Conviction

  • Law

Over the weekend, the RJ ran a follow up piece on the death of David Schubert–detailing how alcohol abuse and hatred towards the judge that convicted him kept his life in a downward spiral. One of the details was that his ex-girlfriend sought a protective order in which she mentioned that he was obsessed with getting back at Judge Carolyn Ellsworth. That leads to our topic for today.

How do judges handle the burden of convicting people, sentencing them to prison, and completely altering their lives? Surely, every criminal judge, and prosecutor for that matter, must be acutely aware of the impact of what they do and the fact that there will be people who are mad at them and seeking revenge. So, how do they handle life with that hanging over their heads? Are those judges and prosecutors always watching their back? Is it the conviction of their beliefs that allows them to do it or is it the motivation of their next paycheck?

Now to be clear, we’re not commenting on whether what Judge Ellsworth did was right or wrong. There will be differing opinions on that. What we want to know is how do judges/attorneys handle that specific pressure? We know some turn to alcohol and drugs, but is there something they do so they don’t end up living a life of paranoia?

9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 3:52 pm

Berkheiser’s e-mail infuriated me. As if all prosecutors inherently have no “capacity for compassion” because their job is to enforce the law and throw sacks of shit in jail. I don’t do criminal law, and I respect people that look out for the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, but I find it mindboggling when defense-minded people can’t comprehend that there should be punishment for bad behavior.

As for Schubert, if you’re going to stand up in Court and criticize someone else’s criminal acts, and then go do those same acts in your free time, don’t be surprised when you’re punished as both a criminal AND a hypocrite.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 5:26 pm

I used to work for a judge who wanted to give up her criminal calendar. I asked her why, and she said she was tired of deciding the fate of people, and trying to judge which ones would truly better themselves if offered help. Interestingly, right around that time, she had a young man who was facing a lot of serious charges, and everyone worked out a deal with probation and counseling. He violated less than a month later. It has to be so frustrating dealing with that day in and day out.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 5:32 pm

The whole story is thought-provoking.

First of all, 8:52, hypocrisy isn't a crime. Ellsworth was unreasonably heavy-handed.

It's true that Ellsworth probably didn't do anything she could be reversed for; but Schubert's treatment was way beyond what anyone else gets for a similar offense. She was worried about the public's perception of her. "Tough on crime" sells and sells big at election time. That's what was in her mind. She understood that this was an opportunity for her to look tough in a high profile case.

But despite her heavy-handedness, Ellsworth isn't morally responsible for Schubert's death in any real sense. It just makes her as self-serving as most of the other black-robe-wearing idiots in Clark County. They want to keep their cushy jobs and be important and get invited to the cool kid parties. Most Clark County judges would have done roughly the same thing. But Ellsworth didn't kill David Schubert.

Based solely on what's been discussed in the media, it appears that Schubert's demise was the result of not being able to get past his anger over the situation. That may have blinded him and prevented him from seeking the help he needed. Schubert's addictions were the bomb – this situation lit the fuse. It's possible that even in the absence of his prosecution, some other traumatic event may have set him of a downward spiral.

Self-righteousness is, unfortunately an impediment to recovering from alcoholism and other addictions. And while Schubert may at some level have been screwed, it seems as though it was his inability to get past his anger at being screwed which led him off the cliff.

The question to ask is whether it was so important to obtain revenge and be vindicated that he needed to give his life.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 6:51 pm

10:32 writes: "The question to ask is whether it was so important to obtain revenge and be vindicated that he needed to give his life."

I more. What is it about the law as a profession that invites this kind of disintegration?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 9:46 pm

11:51 For one possibilty of why the law invites such disintegration, see #2 on this article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 9:49 pm

@ 11:51 AM

The overall profession. We are antagonistic dicks who get off on winning (especially the insurance defense guys). Throw in being a prosecutor and feeling like you're God because you only take cases to trial that you know you will win, and you can get a little vindictive.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 22, 2013 11:24 pm

I think 2:49 synthesized things pretty well.

So here's my question – what if a bunch of us just started to refuse being antagonistic dicks?

Could we change the dynamic of the profession?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 23, 2013 1:12 am

In my (admittedly limited) experience, civil lawyers tend to be play nice most of the time. But I have had a couple family law cases where opposing counsel seemed to go out of their way to be antagonistic dicks, including personal insults and flat out lying to the courts about things. Is there something about family law that brings that side out? Or does family law just attract the most dickish lawyers?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
July 23, 2013 9:15 pm

There are some upstanding family law lawyers. I don't focus my practice in that area, but in 20+ years I have handled my fair share of family law cases.

In my opinion, there are a number of lawyers who practice family law who are just as you describe. The truth and the facts are meaningless, they will outright lie to you and the court, and "a deal is never a deal". You can reach an agreement on an issue or issues, show up at court the next day, and have the lawyer piss backwards. This is not an occasional occurrence, but becomes par for the course.

Too many attorneys identify with their clients, and lose objectivity and professional demeanor. I have seen family law attorneys stand in the hallway and shout at the opposing party (not opposing counsel, alhtough that happens as well)