Thread: Is the Justice System Failing?

I know that my answer may not seem satisfactory, but it is something that I feel must be addressed with respect to the American Criminal Justice System. It may seem that the American Justice system allows far too many criminals to get away with heinous crimes. However, the vast majority of those accused do not get away with the crimes they committed. Rather, the system usually puts away a vast majority of the people who are funneled through the criminal justice system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between the years 1994 and 2004 the rate of felony convictions in State courts increased by 24. 94 of convictions occurred at state courts, while remaining 6 occurred at Federal Court. On top of this seven out of every ten convicted wind up incarcerated. See . This demonstrates that the system has increased itself in power and funding, it has increased the number of convictions, despite the fact that the burden of proof in criminal cases is the highest standard of proof, known as beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if a person has any reasonable doubt as to what has occurred on the date of the incident in question, then you must acquit. The reason for this, is as previously stated, the state is the one who carries the burden of proof, they usually have near-unlimited funds to proceed with a case, and they hold the power of life and death, or at the very least, freedom and incarceration within their hands. Throughout history, the criminal justice systems throughout the world were based off of a system of guilty until proven innocent. In Tudor England, an accused didn't even have the right to counsel. They stood accused, and were forced to defend themselves, in a trial which always resulted in guilt. This practice was similar to the sort of law in early colonial America. Ghastly images of the Salem Witch trials come to mind. I mention the horrors of these past courts, to help serve as a form of balance for the rage that is being vented at the system today. At the inception of America, the Founders sought to include a system which required the state to prove, with irrefutable evidence, that the individuals charged with a crime, actually committed that crime, before conviction could occur. Even with the numerous safeguards put in place by this Constitution, we still have cases where an innocent man or woman has been incarcerated for a crime that he or she didn't commit. And, judging by the increased statistics for conviction rates, this is something that has been on the increase. While it may seem hopelessly wrong that the man in the most recent case had a mistrial, it isn't all that uncommon. Furthermore, a mistrial doesn't allow the notion of double jeopardy to kick in. In other words, this man could be tried again. The state has their court fees payed for, the man who did shoot recklessly, nevertheless, does not have that sort of financial backing. The justice system has been stacked like that from the very beginning. I'm reminded of John Adams, a venerable old lawyer out of Boston Massachusetts. After the Boston Massacre occurred, the British soldiers involved were hauled in front of the Colonial Courts. No barrister in the area dared take the case. After all, these men were clearly guilty. Okay, John Adams said he would take the case. He did so on the principle that if we are all equal, then we all must have a right to counsel and defense, before a court of law. Well, let's take the case of George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder in the state of Florida. The prosecution refused to go after him on the much more reasonable ground of manslaughter. In fact, if I had been the District Attorney, I would have pursued the case under manslaughter. But, because like those other colonial attorneys in the case of the British Soldiers, the prosecutors were convinced by media hysteria, that their case was right, and that it was worth the risk of losing a greater chance of conviction on Second Degree murder as opposed to manslaughter. The system doesn't allow the prosecution of both, because it is a balancing mechanism to prevent the state from throwing out a wide net, and not having to prove everything to the highest standard. Does it always result in the desired outcome? Not at all, but it is better than affording the accused no protections against prosecutorial abuses. They move forward, as the crown prosecutor did in Boston, all those years ago. The evidence is displayed before a jury. And the question comes down to, did the state, prove beyond ANY reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed the victim, without malice aforethought or ill intent. In both the cases of Zimmerman, and of the Boston based British Soldiers, the answer was no. And the result was the same. What does that mean? It means that the state must meet the highest burden of proof. If there could be any doubt as to whether the killing was justified or not, then a guilty verdict cannot be handed down. On the other hand, manslaughter allows for their to be a justification for the killing, just a misguided one. Yet, when media hysteria, and the court of popular opinion take over the court of law, then we run into a severe problem. Vigilante or mob justice, is no justice at all. We adhere to the principles of our legal justice system, because, even though it is imperfect, it does serve the purpose of ensuring that over zealous prosecutors cannot deny each and every one of us our rights to a fair and public trial, before a jury of our peers. I may surprise you now, in saying that I also think the result in the O.J. Simpson trial was correct. Why? Because, again, the prosecution failed to meet the standard necessary to gain a conviction. They could not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that O.J. Simpson had killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. On top of this, the prosecutions own experts failed to demonstrate that the blood work done in O.J.'s Ford Bronco had not been contaminated. We require such stringent standards, because it is very easy to point the finger and accuse, without fully analyzing the facts. It is also very easy to simply state that some one should be arrested, just to placate the desires of the many, to keep the peace. But, if we adhere to such a system, then I contend that we have given up to the tyranny of mob rule, and sacrificed any pretense to claim we seek justice at all. Please forgive me if I cam off as sounding over passionate about this. I'm a criminal defense attorney for a living, I see people get crushed by the overbearing might of the prosecution on a daily basis. So, it's very hard for me to sit back and think that the system is failing in the few cases where the system looses. If the system were truly failing, ask yourself this...would our prisons be overcrowded? No, because the prosecutors aren't failing. They are succeeding more and more often, gaining more and more convictions, and in many cases, they're not even examining the mitigating factors that may explain away the alleged crime. Or, worse yet, as happens all the time in my county...they press charges even when the alleged victims do not wish to press charges. When you have a system divested with such power, is there any wonder why we should have a strict standard? Otherwise, we'd fall back to the courts of Tudor England, where the accused always stood convicted, and was always put to death. I, for one, prefer giving even the guilty a chance to defend themselves. For as the renowned legal scholar William Blackstone once said, It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. I believe in that principle. It's one of the driving forces which made me enter the profession of law to begin with. It is hard, at times, especially knowing when my client is guilty as sin. But, that system must go through that process, and must not skip ANY corner...lest it be you or me sitting in the chair of the accused, without a hope of a true and zealous defense! Again, I hope none of my words here come off as disrespect. I have nothing but the utmost respect for your opinions, and your ability to share them. I just wished to add my voice to this marketplace of ideas, to the discourse of the standing of our system. And, I hope I helped to shed some light on the reasons why our justice system is the way that it is.