|
JUSTICE AND COMPROMISE For the innocent man long in jail without judgment, it is properly said that "Justice delayed is justice denied." In the opposite case that is also true, but the phrase might more accurately state that "Justice delayed is justice evaded." In both cases, the interests of truth and justice are ill-served by the compromise of time, which abrogates the rights of the individual in the first case, and those of society in the second. In the ideal application where truth is heard and justice swift, time is no ally of innocence or guilt. But in human affairs, with countless and creative obstructions of human device, ideals are but hostage to power and money. History is witness to the honorable in men, where the rewards of reason and right are the elevation of a noble ethic. But as noble ethics are the currency of ideals and freely traded among honorable men, another commerce more often appeals to the baser passions of smaller men who trade in treachery and hunger for money and power. More common to history is this lesser example, where truth can be crowded by rhetoric and justice betrayed by alien agenda. Ample illustration is provided in recent well-known cases. When Rodney King was beaten without respite or mercy, his attackers were judged not guilty and allowed to return to 2 the police force, though a videotape was glaring testament to the savagery. In the clear vision of hindsight, after Los Angeles erupted in violent protest against the misjudgment, another trial was quickly arranged. By calling it now a federal matter with separate jurisdiction from the state, officials could justify trying those men twice for the same crime. But it was still double jeopardy, and now the rights of the attackers had been infringed. This time they were duly found guilty, of course. But there were to be yet more assaults on reason. Sentences were announced, both men to receive a bare minimum of jail time. When time already served was subtracted, the attackers appeared to be serving no real time at all. Their sentence appeared too lenient to assuage a common wish for "justice." With embers from the last misjudgment still warm to the memory, and reminders of public scrutiny still fresh -- No Justice, No Peace! -- new jail terms were demanded and a new judgment thus ensured the longer sentence. In the Menendez case, two brothers denied killing their wealthy parents and maintained this stance until evidence rendered it absurd. Their attorneys now hatched a better plan, a devious deception aimed at capturing juror sympathy: the adult boys did it, but were justified due to a long tradition of sexual abuse and imminent fear for their lives on the night in question. 3 While this might appear an equally absurd defense due to testimony that the parents were calmly eating ice cream as they watched TV on the couch when they were killed ... it should assail reason completely upon subsequent evidence from the boys' psychiatrist: not once during months of recorded sessions did they mention the sexual abuse now relied on as a defense. It was never discussed as a troubling psychological issue. The Menendez boys were not convicted. Their attorneys' ruse had worked. Let's not forget -- in civil cases, all that's needed is a preponderance of the evidence, a slightly greater likelihood of guilt. Even if that's only a juror's "gut feeling" amounting to a ratio of 51% vs. 49%. Criminal cases, with lives at stake, must meet the higher standard of evidence -- beyond a reasonable doubt. In percentage terms, that might actually mean a juror's gut feeling of exactly the same ratio, despite all the evidence against that position. In the final analysis of judicial affairs, and despite all the evidence or its lack, that is often the ultimate determinant of justice -- the juror's gut feeling. For it is not machines we employ for the purpose, but "peers," those in closer human affinity who might by that capacity more clearly define human justice. Considering the Menendez justice, there was none. Enough reasonable "doubt" was conjured to render reason into marshmallow. But that was not what hung the separate juries. 4 Menendez jurors became so befogged by artful defense strategies that even this issue became unclear. Some voted for each category. This would appear the most unreasonable application of reason, that an elemental finding of guilt could be now suspended for lack of its degree. Such is the ultimate perversion of justice, when guilt must be measured only by its depth, or that guilt without such consensus is the same as innocence. Haven't we strayed, in this, far from reason? Do we not miss the mark when our sense and judgment must be thus quantified? Is not justice more clearly a question of white or black, right or wrong, rather than degree? There will be cases of contributory negligence, however, where degree must be considered. But such is by embrace an acknowledgement of guilt, however divided, and a definite determination of wrong, despite degree. New trials would attempt justice once again for the Menendez Boys, with counsel Leslie Abramson again confident of pulling innocent rabbits from a guilty hat. 5 As we now continually find, such questions of absolute guilt are no longer answered by the Court without complication of defense protests that such guilt was somehow excusable, or nonguilty. This may all harken back to the murder of mayoral supervisor Harvey Milk in San Francisco some years ago, where innocence was misjudged because of a defense ruse that the killer's consumption beforehand of a Twinkie had so sugared his brain into homicidal action that he was "temporarily insane" and therefore not really guilty of his crime. Though derided then and now, the "Twinkie" defense was nonetheless effective in persuading innocence for a guilty man and allowing future "guilties" a legal escape for their contemptible actions. Another case would follow the Menendez with an equal shock to reason: Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by reason of "insanity." Not that she was always so but only, conveniently, at the time of her crime. Though evidence of such mental aberration was never produced at trial, a jury found poor Lorena's guilt excusable because of her abusive husband. Whether John Bobbitt was cruel or Hitleresque, is not the issue. Whether he commanded her as a slave and treated her with uncommon contempt or dominance, is not the issue. What legally matters is -- did he torture her, place her ever in any position which reasonably and immediately threatened her life? 6 The answer, it would appear, is No. While testimony revealed she might have felt somewhat controlled by a feeling of domination, Lorena Bobbitt was never physically threatened or abused by her husband. And yet, on a certain night while he soundly slept and remained unaware of her intent, Lorena proceeded to wield a sharp knife and sever John Bobbitt from his manhood. The jury found her not guilty. As with the Menendez brothers and the killer of Harvey Milk, she had escaped immediate consequence for her inhuman act and was allowed freedom from its responsibility. Thus, "temporary insanity" has become an effective ruse to excuse acts of heinous cruelty and obvious guilt. This begs a pertinent question -- can a person actually become so temporarily, immediately, and radically opposed to their own usual sense of propriety, their own human sensibility, that they can be reasonably excused from such inexcusable act by the reason of their usual and stable sanity becoming suddenly, conveniently, unstable? It boggles the rational mind. Are we then to presume that such temporary insanity might not recur at some future time and, having allowed freedom, uncautiously inflict a potential danger upon the public? In a subsequent case, at least one black juror had decided beforehand not to convict O.J. Simpson, regardless of compelling evidence and in obvious violation of the duty to consider it in rendering judgment. For many Blacks, it became 7 a question of loyalty and dwindling heroes. Robbed of Martin Luther King three decades earlier, and with Jesse Jackson an ineffective presence, it fell to other leaders to carry the flag of African pride. But Ron Brown stumbled on the Hill, as did Mike Espy, and Marion Berry lost a Chicago mayorship over cocaine and a hooker. Stronger, still, was the need for heroes, despite their tarnish: Berry was ultimately re-elected. With Lewis Farrakhan an aquired taste for many, leading lights were few and dimming. Thus the defiant need to hold on to what once seemed a perfect idol: O.J. Simpson. For those who refuse to let him fall even to guilt, justice is less important than illusion. Michael Jackson never came to trial. Probably never will. When allegations of his sexual misconduct with young boys first became public, Jackson became suddenly unavailable for comment, holing himself up in Europe at a hospital for what he'd never suffered before ... nervous exhaustion. It seemed quite logical, however ... such allegations were enough to exhaust and unnerve anyone. Subsequent months would witness a flurry of media attention. Long-time friend Liz Taylor would offer unequivocal support for an absent Michael. In curiously momentous showing of family integrity, a Jackson Family Special was shown on TV, though LaToya remained the only one to call a spade a spade: she had personal knowledge that there was more to Michael than his carefully crafted public persona ... all those cancelled checks for hush payments to the parents of various boys. 8 On the heels of the flurry, though she'd never been filmed there til now, Oprah Winfrey suddenly appeared at Michael's child-themed estate ... Neverland ... a Peter Pan ranch away from his Encino home, where police had obtained several boxes of material evidence during his absence. Investigation of this material, and whether it supported innocence or guilt, was never made public. Oprah studiously avoided any probing questions of Michael's involvement in the damning theme, and Michael's own appearance and manner did little to confirm a sense of "normal" behavior. More than one news report had by now mentioned the one young boy on whose behalf a lawsuit for sexual compromise had been filed against Mr. Jackson. There were rumors of other young boys, too, though curiously none would come forward with evidence in a public trial. Ordinarily, one might think this a good opportunity to present such damning evidence in court and win a substantial settlement or judgment. That would surely apply ... unless a settlement had already been reached beforehand to keep things quiet, away from the scrutiny of court and a once adoring public. That is, indeed, what happened. No matter how many other young boys might have been compromised and later silenced, at least one is known to have been "bought off" by Michael Jackson. 9 It's all in the public record. And despite the much later showing of Michael's televised "outrage" at the charges, conveniently taped to avoid the possible embarrassment of a live broadcast, there is no question that he paid at least fourteen million dollars for the silence of that one little boy. Michael's later interview with a newly-acquired "wife," Lisa Marie Presley, and host Diane Sawyer on network TV on 6/14/95 did little to discourage his detractors. And even the new Mrs. was not much help with her curious attitude of petulance and the statement that children often followed Michael into the bathroom at their estate. A particular and damning note was also added by Lisa's insistence that Michael "has a thing for children." Though Michael Jackson may have felt vindicated at last in this broadcast protest of innocence, repeating often that there was "nothing to the charges -- nothing, nothing, nothing!" -- even Sawyer noted it was protest too much. And on it goes, here in the epoch of the new millennium. Justice has proven to be more elusive and less absolute than at any time in the past. It has become a commodity much like any other, which responds primarily to the machinations of money and power and imparts a most compelling truth ... Justice is not always the same as legal satisfaction, but either can often be had, for a price. |