In modern language, the phrase “activist judge” has become a slur. A popular stereotype is a black-robed liberal trying to legislate an agenda from the safety of the bench.

The image works well on talk radio.

The reality, though, is that judges are activists. They are picked for their understanding of law and their judgment in enforcing its principles. Their job is more than code enforcement.

Which is what citizens should expect. We need judges who know the law, but jurists who possess some good old-fashioned horse sense are just as valuable.

Like Cumberland County Superior Court Justice Robert Crowley, for example.

On Wednesday, Crowley faced a conundrum. Robert LaPointe of Medway, Mass., sat before him for sentencing on two counts of aggravated operation of a watercraft under the influence. The jury had deadlocked on more serious charges of manslaughter and reckless conduct.

Few doubt the severity of the circumstances that had landed LaPointe in Crowley’s courtroom.

LaPointe’s vessel, a 32-foot missile named “No Patience,” had sliced through the 14-foot runabout of Terry Raye Trott during a starry night on Long Lake in Harrison last summer.

Trott and his girlfriend, Suzanne Groetzinger, were killed. “No Patience” ended its night some 160 feet onshore after LaPointe and his passenger were thrown overboard in the horrific collision. Later, his blood-alcohol level registered far above legal.

This was the only point on which the otherwise deadlocked jury agreed. In many minds, this meant he would escape a stiff sentence, since the law – in this case – offered leeway for punishment. And nothing about this case was clear-cut. There were many questions of culpability, navigation and maritime rules, and conflicts about consumption.

The prosecution asked for the maximum: five years in prison, with one year suspended. But the choice was up to Crowley.

He, in our opinion, chose wisely.

The sentence: 3 years in prison, with two years of probation. And barbed language that said LaPointe acted like he was “special,” a person to whom rules didn’t apply. Crowley judged LaPointe, not just the case.

Crowley acted as an activist. His activism was a sentence that reflected the severity of the incident in which LaPointe was involved, the effect on the victims’ families and the outrage over his perceived lack of remorse.

Yet even then, Crowley said, the sentence would likely leave the friends and families of Trott and Groetzinger “disappointed.” Maybe so. Nobody should be disappointed in the judge, however.