Robert Ringer is a New York Times No. 1 best-selling author and host of the highly acclaimed "Liberty Education Interview Series," which features interviews with top political, economic and social leaders. His latest book is "The Entrepreneur." To sign up for a free subscription to his pro-liberty, pro-free-market e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, CLICK HERE.More ↓Less ↑
The most recent, nauseating attempt at an O.J. Simpson comeback reminds me once again that the U.S. legal system is the Achilles’ heel of its rapidly declining culture. America has always prided itself on having the greatest legal system in the world, but, like most everything else about a democratic society, it’s been collapsing under its own weight for decades.
When someone not only gets away with two brutal homicides, but is able to flaunt his freedom and thumb his nose at the victims’ families, it’s time to think seriously about making some changes. The reality is that the U.S. legal system has become too fair. Meaning, it’s become increasingly “fair” to the accused perpetrators of crimes.
I believe it’s time for Americans to step back and take a look at the foundational problem that has brought down the legal system in this country – the antiquated jury system. If I hear one more criminal-defense attorney refer to jurors as bright, conscientious and fair, I think I’m going to lose it. There are exceptions, to be sure, but the reality is that the majority of jurors are none of these things.
On the contrary, jurors are, for the most part, dredged up from the lower rungs of society. The PC reality is that most jurors today are totally unqualified to intellectually process the evidence in a criminal case, let alone pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Granted, the O.J. case was extreme. During the trial, I can’t recall speaking to a single person who didn’t agree that 1) the evidence against O.J. was overwhelming and 2) the mostly black, inner-city jury would wreak revenge on the white man by letting the Butcher of Brentwood walk.
Only in America could the trial of a sociopathic, vicious murderer be transformed into the trial of the man who gathered the damning evidence against him. It was clear early on to any intelligent, straight-thinking individual that Mark Fuhrman was one of the few people in the courtroom who was actually being truthful, and in an impeccably detailed manner at that.
Forget about Fuhrman’s taped racial remarks to that now-forgotten North Carolina screenwriter. They may have been intended for a movie script or they may have reflected true bigotry in his heart, but the truth of the matter is his remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Fuhrman should not have been convicted of perjury, because the racial questions raised by the defense scoundrels should not have been admissible in the first place.
The argument was that Fuhrman’s prejudice was evidence that his testimony was unreliable. Sounds good on the surface, but, in reality, it’s nonsense. The only way his prejudice would have mattered is if there had been a clear indication that he had tampered with the evidence. There was, in fact, not a shred. That is, unless you took seriously F. Lee Bailey’s outrageous theory that Fuhrman rolled the glove up in his pant leg. Talk about statements that don’t pass the giggle test.
I have a long list of solutions for the failing American court system, but first on my list – and the one that would have almost certainly changed the outcome of the Ito Circus – is to do away with the jury system altogether. Why don’t we drop the PC nonsense and just admit that the jury system is no longer a gathering of a dozen upstanding community peers sitting in judgment of the accused.
In truth, most men and women who have a life will not hesitate to lie in order to avoid jury duty. And, worse, those who do not have a life will tell almost any lie in order to serve as jurors – especially for high-profile cases.
The old-style jury system has outlived its usefulness. What is needed now is a three-judge tribunal, at least for criminal cases. And all judges should have to prove their conservative credentials before being appointed. I say conservative, because the whole point of a trial is to enforce the law, not revise it. I have no problem with liberals running around loose, joining crusades and chanting anti-everything slogans. They just shouldn’t be allowed to serve as judges.
And the lost souls who set O.J. free should never have been allowed in the courtroom. A conservative panel of judges would have sent him where he belongs – death row.
Talk about a blissful thought. How great would it be to never see O.J.’s smug face on television again? To never have to watch him playing golf again, attired in polo shirt and sun visor? To never again hear him nervously chuckle and assure interviewers that everywhere he goes, people support him?
We need to throw out the criminal-justice system and replace it with a victim-justice system. I’m all for the accused being treated justly, but victims and their families should be treated even more justly.