![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
GWOT IV - Last Cheese Sandwich
Nov. 16th, 2019 07:13 pmGWOT IV - Last Cheese Sandwich
A funny thing happened in court today.
The typical process goes something like this. A defendant is identified, and given the opportunity to identify themselves, deny the identity or stand mute. The charges are read by the prosecutor. The evidence is (briefly) presented, having been reviewed the day before by the defendant and defense advocate. The charges are challenged. The defendant chooses to make a statement, or not. If a statement is made, the defendant is cross examined. Witness statements are made, and cross examined. Motions are made, and nine times out of ten rejected pro forma. A brief prosecutorial statement (1 minute) and a brief defense statement (1 minute). Hearing officer review for at least one minute and no more than ten minutes, if a verdict is to be issued. (If the hearing officer needs more than ten minutes, a remand is required, meaning the case cycles to the back of the list and should not have been presented today.)
For example.
"Are you Patrick Smith?" "Yes." "On [DATE} while serving with Homeland in the city of San Jose, California, you stand accused of violating the following articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 118, section 1, murder, with premeditated intent, section 4, while committing burglary and rape. Fourteen counts. The penalty is death." "Does the defense wish to challenge the charge?" "Yes." "Does the defendant wish to make a statement?" "No." "WItness statement 1,422. Witness statement 1,486. Government of Poland, Forensics Team 7, field observation report 427. Homeland pay rosters. Homeland unit action report. Does the defense wish to challenge?" "Yes. Witnesses are mistaken, forensic team report does not apply to defendant's unit or actions, Homeland documents are fraudulent." "What Homeland unit was defendant serving with?" Pause. "Let the record show defendant did not reply, fact noted without prejudice." "Witness 1,422. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury?" "Yes." "This written statement on the events of [DATE}. Is it accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?" "Yes." "Do you recognize anyone in this courtroom?" "Yes." "Who do you recognize?" "The guy on the left, at the desk, next to the guy wearing the name badge." "Where do you know him from?" "He was one of the killers." "Objection!" "Approach." (whispered, but recorded) "Sustained. Rephrase." "When was the last time you saw the man at the desk?" "When he shot my wife." "Where were you at that time?" [Witness examination is completed.] "Does defense wish to cross examine?" "Yes." "Homeland personnel wear masks. How did you recognize this person?" "He was wearing a transparent face shield. He lifted it to spit." [Cross examination is completed.] "Prosecution submits that case is proved. Homeland documents have been previously verified as authentic, Cases 232, 247. Eyewitness present in court has identified defendant. Forensics confirms number of fatalities indicated and that three of fourteen were certainly killed with Homeland issued service firearms. Death penalty is respectfully requested." "Mr. Smith was a Homeland employee and was assigned to a field unit, but reasonable doubt exists as to where he was assigned, what he was doing on that date, and whether or not he even visited the address in question. Request remand to general court martial given elements of doubt." [Silence as hearing officer reviews.] "Patrick Smith, you are found guilty of fourteen counts of capital murder and are sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. Remove the murderer to holding. Next case."
Each defendant watches until it is their turn. Sometimes there is no eyewitness and their fate is determined by at least five written statements. (I'll remand if there are four or less.) Once in a while, there is audio or even video. These are very hard, as they are almost always of multiple murders.
Amazingly enough, only about one in ten decides to resist either verbally or physically. The result is the same, they are allowed standing or being held in place a minute to rant or rave or in some cases confess (whether they realize it or not), then they are dragged away, batons applied as needed to make the dragging easier. This is usually a lot longer than they allowed their victims. These are their last words, recorded forever for posterity, we don't record or allow last words on the execution grounds.
The young, thin man at the defense table answers to his name.
"I admit to my name. I do not admit the charges. I request a last meal."
What? I realize I have asked this out loud when he replies.
"We all know what is happening here. I don't admit the charges but I don't care to fight them. I'd rather have a last meal. Steak and eggs. Maybe a beer."
This is not an attempt to bribe the Court. It's also not part of our process. Condemned prisoners get the same meal the night before that they would have gotten. No breakfast, cuts down on the cleanup and makes them a little more docile as we drag them up the stairs.
"Noted. Prosecutor read the charges."
The process continues but the request is a distraction. An effort to appear human? Resignation to his fate, but a last moment of mild hedonism? It's a garden variety murder-of-noncombatants case, Homeland did a lot of sidewalking when transport was unavailable. As with many such cases, we pinned him to a mass murder at a specific time, date and location - but it was just one day of many days of the same work. His guilt is proven, but also utterly certain.
I find myself adding at the end, "... hang by the neck until dead. Request for a last meal will be considered separately. Remove the murderer to holding. Next case."
At the end of the day, I call first holding, then the kitchen. I place his food order, then my own. I'll eat with him.
In front of him, the steak and eggs, and a can of beer.
In front of me, a plate of cheese sandwiches.
Neither of us is restrained. A reaction team is nearby, of course, so if he really wants to try to choke me to death with a streak or cut my throat with a dull knife, well, he can try. But I'm not all that worried about it.
"We're off the record. You're condemned, nothing can change that. Please enjoy."
A few bites later.
"You don't have to talk if you don't want. But you can."
I take a bite of my cheese sandwich.
He gets through about half his steak, and all but one swallow of beer.
"Why cheese sandwiches?" he asks.
"My teeth still hurt. Our dentists are really busy. Also," and I tell him the story of the cheese sandwich sometimes called a Genocide Convention.
He nods in all the right places.
"You know, you make it sound in court like we are all these monstrous people," he volunteers.
I nod.
"We're not. We're just ordinary folks, doing our jobs. You were doing your job. You killed people. We could trade places, you and I, and it would be just as fair."
I nod again.
He seems surprised. Takes a last bite of steak, chases it with some egg.
"Did we kill someone you cared about?"
"Lots of someones. Most of whom I'd never met. But someone cared about each of the someones. That's the difference between crime and genocide. Crime is a one off, an incident. Genocide is a job. Go to work, do your part, fill your quota."
"So this court, these executions, these are genocide?"
He's eyeing that last swallow of beer in the can.
"No. This is justice. So is this."
I look him in the eyes, knock the can over, and the beer runs out of it onto the table.
He looks at it, looks at me, and lunges across that same table.
He chases me around the room for a moment before the reaction team piles in and piles on with their batons.
A good strike to the stomach and he vomits copiously, steak and eggs and most of that beer. But not all of it.
They drag him off.
I walk out.
I don't think Homeland granted any last meal requests.
Neither will I.
A funny thing happened in court today.
The typical process goes something like this. A defendant is identified, and given the opportunity to identify themselves, deny the identity or stand mute. The charges are read by the prosecutor. The evidence is (briefly) presented, having been reviewed the day before by the defendant and defense advocate. The charges are challenged. The defendant chooses to make a statement, or not. If a statement is made, the defendant is cross examined. Witness statements are made, and cross examined. Motions are made, and nine times out of ten rejected pro forma. A brief prosecutorial statement (1 minute) and a brief defense statement (1 minute). Hearing officer review for at least one minute and no more than ten minutes, if a verdict is to be issued. (If the hearing officer needs more than ten minutes, a remand is required, meaning the case cycles to the back of the list and should not have been presented today.)
For example.
"Are you Patrick Smith?" "Yes." "On [DATE} while serving with Homeland in the city of San Jose, California, you stand accused of violating the following articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 118, section 1, murder, with premeditated intent, section 4, while committing burglary and rape. Fourteen counts. The penalty is death." "Does the defense wish to challenge the charge?" "Yes." "Does the defendant wish to make a statement?" "No." "WItness statement 1,422. Witness statement 1,486. Government of Poland, Forensics Team 7, field observation report 427. Homeland pay rosters. Homeland unit action report. Does the defense wish to challenge?" "Yes. Witnesses are mistaken, forensic team report does not apply to defendant's unit or actions, Homeland documents are fraudulent." "What Homeland unit was defendant serving with?" Pause. "Let the record show defendant did not reply, fact noted without prejudice." "Witness 1,422. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury?" "Yes." "This written statement on the events of [DATE}. Is it accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?" "Yes." "Do you recognize anyone in this courtroom?" "Yes." "Who do you recognize?" "The guy on the left, at the desk, next to the guy wearing the name badge." "Where do you know him from?" "He was one of the killers." "Objection!" "Approach." (whispered, but recorded) "Sustained. Rephrase." "When was the last time you saw the man at the desk?" "When he shot my wife." "Where were you at that time?" [Witness examination is completed.] "Does defense wish to cross examine?" "Yes." "Homeland personnel wear masks. How did you recognize this person?" "He was wearing a transparent face shield. He lifted it to spit." [Cross examination is completed.] "Prosecution submits that case is proved. Homeland documents have been previously verified as authentic, Cases 232, 247. Eyewitness present in court has identified defendant. Forensics confirms number of fatalities indicated and that three of fourteen were certainly killed with Homeland issued service firearms. Death penalty is respectfully requested." "Mr. Smith was a Homeland employee and was assigned to a field unit, but reasonable doubt exists as to where he was assigned, what he was doing on that date, and whether or not he even visited the address in question. Request remand to general court martial given elements of doubt." [Silence as hearing officer reviews.] "Patrick Smith, you are found guilty of fourteen counts of capital murder and are sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. Remove the murderer to holding. Next case."
Each defendant watches until it is their turn. Sometimes there is no eyewitness and their fate is determined by at least five written statements. (I'll remand if there are four or less.) Once in a while, there is audio or even video. These are very hard, as they are almost always of multiple murders.
Amazingly enough, only about one in ten decides to resist either verbally or physically. The result is the same, they are allowed standing or being held in place a minute to rant or rave or in some cases confess (whether they realize it or not), then they are dragged away, batons applied as needed to make the dragging easier. This is usually a lot longer than they allowed their victims. These are their last words, recorded forever for posterity, we don't record or allow last words on the execution grounds.
The young, thin man at the defense table answers to his name.
"I admit to my name. I do not admit the charges. I request a last meal."
What? I realize I have asked this out loud when he replies.
"We all know what is happening here. I don't admit the charges but I don't care to fight them. I'd rather have a last meal. Steak and eggs. Maybe a beer."
This is not an attempt to bribe the Court. It's also not part of our process. Condemned prisoners get the same meal the night before that they would have gotten. No breakfast, cuts down on the cleanup and makes them a little more docile as we drag them up the stairs.
"Noted. Prosecutor read the charges."
The process continues but the request is a distraction. An effort to appear human? Resignation to his fate, but a last moment of mild hedonism? It's a garden variety murder-of-noncombatants case, Homeland did a lot of sidewalking when transport was unavailable. As with many such cases, we pinned him to a mass murder at a specific time, date and location - but it was just one day of many days of the same work. His guilt is proven, but also utterly certain.
I find myself adding at the end, "... hang by the neck until dead. Request for a last meal will be considered separately. Remove the murderer to holding. Next case."
At the end of the day, I call first holding, then the kitchen. I place his food order, then my own. I'll eat with him.
In front of him, the steak and eggs, and a can of beer.
In front of me, a plate of cheese sandwiches.
Neither of us is restrained. A reaction team is nearby, of course, so if he really wants to try to choke me to death with a streak or cut my throat with a dull knife, well, he can try. But I'm not all that worried about it.
"We're off the record. You're condemned, nothing can change that. Please enjoy."
A few bites later.
"You don't have to talk if you don't want. But you can."
I take a bite of my cheese sandwich.
He gets through about half his steak, and all but one swallow of beer.
"Why cheese sandwiches?" he asks.
"My teeth still hurt. Our dentists are really busy. Also," and I tell him the story of the cheese sandwich sometimes called a Genocide Convention.
He nods in all the right places.
"You know, you make it sound in court like we are all these monstrous people," he volunteers.
I nod.
"We're not. We're just ordinary folks, doing our jobs. You were doing your job. You killed people. We could trade places, you and I, and it would be just as fair."
I nod again.
He seems surprised. Takes a last bite of steak, chases it with some egg.
"Did we kill someone you cared about?"
"Lots of someones. Most of whom I'd never met. But someone cared about each of the someones. That's the difference between crime and genocide. Crime is a one off, an incident. Genocide is a job. Go to work, do your part, fill your quota."
"So this court, these executions, these are genocide?"
He's eyeing that last swallow of beer in the can.
"No. This is justice. So is this."
I look him in the eyes, knock the can over, and the beer runs out of it onto the table.
He looks at it, looks at me, and lunges across that same table.
He chases me around the room for a moment before the reaction team piles in and piles on with their batons.
A good strike to the stomach and he vomits copiously, steak and eggs and most of that beer. But not all of it.
They drag him off.
I walk out.
I don't think Homeland granted any last meal requests.
Neither will I.
