OPINION - Editorial

EDITORIAL: Judges, lamentations, parables and a revelation

Judges, lamentations and parables

"How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?"

--The book of Matthew, 18:12

The man who explained the parable of the lost sheep, a certain Preacher of note, spoke the above words in red letters. At least in our Bible. We always thought Him wise beyond His years, and His years weren't long on the Earth. He did the most with the little time He had.

There is a fight going on in Dallas over that Book, and whether it has a place in any temporal and secular setting, like a courtroom. Well, maybe not a fight. Perhaps just a tiff.

It all started horribly enough: A police officer in Dallas, mistakenly thinking she was entering her own apartment, shot dead the man inside, an accountant and alumnus of Harding University.

The officer, now a former officer, was white. The gentleman minding his own business in his own apartment, Botham Jean, was black. The officer, Amber Guyger, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The judge in the case kept the thing from turning into a circus a la the O.J. trial, and considering the circumstances, that was an arduous undertaking. But the judge, Her Honor Tammy Kemp, did so expertly. The whole matter could have gone sideways with a judge of a different bearing.

After the conviction and sentence, an unusual request by the defendant: She asked the judge for a hug and advice. (This is not to be confused with the victim's brother, who had earlier asked for, and was given, permission to hug Amber Guyger after his testimony.)

"God says my job is to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly," the judge said. "So how can you refuse this woman a hug?"

That might have been the end of the story, if the judge hadn't taken an extra step, and provided the defendant with a Bible as well.

The critics pounced: Is this a constitutional breach of judicial conduct?

But the Bible wasn't given out of the blue. The New York Times' Sarah Mervosh broke down the timeline this way: The judge came off the bench to offer condolences to the family of Botham Jean. She told Ms. Guyger that she could still live a productive life once she's out of prison. Ms. Guyger said she didn't know where to start, because she didn't even own a Bible. The judge retrieved the one in her chambers. Of course she'd have a Bible in her chambers. Don't they still ask people to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, while swearing on a . . . Bible? Or is that too old-fashioned?

That doesn't sound like a proselytizing judge. It sounds like a human being helping another. And, as of now, humans are still allowed to be judges. Robots have not yet taken over the human element in the judicial system. How long that lasts is anybody's guess.

Other critics have said--and said aloud, at that--that a black defendant might not have received this treatment. Those folks need to study Judge Tammy Kemp with more precision.

Did the judge regret the hug? Yes. She told Sarah Mervosh that she hesitated, and felt embarrassed that Ms. Guyger had to ask twice.

It helps the judge's case that the trial was completely over by this time, sentencing and all, and she was allowed to be a real person again. And was. Her actions, we should note, were much different than those judges who might play before the cameras or legislate from the bench.

To deny Ms. Guyger at that time, and such a simple request at that, might not have been defined as prudent judicial restraint.

It would have been robotic.

Editorial on 10/17/2019

Upcoming Events