"...They had put 20 detectives on the case against Kent and Jill Easter at one time or another, and the lead investigator had spent six months on it exclusively."
If the woman had lived in a bad neighborhood, exactly one cop would have been involved: the arresting officer. She would have been convicted at trial on nothing more than his testimony that he found drugs in her car. Instead, they put 20 detectives on a case that was as much about exonerating the woman because she didn't fit the profile of a drug dealer as it was about catching the couple that planted the drugs.
That said, given the high probability that someone found in possession of illegal drugs will deny that they knew the drugs were there, what would you propose we do in the alternative? The resources simply don't exist to give all such cases this kind of attention. Would you prefer that no such cases be allocated these kinds of resources, which will lead to an increase in innocent people going to prison?
The special handling of this case based on where this woman lives certainly feels wrong. But I also don't know of a better solution than having cops focus their limited resources on investigating scenarios that statistically make the most sense, a strategy which undoubtedly relies at least in part on racial/socioeconomic profiling. If anyone knows of a reasonable one, I'd love to hear it.
This took place in a low crime community that was fortunate to have some very smart and experienced law enforcement professionals who were able to see through the Peters' ruse.
Certainly, had this happened in a high crime area, the police would simply not have had the time to properly investigate. The victim would not have been believed, and might well have done some prison time.
One way to look at this asymmetric justice system is that the Irvine standard is what all cities should aspire to. We should provide police departments and courts with the resources to solve cases and pursue justice at the same high level as was done in the Easter case.
In the long run, this would increase people's confidence and faith in the criminal justice system to treat everyone fairly and equally, and consequently there would be a commensurate increased respect for the law.
> One way to look at this asymmetric justice system is that the Irvine standard is what all cities should aspire to.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd want to know if a black janitor caught up in a similar situation at the same school would've received the same benefit of the doubt and resources dedicated to exonerating them.
True, but he probably stands a better chance of receiving justice in Irvine than he would in south LA, especially if the school and the parents vouch for him, as they vouched for Mrs. Peters.
Fifty years ago, forget it, he'd be thrown in prison. But today, in some ways, police are even more careful around minority suspects out of fear of lawsuits, riots, protests, and other career-ending events, a few tragic officer-involved shootings notwithstanding.
Any stats I've seen have suggested that any time Police are given leeway to choose who they pick on, then minorities and the poor are chosen, for the very rational reason that they are relatively powerless, which seems to contradict your tale of police officers walking on eggshells around them. Around the rich and well connected on the other hand, yes that seems plausible.
"...They had put 20 detectives on the case against Kent and Jill Easter at one time or another, and the lead investigator had spent six months on it exclusively."
If the woman had lived in a bad neighborhood, exactly one cop would have been involved: the arresting officer. She would have been convicted at trial on nothing more than his testimony that he found drugs in her car. Instead, they put 20 detectives on a case that was as much about exonerating the woman because she didn't fit the profile of a drug dealer as it was about catching the couple that planted the drugs.
That said, given the high probability that someone found in possession of illegal drugs will deny that they knew the drugs were there, what would you propose we do in the alternative? The resources simply don't exist to give all such cases this kind of attention. Would you prefer that no such cases be allocated these kinds of resources, which will lead to an increase in innocent people going to prison?
The special handling of this case based on where this woman lives certainly feels wrong. But I also don't know of a better solution than having cops focus their limited resources on investigating scenarios that statistically make the most sense, a strategy which undoubtedly relies at least in part on racial/socioeconomic profiling. If anyone knows of a reasonable one, I'd love to hear it.