A colleague at work confronted me Friday morning with this Scalia gem:
He was outraged, of course, somewhat along the lines of this fellow.
I calmly pointed out to my colleague that guilt and innocence were not the same thing as a fair trial. I've tried well over 200 jury trials in my life, and I'm telling you, innocent people get convicted, and guilty people walk out the door. The error rate in a jury trial is said to be 1 out of 6. I agree with Patterico that that figure may be a tad high, but I think it's closer to the truth than many recognize. I once watched a jury convict a man who could not have done what the nice young police officer said he did. Thank God the court of appeals gave it back to the prosecution, who dismissed it rather than retry it. That particular jury wasn't interested in justice at all. Every seasoned trial attorney has seen outcomes that boggle comprehension (seasoned defense attorneys and prosecutors have behind-doors discussions that the rest o'y'all would find highly offensive). Prejudice, stupidity and condemnation are facts of life that every attorney must confront. I prosecuted criminal cases for 15 years and I'm telling you, every prosecutor on this earth is aware of the prejudice in peoples' minds that says "defendant bad; attorney bad; me convict." Many prosecutors ride that wave to the next election. Shocked? Don't be. It's why folks like me believe in limited government. The police can be a source of tyranny as much as any liberal. In fact, most of the prosecutors I know lean heavily Democrat. Think about that tonight as you lay you down to sleep.
All Justice Scalia was expressing was a reluctance to extend their writ procedure into determinations that the Constitution wisely defers to juries. He was disagreeing with the majority's grounds for doing what they did. Alas, his simple statement is now a referendum on Bad Conservatives, the Death Penalty, and Whole Foods.
It would be funny if it weren't so stupid.
More Hijinks and Spookies at Washington Rebel.
3 comments:
IRISHCICIRO,
As noted re guily & innocence and a fair trial, convicted doesn't necessarily mean guilty. Historically that has been proved time and time again. As well, proven innocent in a court does not mean not guilty. Oh our wonderful court system...better than other systems I suppose. The definition of "a jury of your peers" is somewhat lacking in reality. One in six doesn't seem all that unrealistic but one will never know.
Hey, Duke:
After I wrote the post I realized the brilliance of that British thing about the jury. Over the years I've thought about how many hard-headed idiots I've known in goverment. Our James Madison was right on the money when he emphasized separation of powers. A jury is just another piece of the pie. Not perfect by any stretch, but better than centralized authority.
These people who want to give more power to the state absolutely cause me to want to wring their necks.
IrishCicero,
It isn't perfect but, as you said, another wedge (slice) to keep them separated. Your points are sound.
Cheers
Post a Comment