Taking Justice lightly

I firmly believe the government has the power of the sword, so to speak. I have no issue whatsoever with the death penalty. In fact, in a statement that might shock...well, everyone that knows me, I think executions should often be much, much more brutal than they are. Some nimrod crosses the country raping, torturing and killing women (Ted Bundy, maybe?) should not go easily into the night. Make them hurt, make them suffer. Yeah, I want vengeance.
My good friend Michelle sent me a link about Frances Newton. It is probably to my shame that I must admit I do not recall hearing of her before. I am not familiar with her case other than what I could read in about 15 - 20 minutes of research, most of which naturally had one particular slant to it.
That is not enough to make an accurate, informed decision about the validity of a case. I have spent a thousand times that amount researching Leonard Peltier's case...and I still am not sure. One thing I do know, though, is the similarities.
Several terms ago I had for an instructor the man who moved here from Alabama because Oregon had no Death Penalty. He moved here just in time for that policy to be reversed...and he, being experienced, was required to perform the first two executions in Oregon in many, many decades. I cannot re-transmit the power and intensity of his story and his feelings on the matter. What I can do is compare the three.
One of Frank's leading objections to the death penalty was the nature of the defense. Most often the defense attorneys in these cases are public defenders. Obviously there are exceptions, but for my purposes there are essentially two ways public defenders can be viewed.
The first is the Hollywood Public Defender. Talented, usually reasonably well off, he is doing this because he cares about people and justice. The number of these who exist in real life is not high. I can't say there are none...but I can say I have yet to actually meet one.
The second way is what most of them actually are. The bottom of the class, the people not good enough to make it in a firm or on their own...the ones who, frankly, are least competent and who are not funded well enough to do the things that have to be done to win...research for precedents, employ research assistants, stay up on the latest cases, strategies, etc.
Meanwhile, the state is well funded with enough people working on a case to ensure their wishes are presented. This is done through many means, not least of which is plea-bargaining the harder cases to lighten the case load and allow them to concentrate on the high profile cases. Unfortunately, they are judged not on proper outcome of cases but instead on convictions. The good prosecutor is not the one who brings forth key evidence for the defense but rather the one who hides it and gets the conviction.
I have said it before, I will say it again...one of the worst problems with our country is the competitive nature of our political and justice systems. They are not about right and wrong, they are about winning and losing.
So on the side trying to convoct someone of murder you have the well funded, top of their class, well supported lawyers with thousands of workers at their disposal. On the other you have an underfunded, understaffed, typically less talented and less interested public defender.
It is not unheard of for these PD to FALL ASLEEP IN A MURDER TRIAL. Now, my earlier wish for vengeance aside, I would like the accused to have a competent defense. A competent defender stays awake when the life of their client is at stake.
In the Newton and Peltier cases, and also in...say...the Simpson case, there was a common thread. Official interference in the investigation, evidence of a highly questionable and possibly fraudulent nature, prosecutors who took questionable evidence and made compelling cases, and two convictions...the difference? Simpson had the money to higher lawyers as sleazy as those representing the state.
So while I do want justice and vengeance, I want it on the right grounds. I don't want it in a world where convictions rely on manipulation, deception, and incompetence (in the Newton case on both sides). That is vengeance I cannot get behind.
And lest we lose sight of the importance, this has to change not just for Newton, not just for Peltier, but for every right thinking citizen. We need to demand the court system receive an overhaul. We need to stop concentrating on win-loss records and start demanding prosecutors who seek the truth instead of win at all costs. Until such times, people will be questionably convicted, sometimes in capital cases, sometimes in lesser cases, and right thinking people will continue to be outraged.
Lest you think I miss the point...that is a fundamental, foundational shift in how this country is structured.