0 OPINION Page 4 Saturday, February 11, 1984 The Michigan Daily Trial, and conviction by the media 0 By Pete Williams In the U.S. district court yesterday, a Chelsea family was convicted of im- posing involuntary servitude on two of their farmhands. It was no surprise to the citizens of Ann Arbor, however; they knew they were guilty the first day they set foot in the court room. The four and a half hour deliberation by the jury was merely a useless exer- cize in justification that served only to confirm what the community already knew. Anyone who has read the front page of the Daily, or the Ann Arbor News, lately 'has undoubtedly noticed a preponderance of stories on the slaveholders of Chelsea. This is what is called trial by media. I CANNOT blame my colleagues for the more, than adequate front page coverage they have provided during the trial - that's their job. This is the first slave trial in Michigan in 60 years, and it is in Ann Arbor. It is good, local news' and it needs to be reported. In fact, I would be more likely to criticize these publications if there had been less adequate coverage. That would be negligent. The blame for this trial by media - and every trial by media - lies outside the newsroom. LAST WEEK I spoke to several people in Ann Arbor about the Kozmin- ski case. The common denominator of popular opinion seemed to be that the defendants were guilty and that "the guilty bastards belonged in the slam- mer." Everyone was ready to condemn the Kozminskis for their alleged actions against their mentally retarded far- mhands, Robert Fulmer and Louis Molitoris. My only explanation for this premature condemnation is that people have a basic tendency to assume guilt. As the severity of the.accusations in- crease, so does that tendency. In the case of mental and physical abuse, as well as involuntary servitude, that ten- dency to condemn runs at an extremely high level. People feel sorry for the allegedly abused, that pity is translated into hate for their abusers, and that powerful emotion, hate, dominates our sense of justice. It is easier to cast aside the facts and demand that the judge put the "guilty" in jail and throw away the key, than it is to separate individual opinion and emotion from the concepts of right and wrong. AND HOW about the basis of our legal system on assumed innocence, a fair trial, or evidence beyond any reasonable doubt? Those age-old con- cepts are far too rational. They get in the way of our emotions and therefore, they must be expelled. Add to this the fact that it seems more and more vicious criminals are receiving lesser sentences, and those we perceive as doubtlessly guilty - with the help of high-priced legal counsel - always seem to be released on legal technicalities. It follows that the public demands a somewhat vengeful justice system so frequently. That type of social concern is com- mendable. No one wants murderers, rapists, or other harmful persons roaming freely through the city streets. No one desires to be,afraid to walk the streets at night. And probably no one in Ann Arbor wants local farmers to be allowed to take possesion of, or to physically abuse, other mentally retar- ded individuals. BUT THERE is a threshold were this benevolent social concern for safe streets and the need to place blame on a specific person becomes harmful: when the assumption is made that an alleged criminal is guilty as charged because he or she is newsworthy. Individuals do, of course, have the right to speculate over the guilt or in- nocence of the accused, but with that right, I hope, comes the responsibility to distinguish between trial testimony and a guilty verdict. Read the stories, be concerned for those whose rights may have been violated, but realize that the guilt of the accused must be decided in a court of law, not in the bars of Ann Arbor - or Chelsea - or anywhere else. Trial by media is often the public's response to good journalism. The media has the responsibility to print all pertinent, obtainable information about ,a specific case. The most common misconception of those who cry trial by media is that the reporters and their publications are acting as judge and jury, deciding the case prematurely by formulating . public opinion. Presumably they do this through slanted stories and publication of select information. But this was not the case in the Koz- minski trial. The news was presented in a factual, professional manner. But the trial by media description still per- tains to this event. Individuals still formulated premature opinions based on the media's coverage of the trial alone. It seems to me, however, that in this premature trial, the judgmental readers of the news, and not the repor- ters, are at fault. The readers more closely resemble the jurors than do the reporters. Williams is a Daily staff reporter. Daily Photo by CAROL L. FRANCAVILLA Mike Kozminski and his mother Margarethe after testifying on Friday. As far as the community was concerned, their testimony was unnecessary. _.r--- dien bte a n st Mig Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan LaBan IN UT FCLDTeINThe LeDING DICaTOP1 hW LOU14 POLiCY8 " "NquaLl*FieD SUCC-S -- I I Vol. XCIV-No. 110 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editoriais represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board A basis in freedom R ONALD REAGAN'S reluctance to enforce the improvement of human rights conditions in El Salvador stems from misconceptions concer- ning the basis and implications of con- flict in Central America. A report compiled last month by scholars specializing in studies on the region concluded that "The revolutions and civil wars in Central America have indigenous roots. They are not produc- ts of a Soviet-Cuban conspiracy." But the administration sees things quite differently. Responding to fears that the security interests of the United States "are importantly engaged" by a Soviet-Cuban threat, Reagan has prop- osed that $312 million in military aid be allotted to El Salvador- on top of the current budget's $64 million. At their. basis, Reagan's policies ignore the in- terests of the Salvadoran people. Cen- tral America is not just a battle ground for U.S.-Soviet influence, it is more importantly a region whose people suf- fer from a lack of freedom. Since 1981, the United States has flooded almost a billion dollars of military and economic aid into El Salvador. Unfortunately, the money has brought yery little for the people of that country. The supposed aim of establishing a working democracy has not been realized and even while blatant violations of freedom persist, the monetary aid is not being used as leverage against the Salvadoran government to make progress on human rights. This week the House of Represen- tatives took steps to correct this failure of U.S. policy by approving legislation that would require the administration to certify that the Salvadoran gover- nment was making a "concerted and significant" effort to ensure human rights, eliminate right-wing death squads, and improve land redistribution. Though the bill is a logical and necessary extension of a policy aimed at the establishment of reedom for the people of El Salvador, it is also very similar to one'President Reagan vetoed last year on the groun- ds that it was too restrictive. Evidently it was too restrictive for his anti-Soviet game playing, it wasn't restrictive at all to people who live in fear of death squads and political oppression. As this legislation moves to the Senate, and presumably the President's desk, it should be remem- bered that the basis for U.S. policy ought to lie, not in paranoid fears of Soviet maneuvering, but in the right of the people of El Salvador to pursue the same freedoms that Americans hold dear. M ? ALL 2 if I -,, C ' ' {f - 0 0 4 R HvE(! This being an election year, it is not surprising that Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger is now trumpeting President Reagan's "peacemaker" theme. Indeed, the Pentagon's latest budget report is remarkable for its emphasis on arms control and superpower restraint. "Since there can be no winners in a nuclear war," Weinberger writes, "we have no alternative to ensuring the absolute certainty of nuclear deterrence, and to making unwavering commitment to reduce the dangers of nuclear war through effective arms reductions." Spending for strategic nuclear forces and development of new weapons is slated to, rise by nearly 23 per- cent - from an estimated $140.7 billion in 1984 to approximately $50 billion in 1985. This probably is the biggest such increase since U.S. missile submarines and IC- BMs were first deployed in the early 1960s. BY FAR the largest chunk of this nuclear treasure chest will be used for wholesale moder- nization of the strategic "triad"-the three-legged system of land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, and manned bombers-that forms the cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This spending includes : " $4.9 billion on the multi- warhead MX missile system-now called the "Peacemaker." Some two-thirds " $4.2 billion on the Trident submarine and missile system. " $8.2 billion on the B-1 bomber, almost all for the purchase of 34 bombers-at $226 million per copy the most expensive aircraft ever produced. Weinberger says this "hard- target-kill-capability" will "deter" a hypothetical Soviet strike. But critics argue that such a capacity would give the U.S. its own first-strike capability-and would increase the risk of a preemptive attack from both sides. MUCH4 OF the increase in the budget will go for advanced satellite systems and com- munications links designed for conducting a nuclear conflict that would go on even after many elected officials and hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens have perished. President Reagan has a novel answer to charges that the BLOOM COUNTY budget places inordina phasis on offensive n weapons. He proposes ac a new arsenal of space w, designed for "defense"K enemy nuclear arms. This "Star Wars" ap unveiled nearly a year ag given formal authority National Security D Directive signed Jan. 6, essentially calls for development of new techn for shooting down enemy while in space. In defend plan, Weinberger stres defensive character. "I be is the most significant' can and will take to p peace with freedom andI on to our children the lega safer world." YET MANY experts1 the program will effe diminish U.S. security.. argue that it will for Russians to develop a wh Reagan 's new Bpeacem aker' lineup. By Michael K/are array of offensive weapons - some of which could prove im- mune to the proposed defenses. Moreover,, orbiting these weapons will precipitate anew arms race in space and expose those of us on earth to -greater danger of nuclear catastrophe. It is unlikely, however, that such systems could destroy all the thousands of missiles and te em- warheads the Soviets would laun- iuclear ch in a full-scale attack. But in quiring theory they would have a much weapons greater chance of success if they against only had to destroy the handful of missiles that survive a U.S. first proach, strike against Soviet silos. go, was There is no reason to believe y in a that Reagan and Weinberger con- ecision template such an aggressive which scenario. But there also is no rapid reason to assume that future U.S. nologies leaders will be so inhibited once ICBMs the technology is in place. ing this It is essential that we see these ses its -proposed systems as weapons. elieve it pure and simple. Once deployed, step we they will serve an offensive pur- reserve pose no less credibly - and much to pass more effectively - than their4 acy of a purported defensive mission. believe ctively They ce the ole new Klare is military editor of the Pacific News Service. He wrote this article for PNS. by Berke Breathed Y651"Wea I'M CkRT &y rrrnti rrwnnv-n rw r vnu Vrn / .IA'"Jlt l / i IL Z .!u cAnrI'r _HallNLY - IJ