Good guys and bad guys
Don Coldsmith
Monday, January 12, 2009
A FEW YEARS back, we were shocked by the killing of a police officer in Topeka, in a drug raid. There was no question as to who did it. The drug dealer was arrested and tried and found guilty. He admitted that he fired the fatal shot. But the shocker to me, to everybody, I think, was that he was found guilty of a series of lesser crimes. Not first or second degree murder — possession of drugs, intent to sell, not having a tax stamp and oh, yes, manslaughter, which carries a minimal jail sentence.
It is my impression that if this convicted killer receives the maximum penalty for all his crimes, to run end to end, his longest possible sentence is about eight years. He’ll probably be on the street in four years, with time off for “good behavior.” Does anybody out there see anything wrong with this picture? We all know of cases where an unquestionably guilty person goes free because of a minor clerical error. Or, because professional jury selectors have stacked a jury with people they know will acquit. If our justice system isn’t broken, it is surely badly bent. A few years ago I was testifying in a case and was appalled at some of the process. “That isn’t right!” I remarked to one of the attorneys. He explained it to me, as one would do a child: “Don, it has nothing to do with right and wrong. THIS IS A COURT OF LAW.” I found that a little scary. In my ignorance, I thought that was what the court system was about.
That and justice. Did you every notice that the emblem of justice, the lady holding the scales, wears a blindfold? Originally, I guess that was so she could balance the facts fairly. Now, it may be so she doesn’t become nauseated at the sight of what’s going on. (Presumably, she wears ear plugs, too).
Sometimes it seems that the deck is stacked against the good guys. Sure, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but how far can you go? Surely the victims have as much right to justice as the criminal. (What does he care? He knows they’re not going to do much to him anyway. It’s a game).
But even in a game, there should be ground rules which are fair to both sides. I once heard a standup comedian deal with this subject. Ground rules haven’t always been fair in conflicts through history, he pointed out. He wasn’t putting it in terms of good guys versus bad guys, but just pointing out what the referee might have said in some of the more well-known historical events.
“Okay, now: The British team has to wear red jackets and march in the open in straight lines. The colonials can hide behind trees and shoot whenever they want to —
“Col. Custer, your cavalry can pick a hill in the open to fire from. The Sioux and Cheyenne will ride round and round while they take turns shooting at you —
“Daltons, you have to rob two Coffeyville banks at the same time and then make a run for it down the alley. Townsmen, you can get guns at the hardware store and shoot the length of the alley from there —
“Black Kettle, your Cheyennes have to camp in the assigned area at Sand Creek. Col. Chivington will attack your women and children at dawn —
“Christians, you wait here in the arena. Romans, you turn the lions loose when the Emperor gives the signal — ”
Okay, the rules have never been really fair and it has seldom had anything to do with right and wrong, historically speaking. But how far can we let it go? I think one problem is that we have never really decided what we want to accomplish in criminal justice. There are at least three possible goals:
1) Punishment
2) Protection for the public
3) Rehabilitation.
Let’s accept that these three are actually incompatible. Number 2, Protection, is obviously a complete failure. Number 3, Rehabilitation, has been the main thrust for some time now and is successful in a small minority of cases. To the average criminal, it’s only a joke, like the frivolous lawsuits he files to while away the leisure time while he waits to get back on the street.
Isn’t it time to take another look at good guys versus bad guys?
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by spectator (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."
Robert Frost
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty cynical article.
Posted by create (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While reading this article, my thoughts turned to the victims of that BTK SOB. Those whose mothers and daughters and sisters were his victims testified to their pain, and all he did was stand there with a stupid grin, basking in the attention he was getting. Yes, he's in prison now, and justice has been served, but he confessed. Had the courts and lawyers been involved, the trial would still be ongoing because there were so many victims.
Posted by EsqEB (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Definition of a jury: 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Definition of a judge: a Lawyer who knew a Governor.
Definition of a lawyer: A person not smart enough to get into medical school.
Posted by sociallyconsious (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Definition of a Jury: 12 people who WANT to do their civic duty.
Definition of a Judge: A committed lawyer who wanted to make a bigger difference.
Definition of a Lawyer: Someone who is not afraid to be made fun of, and believes everyone has a right to be treated equally and fairly.
Posted by spectator (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry the article offended some but it's been my experience that the jury rarely knows ALL about the case and rarely knows ALL about the defendant. Too often in our society, we want to believe that the defendant has been in trouble JUST THIS ONCE and should be let off with a slap on the hand. It's human nature to be forgiving and hope for the best. The truth of the matter is that, and I have been privilege to some post-case interviews with jurors, that "Had we known that this WASN"T the 1st offense or known his/her criminal history, we would have made a different decision" isn't unknown, even here. That's the way the law is written-each case is supposed to be determined solely on it's own merit. As for defense attorneys, I am acquainted with many and most are honest and ethical. It is inevitable that there will be the occasional bad apple in any profession, no matter where you look. Remember too, the attorney may not want the (alleged) crook on the street any more than you or I but if the attorney accepts the case, defending this person is his/her job and and if he/she doesn't do every thing possible, THEY can be sued by the (alleged) crook! And some attorneys HAVE refused to take cases. I am not an attorney, a judge nor am I connected with any of them. Don't misunderstand, our train-wreck of a criminal justice system seriously needs to be revamped so if you can come up with a better system, go for it, don't keep it a secret. I served as a juror on a civil case and while in deliberation, we requested information that we felt was important but was not brought out in open court. The information was denied and the outcome of the mixed vote(civil jury decisions only require a majority) was, in my opinion, the stereotypical miscarriage of justice.
Posted by EsqEB (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Definition of a Lawyer: Someone who is not afraid to be made fun of, and believes everyone has a right to be treated equally and fairly."
Not true, I am a lawyer and I hate being made fun of.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)