Former Gloucester District Court presiding Judge Richard Mori may have had good intentions.
But a reversal last week by the state Supreme Judicial Court of a ruling Mori made two years ago should serve as a caution to all those who sit on the bench - judges are to interpret and enforce the law, not function as social workers.
Judith McCulloch of Mount Pleasant Avenue had pleaded guilty in 2006 to negligent driving and was sentenced to a year of probation in connection with a September 2005 accident on Eastern Avenue.
She was driving a black Lexus owned by Harold Bell, who was in the car with her, when she crossed the center line and collided with a Toyota Camry with four teenagers. Two of them were seriously injured.
But at a restitution hearing in May 2006, Mori accepted a deal proposed by McCulloch's attorney, James McKenna. In exchange for $6,000 to be paid immediately to one of the injured crash victims, Mori erased the guilty finding and the year of probation.
The judge, who has since left the Gloucester court, said the agreement would provide money to the crash victim to pay off student loans for the year of college she missed because of her injuries.
This, the Supreme Judicial Court said, was beyond Mori's authority. While he could reduce the sentence, the conviction could not be erased without an appeal or a new trial.
In short, a compassionate motive does not trump the law.
Judges at all levels should heed the reminder sent by the Supreme Judicial Court.
But a reversal last week by the state Supreme Judicial Court of a ruling Mori made two years ago should serve as a caution to all those who sit on the bench - judges are to interpret and enforce the law, not function as social workers.
Judith McCulloch of Mount Pleasant Avenue had pleaded guilty in 2006 to negligent driving and was sentenced to a year of probation in connection with a September 2005 accident on Eastern Avenue.
She was driving a black Lexus owned by Harold Bell, who was in the car with her, when she crossed the center line and collided with a Toyota Camry with four teenagers. Two of them were seriously injured.
But at a restitution hearing in May 2006, Mori accepted a deal proposed by McCulloch's attorney, James McKenna. In exchange for $6,000 to be paid immediately to one of the injured crash victims, Mori erased the guilty finding and the year of probation.
The judge, who has since left the Gloucester court, said the agreement would provide money to the crash victim to pay off student loans for the year of college she missed because of her injuries.
This, the Supreme Judicial Court said, was beyond Mori's authority. While he could reduce the sentence, the conviction could not be erased without an appeal or a new trial.
In short, a compassionate motive does not trump the law.
Judges at all levels should heed the reminder sent by the Supreme Judicial Court.
