Avoiding Relativity: A Case for Judicial Restraint
A young man, on his way to a job interview, hurried to be sure he is on time, slows at an empty intersection, gliding through despite the stop sign. His eye on the clock, he looks up long enough to catch it—blue lights in his rearview mirror. After pulling over, he is given a ticket for failure to heed a stop sign, and having exceeded the posted speed limit by 2 miles per hour. When appearing in court, the judge considers the charges at hand, and regarding the man’s statement, his circumstances, and the fact it was his first offense, drops all charges except a written warning. Relieved, our young man in question leaves the court house with no more than a less-than-perfect driving record. However, what was known by neither officer nor judge was that, at the time of offense, the young man was operating his cell phone. Within the week of the hearing, he is on the road again texting and driving. Even having said, our young man in question’s offense is understandable and, according to the culture at large, pressing speed limits and rolling stop signs to be on time, even while checking one’s phone, is not just normal—its permissible. However, in the judge’s administration, giving grace to what he perceived as the becoming and ambitious young man violating virtually no social norm, he allowed a negligent and
…show more content…
I argue that despite that which is culturally acceptable or socially excusable, judges ought to practice law and make decisions in a mode of judicial restraint because such a mode allows for the use of consistency