There’s a curious character defect that allows the overly empathetic progressive prosecutor types to shamelessly switch from rationalizing the humanity of murderers, at least some murderers, while simultaneously pushing the most disingenuous sophistry when it comes to sex crimes. And whatever that character defect might be, former state and federal prosecutor, and most recently progressive candidate for Manhattan district attorney, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, has it in spades.
On March 8, at an unusual hearing, Juror No. 50 testified that he regretted making “an honest mistake” when rushing through his questionnaire. He was asked to describe repeated instances of abuse at the hands of a former stepbrother and his friend when the juror was 9 and 10 years old and the aftermath for him and his family. But, he told the court, the abuse “doesn’t define” him, and he does not think of himself as a crime victim.
This hearing, the threat to the integrity of Ms. Maxwell’s convictions and the gross invasion of Juror No. 50’s privacy might have been avoided and should have been. Juror No. 50 never should have been asked about his history of sexual abuse in the first place.
She’s referring, of course, to the juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, but you may not recognize it from her shockingly dishonest characterization. Poor Juror 50? Had he not answered falsely on his jury questionaire, and had he not afterward tried to turn himself into a TV star by promoting his victimhood as he avenged the sexually abused by convicting Maxwell, it wouldn’t have happened. It wasn’t an accident that Farhadian Weinstein left that part out. It just doesn’t work with her complete turnabout when it comes to sex crimes.
When it comes to blatant hypocrisy, Tali isn’t shy about it.
The idea is to identify jurors whose experiences could render them unable to be fair and impartial. By this logic, it may seem reasonable to ask potential jurors during selection for a sex crime trial whether they have ever experienced sexual violence. Lawyers on both sides may have good reasons for wanting to know.
Obviously. But there’s more.
But the search for impartiality in a sex crime trial must be handled differently. Questions like the one to the Maxwell jury show how far American courts are from reflecting some basic truths about sexual violence and send the wrong message about what impartiality means.
How anyone with an iota of integrity or shame could put both those sentences into the same paragraph is beyond comprehension. But neither integrity nor shame matter at all to Farhadian Weinstein.
For one thing, sexual violence is extremely pervasive. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, one in five American women will experience rape or attempted rape at some time in her life, to say nothing of other sorts of assault.
And of course, this very handy, if nonsensical, grossly unscientific, and facially false claim that has been debunked many times over, keeps being regurgitated. The editorial standards at the New York Times aren’t as stringent as they used to be.
Furthermore, when an inquiry includes sexual harassment — which encompasses behavior that may not even be illegal — how many women can confidently tick the box “no”? Even assuming some people can truthfully attest to having experienced none of the above, questionnaires like the one in the Maxwell case want to know what friends and family have suffered, too, making it tough to imagine who could possibly say “no” — if people are paying attention.
Tali is likely right about this, as there is likely no woman under 30 who doesn’t believe she’s been sexually harassed, mostly because the offense is defined as whatever a woman feels it is. But then, Farhadian Weinstein just shifted from rape to sexual harassment. Contrary to popular woke belief, they are not the same.
Upon this foundation of falsehoods, Farhadian Weinstein finally builds her tower.
These questions also imply that sexual violence carries a taint and makes for defective jurors. This is troubling in itself. Consider where it leaves us: Do we really want to stack our juries with “objective” people who believe — no doubt often incorrectly — that they don’t know anyone who has ever been sexually harassed, abused or assaulted? Wouldn’t such a jury have biases of its own? Studies show that rape myths (that a woman should do everything she can to repel her attacker, for example, and that her resistance is a critical factor in determining the rapist’s culpability) affect deliberations in rape cases. To signal a preference for the supposedly unencumbered juror may produce a jury pool even more burdened by false and prejudicial views.
Rarely does anyone have the chutzpah to argue that objective jurors are really the biased ones, and that biased jurors are the ones we really want. Would she argue that about jurors who were racist against black people? Would she argue that about jurors who loved cops? Would she argue that about jurors who were the victims of attack by drug addicts? Yet here, she spews this insanely nonsensical argument that the blatant bias of victims of sexual violence (whatever that means in the current woke climate) is a better bias than the bias of people who are impartial? You can’t make this crap up.
Because sexual violence is common but secret, we need to explore the potential for bias in another way. Courts in these cases should ask an open-ended question: Does anything in your life keep you from being impartial?
This is asked in every case, but does nothing to reveal hidden bias that a potential juror wants to remain hidden.
Courts might even rely on the common practice of asking potential jurors if they are crime victims generally and then invite potential jurors to speak with the judge and attorneys if they want to elaborate in private.
This is done in every case that doesn’t use a juror questionnaire, but as Juror 50 answered falsely, there was no reason to hold a sidebar when the juror lies didn’t tell the truth. Had Juror 50 told the truth in the first place, it wouldn’t have provided the lead-in to this paean to juror bias, but only when it comes to sex crimes.
Courts have long affirmed the propriety of jurors drawing on their experiences, about everything from how guns work to knowledge of the banking industry. In a society in which so many of us have direct experience of sexual violence, why ask a question that separates us from our peers and could keep us from sitting in judgment with them?
In an argument replete with lies and sophistry, this may be the most dangerously false conflation. Courts instruct jurors to use their life experience to assess the credibility of evidence, not to infect deliberations with their personal prejudice and bias. But when it comes to sex crimes, facile social justice rhetoric flips on its head to become as unfair and deceitfully carceral as possible. Tali’s argument is no different than that of a Klansman’s, except her target isn’t black people but defendants accused of sex crimes. She wears no hood, and has no shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment