Pre-Script The case of Casey Anthony in which she was acquitted of the murder charge of her young daughter Caylee Marie Anthony, brings into sharp focus the flaws in the American court and justice system. The both prosecution and defense lawyers have been assiduously arguing this case for quite some time. There was a predominant perception that Casey cannot escape the indictment that could be death or at least life imprisonment. However, the jury acquitted her and she was absolved of the conviction. While she walked out of the justice net scot-free, the question still remains to be answered who killed the toddler and else whose is responsible for killing the two years old infant. If there is no killer and she was accidently drowned in the pond then someone who hid this part of the story must be held responsible for lying and hindering the process of legal proceedings. If the case is not pursued further, then should it be construed that the murder would be treated as closed or cold case never to be probed? This would be a mockery of the justice and great reprieve to the killer if there is any. This following article was written some time back to highlight the flaws in the American justice system. The case of Casey Antony reinforces that notion. As such the article with minor modifications is reproduced again. July 16, 2011 Flaws in the American Justice System By Saeed Qureshi The constitution of the United States of America deserves the highest tribute as a beacon of light and a magnificent model for all the democracies in the world. It would continue to serve as an invaluable embodiment of all such hallmarks that constitute civil societies. However, the American justice system is yet to reach a stage of being immaculate. An observation that I read in the New York Times so succinctly illustrates the way the American Justice is aborted. It says, "The judge's whim is all that mattered in that courtroom. The law was basically irrelevant." (Marsha Levick, the legal director of the Juvenile Law Center, on two Pennsylvania judges who sent thousands of juveniles to detention centers for $2.6 million in kickbacks). If any branch of the civil society is enormously independent and truly powerful, it is the judiciary in America. Now I would not endorse the kickbacks blemish but certainly there are dark shades here and there that come in the way of the dispensation of an absolutely unalloyed and sparkling justice. There is a laudable culture and tradition of strict accountability running into the body politic of the United States. But it is seldom and once in a blue moon that a member of judiciary is held accountable. Judges in the courts are like sovereigns whose every movement of hands and eyebrows, wrinkle of the face and every word uttered and rebukes have to be swallowed by those attending the courts. Up to this threshold, all the judges and dispensers of justice enjoy massive and rather arbitrary powers all over the world. But in the American courts, it is a different story. If judges' powers are inhibited by someone it is the jury that has to come up with a unanimous YES or NO verdict. Based upon jury's yes or no consensus vote, the judge awards the sentence. But if it is exclusively up to the judge to give a verdict, he is liable to be swayed by many considerations. Now the DNA, a unique and amazing invention of the modern age has proven that many convicts of such heinous crime as rape and murder, who were put to death, were actually innocents. Some were acquitted due to the timely results of the DNA that showed no link of the convicts with the victims. It unambiguously, goes to establish that there have been some very serious flaws in the U. S. justice system. The empirical fact is that the prosecution is always overbearing and maintains an upper edge over the defense. Those who were electrocuted or given lethal injection got their sentence because the prosecution was dominant in the court as ever. In courts, what matters is how the lawyers can manipulate the case. As a casual visitor to the courts for interpretation on behalf of the prosecution or the defense, I have seen some kind of bitter verbal brawls between the prosecuting and defending lawyers. In one of the cases, at the end of the day, a verdict was handed out that stunned the dumbfounded seekers of justice. The judge swept aside tons of evidence produced by the defense and issued an order that defied all the logic and rationale of the legal debate. No questions asked. Now there are many considerations that weigh heavily in certain cases irrespective of the merits of the cases or the guts of the defense to blunt the argument of the prosecution. As I have observed, invariably, it is the prosecution that triumphs. In predominant number of cases a plea bargain is the ultimate outcome. It means, "don't care or press for the merit of the case, get rid of the agony and accept less punishment, in order to avoid more excruciating hassle and waste of time and money". There is an element of fear lurking behind the verdicts that may not be in accord with the complete fulfillment of the due norms of justice. Now race or ethnic background might be a very potent factor influencing the verdict of a case. The minority alien communities that are usually involved in violation of immigration rules, overstaying, small felonies as a quarrel between the wife and husband or a theft that can be summarily disposed off, are trapped in an adjudication system between a prosecution and the defense attorneys for years together. Such cases mostly culminate in plea bargain which means that the accused accepts the charge against him or her. He is offered the plea bargain upon the enticement that thus he could get milder or lesser punishment. ***** In case of choosing the option of fine to avoid the sentence, another torturous process of rehabilitation starts, leaving a person in a mentally or physically mauled state. In a case that was being adjudicated between a white drunken driver and a turbaned Sikh from India offers a classic example of how the judge cam impose his fiat ultimately. The defense attorney took the whole day to produce eye witnesses to prove that the Indian family was beaten by the white drunken driver. But in the evening the verdict, to the utter bewilderment, was given in favor of the driver who was not asked a single question b y the judge simply walked out of the court with triumphantly. The judge in one single utterance decreed that he did not believe the evidence or the arguments of the defense attorney. Now the jury system is a legacy of the past when community involvement was deemed necessary to arrive at a decision. The jury consists of the people invited from various walks of life who would not have enough inkling or rudimentary knowledge of the legal intricacies. They are students, businessmen, employees or individuals from other walks of life. They are briefed for a limited time both by the prosecution and defense attorneys to formulate a unanimous verdict on which depends the future of the accused person as well as upholding compliance with the imperatives of justice. Prior to the jury verdict, the case keeps lingering some time for years together. Notwithstanding the debate, the arguments, the evidence, the merits of the cases, if the jury that cannot comprehend the essence of the case in a day or so, declares the person guilty despite being innocent, he or she would be declared as such. Conversely if a man is innocent he can be arraigned and sentenced. The jury system is indeed like a spanner in the smooth sailing of the justice system because it is superimposed and nullifies all the work done by the attorneys on both the sides. It also makes the judge irrelevant because he is simply a dumb listener as at the end, it is jury's one word verdict that would be final. Even if the jury is divided a consensus is necessary to declare someone guilty or not guilty. This is all a matter of persuasion, good luck or bad luck of the accused as to what kind of opinion he gets from the jury. If it is predominately black or white jury, they might be swayed by the racial or ethnic considerations thus tainting the legal process that should be absolutely fair as upon it, depends the life and honor of a human being or a member of society. The Sixth Amendment stipulates that, " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of the counsel for his defense." Now so many individuals accused of fighting against NATO troops in Afghanistan have been languishing in Guantanamo concentration camp. If the incumbent administration tries to initiate their trial after decade of incarceration, the respective states don't allow that legal process to take place on their soil. Interestingly those captured at the time of defeat of Taliban were not all the members of despicable Al-Qaida. They were basically Taliban or their civilian cohorts. But the legal process stands so much subverted and tainted that these hapless guys are not being given the chance as per American constitution to be proven guilty or innocent. The justice has fallen prey to an exuberant emotionalism that defies fair play and hampers due course of justice. Right or wrong, these people deserve benefit of doubt, though some of them might be friends of America. But one exceptionally distinctive feature of this system is the right to appeal to the upper courts that give an option and a way-out for the aggrieved persons to keep exploring and seeking the justice till the final appeal is rejected or accepted. On the whole, it is very arduous, time consuming and costly course that the economic immigrants can seldom afford. The overriding spirit and general attitude of the adjudicating authorities is punitive and not forgiving even in minor cases where a simple warning would be enough. After 9/11 the justice system was given a new meaning and interpretation. The Patriot Act empowered the administration to bend the law in case of the persons who were labeled as enemy combatants. It is primarily for this reason that the Guantanamo inmates some of whom might have been caught by default or were even friends of America could not be prosecuted all these years. Their trial could not be carried out in New York and in other states because of the deep hatred for these individuals whose crime is yet to be determined. Such are the pressures from the society that can force even setting aside the law to take its legitimate course for determining the culpability of an accused. The professional ethics among the attorneys, lawyers and interpreters of law, occasionally, seems to fall short of the required benchmarks and norms. As one can look from a distance, there would be an effort by the defense lawyers to prolong the cases as long as they can because thus they keep the inflow of the fees and other charges intact. If the private doctors are some time accused of charging high fees and keeping the patients on the tenterhooks, the lawyers too try to keep the cauldron of the cases boiling which normally ends at the threshold of plea bargain. These are the aberrations of the justice system that do not reflect any dereliction on the part of the law makers but are at play during its practical implementation. Now how to expunge such aberrations or lacunas, as a lay man I would recommend doing away with the jury system. I plead this because with raw knowledge in legal matters, with diverse racial and ethnic proclivities and with very little time to understand the intricacies of the case, the jury cannot come up with the right decision. This custom can be replaced with a panel of judges who as legal experts would be in a strong position to hand out a wholesome decision. If there is more than one judge, the whims and changing moods of one single judge can be effectively checked. It should also be worthwhile if in every criminal case, the DNA evidence should be made obligatory because that is the incontrovertible way to determine one's involvement or otherwise in the crime or that one is accused of committing. Somehow the attitude of soft corner for some ethnic groups and hard tendencies against the others must be addressed and a viable way-out should be evolved to keep the judges on the right side of law, regardless of their personal impulses. The judges come to the bar through elections and by votes of the community. This system speaks for the grassroots democratic culture and is praiseworthy. But the qualifications of the judges and legal arbiters some time are not up to the mark to entitle them to hold these immensely crucial and delicate public offices and also to perform in a highly professional manner. In my view, the election of the judges should be replaced by a panel of experts who should thoroughly scrutinize the professional credentials of the candidates and recommend the most qualified or eligible among them. This is how a fully competent person can be chosen who would not take sides in favor of certain community members that were instrumental in his election victory. Or else in case of judges being appointed through voting process, a pre-screening exercise should be undertaken to approve their suitability for contesting for the post of a judge. This would ensure his professional competence to rightly interpret law and dispense justice. The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat To unsubscribe or for comments please write us at qureshisa2003@yahoo.com You can read this and other articles at www.uprightopinion.com | 
