Trial & Error: When Technicalities Stand in the Way of Justice
A Maryland man sentenced to die for slitting the throat of an 8 year old girl and abandoning her body in the woods will receive a new sentencing hearing because of reported “legal errors.” This was the decision passed down from Maryland’s highest court regarding Jamaal K. Abeokuto who was sentenced to die for the murder of his girlfriend’s 8 year old daughter.
This case raises the time old question: should a legal technicality matter when someone is clearly guilty?
There is the infamous example that is invoked in classrooms across the country to many students’ dismay: Police enter the home of a suspect after receiving a call reporting a disturbance. They enter the home without a warrant and conduct a search which uncovers a dead body in the closet. All the evidence shows that the homeowner committed the murder, but can he be prosecuted? Anyone who remembers this painstaking example, will remember that regardless of the gratuitousness of the crime, regardless of the victims age, regardless of how much evidence has been uncovered, the evidence is “tainted” and cannot be used. The killer goes free.
Is justice still served?
On one level - the level of lawfulness - perhaps, but what about the victim’s family? How would you feel if someone who murdered your child went free because the judge fell asleep or the killer’s lawyer failed to object when he should have? Oftentimes, this is what happens to reverse convictions or require new sentencing hearings. The question remains open though as to what end it really serves.
I’m open to suggestions…
This case raises the time old question: should a legal technicality matter when someone is clearly guilty?
There is the infamous example that is invoked in classrooms across the country to many students’ dismay: Police enter the home of a suspect after receiving a call reporting a disturbance. They enter the home without a warrant and conduct a search which uncovers a dead body in the closet. All the evidence shows that the homeowner committed the murder, but can he be prosecuted? Anyone who remembers this painstaking example, will remember that regardless of the gratuitousness of the crime, regardless of the victims age, regardless of how much evidence has been uncovered, the evidence is “tainted” and cannot be used. The killer goes free.
Is justice still served?
On one level - the level of lawfulness - perhaps, but what about the victim’s family? How would you feel if someone who murdered your child went free because the judge fell asleep or the killer’s lawyer failed to object when he should have? Oftentimes, this is what happens to reverse convictions or require new sentencing hearings. The question remains open though as to what end it really serves.
I’m open to suggestions…
posted by Nunzia at 12:02 PM
2 Comments:
1) We are not talking about letting this man go free. We are talking about whether he is put to death. That makes this case distinguishable from your hypo.
2) You wrote, "should a legal technicality matter when someone is clearly guilty?" I would repond with another question, "Is someone clearly guilty when a legal technicality occurred?"
Legal technicalities exist for a reason. Sometimes with frustrating results. But look back to the genesis of out nation to a time when people were arrested, tried, and put to death in a matter of hours. While that is a long time ago in history, it is that canvas upon which our current form of government was painted.
How do you feel about the old cliche that it is better to free 100 guitly men than to allow a single innocent man lose his freedom?
Well, to answer, I was just playing devil's advocate. Personally, I see the need for fair trials and evidence to be admissable by law. But it does raise a question about justice.
1) The hypothetical is only to raise the question I'm asking... really, at the heart of it, what is justice? The news regarding the mentioned case was just a jumping off question because it involves a technicality.
2) There are cases where people are clearly guilty when there is a legal techinicality. E.G. when someone confesses, when there is clear DNA, when the body is found in the closet with fingerprints, etc.
I do agree with you that there are reasons these technicalities (such as Maranda, Search and Seizure, etc) exist. and I do believe that the biggest tragedy is convicting an innocent man.
I guess i'm just interested in others' feedback on what justice is and how it is best served.
Post a Comment
<< Home