As the dust from the 1997 election settles, it is important to examine how the issue of breast cancer was sadly manipulated in several campaigns for the Nassau County Legislature.
Several Democratic incumbents were attacked by opponents for voting against increased funding for breast cancer awareness.
This twisting of the truth was based on a vote by five Democrats against the fiscal year 1997 budget to protest the financial tricks used to balance the books. As readers are aware, recently both Democrats and Republicans alike have been applauded for eliminating many of these dubious revenue sources in the unanimously-supported budget for fiscal year 1998.
When it comes to funding breast cancer programs, no one is opposed. No politician in their right mind would vote against a proposal that was specifically designed to assist in the battle against breast cancer. As this year's voting record on June 9, Sept. 15 and Oct. 6 states, Democrats repeatedly voted for at least tens of thousands of dollars for the Breast Cancer Detection and Education Program, increasing the previous year's level. This is a clear contradiction of our opponents' claims.
Mischaracterizing the voting record demonstrates a degree of dishonesty which hurts much more than one's election campaign. It turns breast cancer into a political issue, which it isn't and should not be in future campaigns. We are all in support of funding for breast cancer awareness, an issue which should be kept above politics.
Legislator Lisanne Altmann (D-Great Neck)
Legislator Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury)
By Stanley Greenberg
Three highly publicized jury cases have placed a strain on the American judicial system and given it a serious blow to its credibility.
The O.J. Simpson case: Many lawyers and the media claim the jury read the evidence with a racial bias.
The John Gotti case: Jury selection was forced to be ultra-secretive to protect the safety of those who would sit in judgment of a member of the mob.
The au pair case: A judge overrode the decision of a jury and imposed his will on the final outcome. If a jury acts deliberately and responsibly, its decision should not be overturned lightly by the Bench.
Are we witnessing the death-knell of the jury system?
Are fair trials before 12 of our peers a thing of the past?
Can a defendant expect honesty and justice in the year 1997 in the courts of our country?
The American jury system has its roots in the English legal precedents of 1200 A.D. The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 was the end of Trial by Ordeal, and its replacement was the jury system.
Trial by Ordeal
Under this system, God alone could mandate the taking of a human life. God would exonerate the innocent by having them pass a test, an ordeal. Trial by Ordeal was thought to reflect God's will in putting an alleged felon to death.
These are some examples of Trial by Ordeal:
Ordeal of cold water: Submerge the suspect in cold water. If he sinks, God accepts him. If he bobs to the surface, God rejects him. Accidental drowning was a serious drawback to this system.
A suspect carries a bar of hot iron for a certain distance. If, several days later, his hands are still deeply scarred, he is guilty.
Trial by combat: An adversarial match is arranged, and if the innocent felon survives, he is obviously innocent.
Trial by fire: If the defendant isn't burnt to death, he will be judged not guilty.
In 1220, Trial by Jury replaced the barbaric practice of Trial by Ordeal as the primary means for determining guilt or innocence in prosecutions of felonies. Twelve men, selected from 100 men, took an oath to the Crown. This was the genesis of the jury system. One good aspect of this early system was that the Bench rarely questioned a jury's verdict. Jury power was absolute. No endless appeals.
But the early trials were not without problems. Shortcomings of the English Jury System from 1220 A.D. on into the 14th and 15th Centuries:
Treason against the Crown (King) was one of the worst crimes. The Crown would accuse a person of treason and then blackmail the defendant, extorting money from him.
Unanimity was not necessary for a verdict.
Juries acquitted out of fear of retribution. A rich and powerful person could harm the jury members in the physical sense or economically.
Juries acted out of partisanship. There was a tendency to exonerate friends and neighbors.
Though the first two of these injustices were eventually amended, we still find the last two faults 750 years after the jury system was established. We must accept the fact that no system devised by and served by human beings can be infallible. It is certainly more than Trial by Ordeal. Unfortunately, it is not perfect.
We the people must be vigilant and examine each case on its merits alone when we step into the holy place called the juror's box.
