Comments
by Scoper...
I'm Ready For My Closeup,
Your Honor
Very soon, (barring a sudden
plea-bargain,) Rae Carruth, former running back for the Carolina Panthers,
will go on trial for his life. And the trial judge has ruled that we can
see it all: he will allow the trial to be televised. The defense lawyers
tried to stop it, of course, even appealing to the North Carolina Supreme
Court. They were turned down. Pass the popcorn.
A touch of background for
those not familiar with the case. About a year ago, Cherica Adams was mortally
wounded in a drive-by shooting in Charlotte. At the time, she was 6 1/2
months pregnant with a child later determined to be Carruth's. The baby
is delivered by emergency c-section and survives. Cherica lives about a
month, then dies. A total of four people are arrested, including Carruth.
One of the four, Van Brett
Watkins, admits to being the triggerman, but says Carruth didn't put him
up to it, that he was enraged when Adams, sitting in her own car, flipped
him off. That's possibly damaging to the prosecution, which contends Carruth
"masterminded the hit" because he wanted to relieve himself of child support
obligations. Watkins, in a plea agreement, will not face the death penalty.
Carruth, who maintains his complete innocence, will.
(A side note: Carruth also
jumped bail shortly after his arrest and fled to Tennessee. He was recaptured
and bond was revoked.)
Good Lord! Could a Hollywood
writer have come up with a script this compelling? You've got murder for
the most nefarious of motives; you've got new innocent life arising out
of the dastardly deed; you've got a nationally known sports figure and
a desperate flight to avoid prosecution; you've got "sleazy friends" with
criminal backgrounds; you've got the makings of a conspiracy and/or a drug
deal gone bad.
Comparisons with the OJ trial
are inevitable. The Court TV producers have surely lost bladder control
by now.
Each case begs the question:
is justice helped or hurt by beaming the proceedings into America's living
rooms? Or does it make any difference at all. There are rational arguments
supporting each position, but I'll take this position: criminal trials
should be televised because the defendant is being tried in my name. It's
"the state vs. Rae Carruth, et al," and the state represents me. Just as
I want to know how government is spending my tax money, I want to know
what they're doing to someone who may end up paying the ultimate price
(and who, a year or so ago, was paying taxes himself.)
Put this way, a televised
trial is another kind of "sunshine law," which governments at many levels
have adopted requiring the people's business to be conducted in the open.
In other words, legislatures, councils and commissions can't just take
your money and go into hiding to spend it.
"But trials are already public,"
you say. Yes, they are. "And anyone who wants to attend a trial is able
to." No, not realistically. They're allowed to, but even the biggest
courtroom allows only one or two hundred spectators, and in high-profile
trials, most of them are reporters.
Not only that, most people
have jobs and would be seriously inconvenienced by giving up that many
working hours. (Why do you think so many people fear getting called for
jury duty?)
Will lawyers pander to the
TV audience if they know it's there? Some will. Will it make a difference?
I really don't think so, because it's not up to us to decide guilt or innocence,
life or death. That's the job of a jury that will likely not be on camera
at all. But it IS our best chance to see jurisprudence in action, live
or on tape delay, unfiltered by condensation, hasty synopses, or "talking
head" analysis. Corporations sponsor the news coverage; our tax dollars
sponsor the actual trial.
And if it goes badly for
Rae Carruth, tax dollars will also sponsor his execution (which we will
not be allowed to see.) Some will view it all as macabre "entertainment,"
but it's hardly frivolous. Indeed, no aspect of human experience is any
more serious than this.
|
