75th Anniversary Celebration Events
the honorable guido calabresi leads a discussion about what a judge must do when the law is wrong.
![]() |
| The Honorable Guido Calabresi. |
What keeps a federal court judge
awake at night? As the Honorable
Guido Calabresi told a standingroom
only crowd at BC Law in October,
it is the fear of having to exercise
judgment in a case in which he considers
that the law is not only wrong, but
also “deeply immoral.”
Calabresi is “one of the most important
figures in American law of the last
fifty years,” Dean John Garvey said in
his introduction. A judge on the US Circuit
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
Calabresi clerked for Supreme Court
Justice Hugo Black and is the former
dean of Yale Law School. He has
received more than forty honorary
degrees, including one from Boston
College, and was here to receive the
Law School’s Seventy-Fifth Anniversary
Distinguished Service Award.
Calabresi began by confessing, “I
don’t want to judge, in some fundamental
way. This doesn’t mean I don’t
administer the law.” By way of elaboration,
he told the story of an Italian
farmer, who during the early years of
World War II risked his life to hide Jews,
partisans, American servicemen, and
members of Calabresi’s own family
from Mussolini’s fascists. Following the
success of the Allies, he hid Germans and fascists with equal selflessness.
Visiting his native Italy after the war, Calabresi confronted the farmer with this apparently
contradictory behavior. “Don’t you know the difference between right and wrong?”
he asked. The farmer said, “Right, wrong, they understand these things in Rome.” But
when these people came to him, he said, he saw only people in trouble. “Erano tutti figli
di mama,” he said, “They were all some mother’s child.”
Now, said Calabresi, “I’m not only in Rome. I am Rome. I’m a judge. I can’t duck it.”
And the aspect of the law that he fears having to administer is capital punishment, which he
rejects on both utilitarian and moral grounds.
What is a judge to do in such a case, he asked? Should he, Pontius Pilate-like, wash his hands and recuse himself, leaving the field clear to those who agree with capital punishment? Or should he resign himself to being no more than “the mouth of the law,” an automaton with no free will? No, said Calabresi emphatically. Instead, he said: “You wake up in the night and try to find a way that is correct in the law, a way that is just.” And if there seems to be no way of reconciling the two, he said, “you have to ask yourself: Did I work hard enough? Did I dig deep enough? Did I use all the brains God gave me?” He has not yet handled a capital punishment case. But when he does, like all good judges, he promised, “I’ll decide that case when it reaches me.”
—Jane Whitehead
