Why We Have Celebrity Justice
Posting at Power Line, William Katz has a post about celebrity justice that I agree with:
When you actually look at the record, you find that, yes, stars are treated differently, but not in the manner you might think. If they seem to get away with murder, it isn’t because the law is looking the other way, it’s because of two things: First, they can afford the best legal talent. Second, the juries adore them. It’s the public, through its purchase of tickets and its service on juries, that is more responsible for “Hollywood law” than any action or inaction by the D.A. It was juries that acquitted O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. The prosecutors had come down on both of them.
. . . .
[N]ext time you hear about Hollywood justice, don’t necessarily blame the police, the D.A. or the judge. It’s you and me on those juries, and juries believe what they want to believe.
Indeed. Some people nullify because they don’t like the laws (“drug laws are fascist!!!”), some nullify because of race (“I’ll never convict a fellow Klan member” or “I just won’t send a brother to prison”) and some nullify because they are star-struck (“maybe he’ll invite me to a party at his mansion after we acquit!” or “I’ll ask her for her autograph!”).
We’re a star-struck society. It doesn’t end when we become jurors.
Maybe there are still some who have read the Constitution, and (in Federal cases) nullify because the law under which the defendant was charged is clearly unconstitutional, and that’s evident to anyone of the meanest understanding?
I swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S Constitution when I registered to vote in Florida. I think that oath is senior to any contrary oath any judge might require of me.
Justthisguy (a20d9a) — 3/11/2008 @ 1:07 am“Some people nullify because they don’t like the laws (”drug laws are fascist!!!”), some nullify because of race (”I’ll never convict a fellow Klan member” or “I just won’t send a brother to prison”) and some nullify because they are star-struck (”maybe he’ll invite me to a party at his mansion after we acquit!” or “I’ll ask her for her autograph!”).”
All true, unfortunately.
David Blue (27b533) — 3/11/2008 @ 3:49 amI’ve always thought that we have a legal system that occasionally lets celebrities off because we REALLY don’t want one so driven to convict that such things cannot happen.
There really aren’t that many celebrities in the world. Thus we probably don’t need or want a justice system designed to deal with them. We need a justice system designed to deal with Joe Six-pack
C. S. P. Schofield (eaaf98) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:33 amyes, celebrity justice is our fault. when the sheriff sprang paris hilton early because he felt sorry for her and didn’t think she was psychologically capable of serving a jail sentence, the responsibility for this disparate treatment rests solely with us. when mel gibson went all heil hitler on the chp officer who arrested him for dui, and law enforcement 1) tried to suppress the account, then 2) investigated the arresting officer, including serving a search warrant at his home, that must have been our fault too. i would also like to take this opportunity to confess and ask forgiveness for my role in the jfk assassination, the 9/11 attacks and the raiders moving back to oakland.
assistant devil's advocate (ea1b6e) — 3/11/2008 @ 6:58 amAssistant Devil’s etc. You can be forgiven for the first two transgressions; but the last one guarantees your place in hell.
Bar Sinister (3b1790) — 3/11/2008 @ 7:51 amVincent Bugliosi’s book about the OJ trial convinced me that this point is true. The prosecutors were incompetent, but it wasn’t because they were “star-struck” or whatever. Well, to be fair, part of their incompetency was because they bought too much into the star-struck mentality of the public. For example, Marcia Clark started a few of her arguments with statements like “I know that we are not making ourselves popular by prosecuting this man. I know it will be hard for many of you to convict such a likeable guy..” etc. Instead of, as Bugliosi points out, saying “This man is a murderer and we will show evidence that will leave no doubt in your mind that he’s a murderer.” The prosecutors knew the jury was star-struck and knuckled under to it, rather than discarding it.
Linus (cc24db) — 3/11/2008 @ 8:59 amActually, ada, going back to Oakland was a gift. I want to find the fool who convinced Davis to leave there in the first place – that person needs to rot in Hell!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/11/2008 @ 10:44 am…and ask forgiveness for my role in the jfk assassination, the 9/11 attacks and the raiders moving back to oakland.
ada, you kidding? The entire county of San Diego and maybe the southern part of Orange and Riverside Co’s are ready to canonize you for your role in getting them the hell away from civilized people. Not sure how that canonizing will go over with You Know Who with that satanic middle name, but…
allan (d3a4ae) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:33 pmLinus, Bugliosi’s book was a hack. He makes numerous claims of “and the prosecutors did not do X” when they did. He wrote it on news reports, not a trial transcript. The prosecutors did screw up in a lot of ways, but Bugliosi isn’t the place to learn where.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/11/2008 @ 5:49 pmJust for the record, what’s this “we” shit, Kemosabe?
sherlock (b4bbcc) — 3/11/2008 @ 10:06 pm