345. Incapacitative effect
The February 27 New Republic has a review of a book about neoconservatives that includes a passing reference to "the madmen at AEI", meaning the American Enterprise Institute. On the same page, just one column over, is a long, meandering review by someone described as "a psychiatrist [and] a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."
Pace the prior article, this author is not technically a madman, to judge from her photograph on the AEI website. Just a mad-doctor.
Anyway, the issue also has a review of a new Yale Press book by Yale Professor James Q. Whitman called The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial, which appears to be one of those academic books in which the author points out an interesting overlooked aspect of the past and then insists that it provides the key for understanding everything, everything, do you understand, everything! You know, the usual scholarly thing.
The book is reviewed by the Joyce Carol Oates of the legal academy, the graphomaniac Judge Richard Posner, whom Nassim Nicholas Taleb terms "one of those people who should spend more time reading and less time writing". The TNR review confirms Taleb's judgment (which he immediately softens with some nice and well-deserved compliments - Posner is an extremely interesting and intellectually curious person, even though he is a judge). The review's first sentence is adapted from the first sentence of the publisher's advertising copy, while the review's second sentence reads:
As it happens, I was induced to read the entire review because I was trapped on an airplane. I couldn't help wondering, just a tiny little bit, if it were really true that the costs of acquitting a guilty person are quite as low as Posner assumes. For instance, upon landing at Logan I walked by Boston Herald newsstands featuring this story:
Well, it's a tabloid. But the heated-up, mad-editor style doesn't mean it's wrong. A follow-up article said the suspect was separately charged "with making obscene or harassing phone calls for dialing the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to report he had just indecently assaulted a 6- or 7-year-old girl, a Boston police report said." A Sunday article listed other Massachusetts sex offenders who have been re-arrested for sex crimes after being found not to qualify for sexual predator status.
Well, okay, that's Boston. How about in Judge Posner's hometown of Chicago? Three hours in O'Hare on the way home gave me time to read the Daily Herald, the paper for the northwestern suburbs, where the above-the-fold headline was "The hurt doesn't go away: Parents remember daughter who lost life in a single moment of violence." The story was about Matthew Cunningham, whose months-long murder trial is set to finally end in the next few days:
Bill Albu, the father, said about other parents of murdered children: "'There are people who walk around with unbelievable sorrow in their lives and you'd never know it,' Bill said. 'These are the most compassionate people.'" He described the awful moment at parties when new acquaintances ask about his kids.
On page 4 was a story with this lede: "A 16-year-old boy accused of stabbing an Elgin High School teacher appeared Friday in Kane County circuit court on sex assault charges, offenses prosecutors allege took place about five months before the school attack."
And on page 6 was the headline: "Sister's words bring killer to tears" over this story:
Hanson, like most of the worst killers, had a troubled childhood. The jury heard this about his past:
Okay, but that's the suburbs. How about Chicago itself? The Sun-Times headline yesterday was: "Unforgiven". This was the story:
And Knox talked about the mental pain of seeing Pannell on Friday -- the first time since 1973.
The main consequence of acquitting the guilty, Posner writes in the review I happened to have just finished as I walked past these various news boxes, "is merely to reduce, probably slightly ... [the] incapacitative effect of the criminal law." He meant: is merely to leave the guilty criminal free to commit additional crimes.
I don't know if Cunningham or Pannell had prior records, but it's safe to say that the absence of any incapacitative effect on Flavell and the others featured by the Herald, the 16-year-old teacher-stabber and Hanson had costs that could be described in somewhat less-abstract terms than Posner chose to use.
But then, those costs aren't borne by judges, are they? It's possible Posner was being ironic (though irony, and humor in general, seem generally beyond his range), because the book he was reviewing argues that "the reasonable doubt formula was originally concerned with protecting the souls of the jurors against damnation."
Acquitting the guilty has low costs for judges. In fact, if the judge takes care not to inform him- or herself about the remote consequences, it need not have any costs at all. The key thing is to avoid reading papers like the two Heralds or the Sun-Times, which might suggest the disturbing possibility of life outside the courtroom.


Reader Comments (3)
If we consider only capital cases, I believe that his reasoning is that a conviction of an innocent citizen, setting aside the possibility of appeal, is a guarantee of doing immense damage to that person and those close to that person, but the non-conviction of a murderer only runs the danger that that murderer will kill again, which he believes is highly unlikely. He is weighing the 100 percent chance of the destruction of an innocent person's life by the state against what he believes to be the significantly lower than 100 percent chance of a repeat killing. It may be cold and calculating, and he may be wrong about the likelihoods, but I don't see a problem with it.
What alternative do you propose?
Patrick - If you don't mind, I'll be using your comment as a starting point for a future post about the way the death penalty (as likewise "the war on drugs") shapes our public discourse about violent crime.