Public Defender (Pflichtverteidiger) in der Bronx. LPBR über David Feige.
Jetzt hab’ ich’s zum großen Teil gelesen:
“Innocent people go to trial mostly because they’re naive. Like Clarence, almost all of them tragically believe that the system will work and will exonerate them. In their minds, it’s only a matter of time. And no matter how many times I explain that innocent people can get convicted, I’m regularly confronted by the touched smile of the truly innocent. It is a look that is similar, though not identical, to the calm of the true sociopath.” [...]
“Alberto’s predicament dramatizes a core principle: making a statement to the police is never — never — in a criminal defendant’s interest. Talking to the cops is generally a bad idea, even if you’re the one who called them. This is true whether you are Martha Stewart, who secured a jail term when she foolishly decided to make a voluntary statement to the authorities, or Alberto, who fancied himself a clever jailhouse lawyer, confident that he could get even by manipulating the cops. It is one of the few things that everv criminal lawver will agree on: In the crucible of police interrogation, the police will always win.”
David Feige: Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey into the Inferno of American Justice. New York: Little, Brown and Co. 2006.
Selbstverständlich ist das auch, und zwar mit allen Problemen, True Crime: Aber zur Abwechslung bezieht der Erzähler seine Macht aus den — immer noch spärlichen — Niederlagen des Systems, dem es nicht um ‘Gerechtigkeit’ geht, sondern um Selbsterhaltung. Feiges Buch ist unterhaltsam und empfehlenswert. (Für Krimikritiker allemal.)
Verwandte Artikel: