‘Good guys’ vs ‘bad guys’

In life and in the courtroom, there are two types of leaders—the ones who always want to be the “good guys” and the others who are not afraid to be thought of as the “bad guys.”

The “good guys” are those judges who care more about pleasing the people and looking like sympathetic rulers than they do about putting their duties of administering just decisions first and foremost. They allow murderers and rapists to cut through legal loopholes and escape jail sentences all because they want us to think that they are “good guys.” They are praised and lauded by the public because of their mastery in the art of being fictitious.

On the other hand, we have those few judges who could care less about their public images and who instead opt to focus on performing their duties justly. They are the ones who bravely step out from among the crowd of “good guys” to assure us for as long as they can that no rapist or murderer will be allowed to slip through the cracks and harm our community. Yet, at the same time, they are the ones who are scorned by the public and who are dubbed as the “bad guys.”

This Nov. 5, it is of utmost importance that we know to which category each of the judges who are up for retention fit in. Of the three judges up for retention, Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan is the only one that I can attest to.

What category does he fit in? From observation, I have noticed that he ranks among the brave, yet often bashed “bad guys.” He is one amiable man, whose public image is second to his duties in administering justice on behalf of our people. Knowing full well that the people of the Commonwealth chiefly rely on him to make sure their homes and communities are safe, he courageously steps up to the plate and delivers hard hits to the real bad guys so that all of us can sleep well at night.

I was once told by a good friend that society is always quick in pointing out the bad things we have done, but never recognizes the many more good things we have done. So while Chief Justice Demapan may not have been the nicest guy in the courtroom, he certainly made our communities a lot safer than they used to be by rightfully putting away numerous criminals who deserve no sympathy.

His recognition of the fact that public safety should come before public persona is something that many others have yet to be cognizant of. If doing what is truly right and putting the safety of our people before himself is “wrong,” then I would certainly like to join him in refusing to be “right.”

On another note, the CNMI Bar Association’s evaluation of the three judges should be counted as baseless because only 23 percent of its members submitted an evaluation. Therefore, because an enormous number of its members did not submit their evaluations, we certainly cannot rely on the 23 percent who represent the minority to speak for the majority. We must instead figure out what happened to the remaining 77 percent who were not accounted for.

Carla Maree Calvo
University of Washington, Seattle