I have two posts (here and here) on the conviction of Raquel Nelson whose child was killed by a drunk driver in Marietta, Georgia. Because Nelson was considered a jaywalker, she was tried and found guilty of homicide.
I also argue for more complex super villains in film, and more in-depth examinations of crime and its many causes.
Regarding the superhero villains, I think it matters a great deal on what superhero you’re talking about. For most of them, I think, I disagree. Batman works best with colorful crazies rather than every day street thugs. Superman needs more powerful enemies.
On the other hand, if you take someone like The Question, he would be perfect for those kinds of stories (his comic book series involved a lot of fighting civic corruption). Moreso for someone like Gangbuster, a street-level vigilante in Metropolis and a gang-member made good.
Supervillians. Okay. We’ll deal with that later. Maybe Thursday night.
And there you go.
No one could actually have his head far enough up his fishhole to think that prosecuting the bereaved mother accomplishes anything or is in itself a good idea. And it’s not the sort of case that makes a name for anyone — if the prosecutor ever runs for office, he’ll have to hope no one brings it up. There must be some sort of horribly perverse incentive to prosecute here: what is it?
The jurors convicted. That’s the part that destroys me.
Yeah, that too. I’m always loath to criticize jurors without knowing what evidence they heard, but it’s awfully hard to picture anything damning or nothing exculpatory.
I made it to the juror’s box once and I received a lecture about Jury Nullification from the judge. He explained, in no uncertain terms, that jurors were arbiters of fact and *NOT* arbiters of law. I’ve no doubt that the judge in this case either did or would have been more than happy to give a similar speech.
The first trial I was ever a juror on was a product liability suit. We found that the product was defective, but the harm caused not all that great, so we awarded a small amount for damages. I learned afterward that this had been a test case of sorts for the plaintiff’s attorney; had it been lucrative, there would have been many more like it. So in a sense, we created a precedent without realizing it.
The only time I’ve been called was for a capital murder case for (no joke) a serial killer. I’m opposed to the death penalty. The 25-page questionnaire asked my views on the matter and whether I would be able to apply the death penalty. I rationalized it a couple of ways, one of which being that if I disqualified myself they would replace me with someone that supported the death penalty and was more likely to convict to begin with.
It didn’t matter. There was no way I was getting on that jury. The prosecutors tried and tried to get me tossed, then used one of their strikes on me at the earliest opportunity. He was sentence to die after three hours of deliberation, which was three hours more than I would guessed.
Another juror who was dismissed commented that if he didn’t want to die, he should ditch the Charles Manson look. He got dismissed for telling the judge that he thought the defendant looked like Charles Manson. Which, he did. He’s still on death row, apparently (the trial was eight years ago).
He was apparently almost killed during an automobile accident in transport. One of the guards was.
Anyway, that’s my only jury duty story.
Still, for not being on the actual jury, it’s a hell of a jury duty story. I’ve never been on a jury, never even been called. My wife was on one for a rape case when she was like eight months pregnant with our first child. That was interesting. The guy obviously didn’t do it, too, which was even more interesting, and the prosecution bungled the whole thing pretty badly.
My favorite (true, first-hand) jury duty story:
Judge (during voir dire): What is your profession?
Middle-aged pony-tailed guy: Until recently, I was employed as a chemical engineer, but for the past few years, I have spent my time channeling a spirit who lived during the bronze age.
Judge (no change in demeanor) I must admonish you that, should you receive a communication regarding the trial, you are not to consider it as evidence.
MAPTG was thanked and excused by the prosecution not long afterward.
That’s awesome.
Wow. Unbelievably sweet.
Props to his or her Honor.
As they say, only in Marin.
Thanks. I forgot to mention one other aspect of it. I don’t know it at the time, but the prosecutor (the one badgering me to get me to disqualify myself) was actually somewhat famous (as prosecutors go). One of the major networks created a (fiction) TV show based on her. At some point after my case (and the TV show that never aired), she was hired/assigned to re-prosecute a death row case, but instead determined that the guy was innocent, and said so. The charges were dropped and the guy was released (some 15 years after the original conviction).
So, along with Senator Ted Stevens, one of the guys who played Lex Luthor on the old TV shows, it was my brush with greatness. Albeit one where I had to defend myself (“on the stand”) against accusations of being a left-wing hippie.
Anyhow, perhaps the moral of the story: it’s good to remember that there are good prosecutors out there.