(00:00:00) resolved that the criminal justice system in America favors a criminal over the victim. I in a way almost consider the topic very one-sided because it's quite obvious that the criminal is favored in America over the victim. It's a pleasure to share a platform with a man whose legal reputation and performance is actually a tribute and living proof that the system can indeed favor the criminal over the victim if we go over each of his successes and his legal career and I don't say that lightly I have to tell you I checked out my good opponent and he has known nationally from coast to coast and he's known as an extremely formidable and fair adversary and I'd like you to keep the fair in mind run. But I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you my only regret is that the criminal justice system in America does favor the criminal over the victim and what's worse is it seems to have been purposely designed with that end in mind. The system is not working and it does not work consistently and when it does not work consistently a cheats law-abiding taxpayers like us and you and and taxpayers everywhere go to the criminal code of the United States or maybe even your own State here in Minnesota. And look and see just how rarely the name or the term victim is found in existing statutes. This is do because of the way the system was developed. The victim is no longer considered a true party in interest to criminal prosecution instead. The state has usurped that function and the crime victim now finds himself relegated to the secondary role of witness for the prosecution as a witness the victim the person directly aggrieved by the violent crime finds himself treated as a mere piece of evidence he or she receives a subpoena for a preliminary hearing but no one tells him what it will involve how long it will take or how he should prepare for it. The bottom line and all of this is that the day of the hearing the victim is shuffled into court to talk to a prosecutor. He met more than likely never have met before as the case goes to trial. It may be continued from month to month causing severe disruptions. Finally. If the victim does get a chance to take the stand to testify if his case has not been plea bargained away. He may find that his character is suddenly and an open subject of attack from the criminal defense establishment from the legal representation that we you and I pay for out of our tax dollars. I would like to compare if I could what I call a system of criminal Injustice. And while it is rather length by wish you'd bury with me because I call it the criminal justice system and I like to compare the criminal with the Law Abiding Citizen. The criminal of course has a choice the Law Abiding Citizen has no choice if he's arrested and the statistics show that only something like 20% of all criminals are caught and arrested if he commits the crime and if the arrest is made then he must be informed of his rights. He receives immediate medical attention if he's injured while committing the crime or in the course of the arrest an attorney is provided if he is not able to afford one paid for by you and me and by the Crime Victims tax dollars, and he may be released on bail or his own recognizance on the contrary the Law Abiding Citizen victim pays his own medical bills pays. His own ambulance is responsible for replacing his own property losses, and he's responsible for his own physical mental or economic problems resulting from the crime. He also has to assist the officer in the criminal justice system and Reporting the crime identifying suspects and Prosecuting cases and he is generally not informed of the progress and the stages of the investigation that is ongoing you go back to the criminal in the pre-trial proceedings. He's provided room and board courtesy of you and I he's provided books TV and Recreation medical facilities are available drug and alcohol counseling available in other counseling job and psychological if they're needed go to look at what the Law Abiding Citizen has he's responsible for his own transportation to the district attorney and the police in the courthouse. He has to miss work. He receives little information on the case in progress where the where the violent criminal knows every stage that is that he's up against In the trial stage, he's provided with a state appointed attorney. He can plea bargain he can change venue. He can delay trial. He can invoke the Fifth Amendment. He can move to suppress evidence. He can be acquitted by reason of insanity and he can appeal. Whereas a law-abiding citizen again has to travel on his own pay his own parking cost to the trial pay their own babysitting costs. They have to recount the criminal incident. They are subject to cross-examination the victims attorney represents the state the general public not the individual victim the victim has no right to appeal the verdict. There is no victim waiting room and he's treated like a piece of evidence. Look at the sentencing stage. Look at the criminal in that stage. A pre-sentence study is conducted to Aid the judge in sentencing and the alternatives to incarceration are extremely numerous and suggested in any number of ways by the defense counsel. You look at the law-abiding citizen. He's usually not present or notified at the time of sentencing and even though in some states you can file what's called a victim impact statement which the Washington Legal Foundation which I represent invented the concept of he in no way has that crime victim impact statement binding on the judge or the court or in any way able to use that crime victim impact statement to negate plea bargaining Arrangement or a sentencing Arrangement made with the major parties the prosecutor and defense attorney involved then you go to the sentence for the criminal the sentence in the criminal is provided room and board he has access St. Medical and psychological treatments he has opportunity to improve education opportunity to develop job skills. He can participate in Work Release numerous Rehabilitation eligible for early parole good time credit available. And in his Post Release, he can have personal loans in many cases and a large percentage of them continue their life of crime, whereas with the victim the law-abiding citizen he's off and unsatisfied with the results of the Criminal Justice System. He can fear retaliation throughout any stage of the proceedings and after the sentencing and the release and finally he is expected to support a system the treated him with less respect and rights than it did the offender and what this is all about here. Ladies and gentlemen is that the constitution has been interpreted over the years to favor the criminal and I submit that right now you're hearing a lot of rhetoric but it is very far from reality and substitute Improvement as to the due process. It's the law-abiding public and the violent crime victim. There's almost three stages in the system today. The three stages would be where the act the brutal criminal commits the act on the victim then when the system breaks down and for any number of reasons, the trial is not broad or the charges are not brought or this plea bargaining and their the system victimizes the victim again, and the final stage is where there is a future victim who was victimized because the system broke down or let someone on a Joe early and I asked Ron and I think we have to realize that in spite of any support he may have or feelings you may have for the violent crime victim. I think he has to admit that he is here to speak today for the criminal saying that the system does favor the victim over the criminal he is as criminal spokesman no matter what concessions he may make I want him to explain how it is that the guilty can still get off her Escape punishment with a good lawyer. Or through any number of constitutional safeguards at the Supreme Court has invented. I want him to tell me about who the system favored in the case of John Hinckley. After I spent some time with Jim Brady and we represent the secret service agent who was shot suing Hinckley and his psychiatrist for damages. I like him to tell me about who the system favored in the case of Jack Henry Abbott, and there's dozens of examples. These are the cases you read about in the newspaper, but there's dozens of hinckley's and there's dozens literally hundreds of rabbits out there. Who does the system favor when the civil liberties and constitutional rights exist for a violent criminal and not a crime victim? I have yet to see a violent crime victim appeal a sentence and go through several appeals. Look at mr. Brooks in Texas, for example who after a long line of appeals as a matter of fact, he was finally executed. He went through 25 different appeals and how much due process does anyone man want and during that period ladies and gentlemen his family the victim's family had to live through the countless repetitions of the brutal acts that were committed the media made a martyr out of mr. Brooks as they do all people on death row. You've got some 1,200 people approximately 1,200 people on death row that that are using countless appeals countless legal tactics and the devices of lawyers and every type of technicality you Think of to delay the process of Justice the system and I'm not aware of the situation here in Minnesota, but the system is set up so that the people elect their representatives the representatives in turn pass the death penalty statute the judge with all the due process afforded any criminal defendant turns around with a jury and fines and sentences the criminal the murderer to his proper penalty as outlined by law and then the judicial harassment begins and then in the name of civil liberties and the Constitution the process becomes subverted. You know many crimes are committed by repeaters the recent study by the University of Pennsylvania shows that a very small number of people adult males. I don't want to sound sexist but adult males commit most violent crime and it's extremely common sense and logical to submit that if in fact the system did arrest the people who committed the violent crime and they put them away and they did not let them out earlier then they would not be free to go out again and commit more violent crime. And in that process I will submit to you that even one one violent crime is caught he criminal has been caught he commits several other crimes that no one is aware of and that will you'll never see a case made on him for but you see there's no such thing as constitutional rights or civil rights for a crime victim. Where is the Crime Victims appellate court? Where is the right of appeal if the prosecutor makes a mistake? Where is the right of appeal if a judge makes a mistake or if or if the police investigators become a little too overzealous or for some reason they're not is up on the constitutional rights and the latest Supreme Court decision or they can't make a split-second decision on the street that involves literally tomes and volumes of civil rights opinions and decisions and intricate guidelines a new police officers out there. No because your Crime Victims yourselves, I think one of the greatest sins in America is that the one of the largest groups of Crime Victims in America are police officers and and if this resolved is to pertain to you the system does favor the criminal over you in many cases one of the first charges that is dropped in a plea bargaining situation is you is the assault on the arresting officer in many other cases. If you do find the guy guilty and he was arrested for a larger or more serious offense. It's just blended into the whole sentencing process and the terms are running concurrently not consecutively. There are people out there that know that they can with Reckless disregard beat on policemen everywhere. We've represented the Washington Legal Foundation is represented police officers who have been crime victim successfully and made recovery for them in various places, California and elsewhere, but the bottom line is that your the Tet your the law-abiding taxpayer to and the system fails you as well and there are a whole list of things that I could go through and I would expect Ron Dimension as well a life sentence a life sentence is a joke. Sure Minnesota has a very good system where 22 years I believe is the average amount of time served for murder here, but Most states don't have that type of record majority of states. Don't a life sentence should mean just that there's Be truth in sentencing parole hearings are closed in Most states. Why can't the crime victim participate? Why can't the the citizens participate and block the early parole of repeat violent offender a dangerous person who was going to go out Abbott style and kill someone again in bail, for example, look at the drug abusers and the rapists who have gone out again and committed more crime simply to want either feed their drug habit, or to pay the legal costs and fees and vowed to fight their case to get them off. I mean, these are realities these are things that we live with and I don't see judges standing up and saying, you know, this man will not have bail because he has a serious drug problem. I don't see that happening out there and I will also submit to you that any statistics you here today. And I mean this from the bottom of my soul if there is one person out there who was a crime victim Who should not be 1 then the system isn't working. And if there's one person out there who is a crime victim who the system let down then we have a serious problem in this country. So when you talk about violent crime going down by 1% good let's (00:14:52) throw a party tell (00:14:53) that to the millions of other Americans that are Violent Crime Victims tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who do not report crime when they are victimized either because it's too embarrassing or because they feel that the system couldn't do anything about it crime Touches at least three and ten households in this country many of you sitting there right now in the next year will be a crime victim in one way or another and I hope that the system does not let you down, you know, you even find people like Alan dershowitz who I would consider a pro criminal lawyer a defense and excellent defense lawyer saying in places like us news and World Report that violent criminals aren't getting the punishment they deserve and one someone like him. I will stand up and admit that and say that there should be more cases where the the punishment is Swift and it can be counted on I would submit to you that the system needs looking at. And you know, I have to laugh when you talk about cases where their so-called civil liberties infringement suits and there's police that are very brutal because I would submit to you that those are isolated cases and not only is police brutality and isolated case, but I would submit to you that it is probably as isolated as all of the cases where you have the technicalities that are used to let a lot of guilty violent criminals off the hook and that one isolated case where a police officer does go beyond the line is determined by the black robe justices in Washington who I am not totally enamored with as well that is just as isolated a set of circumstances and yet you have a major guideline that has to be followed across the board. One need only look at the legal defenders in New York City. Who by the way have gone on strike who let some of their criminal defendants down much to the surprise of the bar and the establishment to question where their motivations are. I'd like to read you some of the things that I found in a recent article in New York Magazine that talks about the New York Legal Aid Society and they're bragging about how they treat senior citizen victims when they get them on the stand one thing that they brag about is that they constantly postpone the hearings so that the person who has to come across town plan their schedule disrupt their lives to become a witness wait all day in the whole proceedings becomes a victim of the system then they turn around and they say are you questions? Like are you sure are you positive you sure you weren't wearing the other pair of glasses. Do you have a problem in and seeing that coax him along and they tease them and the bottom line is that they're mugged again in the courtroom as well as having been mugged on the street. And then they have the nerve and the article turn around and say we can usually do pretty well on a case in which the victim is the only witness that connects your client with the crime. Or when the victim is a senior citizen another statement they make is also if you get two cops in a case, you've got a great chance to get your client off because they're always contradicting each other and their preliminary reports and their later testimony. I ask you, you know, all these countless examples who does the system favor the criminal or the victim. I think it's rather obvious who the system favors you have to laugh about all of these cruel and unusual punishment lawsuits that are brought by and encouraged by people in the ACLU and elsewhere. Some of the ridiculous cases are where inmates have gone to court pursuing their civil rights and I would consider this all part of the criminal justice system because they're in jail at the time here are some of the ridiculous statements that have gone on and in the state of Illinois alone. It costs some six hundred thousand dollars a year to fight these cases the commode in a Cell was cracked and an inmate cut his foot on it. So we sue the state for damages. Female prisoner decided that she was a man and told the warden she wanted a sex change operation and she thought the state should pay for it. The warden refused in the woman sued there was not a professional dietitian in the jail who had a college degree. There was only just a normal dietitian. The recreation facility wasn't big enough. The law library didn't have enough inserts and updates. I visited a Jail recently and I can tell you that we have represented Crime Victims all over this country the Washington Legal Foundation and that jail had more law books in our office. It was paid for by you and I (00:19:19) so I think there's a lot of (00:19:20) things to look at and a lot of things to consider, you know, you look at I see a couple of nuns in the audience. I think of the case in New York City where two men were accused of raping and mutilating a nun they carve 25 crosses in her body and both of those people had been out on early release and both of those people and had been out on bail as well for other crimes. We represented a rape victim for example in Washington DC who was sued by the rapist and she was the fourth victim of a series of four rapes that were committed by this rapist and I do call him a rapist because he was out on bail and he was released out on the street into society to mutilate and torture innocent (00:20:04) people. Okay (00:20:07) to sum up and there's many points. I wish the time would have permitted me to to address. I think that we have to remember that the system has always favored the criminal the mindset of the Criminal Justice System the courts and others have always given the accused defendant his due process and every consideration and I'm not saying that they should take those rights away. But I'm saying that it's time for us to stand up and say that the criminal does have more rights and he is favored by the system more than the victim and it's also time for the victim to turn around and use as many Alternatives and vehicles as possible to change that (00:20:47) but you're a victimized again when you have a (00:20:48) Compensation Board because it's a taxpayer who's paying that compensation not the criminal your victimized again when somebody gets out of jail when he was given a 10-year sentence, he's given getting he's getting out of jail and two years with good behavior in a check in his pocket. I appreciate your interest in this subject. I'm looking forward to hearing from Ron and I ask you again to remember that in spite of all the the rhetoric that he may give you on behalf of the victim and how he favors victims rights and how the system's working for victims. He is here to speak for the criminal and the criminal side of this question. (00:21:22) Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Popo for your presentation during the next 20 minutes. We will hear an opposing Viewpoint. I present you the speaker arguing against debate the debate resolution. (00:21:50) Mr. Ronald mesh pressure. (00:21:59) Thank you very much. But I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked. Oh, you can't help that said the cat. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. How do you know I'm mad said Alice. You must be said the cat or you wouldn't have come here. I kind of think maybe I'm a little mad. And perhaps Dan is too or else neither one of us would have come here. And that really tells the way we as basically unknowledgeable lay people view the criminal justice system. It looks mad to you from the outside because the only perception that you have of our system. Is through the media? and it's not the usual story that makes the news it's the unusual or else it wouldn't be worth while writing about And all we hear about the system if you will is the rhetoric. Of people like Dan who is well-intentioned? But who didn't talk reality. He talked Alice in Wonderland language. And it's easy to make black and white statements. It's easy to stereotype. And that's the problem. with this problem It has been stereotyped. And stereotyped leads to closed minds it leads to ignorance. It leads to Prejudice it leads to bigotry and I'm not going to talk stereotypes and I'm not here to represent the criminal. See that's the way people in dance position from their point of view would like to pick the criminal defense lawyer as an advocate of the criminal see that presupposes that everybody accused a crime is guilty. And the presumption of innocence is no longer a cherished tradition in our country. It is meaningless. And in the minute you fall into that stereotype. They've got you and you can't get out because your mind becomes closed. And I mean to spend a few minutes trying to open your minds trying to give you some facts and trying to get away from the rhetoric that we hear from people that like to see the world in black and white and forget about the Greys in between though. This would be a boring world. I suppose if we had actually was in black and white. There's mystery to life and there's mystery to the criminal defendant and there's mystery to the system. But some of the Mysteries can be unlocked if we take the time to educate the people and if the media will take the time to help educate the people and if the people will take the time to (00:24:52) spend. (00:24:54) A few days in the courtroom and find out whether or not we have a criminal justice system in shambles or one that works reasonably well. I believe based on 25 years in the court system as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense lawyer that the courts basically do justice. They are not perfect. No system is perfect. The courts have made mistakes. But who Among Us has not made a mistake in their lives and let's talk briefly about some of the myths. That permeate your perception and I know they do of our criminal justice system. It is not true that the courts are hamstrung by Supreme Court decisions. There was a hue and cry when the Supreme Court and 61 said that police officers had to follow the Constitution. Is that a radical notion that police officers are to follow the law of the land and if you don't follow the law of the land you're going to be penalized and for years, we've given the states the right to give remedies to make please follow the law. We finally had our wits end and from now on if you violate the constitution and making an arrest that evidence cannot be used against the person in court. Does it lead to some people being acquitted or let off that should be found guilty? Yes, it does. Does it lead to a lot of them percentage-wise? No, it does not a government study showed that the exclusionary rule. Rules that keep out tainted or illegal evidence have only affected the outcome in 1.3 percent of all of the cases in the United States federal courts. And the figures are basically the same for the state court. That was a government study sponsored by the United States Senate done by the government Accounting Office. So it's not true that those rules are hampering law enforcement. It has made our police officers more professional and is created in our police. Hopefully the right to command more respect because when you look at a policeman today, you say he's got a follow the same law that I got to follow and he's doing it. And I don't think we'd want it any other way. It is also not true. That courts are more lenient than they used to be people get the impression that everyone is walking the street. They kill they maim they rape and they're getting a slap on the wrist. We have more people in prison today than ever before in the history of this country and in proportion to the population increases to There are more people in prison than the United States of America than any other civilized country, except Russia and South Africa, but if you take out their political prisoners, we beat them, too. We have many more people in jail today than we had in the 1920s when there was a hue and cry about violence to this ladies and gentlemen is not a problem of recent origin. The problem of crime and how to deal with it goes back for at least a hundred and fifty years in this country and probably beyond that. Headlines, if you take the time to go to the public library where they see back issues of local newspapers, and I've done it in Hennepin County. You can find articles in 1901 decrying the terrible crime situation and how easy the judges were letting these people off and that the police hands were tied. That's before the exclusionary rule. So this is nothing new. It makes good press. And it sells papers and it gets people to watch television or listen to the radio. And if you think I'm being too harsh on the media, that's not necessarily true. It's a fact of life. You cannot sell news without talking about the unusual how many of you can recall a success story of someone put out on parole who got himself a decent job and raised a family and never committed a crime again dull reading, isn't it? But when someone on parole commits a crime then it's a headline story that the parole board goofed and they should have kept him in jail longer how much longer a year 5 10 50 a hundred. There's one way to eliminate repeat offenders. Don't let anyone out of prison forever. That will solve the problem. very simple solution and it's not true that disparate sentences undermined the deterrent power of the Court. There is some rationale to sentencing even though you don't see it from reading the few cases that appear in the media, but take time to study it and you can almost predict the type of sentence that someone's going to get from a system talk to some of my clients talk to the people who are in jail and ask them if the system is easy talk to someone convicted of armed robbery for the first time was mandatory that he go to prison and maybe should I'm not saying they shouldn't but the system is getting tougher and getting tougher. The question is is it paying off in results? That's what we have to ask is Citizens. Is it paying off as a result and it is not true that plea bargaining distorts the judicial process. You would think that plea bargaining is something new plea bargaining has been here as long as we've had a system. It is nothing new. It's just that the media has tended to focus upon it and bring out the shortcomings of the system without telling you what the advantages are as a practical matter. It is impossible to run our system without settling cases not only the criminal justice system, but the Civil Justice System 95% of all civil cases are settled out of court, if the civil litigants and a car accident or a breach of contract case don't settle out of court. They could wait 10 or 15 years because our system is not equipped to handle the problems that have Arisen from the increase in population and the fact that we have different and newer laws on the books. And the plea bargain is merely a settlement of a case be with or without going to trial and if you've got a competent prosecutor on the one hand and a competent defense lawyer on the other the plea bargain ought to be fair to all concern to society and to the public and to the individual defendant. That doesn't mean every plea bargain is good or that every plea bargain is bad. There are some mistakes made in that process to I for one if I'm talking about making a buck and people accuse me of making my living and I do just as a doctor makes a living off sick people. I make a living off sick people to if you will people who are accused of crime (00:32:00) and that's their disease and that's their illness. And that's the wart on their (00:32:05) fabric. But if I was concerned about that, I'd say make the laws tougher because then you will arrest more people and more jobs for criminal defense lawyers. That's what I should be talking about. We want capital punishment for drunk driving. We want capital punishment for shoplifting. Everything should be a capital punishment or life imprisonment offense, then criminal defense lawyers, all of them can live in style because they're gonna have plenty of business and they'll be no plea bargaining is every case will go to trial so we'll have to make more courts and more judges and more lawyers and put more citizens to work as jurors and everybody's going to be full employment. That's the system now. Maybe it'll be a remedy some of the ills of our economy that have nothing to do whatsoever with the (00:32:56) increase in Prime if you hear from people like Dan. (00:33:00) We've got to talk about the root causes here. We can talk rhetoric and it is not true that the guilty Escape punishment. Look at the facts folks statistics done by people from coast to coast year after year day after day show that approximately 95% of the people accused of serious crime are convicted and are sentenced. All of them don't go to prison, but for serious crimes sixty-five to seventy percent of them do end up in prison. And that's one of the reasons our prisons are bulging at the seam and that's one of the reasons. Why we now have a strange group of a committee. If you will trying to remodel our sentencing guidelines in Minnesota. Now, the question isn't what crime was committed or what kind of person was the defendant do we have room for them? No, we don't have enough beds. So we're going to reduce the time. They'll do in prison. Now that's a sad commentary on our system. If a person has committed a serious crime, they ought to be punished. They ought to go to prison and we ought to have enough room for them. And I think they ought to be treated humanely Unfortunately, they are not and if you think prison is such an easy place talk to some people that have been there talk to some novices and young men who are subjected to rapes in the prison and other homosexual activity that was foreign to them before they got there and then ask them if they've come out of those institutions better human beings and we went in ask them that question are we caging him like animals for a period of time and then expecting them to be model citizens when they come out what happens when you cage an animal? (00:34:55) Does it tame them (00:34:57) are they worse when they're let out of the cage? And those are the real serious problems. We've got to contend with in a way the (00:35:06) resolution. (00:35:08) is faulty because we're not talking about rights of victims versus rights of defendants. It's like talking about apples and oranges. I'm here to tell you we ought to be more concerned about victims of crime. And I'm here to tell you that it's about time. We showed some concern about victims of crime, but I'm also here to tell you that there is about time we did something. To help make sure that people who are eventually released from prison and 95% of them are come out as better human being so that there is no other victim. to Bear the Brunt of that imperfect individual and I'm not here speaking for criminals. I'm here speaking for individuals. There is an easy very efficient way to run our system folks. Someone who says that the crime was committed on them the point out the culprit to a police officer. You eliminate lawyers. You eliminate judges you eliminate everything and you just throw them in a cage and lock the door forever. Now that's a system. They have in many totalitarian countries. Now, is that the extreme you want to go to those are the questions that we have to ask ourselves. Don't fall easy prey for the easy answer. The people who get up on these podiums and tell you how bad it is without telling you what they're going to do about it. And without telling you what the cause of the evil is and whether there are some remedies we ought to look to I'd like to ask. Mr. Appeal. Would we do away with the presumption of innocence under his system would we do away with the principle of American law that says a person isn't guilty until proven. So beyond A Reasonable Doubt would we do away with the obligation of the state to prove guilt would we do away with the freedom that we have against unreasonable searches and seizures would we do away with the right to bail for everybody the innocent accused and the guilty to would we do away with the law that says you can't have cruel and unusual punishment would we do away with the law that says you can't be forced to incriminate yourself would we do away with the rights of privacy and allow police to wiretap at random your phone and my phone regardless of whether they have evidence against us would we do away with the double jeopardy Clause of the Constitution that says once a person has been tried and either found guilty or not guilty the state cannot convict the person again or try to would you do away with that cherished principle of law that are found. Fathers thought was so important to put in the Bill of Rights along with most of the others I've talked about would you do away with jury trials? Would you do away with a public trial would you do away with a defendant's right to be confronted by Witnesses would you do away with a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses to try to prove their innocence would you do away with the right to counsel and said listen, we don't care if you can't afford it or not. You're not getting a lawyer. So then we have lawyers for the rich and no lawyers for the poor. Was that the kind of system you want folks would you do away with the right of a witness of an individual to subpoena Witnesses would you do away with the right for a person to know the nature and the specific charges against him or her I don't think you would we have a constitution that gives us individual rights as Citizens. not rights of criminal defendants everybody who's accused of the crime is not guilty. And he wants to talk about some isolated cases in their horrendous cases, and I'm not here to debate the propriety of insanity defense or not. But the Hinckley case was an atypical case. It was unusual because it involved the president of the United States. It was unusual because a defendant was found not guilty by a jury and the grounds of insanity that is a front page story in Hennepin County. For example, in the last 50 years. Only three or four people have ever been found not guilty on the grounds of Insanity by a jury. Does that mean the insanity defense is an easy way out talk to any criminal defense lawyer. It's the worst offense in the world because it's hard to convince a jury that people are crazy. Despite how many crazy people there are both in and out of institutions. No, it's not an easy way out. It's a last-ditch defense and it's only used in cases where the defendants crime was. So bizarre or there's something in the defendants history and makeup that lend itself to that defense in Heaven Knows. Hinckley was not a normal human being to try to kill the president to impress a woman. He'd never met. That's a rational act and all the jury said and I give the jury credit and I think they Hinckley case was a bright Mark in American jurisprudence. And you say why I'll tell you why because everybody thought it was a showcase trial the kind of trials they have in Russia where the result was known at the beginning. What did they think this trial was for? If not to determine whether the man was saying or not at the time and under the law of the jurisdiction in which Hinckley was tried the jury if they had a reasonable doubt as to his Insanity had to acquit and you talk to the jurors. They just said they had a reasonable doubt and you listen to the evidence and you can't say those jurors were nuts because there was enough for a reasonable doubt. They didn't say he was innocent and keep this in mind when you read a newspaper headline so-and-so declared (00:41:09) innocent. (00:41:10) Nobody is ever declared innocent in our system. The best we can do is find someone not guilty and that can mean either the jury thought the person was innocent or they didn't have enough proof that they so they had a reasonable doubt. We never know. There is no verdict of innocent in our system and I think Dan gives himself away and tells us where he's coming from when he says that he points to my successes as proof that the system favors the defendant now, what does that tell you? That tells you that even though some of my clients have been found not guilty. He thinks they're all guilty. And the taint of a criminal charge no matter how innocent you are stays with you for the rest of your life. And mr. Po po just told us that. Because my success is seem to indicate. I favor the criminal defendant. I favor individual rights in this country and if people are guilty of crimes let the state prove them guilty if they are not guilty. They ought not to be convicted and if they are guilty they deserve punishment and the punishment ought to fit the crime and it ought to fit the individual. I don't think we look at crimes committed by people who grew up with everything at their disposal and education and money in a good family the same as we look at crimes committed by a poor black kid from the ghetto who had to steal a loaf of bread to eat and our system ought to be flexible enough to take into account the differences in human beings. The difference is in crime and I'm not giving up on our system. I think it ought to be improved and I think we ought to have victim reparation acts like one we have in Minnesota and they ought to be better to compensate victims for monetary loss and even psychiatric or emotional law. Those things ought to be done, but we can't say that we're only going to do one and not the other we've got the wherewithal in this country to do it all and to try to improve the system. We're never going to eliminate crime. There are miscreants that are born Among Us for reasons. None of us know but we ought to take a little time to reflect about the money we put into our system. I think it was Jesse Jackson who said it costs more to send somebody to the state pen than it does to Penn State. Now that money ought to Peta be put to good use we don't have the rehabilitation programs Dan talked about I wish we did. Someone told me I have been able to verify it. That the budget for the Department of Defense for one day in this country is more than the cost of running all the federal and state courts from coast to coast for one year. And talk about where our priorities are going and let's try to educate ourselves and don't fall easy sucker to some fast answers and some rhetoric of principle. It doesn't really look at the root causes and the facts of the situation. Thank you very much. Program is now open to questions from the floor question over here. (00:44:41) I've heard the word (00:44:43) technicalities come up several times this morning and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Felix Frankfurter who had the reputation of being civil libertarian, but the record indicated he took the government side almost every time I think the citation is and we'll versus Colorado but I'll stand corrected on that said that these technicalities are the and he was talking about the fourth and fifth amendment's are the building blocks against arbitrary governments when you use the word technicalities, mr. Repeal. What are you referring to? What would you what would you specifically do with respect to the fourth fifth or sixth or eighth amendments nothing? First of all, I don't change. I'm not in favor of changing the Constitution. I'm not in favor of making any major alterations. What I'm saying is that there are a whole list of and I'll use the word technicalities that Ron probably knows them all by heart knows them very well that he could run a law enforcement officer through and make sure he complied with in the process of apprehending and the process of investigating a criminal defendant and I don't think that certain Supreme Court decisions. If they did come out where they limited these technicalities are guidelines would in any way encourage arbitrary government. That's a lot of bull. Everybody goes to vote every four years for a president. How long do you think the politicians your local sidewalk politicians in your National elected leaders would last if they tried to put arbitrary government and operation in this country the way it is right. Now the power of the press with the power of the media with a lot of the Watchdog organizations and figures. You have here it wouldn't work and it's not going to happen. So all of these all of these problems where we're going to turn into a totalitarian state. I don't think are very legitimate at all. If anything we're going to become like some of my forefathers were in Rome. I think where we got so easy and So Soft that we just, you know, we could Barrel over by somebody's some heathens charge and I don't know who the heathens are going to be in our historical context, but I don't think you can stretch this business of technicalities and I use the word technicalities for want of a better word into all that. Well, I like to say something about that. (00:47:00) I think the use of the word technicality is a conscious deliberate effort to minimize what we have is rights in this country and I hear speakers many time talk about technicalities. What they're telling you is that the Bill of Rights is a bunch of technicalities the right to Be Free People the right to freedom of speech that's part of our Bill of Rights the right to freedom of religion. (00:47:19) A technicality to some of these people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That's a technicality the right to a lawyer as a technicality. The right against self-incrimination is a technicality. (00:47:30) Those are the kinds of things we're talking about. We're talking about rights that we have cherished over the years. We're talking about rights that have made this country great and I don't think we ought to relax as Dan that gives us pause to by saying that we have nothing to fear. Look around this world. We are one of the few countries where we have some freedoms left and they're fast going by the board's if we allow our procedural rights to be wiped Away by Court interpretations because of really mob rule no mob ever protected anybody including itself and that's what happens and we are not that far away from scientific development that you read about in 1984. At least I did when I was in college, it's a year away. I think it came a lot faster than we thought but we ought to be concerned. We always have to Be watchful of encroachments on Individual rights, you know, these technicalities are the thing that distinguishes this country from totalitarian regimes, for example, you go down to Russia or go to a library and pick out a Russian law book and find the rules their rules. Look just like ours it's against the law to murder in Russia. It's against the law to rape. It's against the law to Rob it's against the law to plunder and people are prosecuted in Russia. Well, what makes our system different they don't have the rights the procedural rights of due process and that's what Justice Frankfurter was talking about. It's the procedures that guarantee individual rights that make the laws on the books enforceable in a free Society without procedural due process. We are no better off than totalitarian governments and don't let anybody kid you when they talk about technicalities. Mr. Poe po talks about him and the one hand he said he doesn't want to change it. But when I hear him talk on the podium I'm saying what does he want to do about these? (00:49:19) Problems (00:49:20) if he doesn't want to change the laws though a lot. The Constitution didn't cause crime the courts haven't cause crime. There are other causes that we have to look to it. Don't look for an easy scapegoat. And that's what happens if we allow ourselves to find scapegoats. We become a totalitarian regime. Take one final question from this microphone. Now. (00:49:41) I suspect that. There are other people in this audience that share some past feelings that I've had when I was younger. I always felt the law was the law and one of my enlightenment's in life was that I started to find out the law was your attorney. (00:50:01) And there is some you know, some (00:50:03) people get Good attorneys some get some that aren't so (00:50:07) good. Some (00:50:10) defend better than others and sometimes that depends on how much money is (00:50:14) involved. The law is only interpreted by human beings. And that's one reason we want to have some rules so that hopefully the same rules will apply in your courtroom was applying my (00:50:25) courtroom. Unfortunately all of us don't look at life the same way you look at life one way. I'm not to say I'm not here to say you were wrong sir. You're entitled to that view of life, (00:50:36) but I am entitled to my view of life to (00:50:38) as long as we don't hurt one another. So I respect your right (00:50:41) to say it and you may be a hundred percent. Right and I may be a hundred percent wrong, (00:50:45) but give me the right to express that feeling as far as Good attorneys and bad attorneys. (00:50:51) There's a feeling in this country. Generally that people who have a couple bucks can beat the system. Well, we brought a president of the United States to his knees and disgrace (00:51:00) from office for violating the law and I think it was good for this country because the (00:51:05) law applied to him and the highest is people in his administration who went to prison some may think they didn't go for a long enough, but they went to prison now the law hit the people in the very highest places in our society. It speaks well for our (00:51:19) society and their many (00:51:21) people in prison who have all the money in the (00:51:22) world, but it didn't do him any good because there they languish in jail today. (00:51:26) Many people thought Jean Thompson was going to beat this murder charge because of the lawyer with a few bucks. He got a (00:51:31) life sentence and spent more time in prison than the average person Minnesota does for (00:51:35) murder. So he didn't beat the system. And as far as Good attorneys go (00:51:40) listen, they're good doctors there a good Barbers or a good (00:51:43) dentist and you may catch a break once in a while and go to a good doctor. You may catch a bad break and go to a butcher but we don't know all of us aren't created the same we all try to do our best and hopefully we have some standards at least minimum (00:51:56) standards that govern attorneys, but all of us can't (00:51:58) be the same. We pay Dave Winfield we the New York Yankees pay him millions of dollars because he hits better than the next guy. So that's their priorities in sports, but (00:52:07) we are not all equal in terms of abilities (00:52:10) were all we all should be equal under the law but there is no way to have a perfect system and given human differences. You're going to find some attorneys that may be more persuasive than others, but I've told people and I sincerely believe it that facts win cases attorneys have the ability to present (00:52:26) Fact persuasively, but if the prosecutor has the facts he is going to win that case 999 times out of a thousand (00:52:35) and the cases they lose are primarily because they don't (00:52:37) have enough facts and that's not the fault them one final response. I'd simply like to say that I think what you're really talking about is a frustration that the system does not work evenly and I think that groups like The Washington Legal Foundation and myself turn around and say let's make the system work. Let's fine tune it let's blow the whistle on judges who don't do their job. Let's fight Pro criminal Lobby groups like the ACLU and double AC p-- or good criminal defense attorneys that in the course of becoming very zealous and doing what they think is necessary for their client make a mockery of the system. And I think that's what we're really talking about. And I don't think I will repeat this again because I keep getting rhetoric thrown at me. I don't believe we have to change the system. I think the system is tremendous all you To do is work within the system and make it work and keep it working. And you know, I think it's very easy to come out with some far-flung statements about how we're going to be like the Soviets and black people up and everything else. The greatest threat to America right now is from outside not from within and there are any number of problems, but they are from the outside not from the within and I think that anyone in the world would trade places for our Judicial System the way it works right now because it works damn well and our law enforcement people do a very good job, but there are a lot of people out there suffer the don't have to and if we can we can strive to help those people good people and we can make the system work then why not and that that I don't think anyone would want to disagree with how we get there is were really where we differ. I just want to make this one statement because mr. Pope Leo talks about probe Dan Dan Dan. Dan talks about Pro criminal Lobby groups. And then he says the American civil liberties Union is (00:54:28) a pro criminal Lobby group The National Association for the advancement of colored people is a pro criminal Lobby group where the and I think and I think that that does a disservice to this topic and really insult your intelligence. Those groups don't stand for violations of law. They stand (00:54:44) for enforcement of protection of individual rights and Liberties. (00:54:48) I (00:54:53) I just want to tell you and I'm not going to be apologetic about it if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is a duck. When was the last time they represented a violent crime victim. They represent violent criminals. I call the ACLU the American criminal lovers Union. They are in every state legislature in the country trying to block laws against violent criminals and believe me. They're very well-funded. They had something like a 1.3 million dollar Grant from a New York City Foundation the Edna McCarthy's Clarke Foundation you want to know what it was for it was for their prison project. You want to know what their prison project is. It works full-time with lawyers around the country to bring suits like the ones I described to you about cruel and inhumane in jail cases, like an Alabama where they all got out of jail early several months early, (00:55:41) you know, let them they owe the American (00:55:43) public and anyone who claps it becomes a victim an apology for what they're doing on behalf of criminals and America and it is and they don't even disguise their agenda. That's what they're about and it's about time somebody has the guts to stand up and say that's what they stand for and don't ever back down. There's nothing that's great about these people. They should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, they're good professionals, but for their motivation and for their agenda, they should be downright ashamed and I'll tell you I get members. (00:56:09) You know, how I learned about the ACLU. (00:56:11) I got their members sending me their membership cards ripped up in the mail telling me that they had a local case and they found out who they were working for and what they stood for so don't come out with all these high philosophical defenses. Say well that they're good people and all the that's what they stand for. And if you've got time, I'll spend a lot of time explaining what they stand for and what they do. I don't believe they work for law-abiding taxpayers citizens. Well, that's that's it. That's just plain (00:56:35) hogwash. That's just plain hogwash (00:56:41) that's going in this debate because we're talking about the criminal justice system and they disrupt the criminal justice system. They work full-time to her ask judgments of freedom (00:56:50) of speech and they believe in individual rights. They disrupt the system. What else he let me finish now, unfortunately the ACLU and groups like that are misunderstood because they always get into cases where there unpopular people but the rights of this country are forged upon reputations of unpopular people. Who do you think the founding fathers of this country were all of them according to your definition should have been put in jail, they weren't they said they were all the dissident people that form this country and we're trying to protect the right of these people to say what they want to say without Called names and dirty names if you will they are. No, you are not a free speech. They are not pro criminal. I believe in your right to do it. I think it insults the intelligence of this audience to take groups that are bound and determined to make sure that civil liberties will never die in this country and say their Pro criminal. It's absolutely fallacious reasoning and it's the kind of stereotyping and name-dropping that I've wailed against when I first got up here to talk. It doesn't make for good analytical analysis of this problem. And if you want to get involved in that bag then say throw away my thinking cap. I'll just go with the stereotypes. We may have to continue this next time. I was here. I would simply like to tell (00:58:05) you all that. I don't know what all of you know about the ACLU. I will give you my card. You can write me I'll tell you anything about them. I know they don't represent the civil liberties, I think of and it's interesting how by the way I'm I'm calling names when the ACLU represents people for obscenities the use of obscenities and Free Speech. But I don't think I'm calling them names when I tell the truth about them at the truth is hard to swallow them. So be it and I'm glad that I have the pleasure and privilege of working with a group like the Washington Legal Foundation that fights the ACLU everywhere can and it's going to continue to fight them. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen to join me in a (00:58:39) round of applause expressing our appreciation.