Almost any GoodThing, taken to extremes, can become a BadThing. [insert disclaimer here]
For example, many Republicans talk about abhorring judicial flexibility. That is, they seem to feel that judges shouldn't be allowed to use much, if any, discreation.
Many refer to judges that they don't agree with as so called "activist judges." These activist judges interpret, rather than strictly follow the wording of laws. According to this argument, using one's good judgment goes beyond what should be authorized under the law.
To a certain extent, this is true. Judges should not be making the law. Making laws, under our Constitution, is given to the Legislative branch. The Judiciary, according to these people, should only settle disputes and mete out punishments without regard to the circumstances surround the situation. Otherwise, they say, the law has no meaning.
Those who are strict readers of the law talk about mandatory sentencing or "zero tolerance" when it comes to most, if not all crimes. While this does solve the problem of activist judges, it soon runs afoul of either the Constitution or common sense.
One real world example of what happens when you blindly follow a rule without taking into account the circumstances surrounding the problem is this one.
It seems, like many schools, the school in Georgia has a ban on students using cell phones at school. Usually, such bans are in place to maintain discipline and order in the classroom. This is a GoodThing. I think we would all agree that the classroom is a place for learning, not talking on your cell phone.
Violate that ban and you should expect negative consequences.
However, in this instance, things are a little more complicated than that. First, the student was on his lunch break, not in a classroom. Second, the call that came in was from his mother. His mother is a soldier. In Iraq. There is a time difference between Georgia and Iraq. If they are to speak, sometimes the calls will be during the students lunch break.
The undisputed fact is, the student did break the ban on cell phone calls. Other than that, everything is in dispute. I don't know, but he may have sworn at the teacher that ordered him to end his conversation with his mother because he was violating the ban. And the teacher may not have known the student was talking with his mother.
Regardless of the particulars, the principal of the school enforced the ban and suspended the student for 10 days. The rule is clear, there are no exceptions. There is no room for dealing with specific circumstances. The rules are the rules. There is zero tolerance. Period.
Until, of course, the story hit the national news and common sense arrived in the form of a storm of derision falling on the school. Of course these are special circumstances. Of course you should be able to take into account the totality of the situation. And of course, in the interest of justice, which is what the rule is supposed to serve, the punishment should be tailored to the crime.
The punishment was revised to the two days he had already been suspended. Perhaps this is justified under the circumstances and therefore well and good. But the lesson for the school should be that not everything is so cut and dried. People who have to judge other people need some flexibility in applying the rule and its punishment. Otherwise, following the rules leads to injustice.
Aloha!
