06.11.1997

Anti-human ‘justice’

First OJ, now Louise. In terms of sheer media profile - and sensation - this is how the trial of the British au pair has been marketed and received. But the similarities do not end there. Both OJ and Louise shared the same defence lawyer, the ebullient Barry Scheck - and the verdicts eventually handed down in each case were equally controversial. 

As the whole world knows, Louise Woodward, the 19-year old from Elton, Cheshire, was found guilty, while the millionaire superstar OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Scheck, for one, was astounded, convinced as he was that Woodward was “100% innocent” (unlike OJ?). When questioned about what went wrong with his defence, he admitted: “I have no idea”.

The Daily Mirror was in no mood for fudge or compromise.“Stitched up by the system that freed OJ,” its front page headline screamed on Saturday. This uncompromisingly partisan sentiment was echoed by most of the press and articulates, in some shape or form, a popular mood, based on the gut feeling of a grave miscarriage of justice. When the verdict was announced, a common response was to say, ‘This must have been the jury that freed OJ’.

Woodward’s conviction last Friday for second degree murder immediately initiated a media campaign to free her - or get a retrial (the judge postponed his decision). Of course, coming from the tabloid press, the enthusiastic support for the ‘Free the Boston One’ campaign stinks of hypocrisy. The tabloids’ ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ attitude towards the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, etc makes them unlikely converts to the cause of justice. Indeed, if the death penalty had still existed - most of them want it brought back - you have the feeling that these ‘friends of Louise’ would have agitated for them to be hanged, not freed. For years they treated those that campaigned for the release of the victims of British ‘justice’ as lefties who are soft on crime.

Predictably, this has seen an attempt to foster a narrow anti-US agenda. “US juries are ignorant”, as The Sunday Telegraph solemnly proclaimed. There have been strong hints that this is what happens if you televise court trials. Luckily, in Britain there are no cameras to invade the “sanctity of the courtroom”, as a correspondent said on Newsnight.

Here we see two main planks of bourgeois ideology coming into play - national chauvinism and ‘law and order’. In Britain the state and its justice system must always be defended, right or wrong. But when looking overseas things become different - perhaps US juries, as The Sunday Telegraph indicated, are not such a good idea.  

But the chauvinist-tinged outrage of the tabloids and The Sunday Telegraph has not been the only response. There has also been liberal pusillanimity, of the ‘what gives us the right to criticise the American system?’ type. Thus The Guardian lectured: “The US is a society built on the rule of law, much of it drawn from our own. Besides, a nation which has seen overturned convictions of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Bridgewater Four is in no position to boast of unblemished superiority in the justice department. Nor is it a right to say that Louise Woodward was denied a fair trial” (November 1). In the same issue Anthony Julius, a senior partner with the top law firm, Mishcon de Reya, argued: “She was, I believe, fairly tried and fairly convicted. The jury did a responsible job and reached a responsible verdict.”

This is open to debate. Many think she is not guilty of murder. Manslaughter, perhaps, but not murder. But manslaughter was not an option available to the jury. The defence team went for a high-risk strategy, refusing to countenance manslaughter. Thomas Reilly, the persecuting district attorney, commented: “I think it’s important to realise that in a normal case - and it’s the first time it’s ever happened in my experience - the jury would normally have been instructed on manslaughter, no matter what Louise Woodward or her lawyers would have said.”

In a desperate attempt to retrieve the situation the defence has tried to whip up a fuss about the alleged withholding of evidence. Thomas Reilly ‘dramatically’ produced last minute photographic evidence of Matthew Eappen’s fractured skull - taken on February 4, the day of the alleged assault, and hence in the state’s possession for nine months. The defence team were unable to cross-examine the prosecution’s medical witnesses, even though the photograph indicates most strongly that the injuries were at least three weeks old. Nevertheless, as the jury went out, the defence - along with the British media - expressed complete confidence in the certainty of a not guilty verdict.

The guilty verdict has been used to attack the jury system - which is viewed with contempt by some figures in the US legal establishment (and, no doubt, in this country as well). The judge proceeding over this trial, Hiller Zobel, has disparaged the jury system on a number of occasions. After the OJ case, he talked about the “apparent foolishness inherent in asking the ignorant to use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable ... Recognition seems to be growing that jury justice is delayed, inefficient and tinged with unfairness.” Yes, the OJ case was a farce, but not because of the existence of the jury system. It was mainly down to the well-founded feeling that the legal system in the US is inherently racist. That and the sheer influence of money in the legal system - OJ’s in that case. He spent his way out of prison.

Communists defend the jury system, even though we are painfully aware that in and of itself it is no guarantee against miscarriages of justice. However, it still enables some degree of popular input into the bourgeois-run legal system. Just imagine what would happen if we were entirely at the mercy of judges.

Another disquieting feature of the entire episode has been the lurking emnity directed against working mothers. The Eappens, particularly Deborah Eappen, have become the repository of a conservative resentment against ‘unnatural’ women - ‘This is what happens if a mother goes to work,’ say the rightwing moralists. In the US, this is one of the reactionary undercurrents to the case. Even though it has been little reported in this country, there have been regular demonstrations outside the Boston courtroom by Christian fundamentalists and the right wing in general. One of the placards said, ‘All her fault for going out to work.’   

This constant vilification must have been a monstrous burden for the distressed Eappens.

Cynics might argue that the Eappens are driven by a more pecuniary motivation. They are filing a civil suit against Ef Au Pair, the agency that employed Louise. If the Eappens win, Ef Au Pair could face damages of at least $20 million. But, conversely, the agency has been paying for Woodward’s high-powered, and very expensive, legal team. It has even been buying her clothes during her time in captivity, and has been paying the air fares for her parents, friends and supporters.

Ef Au Pair, of course, is not doing this out of altruistic generosity. It can only claim legal damages against insurance if the crimes for which damages are awarded were unintentional. Therefore, a plea of manslaughter would be excellent news for Ef Au Pair - second degree murder, as it now stands, would not. If Woodward goes down, so does Ef Au Pair.

The au pair industry is quite happy to exploit workers like Louise, who are a constant source of cheap labour - virtual slaves in some cases. For years organisations like Ef Au Pair fought off legislation which proposed for au pairs a three-day induction period, a maximum 10-hour day, a minimum wage of $150 a week, and a ‘personality profile’. The fact of the matter is that for years US middle class parents felt they had an inalienable right to cheap childcare.

At the end of the day, whether Louise Woodward is innocent or guilty is not our prime concern. Her sentence, a mandatory minimum of 15 years, would be pointless and cruel. Framingham High Security prison for women-only offenders is reputed to be a hell-hole, with no opportunities for education or any sort of half-civilised life. Far from providing ‘correction’ such institutions wreck human life and perpetuate injustice.

Paul Greenaway