This country places a premium on the rights of the individual versus the rights of the whole. The entire due process system is designed to prevent abuses of power by the government against the defendant. Miranda rights, constitutional rights against self incrimination, lawyer-client privelege, and the ability to appeal a conviction are all part of the due process system.
But what about parts of the system that don't work? Discretionary sentencing is a mechanism that is intended to allow judges and juries to take each specific trial on a case by case basis to insure maximum fairness in imposing sentencing. This allows legal (age, prior criminal record) and extra-legal (gender, past relationship history) factors to be taken into account so that the entire process is made more fair both to the defendant and to society. Under such a system, mercy could be given under circumstances that called for it like when a father steals food to feed his starving family. Consequently, the law could come down hard on those criminals who are truly inhuman in their behavior, like the serial killer who rapes and strangles his victims, cuts up the bodies and stores them in his freezer.
This is what discretionary sentencing was designed for. Indeed, when it was in danger of being taken away through the passage of mandatory sentencing guidelines, judges ranted and raved that the system would no longer be fair if they lost these powers of discretion. Current studies still show that minorities get harsher sentences than their white counterparts for COMMITTING THE SAME CRIMES. This is not a new phenomenon. Although things are getting better, racial and socio-economic tensions continue to mire the fairness record of criminal sentencing in this country.
But don't worry it doesn't stop there. Things get much, much worse. Two cases in particular show the danger of discretionary sentencing when it is applied by unmerciful, callous bigots of a judge who dare to assert that they represent justice and morality. The first case involves a man who was a blue collar worker. He came home one night to find his wife in bed with another man. Enraged, he assaulted the man and chased him from the house, pursuing him for some time before giving up the chase. Up to this point, everything was fine and no crime had really been committed. We can all agree that catching our signifigant other in the act of adultery would cause considerable emotions of anger and distress. However, here things take a turn for the worse. Four hours after the incident occured, the man and his wife were having an argument about the affair. During the course of the argument the man grabbed a hunting rifle and SHOT HER IN THE HEAD. She died and he was arrested.
Now under law this man's actions can fall under a couple of categories. If it is proven that he premeditated his actions, then that is murder. The least he could be charged with under the Ohio Revised Code is voluntary manslaughter. Now the average sentence for voluntary mansalughter is normally at least a few years. In order to qualify as voluntery manslaughter, the emotional state of the defendant had to be of sufficient provocation. I know that adultery is wrong, but is it really worth killing someone over? Besides, this wasn't right after the he caught them in bed. He had more than a few hours to cool down and collect himself. Instead he decapitates his wife with a firearm.
This brings us back to discretionary sentencing. The minimum that this man should have gotten was a year, and probably more than that considering the violent nature of the crime. However this didn't happen. At the trial, the judge sentenced the defendant to only six months in prison! Even more incredible, the judge told the defendant afterwards that "I wish I didn't have to give you any jail time at all, but I had to in order to uphold the law!" At this point in my law class I was angry, but I rationalized it by saying that the judge was just showing an incredible amount of mercy. So surely such mercy in discretionary sentencing would be applied in cases where it really mattered right? Wrong, as a matter of fact it couldn't be farther from the truth. Consider this next case and then you will see what "justice" in America amounts to.
A woman who had been married to her abusive husband for over a decade had finally had enough. For 11 years he had beaten her, degraded her, psycologically and emotionally abused her, and threatened her on numerous occasions. Obviously one can only take such treatment for so long. So one day when he comes home from work, she kills him. During her trial it is made known that for years she had been the victim of domestic abuse. Because of these mitigating factors she was charged with voluntary manslaughter. The prosecutor himself knew the facts of the case and was only requesting a sentence of one year or less. He knew the absolute hell she had lived through for years and the suffering and trauma she must have experienced. So everyone agrees that she had a legitimate reason for killing her husband, some people might even argue that what she did wasn't even wrong. I know if I knew someone in her position I would put the husband 6 feet under. No further questions asked.
So this is the part where the due process model comes through with a victory right? I mean after all this is America, land of the free, home of the brave and the worldwide defender of justice and equality. Nope, the judge sentenced her to a THREE YEAR PRISION TERM, THREE TIMES THE SENTENCE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASKED FOR. So there you have it, justice American style. When a man comes home and finds his no good "whore" of a wife cheating on him, he blows her brains all over the wall and no one cares. The judge in that case is winking at the defendant the entire time during the trial and then comes out and says he wishes he could let the man go free without serving any jail time! This is what happen to women who dare committ adultery against their husband. But when you have a women who has been used for 11 years as someone else's human punching bag, oh well that's apparently ok. Because after all, if she gets tired of it and finally stands up for herself, she gets 6 times the sentence the jealous husband did for the same crime, voluntary manslaughter.
6 times the sentence, and morally her reason was a thousand times better than just simple adultery. I don't know all the particulars of the case but her life very well could have been on the line. What happened to self-defense? What happened to mercy being applied when it is called for by mitigating circumstances? Can those judges look me in the eye and honestly tell me that adultery is 6 times worse than getting the hell beat out of you for 11 straight years. I'm disgusted, I'm angry and if you're not then something is wrong. How dare these men claim to represent justice and morality and equality! When I heard my law professor explain these two stories in lecture I almost fell out of my chair. I can't even find the words right now to express the uncontrollable rage I feel from this injustice.
To be clear, I still believe in the justice system. Just because something is broken or damaged doesn't mean you throw the entire thing away. But something must be done about these double standards. Misogny, bigotry and hatred can't be exemplified any more clearly than these two cases illustrate. Its absolutely sickening. Discretionary sentencing, when done right, can be a great tool for good in the world. Lets hope that the system begins to live up to its potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment