Expensive mistakes
by Tom Temple
14 April 2005
So my whole court thing is over and I feel more free to talk about it.
The story is relatively uninteresting except maybe one part… the part where the officer is describing tackling me, or rather when I knock him over. He describes how with a great deal of selflessness, he puts his hand between my head and the pavement and in so doing caused damage to his own elbow. I remembered it differently and after checking with some witnesses, I had it pretty straight that it was my head that was protecting his hand from the pavement.
Well after 6 months, we got the officer to recant and I got out of there with a fine.
The part I wanted to talk about was the court part. It came up at great length that I was a “good kid.” I found that part somewhat troubling. The text was that I have a good job and education and shouldn’t be overly shat on since I have a future.
The subtext was that should I not be in so good of a position, it would be far more likely that I would have gotten more shit on my head than I did.
While I kinda understand how you would rather punish “bad” people than “good” people, I can’t help seeing the unfairness of it. Do you think that the kid without the education or military job should be treated more harshly?
When you factor in the cost of the lawyer, I think I saw a significantly different legal system than the one that poor people see.
Apr 14, 01:57 PM
Agreed. Yet one need look only as far as the case of Canaan Cops v. Evander Skowlifield to see that bad kids have their luck too. Hi Evan!
Apr 15, 06:26 AM
Mitch, have you stopped reading my articles?
Apr 17, 07:07 AM
Sorry Tom, I’m behind.
I think it’s pretty funny (in a depressing way) how openly courts will admit that they’re being lenient because, in some way, they’re dealing with a “good kid” who made a dumb mistake. It’s as if they’re bragging! They’d never say they were being more harsh with a defendant just because he’s a thug with no education or career prospects. I guess what we—the public—are supposed to believefrom that is that low-lifes are treated fairly and equally under the law, while “good kids” are treated more leniently.
Some people are just more equal than others.
This also brings us back to retribution and revenge. Quoting Dershowitz:
”... Robert Nozick draws an important distinction between retribution and revenge. Retribution is directed against a criminal act and satisfies society’s needs. Revenge is entirely personal and can be directed at slights or insults. Retribution is done without personal pleasure. Revenge brings about pleasure at one’s enemy’s pain.”
Sounds like what your court was saying is that it’s justice is an instrument of revenge against the person of a defendant, not retribution against the defendant’s actions.
Apr 18, 05:29 AM
I didn’t really follow that last sentence. Wanna try it again?
That’s the problem when you split hairs with definitions. However clear your definitions are, we’re still talking about a hair and spliting it is difficult.
Apr 18, 07:54 PM
I only meant to say that the situation you described makes it sound like the court you stood before is more interested in revenge (directed against a person) than retribution (responsive to the crime, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity). Our justice system should not be in the revenge business; retribution, however, is a legitimate objective.