Reform or Punishment?

I recently came across one of those news articles that's simultaneously funny and thought-provoking.  It's about a man by the name of Cornealious Anderson who was convicted of armed robbery in St. Louis, Missouri back in 2000 and sentenced to 13 years in jail.  Well, it's now 2014, so my keen mathematical skills tell me that he should be out by now, right?  Half-right.  He's out alright.  In fact, he never went in.

It seems that, at his sentencing, Mr. Anderson was sent home and told to await instructions as to where and when to report for his incarceration.  So he went home, undoubtedly in a bit of a funk, said his good-byes to whatever friends and family he had, called the boss and told him that he wouldn't be in to work for the next 13 years or so, and waited...

A day passed.  A week.  Two weeks.  A month...  and no police officer ever appeared at Anderson's doorstep nor did anyone ever call him on the phone to tell him when and where to report for prison.

Eventually, Anderson got tired of sitting around watching daytime soaps and Opra, waiting for the phone to ring, so he learned a new trade, started a business, met a nice girl, got married and fathered a daughter.  He did not make any attempt to leave the county, change his name or otherwise conceal his identity and he definitely did not return to his former criminal ways.  His brush with the law had scared him straight.  He paid his taxes, registered a small business, renewed his driver's licence as needed and, when he was pulled over for a couple of minor traffic violations, gave the officer his correct name and address.  Nothing in the system ever flagged him as being a convict who was somewhat overdue for incarceration.

Until last year.  Ironically, at just about the time that Anderson would have been released from prison (not taking good behavior into account), the Missouri Department of Corrections discovered the clerical error that had kept Anderson out of jail all these years.  The news article that I read doesn't explain how they discovered the error, but I have to suspect it probably had something to do with some computer read-out announcing that it was time to let Cornealious Anderson go, and only then did the law discover that he had never been locked up anywhere to be let go from.

In any case, when they discovered the error, the Missouri law enforcement community, no doubt somewhat embarrassed by the oversight, decided that "better late than never" is a valid policy where incarceration is concerned, and belatedly sent Anderson his instructions as to when and where to report for prison.  In fact, just to ensure he received the message, they sent a SWAT team to deliver it.

As Anderson tells it, there he was one fine Wednesday morning in July of 2013, feeding his three-year-old daughter breakfast and otherwise minding his own business, when a number of very stern-looking men sporting automatic weapons knocked rather insistently on his door.

It should be pointed out here that Cornealious Anderson never committed any acts of violence.  To be sure, he threatened to when he held up a Burger King restaurant with a BB gun in August of 1999, but the assistant manager there wisely decided to hand over the cash without a struggle and no-one was hurt.  In any case, over the 13 years that ensued, it appears that Anderson has clearly demonstrated that he has mended his ways and has become a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.  As such, he and his lawyer, Patrick Megaro, argue that incarceration at this point serves no purpose.  Unfortunately, the American Statute of Limitations wasn't quite designed to handle this particular situation.

Asked why he didn't turn himself in, Anderson explains that he just figured that the law didn't care about him any more.  Besides, I have to wonder what, exactly, the law expects a man in this situation to do.  Can you imagine the phone call?  "Hello, Missouri Department of Corrections?  Yeah, my name is Cornealious Anderson.  I was convicted of armed robbery about a month ago and someone was supposed to tell me where to report for jail, but I... what?  Sure, I'll hold..."

The Missouri Attorney General argues that the state is justified in requiring Anderson to serve his full sentence after all this time, and I have no doubt that there are those who would agree.  He committed a crime, he was duly convicted and he has not yet paid the penalty.  But here we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of prison?  Is it to reform or to punish, or is it both?  If the purpose of prison is to reform, then incarceration is completely unnecessary in this case.  The former criminal has clearly been reformed.  In fact, it might be argued that locking the man up now, taking him from his family and his job and throwing him in amongst a community of hardened criminals only creates the risk of turning him back into a criminal.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of prison is to punish, then I suppose it can be argued that Anderson has not been duly punished for his crime.  I'm not sure exactly what purpose punishing him serves at this point.  Perhaps someone should find the assistant manager of that Burger King that Anderson held up and ask him what he thinks should be done.

Courtroom Sketch Artists

I was reading a news article about the Omar Khadr trial which included the courtroom sketch that you see above. That got me wondering why people still sketch courtroom proceedings by hand in this age of digital imagery.

A quick consultation with the Repository of All Truth, Wikipedia, informed me that many courtrooms don't allow cameras during the trial, and so the sketch artist remains the only medium for capturing images of legal proceedings. However, the judiciary ban on cameras seems directed primarily against the media. If the objection to courtroom photography focuses on the potential distraction caused by media photographers in the courtroom rather than the capture and distribution of courtroom images in and of itself, then His Honor, Justice Halmanator must deem that objection overruled.

At risk of incurring the wrath of UCSA (the Union of Courtroom Sketch Artists), couldn't you replace the courtroom sketch artist with a similar public official equipped with a digital camera? With today's technology, they wouldn't even have to use a flash, necessarily. That way, you could get a whole lot more pictures and quickly pick the best ones for publication.

It's not like there's no precedent for using technology to update archaic courtroom procedures. Look at stenographers. In the days when courtroom transcripts were recorded by scribbling on paper in shorthand, writers cramp was the scourge of courtroom stenographers everywhere. Eventually, the stenotype machine was able to relieve this occupational hazard, while significantly increasing the speed at which courtroom stenographers could record their transcripts. These were eventually replaced with computerized stenotype machines, eliminating paper entirely. If there's no problem with updating the technology to capture the spoken word, why not do the same for capturing images?

As for any UCSA members concerned about their job security, nobody's suggesting that the same people couldn't continue to do the job, and simply trade up their paper, pencils and pastels for digital cameras. I understand that courtroom sketch artists may not get the same professional satisfaction out of snapping digital photos as they do from practicing their artistic acumen so, fine, feel free to pick the best digital picture and render it by hand afterward if you really must. Besides, that way you have the advantage of subjects who hold their positions while you draw them.

I've always suspected that a photographic memory must be a prerequisite skill for courtroom sketch artists. I mean, it's not like they can ask the court to freeze long enough to draw their pictures.

Courtroom Sketch Artist: Hold it! Hold it everybody! If you could hold those positions for just a moment please? Uh, Mr. Khadr, could you tilt your chin up just slightly? Yes, that's good. Now look at the prosecuting attorney ... yes, good ... er, don't smile though. This man is trying to put you away for life. He's not your friend. Look adversarial; defiant ... yes, that's good! Now, if the defence attorney could just rest her hand, lightly on Mr. Khadr's shoulder. You're reassuring your client. You're there for him. Everything's going to be alright. Good! Now everyone just hold those positions for just a few minutes...

I think we can all see how digital photography would just make things so much easier.

Disclaimer: There is, to the best of my knowledge, no courtroom sketch artists union known as the UCSA. I made that up. Three organizations that have adopted the acronym UCSA include the University of California Students' Association, the University of Canterbury Students' Association and the University of Canberra Students' Association, none of which directly represent courtroom sketch artists, but all of which might conceivably produce them.

Disgruntled Lawyer

Goldenstern's rules tell us to never buy from a rich salesman and to always hire a rich attorney. I don't know who Goldenstern is or was, but his or her wisdom is irrefutable.

A story has been unfolding in the Canadian news media over the past couple of weeks about certain attorneys in Ontario, Canada who are asking to be removed from cases in which the province pays their fees because their clients are unable to do so. These are not necessarily public defenders per se.

My local newspaper has focused especially on one particular case in which a man charged with murdering his wife had originally been paying his defence attorney himself. When the courts decided to award his home to his wife's parents, who now have custody of his children, he turned to the province for financial help since he could no longer afford to pay his lawyer himself. His lawyer, however, decided that the rates payed by the province simply weren't high enough and asked to be removed from the case. The accused requested that his lawyer be kept on, citing confidence in his (the lawyer's) abilities. The judge ultimately decided that the lawyer's compensation, or lack thereof, was not the court's concern and that there wasn't time to arrange for an alternate defence attorney, a preliminary hearing having already been scheduled, and therefore denied the lawyer's request to be removed from the case.

Big win for the accused! Or is it? Let's think about that for a minute. The accused is now being represented by a lawyer who has openly stated that he doesn't think he's being payed enough. It probably doesn't help that, apparently, at least one other public defence attorney did indicate that he might be able to take over the case, but the judge nixed the idea anyway, mainly because the accused was adamant about wanting to keep his current lawyer. Now, not only is the lawyer P.O.'d about the chintzy pay, but he also holds his client directly responsible for not being excused from the case. Would you want a disgruntled lawyer with a personal grudge against you defending you against a murder rap?

The commonly-accepted wisdom is that it's never wise to upset anyone who provides a service, lest it suddenly turn into a disservice. Stiffing a waiter on his tip might only result in him spitting in your food or peeing in your coffee. Distasteful to be sure (pun intended), but things can get a lot uglier when your future hangs in the balance.

I can imagine the defence attorney's opening statement going something like "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence against my client is entirely circumstantial. I urge you not to allow his beady little close-set, criminal eyes to affect your decision. I remind you, too, that he was acquitted of all five of his previous spousal abuse allegations, and that they have no bearing on this case in any event."

During the trial, one might hear exchanges such as:

Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Ferguson, isn't it true that you hated your wife?

Judge: That implies a knowledge of Mr. Ferguson's state of mind. Does the defence wish to object?

Defence Attorney: I'll allow it.

It has been said that anyone who defends themselves in court has a fool for a client. I respectfully submit that so does the lawyer who doesn't really want to defend a case.

(Disclaimer: There was no mention of any previous spousal abuse allegations against the accused in any news story. I added that merely to exaggerate my point. You'll find that I do that.)