Failure of Empathy and Justice

[groovedaddy]

When President Obama listed empathy as a valuable trait for a justice during his 2009 search to replace David Souter, the idea drew scorn from some conservatives who saw it as an excuse for being soft. But a Supreme Court ruling this week provides evidence of how useful empathy is, and of how not using it can lead to glaring injustice.

Connick v. Thompson is about the wrongful conviction of John Thompson for robbery and murder after prosecutors in New Orleans withheld evidence from Mr. Thompson that would have cast serious doubt on his guilt. He spent 18 years in prison and came close to being executed. He was exonerated after a prosecutor fessed up.

After Mr. Thompson sued, a federal trial court found the office liable for failing to train its prosecutors about their constitutional duty to turn over evidence favorable to the defense and awarded Mr. Thompson $14 million in damages. Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative majority of the Roberts court has overturned that ruling, saying the office can’t be held liable for a sole incident of wrongdoing.

The important thing about empathy that gets overlooked is that it bolsters legal analysis. That is clear in the dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her empathy for Mr. Thompson as a defendant without means or power is affecting. But it is her understanding of the prosecutors’ brazen ambition to win the case, at all costs, that is key.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01fri2.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

[varkam]

1. SCOTUS adding insult to injury.

Not only was Mr. Thompson convicted for a crime that he did not commit, not only did Mr. Thompson have to serve 18 years of someone else's time, but now SCOTUS-by-and-through Justice Thomas has denied Mr. Thompson the most pitiful of recompense, given the gravity of his situation. The money shouldn't be about punishing the prosecutors. Indeed, the money would not come from the pockets of those who conspired to condemn an innocent man, those who cut corners to win electable conviction rates, those who suppressed exculpatory evidence in a win-at-all-costs version of justice, but would rather, ironically, be sucked out of the community that they were sworn to protect. That's neither here nor there, though.

The purpose of the money should be to give Mr. Thompson some small, inadequate measure of making him whole -- to right the wrong that was so clearly done to him. There is no amount of something so crass as money that will afford Mr. Thompson a repayment of those 18 years he spent locked in a cage -- but it is, quite simply, the best that we can offer. That the Supreme Court failed to recognize that shows only that our highest court is so far out of touch with humanity as to imperil their credibility as an institution.