CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDGES
On October 24, 2006, The Washington Post had a story that discussed the decision and verdict of a federal judge. The case in question involved the New York Times Co. and a former army scientist. The retired army scientist, Nicholas Kristof, had sued the newspaper on claims that they had published a story that could be considered defamatory to the scientist. The story insinuated that the army scientist was the one who had developed the anthrax virus for biochemical warfare. The judge in this case directed that the reporter disclose their sources to verify whether this was all a lie (Markon, 2006, para 1).
The fact that judges’ decisions reflect the local customs and values can be depicted in this ruling. The value of democracy and freedom as opposed to the infringement of rights is an experience protected by the law in the United States. The former army scientist was being “framed” or defamed, at least according to him. Protecting the supposed sources of that information by the columnist would have been an infringement on the rights of the accused. Therefore, the judge’s decision to have the reporter reveal his resources was an indication that the judge in reference to his decision, was in line with the customs and values of the society.
The fact that judge’s role conception is central to their decision making is also a depicted character in the story. Jerry Markon asserts that similar cases have been experienced in the country. In numerous cases, the judges ruled in favor of the individuals who were seeking to have reporters reveal their sources in controversial articles involving them. Rolling back, it can be stated that this work situations and other similar scenarios as experienced by the judges are a primary base in shaping and determining their final character outlook.
REFERENCES
Markon, J. (2006). New York Times Columnist Must Reveal Sources, Judge Rules. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301039.html
