In Front of Our Eyes...

“What happens in front of our eyes is transformed inside the head, and is refined, revisited, restored, and embellished…”

This is the claim Barry Scheck makes when criticizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Scheck insists that eyewitnesses are the main source of false convictions in the American justice system. His article, “Seeing Things,” reports that shaky eyewitness accounts have proven to be more of a hindrance in convicting criminals than an aid. Because eyewitness accounts are more often than not emotionally powerful, they usually stick out in the juror’s mind. Scheck argues that this type of emotional trigger within the juror is not always a good thing, considering that what one remembers about a certain event may be very limited. Stuart Taylor takes the same position in his article “Innocents in Prison.” Taylor’s article reports that 205 DNA exonerations have been recorded since 1989, clearly showing that false convictions are a reality in courts across the country. Taylor argues that in terms of eyewitness identification, police are often pointing out the potential suspect to the eyewitness. Because of our limited capacity to remember physical attributes and details, in addition to what Taylor calls improper police procedure, there is no doubt that false convictions are taking place.

I agree with Taylor that in some cases, police involvement in eyewitness testimony has led to false convictions. I also agree with Scheck that while eyewitnesses may be the most memorable, they are often not the most reliable. Taylor suggests in his article that certain procedures should be taken in order to ensure that eyewitness testimony is honest and fair. I would suggest the same thing. When witnesses are identifying potential suspects, they should not have someone pointing someone out to them. They should be given time to make the decision on their own with no outside influence. I agree with Taylor that some of these simple procedures are being overlooked and that the criminal justice system may at times manipulate evidence. I also feel that if new DNA evidence is available after conviction, the defendant should be able to appeal. If these types of actions were taken, the amount of innocents in jail would be significantly reduced. Although I agree with Taylor that things could be improved, I feel 2-3% is an acceptable error rate. No system can be perfect and even with correct procedures it is still possible for the innocent to be convicted. I would be more interested to know just how many guilty parties walk free. Nevertheless, the system, just as us, cannot always be 100% accurate when pointing out the guilty.

Tort Cases: Too Many or Too Little??

In tort cases, it is definitely more common to hear ridiculous cases like that of Judith Haimes. These types of legal escapades just serve as a catalyst for Americans to point the finger at greedy lawyers and roll their eyes as once again we complain of too many meaningless law suits. While these cases show the negative aspects of civil law, we rarely hear about the other side of the coin, or in this case, law suits like Paul Miller’s. Paul Miller, a man struck with bad luck, was nearly left homeless by the Bank of America. In this case, a large corporation was punished for their wrong doing in such a way that could actually benefit the everyday individual. It turns out that Paul Miller was not the only one suffering. The Bank of America was not only digging a hole for Paul, but also for many other “little guys.” The case could set a standard for future treatment of Social Security funds, yet the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 will make it even more difficult for people like Paul Miller to have their day in court.


While I find cases such as Judith Haimes’ to be an embarrassment to not only civil law, but to the legal profession as a whole, I do admit that as Americans, we tend to look at only the negative aspects of law, rather than the positive. I liked Senator Frank E. Moss’s argument that despite the consumer’s “many rights in the law, he is often shut out of the courthouse by economic realities.” I believe Mencimer would have cringed to think that Judith Haimes had her case thrown out of court. I also think Haltom and McCann would have been disappointed with the Class Action Reform Act that was passed after Paul Miller’s case. All of the authors expressed the need for tort cases to be taken more seriously and no longer be scolded upon by the mass media as “ridiculous.” Legitimate tort cases deserve their time in the sun, and I would have to say several tort cases have helped set a public safety standard beneficial to society. At the same time, I do not oppose the Class Action Reform Act, because I realize that the majority of the time, tort cases involve money hungry individuals looking for somewhere to place blame. Civil law should be able to distinguish between the frivolous and the legitimate, in order to ensure that only cases of sound accusation be heard.

A Civil Action
Anderson v. Grace: Victory or Defeat?

In the case of Anderson v. Grace, Jonathan Harr leaves the reader with a sense that justice and victory in the courtroom is not always as cookie-cutter as it is portrayed in the movies and our favorite television shows. The truth lies in what work goes into a tort case and often that outweighs compensation. Although the not so happy ending was surprising, Schlichtmann’s character is exactly what most picture when they think of lawyers: the nice car, the perfectly tailored suit, and the headstrong, overconfident attitude that often leads to taking high risks and putting up the “good fight.” Basically, Schlictmann represents our modern day scrappy dog and everyone hopes he will come out on top. However, our faith in our hero and the effectiveness of torts is shaken when the settlement is reached. With each family receiving roughly $500,000 each for losing a family member, justice hardly seems served. Only at the end of the novel did the EPA make the companies take responsibility for causing contamination.

Thus, the ending was the part of the book I found most interesting. I was convinced that Schlictmann would add another win to his record and that the families would receive giant settlements, reestablishing the notion that hard work and dedication to a case bring good results. I realized that the odds of winning were stacked against Schlictmann, but I thought the expensive scientific studies would grant him a victory and I was not expecting him to settle. For the most part, the novel showed how even the most legitimate tort cases do not always yield just compensation. The costs and time it took for the case to even be considered was mind blowing. Future safety was also something the case didn’t seem to resolve. While the wells were shut down during the trial, only after the EPA acknowledged the problem did the seriousness of the situation seem to be considered. The case was definitely a defeat for Schlictmann and I feel for the families as well. Above all, Schlictmann learned that in tort cases, the risk is often times not worth the reward.

Quotations

The first article I found that included several quotations was Too Much Local Government? In this article, Jacob Gersen commented on the governor of Indiana’s remark about the state’s local government. He suggests that more elected officials does not necessarily equal more government spending and higher taxes. Although statistics show that 96% of elected officials work in local governments, Gersen focuses on electoral density, or elected officials per capita, to conclude that more local government might actually decrease public spending.


The second article I found was McCain's Selective Defense of “Traditional Marriage.” In this article, Glenn Greenwald argues that Senator McCain has no right to define traditional marriage when his own family life could not be categorized as such. He regards McCain’s personal relationships as anything but “traditional.” He summarizes McCain’s first marriage to Carol Shepp, in which McCain adopted her two children from a previous marriage and in which the couple had a child of their own. Greenwald then proceeds to accuse the senator of adultery and marrying his second wife simply for finanical purposes.


While I understand what Greenwald is implying, I think his stab at McCain’s family life is a cheap shot. McCain’s use of the term “traditional marriage” was clearly meant to indicate the “one man, one woman,” mentality. However,Greenwald’s criticism does highlight the difficulty in defining “traditional marriage.” Greenwald explains why, according to modern views, McCain’s family history is labeled as traditional. “The only rule of "traditional marriage" is that you need a man and a woman and provided that rule is complied with, all other types of marriages and divorces qualify as "traditional," he writes.


I may not agree with Greenwald’s antics in proving his argument, but I was glad that he brought up the issue of divorce in retrospect to the term traditional. With over half of American marriages ending in divorce, I think it’s safe to say that norms are no longer what they used to be. I think Greenwald could have made a strong argument focusing on that issue without having to attack one man’s personal relationships, in which he knows nothing about.