. While allowed to keep his job at least for now, he was reassigned to work civil cases.
He was investigated by a panel:
>The panel last month recommended a four-month suspension from the bench, a fine, as well as continued mental-health counseling to deal with anger-management issues.
So that's only a recommendation? Or is it binding and the journalist was just poorly phrasing things?
With judges, once is one time too many to have this level of questionable behavior/ethical violations/possibly unlawful conduct in the court room (or the court hallway).
And the head of the public defender's office saying the judge should get a second chance? What are the odds that he was hedging his bets that the judge would return to criminal trials one day and wanted to curry a little bit of favor for his office? Or even worse, what are the odds he's a donor to the judge since the judge was elected?