For this to happen, someone is usually sacrificed on the public altar to vindicate the perpetrator. For example, take George Anthony. For the rest of his life, some people will believe or suspect him of wrong-doing, Some bells just can't be unrung. It's an ugly, frustrating miscarriage of justice.
However, an even worse situation exists when a jury awards a guilty verdict to an innocent person. In a wrongful conviction, a person's life is ruined--permanently. First by the trauma of incarceration for a crime the person never committed, then by a taint that can never be totally erased even if the exonoree is found not guilty in a second trial and receives a certificate of actual innocence from the state.
This thwarted justice happens more than we would like to believe. Look at Dallas County alone: District Attorney Craig Watkins created the Conviction Integrity Unit in 2007 in cooperation with the Texas Innocence Project. Through DNA testing alone, more than twenty wrongfully convicted people have been set free--most of them men in murder and rape cases. The unit has expanded its scope to cases where genetic evidence is not available, a more common situation for women imprisoned for a crime they did not commit. Now both Houston and New York City are establishing similar divisions to examine cases in their areas.
More suffer than just the wrongfully convicted in these cases. Families and friends have their lives and hearts torn apart. They spend years of their lives in an essential obsession with the case that put an innocent loved one behind bars. Scraping together money, uttering ceaseless prayers, pleading with anyone--and everyone--to help the person behind bars for a crime committed by someone else.
The price to all of us as a society? Of course, there are the financial expenses of re-opening any case. Worse than that, though, is the thought that the person who committed a heinous crime is walking about, laughing up his sleeve, confident in his ability to commit a similar crime, again and again--an emboldened criminal ready to victimize anyone he encounters.
In a wrongful conviction, we often see prosecutors who have overstepped the mark or lost sight of their mission to seek truth and find justice. In wrongful acquittals, we often encounter defense attorneys willing to sling unsubstantiated smears maligning the character of the victim or of any person who appears to be a good target.
We have laws governing the behaviour of prosecutors but sometimes they are adept at hiding their duplicities and violations. We must have more not less transparency from the state's attorneys. More documents need to be made public. Florida actually does a better job of this than most states.
Defense attorneys, however, seem relatively ungoverned in their courtroom behavior. They do need to do their best to raise the questions that lead to unreasonable doubt. But does that mean they should be able to destroy the lives of others with impunity in their desire to defend their client? One would think legal ethics would stop them in their tracks but many of them appear oblivious.
We need our courts to be a place that reveals truth--not a shield to protect wrongdoing and reckless allegations. Something must be done to hold the attorneys accountable. You can't expect juries to get the verdict right unless we do.
Thanks for a great post. Well put, as always.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
ReplyDeleteThe Athony jury had to sort through a mass of lies rather than weighing the truth. Baez only performed well if you believe that the rights of one citizen (Casey Anthony) take precedence over the rights of many others (her dad, Dr G, Roy Kronk, Dr Vass, Zenaida Gonzalez, Vasco Thompson, multiple police and FBI personnel--all smeared and lied about-- and, of course, Caylee). That was never the intent of the justice system and raising reasonable doubt is not justification for it. That we have allowed this to become acceptable is our bad. To characterize this vile type of practice as 'doing a good job' is simply not accurate, IMO. The perversion of our justice system is more complete with this verdict, because it is so high profile.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer in the right to representation and that a strong challenge to the State is the only way we keep from becoming a police state. And I think Casey had an absolute right to a strong defense. I don't, however, think her rights as a citizen are any more sacred than anyone else's and to ruin reputations, smear character and generally trash other citizen's rights--even some who had nothing, nothing to do with this trial--in service of her 'rights' is just plain wrong. The fact that her counsel could do this with impunity because they can't be held accountable for what is said in court is a big gaping hole in the system. I've heard several talking heads suggest that people are just projecting their dislike for Casey onto Jose Baez. This is BS. Jose Baez needs to own his behavior. Casey didn't make him perform like a cocky little rookie, lie to the court, suborn perjury, publicly vilify innocent people. He did that on his own. Baez is devoid of any ethical compass and that's why I don't like him.
Many commentators and Baez repeatedly have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system. It is far better than carrying out lynchings in banana republics. But as demonstrated in your excellent analysis, when juries convict people who are later exonerated by DNA evidence, juries are far from perfect. We have no obligation to pretend that they are by saying we respect their verdict however mindless it may be. In the Casey Anthony case, the jury failed at its job, and a murderer went free.
you are right,NancyB. The assumption of perfection by humans in any group leds as down a path that turns us all into mindless sheep. The betterment of society requires that we question everything.
ReplyDelete