Friday, October 12, 2007

On Law and Order

So, I have a confession to make. I love the TV show "Law and Order." The original series, not the spin-offs like whatever that one's called where the detective solves all his cases by making the suspect quake with fear and blurt out confessions as a result of the detective's uncanny ability to read minds. And the older seasons. The first four or five. Not the ones where Sam Waterston's assistant is a different bimbo every season. Once Jill Hennessy and Chris Noth left, it was not nearly as good. So, I was trying to figure out why in the world a public defender, like myself, likes this show.

Even though the former Chief Public Defender informed my boss that she did not believe me to be "sufficiently defense oriented" to be a public defender at one point (whatever that means), I certainly am not prosecution oriented. I have too much of a tendency to believe the best in people, I think. You know, "He didn't mean to beat his girlfriend to a bloody pulp. He was drunk and she was cheating on him." Or, "He had to forge $15,000 in checks he stole from his grandmother because he's got 5 kids to support and couldn't make rent with his minimum-wage job." I believe them when they say they'll never do it again, or they'll get help for their addiction problem and walk the straight and narrow. At least I believe they sincerely intend to at the time, even if it doesn't pan out in the end. (By the way, this is also probably why I would be a lousy judge, even if I wanted the power or the responsibility.)

So why do I love this show that is all about the other side? I think I've figured it out. This is the only lawyer show I've seen that treats the justice system with respect. And, it treats public defenders with respect. It treats the law and the Constitution with respect. The detectives are good cops, who try to do their jobs properly, and within the bounds of the law. It's true they really want to catch the guy they think is guilty and "nail" them. But they don't try to nail someone they think may be innocent just to make an arrest. They actually do care about getting the right guy. The ADAs actually do care about justice, as well as the rights of the individuals they prosecute. They will dismiss cases if they become convinced that they can not prove them or if they are no longer sure the guy's actually guilty. Also, while there aren't frequently public defenders on the show (the defense attorney's usually some very expensive private attorney with political ambitions or some other agenda) when they do, they aren't depicted as incompetents. They are shown as competent, or even very good attorneys. There's at least one episode where the pd wins the trial.

My answer to myself is this: I like the show because it is what the justice system is supposed to be. An adversarial system on a level playing field whereby the truth comes out. And this results (usually) in the innocent guy being cleared and the guilty guy being punished. (Although for you new lawyers out there, don't use it to learn rules of evidence or trial techniques!)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think Law and Order treats the justice system with any semblance of respect. I think it is extremely prosecution minded. "There are two parts of the criminal justice system: the cops and the prosecutors".

That's not fair and balanced.

Ruth said...

Feel free to disagree! (I figured many of you would.) Certainly, the show is from the prosecution perspective. It does not intend to show both sides of the cases. But it does not treat the defense side with contempt. As in: wouldn't it be great if we could just convict the people we want to without opposition. It treats the defense as necessary to a balanced justice system, even though the point of view is from the prosecution side. And you have the quote wrong. It's: "The People are represented by two separate groups..." I don't know about you, but I do not represent The People. I represent individual people, not the People as a whole. My clients are not Society or The State (or Commonwealth or whatever) as prosecutors' are.

Anonymous said...

The show has definately raised the bar for prosecutors. At a recent seminar, the expectation of jurors that the State will always have some sort of chemical evidence (an expectation largely created by L&O and similar shows) has led to the popularity of blood search warrants on DWIs. Obtaining a conviction without "cool stuff" is next to impossible.

I appreciate the fact that the show periodically brings up the tensions between proscutors who are sworn to uphold justice and the political system which keeps them - and jurists - employed. After 20+ years of announcing that "the People are ready", I still have difficulties explaining (in a manner that is understood) that justice is my client; the victim is not. At least your client is flesh and blood...

Petition For Review said...

I was a fan of Law and Order Trial by Jury (for the entire season it was on the air) It began with: "In the criminal justice system all defendants are innoncent until proven guilty either by confession, plea bargain or trial by jury, this is one of those trials."

Sure in almost every episode the guy is found guilty, but at they do at least acknowledge the trial serves a purpose.

There is an excellent episode of Law and Order SVU where it isn't clear whether it was a rape or whether the girl was lying. The episode ends when the jury foresperson says "We find the defendant" FADE TO BLACK.
Episdoe E5209 entitled "Doubt"

Anonymous said...

I love "The Wire" because even though shows the other side, (I'm a PD in LA) it's real on how cops are some crooked mofo's and how they only catch small fish, never the major drug players.

Anonymous said...

Pretty interesting item here from today's New York Times. see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us/19death.html?hp

Best, R.