Edwards' Jury Couldn't Decide and For Good Reason
by Alan M.
Dershowitz
June 1, 2012 at 2:30 am
June 1, 2012 at 2:30 am
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
It is a wise person
who knows when not to decide. The jury in the John Edwards case rendered
exactly the right verdict. Of course they couldn't make up their mind on most
of the charges. No rational person could. The judge essentially instructed them
to get into John Edward's mind (as well as into the minds of several other
actors in this political soap opera) and to determine precisely what his
intention was in receiving money from friends. If his intention was primarily
personal (to try to save his marriage and not humiliate his wife any further),
then there was no crime. But if his intent was primarily political (to help him
get elected president), then there may have been a crime. Precisely how many
angels were dancing on the head of that pin! No one, not even Edward's himself,
could calculate the precise quantification of his complex and multiple
intentions. This kind of decision should never be the subject of a criminal
case, and the jury was right to find a reasonable doubt as to one of the
charges and to throw its hands up as to the others.
All reasonable people should now hope that the
Justice Department sees the light of day and does not seek a retrial. The jury
has spoken, though ambiguously, and there is no reason to believe that another
fairly picked jury will be able to discern the precise intentions of the actors
with any greater certainty or precision.
This entire farce of a trial is part of a
larger problem that infects not only America but other Western countries as
well: the criminalization of policy differences and of personal sin. No one can
justify what John Edwards did to his family, to American politics and to
himself. He will forever pay a steep price for his selfishness and arrogance.
But it is not a price that all Americans should have to pay by the distortion
of the criminal justice system into a Rorschach test, in which the jury is
asked to interpret vague action and attribute precise intentions to actions
done with mixed motives.
The criminal law should be limited to what I
call "Hamlet decisions." Before a person is charged with a serious
crime, the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant actually engaged in a "to be or not to be" decision—to be a
felon or not to be a felon, to step over a clear line that separates
criminality from sin! There is no reason to believe that John Edwards ever made
that decision, because the law governing his conduct is vague, subjective and
unclear in the extreme.
At the time of the founding of our Republic,
there was a common expression that said that a criminal law must be so clear
that a potential defendant "can read it while running and still understand
it." The law under which Edwards was tried was so unclear that a bevy of
lawyers could not understand it while sitting and studying it for hours.
So let the remaining charges be dropped against
John Edwards. Let him be relegated for his deserved place in history and let us
reserve the criminal law for real felons who knowingly violate clear criminal
statutes. If Congress wants to criminalize what Edwards was accused of doing,
let it enact a clear law that gives fair warning to all politicians that they may
not accept any gifts, regardless of intent. I doubt Congress will pass such a
law. In the absence of clear guidance, the Edwards jury showed wisdom and
common sense. Let's hope the Justice Department now does the same.
Related Topics: Alan M.
Dershowitz
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment