“All it takes is a troubled kid with access to guns. You don’t have to go to an inner city to find someone who meets that criteria. You only have to open your eyes. The next likely candidate might be upstairs, or sprawled in front of your TV right now. But hey, you just go right on pretending it won’t happen here. Tell yourself that you’re immune because of where you live or who you are. It’s easier that way, isn’t it?” (Peter’s note, p.333)
The scales of justice do not apply to Jodi Picoult's writing style, that is a fact. The previous twenty percent of my reading included little to no mentions of law or justice, yet this section is filled to the brim with interesting thoughts, theories, insights, and practices of law and justice. The story is, as previously mentioned, told in a non-linear fashion, but for the purpose of my entry I will attempt to put the pieces in order.
First, a flashback to a month before the shooting when Peter steals the two 9-millimeter semiautomatic Glock 17s he would use to shoot and kill his classmates from his neighbor, Mr. Weatherhall’s, kitchen. Mr. Weatherhall, a retired cop, is not guilty of aiding in Houghton’s manslaughter because he is also a victim. Also in this section are Josie’s pregnancy concerns, three positive pregnancy tests, and the purposeful miscarriage of her three week old fetus. Her now-deceased boyfriend, Matt, was aware of Josie’s pregnancy and figured that Josie could never get rid of him if they had a baby together. Thus, Josie’s already complicated feelings of loss because of the miscarriage were only compounded by the events of the school shooting and Matt’s death. Her inability to cope with her situation is much more understandable now and Josie seems less like a love-obsessed teenage girl and more like a human being because of it.
Five months after the shooting Peter is held in maximum security, awaiting his trial. An extreme measure for a juvenile, but legally supported by Schall v. Martin (1984). His father, Lewis Houghton, has still not visited his son after five months in jail. Instead, he spends his time at the cemetery where the ten victims are buried and lays a pink rose on each of their graves. Lewis feels guilty for encouraging Peter’s hunting habits and wonders if something he said made Peter kill these innocent people. His wife Lacy considers how her lack of acceptance and her relentless comparison of her sons may have led Peter astray. When Lacy explains to her husband that Peter needs them more than ever, not the victims, Lewis responds, “I can’t go to see Peter. … I still think, every day, of the drunk who crashed into Joey’s car. I think about of how much I wished he’d died instead of Joey; how he deserved to die. The parents of every one of these kids is thinking the same thing about Peter. And Lacy…I don’t blame a single one of them.” (p.286) This conflict between Peter’s parents is an example of Benard’s pendulum swing in motion; Lacy and Lewis are on opposite ends of the pendulum when it concerns the consequences of their son’s actions. This is also an example of how crime affects a community.
Peter’s trial process has been very similar to that of an adult offender, thanks to all the reform within the Juvenile Justice system. This is a bit confusing though, because Houghton’s status is not actually mentioned in or outside the court. However, I would venture to assume that Houghton is being tried as a juvenile offender, even though he is given a trial by jury. This could be at the request of Houghton's Defense Attorney, Jordan, and granted by the state willingly, instead of required by Peter's “adult status."
After Peter's arraignment, the prosecution motions to recuse Judge Cormier, Josie’s mom, because she is clearly too intimately involved in the case. Cormier immediately refuses to give the prosecution the hearing they strongly request because she knows that it will be a very public affair with the victims, victim’s families, and the media all present, but, thinking of what this situation would do to her career, Alex concedes and will allow the prosecution to voice their positions. Detective Patrick Ducharme, speaking from his personal experience with a similar situation, supports the Judge's decision because, “when you love someone, no matter what you tell yourself, it stops being a job. [It’s] Revenge.” (p.284)
Jordan and his wife/assistant Defense Attorney, Selena, watch the Judge Cormier's hearing on TV and realize that because the prosecution is not using Josie as a witness (she cannot remember any of the events from the day of the shooting) they could use her as a character witness for the defense. An earlier interview with Peter’s close friend, Derek, revealed a previously unknown “friendship gone awry” between Josie Cormier, the judge’s daughter, and Peter Houghton, the defendant. If Josie would admit the true nature of her and Peter’s relationship, Jordan could prove that Peter had been a victim of unnaturally harsh treatment at the hands of his peers for years leading up to the shooting. Besides, just by having Josie on the Defense Witness list, Judge Cormier would have to step down and Cormier’s connection to the case put their entire defense at risk, not to mention the entire case, in jeopardy.
A month before the trial begins, Jordan is still trying to compile some king of defense for Peter. He brings in a psychiatrist named King Wah to interview Peter. When Wah returns from Peter’s jail cell, he has a solid defense plan in place: “bullied victim syndrome.” The plan is to compare Peter’s situation to that of Katie Riccobono, the poster child for battered woman syndrome. Wah’s theory is that the treatment of a victim of bullying over time is not significantly different than that of an adult female in battered woman syndrome. “A jury’s not made up of battered women, but they’ve been known to acquit them before. On the other hand, every single member of that jury will have been through high school.” Wah explains. “The common denominator is being humiliated. …and painful or embarrassing memories stick like glue.” (p.288)
As Jordan, the prosecuting attorney, and the recently appointed Judge Wagner pick the jury during voir dire, Jordan asks each potential juror a set-up question which will tell him whether or not a juror will be open minded and follow new regulations, such as “bullied victim syndrome” or not. This plan of attack plays an immense role in Jordan’s opening arguments during the trial; “For example, when most people hear the word self-defense, they assume it means that someone is holding up a gun, or a knife to the throat—that there’s an immediate physical threat. But in this case, self-defense may not mean what you think. And what the evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, is that the person who walked into Sterling High and fired all those shots was not a premeditated, cold-blooded killer, as the prosecution wants you to believe. He was a very scared boy who asked for protection…and never received it.” (p.364)
Six months after the shooting, Houghton’s trial begins. One heckler, standing amidst the crowd of media, on-lookers, and angry victims in front of the courthouse, holds a sign stating, “There’s still a death penalty in NH.” (p.360) While this statement is true, Peter Houghton is a minor and, according to the findings of Roper v. Simmons (2005), the death penalty is unconstitutional if imposed on a minor because if is considered cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment.
Because we are studying Black’s styles of social control, I could not help but wonder what each of those styles would look like for this situation. The penal style, considering Peter’s youth and the findings of the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, would sentence him to life in jail with no chance of parole. However, the jury must be convinced that Peter was of a rational mind and engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of his actions, which, depending on witnesses and confessions I have not heard yet, may prove difficult or simple to achieve. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe the Therapeutic style would then sentence Peter to a mental health facility until he is better. Taking into account Jordan’s “bullied victim syndrome” this could potentially be similar to the sentencing verdict of the case in Nineteen Minutes.
The Conciliatory and Compensatory styles, however, run into difficulties under these circumstances. What is “a fair and reasonable solution to the problem” of killing ten innocent people and attempting to kill eighteen more? How does one “restore social harmony” after the atrocious acts of a school shooting? I am not convinced that these two styles of social control apply to the situation at hand and, as a victim or surviving family member of a victim, I would be taken aback if anyone attempted to apply any “remedies” to my situation.
Then what about Restorative Justice, what would that look like for this situation? The surviving victims’ lives have all been altered severely. Most will be handicapped for the rest of their lives and others just long enough to not earn the athletic scholarships they depended on to go to school. The community at large has been heavily impacted by these events, and certainly Peter has issues to work out. Only, how do you satisfy the victims that will never get to walk where they once ran? How do you restore justice to the same or a better place than before the crime” for a dead victim’s family? As Josie states on page 276, “You don’t understand. None of you understand. The people who do, they’re all dead.”
This section of my reading ends after the opening statements from the prosecution and defense at Peter's trial. Hopefully that means there is more good stuff still to come!
The scales of justice do not apply to Jodi Picoult's writing style, that is a fact. The previous twenty percent of my reading included little to no mentions of law or justice, yet this section is filled to the brim with interesting thoughts, theories, insights, and practices of law and justice. The story is, as previously mentioned, told in a non-linear fashion, but for the purpose of my entry I will attempt to put the pieces in order.
First, a flashback to a month before the shooting when Peter steals the two 9-millimeter semiautomatic Glock 17s he would use to shoot and kill his classmates from his neighbor, Mr. Weatherhall’s, kitchen. Mr. Weatherhall, a retired cop, is not guilty of aiding in Houghton’s manslaughter because he is also a victim. Also in this section are Josie’s pregnancy concerns, three positive pregnancy tests, and the purposeful miscarriage of her three week old fetus. Her now-deceased boyfriend, Matt, was aware of Josie’s pregnancy and figured that Josie could never get rid of him if they had a baby together. Thus, Josie’s already complicated feelings of loss because of the miscarriage were only compounded by the events of the school shooting and Matt’s death. Her inability to cope with her situation is much more understandable now and Josie seems less like a love-obsessed teenage girl and more like a human being because of it.
Five months after the shooting Peter is held in maximum security, awaiting his trial. An extreme measure for a juvenile, but legally supported by Schall v. Martin (1984). His father, Lewis Houghton, has still not visited his son after five months in jail. Instead, he spends his time at the cemetery where the ten victims are buried and lays a pink rose on each of their graves. Lewis feels guilty for encouraging Peter’s hunting habits and wonders if something he said made Peter kill these innocent people. His wife Lacy considers how her lack of acceptance and her relentless comparison of her sons may have led Peter astray. When Lacy explains to her husband that Peter needs them more than ever, not the victims, Lewis responds, “I can’t go to see Peter. … I still think, every day, of the drunk who crashed into Joey’s car. I think about of how much I wished he’d died instead of Joey; how he deserved to die. The parents of every one of these kids is thinking the same thing about Peter. And Lacy…I don’t blame a single one of them.” (p.286) This conflict between Peter’s parents is an example of Benard’s pendulum swing in motion; Lacy and Lewis are on opposite ends of the pendulum when it concerns the consequences of their son’s actions. This is also an example of how crime affects a community.
Peter’s trial process has been very similar to that of an adult offender, thanks to all the reform within the Juvenile Justice system. This is a bit confusing though, because Houghton’s status is not actually mentioned in or outside the court. However, I would venture to assume that Houghton is being tried as a juvenile offender, even though he is given a trial by jury. This could be at the request of Houghton's Defense Attorney, Jordan, and granted by the state willingly, instead of required by Peter's “adult status."
After Peter's arraignment, the prosecution motions to recuse Judge Cormier, Josie’s mom, because she is clearly too intimately involved in the case. Cormier immediately refuses to give the prosecution the hearing they strongly request because she knows that it will be a very public affair with the victims, victim’s families, and the media all present, but, thinking of what this situation would do to her career, Alex concedes and will allow the prosecution to voice their positions. Detective Patrick Ducharme, speaking from his personal experience with a similar situation, supports the Judge's decision because, “when you love someone, no matter what you tell yourself, it stops being a job. [It’s] Revenge.” (p.284)
Jordan and his wife/assistant Defense Attorney, Selena, watch the Judge Cormier's hearing on TV and realize that because the prosecution is not using Josie as a witness (she cannot remember any of the events from the day of the shooting) they could use her as a character witness for the defense. An earlier interview with Peter’s close friend, Derek, revealed a previously unknown “friendship gone awry” between Josie Cormier, the judge’s daughter, and Peter Houghton, the defendant. If Josie would admit the true nature of her and Peter’s relationship, Jordan could prove that Peter had been a victim of unnaturally harsh treatment at the hands of his peers for years leading up to the shooting. Besides, just by having Josie on the Defense Witness list, Judge Cormier would have to step down and Cormier’s connection to the case put their entire defense at risk, not to mention the entire case, in jeopardy.
A month before the trial begins, Jordan is still trying to compile some king of defense for Peter. He brings in a psychiatrist named King Wah to interview Peter. When Wah returns from Peter’s jail cell, he has a solid defense plan in place: “bullied victim syndrome.” The plan is to compare Peter’s situation to that of Katie Riccobono, the poster child for battered woman syndrome. Wah’s theory is that the treatment of a victim of bullying over time is not significantly different than that of an adult female in battered woman syndrome. “A jury’s not made up of battered women, but they’ve been known to acquit them before. On the other hand, every single member of that jury will have been through high school.” Wah explains. “The common denominator is being humiliated. …and painful or embarrassing memories stick like glue.” (p.288)
As Jordan, the prosecuting attorney, and the recently appointed Judge Wagner pick the jury during voir dire, Jordan asks each potential juror a set-up question which will tell him whether or not a juror will be open minded and follow new regulations, such as “bullied victim syndrome” or not. This plan of attack plays an immense role in Jordan’s opening arguments during the trial; “For example, when most people hear the word self-defense, they assume it means that someone is holding up a gun, or a knife to the throat—that there’s an immediate physical threat. But in this case, self-defense may not mean what you think. And what the evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, is that the person who walked into Sterling High and fired all those shots was not a premeditated, cold-blooded killer, as the prosecution wants you to believe. He was a very scared boy who asked for protection…and never received it.” (p.364)
Six months after the shooting, Houghton’s trial begins. One heckler, standing amidst the crowd of media, on-lookers, and angry victims in front of the courthouse, holds a sign stating, “There’s still a death penalty in NH.” (p.360) While this statement is true, Peter Houghton is a minor and, according to the findings of Roper v. Simmons (2005), the death penalty is unconstitutional if imposed on a minor because if is considered cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment.
Because we are studying Black’s styles of social control, I could not help but wonder what each of those styles would look like for this situation. The penal style, considering Peter’s youth and the findings of the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, would sentence him to life in jail with no chance of parole. However, the jury must be convinced that Peter was of a rational mind and engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of his actions, which, depending on witnesses and confessions I have not heard yet, may prove difficult or simple to achieve. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe the Therapeutic style would then sentence Peter to a mental health facility until he is better. Taking into account Jordan’s “bullied victim syndrome” this could potentially be similar to the sentencing verdict of the case in Nineteen Minutes.
The Conciliatory and Compensatory styles, however, run into difficulties under these circumstances. What is “a fair and reasonable solution to the problem” of killing ten innocent people and attempting to kill eighteen more? How does one “restore social harmony” after the atrocious acts of a school shooting? I am not convinced that these two styles of social control apply to the situation at hand and, as a victim or surviving family member of a victim, I would be taken aback if anyone attempted to apply any “remedies” to my situation.
Then what about Restorative Justice, what would that look like for this situation? The surviving victims’ lives have all been altered severely. Most will be handicapped for the rest of their lives and others just long enough to not earn the athletic scholarships they depended on to go to school. The community at large has been heavily impacted by these events, and certainly Peter has issues to work out. Only, how do you satisfy the victims that will never get to walk where they once ran? How do you restore justice to the same or a better place than before the crime” for a dead victim’s family? As Josie states on page 276, “You don’t understand. None of you understand. The people who do, they’re all dead.”
This section of my reading ends after the opening statements from the prosecution and defense at Peter's trial. Hopefully that means there is more good stuff still to come!
