Justice system attack contested by professor

I read junior Jeffrey Cretz's "Student takes a look at criminal justice" in the Nov. 19 issue of The Breeze and was thoroughly dismayed that one of our students would write such a distorted viewpoint and whose only appeal was to naked emotion and sensationalism.

Cretz opens by stating, "I think the criminal justice system in our country is not only insufficient, but also morally abhorrent. I only need one case to prove this." Incredulous as it seems, Cretz points to one case to condemn our entire criminal justice system. I would like to ask if he think the thousands of innocent people who are exonerated by our criminal justice system each year believe that it is "insufficient" or "morally abhorrent?" Does he believe a system that affords thousands of guilty and innocent individuals the widest array of personal protections known throughout the civilized world is "morally abhorrent" or "insufficient?" Does he believe the millions of citizens this system protects, from those who would otherwise cause them harm, find it to be "insufficient" or "morally abhorrent?"

As for Lionel Tate and whether a 12-year-old should be tried as an adult, that determination is not made independently by a prosecutor, but within the confines of our judicial system, an adversarial system wherein both sides' views are vigorously represented. I might add that because of the high-profile nature of this case, Tate has some of the best representation this country can offer — Johnnie Cochran and Rev. Al Sharpton are trying to have his sentence reduced.

Should a 12-year-old be found guilty of murder as an adult? Not having sat in the court room as did the 12 jurors, I would find it extremely difficult to render an opinion about whether Tate understood the nature and quality of his acts, understood right from wrong or for me to decide what his intentions were. Obviously from their verdict, the jurors did not believe the death resulted from any accident while "playing." Nor did they, after hearing all the evidence, feel compelled to let Tate off, based on his not being an adult. I have to trust in their first-hand knowledge of the evidence and demeanor of the witnesses. I do know from reading about the trial that several key facts were left out of the column, some of which were omitted to show Tate was only "playing," while others were left out to prove the inadequacy of the criminal justice system. I offer these other details without comment as to their implication:

• Tate has an IQ of 90, which is on the low side of average according to click10.com.
• A March 10 article in the Washington Post said Tate weighed 166 pounds and his victim 48 pounds at the time of the murder.
• Click10.com said the victim had 33 separate injuries that, according to expert testimony, were in the same nature as injuries sustained in high speed unrestrained vehicle collisions or falls from three-story buildings.
• According to a New York Times article, Tate told investigators three different stories as to how the injuries occurred, none of which were consistent with the number, nature and extent of the injuries.
• In the Times article, it was stated that the trial judge, acting within the scope of his authority, imposed a harsh sentence based upon his first-hand knowledge of the evidence presented.
• Tate is not in an adult prison, but was transferred to a maximum-security juvenile prison according to cbs.com.
• The Times article said the prosecution offered Tate a negotiated plea of second-degree murder with three years in juvenile detention and 10 years probation. Tate's defense team refused the prosecution's offer.
• From all accounts, the prosecution was friendly to Tate in not attempting to seek the maximum sanctions, even appealing to then Texas Gov. George W. Bush for clemency according the CBS Web site.
• The Web site also said Bush afforded Tate's clemency request accelerated consideration, but declined, in part because of his poor behavior while incarcerated.
• As with all criminal cases under our system, there is an appeal as a matter of right and the Times states Tate's case is on appeal to a higher court.

Understandably, people may differ as to whether 12-year-olds should be tried as adults. Tate perhaps has suffered an injustice in that his sentence is overly harsh. Perhaps not. I learned long ago as an attorney that unless you were in the courtroom, heard the testimony, viewed the witnesses and observed judge and jury, it is too difficult to second-guess the factual content, the matters of evidence within a trial. Appeals courts will examine if the law was misapplied, but generally not the facts. If Tate was wronged he has ways to remedy the outcome. Does the ability to correct injustices and adjust discrepancies sound like an insufficient or morally abhorrent system? I ask Cretz to examine the entire array of evidence before making such a sweeping condemnation, especially when condemning what almost universally is considered to be one of the premiere judicial systems in the world. I ask you to name a place other then the United States where you would prefer to have your guilt or innocence tested.

Ronald J. Cereola is an assistant professor in the College of Business.