Criminal Justice?

There are few institutions in American society about which people have more misguided ideas than the criminal justice system. As I use that term, the “criminal justice system”  includes professional participants (judges, prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, police and other law enforcement agents) and lay participants (victims, witnesses, defendants and jurors).

For years I was a professional participant in the criminal justice system, and know it well. I have heard defense attorneys complain about over-zealous prosecutors, prosecutors complain about over-zealous defense attorneys, judges complain about over-zealous or unprepared lawyers (on both sides), prosecutors complain about judges being too lenient or corrupt, and defense attorneys complain about judges being too harsh or forgetting their friends. I have heard police officers complain that defense attorneys bribe judges and suborn perjured testimony to get their clients acquitted, and defense attorneys complain that police officers commit perjury to convict their clients.  I have heard victims and witnesses complain that the system favors defendants by allowing multiple delays, and defendants  claim that the system is biased against them because (for example) so many black men are convicted of crimes and imprisoned.  In other words, there is an endless litany of complaints and suspicions about the system, which naturally lead to the ultimate question: Does the “criminal justice system” ever achieve justice?!!

That has been a difficult question to answer, because “justice” is an intangible concept.  It’s hard to quantify something that cannot be seen, heard or touched. It’s qualities normally are assessed by people in the context of their values, and their stake in the criminal proceedings, which in turn influence how those people perceive events or outcomes.  Though it is risky to generalize, for the sake of providing examples of this principle I will make certain assumptions, with the understanding that they might not hold true in every situation: A robbery victim who was beaten during a store robbery probably feels that the defendant should receive a lengthy prison sentence;  The defendant that committed the robbery, but entered a guilty plea instead of going to trial, probably feels that he deserves a probationary sentence for pleading guilty; The investigators who accumulated the evidence, interviewed witnesses, and arrested the defendant, probably feel that a probationary sentence makes a mockery of their work and the criminal justice system;  Prisoners’ rights groups probably feel that prisons are just for warehousing offenders, and that a prison sentence would waste defendant’s potential for rehabilitation;  Victims’ rights groups probably feel that a probationary sentence would denigrate the seriousness of defendant’s crimes;   Court Administrators and supervising judges probably feel that they need to encourage guilty pleas to trim the court backlog, and that defendants will stop pleading guilty if they’re not assured of lenient sentences;  Prison officials probably feel that probationary sentences will help avoid prison overcrowding; The defendant’s family probably feels that if he is on probation he will get a job and help support his family; The Neighborhood Merchants Association and Community Group probably feel that a lenient sentence will send the message that it’s okay to rob stores in that neighborhood, because the perpetrators won’t get prison sentences. And so it goes…

If the judge imposes probation, the victim, the prosecutor and half of the above stakeholders will feel that justice was denied. If the judge imposes a long prison sentence, the defendant, his defense attorney and the other half of the above stakeholders  will feel that justice was denied. If the judge split’s the baby by imposing a short prison sentence–which neither side asked for–both parties, and their respective stakeholders, may feel that justice was denied!  It is very rare indeed that both sides in a criminal case, and their respective stakeholders, will agree that justice was served.

Despite this conundrum, I believe that a fair systemic measure of justice-achieved or justice-denied is within our reach.  The solution is to look at the small picture instead of the big picture, focusing one-by-one on the participant groups and the processes they apply to handling cases in the criminal justice system, rather than the results of those cases.  It is my thesis that, in any criminal case, if all of the participants follow the correct processes fairly and without bias, it should be said that “justice was served,” but, if that does not occur, it should be said that “justice was denied.” The determination of whether justice prevailed should be made regardless of whether a defendant is convicted or acquitted, sentenced to probation or prison, and, in capital cases, given a life or death sentence.

To respond to the charge that the criminal justice system is racist, I will make an exception to the small-picture approach, rather than addressing that issue multiple times in the context of each participant group.  This issue will be the subject of my next posting on the Criminal Justice System.  In successive postings I will address, in turn, each participant group’s role and processes, separating fact from fiction, and reality from myth, whenever possible.

Unabashed Truthteller