It’s amazing
how it happens without so much as a second thought.
The violation doesn’t matter, not really. Maybe he was speeding. Perchance
she was driving while intoxicated. Perhaps he nearly struck another vehicle head on while spinning his tires.
What happened next doesn’t really matter either. He curses at the officer or
maybe says there are more important crimes to be investigating. She assaults the arresting officer and spits on him from the
back seat of the patrol car. Maybe, just maybe, he threatens the officer’s family or promises to "get even." Eluding
the bothersome police can be explained a hundred different ways.
A glance at his or her driving record might shed some light on the topic. Then again,
it may not matter much either. Six convictions for similar traffic offenses isn’t that big of a deal. Four convictions
for alcohol-related violations simply means the guy has had a hard life. Her license being suspended for too many points should
be looked at with pity and understanding, not scrutinized with stern judicial incredulity.
Surely the official criminal record will be considered. Stealing, assault, drug possession,
DWI and a handful of minor things like trespassing and harassment aren’t too bad in the big scheme of things. A rough
childhood, too many bills, a nagging wife, too much debt, messy kids, a drinking problem or drug habit, a monstrous boss,
bill collectors calling, desperate circumstances, too much stress, low wages, wrong kind of medication, not enough vacation
days or any of a host of other reasons can explain nearly anything when applied properly. The prosecutor and judge just need
to dig deeper in order to justify their inactions.
Fairness, impartiality and due process. In the legal world these terms mean everything.
On the street, when dealing with some belligerent and antagonistic drunk driver, police officers don’t have the time
to think about being fair while the guy is doing everything in his power to assault the officer. Being impartial is a wonderful
concept for legal scholars to mull over but hardly makes sense when dealing with a drugged out freak whose only goal at the
moment is to eliminate the police officers standing between him and freedom. Due process is an unalienable right but means
very little when having to deal with inattentive and careless drivers who don’t think too much of or about the sweaty
officer directing traffic at the accident scene.
The court room has become ground zero for gross negligence. Let it be said that there
are judges and prosecutors who do care about doing the right thing, but there are also those judges and prosecutors who don’t
have the time or patience for justice. They want a quick court session without the complications of doing their respective
jobs. If they are paid the same whether they end court in one hour or spend four conducting trials, there really isn’t
a choice.
It would be easy to justify leniency, no doubt about that. "People deserve leniency,"
or "He really isn’t a bad guy," or "No one is hurt by taking a more easygoing stand," or "It’s
not my job to make people’s lives more difficult." On the other hand, it’s just as easy to do your fellow
defense attorney a favor and let his client off with a slap on the hand.
But could there be a dark side to all of this? Is it possible that judicial leniency
might actually be to the disadvantage of society? How could leniency ever be considered anything but the ultimate human gift
of forgiveness? Remember, to err is human, to forgive is divine.
Imagine an assistant prosecutor was prosecuting a man for driving while intoxicated.
Now, this wouldn’t be his first rodeo. In fact, this would be his third. Due to the fact that the man was a raging alcoholic,
had a high blood alcohol concentration level at time of arrest, and was facing a felony charge for DWI, the prosecutor dutifully
asked for no bail or at least a large bail amount. The judge, a man who once touted while on the bench that he was always
a "defense attorney at heart," became enraged. He pointed his shaking finger and screamed at the prosecutor that he would
rather the defendant "get drunk tonight and go out and kill someone in an accident" than to deny him his right to bail. The
judge is a true keeper of the Constitution, huh? It was as if the judge were a prophet. The man was released shortly after
his hearing. Later that same day, in the late evening hours, he slammed into a car occupied by a woman in her early 20s. She
was rushed to the hospital with life threatening injuries and he was again arrested for DWI. The judge had prophetically called
it correctly. Shocking as this story is, it’s not fiction. It happened here just a few short years ago. I know because
I was in the court room when the judge said those haunting words. I was working for the agency whose officers arrested the
intoxicated man. This is what happens when judges allow personal feelings to interfere with solid judicial reason and commonsense.
As law enforcement officers we are held to high standards, as we should be. When
we don’t do our respective jobs or we do our jobs in a sloppy manner, we are called upon to improve or move on. When
judges and prosecutors refuse to do their jobs they are often heralded as kind, fair, impartial and tending duteously to the
due process of law. If policemen didn’t issue citations, didn’t make arrests, failed to conduct investigations
and took their time getting to locations they’re called to, there would be an outcry from the public that would be heard
from coast to coast. It’s just a shame that the same public doesn’t do likewise when judges and prosecutors fail
to do their jobs.
