Accepting the unacceptable makes the unacceptable acceptable | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

Equal justice under law is essential for there to be justice at all

    "Accepting the unacceptable makes the unacceptable acceptable." Such were the words of an admired law professor we once had. He went on to explain that, in law, it is essential for justice to prevail, and therefore extreme care must be taken in making an exception to any law. To be sure it is sometimes necessary for justice for a law not to be applied to a given factual circumstance, but even then our teacher held, the exceptions must be applied equally.

    Visitors to the U. S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D. C. no doubt remember the words on the front of that building: "Equal Justice Under Law." There are few more fundamentally important concepts in American law. The idea that no man is above the law is a cornerstone of our Republic. Just ask Richard Nixon. And the law will be applied regardless of to whom it is being applied.

    But as a reporter who often ends up sitting in our local courtrooms, we can attest to the fact that "equal justice under law" is NOT what happens on Second Street in Washington, N. C. each day. For one thing, those with money and status are seldom seen in the mass at calendar call, even though their names are on the list. A poor black dude who steals $50 dollars is likely to get a heavier penalty than a white "lady" who stole over a hundred thousand dollars from a local charity and over months or years. Those with well-connected lawyers get far less sentences than do those who opt for a pro se defense by just explaining their case to an impartial judge.

    One of those well-connected lawyers was correct when he recently told a well-connected teenager with the right address that (I can get you a 90-96 but it will cost you $5K). A 90-96 is legalese for "probation and then wiped clean from your record." And sure enough, it was so.

    But it also works the opposite. If you are not of the "correct" political caste you can expect more severe punishment, civil or criminal, than if you are correctly aligned. Just ask some local Republican officials how they have fared in local courts or even in Raleigh. A leading Republican politician is convicted in local court for distributing campaign literature at a local ball game, an act that is clearly permitted by the First Amendment but which would cost $15K or more to adjudicate the constitutional issue, which the local judge ignored. And that same judge, in a civil case, said "I know all about what the contract (strictly construed within its four corners) says but that's not how we decide things here." Again, "justice" would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to secure by appealing the decision to a higher court.

    No. Truth is, we have a system that is too often of men, not of laws.

    Here's another case in point:

    District Court Judge Denise Hartsfield, from Forsyth County, has admitted that she "fixed" traffic tickets for her friends, acquaintances, students and others who were well-connected. Not one or two cases, but 82. Note: There is no dispute about the factual basis of her case. The only contention is what her punishment will be.

    Her attorney argues that she should get no more than a two month unpaid vacation. This, he argues, because another judge who heard cases by an attorney who was a business partner with that judge who got a 60-day suspension. In effect, Judge Hartsfield's attorney argues that "you accepted the unacceptable before, so you have to accept my client's unacceptable behavior as being no more serious..."

    You can read the detail of Hartsfield's case by clicking here.

    The other defense Hartsfield's attorney proffers is that "she didn't believe what she was doing was wrong." The very fact that a judge could even seriously contend that she thought it fine and dandy to settle cases in a back room by just signing papers simply shows how low our judicial standards have sunk. These are not arcane esoteric points of law. These are fundamental principles that are hundreds of years old. Public trials it is called. We do not render justice in the Star Chambers in this nation. Every lawyer knows this...or should know it.

    If Judge Hartsfield did not know what she was doing was wrong she is absolutely incompetent to be an attorney, much less a judge. But it is quite likely that the practice is so common that she did in fact believe "that's the way things are done."

    But that is not the system. Every person who goes to court, civil or criminal, is due a fair trial. And the people are due a fair trial just as much as the defendant. Even if a case is not prosecuted they should still be treated as any other similarly charged person would be treated. Equal justice under law. That is at the heart of our system of jurisprudence. This judge violated that principle and in doing so she deserves to be removed from office, disbarred and set to prison. She says she was just trying to help people. Hogwash. Had she been trying to do that she would have handled the cases in public court. She should go to jail. So does any other judge who does the same thing. Equal justice under law.

    And finally, on a related note, the chances are this would never have happened had our state an adequate information management system in our courts. We would suggest that anyone with a computer and internet connection should be able to track a case from arrest to final disposition. And those data elements should be part of a database accessible to anyone that would allow patterns and trends to be discerned in any court, for any judge, any prosecutor, any attorney or for different types of crimes or even the characteristics of the players involved. Moreover, there should be cameras in every courtroom that stream what is going on onto the internet for anyone to watch...and for the courtroom players to know they are subject to monitoring.

    Consider this: Suppose the truth is that in a judicial district with five judges we knew that one of those judges had a much higher conviction rate than all the others? But suppose also that you knew that one dismissed ten times as many cases of defendants of one race than another race? Suppose you knew that a state trooper gave one tenth as many tickets to young ladies between the ages of 16 and 22 that he stopped as he did to men between the same ages? You get the picture.

    We do not have Equal Justice Under Law in this county or state. And that is unacceptable.

    Accepting the unacceptable is never acceptable.