Justice a dish best served cold?

That feels wrong; it is not just; it will leave a lot of people convinced he was just let of the hook! That you can get away with stealing eighteen years out of someone's life, and not even say you're sorry... I wonder how come it is so? Why can't Ohio go the whole hog and admit he's innocent?

--- 

Since 2002 I've had the opportunity to discuss crime and punishment with a lot of different people. During those discussions I've often been frustrated enough to throw something heavy against the wall, or preferably against someone's head.

Some of my frustrations were triggered by so called "ghouls", people that seem to rejoice in violence and death ? and that have found a safe outlet for their aggression in the Death Penalty.

Some of my frustrations were triggered by ultra-liberal Anti Death Penalty supporters, some of whom seem to forget that the murder victim survivors (MVS) are inviolate and deserve respect ? even that actions and consequences go together.

There is a lot of us versus them gobbledygook going on in both camps, and sometimes it turns into a US/European bashing match.

So in Europe we have a tendency to forget the victims of a crime, and only see the cruelty of the punishment. In the US on the other hand there is a tendency to forget that being convicted of a crime doesn't automatically turn you into a rabid animal or a monster out of a fairy-tale.

I am European and so I'm probably blind to some of our faults, I do however feel that the US culture have a penchant, even an ideal, to seek simple solutions to difficult questions. If there's a victim there just got to be a perpetrator ? to take the current issue of Kenny as an example. But is that so?

On the other hand Europeans are often guilty of simplification too ? sometimes to an absurd extent. It seems the sheer size and power, and the perceived arrogance of the US, goes a long way in turning the question into one of the US society rather than the handling of crime and its consequences. But then we lose the scope, or don't we?

Meanwhile MVS's are left feeling no closure as their expectations of punishment are tossed every so often. Parallel to this you have convicts that claim innocence, that have pretty convincing proof of such, and that are frustrated in their attempts to get their evidence heard. And if they get their sentence overturned they are let of the hook ? but they are never cleared of guilt. They have been abused, manhandled, isolated, degraded and dehumanised. In many cases they have spent years behind bars waiting for the needle that spells the end. What do they get when they walk? An excuse? Nope, what they get is anger from everyone that still believes them guilty.

The problem

The only just system is one of clean breaks. If someone is guilty, they should be punished. If someone can't be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they should be presumed innocent ? even if they are let of the hook by appeal. That way there is at least a possibility of rehabilitation without animosity from the society.

It seems to me that the vindictiveness built into the current system means we paint ourselves into a corner. What I mean is that admitting there may have been wrongs to set right is all but impossible when you have systematically treated someone as less than a human being. It would be to admit you have committed the atrocity of punishing and mistreating an innocent ? something most of us would have difficulties grappling with.

To actually pronounce innocence would go a long way in making the people responsible for the mistreatment think twice. If you cannot be certain all inmates are truly guilty, then how can you defend treating them as less than human. First time you realise one of your favourite punch-bags where in fact not guilty there will follow some introspection ? at least if you are truly on the right side of the bars.

A system that grants that they may make mistakes will of course be a bit more considerate and careful in handling new evidence and appeals. The process will have to become faster, and all evidence should be weighed on its own merits.

I am unsure if the Death Penalty can be applied in such a system. The fear of applying it to the wrong person may preclude it. What I believe though, is that the MVS families may actually feel better, all things considered, if they do not carry the expectations of death through all those years. Life without parole may seem like an inadequate alternative, but if you can truly expect it to stand you may actually move on.

If you believe in the perfection of the legal system (at least when it produces convictions), and in its capabilities of making sure only the guilty are caught in its net ? well then... to me that seems like the American mentality turned upside down. I normally find few people as generally sceptic of state institutions as Americans. Maybe this is a blind spot?

Maybe there are fears that admitting the system is fraught with error will hurt the system beyond recovery? But isn't it true that a system which has to rely on falsehood or half-truths to survive doesn't deserve to? A healthy system would grow stronger by finding and rooting out errors, wouldn't it? So it follows that the US legal system, if sound, can stand some scrutiny and self-criticism.

--- 

I challenge you to read the "Analysis" of the reversal, especially the part about the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. If you do, remark upon the conditions for the court in judging the evidence and the previous ruling. In effect this means that unless: There is a clear procedural or constitutional error; an erroneous application of established federal law; or truly absurd conclusions from the evidence as presented in the original trial ? they can do nothing, their hands are tied. That has basically been the story through more than ten of Kenny's appeals. No one wants to upset the original conviction. No matter that new evidence totally undermines the case.

I read that people in Lima (at least according to the journalist) were sad about the reversal. They felt cheated of their justice. But what justice would be served by executing an innocent man? Are not those feelings really based on an illusion, the illusion that they "know" Kenny is guilty? They are so secure in their belief, so secure that new facts in the case won't budge it.

And then back to the basic question

So then we're back to the beliefs of the Lima people, and to the need to simplify. If it was an accident there was no perpetrator. It sure seems the tragedy is harder to bear if there's no one to blame ? all that is left is plain sorrow, as the sublimation to anger was based on an illusion. The fireman will have to live with the image of a dead kid, and know no one's to blame ? not really to blame.

Why is plain old grief so hard to bear without anger? Isn't anger fleeing? Taking the easy road?

Needless to say, that statement goes for us standing by the side watching too. To expect directly or indirectly that MVS's should feel no anger would be disrespectful to say the least. However, society sets the rules and thereby the expectations ? that is, as long as the people feel those rules are reasonable and just. But just as there are two ends to a candle, fulfilling the need for closure among MVS' doesn't preclude testing the merits of each case thoroughly. Neither does it mean any type of punishment is mandatory ? it is up to society, again, to set the rules and the expectations.

If you realise that convicts are people, in need of punishment but still people, then you probably realise that demeaning people is not a good thing. Some of them are sick, and dangerous to society. Some may actually have come there in error. Forgetting they are human makes it so much harder to back down, stop gloating, and get the fact that you were in error.

To eat the dish of punishment cold would erase the stigma of having mishandled innocents. That would probably mean the stigma of lingering suspicion and resentment would be less too. I think this is the root of the problem. While we let anger rule, we cannot have a just system.

Let society make a clean break, admit its errors and make its excuses. They cannot erase eighteen years behind bars in death's waiting room ? but they can clear someone's name, and they can pay the price of making a mistake. Just as the private person pays for his or her mistakes by accepting the consequences.