The Observer, March 18, 2005
Volume XXXVII, Issue 21
The Right Stuff: United States courtroom practices in need of review
The events that transpired in our nation's courtrooms while we enjoyed spring break have caused more reason for debate about the security and responsibility of our court system than any other in years. The major events that caught the nation's eye included the shocking events in an Atlanta courtroom, the Michael Jackson trial in Santa Maria, and the Roper v. Simmons decision levied by the Supreme Court. When considered together, these three important events reveal just how badly the court system deserves to have its practices re-evaluated and changed.
Brian Nichols' violent rampage, which began in an Atlanta courtroom, has led many to doubt the wisdom of past Supreme Court rulings and another ruling to come. The suspect, who was arrested again this past Saturday, allegedly wrestled away the deputy sheriff's gun and proceeded to shoot and kill Judge Rowland Barnes, along with two others, and critically injure two more. How was he able to manage such a feat? After being detained in prison, waiting to face charges ranging from raping his girlfriend and holding her prisoner to possession of a machine gun and marijuana, he was brought into court unshackled. Deputies found Nichols in possession of two hand-fashioned knives before appearing in court, giving prosecution and others present serous cause for concern.
Nevertheless, because of rulings like United States v. Durham and Morgan v. Brunnell, defendants are to appear in court shackle-free unless the judge finds cause to have the defendant restrained. The Supreme Court may decide to maintain this practice in a pending decision for Deck v. Missouri, but those who fear for the lives of those involved in the judicial process hope they do not. And, if shackling individuals accused of violent crimes is again deemed unnecessary, then new provisions need to be made in order to protect those in the courtroom, such as bullet-proof dividers.
Michael Jackson nearly failed to appear in court last Friday, and millions of Americans checked in on him on television or read about it on the Internet. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was making a controversial decision regarding the use of capital punishment. The 5-4 decision overrides death-penalty statues in as many as 20 states for 16- and 17-year-olds. Justice O'Connor pointed out in her dissent that "a genuine national consensus against the juvenile death penalty has not yet developed," consistent with more than half the states allowing death penalty enforcement on juveniles, and the United States' reluctance to sign a U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty that prohibits enforcing the death penalty for juveniles.
While I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in principal, the juxtaposition of the Jackson trail and this decision worries me. For all the drama I've heard on major news networks and seen on the front pages of newspapers, I have heard no such serious discussion about the viability of capital punishment to parallel it. Why is it that the alleged – okay, likely – actions of a celebrity and some children, are more important to my countrymen than the decision to execute dangerous criminals? I don't like to entertain hackneyed questions like the "worrying fusion of news and entertainment," but this is such an obvious example of how the entertainment angle has become so heavily weighted that Americans care more about famous pedophiles than discussing and moving for reform.
Many Americans, particularly those of the religious right-winged variety, forget that rehabilitation is an important goal in criminal sentencing. A person can commit an act of violence but still contribute to society after a substantial period of reform and reintegration into society. I'm afraid that Americans also forget their state and federal tax dollars go to penitentiaries to hold criminals, as well as the facilities that execute them. Thus, by paying taxes, a citizen is actively sponsoring the death penalty in a state that enforces it. Rather than avoiding such realizations by indulging in trial circuses like the Michael Jackson case, which make it seem as though the justice system works (slowly), they should instead petition their representatives to stop such actions that conflict with their beliefs, and find civil ways to express their disagreement.
