Andrew Sullivan, author of the blog, The Daily Dish, among the most popular on the Web, was recently busted for smoking a joint on a federally owned beach on Cape Cod. Recently Sullivan, who is a British national, was to appear before a judge for disposition of his case. However, unlike three other defendants in front of the judge for the same crime, prosecutors chose not to pursue Sullivan's case in the interests of justice. This irked the judge who was upset that Sullivan was not standing equal in front of the law with his co-defendants (as if that never happens like, for instance, when someone with money is found not guilty of murder while a street kid, without the money to afford a good offense -- er I mean defense, is convicted despite being not guilty) but that he had no power to order prosecutors to pursue the case.
The judge's problem, and I generally agree with him that it should be either all get off or all face prosecution, is that Sullivan got special treatment. However sometimes there is a good reason why other people under similar circumstances are being prosecuted while one is being let off the hook. In this case a conviction of Sullivan could potentially lead to a deportation.Deportation for smoking a joint? Apparently the prosecutor thought that was a little draconian and in the interests of justice dropped the case.
But again, what really peeves the judge is that he can't legally do anything about this. Hogwash. There is plenty he can do. If the judge doesn't like the prosecutor's actions, he can get himself appointed federal prosecutor and prosecute. Or, if he feels that it is unfair that one man gets off while the other defendants are convicted, he can dismiss the charges against the other three in the interest of justice so all could be equal once again. He could even do something about our silly drug laws that could lead to deportation for something so trivial. Finally, the judge could get out of the law all together -- he seems like he'd be an excellent school principal who would sit on his brain and expel a first grader for bringing a butter knife or aspirin to school because the "law requires" him to do so and not to bother to consider whether the expulsion was true justice and/or it accomplished anything. What he can't do is over rule the prosecutor because he thinks that defendant should stand before him so the judge can convict him.
It is the prosecutor's role to determine what cases to pursue. It is the judge's role to rule on the facts of the case. If the prosecutor decides that in the interests of justice, whatever the reason outside a bribe or something illegal, not to pursue criminal charges, then that should be that. If the judge wants to both prosecutor and convictor, he could apply to be a principal in one of those school districts that punish children for possession of illegal drugs because they bought an aspirin into the school without appreciating the consequences because they are 12 and 12 year olds are not always known for their logical thinking patterns, without looking at the individual facts, such as this, for a legitimate reason to treat someone differently.
Prosecutors make decisions like this all the time. In this case it sounds like the prosecutor looked at the totality of the situation and realized that a conviction in a misdemeanor offense possibly leading to deportation was not in the interests of overall justice. The punishment for Sullivan could have been far greater than for you (assuming you are a legal US citizen) or me. Unlike some who like the safety of hiding behind rules so that every decision is made for them, some still have the courage to do what is right. The judge's inability to see this, that the penalty for Mr. Sullivan would potentially be far greater than that of his fellow defendants, is what has led to his complaint. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is a mentality like the judge's that has led us to be a country with vindictive laws where the punishment far outweighs the crime. We've become a nation afraid to use our minds to figure out the proper solution to the individual situation, instead preferring to be a martinet and hide behind firm rules and laws.
We've long had a justice system that is supposed to weigh the specifics of a case charge and make sure the punishment isn't overly oppressive for the crime. It is only recently that we've become a bunch of nipple heads afraid to do what is right. And, going back to the specifics of this case, as shown by the different penalties for crack cocaine, which is generally an urban problem, and for cocaine, which is generally a suburban problem, the war on drugs has had a double standard when it comes to prosecution for many decades.
Justice is not served by the enforcement of unjust laws. There is a long history in this country of citizens refusing to comply with unjust laws, and also of other citizens refusing to find them guilty for the violation of unjust laws. These actions are often the impetus for the work needed to change the laws in the face of an unwilling political establishment. Blindly complying with the demands of authority has little to do with the concept of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment