One of my favorite subjects, the legitimacy of the perp walk, was discussed at WSJ Law Blog today. They have a whole gallery of Wall Street perp walks.
I believe perp walks are extremely prejudicial, they deprive suspects of due process by mistaking the guilty for the innocent, and they seem a bit like gloating. We can never stop prosecutors from boasting and strutting for the cams, but I think there should be a little more respect for the process.
At one time, they might have been useful. In mob cases of yore, the prosecutors would drag the wiseguys out before the cameras to show the ones who weren’t caught that they were about to be. It was a fear tactic, a way to send a message to everyone who ever did business with the suspect, which in today’s world just doesn’t translate. Maybe now that the Gitmo detainees are being offered rights to the American court room, we’ll see more terrorist perpwalks – though I tend to doubt it. There is simply too much respect for terrorists by the media covering these things. They’d much rather photograph Jeff Skilling or Martha Stewart at their moment of indignity.
But what is the purpose of the perp walk for corporate titans who may or may not have done something illegal? There is no “secret signal” being sent to any of the other hypothetical bad guys; it’s purely showbiz.
I realize that both prosecutors and defense teams will use any advantage they have once in the court room, and I have no problem with that – but before the trial, when these people haven’t even been formally charged with anything, they deserve the assumption of innocence. If we’re giving that to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now, shouldn’t we at least give it to our own guys? Guys who work in skyscrapers instead of caves? Guys who build wealth, not destroy it? Aren’t they worth a little benefit of the doubt, as they’re constitutionally guaranteed?
Dial back the hubris, Prosecutors.
People who build wealth, not destroy it? I think that depends on which end of these pirates’ cutlasses you are on. I’m not about to defend government thugs parading around prisoners, especially ones who have merely been accused of wrongdoing, but come on. The wealthy elites of society are hardly in need of your verbal defense. The poor wretches dragged from “caves” are much less able to defend themselves than these “corporate titans”. Which group of people are more likely to be able to afford star defense teams? Which can afford to bail out of jail and skip town when things look bad? Which group has powerful buddies in govt and business to protect them?
You know, I have always wondered at the fury that some folks have over the “wealthy elite”. In the USA, most people who have money accumulated that money themselves in their lifetimes due to their own initiative and work (in other words, they did not inherit it). Most wealthy people in the USA came from relatively humble backgrounds and made their money in ways that were available to just about everyone in society.
So why is it that these people were okay before they managed to make money, but suddenly became “pirates” once they actually made a success out of themselves?
Brett,
You absolutely demonstrated exactly what I’m talking about – you have much more sympathy for the terrorists than executives.
But keep in mind the discussion was about PERP WALKS which take place BEFORE anyone is charged. At the time Jeff Skilling was paraded before those cameras, he was supposed to be presumed innocent. Did you presume him innocent? Many people leered and cheered – without a single word under oath being uttered. That’s why it’s wrong – because it deletes due process. It removes the presumption of innocence.
And by the way, I believe Jeff Skilling and Dr. Ken Lay are the most innocent of innocents, so their perp walks were even more absurd and hurtful to me on a personal level, and did nothing to bolster their cases in court.
“Most wealthy people in the USA came from relatively humble backgrounds and made their money in ways that were available to just about everyone in society.”
I suspect that you will have difficulty finding evidence to back up that assertion. Wealth is extremely concentrated in the USA, and this trend has only been increasing over the last several decades.
http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/wp_abstract.cfm?pubsID=732
But regardless, it’s not being wealthy that makes people pirates (to me). It is fraud and other forms of coersion. I’m not saying that these executives are guilty. I don’t know that. I’m just saying that the weak members of society are in greater need of being protected from the government than are the powerful. I make that comment in response to Cara’s implication that there is a level playing field in the world of criminal law. There isn’t.
Brett: Not to get too far from Cara’s topic, but concentration of wealth is a different matter from turnover of wealth. My point is that, in the USA, wealth turnover is still dramatic, meaning that just about everyone has a shot at wealth if that’s what they want. And the larger the cutoff percentage for the “wealthy elite”, the greater the turnover (in other words, the wealthiest 30% turns over faster than the wealthiest 1%). And the longer the time span, the greater the turnover (turnover over a generation is greater than turnover over a few years). But even the 1% churns a surprising amount even in the short term:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/churnin-and-turnin-high-turnover-in.html
Also, remember that everyone in society is weak compared with the federal government. If we wink at the state when it abuses the “wealthy elite”, then why would we expect it to act any better when it goes after anyone else?
Brett, you said:
I’m just saying that the weak members of society are in greater need of being protected from the government than are the powerful. I make that comment in response to Cara’s implication that there is a level playing field in the world of criminal law. There isn’t.
I disagree vehemently. When it comes to the judicial system and ANY OTHER PERSON, rich or poor, the judicial system has the upper hand. They have the advantage of limitless funds. They’re the ones that conduct the investigation, and thus they’re the ones who decide what is Brady material and has to be turned over to the Defense, and what is not. In Skilling’s case, the gov had plenty of Brady material and basically said, “if i were on the jury I wouldn’t put much credence in that.” Well, that’s the domain of the jury – not the prosecution.
When you’re looking at the resources that the government has, there is no human being on earth who can fight fair.
In some cases, I agree with you that the rich are better served. Usually that’s in civil cases or the most egregious, family law. If a young woman steals a tube of lipstick from CVS, our Constitution guarantees she’ll have an attorney. If a young mother is involved in a messy divorce where custody is at issue, the government has no skin in that game, and thus removes all protections. In a case like that, the young woman would be at a severe disadvantage to a wealthy husband who happens to beat her and their children.
But as I said, that’s not really a judicial issue; it’s not a matter of the state. Anytime a lawyer stands up and says, “I represent the United States”, your ears should hear “I have limitless resources and every advantage.” Jeff Skilling and other executives (guilty and not) gave their best shot – but even their wealth can not compare to that of the US government’s. That is why I absolutely believe that we have to fight as forcefully for our wealthy citizens as our poor. A suspect doesn’t get demerits for his success and wealth. Lady Justice is blind, remember. She shouldn’t see Jeff Skilling’s wealth, or the desperate poverty of any other suspect.
It isn’t really controversial to say that a person relying on a public defender is at a disadvantage in a criminal case compared to a a defendant who can afford to retain his own counsel, is it?
Then there are the hardships that come from not being able to afford bail, trying to aid your defense from behind bars, trying to support your family while being unable to work, etc. These are not trivial problems for most Americans, and they are problems to which a wealthy defendant is usually immune.
I share your distaste for Perp Walks. But forgive me if I have no tears to spare for the aristocracy.
I disagree about public defenders. I think that they’re generally people who really care about their clients and the system – otherwise, why not go out and make more money? So I don’t think that just because an attorney made a choice to be a public defender, his clients are automatically at a disadvantage.
It’s sort of like the Medicare system – if you can afford your own attorney/doctor, use that. But if you can’t, there’s a system in place to assist.
Granted, the problems you mention are toughies, but they’re also not a problem of “most Americans”. But yes, some are immune. That doesn’t mean they are less innocent – it just means they get less sympathy from some, like yourself. It’s not a reflection of their guilt or innocence, unless of course, you’re on the jury.
Brett: You make some good points, but the class envy elements are confusing to me. If, indeed, a wealthy defendant is “immune” to the problems you listed, it is because that defendant paid for that immunity through his own initiative, not because it was granted to him.
The only “aristocracy” we have in the USA is the one that springs from the general population through activities available to everyone else. So the “aristocracy” for which you have “no tears to spare” today was precisely the group of people who were worthy of your tears just a short time ago. Did their success turn you against them?