Here's the idea. Whether it's a legal judgement in a court trial or before a magistrate, or a decision made by someone who has the authority to make decisions in matters which concern you (boss, teacher, civil officer), which do you prefer?

I will be using court judges as an example, but let your creativity loose about bosses, teachers, civil officers and other authority figures who make decisions. For example, teachers perform examinations, award marks, punish or reward students. Bosses assess their underlings, promote or recommend for promotion... or withhold such benefits or even fire you. Civil officers and administrators decide matters such as permits, cash grants, social aid, whatever. They can also administer goods.

1. A stern and forthright judge (authority figure), demanding and taking his role very seriously. Zero tolerance for BS and lame excuses. You basically get what is called a fair trial and a just verdict, even though it may be harsh, stopping short of undue hardship.

On the plus side: He sets the same requirements before the other people (e.g. other party in a court case, other students in an exam) and even the law (or any rules that apply). This means that he won't deliver an unjust and harmful verdict basing only on the literal meaning of the rule. He won't buy the lame excuses of your opponent. He will stay impartial and impervious to BS, so it's practically impossible for you to be framed. You won't be punished for your attitude, he won't be making an example of you and there won't be any bias or sentiment affecting the verdict.

On the minus side: It's not going to be an easy ride and the guy won't buy any of your lame excuses, so you won't escape your rightful duties or avoid punishment you deserve. He will make it hurt. Neither will you escape justice on a legal technicality if it can be avoided. And he will stay impartial even if it's obvious that you are the one who's right. You won't get a single cent more than you really deserve in damages or compensation even if you sue the evil M$.

2. A relaxed and more approachable judge (teacher, boss, administrator, officer). He normally delivers mild verdicts basing on whatever circumstances he can find. He will sympathise with the unduly oppressed and will likely take part of the party who he thinks is in the right, at least near the end of the trial when things become obvious. The typical approach is mild, lenient, and quite understanding, but this means his sympathies affect the verdict.

On the plus side: You will likely get away with minor transgressions and be patted on your shoulder and told to behave. If you're in your right, you can expect favorable treatment. He will likely buy the less lame of your excuses in a criminal case. If you win a suit for compensation or damages, he will grant you a nice sum of money. If you manage to convince him to your arguments or awake his compassion, you've practically won the case.

On the minus side: Whatever applies to you, may apply to your opponent. Sometimes you may be the one paying damages or you may be the guy whose attitude needs to be corrected.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Judgement: demanding but just, or relaxed but whimsical? (17 votes.)

Judgement: demanding but just, or lenient but sympathising? (Choose 1)
* #1 - 59% (10)
* #2 - 35% (6)
* Results, please - 6% (1)

Well, this is my first posting in this area for a long, long time, but I felt the need to post. In any event, I'll keep this short and sweet. I voted for the first judge. I know, that kinda seems out of character for me, especially to those who know me, but, the first judge is indeed the judge I would want to oversee my case if I was in trouble.

Let me explain my decision. See, the law system is designed to be fair and impartial, right? So, why would you want a judge that's going to be swayed by any sob story? Why would you want a judge that'll be easily influenced? A judge is like your last line of defense. You want that judge to be infalliable(sp?), totally standing his or her ground in the law.

Yes, you won't get away with anything with this judge, and that's the effect that I would want. If I did something bad, and I came across a judge like number 2 and I laid it on really thick, and that judge let me go, what's the lesson that I would've learned? That the judicial system is my plaything, and I can do whatever I want. Which would, in turn, cause me to do even more bad things and each act would get worse and worse until I finally did something like murder and then get the electric chair and blame the judge for sentencing me to life. But the first judge might nip it all in the bud before that vicious cycle even begins, I believe. That first judge would take whatever crime I had committed and most probably pass down sentencing with a determined gavel, and I say determined because I think that the first judge would be determined in my rehabiliation. So, I would serve my time, and get out with my lesson learned, a new outlook on life and a firm understanding of the law. Completely rehabilitated, I would never do a wrong thing again.

At least, that's how I would think it would play out, if I ever did anything wrong. But, the first judge is, in my opinion, the type of judge that the law is meant to work in.

It would entirely depend on the circumstances. One method is not always the right one.

For myself? Judge numer 2, of course.

Why?

Because I am an amoral *insweert expletive* and in the case of the judge nro. 1 I would most likely be in severe trouble, but with nro. 2 could hope to BS my way out of the situation.

which of course shows that for the benefits of the general public, nro. 1 would logically be the better choice.

It all boils down to accountability. If people are accountable for what they choose to do, perhaps they will think twice before they do something. If someone gets hired over someone else or promoted over someone else, it should be on ability or results, not some sob story. If I was in a position to sue someone, I would want as much as I could get, but would accept a rightful amount. If I truly am "right" then I would have nothing to fear.

I agree with T2Bruno, it would depend on the circumstances. That said, I'm a criminologist, not a lawyer, so I would tend towards Judge No. 2 in most cases. I believe that being too literal in interpreting law, jurisprudence and precedent is limiting, and can in fact create greater injustices. The "mischief" rule of interpretation should apply, IMHO.

To some extent, I included the Golden Rule and even the Mischief Rule in judge #1, "This means that he won't deliver an unjust and harmful verdict basing only on the literal meaning of the rule.". But this only extends as far as to avoid blatant absurdity and doesn't go completely against the literal meaning.

Based on that line Chev quoted, a man who steals bread to feed his starving Family would be sentences to a form of Restitution, but a person who steals diamonds to get the money to buy luxuries wouldn't get any sympathy...

That sounds good to me...

I am definitely in favour of judge number 1 but I am a chartered accountant and we tend to favour rules being followed by the book.

Our job is to basically help our client to gain the best possible outcome that is permissable by the rules. We are experts at arguing what the applicable rules are and how they must be followed.

If a judge decides to ignore the rules and decide based upon sentimentality then it basically comes down to which party is the better actor and that is not our cup of tea.

Well, having engaged in criminal defence work for some time, I've definitely been conditioned towards a preference for the second type of judge. Thing is, my work there was in a public defender's office for people who can't afford a lawyer. That kind of work exposes you to the reality that not everybody starts off on the same footing in life, that some people really do have some pretty severe circumstances underlying their behaviour. I don't mind using the system to turn their very real sob stories to score lighter sentences, the idea that mercy necessarily tempers justice.

Anyway, I fondly remember a trial where my client's engineering career was on the line. A criminal record meant he wouldn't be allowed to register in his professional society. I asked the clerk beforehand who the judge was. The judge in question was the very embodiment of Judge type #1. Her nickname amongst criminal lawyers was 'Scary Sherry', a nickname that takes some effort to earn when you're a judge sitting in criminal court. "Oh no ..." I groaned to myself. But hey, much to my own surprise I got a 'Not Guilty' verdict at the end, and the extreme gratitude of my client. Damn was that ever sweet ... :cool:

Both are extremes and therefore never optimal. If I had to choose I would pick judge number one. First reason because I am fairly confident I will maintain the law in any case (that being a case of common sense). Second reason because here in Holland people come off way to easy. Not even talking about the ridiculous law system in america. Brilliant satire of that system is made by jonny cochran and his chewbacca defense in one of the southpark episodes.

Problem is that the first judge is so strict and if you'd try to bend him he breaks. Second judge is so flexible that if you bend him you bend him to your will.