Of Bricks and Ethics.
Originally Posted on August 29th, 2007:
I’d be surprised if no one saw this coming.
From PJStar.com (link):
Dorian LaSaine, who represents Rakiem Campbell, filed a motion last week in Peoria County Circuit Court seeking a change of venue for his client, who is accused of killing Katrina Kelley on July 14 by throwing the patio block over a fence on the Broadway Street overpass onto the car she was riding in on Interstate 74 below.
The numerous newspaper stories as well as coverage by the city’s TV and radio stations has meant people in the area know about the case and are likely to have already formed an opinion, LaSaine said Tuesday.
“Then we have the added additional burden of the unfortunate tragic death of the Bradley student,” the attorney said, referring to the Aug. 12 death of Bradley soccer player Sheridan “Danny” Dahlquist, who died after four of his friends set off Roman candles in his room. “People have been comparing the two cases and have formed their opinions.”
Yes, they certainly have. I’ve got my opinion: I think that if he did all those things, he ought to be deported. We’ll create a new country and call it “The Island of Id” and ship our less-than-stellar citizens there, where they can partake in their carnal and violent urges while leaving the rest of us in peace. Really, hear me out! Before making the Hitler comparisons, keep in mind that the French sent theirs to Devil’s Island, and the English sent their convicts here for about 150 years before shipping them off to Australia. Why we haven’t instituted a similar system boggles the mind. The U.K., U.S. and Australia turned out relatively fine. ¬_¬
See, that’s why I’m not fit for jury duty. Many people share this perspective. Can a motion to change the location of this trial be anything other than absolutely necessary?
If there is a single person out there who is disappointed by this outcome, someone ought to remind them that this is their fault. LaSaine is right, you know; people have made up their minds. The comments section beneath each related article on PJStar.com says it all, and the comparison between the way this is being handled with the way the Bradley case is being handled has drawn huge amounts of controversy and ire. The buzz in the Peoria blogosphere and subsequent commentary also support this claim. We’re all guilty of this, so there’s no sense in pointing figures or being outraged. I’m not.
In fact, this has actually brought forth in my mind an ethical dilemma. Obviously, in the interests of having a fair trial, mechanisms such as a change of venue are necessary–everyone seems to agree that, at best, it’s impossible to have a fair trial when the jury does not hold a neutral opinion. The dilemma that occurs in my mind is that while this serves the interests of fairness for the defendant, it does not serve the interests of those who were affected by it. It doesn’t serve the interest of the jogger who he attacked, nor the owners of the cars he torched, and certainly not the person he killed and their friends and family. The amount of fear and paranoia generated by this has affected the community, which is thereby also shafted by a venue change.
I’m certainly not of the opinion that this shouldn’t be an option. What troubles me about this particular usage is whether it’s more important to protect the principles of blind justice or the community affected by the crimes. Any ideas on this one?
February 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
[…] expect feedback from, such as one of the friends of Rakiem Campbell in response to the post Of Bricks and Ethics. This type of response is gold in terms of feedback, and really connects the subject matter with […]