Jurisprudence vs Righteous Judgments

In adjudicating court cases as Utah Traffic Court Justice (1979-1980; U.C. Sec. 41-6-18), I quickly learned to separate jurisprudence (the theory and philosophy of law) from real-life circumstances. I encouraged the accused proffer detail and encouraged an explanation of mens rea (intent) be laid before the court. When the finding of 'guilty' was the unavoidable outcome, I often mitigated the penalty to encompass the situation.

In business, however, I sometimes find people's (and by extension, a company's) actions very disheartening. Personal honor is all but a fossil. Good judgment, fairness, and an open mind are frequently missing elements-- but even more painfully absent is any kind of rule of law. We treat each other with random actions and arbitrary resolutions. When a person or company offers good will, honest intent, and even backs up their efforts with research, documentation, and proof, the question should turn in favor of the preponderance of evidence. It's a sad commentary that proof and empirical data is often discarded, ignored, or negated.

I think back to the many cases brought before my bench, and imagine how many faces would have contorted in disbelief if I had arbitrarily discounted all documentation and proof the accused brought to my attention. If they'd brought a notarized affidavit from a doctor's office to prove they were 100 miles away from the infraction and I simply said, "I don't care about that..." what a howl would have come from my courtroom.

Such was never my way, but is the phrase I most often hear these days in every venture.

Stand tall and be honorable: That's the reality we also expect from others in every arena.

Cheers
Lee