Re: Bell vs. Woodward--justice?

["S. M. Halloran" <mitch@duzen.com.tr>]

On 13 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have 
commented thusly:

> 
> > This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for 
> > child care activities. 
> 
> Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.
>

I'd say it was entirely the question (or perhaps you can tell me the 
specific question you are addressing).  She was in court because there 
are certain people in this world whether it is appropriate to be 
physical in any manner--even when attempting to be (medically) 
helpful--with an infant, small child, perhaps even a minor.

> > I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year 
> > olds and less should be licensed.  The requirements for the license 
> > would be minimal.  It just merely shows that you understand that babies 
> > less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near 
> > all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be 
> > found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the 
> > reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take 
> > care of themselves.  
> 
> Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest 
> parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility
> distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to 
> employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame 
> in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were 
> both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell.
> I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking 
> the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary 
> organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on 
> fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, 
> would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen 
> applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory 
> licensing is wrong.

Don't get me wrong...I am no socialist who is saying that govt is there 
to do everything for us.  You didn't read in any of my messages that I 
took away the ultimate responsibility from the parents, who are the 
last word in securing the best interests of their children.  I 
currently live in a society which might be an anarchist's dream in 
certain respects:  there is virtually no licensing whatsoever of the 
things you take for granted:  child care, operating a motor vehicle.  
(Actually there is a licensing system for drivers, but a law is only a 
law if it is enforced, and since enforcement is virtually nil or at the 
least haphazard).  I will support a mandatory licensing scheme for 
child care as long as the govt involves itself with licensing other 
less important matters that themselves supposedly require licensing:  
such as the practice of medicine or the practice of law or the practice 
of plumbing.  Licensing--in my eyes, is but a simple barrier to leap 
yet tough enough to show that you are serious about getting into this 
business.  I care less that barbers & surgeons & physicians & various 
other bloodletters, as well as the guy who knows that shit runs 
downhill and Friday is payday (the common electrician's joke about 
plumbers) are licensed than that someone (or some nongovt 
organization) has taken the first step for me and is willing to endorse 
the smiling face at my door who is to be entrusted with my spawn.  
Throw out ALL licensing schemes and then I'll consider de-regulation of 
barriers to child killers and molesters.

> 
> > The licensing procedure might also be a way of 
> > checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and 
> > small children.
> 
> No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with 
> children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I 
> would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited 
> to caring for children.
> I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?

I was overreaching when I said that the licensing procedure would 
involve a psychoanalysis or something like that.  The licensing 
procedure would only involve a simple test wherein you are asked 
questions about baby care and how you might respond to certain 
situations.  It might not even flunk the test-taker who said "If I see 
an incessantly screaming baby, I am most like to throw it through the 
wall."  The licensing procedure would be a way of informing or 
reminding someone about to undertake this task just what their 
liabilities are if something goes wrong and they were ignorant of the 
things they should have done.  In this case, the "check" on temperment 
is an inquiry into "how much do you really understand about what you 
are going to do?"

The licensing of medicine and law and plumbing is 
really nothing but an acknowledgement that you know how to conform to 
standard practice and are aware of the heresies of tradition and 
convention.  You might undertake to do something radical and 
unacceptable to your colleagues or the standards set by your 
professional society, but you are warned that you assume the blame if 
something goes wrong.

> 
> > What about the judge?  His first purpose is to make sure the law is 
> > followed, especially with respect to trial procedure.  But with the law 
> > is JUSTICE!  It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of 
> > these sacred occasions is justice. 
> 
> And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or 
> reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had 
> ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a 
> mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically 
> letting a convicted felon go free.
> 

Are you saying wisdom and justice can only be had when we put the 
decision to a larger number of people, presuming an appellate court is 
not itself the purview of a SINGLE appellate court justice?  Some 
anarchist on this list must have mentioned the principle of AMERICAN 
justice:  it is better to let nine guilty men go free than let one 
innocent man go to prison.  For better or worse, that is the American 
way.  You will note that an American judge (Roy Bean excepted) can 
overturn a guilty verdict, but not an acquittal.  It is rarely done 
anyway, since CNN's cameras are not in every courtroom and few foreign 
nationals get led in chains to American docks.

Do I think justice was done?  How the hell should I know!?  I was not 
in the courtroom, although I do admit to having made a judgement 
(guilty of involuntary manslaughter;  I correct an earlier statement 
where I said 'voluntary manslaughter').  The burden of this entire 
matter is now on the judge's shoulders, and if there is a God, may this 
God show as much mercy to the judge as he showed to Woodward.  (The 
parents can go to hell.)

> > I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just 
> > to get a fix on cultural differences.
> 
> The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she 
> didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they 
> will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.

The answer to the poll question probably is meant to reflect:  "did she 
shake the child TO DEATH?" and the masses are probably replying in this 
light.

> Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the 
> case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he 
> freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards.
> I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that 
> the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional 
> British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how 
> to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" 
> designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high 
> sentence, of course in this case it had little effect. 

Despite what foreign nationals might believe, 99.9% of American judges 
(i.e., those not in the United States Supreme Court and in the federal 
court system) make it their duty to insulate themselves from public 
pressure on these matters.  Most of them truly don't give a damn what 
the American public thinks about them or that they may be reversed on 
appeal, assuming the judge truly believes in what he/she is doing.  I 
think the judge in the Woodward case saw through all the public 
relations campaigning and press offensive.  He knows how 
media-intensive the open American criminal and civil justice has 
become, especially if he has been on the bench 10 or more years, and he 
knows that the baby is dead and cannot be resurrected and he wants to 
see Woodward understand what happened and realize if she had any 
responsibility and also important, whether she is remoresful if she is 
to shoulder some of the blame.

I suspect he looked for all these things, and figured that Woodward has 
been sufficiently punished, truly guilty or not.  As for Americans 
not quite impressed with the "stiff upper lip":  I know quite a few 
Englishmen here who think that the reserved one is me.  I think "the 
stiff upper lip" is something the British tourism industry likes to 
promote, and that Prince Charles is told to maintain despite it going 
against his nature.

> I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras 
> aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), 
> but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the 
> atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim 
> statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.
> 

I wasn't privy to the media blitz in the states (I can't even get CNN 
International here!) during the trial, but I rather suspect this crap 
also sickens quite a few Americans.  Not every black person in America 
wanted to set OJ free just because he was 'a bruh thuh goin' agin' the 
system.'  And not every white guy wanted to hang the double murderer 
either.  I know in the end however, that a British jury would set their 
minds on the case of an American defendant, not voting innocent just 
'cause the parents want to preen before the national press (and make 
book deals), and not voting guilty just cause American culture, if it 
exists, turns their stomach.


Mitch Halloran
Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy
Duzen Laboratories Group
Ankara   TURKEY
mitch@duzen.com.tr