|
Justice is often not served in the legal system; it is served more incorrectly and inefficiently due to several contributing factors that may sometimes be beyond control. A main problem for the United States� legal system is one faced by every nation in the world: people themselves are the distributors of justice. There are too many judges, lawyers, reporters, police officers, investigators, et cetera, who either work to gain power, status, and money or who do not care to think deeply about the fates of their fellow human beings. People who still feel some primitive need to differentiate between themselves in racial, religious, nationality, sexual, and class categories also ruin chances for justice to be served.
In our research paper on the death penalty, my partner cited instances where race played a definitive role in determining the guilt of a defendant during his or her trial. In my own section of the paper, I demonstrated how a person who could not afford a lawyer would graciously be assigned a disorderly, unprepared, and inexperienced lawyer while a wealthier defendant in the same position would be able to acquire �the best money can buy�. The people instigating these biased, unfair attitudes thwart justice by ruining and dramatically changing the lives of people whom they know and care nothing about. Justice in such a case is never served.
The people who spend every waking hour of their adult lives trying to bridge gaps, bring the real points into focus, and carry out and defend the laws of the United States are constantly bogged down by the power of those who use popular belief and emotional appeal to �climb their way to the top�. The best-known instance of just such a scenario having occurred is the era of McCarthyism. The fears and beliefs of people influenced the leaders of the time, and groups such as the HUAC* are known historically for having been ruthless in using those fears to destroy the lives of any nonconformists and anyone challenging the legality of those findings. Justice during the 1950�s was not served because the supposed officers of justice were unethical and criminal in themselves. Their findings were large, bold fabrications to make Americans feel that they were winning the war on Communism, and such findings not based upon factual evidence are incorrect. Any similar method of deciding a case by a present court would be unjustified, and popular beliefs are still very influential today. To keep such influences to a minimum, rules have been adopted and enforced to ensure that such a bogus miscarriage of justice never happens again, but there are always cases that seem to slip through the cracks.
The rules of the court during the trial of George Milton were made with brevity because the trial was being held in a public school classroom with a curriculum to follow, and it was an excellent experience to show how important regulations are in the justice system. None of the students appeared to have more than a basic understanding of trial procedures, and this lack of knowledge was damaging to both sides in their effort to either convict or defend George Milton.
I, as Defense Lawyer Number Two, had retained somewhere the elementary knowledge that when I asked my questions during cross-examination I needed to state them in a certain order and in a tactical method in order to emphasize particular points, bring out favorable evidence, and downplay damaging evidence. I had no earthly idea how to do that, and the effects may have been damaging if the jury was unable to see where I was going with questions and if I did not ask them in a fashion that would prove their significance (the prosecution had this same problem). In a real trial the opposing side would have bluntly taken advantage of every one of my inadequacies to show the jury that my case must have been very weak. It is possible in that instance that the jury would have viewed all other points and evidence introduced by me with mistrust, and that could have meant grave consequences for my client. The plaintiff side in this case did not really know what they were doing, either, proving theoretically that ignorance is bliss.
There were many more instances, however, where the lack of knowledge could have proved fatal. The plaintiff witnesses, who were under questioning by Plaintiff Lawyer Number One, were asked to make conclusions over which they had no expertise several times. Plaintiff Lawyer Number One was drawing her own conclusions after every other question to the point where I felt it necessary to object. The judge should have informed the jury to disregard every one of the rhetorical questions and conclusions made before every objection of mine found plausible (and of course they were all plausible), but he did not because he must not have known that he could. When I made my objections I was not stating them so that everyone could understand what I meant. Since I made objections several times, the other students thought that I was being frivolous, and I finally stopped after I heard several faceless people grumbling behind me. Running such an abbreviated trial meant that important rules were not followed, and justice cannot be served if rules are broken. The jury could have thought that my objections were meant to interrupt and distract the opposing side, and such a view from the jury could not have been favorable to the future of my defendant. If a jury was to base its decisions on the points I made in both this paragraph and the former, then justice would not have been served to George Milton because it would not have been legal or fair of them to disregard the evidence of the trial.
The problem with a jury disregarding evidence is that although it is not legal for them to do so, it is legal for them to do so. A jury cannot be prosecuted for their verdict in a trial**; therefore, twelve members of a jury could break the rules with the comfort of knowing that they would never be punished. There probably have not been many instances where a jury has disregarded evidence recently, but it was common up until the beginning of this century if the defendant was poor or disliked. If George Milton had been convicted (or even acquitted) for those reasons, then justice would not have been served. Either finding by the jury could not have been the correct one if it was not found by facts.
The point was made that closing statements would be an integral part of the trial because of their impact on the jury. I�ve read that a lawyer may present his entire case in the closing statement if he does not argue**, and this same magical source informed me that closing statements may last hours, but I instead tried to condense mine into two minutes. My feeble, procrastinated attempt at providing some of the main points and the prosecution�s failures apparently worked, as I noticed during the post-trial discussion one of the jurors comparing the two closing statements. If the jury, in the less than fifteen minutes they had to convene, based their decision solely on the facts presented during the trial, then the legal definition of justice was served in this case.
Ethically, some people would still disagree with that conclusion. A definition for the word �justice� is that justice may mean �reward or penalty as deserved�***. Although George Milton was correctly served by justice in the legal sense, people with different definitions of the correct form of justice would feel cheated. Justice is supposed to serve all, so why has it not been served to them? A nation cannot be expected to fully satisfy its citizens� needs for justice because of justice�s many forms. That is the base reason that justice cannot always be served within the legal system.
*The Court Years (1939-1975): The Autobiography of William O. Douglas, House Un-American Activities Committee
**Bugliosi, Vincent- Outrage
***New World Dictionary of the American Language (Student�s Edition), copyright 1976
 |
