Justice

After Larry Streeter was murdered on Christmas night in 1997, the most that his wife, Serena could hope for was that the law enforcement agencies would find out who killed her husband and that the courts would administer justice. In 1999, when Judge Ted Lympus sentenced Ted and Jesse Ernst after they admitted killing Larry Streeter and burglarizing homes and businesses, Mrs. Streeter received a small consolation. Unfortunately, our judicial system is as vulnerable as the homes and businesses burglarized by the two brothers; Mrs. Streeter's consolation would be violated.

After his 100 year sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court, Jesse Ernst was allowed a new trial. On April 18, the jury rendered a second verdict. The next day, the headlines in the newspaper glared the outcome: Ernst not guilty "Jury clears Bigfork man of murder, burglaries-Swiftly and unanimously, a jury Wednesday found Jesse Ernst not guilty of 16 crimes, including murder."

Somewhere in this process there was a miscarriage of justice; was it when the court sentenced the brothers the first time after they admitted killing Larry Streeter? Or…was it on April 18 when the jury found Jesse Ernst not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect? Take your pick; somebody screwed up.

It appears that one of the reasons the jury entirely absolved Ernst was on the strength of the testimony of an 'expert' witness, a clinical and forensic psychologist from Ohio. She testified that part of the reason Jesse Ernst should not be held responsible for his crimes was because his father beat him because he woke up late for Bible study. (Aside from the trial, I would like the record to show: 1) There are parents who encourage their children to read the Bible without beating them. 2) Not all children who read the Bible will develop multiple mental disorders and become thieves and murderers who should not be held responsible for their crimes.)

One of the disturbing aspects of the April 18 verdict is its impact. Proverbs 21:15 states: When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. Even those who don't want to use the Bible as a standard for justice should agree that all this verse is saying is that a just verdict serves as a deterrent to crime. According to this verse, if justice was done on April 18, then the verdict should have brought terror to others awaiting trial for similar crimes: is terror what the verdict brought them? Heck no! They were likely jumping in their cells saying, "If I can get the right lawyer, I'm outta here!!!"

In the not-so-distant past, to say 'justice was done' meant the innocent were acquitted and the guilty were convicted and given a sentence commensurate with their crime. Today, it seems that instructing the jury to return an appropriate verdict takes a back seat to charging them to guard "the administration of law" (definition c. for 'justice' in Webster's 1993 Ed.) When it becomes unclear how to do that, the outcome can be a surprise. The April 18 verdict appears to be an example of this: Michael Keedy, the author of Montana's legal definition of the defense of mental disease or defect was taken aback by the jury's finding stating, "though I don't understand to this moment how."

Where will this myopic protection of the law at the expense of justice lead us? Solomon described what happened in his day: If you see…justice being miscarried throughout the land, don't be surprised! For every official is under orders from higher up, and matters of justice only get lost in red tape and bureaucracy. (Ecclesiastes 5:8 NLT)

Sound familiar?