JUDGING CRIMES

Yesterday's Washington Post featured two apparently-unrelated stories.  One headline read: "Md. Judge Dismisses Sex-Abuse Charges: Clerk Is Unable To Find Suitable Translator In Time."  The article explained how the defendant, a Liberian speaker of Vai, was accused of raping a 7-year-old girl, and the accusations were supported by DNA evidence. 

The clerk of the court found several Vai interpreters, but for various reasons they quit, so the judge dismissed the charges, finding that the defendant's speedy trial rights were violated. 

The right to speedy trial is, of course, protected by the sixth amendment, and also by the Maryland Constitution (art. 21).  I don't doubt that the judge's order of dismissal is "correct" - that is, easily defensible - under Maryland appellate decisions, since charges had been pending against the defendant for nearly three years, although he had been out on bail that whole time.  (Out on $10,000 bail - more than many shoplifters have to put up, I would imagine.)

But there's some little voice inside of me that wonders if, once the two sets of DNA results came back (the defense got their own, too), the defendant really and truly wanted a speedy trial.  Is it possible - just possible - that maybe what he wanted was charges to be dismissed instead?  And isn't that, I dunno, sort of like, you know, the opposite of wanting a speedy trial?   I'm just askin'.

The judge, who surely realized that the defendant was only pretending not to understand English (he had attended high school and college in Maryland), said that she was "mindful of 'the gravity of this case and the community's concern about offenses of this type.'" 

I don't doubt this particular judge's sincerity, but what does that phrase "the community's concern" mean?  The judge's conscious meaning might have been something like: "I really, truly don't want my name to become a catchphrase among talk-radio listeners, so I'm going to make a non-apology apology for what I'm doing to make sure everyone knows it's not my idea, okay?" 

But what she was really talking about, whether she realized it or not, is democracy.  The people of Maryland have said that people who repeatedly rape 7-year-olds should be punished.  The judge ruled - as I said, no doubt "correctly" - that a higher law prohibits the people of Maryland from having the type of government they want.   Under Maryland law, something that exists apart from the consent of the governed and (as the judge recognized) often enough in opposition to it, some things are more deserving of condemnation than raping children. 

One of them is making a man live for three years under the horrible cloud of possibly receiving a fair trial.  

Anyway, the other Post story was: "6 Shootings in 2 Hours Stir Worries About Violence: 11 People Are Injured In What D.C. Police Call An 'Unusual' Outbreak."   Wow.  "Worries."  Pretty strong stuff, huh?  Wouldn't expect the Post to go for such sensationalism, especially considering the shootings all occurred east of the Anacostia River, in an area bordered on two sides by Maryland, a long way from Georgetown.

Is there any connection between the stories?  Not directly - I don't have any reason to think the Liberian child-rapist (alleged child-rapist!  alleged! - doubtless Barry Scheck would back me up on this one, DNA evidence is far too ambiguous to allow anyone to reach any definite conclusions about guilt or innocence based solely on the result - see post 246) was shooting up anyone's house. 

But is it possible that actions taken with the best of intentions might have unintended consequences?  (The better question is: is it possible that they might not? - but that deflating realism would detract from the heightened rhetoric of this peroration.  See post 276.)  Is it possible that a government devoted, with a kind of unquestioning certitude difficult to distinguish from religious faith, to the idea that disregarding "the community's concern" is its "highest duty" - is it possible that such a government might produce conditions conducive to behavior that is  not merely contrary to the community's wishes, but detrimental to its well-being, and even to the continued life of some of its members?

Such as, say, "6 Shootings in 2 Hours"?