Casey Anthony, the American Legal System, and the Abortion of Justice at the Hands of the Corporatocracy.
Recently, a jury trial in Florida found Casey Anthony “not guilty” in the death of her two year old child. The trial was a media sensation, on TV sets and newspaper front pages every day for the months of its duration. In the end, the jurors conceded that the prosecution failed to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”. The verdict is widely seen as a mockery of justice and has become something of a national scandal.
Casey Anthony joins the likes of O.J. Simpson and Micheal Jackson in the pantheon of trials gone wrong. All were sensational trials in which the court verdict was diametrically opposed to the available evidence, and resulted in great outpourings of public outrage towards the legal system. In the eyes of the public, these very public cases resulted in the wrong verdict, and seemed to highlight the failure of the American judicial system.
However, these courtroom errors are only the tip of the iceberg, and the problems of the courts are not limited to seeing famous people avoid the consequences of their actions. Far and away, the greatest number of miscarriages of justice are the number of innocent citizens falsely accused and erroneously thrown in prison. Everyday in America, errors in the courtrooms send innocent people to jail. The Innocence Project reports they have succeeded in exonerating 250 cases of wrongful convictions (including 17 persons on “death row”), are reviewing another 6,000 to 8,000 cases across the nation, and estimates thousands more remain falsely imprisoned (here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/...). Only rarely do these courtroom errors attract the media attention of a Casey Anthony. We only get to hear about these cases 10-15-20 years after the fact, after a young adult has relinquished their most productive years of their life for an error, a family has been irreparably harmed, and we the tax-payers have wasted $30-40k/yr incarcerating someone who committed no crime. And remember, every innocent person falsely imprisoned means a guilty person goes unpunished.
In part, these errors arise because the courtroom is a place where law, not justice, occurs. Justice is a principle of fairness, in which like cases are treated alike, and any benefits and burdens are distributed among all parties with equanimity. Law is the system of rules and regulations that allows the corporatocracy - the rich and powerful - to take what doesn't belong to them from those who have less power. And if you look to see who has the power in these legal cases you can see it perfectly predicts the legal outcome: 2 yr old Caylee Anthony was powerless at the hands of her mother; O.J. Simpson was both physically stronger and financial stronger than his dead wife; Jerry Miller, who spent 24 years in prison for rape he did not commit after being erroneously identified by an eyewitness, had none of the resources of the state of Illinois that incorrectly prosecuted him. For the American judicial system, might makes right, and guilty verdicts.
Today in America, judges in 39 states attain their positions on the bench through elections. Only three states appoint their chief prosecuting attorneys; in 47 states the top prosecutors are elected to their posts. Of course, to win an election to the position of judge or prosecutor, one must run a successful political campaign, and the primary ingredient of a successful political campaign is money. To get that money, would-be judges and prosecutors solicit donations from willing corporations and the citizens. This act of soliciting donations is inherently corrupting: in most cases, those willing to make a donation are the same individuals likely to have business before the court. Almost universally, judges insist their decisions are remain independent and unbiased, even as they acknowledge that large majorities in public opinion surveys perceive that campaign contributions influence judicial opinions. (Here is a great legal paper on judicial elections: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/...). Moreover, the number of times in the last two decades that a judge or a prosecutor have recused themselves from a case involving a campaign contributor can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
In addition to considering the rule of law, judges and prosecutors must also now contemplate which decisions will likely produce the most votes, in both criminal cases and in civil cases. Being “tough on crime” is a ubiquitous campaign slogan and the de facto claim for judges and prosecutors seeking office; indeed, any other position on the issue of crime is the electoral kiss of death. When was the last time you heard anyone campaigning on protecting the legal rights of those falsely accused? Should you ever come across this odd duck, know that you are seeing a dead man walking; their prospects in public office are dim. So judges and prosecutors gain real benefit, both benefit personally and financially, from every guilty verdict. It is any wonder that so many are sent to prison for crimes they did not commit?
And unfortunately for you and I the tax-payer, we are now finding out that our states and municipalities can not afford to imprison all the people the politicians need to send to jail in order to gain office.
For myself, I have decided that I can no longer in good conscience honor the corruption in the courtroom through my service to the courts. Twice now, when called to jury service, I have had to explain to the presiding judge that I am unable to render an unbiased opinion about guilt or innocence of the case at hand due to my knowledge of the corrupt practices of judges and prosecuting attorneys. These are some ticklish conversations indeed requiring careful wording and a show of great respect, because the judge has the option of citing me for contempt of court. What I tell the judge is that if asked, I will serve on the jury, but at the end of the trial, I will not be able to say guilty or innocent, knowing as I do that a corrupt courtroom is not a place where “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be presented. Faced with the prospect of a hung jury, the judge and both prosecuting and defending attorneys are only too happy to see me go. This is an ongoing discussion I have with myself, because of course, real criminals commit real crimes against innocent victims everyday: criminals and victims both deserve their say in court, and criminals need to face the consequences of their actions. So far, I have decided that corrupt judges and prosecutors should not be exempt from facing the consequences of their actions, and have no business standing in judgment over others.
To recap: the Casey Anthony verdict is only a minor side-show to the great injustice that is our court system. Asking judges and prosecutors to run for public office is inherently corrupting, and distorts the legal system. But you don't need to take my word for it. The American Bar Association has repeatedly called for abandonment of judicial elections (Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(c)(2), Comment (2004) ("Merit selection of judges is a preferable manner in which to select the judiciary."); Am. Bar Ass'n, An Independent Judiciary: Report on the ABA Commission of Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence 96 (1997) ("The American Bar Association strongly endorses the merit selection of judges, as opposed to their election . . . .”). And before the Roberts era, the US Supreme Court also favored eliminating judicial elections (e.g., White, 536 U.S. at 788 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to express my concerns about judicial elections generally . . .”)