Legal system restores, promptly dashes, faith
Holly McCauley
Issue date: 11/3/08 Section: Opinions
I have trouble believing in our legal system sometimes. It can be a beautiful thing, but so many times technicalities either punish people who don't deserve it or let the undeserving loose to steal or murder or rape again.
I was overjoyed when Judge Thomas ruled in favor of the alcohol petition. For the record, I support the petition. I believe Clark County would benefit greatly if alcohol could be sold here.
True, there would be some negative points. Those who disagree with the petition have concerns for good reason, but there are pros and cons for every issue. Alcoholism and drunk driving are issues, but they are already issues in Clark County. The difference between Clark and other counties? We don't have resources for alcoholics.
My stance on the issue (partially) aside, Judge Thomas' ruling warmed my heart. The whole purpose of a petition is to assess whether or not there is enough interest in a topic to put it on the ballot. This petition had enough people interested in the issue to put it to a vote. Due to technicalities - mostly that people registered to vote and signed the petition on the same day - the issue is being dragged out in court. And it's not cheap.
The bottom line is this: everyone who registered to vote and signed the petition was registered by the time the petition was turned in. True, a verbatim application of the law may not support it, but the intent is all there. That, I believe, is what the law is about.
One of my big problems with our legal system is when it is inflexible. The law should change with the people to which it applies so that it serves in their best interest.
The beauty of Thomas' ruling was that he applied the intent of the law rather than the technicalities. I felt inspired. I felt buoyed. Good for you, I said to Thomas in my head - and, truth be told, out loud in my car. Here was an example of the law working for the people, I thought.
I was only allowed to enjoy this faith in our system for a week. The plaintiffs appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court returned their ruling. Thomas, they said, should have stuck with what was written. If it ain't broke, and all.
Laws change for a reason. They should not be too flexible, but they should change when change is called for. This seems to me to be a pretty loud call, but it also seems to fall on deaf ears. I knew justice was blind, but now she's deaf, too?
I was overjoyed when Judge Thomas ruled in favor of the alcohol petition. For the record, I support the petition. I believe Clark County would benefit greatly if alcohol could be sold here.
True, there would be some negative points. Those who disagree with the petition have concerns for good reason, but there are pros and cons for every issue. Alcoholism and drunk driving are issues, but they are already issues in Clark County. The difference between Clark and other counties? We don't have resources for alcoholics.
My stance on the issue (partially) aside, Judge Thomas' ruling warmed my heart. The whole purpose of a petition is to assess whether or not there is enough interest in a topic to put it on the ballot. This petition had enough people interested in the issue to put it to a vote. Due to technicalities - mostly that people registered to vote and signed the petition on the same day - the issue is being dragged out in court. And it's not cheap.
The bottom line is this: everyone who registered to vote and signed the petition was registered by the time the petition was turned in. True, a verbatim application of the law may not support it, but the intent is all there. That, I believe, is what the law is about.
One of my big problems with our legal system is when it is inflexible. The law should change with the people to which it applies so that it serves in their best interest.
The beauty of Thomas' ruling was that he applied the intent of the law rather than the technicalities. I felt inspired. I felt buoyed. Good for you, I said to Thomas in my head - and, truth be told, out loud in my car. Here was an example of the law working for the people, I thought.
I was only allowed to enjoy this faith in our system for a week. The plaintiffs appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court returned their ruling. Thomas, they said, should have stuck with what was written. If it ain't broke, and all.
Laws change for a reason. They should not be too flexible, but they should change when change is called for. This seems to me to be a pretty loud call, but it also seems to fall on deaf ears. I knew justice was blind, but now she's deaf, too?
Be the first to comment on this story