Thank you for writing a post about this. I've seen comments asking where my outrage over poor black men getting arrested for essentially being poor and black is-- and the answer is, it's there, and it's a pretty strong rage. But when the articles are all about pretty white girls, or old white movie directors, that's what I'm going to talk about in comments, not my frustration with illegal searches, or the pain of representing someone who you know did the crime, but who didn't deserve the treatment they received, or people who lose their jobs and apartments because they can't make bail and end up sitting in jail, only to find out after 45 days that they aren't being charged with anything at all.
Thanks for the shout out to public defenders. We really are trying our very best in difficult circumstances to seek "justice" for our clients (whatever that means--a discussion for another time, perhaps).
I know from my own practice that the best indicator of a jury's decision is a client's race and the amount of money that he or she appears to have. Classical physical attractiveness helps, too.
Maybe I'm being unfair to American juries, but I've spent my entire career struggling to get "everyday" Americans--the people who have jobs that will pay them to go to jury duty (in other words, the relatively well off)--to actually SEE my clients or to imagine what it must be like to live as a black/brown/asian/mentally ill/poor person. There are too many people who went to prison on my watch because of my inability to get people to stretch their imaginations. Keeps me awake at night.
Incidentally, public defenders make an average of 40 to 60 percent less money than prosecutors of similar experience. That, and we're overwhelmingly women.
Maybe people do want to have sex with thirteen year-olds, I don't know. But we all WANT to do bad things, the difference is most people don't actually do it. I work retail and on a nearly daily basis, I desperately want to smack the shit out of people. But that is assault, and I don't do it. If I were on a jury for an assault case, it would be true if the defendant told me how much I wanted to assault people, but that would in no way mitigate the fact that this person *actually assaulted another human being*. I think that statement makes me dislike Polanski even more than I already did.
If you would like to read a fairly objective article on the crime, Amanda Knox, and the whole cast of characters, please check out this one published in Radar in October 2008, quite awhile before the larger media outlets became involved.
It is what first got me hooked on the story and have been following it ever since. This article explains the evidence of the case and the actions of the all the players just before and just after the crime. It is a compelling read.....
@MagentaAstyoche: That Mignini must have The Stranger dog eared somewhere. Thank you so much for posting the link. This was the comprehensive article I have been waiting for.
I wonder if juries are harsher on "celebrity cases" because of the O.J. Simpson trial. Regardless of whether Simpson committed the murders he was accused of or not, it was an extremely sensationalized trial that carried a lot of public sentiment. I still remember being a little kid and crossing my fingers that they wouldn't convict him because the trial was televised so much it made him a familiar figure, and one that I could sympathize with (especially since, as a nine-year-old, I was a sucker for anyone who cried. I now know better).
In contrast, it seems that in recent years celebrities are tried more severely, even in fairly trivial cases. For instance, if Paris Hilton had just been an unknown college girl she probably would have gotten a slight fine and been sent on her way. They never would have sent her to jail. I think judges and juries are harsher in cases that have clearly become media fodder and the subject of public debate. largely because of how Simpson was portrayed in the media, and how that had an abnormally large impact on his trial.
@FrabjousDay: eh I don't know re: Paris, I think her jail time came about because of her numerous probationary violations and trust me people get tossed into jail because of that every day.
@bluebears: Agreed. She was given jail time because of her probation violations, not because of the original charge of driving under under the influence. And probation violation is definitely something that significantly raises the chances of being locked up.
many others leap to her defense without ever having met her.
I get what you're saying, but this is kind of a silly statement. Not one of the jurors in the case has ever "met" Amanda Knox. If they had, they wouldn't have been allowed on the jury for partiality reasons. If that's our line of thinking, then it makes no sense for people to point out the classism and racism that exists in the American justice system if they've never "met" any of the defendants.
@shoroko: I'm not really saying these people are wrong, or deluded. Just that she's famous, and she's getting all this support, whereas most defendants just don't get the kind of exposure that would enable this.
This also reminds me of when I was talking to a friend who deals with kidnapped children and pointed out that the national media only picks up on the small cute female children while the not as attractive or older children do not get the same national media attention.
I think maybe it makes people think there are less kidnappings than there actually are and that all kidnapped children are female.
The point being that the media tends to create illusions about crime and criminals that are unfair to everyone involved.
@Working-for-the-weekend: I would disagree about the perception of how many kidnappings there are each year--most people think the numbers are stratospheric and rising. In fact, about 115 kids are kidnapped by strangers each year. The illusion is in the other direction.
@Working-for-the-weekend: Don't forget "white." White girls and young women become huge stories in the media, while many, many women of color are ignored (by the media and law enforcement).
And from another site:
*2,000 children are reported as missing to local law-enforcement daily.
*Minorities equaled 65% of the total Non-Family Abductions.
*42% were African American (24,444) and 23% were Hispanic (13, 386). [www.blackandmissinginc.com]
@la.donna.pietra:
797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
115 children were the victims of "stereotypical" kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)
@Working-for-the-weekend: Yeah, but the PDF indicates that the vast majority of the 58, 200 were teenagers, and the non-family perpetrators were largely friends and acquaintances. Not exactly kidnapping in the sense that most people interpret the term. A 16-year-old running away with her 18-year-old boyfriend is technically abducted, but she certainly doesn't see it that way.
But the existentialists argued that in the end we, and we alone, are responsible for our decisions and actions and not only how they affect us, but also for how they affect others. How does that rhyme with raping a minor and claiming "the judges are just jealous!"
@FrannyR: I think he was using existentialist to mean "European and more sophisticated than you", going on the assumption that no one reading would know what it meant.
@yvanehtnioj: I come from one european country and live in an other, but that is not why I know the basics of existentialism, I know that because I went to university. Ppl in Europe are neither more or less sophisticated than anyone else
@FrannyR: I think she means that Roman Polanski and other smug celebs think they are more sophisticated than most Americans, am I right? Not that Europeans in general think that.
@yvanehtnioj: I was trying to say the same thing. If he intended to sound uppity by using fancy words, he was trying to use the prejudice americans are supposed to have about ppl in europe, which is prejudiced against both americans and europeans.
@Penny: Hmm as opposed to the cool dudes with their sex doll collections ?
Or little boys that love it because they have one too ?
Yes, you remind me that sexism is still an issue and it goes both ways. Don't forget to vilify the other side while fighting for your rights, that will solve things.
Polanski's comments very well illustrate a somehow socially-acceptable idea of young female sexuality as 'desirable' for men, to be open to male access at all times. Knox, on the other hand, has been used to illustrate the 'dangerous and predatory' nature of young female sexuality when under the control of the young woman herself, rather than as a recipient for male lust.
(Not a comment on Knox's actual guilt or innocence, just the media coverage)
I don't think they're comparable. Polanski has benefited from his fame. I have no opinion on Knox's guilt or innocence, but I do believe that her infamy has been nothing but a curse. It's not the double edged sword that one could argue Polanski is dealing with (I would not argue that, though--I think his fame and wealth have been nothing but a boon to him in regards to his crime). I suppose if the Italian jurors hadn't been able to see the press about Knox, I might feel differently.
The quote Polanski made to Martin Amis drives me crazier than anything he's said. I know for a fact that it's untrue, but it wouldn't matter if it was. Fantasizing about young girls is not illegal. Raping them is.
@RedLantern: The judge increased Polanski's sentence after learning of his behavior during the period his sentence was stayed. Polanski got the stay because of his fame and the judge learned about the behavior because of his fame. If it hadn't been for the increased sentence, he likely would have served his minimal sentence and then would have continued to live in the U.S.
@Lymed: But let's keep in mind the probability that he got such a minimal sentence *because* of his fame. If he hadn't been a famous rich guy, would the victim have been so leery of testifying, and would the cops and psychologist have been so lenient?
I just kind of think that "justice" is an empty word in the context of legal processes. But then I went to like the least law-schooly-law-school on earth.
@LegalCookie: Well, sort of. I guess I am not so much talking about justice as fairness here as I am talking about it as an aspiration to a better world.
12/07/09
12/07/09
I know from my own practice that the best indicator of a jury's decision is a client's race and the amount of money that he or she appears to have. Classical physical attractiveness helps, too.
Maybe I'm being unfair to American juries, but I've spent my entire career struggling to get "everyday" Americans--the people who have jobs that will pay them to go to jury duty (in other words, the relatively well off)--to actually SEE my clients or to imagine what it must be like to live as a black/brown/asian/mentally ill/poor person. There are too many people who went to prison on my watch because of my inability to get people to stretch their imaginations. Keeps me awake at night.
Incidentally, public defenders make an average of 40 to 60 percent less money than prosecutors of similar experience. That, and we're overwhelmingly women.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
It is what first got me hooked on the story and have been following it ever since. This article explains the evidence of the case and the actions of the all the players just before and just after the crime. It is a compelling read.....
[www.friendsofamanda.org]
12/07/09
12/07/09
In contrast, it seems that in recent years celebrities are tried more severely, even in fairly trivial cases. For instance, if Paris Hilton had just been an unknown college girl she probably would have gotten a slight fine and been sent on her way. They never would have sent her to jail. I think judges and juries are harsher in cases that have clearly become media fodder and the subject of public debate. largely because of how Simpson was portrayed in the media, and how that had an abnormally large impact on his trial.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
I get what you're saying, but this is kind of a silly statement. Not one of the jurors in the case has ever "met" Amanda Knox. If they had, they wouldn't have been allowed on the jury for partiality reasons. If that's our line of thinking, then it makes no sense for people to point out the classism and racism that exists in the American justice system if they've never "met" any of the defendants.
12/07/09
12/07/09
I think maybe it makes people think there are less kidnappings than there actually are and that all kidnapped children are female.
The point being that the media tends to create illusions about crime and criminals that are unfair to everyone involved.
12/07/09
12/07/09
[blog.blackandmissing.org]
And from another site:
*2,000 children are reported as missing to local law-enforcement daily.
*Minorities equaled 65% of the total Non-Family Abductions.
*42% were African American (24,444) and 23% were Hispanic (13, 386).
[www.blackandmissinginc.com]
12/07/09
12/07/09
797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
115 children were the victims of "stereotypical" kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)
From [www.missingkids.com] and cited to a DoJ report.
So while there were 115 "typical" kidnappings, there were still 58, 200 children abducted by people other than family.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Celebuvict? Crimibrity?
12/07/09
Women that like sex and vibrators are scheming whores!
Little girls must love the sex because I want to put it in them, every one does!
12/07/09
12/07/09
Or little boys that love it because they have one too ?
Yes, you remind me that sexism is still an issue and it goes both ways. Don't forget to vilify the other side while fighting for your rights, that will solve things.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
hmmm....I wonder if this version of "making love" involved force and quaaludes?
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
(Not a comment on Knox's actual guilt or innocence, just the media coverage)
12/07/09
The quote Polanski made to Martin Amis drives me crazier than anything he's said. I know for a fact that it's untrue, but it wouldn't matter if it was. Fantasizing about young girls is not illegal. Raping them is.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
You may not be able to specifically define justice, but you can identify what does and does not comport with it if you try.
12/07/09
@LegalCookie: Well, sort of. I guess I am not so much talking about justice as fairness here as I am talking about it as an aspiration to a better world.
12/07/09