| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
What Can We Do? | | | Alex, | |
<
< | It seems to me that your proposition suffers from a few major flaws. Most fatally, your suggestion that through civil disruption via information spreading, “[n]o major cases could go to trial because the information about the case was plastered all over the internet,” thus dealing a “serious blow to the criminal justice system,” is premised on the (extremely erroneous) idea that it matters one whit whether criminal defendants get a fair trial, which, as it so happens, it doesn’t. Your entire argument assumes that fairness and unbiased jurors are some sort of magical prerequisite without which the justice system will grind to a halt; I appreciate your optimism on this point, but it’s entirely misplaced. If we do what you suggest, the gears won’t stop, they’ll just grind on, albeit in slightly worse shape than before. I suspect that, to the extent your plan would accomplish anything, it would be merely to degrade what little fairness in procedure we have left. “Civil disobedience” of this kind is not going to stop trials from happening--- it simply won’t. If you think for one minute that major trials (or trials of any kind) are stopped or even mildly impeded because “twelve angry men” can’t be found, you’re living in an entirely different country than the rest of us. Essentially what you are suggesting is that we shit where we eat, not that we walk away from the table entirely, which is problematic to say the least. | >
> | It seems to me that your proposition suffers from a few major flaws. Most fatally, your suggestion that through civil disruption via information spreading, “[n]o major cases could go to trial because the information about the case was plastered all over the internet,” thus dealing a “serious blow to the criminal justice system,” is premised on the (extremely erroneous) idea that it matters one whit whether criminal defendants get a fair trial--- which, as it so happens, it doesn’t. Your entire argument assumes that fairness and unbiased jurors are some sort of magical prerequisite without which the justice system will grind to a halt; I appreciate your optimism on this point, but it’s entirely misplaced. If we do what you suggest, the gears won’t stop, they’ll just crank on, even if in slightly worse shape than before. I suspect that, to the extent your plan would accomplish anything, it would be merely to degrade what little fairness in procedure we have left. “Civil disobedience” of this kind is not going to stop trials from happening--- it simply won’t, and pretending otherwise won't help anyone. If you think for one minute that major trials (or trials of any kind) are stopped or even mildly impeded because “twelve angry men” can’t be found, you’re living in an entirely different country than the rest of us. Essentially what you are suggesting is that we shit where we eat, not that we walk away from the table entirely, which is problematic to say the least. | | | | |
<
< | If you want to suggest that we fight the power, ok, then do that. Tell us to literally dismantle the system; at least then you’d be saying something that wouldn’t inherently do more harm than good. But what you shouldn’t do is encourage us all to degrade the criminal justice system that will exist no matter what trial protections we erode in our attempt to destroy it. Because it won’t be you or I that pays the price for it--- it will be those poor, black and otherwise disenfranchised people who disproportionately make up the criminal justice system who will suffer the consequences of this kind of “disobedience.” Imagine how this would actually play out: There is a high profile trial of the kind you postulate, for which you make it impossible to find uncontaminated jurors by spreading information via the internet. Do you really think the result would be to not have the trial? No. All you will have done is lower the bar for what we consider an “impartial and fair” proceeding. It’s a mistake to assume that systems of power depend upon the values they espouse. Just because today we give at least lip service to fairness or impartiality doesn’t mean that tomorrow the system will fall apart without those values. It’s particularly true in the context of criminal justice, where the Supreme Court modulates on a regular basis just what exactly criminal defendants are guaranteed, that undermining the standards doesn’t mean they disappear. It just means they’ll become even more useless than they already are. I can't countenance at all your argument that doing this is how we "change the world." | >
> | If you want to suggest that we fight the power, ok, then do that. Tell us to literally dismantle the system; at least then you’d be saying something that wouldn’t inherently do more harm than good. But what you shouldn’t do is encourage us all to degrade the criminal justice system that will exist no matter what trial protections we erode in our attempt to destroy it. Because it won’t be you or me that pays the price for it--- it will be those poor, black and otherwise disenfranchised people who disproportionately make up the criminal justice system who will suffer the consequences of this kind of “disobedience.” Imagine how this would actually play out: There is a high profile trial of the kind you postulate, for which you make it impossible to find uncontaminated jurors by spreading information via the internet. Do you really think the result would be to not have the trial? That the prosecutor will just pack up and go home, because, aw shucks, he just couldn't find a fair jury to have his trial? No. All you will have done is lower the bar for what we consider an “impartial and fair” proceeding. It’s a mistake to assume that systems of power depend upon the values they espouse. Just because today we give at least lip service to fairness or impartiality doesn’t mean that tomorrow the system will fall apart without those values. It’s particularly true in the context of criminal justice, where the Supreme Court modulates on a regular basis just what exactly criminal defendants are guaranteed, that undermining the standards doesn’t mean they disappear. It just means they’ll become even more useless than they already are. I can't countenance at all your argument that doing this is how we "change the world." | | |
-- DanaDelger - 09 May 2009 |
|