The American justice system has been the focus of much attention in recent weeks. A judge in Washington, D.C., decided that former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby must go to jail while appeals of his conviction are still pending. In North Carolina, former district attorney Mike Nifong was brought up on ethics charges before his state bar. On the other side of the country, in California, Paris Hilton’s tenure in the Los Angeles jail system has become fodder for practically every gossip columnist in the country.

These events have more in common than one might think at first glance.

In this country, prosecutors and judges are too often free to wield their power, with impunity, against American citizens. Worse, the TV-watching public enables these abuses: Viewers are sometimes too willing to make quick judgments based on partisan, racial, or other considerations. Indeed, with some defendants, the public’s quick acceptance of prosecutorial and judicial decision-making is best described by one word: schadenfreude.

Today, an overreaching criminal justice system is entertaining television. But tomorrow the prosecutor could have his sights set on you. Guess the pleasure once taken in others’ misfortunes would suddenly be a lot less amusing.

Consider Scooter Libby. The case against him would not have been brought but for a partisan appetite to take down President Bush. The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, began a criminal investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, even though he knew that the leak was not a crime. (Plame is not a “covered person” under the relevant criminal statute.) Moreover, Fitzgerald knew, early on, who leaked the name: State Department official Richard Armitage , not Libby. Under such a set of circumstances, why did Fitzgerald continue his witch hunt to catch someone, anyone, in a misstatement? He wielded his power ruthlessly, not because he was enforcing the law (no law had been broken), but because he succumbed to partisan demands. And now Libby, a long-time public servant, is headed to jail for 30 months because he couldn’t remember, with precision, conversations that occurred long before he was asked to testify—conversations that probably seemed unimportant at the time they occurred. How awful that so few people care about the fate of Libby. Any of us could have been caught in such a trap.

On the other hand, Nifong is the rare public official who gets called to account for prosecutorial overreach. His blatant disregard of exculpatory evidence was nothing short of shocking and deserved to be punished. His disbarment on Saturday is a victory for the justice system. Yet some aspects of this series of events are still very disturbing. Why were many people so willing to leap to conclusions about the Duke Lacrosse players, even as Nifong’s questionable prosecutorial decisions came to light? Otherwise commendable students, such as Reade Seligmann, should not be attacked simply because they are white and attend elite schools. But huge segments of the population did just that. Much of the Duke community jumped to erroneous conclusions, quickly condemning the Lacrosse players as racist rapists. Did they enjoy watching students that they perceived as “white, rich boys” get taken down a peg or two? Sadly, these players were forced to endure months of misery, spending millions of dollars on legal fees, before they were finally exonerated. Nifong deserved to be disbarred, but these boys did not deserve the treatment that they received at the hands of an uncaring public.

And then there is Paris. This is one author who never thought she would write a column sympathizing with Paris Hilton, but this month’s shameless display of schadenfreude really should not go unnoted. Naturally, many of Paris’s actions are indefensible. A DUI is serious business, as is breaking probation. But equally serious is the attitude of the populace toward cases such as Paris’s. Many have expressed more than simple satisfaction at justice served. Instead, some people seem positively giddy because a wealthy, beautiful woman is having a hard time. The fact that her punishment might be unusually harsh (compared to others in like circumstances) seems unimportant to many. Indeed, some news commentators laugh at Paris’s predicament, treating it like a big joke aimed at someone with a bad case of “Extreme Spoiled Brat-ititis.” They obviously derive great amusement from watching someone so “snobby” get taken down a peg or two. The situation is reminiscent of the treatment given to Martha Stewart a few years ago.

Such attitudes are sickening. The criminal justice system does not exist to deflate big egos, to make partisan statements, or to penalize people that are disliked. The system exists to punish crime. Nothing more, nothing less. Application of the law should be neutral, free from personal considerations. After all, if judges, juries, and prosecutors can mistreat Libby because they dislike his politics, attack innocent students because their skin is the wrong color and an election is approaching, or treat someone like Paris harshly because they think her life has been too easy so far—well, what is to stop some jury someday from treating you harshly because they have a bad perception of you?

Nothing. And that’s the scary lesson to be learned from the past few weeks of news headlines, if Americans choose to learn it.

Comments (9)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment