34 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
wow…um…wow first off, don’t YOU do anything that sends you to jail. But if you do, hire this guy’s attorney and he’ll use his talents and tricks to get you out too. ;) Secondly, this is the way justice works. Frankly I would rather have bad people slip through the cracks and back in society than good people wrongly convicted. That’s just a preference I have. Don’t worry about this drunk dude, though. God is observant, and his angels are silent notes takers. He’ll get his reward. |
I’m still not sure what the defense attorney did that was so wrong. If he had not probed your testimony, he would have been guilty of malpractice. Maybe I am just not getting it. |
That’s right, Democrats are for sensible, proper things. :) It’s a good thing you’re on your way to becoming a Democrat then, isn’t it? ;) |
That’s very Democrat of you, Dan. :) Actually, when I was sharing my outrage with Sarah, she made much the same statement “wow, I’d like him to handle my divorce.” I suppose this will bring out my not-latent at all tendencies toward control. I think I’ll just write about him in my column for the local paper: “Joe Blow is a drunk driver, be careful on the road.” |
3) That’s why lawyers get a bad rap. His job is to try and get his client off even though everyone knows his client belongs in jail. I guess that’s one reason I could never be a defense attorney. I’d feel horrible if I got this guy off. |
That is the crux of the problem though. How much do you defend a sleaseball you know is guilty? Is it right someone like OJ gets off because he has good lawyers? That does not seem like justice to me nor does it seem to be what the justice system was set out to do. I have no answer for it though… |
The pay in criminal defense sucks from what I’ve heard. And it’s about the worst group of clients you could be dealing with as a lawyer. Except for divorce clients. They really are the worst. |
Devyn S., I think the answer to your question is that the system is imperfect, but there isn’t a perfect alternative. The defense lawyer is doing his part in a system that is purposely adversarial. His job in one sense is to try to keep his client out of jail, but in another sense it is to make the prosecution prove their case and expose any weaknesses it might have so that the jury gets a more complete picture. The real problem is that the system isn’t adversarial at all for many poor defendants. They get someone that is just looking to get the case off their desk rather than to make the prosecution work. In any case, it sounds unlikely that this guy is going to get away with it. There seems to be ample evidence that he is guilty. |
I should add that I think drunk drivers are pretty low on my list. My wife treated a police office once that was injured in a drunk driving accident. Unfortunately the office was the one who had been drinking. Disgusting. |
“How much do you defend a sleaseball you know is guilty?” To the very, very best of your ability. That is required by our system of justice. It does not work any other way. Both sides must do their best to prove their case and let the judge and jury do their jobs. “Is it right someone like OJ gets off because he has good lawyers?” OJ got off because the jury in his criminal case decided he was not guilty of the crime for which he was charged. His lawyers simply did their job. You could argue that the jury did not do its job, that they chose to let him go despite overwhelming evidence, but there were also some issues which didn’t totally add up, like the gloves. The jury decided he was not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” If you weren’t on the jury, it’s best not to second guess their decision. “That does not seem like justice to me nor does it seem to be what the justice system was set out to do.” Whether you agree with the decision or not, the justice system functioned the way it was supposed to. It was set up to ensure that it was more likely that a guilty person would go free than an innocent person go to jail. Obviously, it ain’t perfect, and money makes a big difference in the quality of representation, but in OJs case, you can’t say it didn’t work as it was supposed to. |
My aunt was killed by a drunk driver. They ought to make a breathalyzer test for your car — it won’t even let you in if you fail it. Alcohol stronger than a certain, mild percentage ought to be outlawed. Yeah, I know they’ve tried Prohibition already. Alcohol has killed or crippled three generations of my family, including innocents like my aunt who wouldn’t even have been hit except that she pushed someone else out of the way. I hope this guy gets what’s coming to him. |
I don’t think what the defense attorney did was so wrong. I think it’s wrong that an obviously guilty person has so many avenues to escape justice. And I despise this man for costing my tax money to get off from something he did that could have cost lives. Something he will in all likelihood, do again. I would suspect that he might end up with some type of plea bargain, dropping the charge of driving on the wrong side of the road and plead guilty to a lesser crime. He might have to go to rehab, which is no simple thing for a sixty year old, and lose his license for awhile. You know, I’m trying to be less controlling. Like Wayne Dyer, I’m trying to accept that “injustice is in the way of things” and tell myself “the universe has everything I need to solve this dilemma.” :) |
annegb: Look at it this way. The guy didn’t hurt anyone that night. Why do you want to send him to jail when he didn’t cause any damage or hurt? The problem isn’t when drunk drivers get off. It’s when drunk drivers who cause damage or hurt/kill people get only a slap on the wrist. |
i’m proud of you for testifying!!! my granddad was killed by a drunk driver and left to die on his street. i never got over it and my attitude towards drunks has only worsened since being married to a highway patrolman. in january of this year, my husband’s patrol car was hit from behind while he was making a routine traffic stop. he was out of his car, standing between the car and a wall, and literally missed death or severed legs by a foot or two. the driver was over .20 bac (can’t remember exactly, but it was at least that high) and it was his fourth dui (that he got caught for; lord knows there have been others). my husband walked away with scratches and a hurt back from jumping back into the wall. i thank god almost daily that i still have the love of my life and that my kids still have a dad. i wanted SO badly to testify at the trial or to at least be there for the arraignment. i was eight months pregnant when the accident occurred, we had a 2yo and a 3yo, and i came thaaaaat close to becoming a widow. once i got over the heartsickness, i was spitting mad. i still am… can feel my blood pressure starting to rise! i have no tolerance at all for drunk drivers. you did a great thing, annegb, even if it was only his first occurrence and he wasn’t already a slimeball. |
wow, i just read #13 and should probably call it a night before i implode. |
I’d rather a guilty guy went scott free than an innocent man went to jail. |
MCQ, I attened a presentation by Robert Shapiro shortly after the OJ case. He repeatedly made the distinction between “not guilty” and “innocent”. It was very clear to everyone in my group that he was saying that nobody was contending that OJ was innocent of the crime, just that the prosecution was not able to prove that he was guilty. |
My feeling exactly. |
Makakona, I hope you’re still intact. Actually, #13 has a point. At first I just wanted the police to check on the situation, then I was scared shitless when he almost hit those cars. But now, my motives aren’t so pure. It’s become a power struggle for me. I want him to repent. I want him to show remorse and apologize to the world for being a jerk. I want him to suffer for his snotty attitude. But, my mental problems aside, anon 234, how do we avoid drunk drivers killing someone if we don’t do something when we catch them driving drunk, even if they don’t hurt someone? A drunk driver is only a drink away from causing a death. I’m ashamed to say that I have driven drunk, years ago, before I was 21 in fact. I thank God regularly that I didn’t hurt anyone. Getting arrested would not have been an awful thing, killing someone would have been irreparable. I know myself. If I’d been picked up, I would have admitted it, taken my lumps and because I’m terrified of the police, never done it again. I don’t understand the level of dishonesty in this man. ARJ, yeah, I read that somewhere. Frankly, I didn’t think they’d proven their case and when the defense “outed” Mark Fuhrman, they lost me. If I’d been on that jury, I’d have voted not guilty, also. I despise OJ, but those guys screwed up all over the place. And yet. . .what is wrong with our system when this guy who brutally murdered two people is out free and easy? Seth, and Dan, that’s just too pat. It’s cliche and trite. It’s meant to bring up guilt on the part of Americans who value their freedom. There has to be a better way than to choose between liberty and letting evil triumph. I don’t know what it is, but there has to be a better way. And finally, anon234, if this guy is court ordered into rehab or AA, I’ll be content. Because in rehab or AA (which I sporadically attend–even though I haven’t been drunk since December 1974)they will call him on his shit. And they will not put up with him. But you better believe if he walks away from this, he will do it again. IF, and it’s a big if, of course, if he’d hit that first car, the second would have crashed, as well, and I’m not sure I could have avoided the accident myself. That’s at least four people in a huge wreck. Sooner or later, if he’s not stopped, someone will be hurt. And if it’s somebody you know and love, the fact that he didn’t hurt anybody the last time is completely irrelevant. |
annegb,
There is a point where you can only do so much and you have to let the drunk person free to commit his crime. He will be punished, in more ways than one. And yes, innocent people may get injured or even killed. It wouldn’t be the first time that God allowed innocent people to die. Here for example is Alma 14:
In this particular, rather extreme, instance, the Lord constrained Alma from doing anything to save the innocents, so that God’s wrath on the wicked may be just. Saving the innocent is not the ultimate priority of this life.
This is the best way, Arlene. The guilty will eventually get their reward, and innocents will not suffer things they should not suffer. Evil doesn’t triumph. It never does. Bad men will get away from men’s justice, but they will never get away from God’s. Remember the bigger picture, Arlene. |
Some wrote: “I’d rather a guilty guy went scott free than an innocent man went to jail.” I don’t like this point – I don’t think it’s helpful. It’s interesting to me to read the dialogue that goes on between God and Abraham in regards to the destruction of Sodom. Abraham didn’t try to argue that the city should be saved if even one man was innocent. In the process of negotiations, they hit the number of 10 innocent people being killed as unacceptable. In other words, there seemed to be some kind of de facto understanding that if 1-9 people in Sodom were innocent (but the rest were wicked), then the wickedness of Sodom still merited destroying the whole place with everyone in it. I think in a sense this Biblical story is giving us a lesson about the necessity of justice – even imperfect justice. We don’t willingly allow the wicked to go on a complete unhindered rampage just because we believe God will ultimately take care of justice someday in the future. It’s not entirely God’s job and we should pursue justice. Pursuing justice doesn’t mean we catch up with it … we do the very best we can to punish the guilty (within appropriate boundaries) and to preserve the innocent. But having a justice system at all will inevitably be based on the harsh reality that human beings are imperfect and that sometimes the innocent will be punished. We have to set up standards that help us to avoid punishing the innocent – but we also know that on rare occasions, even with the best system, there will be mistakes. [By the way, the Abraham-negotiating-over-Sodom example is something I got from reading "The Genesis of Justice" by Alan Dershowitz - I think it's a very helpful analysis by someone who has ample experience with the legal system.] |
Here’s the negotiation quote – the dialogue that went on between God and Abraham.
Again, the point is that Abraham stopped arguing after he hit the number 10. There’s something to learn from this – and the point is that in pursuing jusice – we can’t give up punishing a guilty vicious multitude for fear of injuring a few innocent people who are in their midst. On the other hand, if we perceive that a high number of innocent people will in fact be injured/killed by the pursuit of justice, then we need to make a correction so that won’t happen. It’s a high standard – but it’s noticeably and significantly not a perfect standard. |
but danithew, you’re arguing that it is okay that ten innocent people die so that God can kill the thousands of wicked. Conversely God allows the ten wicked to live so that he doesn’t kill the thousands of righteous. This is by far a more common approach God has with the world. In fact, he seems to allow far more wicked people to live out their lives to the end than not. |
“The guy didn’t hurt anyone that night. Why do you want to send him to jail when he didn’t cause any damage or hurt?” if you are serious then I will have to take you to task on this. it’s against the law to drive while intoxicated!! look at like this: if i walked around the mall carrying a loaded gun waiving it in the air and acting like I might shoot someone, i would be apprehended and put in jail. why? I suppose it’s because I was perceived to be a threat to the safety and well being of others. right? (insert plea for legal advice here) so my argument is “i didn’t cause damage, I didn’t hurt anyone” nope–don’t think that would fly. |
#13 Um, I’m probably breaking a posting rule but that has to be one of the craziest things that I’ve ever seen posted. |
arj #17: My point exactly. I wasn’t saying OJ was innocent, just that the jury found that he was not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” That standard exists in our criminal justice system wholly because of the fear its founders had of sending innocent people to prison or worse. It’s a high standard for that reason. The only way we have of deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime is this system. If the jury says “not guilty” we don’t get another shot at it. We can’t say, as annegb said: “what is wrong with our system when this guy who brutally murdered two people is out free and easy?” The system worked. The prosecution could not prove its case. The jury rendered its verdict. We can’t say the system didn’t work just because we happen to think OJ did it. (And that is based on what exactly, an extensive review of the evidence presented at trial? The results of a personal investigation? Prayer? Intuition?). He was tried for that crime and it could not be proven (to the satisfaction of that jury)that he did it. That said, I think the whole negotiation between Abraham and God is a crock. While we are imperfect and can’t determine guilt with 100% reliability, God can. To say that he is going to destroy the whole city and not spare the innocent, even if its only one person, is not right. Abraham should have kept negotiating. mfranti is right. There are a lot of crimes that don’t necessarily hurt anyone but that we still prosecute. The crime she describes is called “brandishing a weapon” in most jurisdictions. You can go to jail for that, as well as inchoate crimes like “attempted” murder or rape. These crimes result in no harm but carry high senteces for obvious reasons. |
Here’s an apropos article about the effects of wrong convictions on innocent families. |
You guys are lucky I don’t get all worked up about threadjacks. Although it’s not a complete threadjack. I don’t know what to think about your premise, Dan. In this case, I know the guy’s guilty. But like I said, I question my own motives. I was speaking with the deputy DA on the case this morning and made the point that it seems like the law is less about debate (like we see on TV) and more about compromise. The art of the deal. We have a guy here who defends people and he’s expert at the plea bargain. He’s the one I would go to if I were guilty. |
I’m a moron. I forgot what my own topic was :) |
I have no sympathy for drunks of any sort. I used it up long ago. The well has run dry. I know God loves drunks but I don’t. I understand this is my failing but I can’t fix that. You have problems? Okay, then stop drinking and maybe I’ll care. You’ve tried to stop? You really want to stop? Fine, then just stop. Until then you’re choosing to drink. You’re putting alcohol ahead of your family, your job, your honor, your honesty, the beauty of life, ahead of the love of your children, of self preservation, of every good thing that is. You care more about alcohol than you do any of that, or you would quit. Call me when you’ve been sober a year, and I might care about your existence. Until then, reap what you have sown and I don’t want to hear about it. I hope this guy gets put in jail for a long time. Thanks for calling 911 and thanks for testifying against him. You absolutely did the right thing. |
Look, if it’s any comfort, the guy is probably going to get convicted of something. Judges, contrary to popular belief, rarely put up with BS, and usually bend over backwards to find ways in which the law can be used to justify what they see as the “correct” result. The problems start when you then generalize from one incident to a larger group of people. I call this the “angry anecdote” method of judging society. You find one rather ugly example, where the facts are pretty clear, and the prescription is fairly obvious. Like the jerk in question here. Then you take that example and use it to paint a much, much, broader population. It’s a popular device used by radio talk show hosts, and network television news. It’s also really dumb reporting and can easily lead society astray. I’d say 90% of the lynch mobs in American history were based on the “angry anecdote syndrome.” “Did you hear about that black man who raped and murdered that white girl three towns over? Damn savages! Let’s have us a lynching!” Problem is, powerful as anecdotes are, you simply can’t trust them. And the law can NEVER be based on anecdotal evidence. No matter how pissed off the townsfolk are getting. This is really one big reason why lawyers get the hostility they do. They’re often the ones telling the angry citizens that they are acting like a lot of Tom fools and should stop. People don’t like to be told they are wrong and angry people especially don’t like to be told they are wrong. Furthermore, lawyers are big defenders of process, and process is not always efficient, or even fair. But unless you want to go back to beating each other with stone axes over watering holes and mates, you’re going to have to put up with a bit of process. That process protects everyone, not just opportunistic buttheads who nearly kill people while DUI. |
“And the law can NEVER be based on anecdotal evidence.” I agree, but it’s mighty hard to repeat that phrase with a straight face after you’ve seen the actual legislative process in action. |
True. |
The point of the story that stood out to me was the fact that you wouldn’t have testified if is was indeed the ES?!?!?!?!?! Why would the fact that a member of your ward or the fact that it was the Executive Secretary have given him a free ride???? Baffled by that one. The guy didn’t hurt anyone that night. Why do you want to send him to jail when he didn’t cause any damage or hurt?†Seriously??? You have got to be kidding! Wow the logic of some people I will NEVER understand! |