CRIME, A PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS

Phew! The System Really Works After All!

Or does it? Our legal system is seriously flawed. Every time a sociopath like Scott Peterson is convicted, or a thief like Bernie Ebbers is found guilty, we feel good for a moment, breathe a sigh of relief, and say “Phew! The system works.” It would be a really uncomfortable feeling to think that the system does not work. Nevertheless, American Panthers will not stick its head in the sand. (We would have to form a new group for that purpose. We could call it American Ostriches – Birds with Blinders? It kinda has a nice ring to it.)

Fixing our criminal law system is not an easy task, although we will make suggestions in this and future newsletters. The purpose of this article is only to alert our members to the problem (in case there are any ostriches among us).

One major problem is the cost of justice. The cost of the investigation and prosecution of Scott Peterson is estimated at $2½ million, and is expected to go to $5 million by the time the appeals are ended. Even if our friend gets the needle, it seems obvious that, at this cost, justice is too expensive to dispense evenly and effectively.

Defendant’s expenses are also an important part of this picture. Robert Blake claims that he spent $10 million for his defense, and Martha Stewart was reimbursed $3.7 million by her company for her defense costs.

And what about that old rule “innocent until proven guilty”? How can you justify expenses of that nature for “innocent” people? We can thank Rummy, Ashcroft and Bush for demonstrating what can happen when a government running amok is allowed to scoop people up and jail them without due process. They have shown us that we must take “innocent until proven guilty” seriously, even if it hurts. I understand that when we think of people like Ebbers, Peterson, Lay, Simpson, or the preppy killer, Chambers, we may be tempted to say that they deserved to have the added punishment of paying for their defense. However when the suspect is innocent, it is very unfair for him to have these expenses.

The skill and education level of the jurors is also an important issue. How can we get jurors to understand the science behind evidence, and how can we get them to avoid letting their prejudices influence their decision? And how can we expect ordinary citizens to find an organized crime hit-man guilty when just his gaze at them can be highly intimidating?

Another serious problem involves prison conditions. A convicted person’s punishment must be decided by the judges and juries of organized and civilized human society and not by the prisoner’s fellow inmates. The integrity of the legal system, and the implementation of justice, is totally destroyed if our system cannot protect prisoners from abuse by their fellow inmates. There is absolutely no excuse for what goes on in jails today.

Now here’s my pet peeve. A serial killer who kills three people is no big deal, but one who kills 103, now that’s a story! A law must be passed that absolutely prohibits any criminal from benefiting from his crime in any way. That means the criminal, his lawyers, his poor children who need a college education, or anybody else. The only exception should be his victims. In today’s world, the more heinous the crime, the more money a criminal can sell his story for. It also means that it must be illegal for anyone to pay the criminal, directly or indirectly, for anything that has to do with the crime. This would include paying him for a TV interview, endorsing Smith & Wesson, or auctioning off bloody socks on Ebay.

Its time to start thinking about trained professional jurors, or trained jurors borrowed from our military.

Here’s a radical idea! How about civil penalties being awarded to the victims by the same court, and at the same time that it finds the suspect guilty of the criminal charges. The victims should not be prejudiced in any way. They should not be precluded from going to civil court for damages, and they should not be forced to pursue their case or collect criminal court awarded damages if they choose not to.

Think about this and Email me with your ideas.

LHS

THE NECESSITY OF CRIME PREVENTION

Our courts and police appear to be overwhelmed by the quantity of crime going on in this country. There doesn’t seem to be any effort to control dishonesty in advertising, or business or politics. In addition, the administration seems to have completely forgotten about the so-called war on drugs.

The prison population in America has quadrupled since 1980, and now stands at over two million people. This number is not just high on an absolute basis. The United States ratio of incarceration is generally 5-8 times that of comparable industrialized nations such as Canada and Western Europe.

Pay attention to the ads you hear on television, or radio, or get in the mail. Some of the claims are so blatantly false, by fact or omission, that you have to wonder if anyone in law enforcement really cares.

Crime prevention has to be the major goal in our effort to control the situation. Without lessening the amount of crime, society will not have the wherewithal to arrest, prosecute and imprison those who do commit crimes.

The best way to prevent crime would be to make a serious effort to improve underprivileged neighborhoods. The very poor quality of education and the openness of drug trafficking in these areas leads to poverty, despair and drug use. Our sieve-like borders are an open invitation for the narcotics trade.

Only 49% of our current prison population is in jail for violent crimes (2002 data). While Ken Lay has proven how much damage non-violent crime can do, we are in the unenviable position that we cannot afford to incarcerate all criminals. Therefore, we must concentrate on putting the violent criminals behind bars.

Incarceration in this country is also seriously racially disproportionate. Statistics are a bit uncertain, but it is thought that 13 to 15 percent of all drug users are black, but blacks constitute 63 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons.

Another concept that has to be re-thought is our objective for putting people in prison. Is it rehabilitation? Is it punishment? Is it deterrence? I lean toward a different reason. We must put criminals in jail to separate them from the innocent citizens on whom they prey. In my mind, that is reason number one. Deterrence is a good reason also, but we must study and understand why its effect appears to be limited. Rehabilitation does not work if a prisoner is released without any marketable skills.

What about compensation to crime victims for their suffering? I believe that this should be considered one of the major goals of our criminal justice system.

The first step in fixing our criminal justice system must be to admit that is it not working well.

LHS

PROFESSIONAL JURORS REVISITED

On May 25 the Jurors in the Scrushy fraud trial sent a note to U.S. District Judge Karon O. Bowdre saying that they cannot unanimously agree on a verdict and asked for an “explanation in layman’s terms”. The Friday before, the jurors asked the Judge what happens if they cannot unanimously decide on a verdict. Duh!

Here’s the problem: You cannot train even intelligent citizens to be good jurors by simply briefing them at the time of the trial. Being a good juror requires reasonable knowledge of the interpretation and importance of different kinds of evidence such as fingerprints and DNA. It requires some modest knowledge of the law, and it certainly requires a clear understanding of the consequences of a hung jury. Jurors must understand the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”, they must understand what constitutes a conspiracy, and they must understand the legal standards to use in reaching a verdict.

Scrushy is accused of inflating Healthsouth Corp. profits by $2.7 billion and the trial has been going on for almost four months. Most people have no idea how much money is wasted if four months in a courtroom should end in a mistrial. How many violent criminals could have been taken off the street if that time and money were not lost? In fact, most people have no idea how much $2.7 billion dollars is. (FYI, it is approximately 2700 attaché cases packed with crisp $100 bills. That’s enough to fill a 10’x15’ room seven feet high!!)

Perhaps, even more important, is that many people come to jury duty with a lifetime of biases. The jury selection process cannot possibly delve deep enough to reliably expose these problems.

Professional jurors can be trained for as long as it takes. They can be screened for prejudices, naivety, reasoning power, emotionalism and intelligence. Their use will dramatically shorten the jury selection process, and the jury instruction process. I believe their verdicts will be much more accurate, and the occurrence of hung juries will be reduced. Lawyers will be more reluctant to use theatrics or “play the race card” because of fear that these cheap tactics will be seen for what they are and work against them. Whatever professional jurors are be paid, it will cost the system less than it costs to use minimally paid amateurs.

We must also consider the extreme inconvenience to people’s lives when they are called to jury duty. It is unfair to the individual, inconvenient for his/her employer and damaging to our economy to create this disruption.

Potential candidates for professional juror would include intelligent, active older Americans with a lifetime of experience. Often these citizens have difficulty in finding employment solely because of their age. Extensive psychological testing could be used to eliminate potential problems. Even after professional jurors are chosen and trained, their results could be monitored to further weed out problems. For example, a juror who is a member of an excessive number of hung juries could be re-examined.

American Panthers takes the firm stand that the present jury system is extremely wasteful and should be replaced by a well trained, dedicated and professional jury pool.

LHS


EASY WAYS TO GET INVOLVED WITH AMERICAN PANTHERS!