Law & Order
 

Okay, this page is a big virtual soap-box.  If it starts to offend you, you don't need to keep reading; there's probably some other stuff on my site that isn't too offensive.

I'm no expert on this, and the opinions expressed here are my own.  Here's my take on the judicial system from years of observation from watching the news and being a juror: 

• Police investigators don't actually investigate, they work for the prosecution to try to put people behind bars.  Their "investigation" revolves around coming up with some scenario to put the defendant behind bars.  "Investigators" work for the prosecution and will submit evidence that supports their scenario and omit evidence that doesn't.
• For the most part if you have lots of money your odds of lesser sentences is great/if you don't your odds of greater sentences are great.
• Juries want to convict.  People want to convict.  Every time I serve as a juror people ask me "Did you hang 'em?"  This question always strikes me as perverse.
• If something bad happens "somebody's gotta pay."  There are no more accidents, no more bad luck. Kid dodges into traffic and gets hit by a car: jail the driver.  Hot coffee in the lap: sue the vendor.  We as a society seem to have largely forgotten personal responsibility.  

For the record my position is: A defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.  I will have no problem convicting if guilty: there's a lot of bad people out there.  I will have no problem setting the innocent free: there's a lot of good people out there that get trapped by the police's zealous enforcement of our great country's laws.  I believe in the police and I believe in our system.  The police have a tough job to do.  I also think we have the best justice system in the world.  However, I do think it is important to remain vigilant and to THINK about what you see and read.  

Many people believe the police are beyond reproach.  Jurors seem to have an innate belief that the prosecution is "more" honest than the defense, and hence more believable.  People believe the prosecution is bringing someone to justice who deserves punishment and that the defense is simply trying to get the defendant out of a jail sentence.  I have a friend who is a prosecutor for the City, and over the course of many years they have told me numerous times that they will do anything within the law to put the defendant behind bars.  If evidence doesn't fit?  It is not illegal to ignore it.

Take for instance the recent rash of prisoners released from long prison sentences, sometimes even from death row, after new DNA evidence proved them innocent.  These men sat through a trial where they were innocent, and the prosecution put on a collection of "evidence" so perverse as to convince the jury they were guilty and convict the defendant of a crime they didn't commit.  In other countries the government commits judicial atrocities.  In our country, we do it to ourselves.

By the same token, you have someone like O.J. Simpson who clearly is guilty, and with all the money to hire the best lawyers is set free.  

It all boils down to money.

Click here for a story about a man who not only was innocent, but was having lunch with some co-workers when the crime took place.  They testified to this in court.  Did the prosecution "investigate" the crime?  No!  I don't know if they ever do, but I've never seen it happen.  They do everything in their power to create a story and evidence that is sometimes completely false, like this case.  In my town they call that perjury.  Some would call it criminal abuse of power.  Whatever you want to call it, these trusted public officials lied and ruined an innocent man's life.  The more of these cases that gets overturned, the more one realizes how commonplace it is for these officials to concoct a story, and tell the jury that their story is the truth when it isn't.

Click here for the story of the last jury trial I sat on.  Names and some details have been changed to protect everyone involved.

Witness the current news for actor Robert Blake.  After the police interviewed Blake's bodyguard, the bodyguard gave a public statement that it was obvious the police believed Blake did it, and now they were trying to put evidence together to prove that.  They stopped investigating and started concocting.  This bodyguard publicly stated what happens everyday to hundreds of other defendants.  I don't know if Blake did it or not.  He could have, he had a gun and usually it's the husband.  But the investigators unintentionally blind themselves to other clues when all they're trying to do is get the pieces to fit a certain way.  "You see what you want to see."

Can we justify this behavior because defendants lie?  I don't believe we can.  We need to lock up the scum and not lock up the innocent.  Investigators need to "investigate" instead of prosecute.

Last Update May 12, 2001