The "good" news, if it can be called that, is that Mueller's sentence will amount to little more than a few extra weeks in jail (he's already jailed on an unrelated charge). With good behavior he should be free by the end of October, at the latest. He will, of course, still be a convicted felon, and he will also be expected to be on his best behavior for the next five years (the length of his suspended sentence); given Mueller's brand of in-your-face activism, he's probably going to find it difficult to lay low.
I was tempted to write a histrionic article decrying this guilty verdict as the beginning of the end of press freedom in the U.S. But then it occurred to me that the U.S. ranks forty-seventh in press freedom, behind such places as Botswana and Tanzania, so that ship has already sailed.
In listening to the accounts of some observers who were present for the trial, and who know Muller personally, it seems like Mueller would have been better-suited by a more professional defense. Mueller represented himself, for reasons known only to him and a few personal close friends, though undoubtedly his libertarian principles came into play in this decision. His desire to stand on principle is admirable, but ultimately it cost him. By the looks of things, a good lawyer (or even more time to prepare, with access to a law library) could have made his case an open-and-shut acquittal.
This raises an interesting dilemma. If one is facing a lengthy jail sentence, is it better to work within the system and retain an attorney? Or is it better to go it alone and try to convince a jury yourself? It's a difficult question, and for me, the answer is: I would take the lawyer, if I ever wound up on the wrong side of the law. Nevertheless, I congratulate Mueller for risking his freedom for his personal beliefs.
Far too few people are willing to take that risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment