[lbo-talk] Lynn Stewart convicted of aiding terrorists

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Fri Feb 11 09:40:44 PST 2005


Nathan:
> -Damn, ever feel like the walls are closing in?
>
> I think there were serious problems with this trial-- the use of tapes
from
> confidential lawyer conversations with clients being a primary examples --
> but Stewart had a full trial, the best lawyers on her defense, and a
> bluer-than-blue jury in New York City. The jury deliberated for almost
two
> weeks, so there was no rush to judgement. Hopefully, she will be able to
> contest the use of a chunk of the evidence used in her trial on appeal and
> force a new trial, but the point is that she will have an appeal.

Nathan, I think that this demonstrates the real shortcomings of using the justice system as a vehicle for social change. I would not go as afar as comparing the US court system to the notorious Nazi "people's courts" - I think there are some differences - but I would say that the court system faces two very serious constraints - political and cognitive.

The political constraints are obvious - if you have unjust laws, these laws will make the verdict unjust even if the procedure and the letter of the law is followed to the last detail. I guess that was the position of the post WWII German judiciary (including East German) on the so-called "people's courts." The judges merely followed the law, unjust but still the law.

Another serious political constraint that rarely gets mentioned is the prosecutorial discretion. As a result, those who end up in jail are those who are prosecuted. That does not necessarily mean that innocent people get railroaded - I believe that deliberate railroading happens relatively rarely. I think that more sinister consequence is that people who engage in borderline practices (Lynn Stewart is an example) are selectively prosecuted to for political reasons.

The cognitive constraints pertain mainly to the jury system. Here the problem is that cultural stereotypes overshadow anything that is or is not presented as evidence during the trial. The jury system may work where it is least needed - in prosecuting misdemeanors or petty crimes committed by "ordinary people." I such cases cognitive prejudice plays minimal role. However, if there is anything extraordinary about the case i..e a defendant is a celebrity or a popular villain, or if the nature of the case deals with the matters stir strong emotions - a trial by a jury is joke. The verdict is quite predictable regardless of the evidence or any other merits or demerits of the case are.

The US justice system has a long history of exonerating popular celebrities and condemning popular villains or those effectively portrayed as such. If I was ever charged with a felony in this country, I would almost definitely have a better chance to waive my "right" to a jury trail.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list