Thursday, October 07, 2004
Justice?
The introductory note is this...I took criminal law as a requirement my 1L year. I do not plan on practicing criminal law and the closest I come to it is when I watch law and order. With that the blog post shall begin.
Some time ago a drunk white male harvard grad student was walking home when he was confronted by two Latinos in a car that began taunting him. In his drunkeness he snapped back at them, they got out of their car and allegedly started beatting him up. He pulled out a knife and stabbed on of them in the chest fatally. He is now on trial for the decedent's murder.
While he was being examined by the prosecutor he broke down, began crying, explaining that he didn't mean to kill him and that it was terrible. At one point he got off of the stand and began re-enacting what happened that night AND that is the point where my brain went "WHAT!".
Personally, I believe the murder was accidental. I don't think this kid has homicidal tendencies. I do think he is an idiot for carrying a knife. However, that is not the point.
Here is the point. Depending on what court you are in (state or federal) even the lawyers movements are restricted. In some courts the lawyer must stand behind the podium, in all courts he must ask permission to approach the bench AND a witness must be given permission to leave the stand. Now, I don't know if harvard kid got permission to leave the stand but I do know this. I have never heard of a single case where the DEFENDANT was allowed to leave the stand, while still giving testimony in order to re-enact the murder.
And while I think the murder should be ruled accidental, based on the facts I know, I think the administration of justice in this case is heavily skewed. Would this have been allowed if the defendant was not white, was not from Harvard and the decedent wasn't a latino from round the way? I don't need to answer that question.
I just want to know, if I am ever on the stand one day defending myself in a case like this--what will people see, will they see Wellesley College, Columbia Law, or Puerto Rican.
In a fair world I would argue for the application of the spirit of the law, rather than the lettter of the law but neither wind blows in the right way, not in this country, not right now. So I sit wringing my hands wondering when justice will be administered uniformly, wondering if I will ever be able to truly do anything about it. I am working in a system that even when they get the right answers, sometimes gets the right answers in the wrong way.
The introductory note is this...I took criminal law as a requirement my 1L year. I do not plan on practicing criminal law and the closest I come to it is when I watch law and order. With that the blog post shall begin.
Some time ago a drunk white male harvard grad student was walking home when he was confronted by two Latinos in a car that began taunting him. In his drunkeness he snapped back at them, they got out of their car and allegedly started beatting him up. He pulled out a knife and stabbed on of them in the chest fatally. He is now on trial for the decedent's murder.
While he was being examined by the prosecutor he broke down, began crying, explaining that he didn't mean to kill him and that it was terrible. At one point he got off of the stand and began re-enacting what happened that night AND that is the point where my brain went "WHAT!".
Personally, I believe the murder was accidental. I don't think this kid has homicidal tendencies. I do think he is an idiot for carrying a knife. However, that is not the point.
Here is the point. Depending on what court you are in (state or federal) even the lawyers movements are restricted. In some courts the lawyer must stand behind the podium, in all courts he must ask permission to approach the bench AND a witness must be given permission to leave the stand. Now, I don't know if harvard kid got permission to leave the stand but I do know this. I have never heard of a single case where the DEFENDANT was allowed to leave the stand, while still giving testimony in order to re-enact the murder.
And while I think the murder should be ruled accidental, based on the facts I know, I think the administration of justice in this case is heavily skewed. Would this have been allowed if the defendant was not white, was not from Harvard and the decedent wasn't a latino from round the way? I don't need to answer that question.
I just want to know, if I am ever on the stand one day defending myself in a case like this--what will people see, will they see Wellesley College, Columbia Law, or Puerto Rican.
In a fair world I would argue for the application of the spirit of the law, rather than the lettter of the law but neither wind blows in the right way, not in this country, not right now. So I sit wringing my hands wondering when justice will be administered uniformly, wondering if I will ever be able to truly do anything about it. I am working in a system that even when they get the right answers, sometimes gets the right answers in the wrong way.
Comments:
Post a Comment
