The Supreme Judicial Court reversal of a ruling Judge Richard Mori of Beverly made two years ago should serve as a caution to all who sit on the bench: Judges are to interpret and enforce the law, not function as social workers.

Judith McCulloch pleaded guilty in 2006 to negligent driving and was sentenced to a year of probation in connection with a September 2005 accident on Eastern Avenue in Gloucester. She'd crossed the center line and collided with a Toyota Camry carrying four teenagers, two of whom were seriously injured.

But at a May 2006 restitution hearing in Gloucester District Court, Mori accepted a deal proposed by McCulloch's attorney, James McKenna. In exchange for $6,000 to be paid immediately to one of the injured crash victims, Mori erased the guilty finding and the year of probation.

Mori said the agreement would provide money to the crash victim to pay off student loans for the year of college she missed because of her injuries.

This, the SJC said, was beyond Mori's authority. While he could reduce the sentence, the conviction could not be erased without an appeal or a new trial.

In short, a compassionate motive does not trump the law. Judges at all levels should heed the SJC's reminder.