The Defense Perspective
You can attempt to hold me up to ridicule as much as you like, but the truth is that the average American agrees with me. It is not "law and order" bias. You aren't calling for equal treatment under the law, you are calling for special treatment for people who don't necessarily even have a right to be here. By your reasoning, any culture that doesn't view obeying the law the same as the average American should receive special "cultural awareness" from judges and juries. Newsflash, there are cultures right here in America, born and bred, who believe its ok to steal for a living. There are cultures right here in America that believe its ok to marry your 12 year old cousin or have multiple wives. Since they were born and raised here, do they get your special sensitivity treatment too? Or is it just foreign born, especially if they are here illegally? Perhaps if people don't know and understand our laws, they should stay home? Why is it we are supposed to accommodate them? I am not calling for them to be treated worse than American criminals, I am calling for them to be treated just the same. You are the one calling for disparate treatment based on race, ethnicity and country of origin, not me. No matter what you say, that is illegal. BTW, how about someone respecting OUR culture once in a while?
I am not ridiculing your position, but only trying to demonstrate the unreasonableness and inflexibleness of it. Following is a quote from another reader, on a related post, that best explains what I'm talking about:
"I *do* in fact agree with Mr Anonymous that, if you want to live in America, you need to obey American laws and, hence, in particular, you have to give up on the idea of marrying your 12 year old sweetheart — although the issue becomes complicated if the person was unaware of the law and had no reason to think his actions were illegal. But let's just assume that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and, hence, agree that the jury's decision to convict was correct. I suspect Mr Anonymous would agree that that was the proper outcome according to the doctrine of equal treatment under the law. But equal treatment does not mean equal punishment for every conviction under the same law, a point Mr Anonymous doesn't seem to appreciate. Alongside the doctrine of equal treatment stands the idea of mitigating circumstances — fairness often demands that the circumstances under which a crime has been committed require a reduction in the usual penalty. What I take from your point, Steve, is simply that, in this case, coming from a society in which marriageability coincides with the onset of puberty can count as a mitigating circumstance. Law and Order types like Mr Anonymous, of course, love to take a ride down the slippery slope at this point — if cultural background is a mitigating circumstance, then the next thing you know, we'll be letting off people who practice genital mutilation and mercy killing! How silly. These are practices that obviously cause egregious harm and we are fully capable of distinguishing them those that do not necessarily do so. Obviously, *some* cases of early marriage *could* be mere excuses for child molestation; but distinguishing such cases from those like (apparently) your client's case is exactly the sort of thing we try to discern in a trial. (Your client, for example, seems to have gone about it in a civil way by asking the parents, etc.) This is one of the glory of American jurisprudence — we are a nation of laws but the law is not applied with Taliban-like rigidity but with reasoned judgment. Laws are in fact (as you know) often written with *purposeful* vagueness out of an awareness of the fact that it is impossible to anticipate the circumstances of every possible violation. This allows judges and juries a certain degree of reasoned flexibility."
Steve, do you ever read the anonymous comments on The Eagle or KBTX's website? Every crime related story turns into comments about how the DA better get the max penalty or they're not doing their job. I wonder how many of those people, if summoned for jury duty, would have no problem saying they can be fair.
Jeff:
You're exactly right on that point. There's a very strong "law-and-order" bias in our county. Moreover, jurors have a habit of concealing their true bias and strong feelings. So it's critically important to stay after them and think ahead about how you plan to dig out their feelings. One of the biggest challenges in defense work, for sure. Thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion.
Commenting by HaloScan
