Adrian Haymond If you’d like to discuss
or just express your disgust, feel free to contact Haymond at
[email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Adrian Haymond
I trust the American justice system. I know it can be imperfect,
subject to the whims of conservative or liberal judges, uninformed
jurors, zealous prosecutors, and outgunned or devious defense
attorneys. People have been imprisoned for years ““ even
executed ““ for crimes they did not commit. This, of course,
is a serious matter that must be attended to if the American public
is to continue to have any trust in our judicial procedures.
Those who have money can sometimes “buy” lesser
sentences or even acquittal, while the poor and underprivileged
must often deal with the harshness of our penal system.
Nevertheless, this country’s criminal justice system is among
the best in the world in weighing facts and coming up with largely
impartial verdicts.
The “court of public opinion,” however, is another
matter altogether. Time and time again, we hear pundits on
television give their opinions on highly charged criminal cases,
and the general public then tends to form their own opinions
regarding the innocence or guilt of a particular defendant. In many
(if not most) cases, the opinions are formed by evidence taken out
of context or by preconceived notions of guilt or innocence based
on race, gender or other biases. Instead of waiting for the verdict
to be decided, many will proclaim their feelings about the guilt or
innocence of the accused for the whole world to dissect. Unlike
jurors, attorneys and judges, there is no “gag order”
on the dissemination of these opinions, and hostile actions can
then result if the actual verdict goes against what the public has
already decided.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin The inference of
guilt actually begins the moment someone is charged with a crime.
Of course, police cannot just book anybody they choose and pin
crimes on people willy-nilly; the resultant uproar would lead to
open rebellion and riots that would make the Los Angeles uprising
look like a party. There must be evidence that points to the
individual being charged, and the evidence must be provable in
court. Thus, if there is no corruption (as in the Rampart
police situation), the cases against those charged with crimes are
usually pretty strong.
There is just one problem, however: police, along with all other
humans, are fallible. Even if everything else seems to fit, their
conclusion can still be wrong due to missing evidence, leading to
the caveat that a person is “innocent until proven
guilty.”
But is a person really treated as innocent until proven guilty?
The person charged is booked and thrown in jail. If bail is
granted, that person must then provide certain items as collateral
to produce the amount of bail that can free them. If bail is
not granted, the defendant can languish in jail for over a year
before the start of a “speedy” trial. Whether or
not bail has been set, the person is liable to be fired from his or
her job and made into a monster (especially in high-profile
cases).
For instance, in the case of Mark Chmura, a football player
accused of raping a minor, his team released him as he waited for
his trial date. There was nothing in his performance before the
arrest that would have induced his team to drop him, but the arrest
indicated to his team that he was a “bad person” who
would cause negative publicity. When he was later found innocent,
his life was still irreparably damaged.
The recent discovery of questionable FBI files in the Oklahoma
City bombing case brings forth a scary thought: what if Timothy
McVeigh, the person unanimously fingered (and convicted) as the
bomber, was denied his rights when the case was being compiled?
An even more sobering question is what if the FBI documents lead
to a realization that there was little actual evidence to convict
him? Millions of people have already consented to his impending
demise, with many of them wishing for more heinous action to be
done to his person.
I fear that if McVeigh was to be set free due to FBI
mishandling, he would not live long, for vigilante justice would
see to it that the sentencing bungled by the government would be
carried out anyway. It’s not that I like McVeigh, but his
guilt has been seared into the minds of the American public so that
his possible freedom would seem a blatant travesty of justice,
proof that the American system of justice is bankrupt.
The victims and their families are the ones who become scarred
most by this process. In most instances, the police close a case
when the accused is arrested, booked and brought to trial.
Therefore, it behooves them to be extremely sure they have the
right person. If it happens that the arrested person is not
the actual perpetrator, valuable time has been lost. The trail of
the actual murderer/robber/molester turns ice cold, and those most
affected by the case are now left in a state of confusion,
depression and outrage.
Some cannot believe that the “monster” has been
allowed to go free and blame the underhanded defense attorney, the
ignorant jurors, the incompetent lawyers, the bumbling police
““ and vow to make sure the defendant gets “his just
desserts.” Others who have pinned their hopes and beliefs on
the conviction of the defendant become lost and confused, their
trust in the legal system (and even in life in general)
shattered.
Another factor contributing to convictions in the court of
public opinion is the tendency of people to gossip. Invariably, few
rumors trumpet the goodness of others, but many document the
decadence and depravity of even the most well-mannered individuals.
Coupled with our desire for closure (we hate open-ended issues
““ they’re too complex and messy), we are ready to
convict and execute anyone once even a little evidence is broadcast
to the world.
Opinions then become fact in the minds of involved parties as
well as the uninformed, and we have a ready-made candidate for the
needle. In the old days, this would be referred to as lynching.
Finally, reality shows such as “Cops” and
“America’s Most Wanted,” as well as dramas like
“Law and Order” and “Homicide” show the
humanity of law enforcement and legal officials, but tend to paint
defendants as monsters and animals. Although both types of shows
have a place, the tendency is to demonize anyone who shows up as a
suspect or fugitive.
I am in no way calling for an expansion of criminals’
rights, but I do wonder whether if I was ever falsely accused of a
crime, would I get any consideration to prove my innocence, or
would I be portrayed as a sociopath based on circumstantial
evidence?
An ongoing case sums up the tendency to convict before trial. A
professional football player and his girlfriend were recently
charged with murdering their son due to child abuse and neglect.
Shortly thereafter, a sports-talk host referred to him as a
“scumbag” and other less-flattering names ““
before any conviction was made!
So why should we even waste taxpayer money to put anyone on
trial? All defendants are guilty, so fry them all now and worry
about innocence later ““ at least that’s how it is in
the court of public opinion.