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.
No comments:
Post a Comment