Justice
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ….”
Vindictive behavior is one of those things that people do that we often want to believe is rational, but I think most people acknowledge that it is not. But it is so common. Recently, I’ve seen this idea of vindictiveness come out in two court cases that the media pretty much went nuts over.
In the Casey Anthony trial, the media had her tried and convicted before very much evidence was presented against her. In fact, the most compelling evidence in the case could be linked to several people and wasn’t even presented until near the end of the trial. By that time, though, the popular opinion was that Anthony was guilty. But the purpose of our courts is not to make decisions based on popular opinions. Instead, criminals facing trial are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In the Casey Anthony trial, there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Thus, Casey Anthony was found not guilty in the murder of her daughter. When the public heard the news, though, there was little recognition for a trial that went the way trials are supposed to do. There was no commendation for a Jury having performed their duties well or for a nation that was proud that, in spite of all the media attention and twisting of information, our court system functioned properly. We did not send an innocent person to death.
Of course, we cannot know if Anthony is guilty or innocent. We can only know that there was not sufficient evidence against her. This makes the default opinion in court one of innocence. The courts function this way on purpose. Our system of justice is intended to protect the innocent and that includes protecting the innocent from false accusations. Yet, in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial, there were death threats, people expressing sadness that she wasn’t put away, people wishing harm upon Casey Anthony and many other shameful comments based entirely on people’s personal opinions regarding Anthony.
Just the other day, Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexual assault on minors. This ruling was made, as well, based on the evidence. During the trial, many different issues came into play. Things were discussed, both in the media and even in the trial, regarding religion, cults and polygamy. The trial, though, was over the question of if Jeffs had sexually assaulted two young girls. He was found guilty based on the evidence, not based on the cult he led or the fact that they practiced polygamy. Polygamy is not what is to blame for his horrific behavior. When Jeffs was found guilty, the reaction that most struck me as problematic was the vast number of people who commented that they wanted to see Jeffs raped in prison. They said things like, “Bubba will take care of him,” and “well, he’ll get what he deserves, we all know what happens to child rapists in prison.” Essentially, these kind of comments acknowledge a serious problem in our prison system and use it as if it should be a correct and lawful method of punishment for those who go to prison. Prison rape happens. It isn’t just people guilty of sex crimes who experience it, it isn’t just people who are bad who have to endure it. It is a terrible flaw in our criminal justice system that we are unable to keep people safe while we attempt to rehabilitate them and/or their peers. Yet, we’re so used to this flaw that people have forgotten to see it as a flaw and would, instead, prefer to use it as if it is a part of our penal system.
I’m a fan of our judicial system doing their jobs in these two cases. I’m glad the proper decisions were made. I’m not, however, happy with people’s reactions to the cases. This kind of vindictive behavior is something we need to be wary of, in ourselves and others. How can we expect peace of we set our focus on irrational punishments? How can we make the world a better place if we don’t stop and think about what processes must come into play when there is a problem to address (like a criminal accusation). Vindictiveness, in these cases, does very little to bring us closer to a better society – it does nothing at all to help the victims or to help protect us.



It is maddeningly frustrating to realize the agonizingly slow, incremental pace of progress of our species. And just as people readily resort to the phrase, “Oh well, it could always be worse”, so they take (or try to take) comfort from comparing our present with our past by recalling the Medieval madness of scapegoating Jews for The Black Plague, or irrational fear of tomatoes and bathing, etc.
But evolution’s perspective on time’s passage is a good deal different from that of any one of us. The comfort I take, when I can, is in the dream that we may one day evolve to a stage where, on reflection, the legal constraints we impose now will seem superfluous and quaint.
“Isn’t it amazing that those ancients actually needed laws to control those impulses? Positively barbaric!”
It is encouraging, though, that Enlightenment concepts seem (I say, seem) perhaps more natural now than a handful of centuries ago. That’s a good thing, I have to believe.
It’s discouraging that people must constantly be reminded; even cajoled into recollection of the very things you’ve pointed out in this piece. However, it’s encouraging that we live in a polity where those concepts are enshrined in law, and that, over the course of the last two hundred years, these ideas seem to be honored, progressively, more in reality than merely in the breach.
I know that this story is way out of date now (at least in terms of the current trend of up-to-the-second news where anything that happened more than a week ago is practically irrelevant), but I just wanted to thank you for putting this out there. I entirely agree, and I was equally shocked by the backlash of the Casey Anthony trial. I didn’t follow it too closely through most of the trial, but near the end I took an interest and spent a day or two sifting through all of the publicly available information I could find (affidavits, autopsy reports, etc) and I had to reach the same conclusion the jury did… It was pretty obvious to me from a circumstantial perspective that she was guilty, but there was no hard evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt (as is the test required by law) that she had done it.
Her actions after the disappearance were more than questionable and in many ways she appeared to be heartless and callous, but without facts to prove that she was guilty, it would have been a travesty of justice to have convicted her.