![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How did this happen?
31 August 2003 21:58I just watched a documentary on BBC2 on capital cases in the US. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know but it did reinforce the inequity of the US justice system when it comes to capital cases.
The fact is, if you're sufficiently well off to afford a decent lawyer you will not be sent to your death if convicted. If you're poor the chances are that you will be sentenced to death.
This saddens me and, on a professional level, angers me. There are principles of natural justice that should be adhered to. How did a great democracy such as the United States get it so wrong?
In the UK we got rid of the death penalty a few decades ago, of course, but we still adhere to the principle that the more serious the crime the defendant is accused of the better their legal representation. So, someone up on charges of murder will invariably have a top QC (part of the creme de le creme of the legal profession) as one of his counsel, together with a more junior barrister, who will invariably be very experienced in criminal work. Their fees will be paid for by the State.
If convicted and if the defendant has any money they will be ordered to pay at least part of their and the prosecution's costs. This is only fair.
In the US the rich pay for decent counsel, who leave no stone unturned in representing their clients. The poor get the inexperienced lawyers or the dregs. In the case of the convicted murderer who was the subject of the documentary one of his counsel had never tried a criminal case - any criminal case - before and took the case because as a committed Catholic he was opposed to the death penalty. He was very up-front about the fact that his representation of the defendant was incompetent. The other counsel had been disbarred and was mentally ill. There was evidence that he had been suffering from mental illness at the time of the defendant's trial. The trial took place in Louisiana.
Despite this, the US justice system refused to order a new trial. The defendant was executed.
I... really do not understand how a country such as the US can allow such a blatant injustice to happen. And not just once but time and time again. If the defendant had been convicted after a fair trial, where he was represented by decent counsel and then sentenced to death that is one thing. Although I am opposed to the death penalty in any event (I know all too well how unreliable much trial evidence is to approve of the idea of putting someone to death on the strength of evidence submitted at trial), I wouldn't be as saddened as I am now.
But he wasn't. His trial cannot by any standards be described as being 'fair'. Alas for US justice. And thank God that not all US States allow the death penalty.
The fact is, if you're sufficiently well off to afford a decent lawyer you will not be sent to your death if convicted. If you're poor the chances are that you will be sentenced to death.
This saddens me and, on a professional level, angers me. There are principles of natural justice that should be adhered to. How did a great democracy such as the United States get it so wrong?
In the UK we got rid of the death penalty a few decades ago, of course, but we still adhere to the principle that the more serious the crime the defendant is accused of the better their legal representation. So, someone up on charges of murder will invariably have a top QC (part of the creme de le creme of the legal profession) as one of his counsel, together with a more junior barrister, who will invariably be very experienced in criminal work. Their fees will be paid for by the State.
If convicted and if the defendant has any money they will be ordered to pay at least part of their and the prosecution's costs. This is only fair.
In the US the rich pay for decent counsel, who leave no stone unturned in representing their clients. The poor get the inexperienced lawyers or the dregs. In the case of the convicted murderer who was the subject of the documentary one of his counsel had never tried a criminal case - any criminal case - before and took the case because as a committed Catholic he was opposed to the death penalty. He was very up-front about the fact that his representation of the defendant was incompetent. The other counsel had been disbarred and was mentally ill. There was evidence that he had been suffering from mental illness at the time of the defendant's trial. The trial took place in Louisiana.
Despite this, the US justice system refused to order a new trial. The defendant was executed.
I... really do not understand how a country such as the US can allow such a blatant injustice to happen. And not just once but time and time again. If the defendant had been convicted after a fair trial, where he was represented by decent counsel and then sentenced to death that is one thing. Although I am opposed to the death penalty in any event (I know all too well how unreliable much trial evidence is to approve of the idea of putting someone to death on the strength of evidence submitted at trial), I wouldn't be as saddened as I am now.
But he wasn't. His trial cannot by any standards be described as being 'fair'. Alas for US justice. And thank God that not all US States allow the death penalty.
