2. IrvingSnodgrass - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:43 AM PT
I've often seen it remarked in the Fray that the American legal system is far from perfect. Others have said that it's the worst in the world, except for all the other systems. What, if anything, is wrong with it? Is the jury system the problem? Is it wrong to leave a person's fate up to a group of people with no legal training?
Can anyone get a fair trial in the United States? Or do things work as well as can be expected? There are plenty of lawyers in the Fray, so we may get some interesting angles on this question. And some of the non-lawyers have been known to have an opinion on the legal system at times, as well.
Go for it...
3. envision - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:44 AM PT
I get the second post. What's fair about that?
4. envision - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
Darn. I don't get the second post. This isn't "fair."
5. ScotusAntonovich - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:46 AM PT
"Can anyone get a fair trial in the United States?"
Sure. If you have enough money. Otherwise, drop your pants and bend over for Uncle Sam.
6. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:47 AM PT
Oh boy -- a lawyers thread! Perfect. I'm expecting to see a lot of action here. Especially from you, 109 -- obviously weary from Starrgate.
Fair trial. It depends on what your definition of "fair" is. (Thanks, Bill!)
And it depends on how much money you have.
7. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:57 AM PT
"Can anyone get a fair trial in the United States?"
Sure. If you have enough money. Otherwise, drop your pants and bend over for Uncle Sam.
..and..
Fair trial. It depends on what your definition of "fair" is.
(Thanks, Bill!)
And it depends on how much money you have.
That's RIGHT!
Next question?
8. ScotusAntonovich - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
Does this mean Cellar and I agree on something?
Hmm, maybe I should reconsider...
9. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
At some point, I do hope we discuss change-of-venue. It's my opinion that if you come into my neighborhood and feel so at home that you can do what ever you please, then I demand that you be be brought to trial by the people who with whom you felt so comfortable.
Yes, I've screwed the thread already. Today, it's going to be difficult not to. Who, I wonder, is going to argue that the system works.
10. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:02 AM PT
Cellar:
Use your connections and fix that one sentence for me, please.
11. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:11 AM PT
In order to respond to the question as it's phrased, we need an example of someone who got a bad deal.
12. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:16 AM PT
How about "The People Vs. O.J. Simpson"? "The People" got screwed.
How about the Nanny trial? The Eppans got screwed.
Of course these are only "high profile" cases. But hey -- I'm not a lawyer. Most of you *are*
13. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:16 AM PT
It isn't the jury system. It's the selection and exclusion of individuals that are to sit on the jury which begins the folly.
14. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:22 AM PT
Cellar:
Your examples are the reason I feel uneasy about the phrasing of the question. We're all going to agree. For one thing, the attitude of the people is that they've had it with crime and criminals. For us in the fray, it's difficult to identify with a fool. We can't expend energy sympathizing with some street drunk when we're trying to protecting our homes and children.
15. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
Okay. I'm going to shower and attempt to rid myself of some of this passionate feeling about injustice. Will then attempt to write in English.
16. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 9:25 AM PT
As I fall back to regroup, this: No need to point out to me that, even in my neighborhood, people have the right to the presumption of innocence. It is incorrect, though, to say, "He's innocent until proven guilty," isn't it? I'm thinking of the film showing Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Nobody doubts that Ruby's guilty. So what is the exact wording about the presumption of innocence?
I admit I haven't come up with a good example of anyone other than a victim getting the shaft. And to discuss really well-known cases from the past (say, where someone received the death penalty) immediately does away with the problem of that person's having had a lack of money; funds always seem available for high-profile cases.
17. Random - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:32 AM PT
American, particularly lower income or poor, do not get a fair shake. Reason is that the lawyers, particularly tort, civil rights, to include environmental and advocacy groups, are victimizing the entire judicial process in their attempt to legislate from the bench as in left leanering judges. Lost in the shuffle if the time and money for equal justice under the law except for the deepest pockets among us.
Personal greed rules, generally in non advocacy oriented justice.
Since the money for ACLU and certain other advocacy groups does come from the taxpayers, a selective group of low income and poor manage to seep through the system successfully depending on whether their case specific situation feeds the ante pot.
There are grave miscarriages of justice in today's expedition of process. Probably not enough money available to correct it
in other than by the widest shifting sieve through the system of the most egregious errors of judgment bottom up the ladder to look lady justice in the eye.
18. DocBrown - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:49 AM PT
"The Justice System" is nothing of the sort. If we rename it "The Conflict Resolution System" and admit that we can never tell if it prodices one whit of justice then we would have something.
Of course this would be *very* bad for lawyers. The only reason Americans tolerate the zillions of dollars they spend on litigation is because they believe that it produces Justice. Tell them the truth about the product they are consuming, and Americans would never pay their laywers more than minimum wage.
19. DocBrown - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:51 AM PT
Like the rest of society, our legal system should be expected to improve its performance. Every year efficiency should increase, and we should get more justice for less money.
20. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:53 AM PT
nice dream, Doc
won't ever happen, but we should all dream a bit
21. AdamSelene - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:57 AM PT
Here's a radical proposal: Let the judges run for relection every two years. All of 'em. None of this appointment for life stuff. Let the citizens get tried by the judges they vote for. Those who don't vote - screw 'em, they takes their chances.
While we're at it, get rid of the exclusionary rule. Just put the cop who acts illegally in jail with the perp. Guess how long it will take for cops to straighten out?
22. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:10 AM PT
I agree that something has to be done about judges. It's been said that they're the most powerful group of people in America. By the time an ordinary citizen is able to continue his forced march through the ranks of judges, and to a place where his case attains visibility and a modicum of impartiality, the citizen is not penniless but greatly in debt.
23. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:15 AM PT
Hmmm...
"While we're at it, get rid of the exclusionary rule. Just put the cop who acts illegally in jail with the perp. Guess how long it will take for cops to straighten out?"
Interesting idea. As long as there are ways to rule out plated or false evidence, I think I like that one.
I also agree about the judges.
24. wonkers2 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:18 AM PT
Very hard to put cops in jail for anything--shooting, beating or whatever, let alone violating the E rule.
25. AdamSelene - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:19 AM PT
Christi,
The only thing we need to change about handling illegal evidence, in addition to letting it be presented anyway, is that the defense attorney gets to discuss how the evidence was obtained. Let the jury sort it out.
The supposed aversive effect of punishing cops for illegally obtaining evidence can be handled better by just putting them in jail, say for a 20% minimum of the time that the perp would have or does spend.
26. AdamSelene - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:21 AM PT
wonkers2,
I agree. That's why we have to minimize the effective collusion between judges and cops by making the judges directly responsible to the electorate.
27. harper - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:22 AM PT
This past week there was a convention of people who had been tried, convicted, gotten the death penalty, and then had their convictions reversed (some due to new DNA evidence), and were released. There were a lot of them. Granted, some of these people were released due to legal incompetence, but I recognized a few of them who had been freed due to DNA evidence. I think that it may be easier to get a fair trial if justice and science can work together. Look what happened to Dr. Sam Shepard.
On the other hand, what do people, especially the lawyers out there, think of the new ruling that says you can't offer immunity to someone in exchange for testimony?
28. wonkers2 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:24 AM PT
Putting cops in jail, if it could be done, would straighten them out just like putting petty drug violators in jail has eliminated the drug problem, or frying murderers has eliminated murders, and so forth. The efficacy of jail as a solution for the problem is greatly overestimated, in my opinion. Too many prisons act as a training ground and recruiting center for criminals. And the weakness of the prospect of jail as a deterrant is evidenced by the fact that most criminals don't expect to be caught.
29. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:31 AM PT
"The efficacy of jail as a solution for the problem is greatly overestimated, in my opinion."
It seems to me (and I am by no means *close* to an expert on the subject) that the sort of people who commit crimes are the sort who for some reason think they will never be caught. So, I have never considered jail to be a deterrant to crime. I consider it a way to remove the criminal from society and, hopefully, rehabilitate the criminal into a useful member of society.
(We don't seem to have figured out how to rehabilitate many, but I am still hopeful.)
30. AdamSelene - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:34 AM PT
wonkers2,
You make a good point, but I think cops are different. Cops don't live long in jail. It's hard to be a recidivist if you're dead. Besides, this has to be at least as good a deterent as the current mechanism of just letting the perp go free. What kind of punishment is that?
31. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:37 AM PT
Wonk:
So you suggest...? And remember, the guy raped and murdered your kid sister two years ago.
32. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:43 AM PT
Wait. What am I overlooking? When did punishing someone for his crime become by necessity attached to teaching anyone anything? We hope it serves that purpose, but that isn't THE purpose of punishment.
33. lazygeorge - Nov. 20, 1998 - 11:59 AM PT
Most of the nations of Western Europe do not have an exclusionary rule or a presumption of innocence for the accused. I have never heard anyone claim their legal systems are unfair.
34. wonkers2 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 12:06 PM PT
Seems to me that our rules against unreasonable searches and seizures are worth preserving even they may be unique. Have you ever heard about fears about the knock on the door in the middle of the night? Pretty common in quite a few other countries. The E rule is designed to stop the cops from going hog wild against people they suspect without good reason.
35. wonkers2 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 12:10 PM PT
Punishment as retribution is fine if not overdone. But I thought the second reason for prison terms is to reduce crime. That's the part that isn't working as well as it could, especially for stopping drug use and addiction.
36. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
jebxxx -
IF the person comitted a crime because he/she 1)didn't know better 2)had no job skills 3)was illiterate 4)some other reason that counseling and/or teaching would help
THEN providing the counseling/teaching while the criminal is incarcerated should result in a successful, law-abiding taxpayer after his/her debt to society is paid.
This is *good* both for the (hopefully) former criminal and society. Instead of someone in society commiting crimes we have someone in society contributing.
Of course, this doesn't work for criminals who commit their crimes for other reasons (sociopath or some such).
I honestly don't have the hard data, but my impression is that while a good theory, all of the above hasn't been working well in practice.
Any of y'all know?
37. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 12:45 PM PT
Christi:
We've all strayed from Irv's question (but I never liked the way it was posed anyway). To tell you the truth, rehabilatation has a nice ring to it. So does, "Jeb, you've won the lottery." But, Christi, I don't even want to take the time to write one letter per week (or year) to someone in prison. Does anyone? Are we to create one huge government agency to provide round-the-clock attention/education/nurturing for people who chose to mug old ladies?
38. msgreer - Nov. 20, 1998 - 12:46 PM PT
ChristiP..... Being brought up in a liberal, ACLU type family, I was brought up to believe rehabilation is what we, as a society, need to strive for in our judicial system.
I don't have statistics, wish my dad was alive, I would love listening to him on this subject..fascinating man.
I wonder what would happen if there were more volunteers going into jails to teach classes, to listen what the folks there have to offer, find out what they need to become productive citizens instead of learning how to become a career criminal.
No, I am not an ACLU softy, I just believe in people's rights. And before I hear it from someone, victim's rights need attention also.
Can it be all that complicated? I know there are states with progressive programs for inmates, I just don't know enough about it.
39. harr0004 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 1:00 PM PT
How would people here define "victims rights". I often get the impression that it is some right to seeing vengeance done. I can see some rights neccessary for notification of release of a stalker type criminal but that is a fairly small percentage of the crimes out there.
40. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 1:10 PM PT
msgreer:
ACLU is an outstanding group. I have no qualms there at all. But rehabilitation of the sort you suggest is impractical, impossible. Where would we ever find the money to provide even one 8-hour-shift caregiver for each inmate? Let's see. These caregivers need at least a master's degree. (The inmates will sue if they get less qualified teachers than public school children.) Quickly, let's estimate this cost (adding in the government paperwork, stupidity, etc.) at close to $200,000 per year per inmate.
Personally, I'd rather see that money go someplace else. And especially because a lot of these people in prison deserve to be there. They had choices every time they acted. Do you honestly believe they are mostly poor souls who descended in some sort of mist upon this earth, and that they are totally different from you and me? They had choices; they made decisions.
41. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 1:29 PM PT
"Do you honestly believe they are mostly poor souls who descended in some sort of mist upon this earth, and that they are totally different from you and me? They had choices; they made decisions."
I honestly don't know how many criminal are rehabilitable (sp?). However, do you honestly believe that every criminal in jail is a hardened, violent, repeat offender, totally unrecoverable.
I don't think I'm a bleeding heart. I think it is cheaper in the long run to invest the time and money into early intervention, than it is to have these people take up our court time and resources being incarceratd over and over and over.
I fully recognise that some (maybe most?) cannot be rehabilitated. I also fully recognise that I have not one clue about how to go about rehabilitation. I know that many people have invested time, money, and research trying to do that very thing.
I was just hoping that there was someone on the Fray who had more knowledge than I do and could enlighten me. Are we successfully rehabilitating anyone? Is there research into this still going on? Have we given up on this entirely? Is "lock 'em up and throw away the key the only answer?
42. tnrcirc - Nov. 20, 1998 - 1:53 PM PT
This thread seems to be moving away from "Can anyone get a fair trial" to "Is the prison system humane"... but I'd like to put forth a question along those lines. I've been thinking a lot lately about the question of motive in the prosecution of criminal acts. For example: it can only be first degree murder if it was premeditated. Was there malice aforethought or whatever... But does the motive ever make the act worse or better than if there had been no motivation? If you kill someone because he was there, he's just as dead as if you killed him because he slept with your wife. Is it any more sane to murder if you have a motive?
This all comes up in the context of hate crimes... that horrible case in Wyoming, where the student was murdered because he was gay. But is it really worse that the two boys killed him because he was gay? What if they had killed him for his wallet? The result would be the same...
43. Philistine - Nov. 20, 1998 - 2:01 PM PT
the new republic circulation desk?
44. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 2:12 PM PT
Philistine:
Sorry. The attorneys are coming in. (I just have this problem with people who hurt other people.)
45. ChristiPeters - Nov. 20, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
My guess is that motive speaks to the issue of society's safety were the perpetrator be allowed out into society again. For instance, to take the example of murder, if a man comitted murder in a rage when he caught someone with his wife, perhaps it is reasonable to assume that he is unlikely to murder again unless in similar circumstances.
Now take the case of someone who coldbloodedly and methodically plans random murders because he gets pleasure form the act. Let's say he is so good at doing this that he has committed multiple murders before getting caught. The assumption then could be that he is likely to murder again and further that he is likely to murder more than once if allowed out in society.
The argument is that the first (heat of passion) murderer poses less of a threat to society than the serial killer.
Similar reasoning can apply in lesser crimes such as robbery. The motive and method used tells us something about how advisable it is to let this person back into society.
However, as has been pointed out, we are straying from the topic. I apologise and will try to stick to the topic in any future posts.
46. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 3:06 PM PT
tnrcirc -- They killed him because he was gay. I know it goes aginst every grain in your being, but they killed him because he was gay. Try to get used to that fact. You can start by saying "They killed him beause he was gay" over and over agian. If you really want to get into things, try imagine being gay and getting killed for it.
I know. That's the real toughie.
It happens.
47. LadyChaos - Nov. 20, 1998 - 3:39 PM PT
The problem with our current CJ system is complex. I would break down the overall problem along the lines of several sub-issues:
A) The connexity between politics, the courts, and prosecutors. Far too many prosecutors bring cases with an eye on a future judgship or political aspiration. We need to make prosecutorial positions more "professional." How to do that is another question.
B) Too many laws. We have criminalized so much behavior that the CJ system has become more of a conveyor-belt type processor of ready-made punitive measures. We need to take a long, hard look at what behaviors we really want to call "criminal." In other words, sooner or later, we're going to have to face the reality that criminalizing consensual conduct (drug use, prostitution, etc.) probably traumatizes our social fabric more than it helps.
C) We have also abrogated many of our responsibilities to our society and left them for the CJ system to fix. Our social fabric will continue to get more and more dysfunctional if we continue to rely on our police, courts, and prisons to "mop-up" those messes that we refuse to clean up ourselves. This problem is most evident in the fact that, since the eighties, the rate of prison construction has outstripped the construction of new schools by a wide margin in some states (esp. down this way).
48. thomasd - Nov. 20, 1998 - 3:50 PM PT
What I'm wondering is: can Clinton get a fair Senate trial?
49. elliot803 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 3:52 PM PT
tnrcirc:
We went through the whole "Is motive relevant to the seriousness of a crime?" issue in the old Hate Crimes thread, which I believe you can find in the Fray archives.
In any case, the answer is yes, motive is relevant. Motive has long been considered a legitimate factor in determining the seriousness of a crime and the appropriate level of punishment.
50. elliot803 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 4:08 PM PT
A while back I read some official government estimates of the chances of a perpetrator being punished for a crime. For property crimes, the probability was something like 2%. The first problem is that many crimes are never even reported to the police, for one reason or another. Of reported property crimes, most are never solved (the perp is never identified). Of solved crimes, many are never prosecuted, for lack of sufficient evidence or some other reason. And of prosecuted crimes, many never result in a conviction (or plea bargain). Put all this together, and there is something like 1 chance in 50 that the perp will be prosecuted for any particular property crime. The conviction rate is much higher for crimes of violence, but most such crimes still go unpunished.
This is one reason why attempts to reduce crime rates significantly through harsher and harsher punishments will always be of limited effectiveness.
51. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 4:35 PM PT
Okay, you guys. I've got it...or at least I'm on the right track. Of course, I'm still unable to address the question as it's presented, but here's something to think about.
Every one of these poor, wretched souls who deserves your rehabilitation and whatever that encompasses will love this. So will all the taxpayers keeping these rapists and murderers in prison. Every murderer gets a million dollars...but he has to prove he's sane. He has to agree to accept the sentence of the court, and his money will be invested for him while he's incarcerated.
Now how quickly are we going to get rid of the insanity defense? Why there's an end to part of the backlog right there. Next we come to the really mean guys who are going to prison anyway, so each decides to get in as quickly as possibly. End of more backlog. Now we're troubled only by those rascally few who persist in proclaiming their innocence. Hmmm. Let's have nice, clean trials for these guys. They don't get any money.
52. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 5:07 PM PT
Then kill 'em. Isn't that it, Jeb? That's the universal panacea as far as the Repubs are concerned. A day doesn't go by when I don't hear some radio drooler screaming "Hey, we wanted the death penalty but you LIBERALS tried to stop it!"
So? So what do we really want to do? And what difference will it make?
None.
53. jebxxx - Nov. 20, 1998 - 5:14 PM PT
Cellar:
I knew you'd be the first to respond.
54. BobaFett - Nov. 20, 1998 - 7:17 PM PT
Cellar:
Right. We definitely shouldn't kill criminals.
Unless they assault or kill a gay person.
And then even hanging's too good for 'em, right?
55. 109109 - Nov. 20, 1998 - 8:00 PM PT
Actually, I just read that their motive was robbery, and that they beat and tortured him to get information/access to his apartment. But I doubt it matters to Shepard why they killed him.
56. AdamSelene - Nov. 20, 1998 - 9:14 PM PT
For my money, intent does matter to the seriousness of the crime, but motive shouldn't.
For example, If i kill a person because they're gay or ugly or just to get their money, the only thing that matters is my intent to kill. But if my intent was to create fear in the gay community and drive them out of my neighborhood, then that is an additional aspect to the crime (or even a separate crime.) But frankly it's hard for me to see how anything can make murder much worse than it already is.
57. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 9:43 PM PT
109 -- When someone is bashing your head in screaming "Die! Faggot! Die" It mattters.
58. LadyChaos - Nov. 20, 1998 - 9:53 PM PT
I think that only other minorities can understand the impact of a hate crime. When a black church is burned, or a black man is brutally murdered because of his race, it sends a chill through the entire black community, and every black person in that area goes through a period of feeling a heightened sense of insecurity, or loss of freedom.
Likewise with hate crimes against gays. A gay person is murdered or brutally assaulted because he's gay, and every gay person in that community will feel threatened, scorned, less free to be themselves. When a gay person gets beat up for having a rainbow bumper sticker on his car, that sends a message: "Refuse to stay invisible at your peril."
Only a member of a despised minority can understand the pain of having to "stay invisible" for fear of being attacked.
That is the nature of hate crimes. It's not so much about the motive of the perp as it is about the effect it has of proscribing people's sense of freedom. Having laws against hate crimes puts those who would attack minorities on notice that the community in which they live does not accept hate. The distinction between a crime of hate and other crimes which end in similar consequences can only be understood by those of us who have been there.
59. cllrdr - Nov. 20, 1998 - 9:54 PM PT
Look. Let's get serious. An individual is murdered, but the crime is commited against The State. That's why it was "The People Vs. O.J. Simpson," rather than "Lew and Juditha Brown Vs. O.J. Simpson." And that's why motive must come into play: the health of the entire community is at stake. If a group is targeted in the crime, it's important to bring this to the fore, not to separate the community into ita diverse elements, but in order to bring those elements together by honoring them. When a anti-semetic slogans desicrate a Jewish cemetary it's important for non-Jews to be made aware of that fact because "The People" values its Jewish constituents. The fight right now is to value its gay and lesbian constituents. And as we all know, there are those who would fight to the death before this happens -- even rhetorically.
60. LadyChaos - Nov. 20, 1998 - 10:33 PM PT
cllrdr,
Very well put.
61. cigarlaw - Nov. 21, 1998 - 12:46 AM PT
they did a survey in our county recently. 40% of respondants thought that a defendant ought to prove he is innocent and that it is better to convict an innocent than take the chance a guilty person would go free.
Since in my now past trial career i lost but one felony trial -- and i believe that guy was really innocent -- i have some knowledge in the area. if i were accused of a crime in america--particularlyin federal court--and could not afford one of about a half dozen lawyers in california, i would go to brazil.
everyone is up in arms about ken starr's tactics with the president. the fact that starr could truthfully say what he did were routine prosecutorial techniques is what's wrong with the justice system.
62. Random - Nov. 21, 1998 - 2:38 AM PT
What is the opinion of the lawyers regarding rehabilitation versus the Pelican Bay brand of confinement? Since, I know little about inside prison
populations, only know what I hear or read about places like Pelican Bay. If the prisoner treatment is anything like what we hear it is, I doubt there is a possibility of rehabilitating anyone who comes into the outside community from there.
63. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 5:02 AM PT
Here's a novel idea with which to begin the day's discussion. (I'm borrowing it from I.B. Singer.) If you want to avoid evil, avoid the appearance of evil.
64. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 5:42 AM PT
Let's get this nuisance (with all due respect to the victims' families and friends) out of the way, right away. We don't need to talk around it. And it does, at least a bit, harken back to the original question.
The people lost the criminal case against O.J. Simpson because Marcia Clark placed her ego above her responsibility in the search for justice. She gambled that if she were so generous as to extend her hand to a group of black women (and say to them, "I respect you, Sisters; we're all alike.") that their response would be eternal gratitude, respect and a blind following. Marsha, in her quest for adulation, forgot one important thing that the rest of us know nearly by instinct: You can't love someone you don't respect.
65. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 7:09 AM PT
This was to be a point. Marsha knew how overwhelming the DNA evidence would be to anyone without special knowledge. To us, the people, she juggled and said, "Look. No jurors are ever going to understand or appreciate this evidence. I'll try a different tack to win them over."
To herself, Marsha said, "And, incidentally, if I win, I'll be a hero." This is the point at which Marsha's search for justice ended, and the place at which she lost her way.
Once she decided that no ordinary person could understand the evidence, she also decided (if she thought of it at all) that no ordinary person would say, "I don't understand the scientific details, but the rest of the evidence is overwhelmingly against the defendant."
Carried away by the idea of becoming a hero, Marsha decided she had to be the best hero. She wanted to prove O.J. guilty for all those open-minded black people among the people. And the most rewarding victory would come by choosing the toughest opponents.
Am I making any sense here? Am I going too far in my attempt to say that the Simpson case is aberrant to our system of justice?
66. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 7:13 AM PT
Well that's just the start of what was wrong with Planet O.J., Jeb. The prosecution was on the defensive from moment one. Everybody knew that they argued the case downtown rather than in Santa Monica for appearances sake. Garcetti wanted to be able to say that O.J. was being tried by a "jury of his peers," i.e. other blacks. What he failed to take into acount -- and what this entire society fails to take into account by means of willful blindness that is maddening -- is the class system. Only in Santa Monica would O.J. face a "jury of his peers," ie. middle-to-upper-middle-class whites -- with a smattering of non-whites. Clark's obsession with explaining DNA made for a spectacle even more boring than Ken Starr's Drone-o-rama. So O.J. won because he played the "race card"? Not really. It was the Class card. And over and above all of that, there was the Money card.
It truly amazes me that having failed to convict O.J. -- in a case that objectively speaking was a "slam dunk," Clark has gone on to become a TV star. Night after night she's prosecuting Clinton for the Monica Broadcasting Corporation. And as we all know, she's failing there too. Get the hook!
67. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 7:21 AM PT
Cellar:
Thanks. I appreciate someone's being there to get me out of these things. Why do I do this to myself?
68. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 7:32 AM PT
DanDillon:
I meant to say "aberrant of," right?
69. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 9:03 AM PT
Cellar:
By the way. I object. To just about everything you said. But I don't want to take up space arguing abstract principles regarding your rendering of a case we agree was mishandled from the beginning.
70. LadyChaos - Nov. 21, 1998 - 9:20 AM PT
cllrdr,
I agree that O.J.'s real peers were in Santa Monica, and that that's where he should have been tried. But to say that the class issue prevailed over the race issue is perhaps being a little willfully blind. Just check out some of the posts regarding the O.J. case on these boring AOL threads; the whole subject is clearly split along racial lines, with blacks saying everything from, "O.J. was railroaded by white man's justice," to, "While I agree 'in principle' that O.J. did it, I don't agree with the perjuring tactics of the white LAPD detectives, and so I'm glad that he got off."
I tried to point out to these people that Tim McVeigh was convicted on much less evidence, but it falls on deaf ears.
71. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 9:24 AM PT
Cellar:
This comment is sort of a preemptory strike. Several times removed. In more ways than one. My initial rendering of Marsha's mistakes was an ungraceful attempt to keep anyone from musing about the details of Marsha's mistakes. In other words, I admit that I do tend to wander.
If I picture myself as an attorney in a court of law, I can envision another reason why people would wish to kill an attorney.
72. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 11:53 AM PT
LadyC -- I don't want anyone to think I'm ignoring the fact that race overwhelmed the case. How could I? It's the biggest elephant in the smallest bedroom imaginable. What I was trying to do was to cast everyone's minds back to the beginning. There was a double murder. There was -- indeed -- a mountain of evidence that pointed to one person and one person only. And that person had no alibi whatsoever. But he had something better: an attorney who knew how to play the jury like a violin. And the reason violin master classes were in session was because of a long history of LAPD racism. However, O.J. presented a far different scenario. As the trial progressed, I was amazed that the many, many white LAPD police officers who helped Simpson out from the time of the murders straight though to the arrest -- often functioning as his personal lackeys -- were not brought up. Obviously that would have opened up a whole can of worms in that they were breaking departmental regulations. The fact that Fuhrman let Simpson go after an earlier incident of his beating the living shit out of Nicole -- then fleeing the scene of what should have been a battery arrest! -- was likewise ignored. Two seeimingly conflicting ideas can be held in the head of a one individual at the same time. Fuhrman is a racist. But he is also a mysogynist. And more important than that (now we're up to three ideas!) a celebrity hound. He couldn't care less about Nicole being beaten. O.J. was a VIP, and therefore he "looked the other way." The murder was a Big Deal Case, and he wanted his name on it. But it doesn't logically follw that he "planted evidence" and got the cooperation of all and sundry (at least 50 people) in "framing" a man none of them ever wanted to convict. (I'm talking about LAPD rank and file.) But that didn't matter in light of the obfuscation that resulted.
73. BobaFett - Nov. 21, 1998 - 12:21 PM PT
Says who Fuhrman was a racist?
Because the man used the N-word when acting out dialogue for a would-screenwriter?
Mark Fuhrman is a liar. But it was never established that he was a racist.
74. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 12:39 PM PT
Boba:
I don't think we can know what lies in Fuhrman's heart. But once it came out that he had, indeed, said the word (and I feel childish not saying it), why did the prosecution not simply reply with, "And how many black people have used 'Whitey' or 'Honky'?" Instead of immediately pointing out this hypocracy, this double standard, Marsha went into her righteous indignation mode. She ruined Fuhrman's credibility as a cop right there. Or, rather, she made a bad situation worse.
75. BobaFett - Nov. 21, 1998 - 12:48 PM PT
Jebxxx:
Don't feel childish not saying the word. Something I noticed, and was annoyed at, was that a lot of white people at the time went out of their way to say it rather than "N-word." Bill Maher, for example, was ever to hip to say "N-word," so he would say the entire word. Unnecessary, I think, if the word is as insulting as it's supposed to be (not being black, I'll have to take their word for it).
If you think marcia clark should have tried to prove that black people are "hypocritical" on this issue to a 90% black jury, you're on crack. And the good shit, too.
76. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 12:59 PM PT
Cellar:
Do you really believe Garcetti held the trial downtown for appearances sake? Have you considered that he decided to hold it there in order to prevent a race war? He knew he'd get a guilty verdict in Santa Monica. He knew he could only hope to get a guilty verdict downtown, and that if he got one there it'd be because black people themselves would've been on the jury that reached that verdict.
Marsha came in as a second stringer in a losing basketball game. But that fact doesn't say anything more than that Garcetti, while seemingly above the fray, was in fact the losing coach. Justice views all of this from someplace in the distance. Simpson didn't win; the people lost.
77. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 1:08 PM PT
Boba:
Something astonishing (after which we'll get back to business): I've never seen crack or even cocaine.
If that isn't enough, there's this: I've never seen even one of those Star Wars movies.
78. wonkers2 - Nov. 21, 1998 - 1:11 PM PT
TEXAS JUSTICE--2 Men Fined $125 Each For Sodomy in Private
Houston, Nov.20 AP--Two men caught having sex in a private home were each fined $125 today after pleading no contest in a case they said will challenge the sodomy law in Texas.
The two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 55, and Tyrone Garner, 31, said they would contest the fine, imposed by Justice of the Peace Mike Parott, and appeal the case.
On Sept. 17, Harris County deputies walked in while the two were having consensual intercourse in Mr. Lawrence's unlocked apartment east of Houston. The deputies were investigating a complaint about an armed intruder at the apartment. The authorities say they believe that the complaint was filed by someone who was angry with the men.
The two were arrested and charged with sodomy, one of the few times the 119-year-old state law has been enforeced. The law makes homosexual oral and anal sex a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of fine of $500.
Of the 19 states that have a sodomy statute barring consensual anal or oral sex, Texas is one of five that focuses on same-sex partners. The other four are Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, according to Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund of New York. Judge Kenneth Starr is reportedly considering the filing of an amicus brief on behalf of Harris County.
79. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 1:16 PM PT
Wonk:
Come on. How much of that is legit?
80. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 1:26 PM PT
Boba:
Heck, yes. I'd try to prove anything I felt needed proving to anyone. Just ask Cellar how much attention I pay to his race(s). In court, out of respect for all the people, I'd have pointed out the hypocracy, yes. I would not have belabored the point.
81. wonkers2 - Nov. 21, 1998 - 1:37 PM PT
I believe Kenny Boy's press release said that if Clinton and Lewinsky are being prosecuted for hetero oral sex it is only fair that the two gentlemen in Texas should be similarly exposed for their sinful behavior. (g) [All but the last sentence.]
82. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 3:41 PM PT
Cellar:
I'm looking over some threads that I never read. One of them has to do with flyspecks. (I didn't go back, but rather scrolled down to read the response.) Now I have to ask you something.
You aren't thinking what I fear you might be thinking, are you? You do know, right, that I am often purposely ambiguous? You are aware that I'll go totally into the absurd to demonstrate a point, I hope.
83. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 3:44 PM PT
jeb -- L.A. missed its chance for a race war when the Rodney King verdict came down. Didn't even come close. The action never got much further than Third and LaBrea. Hollywood blvd. got "hit" -- but then you've got to factor in all those businesses that decided to torch the place for the insurance. And believe me, a *lot* of that went on. Meanwhile white cadres strted to erect gun mounts on the Beverly Hills border. That's right -- they had their AK-47s all ready. Didn't get to use them though, cause the riot never broke into white residential areas. What happened to those guns and their owners? Nothing. Some "race war"!
84. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 3:51 PM PT
Cellar:
Ah. It is as I feared. I wish I could tell you.
85. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 3:56 PM PT
Wonkers -- The Texas sodomy case is really interesting. Now let's see the HRC put the same weight behind it that they put for gay marriage, right?
Calling the HRC.
Hello HRC.
Anybody home?
Andrew?
Aw, skip it.
86. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:00 PM PT
Cellar:
No. You aren't going to do this.
87. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:04 PM PT
Cellar:
It's you. It's Chris Darden's mom. It's me. Get back up!
88. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:06 PM PT
I'm here, jeb. What up?
89. LadyChaos - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:14 PM PT
cllrdr,
Your analysis in Message #72 is pretty much on the spot. I also found it interesting that while Furhman initially suspected Kato, the prosecution never tried to bring it up in his defense. If I was Fred Goldman, I would want to string up Marcia Clark on the tree adjacent to Simpson.
90. jebxxx - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:15 PM PT
Have I written so poorly that you, of all people, don't understand?
I'll turn off the computer for a while.
91. cllrdr - Nov. 21, 1998 - 4:28 PM PT
Jeb, what's going on? What problem are you talking about? I have none with you.
LadyC -- Marcia had done such a number on the Goldman's -- winning their trust, insisting that "justice" would be done -- they didn't know where to turn. I would tend they doubt they feel as close to her as they once did.
92. bubbaette - Nov. 21, 1998 - 7:16 PM PT
Interesting thread. I just got back from three days of mediation training, and while resisting the notion, am beginning to feel like a convert must.
I don't think that the law should belong to just lawyers -- it should belong to the people. And I don't think you should have to go to a court of law in order to get justice -- by the time a matter gets to court in most cases, the notion of what is justice for the victim and the accused is lost in a maze of case law and statutory interpretation that often has very little to do with the situation at hand. Certainly the justice system usually offers little satisfaction to the victim. Nor does the punishment effectively take into consideration the particular crime and people involved. If the time, energy and resources could be put into dealing with problems before they become serious, I suspect that we'd all be better satisfied and get better results for the investment.
93. cigarlaw - Nov. 22, 1998 - 1:12 AM PT
i don't know why O.J. came up, but frankly, clark and darden were simply bush league attorneys who were so arrogant they figured they could not lose (after all, neither one had ever lost a capital case when up against defendants with no resources and an over worked public defender). the got introduced to the world of competance and a defendant with resources and just could not cut it in the court room. realizing their own limits as attorneys, one became a tv personality and the other a teacher.
btw, does anyone believe the cops jumped O.J.'s fence because they were concerned for his safety? an honest judge would have suppressed all the evidence found at his house but then they would have had no case at all, so she handed to them on a silver platter as per normal, and they still blew it.
94. cllrdr - Nov. 22, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
Absolutely right, cigarlaw. But any understanding of Planet O.J. must proceed from areas well outside the law, ie. show business.That it has been confused in the public mind with Standard Operational Legal Procedure is simply grotesque. I'll never forget the way people wandered around town muttering "innocent until proven guilty," clearly meaning "I'm not going to accept one damn speck of evidence no matter what you tell me!" But the burden of responsibility, to my mind, fallsneither on Clark and Darden, nor Cochran and company, but on Judge Lance Ito. That became crystal clear during the Rosa Lopez saga. Everything was up for grabs from then on.
95. jebxxx - Nov. 22, 1998 - 8:59 AM PT
Cigarlaw:
My first brilliant question of the day: What happens if they vote to impeach Clinton? Is that it? I'm not suggesting that, at that point, he'd even wish to continue. But suppose he did wish to. Or suppose the people didn't want him impeached. There is no recourse, it's over?
96. arkymalarky - Nov. 22, 1998 - 9:14 AM PT
Jeb,
Impeachment is the formal charge. Removal would occur after a Senate process ending in a vote for removal, which folks on both sides of the issue know would never pass.
97. jebxxx - Nov. 22, 1998 - 9:44 AM PT
Ark:
Thanks. I guess I was wondering just exactly how much longer the people would allow this spending of their time and money to go on.
That (likely low estimate of) $40 million is going to double really quickly. It almost seems as if people think this is a natural process, and that it can't be stopped.
98. cllrdr - Nov. 22, 1998 - 9:51 AM PT
It can be stopped. Janet Reno should fire Ken Starr.
99. jebxxx - Nov. 22, 1998 - 9:57 AM PT
The only crime in all of this seems to be the one presently be committed against the taxpayer. Can you have a crime if the victim is willing?
100. jebxxx - Nov. 22, 1998 - 10:14 AM PT
Isn't this kind of like paying for cable TV, getting nothing but commercials and being perfectly satisfied?
Actually, it's one step beyond. People are sitting around pondering the veracity of the characters in those commercials.