Can justice be served through injustice? (long)

[KBCraig]

Do you believe justice can be served through an injustice? Such as, convicting someone of a crime he didn't convict, to make up for getting away with a crime he did commit?

(I've seen a TV commercial lately, no idea what the product is, of a football ref turning on his mic and making the call: "Sorry about that. I really blew that call. To make up for it, I'll penalize the other team, for no good reason, in the second half. First down!")

I personally hold a very strict standard: the person must have committed the act that is alleged; the act must be a crime; the crime must be constitutionally permissible; and, all of the above must come down on the side of justice, not injustice. Here's why I take that line: it is no secret that "they" (whomever they are) could come after any one of us and make a case stick. None of us goes through a week without breaking the law, knowingly or unknowingly. Not that it matters: when a serious effort is made to convict someone, actual violation of the law is a secondary consideration.

Here's what brought this up: Mitchell Johnson was the older (age 13) of the two killers in the Jonesboro, Arkansas, school shootings. Arkansas law at the time only allowed them to be tried as juveniles, and upon conviction they could only be held until their 18th birthdays. The U.S. Attorney later managed to invoke a federal charge (because the school receiving federal funding, IIRC), which kept them incarcerated until their 21st birthdays.

Upon release, their cases were adjudicated, and they suffered no disability. They can vote, purchase firearms, and truthfully answer that they've never been convicted of a felony.

Last year police stopped Johnson's van, which was being driven by his roommate, with Johnson as the passenger. Police publicly stated they stopped the van because of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the vehicle. (I'm not sure when anonymous tips started sufficing as probable cause to stop and search.) Johnson had a shotgun and a pistol in bags in the back of the van. That's perfectly legal in Arkansas, even though the pistol was loaded. They charged him with a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon, which he could have beaten in state court. He was also charged with a misdemeanor count of marijuana possession, for a baggie in his pocket. He would have gotten nailed on that one, with a probable penalty of 30 days in jail and $1,000 fine.

But then, they called in the feds again. Johnson was charged for being in possession of a firearm "while addicted to, or an unlawful user of, marijuana." (Never mind that marijuana is not addictive.)

The substance in the baggie tested negative for marijuana, although the government lab falsely reported it as positive. At trial, a witness declared a second test to be positive. Make of that what you will.

The prosecution witness who said he regularly smoked marijuana with Johnson perjured himself, but after a hastily-called (and lengthy) recess, he returned to the stand and admitted the perjury. (He wasn't charged -- he was testifying for the people who would charge him.) Blood tests showed no evidence of marijuana use by Johnson. Multiple defense witnesses testified that they had never seen him use any drug, nor appear under the influence. Why did he have it in his pocket? Who knows? Holding for his roomie, carrying it for a friend, whatever: he wasn't "using" marijuana while possessing the firearms.

After a one day trial, he was convicted, and faces up to 10 years in federal prison.

Anyone who has served on a federal jury knows that you can't introduce the players and lay out the rules in one day, much less convict someone of a serious and obscure felony, unless the court is on a fast track to kangarooville.

Anyhoo... Here are a list of news articles. Read and discuss.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22903420
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gd6c ... AD8UFSU7G0
http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7799368
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuar/ ... ectionID=1

[boomerang]

I agree with you in principle.

I don't know enough about this case to comment on it.

[tbranch]

Do you believe justice can be served through an injustice? Such as, convicting someone of a crime he didn't convict, to make up for getting away with a crime he did commit?

I think there are plenty of people who are fed up and would agree with that statement. However, each charge should be tried on it's own merit without regard to past history. While "making it right" seems fashionable, it makes the system worse.

I know of a gentleman who sat in Federal prison for 12 years because he was too stubborn to make a deal. He maintains he did not commit the crime and did not expect to be convicted. When he would not deal, the Feds added on a number of other charges and thanks to sentencing guidelines and enhancements, he received a 12-year sentence for some white-collar crime.

There are simply too many cases of bad convictions turning up these days.

[seamusTX]

Every brick in this edifice of justice was put in place by the legislature or Congress, and in many cases upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Later]The above is pretty cryptic. I meant that people are getting what they asked for. They wanted to punish drug abuse out of existence. We see how well that has worked, 39 years after Nixon declared war on drugs. They wanted harsh justice and no leniency for "criminals" who in most cases harm no one but themselves. They got it. They wanted limited funding for public defenders. They got it.

The guy is lucky that the arresting officer didn't see something shiny in his hand. If his luck holds up, he'll be out of prison in 10 years with few prospects and a huge grudge. That should work out well.

- Jim

[Liberty]

It seems to me that the guy was guilty of not being wealthy and influential enough to get a decent lawyer.

[anygunanywhere]

Stupidity and poverty are not crimes.

Inappropriate prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct, IMHO are becoming the hallmark of our judicial system.

Most people do not care.

Soon they will as more normal acts are labeled crimes.

All it takes is a swish of the pen.

Reasonable restrictions.....

Anygun

[Liberty]

Stupidity and poverty are not crimes.

Anygun

I don't know, it doesn't seem like that anyone who could afford a good lawyer would ever get railroaded like this.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Back in RI in 1987 a woman was found murdered in her home in a quiet neighborhood of surbaban Providence. She had been stabbed multiple times.

The perp was never found.

Two years later, another woman from the same neighborhood, along with her two young children, were found slashed to death. Reports were that the evidence showed a wild battle that had raged all throughout the house as the poor woman fought for her life.

As a local gun shop began doing a brisk trade in shotguns, the police began to close in on the perp.

It turned out to be a 15 year old kid. The kid was about 6 foot and 300 lbs. He had done the first murder at age 13. When confronted, he confessed to all crimes.

Under RI law at the time, the maximum penalty he could get was to be locked up until age 21.

Needless to say, this was a big problem for a lot of people. The state was closer to adopting a lynch mob mentality as I had ever seen it.

This kid remained angry and bitter the whole time. He would frequently be quoted as threatening revenge against people who he viewed as responsible for his fate. (Never himself though!) Now it's safe to say that this kid had "anger management" problems. Probably a massive understatement, in fact. And while it was never proved, many people think that certain guards at the state training school would volunteer from time to time to "take one for the team". That is, to push the kid's buttons and get him to commit some kind of violation.

Over the years he would get hit with assaulting either guards or other inmates. Since he was now over 16 years old, adult sentences were imposed. And at every opportunity, the sentences were imposed consecutively.

As it is, he's in the can until well into his 40's. But even so, chances are he gonna be a monster when he gets out. My crystal ball shows at least one more victim down the road.

Sometimes, knowing the right thing to do isn't so simple.

Anybody wanting more detailed info about this case should Google "Craig Price".

[seamusTX]

At one time, a 10-year-old would be hanged for the theft of a shilling. It wasn't much of a deterrent, and no doubt many innocents were punished.

Now we've decided that the death penalty for minors is uncivilized.

We have no effective way to deal with sociopaths like the one Frankie described. Punishment has to be based on the crime a person committed, not the crimes that he might commit in the future, even though we somehow know that he will re-offend.

Other countries use preventive detention, which we find unacceptable.

The cost of these decisions is paid by innocent victims of offenders that we haven't figured out how to deal with.

- Jim

[WildBill]

I know of a gentleman who sat in Federal prison for 12 years because he was too stubborn to make a deal. He maintains he did not commit the crime and did not expect to be convicted. When he would not deal, the Feds added on a number of other charges and thanks to sentencing guidelines and enhancements, he received a 12-year sentence for some white-collar crime.

This brings up another question. Is a person "stubborn" when he refuses to confess to a crime he didn't commit? It would seem that people wrongfully convicted would serve longer sentences since they wouldn't admit to the crime and ask for leniency.

[seamusTX]

It would seem that people wrongfully convicted would serve longer sentences since they wouldn't admit to the crime and ask for leniency.

This is absolutely the case. Someone willing to plea bargain will nearly always get a lighter sentence that someone found guilty in a jury trial. Prisoners who show remorse are more likely to get parole.

- Jim

[WildBill]

Prisoners who show remorse are more likely to get parole.- Jim

Or even probation!

[KBCraig]

I know of a gentleman who sat in Federal prison for 12 years because he was too stubborn to make a deal. He maintains he did not commit the crime and did not expect to be convicted.

This brings up another question. Is a person "stubborn" when he refuses to confess to a crime he didn't commit?

There are a lot of people out there who now wish they'd been "stubborn" and fought domestic violence charges. "Plead away this misdemeanor, and get on with your life," they were told, and they did. And then years later, the Violence Against Women Act made them instant felons if they possessed or attempted to purchase a firearm.

I'd like to think I have the moral fortitude to fight a false charge, no matter how minor, and no matter how easy it would be to just accept the punishment.

[OverEasy]

I personally know two people who the police were trying to catch for selling drugs. One was around 1967, the other was in the 80's. The police planted drugs on both guys in order to make the arrest. Then they tried to 'plea bargain' them into identifying who they were getting the drugs from. Were they selling drugs? Yes. Did they deserve to be arrested? Yes. However the police took a "shortcut". Is it fair, moral, etc? Has it happened more than these two times? Will it continue?

My .02, OE