I’m reading a book where the following anecdote is presented as true. Basically, in California this happens, a woman is stopped for speeding. She goes to court, pleads guilty. The judge pronounces a sentence of $100 or 10 days. The judge then proceeds to take off his robe, walks around to the front of the podium, takes out his wallet, and pays the $100. It turns out the woman is the judge’s daughter. It’s representing a moral issue. In order to be a fair judge he had to proceed with giving the sentence. But because he loves his daughter, he forgave her and paid the fine for her.
Something about this seems wrong. Can a judge have a relative show up in their court? I figure there’d be rules in place to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
This is a analogy that is commonly used by some Christians to explain how God can be just in condemning people for their sins, and merciful by forgiving and providing payment for those sins (through Jesus’ sacrifice and crucifixion). I’ve heard evangelicals use the illustration numerous times, but never presented as an actual event.
In real life, no judge would be allowed to sit over a family member’s case; it’s a clear conflict of interest.
Judges are supposed to recuse themselves when there’s a conflict of interest. That said, I doubt anyone (at least anyone who has seen the way traffic courts are run) would have a problem with a judge presiding over a non-serious traffic case for his child unless the child was treated differently than the typical defendant with a similar record.
–Cliffy
Dad judge, daughter defendant, Dad recuse.
There is no way that could happen (although IANAL). There is an undisclosed conflict of interest before the court hearing which is admitted to after the hearing. Surely the judge would be looking for a new job the next day, and possibly an investigation or prosecution.
From the website of the court of California.
If the daughter wanted to plead guilty, she could have done it in the mail. Why show up in court just to waste everyone’s time? Also, the judge could not impose a jail sentence for speeding.
The whole story is untrue.
I don’t know, surely if it was an analogy commonly used by some Christians it would involve the daughter being on drugs and estranged from her family, or discovering that the judge was her real father, or the father thought she was dead, or the entire court room bursting into applause then rushing out to phone their loved ones.
They just don’t make inspirational ‘true-story’ glurge like they use to.
Something else that seems wrong about this: paying the fine for her.
Most judges with any significant experience on the bench are aware that there is much less impact on the defendent when someone else pays the fine for them. Less remorse, less “won’t do that again” feeling. In fact, it’s not uncommon for a Judge to impose a fine on a young person, and add a specific restriction that the parents are not to pay this fine, but it must be paid by the defendant our of their own earnings or allowance.
So it seems unlikely that the Judge would have paid this (rather small) fine for his daughter, instead of helping her learn from her mistakes by having to pay the fine herself.
Does this sound familiar?
Here it is again. This one is almost exactly the story in the OP, except the judge is the defendant’s mother and he, her son.