I got pulled over driving home last night. In fairness to the police officer I was driving fast, at least faster than the posted speed limit and I knew it. I was cooperative, provided no lame excuse for speeding nor did I pretend I was not aware of my speed. I was, however, apologetic. He, in text book fashion, asked for my licence, registration, and my insurance and went back to his car for, what seemed to me, the really long wait until he found what he was looking for. He finally came back, gave me back my things and told me to drive carefully in the future and to have a nice night.
No ticket for me on this night and no explanation for this kind treatment. Of course I wanted to know why, but he was gone quickly. I can only make assumptions as to why he let me go. I have a clean record and I was cooperative. I don't know which was more important or motivating for him. Clearly the law states that everyone who gets pulled over for speeding gets a ticket, yet we know that deosn't happen. Why if the law is clear does it not happen all the time? Ask your friends and most will share a story similar to mine from some point in their lives.
The reality, for me, is that we want our police to see us as people and not just as lawbreakers. We want the laws applied to us fairly, but we also want the laws applied to us in context of who we are and having a clean record should count for something so should being cooperative. The reason is that the police need to care about what happens next too. Giving me a speeding ticket may not have the desired effect he is hoping for - me slowing down in the future, but not giving me a ticket might. It's the policeman's recognition that tomorrow exists and that his goal is larger than filling his ticket book with tickets.
Laws, rules, anything that gives instructions are frameworks that we all live within. We know intellectually that they are not applied the same to everyone. Sometimes we think the way they are applied is unfair, but more often then not we want context to be taken into consideration. That is true everywhere even the classroom. It is vital for teachers to have rules, standards for acceptable practice and for those rules to applied consistently, but consistently does not mean universally. Teachers need to always be aware that tomorrow exists and that we should always be focused on tomorrow. Some kids, and adults, need to have the rules enforced for them to change but others need the reprieve. The challenge is trying to figure out which student will respond best to which treatment - there is no universal answer and sometimes we are going to be wrong, much like the officer from last night cause I know that I will speed home again, probably tonight.
As I am writing this I am thinking about parking tickets, something that we have all received in our lives. It seems to me that I have gotten tickets only minutes after my meter has expired. Why no chance? Why no context? The only answer I can think of is that the driver is not present. The person giving the ticket does not have to deal, more often than not, with the person receiving the ticket. In many respects that is easier. No decisions to make based on our value judgements of the driver, no time to check the record of the driver for unpaid violations, no excuses or smiles or crying, just a ticket placed under your wiper. If you didn't get a ticket there would be no chance for a lesson learned because the assumption would be that the officer didn't get to your area. What if instead of a ticket you got a note saying, "Your meter was expired but I decided to give you a break. Be more careful in the future." Can you imagine?
Truth is dealing with people is the difference and the hope that we might be able to change behavior for the better is the difference maker. Rules are important, but people are more important. If the cop can do it for me than the teacher can do it too. Don't make the rules more important and become inflexible. Drvie safely.
Recent Comments