![[]](benton.gif)
|
|
|
In law school, we encounter the "plaintiff v. defendant" scenario a great deal - the plaintiff is complaining and the defendant is defending. Often times, our extensive training leads us to forget that both the plaintiff and defendant are people. Yet, if we were to refer to them as "victims," it takes on a whole new meaning.
While in one class, we began to discuss the merits and drawbacks of using technology in the courtroom, particularly when it may put one party in a bad light. We considered a very large civil case involving several hundred million dollars. The plaintiffs c reated a video tape that compared the actions of the defendant as similar to those of the crew of the Titanic.
The defendant's counsel felt that the jury would be insulted, thinking that plaintiff's counsel had crossed the line by comparing the loss of money with the loss of life and allowed the tape to be shown to the jury. To the contrary, the jury recognized th at the defendant's incompetence resulted in the loss of millions of dollars, just as the incompetence of the Titanic captain and crew resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives. The jury awarded the plaintiff several hundred million dollars.
Some in the class feared that if lawyers are allowed to present facts in a manner that simply inflamed the passions of the juries instead of presenting the facts for consideration, the legal process could be severely compromised. They asked how could anyo ne reasonably identify the loss of money with a tragic disaster?
Well, how far could this go - would prosecutors in murder cases begin to use Hitler or Charles Manson metaphors? Would it be unfair for plaintiffs in a police brutality suit to constantly conjure up images from the Rodney King beating? Is it over-the-top to suggest that allowing individuals to isolate themselves would lead to a stand-off with authorities, armed conflict, and the death of children, similar to the events near Waco, Texas? Is it fair to compare a drunk driving accident to the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez?
When we put a face on the plaintiff or defendant, such courtroom tactics become somewhat legitimized. If it was your family member that was murdered, would not the accused killer possess the same callous disregard for life as did Hitler or Charles Manson? If you were the victim of police brutality, don't the images of Rodney King adequately sum up your feelings of humiliation and helplessness at the hands of an unyielding authority? If you were involved in a drunk driving accident, are not the consequence s as far reaching as spilling oil into pure, pristine waters? Things will never be the same again.
There are as many victims as there are plaintiffs and defendants. When a company looses millions of dollars, services are reduced, jobs are lost, employment lines get longer, and taxes increase. When someone is murdered, memories must replace the enjoymen t of sharing home-cooked meals, birthday parties, and wedding days. The victims of discrimination or sexual harassment are reminded of their powerlessness; their integrity further injured when their livelihood is tampered with or taken away.
So I ask you, if your livelihood is at stake, is it unfair to depict the perpetrator as an evil, narrow-minded, misogynistic recluse, or simply an indifferent, uninformed office automaton whose workload has gotten the best of him? Is the robber, who kille d your sister, a night cashier at Circle-K, worse than an merciless medieval executioner, or just a desperate slob, deserving of our understanding? Are the corporate officers who just lost you hundreds of millions of dollars as incompetent as the captain and crew of the Titanic, or only your typical, greedy corporate fatcats, bound for a paid vacation at the federal, minimum security prisons?
I am not advocating winning at all costs. But, what I am saying is that when you put the face of a victim on the "plaintiff v. defendant" scenario, the dynamics change. When people are victimized, courtroom theatrics become the minimum requirements to sen d a message that this should never happen to anyone. When someone is wrongly accused and his or her life and liberty is at stake, the system needs a wake-up call; the least that can be done is whatever it takes. The law teaches us to think too much, but n ot enough about those who the law is designed to help.
David H. Benton is a third-year law student, member of the ASUA president's cabinet, and Arizona Student Association board member. His column, 'Another Perspective,' appears Tuesdays.
 |
 |