Over the last fifty years or so, when politicians have talked about judges being tough on crime or soft on crime what they've mainly been talking about is not crime at all, but constitutional rights, and specifically the constitutional rights that people charged with a crime--in case you're wondering, the technical description of those people until they are convicted is "innocent". These people are you, me, and everyone else who might be accused of doing something against the law, but is entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, against self-incrimination, and all kinds of other protections, until we are convicted. It was his stands in favor of protecting innocent people's constitutional rights that stimulated the "Impeach Earl Warren" movements in the 1960's. The last time we had a Democratic governor it was Howard Dean, but the old Howard Dean, before he remembered that he was a Democrat. He was also tough on crime. In fact, it was somewhere between a rumor and an open secret that he had a litmus test for his judicial appointments. Back in 1994 the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of a woman named Rebecca Durenleau, who had been tried and convicted of getting her boyfriend to murder her husband. When the case went up to the Supreme Court, the court held not only that the evidence of her guilt was entirely circumstantial, but that the evidence, even if you believed every bit of evidence the state put on, wasn't enough to prove her guilt. Howard Dean hated this decision, and the word was that if you were a lawyer, no matter how smart you were, and how well-respected your accomplishments, you couldn't get a judicial appointment from him unless you disagreed with the Durenleau decision. I've never been in that position, so I have no direct knowledge, but it was common knowledge at the time. That was Dean's version of being "tough on crime". What's Peter Shumlin's version of "tough on crime"? We don't know. I do know that in these times, when constitutional rights have been under assault by the Nixon/Reagan/Bush court for decades, state constitutional rights are more important than they have ever been. I also know that constitutional rights aren't just something we read about in books. They protect every one of us, but only if we have judges and justices who will stand up to protect the rights of one of the most unpopular segments of society: people who have been accused of committing a crime, but who are presumed to be innocent until the government, observing all the constitutional rights the defendant has, proves to a jury of their peers that they are guilty. Oh, and there's one other thing I know. One of the lawyers who represented Rebecca Durenleau in that appeal that drove Howard Dean up a wall, was Beth Robinson. So whatever Peter Shumlin means by "tough on crime", I hope he also realizes how important it is for the courts to protect the rights of everyone who is accused of a crime, but is presumed innocent until proven guilty. |
