ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 24, 1996 TAG: 9603220099
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: EDMUND C. ARNOLD
THE TIME, cost, effort and discomfort occasioned by the O.J. Simpson trial is testimony that the criminal-court system is not satisfying the needs and expectations of the typical American.
Actually, the only truly good thing about the trial is that there was not the carnage that had come after the Simi Valley trial of Los Angeles police officers regarding the Rodney King incident.
Then, the major dissatisfaction was within a minority of some 10 to 12 percent of the American population. Post-Simpson dissatisfaction affected most of the other 90 percent. Had that group taken to the streets, the whole of Los Angeles might well have been burned out.
Fortunately, there is a practical and relatively easy answer to the problem: We eliminate costly courtrooms, imperial judges and - blessed thought! - even lawyers, and we effect huge savings.
In their place, we will use the wonder of modern technology. Trials will be conducted on and by television.
The prosecution will make its case on the Larry King show, prime time. The defense will do the same on Phil Donahue. Cross-examination will be conducted by Mike Wallace and Sam Donaldson, flipping a coin to see which side they will serve.
Instructions to the jury will be given by Geraldo. Then the jury will vote. The jury will be television viewers. They represent the true America. People who don't watch TV are conspicuous by their disrespectful indifference to the basics of American culture. Certainly their lack of interest in Frasier, Cybill and Bay Watch indicates lack of appreciation for the very essence of American values. They probably don't even watch the Super Bowl, thus adding heresy to aloofness.
There would be no need to examine or challenge prospective jurors; the nonviewers would eliminate themselves.
The jury will phone in its verdict, and within 12 hours the results will be announced by Inside Edition. By using a 900 number, this system will contribute a major corollary benefit: substantial reduction of the national debt.
Sentencing will be by Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy. Appeals will be heard by teams of football commentators. They are ideally suited to that responsibility, as they have so much experience in evaluating and validating decisions made by officials down on the gridiron.
Certain punishments themselves could be televised. A substantial audience, for instance, would be interested in watching Zsa Zsa Gabor perform her imposed community service. And if we were conscientiously meticulous about running warnings for audience discretion, we might even show executions at those hours when the kiddies are not exposed to the tube.
In addition to the noble purpose of serving justice, this system would have additional benefits. As with the Olympic Games, we could have "official sponsors" of the more picturesque trials. With proper financial compensation, of course.
We could franchise rights to ancillary products like T-shirts, inscribed coffee mugs, collectible dinner plates and trading cards. This would spur the economy and raise the gross national product.
We could also sell the rights to TV docudramas and "authorized biographies" of the principals of the case. And, although the U.S. Postal Service is not technically a governmental agency, it would be logical to cooperate with it and issue commemorative stamps. O.J. may not outsell Elvis or Marilyn but we can rest assured that the volume would not be inconsequential.
This proposal should not be taken as criticism of the Founding Fathers' principles of fair trials and justice. But technology has changed our world, and Americans have always been ingenious and pragmatic in adapting to the opportunities of new systems. Now is the time for us to rise and demand that American jurisprudence take full advantage of the new technology.
Edmund C. Arnold of Roanoke is a retired newspaper consultant and journalism professor.
LENGTH: Medium: 75 linesby CNB