Serial & Adnan Sayed

After listening to the first season of “Serial” a while back, listening to Adnan speak, you believe him to be innocent. He’s “normal” sounding. Sort of, an open book. This is the Adnan I’m sure the people who support him also hear. The details of the murder of his girlfriend are now on record and he’s been spending 16 years (so far) in prison on a life sentence.

There’s been an influx of shows and other podcasts touting his innocence and how this has been a travesty of justice simply because he happens to be Muslim (the crime occurred before 9/11). That is pretty short sighted to the same people who more than likely believe O.J. Simpson murdered his wife. Much like the conclusions we draw from the tidbits of information we hear from broad strokes, it’s hard to hang one and allow the other to roam.

Not so. Forget the trial or the accusations or the cry of injustice…I’m simply saying…we’ve been burned in the past of people who HAVE committed crimes and aren’t doing time. Adnan is a very charming person. It’s quite possible that he could also be in denial he committed such a heinous crime, since he would never see himself as a monster. This immediate feeling that BECAUSE he sounds like a gentlemen he must be one. I recall a story of a triple homicide murderer (Timothy Hennis) who was tried for murder and acquitted, since he didn’t look or sound the part of a brutal monster, only to be tried again in military court and found guilty due to DNA results (yes, this same evidence has exonerated people as well). He’s been convicted TWICE to death row, and he lived 21 years of freedom in between.

Even nowadays, as dumb armchair sleuths, we’re all trying to figure out the a-ha moment to whichever side you believe in most. The ones who want Adnan acquitted look at only the evidence to free him. The ones that one him to stay in prison only look at the opposite. It’s only human nature to want to stick with your cause and use information to support why. To reason away your opinion.

None of us have the insight the jurors did in these trials. I get sicken at Los Angeles juries because we are so media saturated savvy arrogant jerks. We believe we know more than lawyers, judges, and everyone else. The jury attempts to make a point (all black jury in Simpson trial) vs. all white jury in Adnan’s case. Also, I think we act like this choices we make shouldn’t be a factor in the outcome. In one episode, the show describes the unscrupulous nature of his defense attorney. She was described as a crook with nefarious agenda. She’s long since been disbarred and has died. Because of discovery of poor counsel, typically one gets a new trial. But it’s sometimes this decision that is the difference between freedom and incarceration. Keep in mind most public defenses that try murder cases don’t have the resources to properly prepare their client. Adnan at least had some income to choose. The research for a proper attorney (because one wasn’t appointed to him) was also a mistake. Should he fry for it? No. But one could argue the attempt to sidestep his crime by hiring whom he thought gave him the best chance. Could you argue O.J. Simpson was acquitted due to expensive counseling. Most likely. Can you imagine the outcome if he were publicly defended?

I’m not saying I believe Adnan is innocent or guilty. Only that he WAS found guilty by citizens. Incidentally, this statement of being judged by your peers is a farce. I doubt either Adnan nor O.J. ever encountered people in either jury pool. Despite the closest we could ever be to that, Simpson was betting they thought they were his peers, Adnan praying they weren’t.

What I’m saying is that the people who rely either way on the justice system in America is fooling themselves. The notion that it’s not perfect but it’s the best in the world, is funny. The new justice system is more a “Let’s Make A Deal” show than true common sense. And because we’ve been fooled too often on the surface, it favors the criminals if they have money, screws them if they don’t.

Do I have a better solution? Yes, but it’s not the American way. You appoint 12 people like referees in sports. They are rotated every week, but will hear a set number of cases per month. They would be drawn from a pool of students who’ve just graduated from college, near your community. You get school credit and partial reimbursement for loans. It settles both issues we have now with debt and jury duty and some unemployment. There are options then to hear more cases. The incentive to want to work the in the system rather than against it.

But, this system would not work, simply because…we’re capitalist. Why pay the people to do something if they are required by law to do for free? Well, because we get people who are reluctant to be there and thus, make poor decisions that ruin lives.