Polemics
Polemics about the “judiciary under siege” every time someone challenges the workings of the criminal justice system again proves the hypocritical mentality of the supposed protectors of free speech that calls itself the legal profession. Instead of dealing with the substance of the free speech as the legal system constantly lectures to others, any serious criticism of it is treated as a “siege.” As occurs on a daily basis in criminal courts across the country, a bunch of police officers “lied under oath” - i.e., committed perjury — and all that happens is that evidence is tossed and a possible criminal set free on the Plebeians of society? At least something occurred, usually I would expect a judge to rationalize around or completely ignore the lies in order to avoid suppression of evidence. Life tenure does not breed courage.
A judiciary with life tenure accountable to no one, and these are the best options? No financial penalty nor any type of penalty to the lying police? If the judge concluded that a criminal defense attorney “lied under oath,” no ramifications to the attorney? Maybe we can sue for civil rights violations? Suing a bunch of “hero” police officers for aggressively trying to put a criminal in jail? That is a case that civil rights lawyers will be falling over each other to get. Not! It is much easier making fees filing boilerplate suppression motions in every criminal case. Do not forget about “good faith immunity”; as long as the police officers in good faith believed they were acting legally, then they are as a matter of law acting legally. Try that defense next time you are in criminal court or any court with a non-police officer defendant. Maybe we can hold the police supervisor and the municipality liable for not properly training their officers — that is for not properly training them how to gather evidence, they do a very good job of training them how to lie under oath given the many times they get away with it. Oh, I forgot, unlike every other principal in the world who is vicariously liable for the acts of its agents, government supervisors and principals cannot be held vicariously liable for their agent’s acts. It cannot be that the life-tenured judges have any type of sympathy for their fellow government servants? Nah, can’t be.
So I guess we are left with only the above two options, if there were others I am sure that our life-tenured, sophisticated judiciary constantly dealing with the fine nuances of jurisprudence would have come up with others. After all, the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association are not taking turns handing Chief Justice Marshall awards every other month simply because they are a bunch of sycophants. Also, one must not think that the exclusionary rule is dogma simply because its adverse effects are felt only by the hoi polloi. If we had 200 unsolved murders in the last couple of years in fine, upper class towns such as Weston and Longmeadow instead of Holyoke and Dorchester/Roxbury, you should not expect that we would have armies of armed police officers knocking down doors until the crimes are stopped and solved. No, the government servants that are willing to defend the Constitution with the blood of others and to appoint judges for life would just as ardently expose the families and fortunes of the powers-that-be to the dangers of an exclusionary rule as they are to those of Holyoke.
Maybe instead of treating law as dogma, the legal profession should for once honestly follow its own advice and deal with free speech criticism in substance instead of as a “siege.”