Justice Denied

Let's start with the disclaimer. I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not that I'm talking through my hat, but I do admit to ignorance of all the facts. And that's fine with me. The system of American justice leaves a lot to be desired. And I assume the same is true elsewhere. Where shall I start?

I'll begin where my thinking about the issue as the subject for an essay began (though the American justice system has always troubled me). A friend of mine is in a correctional facility. He's a gentle and intelligent man, an effective educator, and a faithful member of the community. But he has purchased pornography (specifically involving children) and practiced voyeurism. He never touched a child improperly (as far as I know) but at least one of the involved children, now an adult, voiced dismay when he heard about the man's actions.

My friend is clearly troubled. I don't know the details of his previous interactions with the legal system – nor do I want to – but, according to what I learned at a hearing, he had been instructed by the courts on several occasions in the past to get adequate psychological help to deal with his problem and, apparently, he did not do so. The judge seemed to be fair and, after noting all the factors that seemed pertinent, including sentencing guidelines, imposed a relatively lenient term, considering those guidelines. Nonetheless he will be incarcerated for several years. I don't dispute the equity of the sentence itself, but it doesn't seem to fit in with what I read in the media about other criminals. Justice is supposed to be the same for everyone, but it isn't.

For example, it's not unusual for a politician to be censored for his “indiscretion” or crime, or to receive a relatively mild sentence (usually shorter than that of my friend) and then to write a book about the event and earn a lot of money. His attorneys argue that a short term, or no term at all, is justified because “his life has been ruined” by the publicity and the shame. (I should point out that those accused of other crimes have had their lives ruined by offender registries, employment, restrictions, rejection by friends, and the like. Both groups have brought the unpleasantness on themselves. Even those who are innocent will be stained by the accusations.) And the sentences of other “high profile” defendants are often short irrespective of the charges. Those who employ lobbyists may not be restrained by such considerations if the individual has useful connections. Expensive, and rhetorically polished lawyers can manipulate the severity of verdicts, especially when they portray their clients as the victims. Or they, and public opinion, can induce a “Not guilty” verdict. The O. J. Simpson verdict is one that many associate with this form of “justice.”

Less obvious to consumers of the media are cases in which a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, but the bleary-eyed judge insists that they do so because of expense to the system and the time of those involved. Is justice served if a juror changes his mind simply so he can be released from service and return to his family?

But for less newsworthy criminals the sentences are often “mandatory” or may have provisions for minimum time, or perhaps there is no possibility of parole. Others, sometimes innocent, bargain away their freedom. A plea resulting in a short but predictable period of incarceration is far preferable, they decide, to the possibility of a far harsher punishment if he chose trial. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. It's not worth the risk.

A group of those for whom punishment is delayed are the ones sentenced to death. They may wait on “death row” for many years, through appeals and other legalities, and then, as has recently been the case in Arkansas, be rushed to execution before the expiration date on one the drugs to be used.

Those are the ones, however, who receive some form of justice. There has been a completion of the procedures against them. Statutes of limitations give some – the ones who evade indictment – the opportunity to avoid andy punishment. They're the people for whom vigilante “justice” is considered by some of the victims.

And there are far too many who languish in correctional facilities without ever having been tried. There may be a long wait before trial and they may be held without bail, or held because of a bail which they cannot afford. They may be awaiting some legal procedure which is delayed by an overcrowded judicial system, or by the manipulation of lawyers seeking either advantage for their clients or personal advantage (like a vacation). And for the most part, these individuals are, or will be, represented by overburdened public defenders who are unable to provide all the help their “customers” require.

The facilities in which those being held are stored are often worse than the ones to which some of them ultimately will be assigned. A glaring example is Rikers [sic – no apostrophe] Island in New York City. (It was supposedly named after Abraham Rycken, a Dutch landowner of the 17^th century.) Conditions there, including drugs, violence, and overcrowding, are so bad that there are discussions of eliminating it and replacing it with a group of facilities around the city. I suspect it will still be horrendous, but not quite as bad as what currently exist. It's a storage rather than a correctional facility.

But there is another problem. (Actually there are many other problems, but I'll only bring up one more.) If an individual is injured by a faulty product or procedure of a large organization, (s)he and the organization have decisions to make – assuming the individual chooses to take action. The company may maintain its innocence and use its swarm of mouthpieces to maintain that there was no fault, and it was the consumer's failing anyway. They'll risk a lawsuit if they think they can win (being right has nothing to do with it) even if involves numerous litigants.

If they don't think they'll win the same legal brigade will work out a settlement with the plaintiff (they'll pay him off) with the proviso that he keep quiet about what they paid, lest others be encouraged to sue. The payoff, of course, comes from stockholders rather than the guilty parties in management. Even if officials were aware of the problem and did nothing about it, officers of the company never seem to be indicted for their acts. They don't pay. Only investors do. There may be a need for a(n expensive, golden parachuted) change in leadership for public relations purposes, or even the sacrifice of a (low-level) scapegoat, but it rarely goes beyond that point. Equal justice isn't the American way.

Imagine what I'd say if I weren't ignorant.

June 6, 2017