Here’s an odd phrase
you still hear: positive discrimination. Those who use it imagine that putting
a positive word in front of a negative one cancels out the negativity. In
practice, I don’t think this is so. If someone is appointed to a position in
part because they are black, female or part of another minority, it just brings
out the same accusation as good old fashioned discrimination does: favoritism,
people promoted beyond their abilities because of who they are, and mates
looking after mates. It is supposed to force people and organisations beyond
their prejudices, but often just reinforces them, regardless of the qualities
of the person appointed.
Here’s another one you
may not be familiar with: noble corruption. This is a phrase, I believe,
invented by Ludovic Kennedy, to describe the process when police and other law
enforcement agencies use the tools of old-fashioned corruption – faked
evidence, forced confessions, mistreatment of prisoners – to do good; bring
about the conviction of someone who they know to be guilty but cannot otherwise
prove it. It’s a tempting idea,
a clear case of the end justifying the means. But what if they are wrong? And
what if, having done it once, they take the easier way more often, and with
less noble aims? Noble corruption quickly loses its adjective and becomes plain
old corruption.
It is not for any of
us to look into the hearts of police officers, lawyers and judges and see if
they are doing what they think is right, or doing what they think is wrong.
Which is why we need to cling to due process. It has taken us a long time to
develop our legal processes, with the aim to protect the innocent, even if it
means letting the guilty go free. Not that it always works. Innocent people
have suffered punishment before and may well do so again. This is regrettable
with fines, but repayable. Prison time may result in financial compensation but
where is the lost time going to come from, or how are we to repair the life?
And if we have killed the man, the woman, what then?
Bruno Richard
Hauptmann was a German immigrant (illegal, not insignificantly) who was
convicted and executed for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr,
the infant son of the famous flier. And according to Ludovic Kennedy, and
others, he was innocent, railroaded by men who perhaps thought they were doing
the right thing. To read The Airman and the Carpenter by Kennedy is to be outraged by the corruption of the
American legal system. If Hauptmann was not guilty this is a travesty of
justice. The important thing to remember though is if he was guilty, it still
is.
Hauptmann was caught
with a significant amount of the ransom money, and lied to the prosecutors on
several occassions. But this is balanced against his alibi for the night in
question, buried by the prosecution, the lies told by witnesses on the stand
with the encouragment, and even the simple bribery, of the prosecution, faked evidence (by police and
journalists), bullying of the prisoner, and abuse of the system. At most
Hauptmann could have been convicted of receiving stolen money. As it was, he
was convicted of being the sole kidnapper and murderer. To even do that, the
State had to forget their own witnesses, including Lindbergh himself, dealing
with mulitple people from the kidnappers’ gang.
Corruption is
insidious, and no-one is immune. Lindbergh embellished his evidence, claiming he could
recognise Hauptmann’s voice based on two words he heard two years earlier:“Hey
doc!” He said he noticed a German accent, so the words got changed to “Hey doctor!”
to make that more plausible.
Nor is this being wise
after the event. At the time, knowledgeable people such as Clarence Darrow said
the evidence was insufficient to secure a conviction. But the public were
desperate to have someone to blame and so, I would say and more understandably,
was Charles Lindbergh. Even Haputmann’s lawyer was convinced of his guilt. (He
was being paid by the Hearst newspapers, likewise convinced.) The Governor of
New Jersey lost his subsequent election after he tried to have Hauptmann’s
sentence commuted to life. To quote Bob Dylan, the trial was a pig circus, he
never had a chance.
Ludovic Kennedy, a
British journalist, was well known for his championing of those he saw as
wrongly convicted. His book 10 Rillington Place was instrumental in seeing Timothy Evans get a posthumous pardon.
This book, written in 1985, has been less successful in that regard. And there
are those who argue that Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping. But what
this book makes clear beyond all doubt is Hauptmann did not receive a fair
trial. That is what our system is there for, to give all of us a fair trial if
we should end up within it. Neither public men nor cheering crowds should
affect it. It’s almost ninety years since Hauptmann was electrocuted to death,
but these issues still affect us. Like peace, the price of justice is eternal
vigilance.
No comments:
Post a Comment