新编大学英语第四册unit11 Text C: The Criminals Go Unpunished
UNIT 11 AFTER-CLASS READING 2; New College English (IV)
The Criminals Go Unpunished
Why do we tolerate abuses of justice that let the innocent suffer and wrongdoers go unpunished?
1 Most nations have well-developed judicial systems which guarantee that most criminals are punished for their crimes. But sometimes criminals are not convicted of their crimes because of flaws and errors in judicial decision-making. Sometimes the judicial system treats the wronged person more severely than the criminal. The following examples illustrate different types of crimes in different parts of the United States.
Overcrowded Streets
2 Jeffrey Jones, a 34-year-old homeless man, arrived in Philadelphia from New York and promptly was arrested for stealing a city trash truck. He signed his own $5000 bail and was released without paying a cent, common practice in Philadelphia for what is considered a relatively minor crime. The charges were eventually dropped. Hours after his release, Jones was arrested for holding up a bank. He was released the next day, again after signing his own bail, this time set at $25,000. Two days later, he was charged with robbing two more banks. This time he went to jail.
3 His previous quick releases came because the city's prisons were full and they would accept no more prisoners. A 1991 federal-court consent decree designed to fight prison crowding keeps many criminal suspects from going to jail. Under its terms, agreed to by lawyers for the prisoners and the city administration, a suspected bank robber needs to be accused of carrying a firearm, a knife or an explosive in order for authorities to keep him in jail to await trial.
4 Jones was unarmed. According to arrest reports, he simply handed tellers notes demanding money. In order to put Jones in jail, the prosecutor was forced to obtain an exception to the consent decree, because, under the court's rules, no matter how many times Jones robbed a bank unarmed, he would not have been admitted to jail.
Judicial Burglary
5 When grocery-store owner Guy Mefford suspected that his business was going to be burglarized, he decided to spend the night there. The store already had been robbed over 50 times.
6 Sure enough, sometime after dark a burglar broke into the store. Mefford, armed with a gun he kept in the store, ordered the intruder to halt, but the man kept coming. The store owner fired, hitting the burglar and wounding him slightly. 7 The burglar, found guilty of breaking into the store, was put on four years' probation, sentenced to 180 days in jail and ordered to do 200 hours of community service.
8 Mefford got an effectively stiffer sentence for aggravated assault. The judge put Mefford on probation for four years and ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine. Adding insult to injury, he was forced to sell his store.
Informed Consent
9 What happens when police officers do exactly what they are supposed to do and apprehend someone transporting 13 pounds of cocaine?
10 Judges let the criminal go.
11 On November 8, 1989, two Arizona Department of Public Safety officers followed Ronald Swanson's rental car because he appeared to be speeding.
12 When he changed lanes without signaling, they pulled him over and issued a warning.
13 The officers had been instructed to watch for communications equipment that would indicate potential drug transporters. Swanson was supposedly going to New York for a family reunion, yet he had in the car a cellular phone, a CB radio, a radar detector and several pagers.
14 The officers asked him for permission to look in the car. "You can look", Swanson said. Screws on the left-rear door panel had been damaged. When they removed the panel, the officers discovered 13 pounds of cocaine.
15 Swanson was sentenced to prison and fined $150,000. He appealed.
16 Arizona Court of Appeals judges overturned the conviction, stating that removing the door panel exceeded "the scope of the defendant's consent".
17 What more could the officers have done? The court didn't know: "We do not propose to announce just what steps the officers might have taken to investigate further. We merely hold that... probable cause was lacking and the officers conducted an unreasonable search... in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Very Impressive Fellow
18 It's no wonder that the law-abiding taxpayer has had it with "the system". The system is more concerned with "low self-esteem" and "feelings" than with whether you and I will be safe on the streets.
19 Frank O'Connor, from Massachusetts, kidnapped and assaulted a 12-year-old boy. Some stupid judge gave him a suspended sentence and probation. Later, he kidnapped two young boys, brutally assaulted them and demanded ransom from their parents.
20 O'Connor was sent to prison, and shortly thereafter was placed in a treatment center for very dangerous persons. A year later, he petitioned the court for release.
21 A psychiatrist, a psychologist and members of the center's review board testified that O'Connor was still very dangerous but one of O'Connor's therapists said he had worked to "get in touch with his feelings" and "gain more of his sense of self-esteem". Another doctor stated that "he probably is not a dangerous person at this time"
22 The Chief Justice of the Superior Court said, "I'm impressed with this fellow," and declared Frank O'Connor no longer dangerous. O'Connor was back on the streets two years later.
23 Last February, O'Connor was charged with kidnapping and assaulting a 16-year-old boy, and with subsequently attempting to kill him.
