Thou shalt not wrest the judgment.
Duties of judges
I. That judges should be impartial.
1. In particular towards the poor (Exodus 23:6).
(1) Because the poor are most open to the oppression of the powerful.
(2) Because the poor are often at a disadvantage for the want of technical knowledge or means to procure legal assistance.
(3) Because the poor are easily overawed.
2. In general towards the right (Exodus 23:7, first clause). Not to aid or abet a wrong cause.
II. That judges should be cautious, particularly with regard to matters relating to capital punishment. “The innocent and righteous slay thou not.”
1. The case must be clearly proved.
2. The accused to have the benefit of the doubt.
3. Because justice would be done. If the criminal escaped an earthly doom, God would “not justify the wicked” (Proverbs 11:21).
III. That judges should be incorrupt (Exodus 23:8), either in the shape of direct bribe or indirect present.
1. Because the bribe may blind him to the true merit of the case; and--
2. Because the bribe may weigh down and pervert his judgment on the wrong side.
IV. That judges should be considerate (Exodus 23:9), particularly in regard to foreigners. Because--
1. They had been foreigners themselves, and had suffered for the want of consideration.
2. They therefore knew something of the sufferings of foreigners.
(1) Foreigners may be ignorant of the law and unwittingly break it.
(2) When broken, they may know nothing of legal technicalities, or be unable to pay legal expenses. (J. W. Burn.)
The administration of justice
There was a close connection between the civil and the military constitution of the Hebrews. The same men who were captains of thousands and captains of hundreds in war were magistrates in time of peace. In every Oriental state the point of greatest weakness is the administration of justice. Those who have lived long in the East testify that there is no such thing as justice; that no cadi, sitting in the place of judgment, ever pretends to such exceptional virtue as to be above receiving bribes. The utmost that can be expected is the hypocrisy which is the homage of vice to virtue; and even this is seldom rendered, for where bribery is universal no one is constrained by shame to conceal it. Against this terrible demoralization no rock can stand but that of the Divine authority. In the administration of justice a theocracy is an ideal government, for it is Divinity enthroned on earth as in heaven; and no other form of government enforces justice in a manner so absolute and peremptory. In the eyes of the Hebrew lawgiver, the civil tribunal was as sacred as the Holy of Holies. The office of the judge was as truly authorized and his duty as solemnly enjoined as that of the priest. “The judgment is God’s,” said Moses; and he who gave a false judgment disregarded the authority of Him whose nature is justice and truth. The judgment-seat was a holy place, which no private malice might profane. Evidence was received with religious care. Oaths were administered to give solemnity to the testimony (Leviticus 5:1). Then the judge, standing in the place of God, was to pronounce equitably, whatever might be the rank of the contending parties (Deuteronomy 1:17). He recognized no distinctions; all were alike to him. The judge was to know no difference. He was not to be biased even by sympathy for the poor (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15). Magistrates were not allowed to accept a gift, for fear of bribery. (H. M. Field, D. D.)
Bribery resisted
Persuaded that Marvell would be theirs (the Administration’s) for properly asking, they sent his old schoolfellow, the Lord Treasurer Danby, to renew acquaintance with him in his garret. At parting, the Lord Treasurer, out of pure affection, slipped into his hand an order upon the Treasury for £1,000, and then went to his chariot. Marvell, looking at the paper, called after the Treasurer, “My lord, I request another moment.” They went up again to the garret, and Jack, the servant-boy, was called. “Jack, child, what had I for dinner yesterday?” “Don’t you remember, sir? You had the little shoulder of mutton that you ordered me to bring from the woman in the market.” “Very right, child. What have I for dinner to-day?” “Don’t you know, sir, that you bade me lay by the blade-bone to broil?” “’Tis so; very right, child; go away. My lord, do you hear that? Andrew Marvell’s dinner is provided. There’s your piece of paper--I want it not. I know the sort of kindness you intended. I live here to serve my constituents. The Ministry may seek men for their purpose. I am not one.” (Coleridge.)
Bribes declined
“Why,” asked one of the English Tortes of the Tory Governor of Massachusetts--“why hath not Mr. Adams been taken off from his opposition by an office?” To which the Governor replied, “Such is the obstinacy and inflexible disposition of the man, that he never would be conciliated by any office whatever.” His daughter used to say that her father refused a pension from the British Government of f2,000 a year. Once, when a secret messenger from General Gage threatened him with a trial for treason if he persisted in his opposition to the Government and promised him honours and wealth if he would desist, Adams rose to his feet and replied, “Sir, I trust I have long since made my peace with the King of kings. No personal consideration shall induce me to abandon the righteous cause of my country.”
A judge to refuse bribes
I dare say many of you may have heard of the celebrated Sir Matthew Hale, that he was in the habit of receiving a present from a person annually; and it happened once, that about the usual time when this friend made him the present, that he was accused of some offence, and was to appear as an accused person before Sir Matthew Hale. On this occasion Sir Matthew Hale returned him the present, lest it should afford even the shadow of a suspicion that the purity of judicial impartiality should be disturbed, or seem to be disturbed, by a gift from one who was to appear before the court accused of an offence, and demanding a fair trial. And I believe still it would be thought the most scandalous outrage upon our constitution, and every judge would repudiate it with scorn and disdain, were any one, expecting to have his cause tried by that judge, to attempt to propitiate his favour by gifts. Now, this beautiful rule--so just, so reasonable, so proper--was anticipated and was known, you observe, three thousand years ago, and was first revealed by Him who is the Fountain of all wisdom and justice. (J. Cumming, D. D.)
Bribery resisted
A speculator heard that an amalgamation between two joint-stock companies was projected, which would afford an opportunity to make a large sum of money by prompt purchases of shares. He was acquainted with an official holding a subordinate and poorly paid position in one of the companies, and went to him to obtain reliable information. But the official was a Christian and a man of honour, and knowing the information would operate to the disadvantage of his employers, refused to say whether the amalgamation was contemplated or not. “I can make £60,000 by my speculation if you will tell me,” said the tempter, “and I will give you half.” “I cannot betray my trust,” was the reply. “You need not speak,” said the speculator; “just wink your eye and I shall know, and you shall have £30,000.” The temptation was fierce, but the Christian conquered it. A few days afterwards, when the amalgamation was completed, the speculator reproached his acquaintance for not giving the information, but he was told that an approving conscience was above price. It is satisfactory to learn that the faithful official prospered in his subsequent career, and is now receiving a salary of £5,000 a year.