http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6113545
The above article is up on ESPN outlining Barry Bonds' upcoming perjury trial. A line I found to be both pertinent to this article, and quite discouraging was the following (regarding the list of major leaguer's schedule to testify, due to Greg Anderson's continued refusal to testify in any capacity regarding Bonds and/or steroids):
"The jury deserves to be told something," Illston told the lawyers. "We owe them something about why he's not testifying."
It's so frustrating to me, seeing what has historically been the finest institution of justice in human history, be reduced (ever so slowly, but surely) to something far more 'normal,' in a world filled where 'normal' may be something akin to the aforementioned Gulags and lightless rooms in the darker corners of the globe.
I, for one, wish to live in Jefferson's America, the light of the world.
Now, you certainly have the right to like or dislike Milton Bradley, or Lady GaGa, or Charles Krauthammer, or jemanji. You also have the right to state your reasons for that.
This is America: you have the right to encourage other 'net rats not to read my blog. You can go on Mariner Central, or USSM, or Prospect Insider, or whatever, and argue "Steer clear. Don't encourage him."
What you don't have the philosophical right to do, is to attempt to --- > replace America's courts, as it were, doing your level best to create dire consequences for a man that you don't believe has been punished enough.
There are people that we have authorized for this role. The media are not among them.
...............
Whether or not the Times did this to Josh Lueke, whether or not it's trying to do so to Milton Bradley?, the fact remains that "Trial By Media" has a long and sordid past in America. The writers and anchormen, if they think somebody got away with something, are only too happy to cast themselves in the role of Second Prosecutor.
That this has happened before, and happened a lot, is self-evident. In sports, it used to take place every chance the media got: with Jimmy the Greek, and with John Rocker, Al Campanis, and with that Orioles scout who wrote that Latin infielders have good hands and who got fired for it -- after the media found out about it.
During the 1980's, a lot of sportswriters felt they'd missed the train on social relevance. So that they would matter, they lynched many people in the name of Political Correctness. Every time they did so, the accusation was enough. The burden of proof was on the defendant, and the victim's rights were the ones that counted.
................
Supposing that John Rocker wrote a piece, in the Washington Post, arguing that we should return to slavery? In America, what's the appropriate punishment for that?
In America, the appropriate punishment for "incorrect speech" is to debate the guy in public, and to show that he's an idiot. The appropriate punishment is not to go try to get him fired from his job.
Argue all you want that Milton Bradley is a jerk. But why do you (a commenter, in the abstract) have to try to get him fired? What does that have to do with anything?
If Michael Vick led the Seahawks to a Super Bowl, I'd feel kind of sour about it. But if Milton Bradley slugged .500 for the Mariners next year, I wouldn't. (Which is all 100% beside the point.)
.................
I don't know what the Times' intentions are on Bradley. But considering America's history with Trial By Media, all media personnel have a responsibility to avoid creating trials by media. Josh Lueke has been judged, and has been punished. Milton Bradley can be tried through judicial channels, thank you very much.
You can argue 9,000 ways that a paper has the right to do this, or that, or the other. It's all smoke. Are you the KIND OF GUY who wants to be SURE --- > BEFORE you punish somebody? The rest is conversation.
Some people like to punish. They especially like to punish those different from them, those who haven't signed off on their rules of life. I'm not saying the Times is like this. I'm just saying that we have to be careful about punishment. If in doubt, don't.
................
Jeff Clarke's opinion on Milton Bradley? I feel very sorry for the man. I think he's in a lot of pain. I think he needs help, more than he needs punishment. That's just an opinion; I could be wrong.
I'm not like that with everybody. I think Michael Vick is a bad guy who has undergone some P.R. rehab. Lots of sports guys are incorrigibles. But Milton Bradley? That's one guy, I just feel sorry for.
That's just me.
................
The Times remains my favorite, um, paper, but there's a reason that newspapers are dying. And if they get to talk, so do I.
Canada is more European, more socialist, than is America. The Times, specifically, is reflecting this generalization. And that this is one of the disconnects between the Times and a diehard libertarian like myself. We don't say it with rancor. We merely observe it as a phenomenon.
I trust the Average Joe across the street, and fear the government. Some people honestly feel the opposite. They trust the government, and fear the Average Joe. In my old age, I've come to see that this lies behind a whoooollllllle lot of our political disagreements.
Power to the people, dude.
..................
Sure!, it's true - Bradley hasn't been cleared. But the typical media language that Milton Bradley "has not been cleared" is inadvertently Stalinist. Milton Bradley does not have to clear himself. He really doesn't.
We (human beings in the 21st century) need to drop this trial-by-media rubbish. It's a poison we need no longer ingest.
When we've got all the facts, and if those facts establish that Milton Bradley broke a law, then there are qualified people, authorized by The People, who will punish him for breaking that law.
Until then, Love It Or Leave It, baby.
You guys have no idea how lucky you are: only 1 in 25 human beings happen to be born in the United States, and you* were one of them. You coulda just as easily been born in Iran, my friend.
My $0.02,
Jeff
Comments
Doc, you end your article with: "You guys have no idea how lucky you are: only 1 in 25 human beings happen to be born in the United States, and you* were one of them. You coulda just as easily been born in Iran, my friend."
Because our country is so rich and narcissist, we have largely cut ourselves off from history. Who cares about what has happened in the past when you can surf the net, play video games, and tweet? Because we are largely ignorant about the past, we do not realize how truly blessed we are. All we care about is what we don't (YET) have.
If we truly pondered our place in the history of the world, if we contemplated how rich and easy our life is compared to the vast majority of those born in human history, we would not treat Thanksgiving as a football day. But thankfulness is being extinguished from the human heart.
How can you be truly thankful when you believe that you are just a cog in inexhorable cosmic development? There's nothing to be thankful for, no one to be thankful to. The best we can say is that we are lucky, and that is not the same as being thankful.
Yes, if we understand what it was like in Eastern Europe after World War 2, when good people wanted good change only to find they had transferred one horror for another, or when people living in Cambodia realized the daily terror coming upon them in the form of Pol Pot's regime; if we understood how brutal and without rights life was for the common man before the Magna Carta initiated a liberating process in the Western world, we would spend our days giving thanks to God that we were born here, born now in human history.
Thanks for the reminder.
Confused Jonezie... didn't have time for the article, but if Anderson's testimony is needed, why doesn't the judge order it?...
Or is your perspective that Anderson has a 'jury duty' type citizenship responsibility...
...............
As to the broad point, that we Americans should treasure our judicial system ... and fight to the death to preserve it in the highest state possible ... amen and amen...
And it wasn't always that way.
I'm looking at a nice glossy coffee-table book with testimonies from the 1930's .. the Depression. It's full of articles from people who lived through the Depression, who were grateful for the closeness that the families discovered.
They sat down to beans and biscuits and, say they, "ate like kings" ... hunger is the best sauce ... :- )
Literally, the more we have, the angrier we are about what we don't. If that kid over to my son's right has a box of 64 crayons to my kid's 32, it's time for trauma intervention :- )
About four or five years ago, I believe. Anderson's been in contempt of court since then, as he's refused to testify against his client, or in any capacity regarding the situation without complete immunity (at least, that was his opening position), among other things.
The fact that the government's entire case rests on this guy's testimony, and he's not cooperating, combined with the treatment he's received (he essentially lived in jail for the better part of two years, as he'd been held in contempt, etc..) just makes me unsympathetic to the righteousness of their case.
All of that is kind of irrelevant, though. The judge has decided to make Mr. Anderson's position one of assumed guilt, and has brought in corroborative testimony to support that position. Simply jailing him (as is legal and acceptable under the circumstances) wasn't enough, so now we(meaning the judge) have to try to prove him guilty of...something.
What is Anderson afraid of, that he prefers incarceration to whatever would happen if he testifies?
Or is the deal-io that he's going to ride out a few years in the pokey, then take millions under the table from the athletes?
Or what?
But then, think about what we're asking. "Why is he afraid?" I mean, whatever happened to willing cooperation? What if he isn't afraid of anything, but simply doesn't wish to help the government destroy an acquaintance of his? The government is a terribly dangerous dragon, and even if his actions are motivated by personal (or familial) gain, I still appreciate and support people like Mr. Anderson when they choose not to cooperate with the almighty Inquisi-, I mean, the justice department.
If their case is so strong, they don't need his testimony. If they DO need his testimony, then maybe they should re-examine their case, along with the true motives for pursuing it.
But then, I'm a bit of a wack-o these days.
Dear Doc,
I humbly agree. As an ex-pat, there are truly many days where I miss these aspects of the US. That said, while I agree that there is not enough gratefulness and gratitude for what we have in the US, simultaneously, I think we as a nation have become complacent as well.
When my father immigrated to the US, we truly were the "shining light of hope" in the world. Yet I fear that that light has dimmed. What I mean is, for example, whenever I watch election rhetoric (although, yes, it IS rhetoric), I hear frequent comments about how great America is, and how it is the greatest nation in the world. ...and YES, to an extent, I agree. We have one of the most fair legal systems in the world, the greatest institutions of learning, and most importantly the right to elect our representatives. In comparison, while living in Japan (as just one country of comparison) I am often frustrated by the lack of open access people have to the judicial system, the tragically under-funded university system, and the inability for the citizens to elect their own "chief-of-state."
However, we have become "top-heavy" with unequal access to many of the aspects that make America great. I find that the emphasis on what we in the US have can sometimes blind us to what we do NOT have or what we have LOST, and what some have but others do not. For example, take health care. While in Japan I can get an x-ray for the equivalent of $20 and a cat-scan or MRI for $50. All thanks to government insurance (blanket coverage of 70% of all medical fees). Even without insurance this would still be under $100 for the x-ray for instance. This would be the same for a child as for an elderly person. My daughter (an infant) has ALL her health care costs covered, thanks to the movement to care for babies and set life-long standards of health. As a result of the low costs of treatment, if something is wrong, my doctor will test me until they find what the cause of my illness is beyond any reasonable doubt, and not leave out possible tests due to issues like insurance costs. One would think that the limitation would be poorly trained doctors, but with so many studying in the US, I find the skill level to be equivalent.
In comparison, back in the US, one of my closest friends is in his mid-30's but still cannot get insurance. He works in a small company which cannot afford to provide him with coverage, and to get individually insured would run him $8000 a year before premiums for the cheapest service he can find due to "pre-existing conditions" like a knee he blew out while playing high school football. When I worked in the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (essentially part of the Hutch at the time, although I heard the name and its status have changed since) I noticed that something like 40% of the employees dealt with insurance and recording simply because all the different insurance companies had different codes, payment standards, etc. Just because of our current insurance system (and the insurance company lobbyists), WE the citizenry have to pay through the nose for often limited service. Although this is just one example, I fear that we as citizens of the US are forgetting (or not understanding) that many countries are passing us by in service to their own citizenry. While I worked at the now defunct Lehman Brothers, I could afford EXCELLENT health care in the US. When I returned to a university to pursue a PhD (luckily a few years before Lehman's implosion), suddenly I was too poor to pay for health insurance. Somehow that strikes me as imbalanced, and I fear that the rhetoric of greatness has simultaneously blinded us to the pains (sometimes literally) that some of our fellow citizens must endure.
This is but one example of the aspect of American Greatness that I fear has been lost. One could also point to the decline in public education (the sciences in particular), the hate towards the "other" that is sadly still prevalent among so many (last time I was home in Puyallup, local teenagers drove by screaming for me to "go back to China" even though I was born in Swedish Hospital, and it's sadly far worse still for those of Muslim heritage), rates of violent crime, etc. Even in our courts of law, the power of the dollar to buy the best trial lawyers also slowly chips away at the foundations of legal equality (case studies like "trading helping hands for boxing gloves" or something similar in name regarding State Farm's denial of payment to deserving claimants in favor of litigation for the sake of preserving profit margins--eventually made into a John Grisham (?) movie).
As I said, however, this is a corollary. We still have so much that is going right for us in the US, but I think that complacency and the focus on "things" (like the video game and crayon examples Doc provided) over rights or ideas is unfortunately undercutting our nation.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Many thanks again Doc, for always stimulating conversation.
Warmest regards,
Jeff in Tokyo
Without a doubt, America has become complacent, the education has declined, the divisiveness is epidemic, and corruption has become less accountable.
Agree with all of that. Unfortunately, you can't bring up America's Greatness of the 1950's without being laughed and shouted down before the first idea is exchanged... The Waltons, much less Andy Griffith, are now bywords for everything ridiculous about an unspeakably naive era...
Libertarians and social conservatives of my stripe are bleating constantly that America is letting slip that which once made it great, but it is not often we are taken at all seriously...
................
I fear that the judicial fairness, the opportunity, the spirit of individual ambition, the spirituality, etc etc are in 2011 merely echoes ... psychic resonance of what they had two generations ago... what will we do if and when the echoes disperse and finally vanish...
The points about health care are substantive also my friend...
Awesome post :cpoints:
To chat about the principle that he is not to be treated as a criminal if --- > the possibility exists that he is not...
What should be the burden of proof in the court of public opinion?
After all, in a criminal court of law the burden is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. A reasonable doubt, mind you, does not mean beyond any doubt. You don't have to have the smoking gun, the blood DNA left behind at the crime scene, or the time coded surveillance video. Circumstantial evidence IS sufficient to convict someone of a crime. And this is the highest burden we have in our courts. It's set this high precisely because the criminal courts can take your money, they can take your freedom, they can even take your life.
In civil court, where you are seeking specific performance or some equitable determination, the burden is often 'clear and convincing evidence'. Meaning substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. If your just seeking money the burden becomes 'preponderance of the evidence', or really just more likely than not.
To get a case to trial you really just have to have 'some credible evidence' to support your contentions.
Criminal courts can take your life so we hold them to the highest standard, when the court can take your property or force you to do something we hold them to a standard of substantial likelihood, if it's a dispute over money we need the evidence to prove more likely than not. So what standard should we use in our court of public opinion?
What can I do to Milton Bradley, Josh Lueke, or John Rocker for that matter? I can chose to root for them or not. I can choose to support them on message boards and blogs that they will most likely never read.
Maybe someday I'll be in the position to hire them, or more likely they'll be in a position to hire me and I would have to decide if I wanted to work for them. Would I? I dunno, I'd have to hear their side of the story. Which is, I guess, the point of your post.
Though it is important to remember that many crimes go unreported. And many crimes that are reported do not result in an arrest. And many arrests are not followed up by prosecution. And many crimes that are prosecuted do not end up in a conviction.
That doesn't mean that the crime didn't occur.
- Ben.
1. You can choose to like or not like a guy based on your own opinions.
2. If you are going to attempt to levy severe life consequences on a man, the way the media does when it tries to get people blackballed, then your situation is analogous to that of a judge.
3. With what judgment we use, the same measure will be used against us. A person can choose to assume the worst or assume the best, or put himself anywhere on the 0 ---------- 100 line of benevolent optimism.
It's a life philosophy thing, a question of who I am as a person. If there's a 20% chance a guy didn't do it, will I personally treat him as though I knew that he did?
Some people love mercy; others love justice. People do what they want. The world is a better or worse place as a result.
1. Very true.
2. I guess the only answer for this is to ask you whether you've ever been falsely accused, Ben. By your wife, your dad, your employer, or by anybody in your life who could influence your happiness.
How about if you were ever accused by the sexual harrassment committee where you work? They're not going to put you in an electric chair. You okay with "if in our opinion it occurred, you're gone"?
Your wife thinks maybe you cheated, but can't prove it? Your protests don't prove that an infidelity didn't occur, right?
Inside the judicial system or outside it, "Prove you didn't do it" is a harsh way for people to interact.
In reverse order...
The presumption of innocence is a criminal court concept. It's precisely because the State can fine you, jail you, even execute you that we place upon the prosecution the responsibility to meet such a high burden of proof. Our Founding Fathers believed that it was better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent. This concept is codified into the system, and as such, with great power comes a great obligation to meet a higher standard.
However, in civil court, there is no such presumption, the burden is 'more likely than not'. Is it more likely than not that Milton Bradley and K-Rod have anger management issues? Is it more likely than not that Josh Lueke used bad judgement when it came to mixing drinking and women? Is it more likely than not that John Rocker is a bigot?
It is a fact of life that our actions are continuously judged by society. As a practitioner in an industry where reputation is paramount I can attest to the fact that present day society looks at everything we do, everything we say, and everything we write, tweet, facebook, and blog about and judges us. As such, good or bad, reputations are earned. Was it a better world when boys where just boys? Was it a better world when we turned the other way and simply ignored the racism, bigotry, violence against women, and other prejudices? I realize that I am probably in the minority on this one, but I do not think that the deterioration and plain elimination of privacy is a bad thing. I understand that everything I do, say, write, etc., on the internet may one day be used against me, at the same time it is also my best defense against false accusations. If I'm falsely accused I present the evidence for me, the employee handbooks I've written, the sexual harassment policies I've created, and the legions of friends and coworkers who will testify on my behalf. I’ve worked hard to build and establish my reputation and as such it is my greatest defense.
Sure, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - but if EVERYONE lived in a glass house wouldn’t that mean that reputations would be justly earned?
And when it comes to allegations of infidelity, well that all comes down to trust. And like reputation, trust is something that takes a lifetime to build and only moments to destroy. It's the course of my conduct that allows my partner to trust me, just as it's the course of my conduct that gives rise to my reputation.
So go ahead, judge me, I welcome it.
- Ben.