The quality of justice
Justice in the north country sometimes seems like an abstract concept. Cases last week can't help but have people shaking their heads, wondering what's going on here.
In Jefferson County, District Attorney Cindy Intschert showed the inaccuracies in the old adage that a DA can indict a ham sandwich. Her office took the case of a man accused of shooting his half-brother to death on Aug. 6 in the town of Rutland and worked it into a no-bill, which means the jury looked at the DA's case and said it wasn't strong enough to issue an indictment.
You will recall, perhaps, that when this incident occurred, the suspect fled the scene and was the subject of an intense police manhunt. He was arrested and immediately charged with a weapons possession charge, which gave police and the DA time to investigate. A ballistics test apparently critical to the case came back in February, and the case was sent to the grand jury. And there it ended.
The DA won't comment on the case because it has been presented to the grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. This is an incredibly convenient situation for Ms Intschert, who can now with a straight face avoid answering any of the questions that immediately occur. The first, of course, is, “How did this happen?” The second is “How can a man be shot to death in front of witnesses and no one be called to account for it?”
Ms. Intschert's response to this situation has been far below insufficient. While she refuses to talk about the case, she has definitively said the case is closed. No one will atone for the death of Shawn M. Jones. As has become the hallmark of her tenure as DA, Ms. Intschert has chosen to hide behind the door of her office to cloud the rationale of her actions from the public. While it is true that the proceedings of the grand jury are sealed, it is also true that the DA has discretion in talking about the general facts of a case, facts that might lead the public to understand whether or not this is a miscarriage of justice.
In St. Lawrence County last week, a jury acquitted a young man of rape, even though both the victim and the defendant agreed on the stand, under oath, that the woman said both “no” and “stop” to the act. This would seem to be more or less black-letter law – consensual sex requires consent, and it was not given in this incident.
It's impossible to get inside the head of a trial jury. But here is the reality in St. Lawrence County: juries have no apparent ability to apply the law to rape cases. While I understand that rape prosecutions are difficult because, absent a witness, it comes down to forensics and conflicting victim-defendant testimony. Yet, in the nearly 15 years I've worked in the north country, I have been amazed at how few juries will convict on rape cases, especially in St. Lawrence County.
How is it that a jury doesn't understand that “no” and “stop” mean consent is not present? It appears that victim vilification, and the wink-and-nod toward “boys will be boys” in St. Lawrence County, is so firmly entrenched that empaneling a truly impartial and thoughtful jury is next to impossible.
These are only the two most recent cases that call into question the way justice is apportioned in the north country – it doesn't even consider the high rate of plea bargains and the number of rulings that are overturned upon appeal.
But everyone should be a bit concerned. In Jefferson County, the DA should be facing a lot more questions than she apparently is. In St. Lawrence County, maybe everyone should be taking a long look in the mirror and considering their attitudes about sex crimes. Justice unequally applied is not justice at all.
