Is justice unwell?

[costard]

Wayne Carey, an Australian Rules footballer, glassed his girlfriend in a restaurant in Florida. When two police officers came to his hotel room to speak with him about the incident, he became violent. Today in court he pled guilty to the assault of two police officers; his plea was accepted but no conviction was recorded. He is to perform 50 hours of community service, pay a fine and has contributed to the local police charity.

When I heard about this, I was reminded of an observation another board member made about his street - a lot of his neighbours are lawyers, all of them seem to support Obama (I think it was a political thread that got locked up pretty quick).

It would seem to me that there is a deal of concern in the legal community [in the US] that the court has lost the position of moral equity by which it is granted the right to judge: the executive may lie and entrap, the citizen may not. The executive may torture, the citizen may not. The executive may sell its judgement - the citizen can take a gamble on whether s/he has enough money to be able to afford a bid. When the court loses its moral right, the practitioners of law need the protection of the executive to survive: a totalitarian state comes into being or the society decays to the point of anarchy.

Any thoughts?

(My opinion, for what it is worth, is that you should have jailed the bastard.)

[Wilhammer]

Yes, it is not Democracy as we are taught in civics class or are lead to believe by the propaganda of our States.

In the US it is quite bad - he who pays the lawyers can do just about anything, those who can't have their lives totally screwed up for minor infractions.

Worse is the fact that if you are sued or prosecuted, you DO get punished before any guilt is proven and even if found innocent - legal fees, court costs, imho, should be paid by the accuser when the accuser loses.

When defendats are provided counsel, it is seriously under resourced and often wet behind the ears or completely uncaring. Almost no honor or decency exists in that profession.

RIAA lawsuits benefits from such things - in fact, our society is based on proving our innocence, not the other way around as we are told.

Lawyers are the Scum of the Earth, and the Law is not doing its job in protecting us, in fact, it shelters the wealthy and connected.

...To get perhaps a little political - the Palin/Trooper Gate thing warms my heart - the press does not seem to care about the abuses of that cop, only using it to trash a public servant who took him on...and that is all that is needed as way of example - we don't need to delve into Presidentila Politics over this.

This is a good thread topic - lets keep it active.

[Subvet]

Wilhammer, I completely agree with what you said. I don't know how many people here have ever been charged with a crime while you had no money, but let me tell you, it's a real eye opener.

[costard]

maybe this thread should be retitled - "Don Quixote and How to Change the World" or sumfink.

Why is it that the money is so important to the law? He (Wayne) confesses a crime, but has no crime recorded against him - isn't that just saying that there is no hope of the rules of logic ever mattering in a court of law? Hasn't the court just denied itself the use of those methods of analysis (structured logic and the search for truth) in arriving at a judgement?

What is the setting of that precedent worth to a criminal - given away by the state to protect the very doubtful worth of a sporting "hero"?

And the big question - one of just a few that really need answers right now - how do we change the legal system to regain its value to our society? - oh, and we're not allowed to shoot anyone this time round.

WillH - you have a dirty on the police, fer sure. Is there any group in society where honour and decency exist (without a price tag attached)? heh - sort of goes with the "Citizen Soldier" thread.

Subvet - may it never happen to me.

[Wilhammer]

"WillH - you have a dirty on the police, fer sure."

Not the police only - the entire Justice System.

I've never got myself in trouble, seriously, with the law (beyond youthful traffic issues), but I know those who have.

Changing it - slowly, I hope, by bitching about it. It could be I / we are fighting windmills, but if we take that attitude, we lose by default.

The old saw though that Police and Criminals are a decision away from career choices seems so very true - Cops and the Law are like crooks - they detain you, threaten you, take your stuff, and show no remorse for it, and they act above the Law.

[dieseltaylor]

Justice would have been served if he had been penalised. However from the US justice's point of view why pay to keep him in a US jail. Fining him would have been similar to fining his wife - who had written to the court asking for no action to be taken the day after the attack.

Obviously the guy has problems - I am not sure if he was damaged mentally by playing or he was never the sharpest tool in the box. Sportsmen may be great but that does not necessarily make them great guys - or commentators.

Abuse of drugs other than cocaine probably can be traced back through his career - I am guessing here as I do not know what the AFL test for - but sportsmen do tend to try to build muscle etc.

[Lars]

Wayne Carey, an Australian Rules footballer, glassed his girlfriend in a restaurant in Florida. When two police officers came to his hotel room to speak with him about the incident, he became violent. Today in court he pled guilty to the assault of two police officers; his plea was accepted but no conviction was recorded. He is to perform 50 hours of community service, pay a fine and has contributed to the local police charity.

Any thoughts?

Also recieved two years probation, or the felonies stick. Which means, he'll never enter the U.S. again.

And I figure, as someone started it all by hitting his girlfrind with a wineglass, he hasn't got a prayer of doing so.

We're already putting O.J. up at the Iron Bar Motel, this jackass is all yours.

[Esquire]

I must take some offense to the cynicism of the posts on this thread. As a practicing lawyer for the past 19 years, I can assure you that my private and court appointed clients always received zealous representation. I agree, much with any other profession, that there are some good and some bad, but all lawyers can not be lumped together.

[Wilhammer]

I hope so, but in General, the Law seems broken for the little man - just ask the Male African American youth about the unfair sentencing it is forced to endure.

[gunnergoz]

Nor do all lawyers support Obama - a fact for which I'm sure the latter is greatly relieved.

[FAI]

Wilhammer, I completely agree with what you said. I don't know how many people here have ever been charged with a crime while you had no money, but let me tell you, it's a real eye opener.

Well, count yourself lucky for living in a country where you only have to pay the lawyer, and not also the cops, the prosecutors and the judge.

[costard]

I must take some offense to the cynicism of the posts on this thread. As a practicing lawyer for the past 19 years, I can assure you that my private and court appointed clients always received zealous representation. I agree, much with any other profession, that there are some good and some bad, but all lawyers can not be lumped together.

I apologise for any offense caused Esquire - and I note that if Wayne had hired himself a halfway competent lawyer in the first place he most probably wouldn't have ended up in the mess he has.

I guess I'm asking if the lawyers, good and bad, can see the end result of a dying legal system - no living to be made, no point in practising law. It seems that the decay of the Roman Empire was marked by a similar decay in the consistancy of judgement by the courts (though it is probable that sensationalist reporting was just as rife then as now, and the information thus transmitted as unreliable). In a way, it is the primary indicator of a society that is unable to grow - if corruption were to cost, say, 8% of GDP on an annual basis, and the economy grows at 6% on average, then you have a net loss. (These figures are small compared to those losses found in some large nations around the world.) If the behaviour of the populace cannot be regulated through a shared understanding of a citizen's rights and obligations (because they so obviously vary with the wealth available to that citizen), then the costs associated with and the benefits gained from the establishment and maintenance of a legal system cannot be profitably managed - and the society is poorer for it.

I see no discipline imposed on the leadership of the society (cf. AIG and their spa bill, Michael Jackson and the extremely large endowment granted to whichever Ivy League University the presiding judge hailed from) - the rest of the society sees less and less reason to hold the law (and lawyers) in anything but contempt.

[YankeeDog]

While I'm not a Lawyer, I do work for a law firm, and I certainly agree that our legal system often delivers "justice" only in name.

However, before you predict the impending decline and fall of our legal system, I suggest taking an open-eyed look at its history. The fact of the matter is, the United States legal system (and, indeed, other contemporary legal systems around the world), have always had inherent flaws related to money, power, gender, race or ethnicity, and social station.

I'm very skeptical of the notion that our legal system today is any more unjust than it was was in, say the 1950s, 1900s, 1850s or earlier. And I think you can make a strong argument that it has improved somewhat.

I do think there's still a long way to go. But it's important to be realistic. Equality under the law is, in fact, a rather recent concept in human history and it's probably going to take a while (as in centuries) to get it all figured out.

To paraphrase a Churchill quote, our legal system is the worst in the world, except for all the others. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Blackhorse]

YD, Good point.

I give you Dan Sickles circa 1859:

http://www.thepoliticalbandwagon.com/articles/2003December.html

THE WASHINGTON TRAGEDY- -

Murder and Scandal in D.C.

By M. Jeannine Coup

It was a trial for murder. There was presidential misconduct, a sexual scandal and new legal precedents being set. No, this did not take place in the 1990's; this headline news in 1859. Surprised? In its day this trial was called, "The Washington Tragedy," and was the most famous legal case of its time. The murder and trial were front page news for months. This killing and trial were the "Bronco Chase" and stained blue dress of its day.

New York Congressman, Daniel Sickles murdered in cold blood and in front of many witnesses, District Attorney Philip Barton Key. Mr. Sickles thought he was completely justified in murdering his long time friend and son of Francis Scott Key, author of The Star Spangled Banner, because of the adulteress affair Key was having with his wife, Teresa Sickles.

Barton Key and Teresa Sickles had not been discrete in their year long affair. Many in Washington, D.C. knew of the affair, saw them meet and visit the same rented house repeatedly. As usual, in this type of case the husband was the last to know. In February of 1858 Sickles received an unsigned note claiming, "I do assure you, he (Key) has as much the use of your wife as you have."

Sickles, armed with only this information forced his lovely young wife to write an admission of quilt. She claimed, "an intimacy of an improper kind. I did what is usual for a wicked woman to."

Sickles was shattered, his ego and vanity crushed. He spent the night roaming the house sobbing and crying aloud. In the morning he needed the consolation and advise of his friends, Samuel Butterworth and George Woolridge. In their discussion, Butterworth said, "If this be so there is but one course left you as a man of honor. You need no advise."

As the three men were discussing the details, Sickles saw Barton Key across the street waving his handkerchief at the house to attract Mrs. Sickle's attention. Sickles later said he was, "consumed by rage" at this brazen and public display. After a moment of thought he invited his friends for lunch at the Clubhouse Restaurant which was across Lafayette Square, not far from the Sickle's residence and close to the White House.

Butterworth left first and passed by Barton Key and acknowledged his presence with a greeting. Dan Sickles spent a few moments alone in his home before following Butterworth. In that time Sickles had armed himself with two derringers and a five-shot revolver. As he approached Key he began to shout, "Key, you scoundrel, you have dishonored my house- -you must die!" Sickles pulled his gun on Key and shot only grazing his target. Reacting instinctively to defend himself Key reached inside his coat pocket but only found his opera glasses. The two men grabbed at each other for a moment. Key, fearing the worst, yelled, "murder!"

Sickles dropped his gun and reached into his coat to locate the second gun. Key backed away throwing his opera glasses harmlessly past Sickles and begged, "Don't shoot me, don't murder me." Sickles did not miss with his second shot. Key collapsed against a tree, shot in the groin, and pleading for his life. No third shot was needed--Key was dying. All during this ambush and death scene Butterworth stood watching, doing nothing until now when he pulled Sickles away and led him to Attorney General Jeremiah Black's house. All of this occurred adjacent to the White House.

All of Washington, D.C. Knew Dan Sickles and President James Buchanan were close friends. In 1853 Buchanan as American Minister to Great Britain appointed Sickles his assistant and later had supported his congressional ambitions. When a White House Page named J.H.W. Bonitz saw the shooting he ran into The White House to inform President Buchanan.

There were numerous types of assistance which the Head of State could have offered. President Buchanan chose an unusual and illegal method to demonstrate his friendship. He gave Bonitz money to give to Sickles and his advise to his friend was to leave the city, to get away. Congressman Sickles chose to surrender, admit his guilt and said he had been, "unfortunate in crossing the street" that day.

Washington, D.C. went mad! As the news spread, the rest of the country did like-wise. Here was murder, sex, a congressman, and a president. The intrigue and scandal caught the public's imagination and held their attention for months. Soon newspapers reported more of the three men's past and present entanglements.

Earlier in 1857, Sickles had persuaded President Buchanan to reappoint Barton Key as U.S. District Attorney for D.C. Now, Dan Sickles was the wronged husband and friend and so received much of the public's support. The dead man received none, but was held in contempt for his roll in the tragedy. Teresa Sickles was ostracized by all of society.

The second phase of the tragedy soon followed. Dan Sickles refused bail in hopes of a speedy trial. In March the grand jury indicted Sickles for murder and by April 4th the trial had begun. Washington friends of Dan Sickles had put together a truly awesome "dream team" from the legal profession. James Brady, Thomas Meagher, John Graham and Philip Phillips headed the list of defense lawyers. At President Buchanan's request Edwin Stanton also joined the team. Later Stanton would become famous as Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of War.

The prosecution was handicapped from the beginning because the murder victim had been the district attorney. Who would take the dead man's place? President Buchanan still trying to help his friend, appointed Robert Ould to the position. Though Ould had been a lawyer for 17 years he had absolutely no trial experience and did not have a personality that would impress juries. On the defense side, the lead lawyer, James Brady had won 51 of his 52 murder cases.

Prosecutor Robert Ould's opening speech was short, for that time in history, lasting only one hour. What could he say? Congressman Dan Sickles shot and killed Barton Key. Then, with a sarcastic tone he said Sickles had stood bravely over his victim, revolver in hand, seeking to scatter the brains of one who had already been mortally wounded in three vital parts, and whose eyes were being covered with the film of death.

Mr. Ould saw the case in black and white. However, the defense team showed that the case had many shades of grey. The defense began with the story of a broken friendship, a ruined adulteress marriage and a life in its prime destroyed. The defendant had the right to take revenge and regain his honor and reputation, they claimed. And if this motivation did not exonerate Mr. Sickles then the jury surely must understand that he had been driven insane by his wife's actions. Mr. Graham states

Mr. Sickles, at the moment of the occurrence, was laboring under such a state of frenzy as deprived him of accountability for his act. [He] was acting under the influence of moral mania [and his] reason exerted any sway amid such a battle of passions, when it was impossible that the ear of mind could listen to the audience of reason or conscience?

In today's system of jurisprudence we accept insanity as a defense and even temporary insanity can set a murderer free. In 1859 the insanity defence was not unheard of in American court rooms, but was new and seldom used. It was author Richard Sassaman who wrote

ironically, Francis Scott Key, who had also served as Washington's district attorney, once recommended such a tactic to a crazed man who had attempted to assassinate Andrew Jackson in 1835.

However, the plea of temporary insanity had no precedent in all of legal history. Sassaman wrote that

In a landmark victory for the defense, John Graham argued successfully that the prosecution had to prove Sickles was sane at the time of the murder. Previously, everyone had been presumed sane by the law and the defense had to prove insanity.

Former Kansas Governor Robert Walker testified for the defense. He said that moments after the shooting, Sickles told him he killed Key, then collapsed in near hysterics. Walker said, "His condition appeared to me very frightful, appalling me so much that I thought if it lasted much longer he must become insane."

The closing statements from both sides were so emotionally powerful no one noticed 72 year old Judge Thomas Hartley Crawford, described as "a little fogyish" accepted the unorthodox and never before used defense plea of temporary insanity without a question.

When the jury retired a quick verdict was expected. The 12 men soon asked for chairs to sit on and a fire to be lit in the stove. Actually, 11 of the 12 jurors had already decided Sickles's fate. A single juror fell to his knees to pray. One hour later the jury delivered its verdict: "Not guilty."

The court room began celebrating with Edwin Stanton dancing a jig while Brady invited all jurors to a party. Thousands of people filled the streets cheering the verdict, marching while the Marine Band played tunes.

Lost momentarily in the uproar but not lost to legal minds in the future was the defense's successful use of the temporary insanity plea. At the time Congressman Sickles's victory was seen as the "upholding of a man's right to defend his honor and his home, whatever the method used." Defense lawyer Philip Phillips said the jury

had set a legal precedent that held that when a man violated the sanctity of his neighbor's home he must do so at his own peril.

Once the verdict was rendered and newspapers moved to other headlines Dan Sickles's national popularity waned. When he and Teresa reconciled newsmen blasted him asking, "Why Key was killed at all" and "why such extraordinary efforts were made to screen the slayer?"

[costard]

Good story - so it's only poetic justice that John Hinkley Jr used the "temporary insanity" defense"? Or is this yet another example of American irony - a movie star President playing the reel life roll (sic) of the balancing of the scales of justice?