Hardly a week goes by without a high profile court case appearing in the pages of The Republic. The details surrounding these cases are often heartbreaking or infuriating. Some of these crimes are vicious, violent, and grisly.
It’s human nature for us to want to do something. We want to take action. Most of the time, though, it is really too late. Someone has been killed, murdered, robbed or wronged in some other dreadful way. We’ve read about how children have been abused or the elderly have been ripped off. Since we can no longer prevent what happened, we turn to thoughts of punishing the accused. But accused is not the same as guilty in our system.
It’s not long after an investigation starts or someone is arrested, that those with law degrees from Facebook University or the TikTok School of Law pronounce their sentence. They want summary justice. They suggest we “hang them from the highest yardarm in the British fleet” or some other such nonsense.
I understand that impulse. But that’s not how our system works. We have the Constitution, a system of laws. As a people, we have decided against a system of vigilante justice.
Soon, in addition to the amateur attorneys, the dilettante detectives also make their pronouncements. They claim to know someone, probably their father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate, who has inside information about the case. (Thanks goes to Mel Brooks for the last sentence.) They offer their crackpot theories, suppositions, while claiming that they are just asking questions.
These kinds of actions can often hurt investigations. They can create false leads and tips, distracting the police who are trying to do their job. Making statements in our community about wanting to take vigilante actions is counterproductive, too. This can make it harder to find impartial juries while ginning up media attention.
Playing Angela Lansbury or acting like Charles Bronson from a “Death Wish” movie isn’t going to help the victims. Only justice, and time, can begin the healing. Many times, sadly, even justice and time aren’t enough.
Some people even become irate with the judges and attorneys working the case. They don’t understand that judges have to take motions put forth by prosecutors and defendants alike seriously, even if they seem ludicrous. Otherwise, there might be the risk of a mistrial. Members of the court have rules they have agreed to abide by. Otherwise, it’s chaos.
Criminal defense attorneys owe it to their clients to put forth a good defense. That is their obligation. If any of us were ever wrongly accused of a crime, we would certainly want the best defense possible.
Our criminal justice system is far from perfect. We can all cite cases where the guilty have gone free or the innocent have been punished. But rather than taking the law into our own hands, we have to go through the process to make changes. And those changes, through appeals, peaceful protests, elections, and legislation or amendments to the Constitution, can be agonizingly slow.
As painful, slow, and inequitable as it may be, we have to let the legal process play out. Otherwise, we descend into anarchy. Rejecting our system of laws in favor of violence or threats of violence goes against who we are as a nation. And it does no damn good anyway.
Aaron Miller is one of The Republic’s community columnists and all opinions expressed are those of the writer. He has a doctorate in history and is an associate professor of history at Ivy Tech Community College-Columbus. Send comments to [email protected].
