THE LAW'S LIES
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
[Col. Writ. 8/23/01]
Copyright 2001 Mumia Abu-Jamal
"The courtroom, one of the supposed bastions of democracy, is essentially a tyranny. The judge is Monarch. He is in control of the evidence, the witnesses, the questions, and the interpretation of law." - - Historian Howard Zinn, "Declarations of Independence" (1990)
Millions of American students learn about the law from civics class in high school or introductory law classes in college.
The proper place to learn about the law is in a courtroom, where the proverbial rubber meets the road. It is entirely possible to read a legal textbook, go into a courtroom, see what's happening and be totally stunned by the differences between what the law says, and what the law does, daily.
Indeed, this is precisely what happened to Ramona Africa, who, before becoming a MOVE member and minister, was a curious law student who dropped by Courtroom 253 in Philadelphia's old City Hall, to see the MOVE trial in 1980. She found herself saying, again and again, "They can't do that!", only to recognize that they were doing it, and continued to do so. When she saw how people with no money were really treated in court, how their alleged rights were shredded like rags, and how the judge was essentially an assistant prosecutor, she closed her law books, for good. She became a revolutionary.
It is easy to go from youth to seniority with the beliefs that the law protects us all equally, that the Constitution prevents the government from violating the rights of the people, or that judges will protect the constitutional rights of all who come before them.
Readers of this column will recall a piece on the recent Hardcastle decision, where a score of judges, over two decades, ignored, soft-pedaled, and denied his clear and unequivocal right to a "fair and impartial jury." When faced with their legal, sworn duty to protect the constitutional rights of all, and the political decision to do nothing, they chose politics every time, and did nothing.
Years ago, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Roberts, wrote that state courts were well-placed and able to "deal expeditiously" (or speedily) with trial errors and constitutional violations. If they failed to do so, he warned state courts would "shirk this responsibility," and thereby "lose the opportunity to contribute to the development and equal administration of the laws and become only a way station on the defendant's route to federal court." [Roberts, S.J., "The Supreme Court of Pa.: Constitutional Government in Action," Pa. Bar Assoc. Quarterly (Oct. 1982), 206]
For Hardcastle, 20 years were spent in "a way station." The same could be said for half a dozen men and women who recently received federal relief. All of them were granted retrials on clear errors, evident from the face of the record, jury instructions, and the like.
There was absolutely nothing that the federal judges did that couldn't have been done by a few state judges literally decades ago.
None did.
Their failure to defend the alleged constitutional rights of the accused stemmed, not from any legal infirmity, but because of politics.
State judges, after all, are elected officials.
So, for those who look to them for fairness, and for protections allegedly protected by the state and federal constitutions, the question to be answered first isn't whether a certain position is right, or wrong, but whether it is politically feasible.
Copyright 2001 M.A. Jamal
Text © copyright 2001 by Mumia Abu-Jamal.
All rights reserved.
Reprinted by permission of the author.International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@action-mail.org
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org
Share this page with a friend