November 22, 2003

Buy Justice? Buy Judgeships?

I believe in the principal behind idea of innocent 'til proven guilty fully. So, I'll assume wacko is also innocent on the recent charges, unless and until the opposite is proven. Putting him aside for a minute, I do believe the judicial system in U.S. is in shambles. First there's the issue of money and its influence on courts. A couple of days ago I was watching a program on TV about NFL's greatest running backs who played for not-so-great teams and there's the reporter shoving a microphone in the face of O.J. Simpson, interrupting his golf game at a Florida country club. Is there any sane person that still doubts this guy murdered two human beings in the most brutal way, yet was able to buy his freedom with fame and money to improve his handicap now? How is it that a select few can hire a mini-van full of attorneys and a bus-load of other experts to poke holes in the most solid cases, yet thousands of others sit in prison or death rows unable to afford a decent defense for themselves and suffer although innocent. O.J. is proof positive of a major failure of this system for that he was proven to the world to be guilty, yet managed to fool a few jurors.

Here's something else I find astonishing and even after a few years of living here still can't digest it: elected judges! Since when the job of deciding right or wrong, or more accurately legal and illegal is a popularity contest? Last thing a judge should worry about while deciding on any case, is how this will reflect in tomorrow's paper and whether an unpopular but correct decision can cost him his job. No judge, not in any level, should be subjected to that. This "direct democracy" gibberish is bad enough when public policy is decided based on which side can make more noise and raise the most dust to influence the voters, judiciary should not also be held hostage by the court of public opinion.

I can't end this without getting back to wacko. IF he is convicted, do you think that if he and his attorneys were barred from contacting the complainants in the case against him years ago, or at least any contact would have been with the presence of a court officer and not to allow buying of their silence, many many other children would have been saved what they may have experienced between then and now? Also, as one of the richest entertainers ever, don't you think he'll hire a plane-load of attorneys and a stadium-size crowd of experts and find a way out of these charges again? Maybe ALL lawyers should be public defenders, without the ability for some to buy better defenses, while most are nowhere nearly as lucky. Appointed judges, appointed defense attorneys and only the most necessary experts, sounds like the beginnings of leveling out the playing field in courts. Sounds like putting an equal value on the lives of all human beings, regardless of where they are from or what they are worth. Sounds like socialism. That can't possibly be good, can it?


Posted by Pedram at November 22, 2003 11:57 PM
Comments

I can tell you this much Pedram ... if (god forbid) I were in a similar situation as the parents of the child in the first case, no amount of money would stop me from putting that man (if truly guilty) behind bars for good.

Posted by: Haleh at November 23, 2003 05:07 AM

1. After MJ's earlier settlement for millions, would you, as a parent, allow your child to go have overnights with him?

2. MJ may be guilty, but I think the parents are motivated by money.

3. Not all judges are elected of course, but at least this prevents some old red-neck cracker from conducting his courtroom like it was his empire, unless the voters like it.

Posted by: stephen at November 23, 2003 09:22 AM

Pedram Jan:

The case of OJ is an exception rather than the rule. I mean, how many OJs are there? The sheer majority of the people get their chance in Court. The flaw in the system comes from inexperienced attorneys who are appointed by the Court to provide defense--sometimes in capital cases. That is a major flaw. But, overall, I think while the system is not perfect, it is the best there is.

Elected judges v. appointed judges. Both have positive aspects and negative. Elected judges will need money for their election. Whatever that means, and whatever strict rules there are against judges receiving gifts. human nature is human nature and money is money is power. On the other hand, appointed judges depends on the person who is doing the appointing. Look at the choices the Moron-in-Chief has presented for judges. One more conservative than the other and each one an enemy of personal freedom and choice. So which is better? I have come to believe that the overall, electing judges is a better approach IF and only IF people take an active part in the decision making process. Most of the time, people do not know the qualification of the judges and simply re-elect the incumbent because, well, they don't know better...

Nima

Posted by: Nima at November 23, 2003 09:33 AM

Haleh , I'm sure parents of the two people OJ murdered also feel the same way, but there's little they can do.

Posted by: someone at November 23, 2003 10:13 AM

Hm. Liz Taylor thinks MJ will be vindicated.

Look, Wacko, as you call him, has never been a shrinking violet, he's always acted flamboyant and weird. The fact is that all those other cases, years ago, were not even prosecuted. They were all settled out of court, some for as much as $25 million. That says it all about why some parents turned a blind eye to the weirdness and allowed their children have sleepovers at Neverland.

The reason there is going to be a trial this time is that the law has been changed, an underage witness can be "forced" to testify, which was not the case years ago. This gives the DA the opportunity to bring the case, it does not, obviously, mean that the child HAS to tell the truth of what happened.

Maybe the current parents are so outraged and upset about what happened because they are looking for a bigger settlement, maybe the effect of the law change will achieve just that, a bigger public judgment instead of a private settlement.

Wacko is wacky, but no matter what, the parents are tacky.

Hm. Besides OJ, there are a lot more cases in America where money talks. I'm not talking only about National Enquirer stories.

Posted by: nobbog at November 24, 2003 11:35 PM