Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Judicial system in escrow
By Twaun Samuel
Daily Mississippian (U. Mississippi)
07/09/2007

(U-WIRE) OXFORD, Miss. — Former White House official Scooter Libby was indicted for perjury in a federal investigation into the leaking of a CIA operative's identity. During the trial, there were many claims and implications involving various officials within the Bush Administration. Libby was convicted and sentenced to 36 months in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Following his sentence, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence so that he would not have to serve time in prison. Where a presidential pardon would have completely erased the conviction and judicial proceedings, the commutation simply keeps Libby out of jail. He will still have a record as a convicted felon and have to pay $250,000. President Bush, though "respectful" of the jury and justice system, believed the prison sentence to be excessive.

Two weeks before Libby's sentence, Paris Hilton's early release from jail was met with thunderous outcry and public fury with the seemingly two-tiered justice system that grants special privileges to individuals from different economic groups. The L.A. sheriff had "commuted" Hilton's jail sentence to house arrest. Paris Hilton was driving with a suspended license.

Scooter Libby was convicted for perjury in a federal investigation, yet the anger and outrage over Hilton far surpassed that which has ensued after President Bush's controversial decision. The similarities between the two cases above and the differences in public response are alarming. However, with the little consternation that has followed the Libby commutation, one thing is for certain: Martha Stewart is going to be pissed, and that is not a good thing.

When juxtaposed, the Hilton and Libby controversies have much in common. Both concern incidents involving individuals of a privileged class. And similarly, in the same manner, the L.A. sheriff attempted to disobey the judge's order in releasing Hilton to house arrest, the President intervened after a judicial decision so that Libby would not have to serve prison time.

The implications from these situations reveal that our society does in fact have a two-tiered justice system. Regardless of the principles of ethics in honesty we try to instill within our children and students, the old adage prevails in that you can buy all the justice you want and in the end, who you know is far more advantageous than what you know.

Perhaps the frustration over Hilton was due to her tangibility as a target. She is very much fermented within the American conscience. She is an object of both contempt and admiration. She is attractive, blonde, rich and seemingly oblivious to the real problems of the world around her. Her seemingly early release from jail was too blatant a slap in the face to the American middle class, the working class, to let it pass.

The public's overwhelming opinion that Hilton should serve her time in jail as any citizen should revealed that, despite such tumultuous political times, the American public still puts an incredible amount of trust and faith in the judicial system. In a democratic system filled with shallow rhetoric and pervasive corruption, the public holds steadfast to the finality of judgments, and the belief that regardless of class, we are all to abide by the same laws.

The reality of the situation is that the confusion and apathy our political system creates has created a veil so thick, that more blatant and serious affronts to the justice system go unnoticed. Paris Hilton, as said, is a very public figure and a part of pop culture.

Scooter Libby, suffice it to say, is not as ubiquitous. Consequently, his commutation has gone comparatively unnoticed. With an immense amount of media being produced, adequate coverage of important matters are easily lost beneath more sensationalized accounts of the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous.

The U.S. system of government is predicated on the idea of separation of powers between the three branches of government, and that there would be certain checks and balances so that absolute power would not rest in one particular branch. There are certain enumerated powers within the Constitution allowing certain officials liberties.

The president can, among other things, veto bills, pardon convicted felons or commute prison sentences. Anecdotally, however, the practice and exercise of certain powers should be executed with discretion and sound judgment. The implications from the decision to commute Libby's sentence do more to affirm dishonesty and cronyism than it does to reinforce the values and sentiments of the Constitution.

So then, are we now to accept that the country actually rests on ideas of capitalism, opportunism, greed and excessive consumption? If this is the reality of the country, then that would make the idea of justice and rule of law a liquid term, that is not final but a term that is completely negotiable.

And then isn't that the practice of law, interpreting laws and trying to translate words to favor your client's claim?

Was justice ever absolute, or was it essentially always in escrow, to be held by a third party for a later time? A later time when perhaps more money can be spent to discover the truth, sell a lie or maybe wait for executive pardoning. Maybe the joke is on the majority of Americans outside the political machine and legal system in believing that the laws they are taught to follow belong to a less than perfect judicial system.

And political leaders do not have too much trouble in confusing the American public. Apparently, the public only aggressively responds to concepts that it can easily grasp. Sex, religion and security - health, financial, familiar - come to mind as the most pervasive of public concerns. This would seem to be further evidenced by Former President Clinton's damnation -in certain opinions - for committing adultery and lying about it. This was a concept the public could wrap its head around, and impeachment proceedings ensued.

However, during the current administration's time in office, haven't more atrocious things occurred than fellatio? Hasn't the public been lied to about more severe issues, such as the reasons the U.S. invaded and currently occupies another country?

The issue of whether Libby deserved prison time is insignificant. There are many laws that individuals may casually disagree with. However, a person's guilt or innocence and resulting punishment or remedy is for the courts to decide.

As an attorney himself, Libby is familiar with the justice system and has knowledge of its inner-workings. Could it not be argued that a professional from the field of law should be held to a more stringent level of accountability?

After it's all said in done, how do we define justice in America? Who knows. I do think that if current trends hold, it will be a harder sell to preach ethics in professional schools, at home and within corporations.

And thus, I fear that the great machine at work will keep producing individuals who relish in entitlement and monetary excess as well as those politicos who will continue on using eloquent speech to confuse and bamboozle future generations. The Hilton and Libby legacy will live on.

[ Back to Student Voices ]