The debate over the treatment of terrorist detainees is a highly emotional
one, with liberal critics of the Bush administration expressing horror and
outrage at the idea that terrorists might have been subjected to aggressive
interrogation, which they insist meets the legal definition of "torture." What
is behind this emotion? We would like to shoot down one possible explanation:
that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives, more sensitive to
human suffering.
To make this point, we turn to People v. Caudillo, a case decided in 1978 by
the California Supreme Court. It is similar to the current torture debate in
that it involved the application of an inexact legal standard to a situation
in which a person was treated harshly by another. At the time, the court
consisted of two justices appointed by a Republican, Gov. Ronald Reagan, and
five appointed by Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Pat Brown, and successor,
and Jerry Brown. It was the Republicans who sympathized with the victim, while
the Democrats took a detached, legalistic approach.
On May 2, 1975, Daniel Caudillo accosted a woman, identified in the decision
only as Maria, in an elevator of her apartment complex in Montebello, Calif.
Caudillo covered Maria's mouth with his hand and held a carving knife to her
throat. She tried to remove the knife, cutting two of her fingers in the
process; later he cut her in the back of the neck.
Caudillo demanded to know if Maria recognized him. She did, but claimed she
did not. He forced her out of the elevator and into a windowless storage room,
where he removed her glasses, ordered her to raise her dress, and fondled her
rear end. Eventually he forced her to admit him into her apartment. In
explicit and brutal detail, the court describes what happened next:
She was pushed inside and blindfolded. After taking her to the
bedrooms, defendant led her to the living room, where Maria
heard him unzip his pants. He ordered her to undress. Defendant
allowed Maria to keep on her panties, pantyhose and shoes; he
directed her to "[t]urn around slowly." Then defendant, seated
on the living room sofa, pulled Maria toward him, pushed her to
her knees and inserted his penis in Maria's mouth. Maria gagged;
she felt like vomiting. Then he ordered her to completely undress.
Defendant compelled Maria to stand, and inserted his fingers in
her vagina. He asked her if she could get pregnant; she said she
did not think so. Defendant then raped the victim.
Defendant asked Maria if she had a boyfriend. He said: "You better
not lie to me. I know everything about you. I know what time you
leave for work and I know what time you get home. I have seen you
from afar and I have admired you for a long time." Maria stated
that she had a boyfriend. Defendant wanted to know if Maria and
her boyfriend engaged in sexual activity; Maria did not answer.
Defendant then inserted his penis in Maria's rectum. Maria pulled
away, telling defendant she was going to be sick. Maria had
diarrhea, and evacuated her bowels twice. Defendant kept insisting
that Maria satisfy him.
Defendant again forced Maria to orally copulate him; she gagged
and spit. He returned to the theme of whether or not she had
recognized him; she continued to tell him she had not.
Defendant raped Maria for the second time, but could not ejaculate.
He again forced her to orally copulate him, and ejaculated in
Maria's mouth; Maria gagged, spit and vomited. Still not content,
defendant again inserted his penis in Maria's mouth, wiping away
his victim's vomit.
Finally, defendant pushed Maria to the center of [her roommate]
Catherine's bed; Maria was still blindfolded, although loosely.
He left the bedroom, returning several times to bring Maria her
clothes, purse and wallet. He threw the wallet at her, and
ordered her to sit up. Through the blindfold, she examined the
wallet; money was missing. Defendant demanded more money, and
Maria found more in the wallet, which she gave him. Defendant
took it, saying "I'll owe it to you." He told her not to report
his sexual attack upon her to anyone. "If you do report it to
anyone it will be embarrassing for you only," said defendant. He
threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Thereupon defendant
departed, taking $60 of Maria's money with him.
One of the issues in the case was whether Caudillo had inflicted "great bodily
injury" upon his victim. The two Republican justices, Frank Richardson and
William Clark, agreed that he had. Richardson wrote for the two:
The victim was pushed, shoved, cut twice by a knife, raped,
sodomized and abused to the point of vomiting, diarrhea and
hysteria. Her neck wounds were, respectively, three inches
and one and one-half inches long. Under no reasonable view
of the evidence could the victim's injuries in this case be
deemed either "trivial or insignificant."
By contrast, the notorious ultraliberal Chief Justice Rose Bird--who would be
ousted by the voters eight years later for her refusal to uphold death
sentences--argued that compassion for Maria had no place in applying this
legal standard, and was so eager to make the point that she wrote a separate
concurring opinion:
The offenses committed by appellant on the victim in this
case were "outrageous, shocking and despicable," as the
majority state... However, personal repugnance toward these
crimes cannot be a legitimate basis for rewriting the statute
as it was adopted by the Legislature. It is precisely because
emotions are so easily called into play in such situations
that extra precaution must be taken so that this court follows
the legislative intent and not our own predelictions [sic]
or beliefs.
Our purpose here is not to reargue the legal merits of a nearly 30-year-old
case, which in any event has been undone by subsequent legislation and court
decisions. It is, rather, to point out that the liberal heart does not bleed
indiscriminately, and that often liberal sympathy seems to flow in inverse
proportion to that which is deserved.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
