Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The "more dangerous than New York" defense
I am sitting in Dublin's airport waiting for my flight to London, leafing through the morning's Telegraph. There is this curious story:
Three judges at London's Criminal Appeal Court heard that Bruce Anthony Lee, 22, was intimidated by the "hostile" and "alien" environment while staying in the Longsight district and also chose to wear a bullet-proof vest.
He was in Manchester last December for the funeral of a cousin who had been killed in a gang battle.
Lee, who has no previous convictions, claimed he found the gun in a bush and fired it towards a police officer who was chasing him through the Ardwick housing estate....
"(Lee) was thrust into an alien environment and, though it pains me to say this as a Mancunian, New York is a very law-abiding city these days, whereas Manchester is rife with gun crime," the barrister said.
Now, the guy got five years for shooting at a cop, and the "more dangerous than New York" defense came up in a hearing to increase his sentence, judged too lenient by the prosecution. The judge having bought the defense's argument that, as a New Yorker he was terrified by Manchester's mean streets, Lee's sentence remained five years, which indeed does seem light.
Not wanting to take anything away from Lee's obviously skillful barrister, is it not likely that Lee was an indirect beneficiary of Rudy Giuliani's relentless self promotion? Put differently, would a British judge have been so receptive to Lee's argument if the mayor had disappeared into private life after 2002 and not so unstintingly claimed credit for the decline in New York's crime?
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jun 24, 07:33:00 AM:
I wonder if it would be possible to combine a variety of unconventional violent crime defenses into a single plea for leniency.
I ask this because as I read this story, I just can't get Twinkies out of my mind...
By 
clint, at
Tue Jun 24, 08:31:00 AM:
Usually when you see a ridiculous defense theory winning the day, the real story is of a judge or jury eager for any excuse to reach the "right" conclusion without having to admit their real reason.
See the infamous "Twinkie Defense" case, which was really entirely about anti-gay bigotry, and not at all about the prevalence of sugar-induced murderous rampages.
By , at
Tue Jun 24, 10:19:00 AM:
The promotion of any concept or fact would distorts it's importance. They push one idea and it gains traction in the minds of the people. They ignore others and the importance of those facts diminishes.
That is why it is so significant that the press is reporting so little on Iraq, now that the Surge has succeeded. It is a fact that it succeeded, and it makes the Democrats look bad, so Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and other leftist politicians and some newspapers and blogs are ignoring that success. This is an age old political tactic that is not just used by the left. That was just an obvious example.
Other examples are the effects of bad tort law on medical costs and the negative impact that illegal immigration has on American citizens. When ideas or facts are promoted, or ignored, someone is trying to control how other people think. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but in a Democracy it is definitly something to be wary of.
By , at
Tue Jun 24, 12:18:00 PM:
Regarding the seemingly light sentence, it is my understanding that UK justice differs from the US categorically in this regard. Rather than having drawn-out proceedings, the trials and sentencings are meted out swiftly, surely and simply; we have 25-life for some crimes and longer trials, whereas they spend less time and allocate less time. Unclear if this has an increased deterrent effect. *Shrug* My two cents.
By , at
Fri May 22, 07:02:00 PM:
Im not sure if this post is still read, but i work with the cop that was shot at. I patrol the streets every day in that area. I was sickened as were the rest of our unit when he was given a sentance such as the one given,especially when he may be released early.
