Opinion
Madison just ensures fair trial for Vang
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Just as all of us in the university community get wrapped up in classes and the football season, the "real world" intrudes in an unusually dramatic way with the trial of Chai Soua Vang, an immigrant from Laos, over charges of shooting nine hunters in the woods 230 miles north of Madison. A jury from Madison was chosen because it was feared Vang could not get a fair hearing from residents of Sawyer County, even after so much time has passed, because the case had been the center of so much intense publicity. The Sawyer County Circuit Court ruled that "publicity and strong emotions in the Rice Lake area jeopardized Mr. Vang's chances for a fair trial." Now one of the questions is whether the jury will provide any greater fairness. It's a question worth answering.
Many of us come from places where hunting is not part of the culture and the whole concept of hunting animals is viewed with total distaste. Those from northern Wisconsin, however, are some of the most avid hunters in the country. Many of them worry that a Madison jury is likely to be made up of people who may not be able to put aside their viewpoints regarding hunting and gun control.
Though not all of the facts have been made public, there is concern that the facts in this trial might be lost in issues of race and rural custom. Vang claims that the incident began when white hunters from the Rice Lake community began yelling racial slurs at him. He says they shot first. The surviving victims say that Vang shot at them first. Hmong hunters claim that there have always been racial tensions in Rice Lake, whereas the locals deny any racial undertones and say it is simply a matter of people from Laos not understanding the local hunting etiquette.
The worry that a fair trial is impossible with a Madison jury is part of the traditional view that many Wisconsinites have of Madison as elitist and dominated by the liberal faculty and students of the University of Wisconsin. Though it has not been stated explicitly, presumably the Rice Lake residents fear that a Madison jury will be sympathetic to charges of racism, especially when it involves people from Southeast Asia, where American military actions have been so widely condemned by liberals. Rice Lake hunters also worry that Madison locals can't possibly understand the use of hunting stands and customary rules about who gets access to private hunting grounds.
These concerns about a Madison jury seem uninformed, unfair and contradictory to the core of our legal system. As many of you know, Madison, as well as the campus, is not entirely liberal, although at times it may seem that way. There is a strong conservative population. The chance that the jury from Madison would be comprised entirely of stereotypical liberals is unlikely; both because there is a sizeable conservative population here, and because no attorney would ever permit such a thing to happen.
More importantly, at the heart of the jury system is the belief that, regardless of a jury's biases, jurors can be instructed on the law, can understand and interpret it, and can administer justice fairly. Americans must trust the system of trial by a jury of one's peers to work and to serve justice. Regardless of political biases, hunting etiquette, community custom and even race, Rice Lake citizens, as well as the nation as a whole, should not question the fairness of a Madison jury. It is insulting.
Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Could somebody help me out here? I consider myself at least somewhat informed on current events, but this is the first I heard of anyone expressing concern about the fairness and possible bias of the jury in the Vang trial. It seems like some names should be named or some quotations should be cited if such accusations are being made. Otherwise, it's seems like this column is addressing a non-issue.
The most revealing part of this column is in this line: "Though it has not been stated explicitly..." Hold on!! Then where does Emily get her evidence from that forms the whole basis of your column?? And why should I believe anything else she writes if she simply asserts (falsely), rather than cites, the main viewpoint she argues against?
Then continuing, she says this, "...presumably the Rice Lake residents fear that a Madison jury will be sympathetic to charges of racism, especially when it involves people from Southeast Asia, where American military actions have been so widely condemned by liberals." WHAT??? So now the Vang trial is the trial of the century that will put the U.S. government itself on trial for its actions in Vietnam??? How does she concoct this stuff? Yeah, there's a reason it hasn't been explicitly stated- it's an absurd argument.
This column doesn't even touch the most questionable aspect of procedure in this case. Namely, the prosecutor in this case, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, has no business personally prosecuting this case. She has no recent experience prosecuting any criminal case, and she's decided to take this one purely for political reasons. Lautenschlager needed some good publicity after her drunken driving incident, so she took a high profile case with 7 of the 8 nails in the coffin already. That's a legitimate issue. Imaginary accusations of jury bias are not.
Good article, Emily. I don't take much issue with a jury drawn from the Madison area. Because this story received so much attention throughout the entire state last year, I think it would be difficult to find a group of people who hadn't heard of the case already AND made up a judgment in their mind. I think that's one of the dangers of so much media coverage of a case like this.
While I have my doubts about whether the jurors will be able to put aside their former conclusions about the case, I agree that we need to have faith in the legal system here, and hope that the jury selected will be able to forego prejudices and preconceptions in order to deliver a fair verdict.
Actually anonymous, this story was covered recently by the New York Times discussing exactly the concerns and issues Emily raises here. (see Rural vs. City Ways at Issue in a Wisconsin Murder Trial By GRETCHEN RUETHLING 9 September 2005)
"I consider myself at least somewhat informed on current events"
Well, this issueof potential bias has been covered by major media reccently...so meaybe you should get rid of the "at" and "somewhat" in your previous statement and see what you are left with.
Yup, my first concern is possible racism when the accused chases un-armed people down and shoots them in the back.
Plus, someone who doesn't like hunting might not feel that it was wrong to shoot hunters like that. After all the hunters chase down animals and shoot them in the back don't they? Sometimes they even shoot them from ambush!
Besides, it was just white people that got murdered.
Do you think the jury will look at mr. vang as one of their peer or will they look at him as a Hmong/refugee/nonwhite?
Do the jury in their daily lives "hang out" with Hmong people and are Hmong people to them peers?
Was this really a fair verdict? I'm not sure, I don't really think it was. I'm sure there were prejudicy in this. Whether we want to believe it or not. How can you decide someone's life in less than 4 hours? How can you just put them into prison less than 4 hours? They should've had atleast a few minority juries. It was wrong of them, to put an all white jury up on the stands. This wasn't fair.. :).