In a recent news story, a Pender County elected official has had a recent DWI charge dismissed by a local judge. This is not a particularly aggravating case due to the fact that nobody was injured; however, the problem the public is having is in regards to the fact that the dismissal was granted for the man allegedly due to the fact that he was a public official. Public comments at the bottom of the article were openly aggressive, and even hostile toward the judge who dismissed the charge.
Most of the comments centered on the fact that the DWI charge was dismissed because the man was an elected official. They further speak to the idea that if he were not elected, the judge would have given him the DWI charge like everybody else. The problem with these comments is that none of the people actually knew the circumstances surrounding the incident, whether the police exercised sound discretion, and whether the proper protocol was followed. Any of these things could have dismissed the charge. What is automatically assumed is that, because the man was an elected official, he used his influence to escape the charge.
This may or may not be true; however, whether it is true cannot be discerned by a small online article. Nobody wants drunk drivers on the roads, but in every case the driver deserves a fair and impartial trial by an impartial judge. In this case, the man was proven innocent, something that would not be questioned if it had been an ordinary citizen. But, due to the fact that he is an elected official, there is automatically pressure on the judge to bring down a stronger hammer so as to draw out any confusion as to whether the charge will be dismissed because the man was elected.
