En lika vanlig som förödande kritik mot anarko”kapitalismen” går ut på att om var och en fick köpa lite rättvisa på en ”fri marknad för (försvars)våld”, då skulle jag naturligtvis efterfråga den rättvisa, lagar och domare som skulle fria mig.
Detta skulle naturligtvis få förödande konsekvenser. Exakt hur förödande vågar jag inte ens föreställa mig. Men här är ett exempel som ger en klar antydan. New York Times rapporterar:
Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were “polar opposites.”
One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded, had a verbal I.Q. of 58 and did not understand the proceedings.
The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was competent to stand trial.
Judge Dillard, of the Johnson County District Court in Iowa City, did what American judges and juries often do after hearing from dueling experts: he threw up his hands. The two experts were biased in favor of the parties who employed them, the judge said, and they had given predictable testimony.
“The two sides have canceled each other out,” the judge wrote in 2005, refusing either expert’s conclusion and complaining that “no funding mechanism” existed for him to appoint an expert.
In most of the rest of the world, expert witnesses are selected by judges and are meant to be neutral and independent. Many foreign lawyers have long questioned the American practice of allowing the parties to present testimony from experts they have chosen and paid.
Lite längre fram:
Both sides in Mr. Wilkins’s case said the American approach to expert testimony was problematic.
“One’s biased for the defense,” said Rockne O. Cole, Mr. Wilkins’s lawyer. “The other’s biased for the state. I think it’s who’s signing their paycheck.”
Anne M. Lahey, an assistant prosecutor in Johnson County, Iowa, largely agreed. “They’re usually offsetting as far as their opinions are concerned,” she said of expert testimony.
Än lite längre fram:
American lawyers often interview many potential expert witnesses in search of ones who will bolster their case and then work closely with them in framing their testimony to be accessible and helpful. At a minimum, the process results in carefully tailored testimony. Some critics say it can also produce bias and ethical compromises.
“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”
Melvin Belli, the famed trial lawyer, endorsed this view. “If I got myself an impartial witness,” he once said, “I’d think I was wasting my money.”
Hur mycket värre skulle det inte vara, om var och en kunde ”köpa” sig fria från sina brott, genom att helt enkelt bara anlita sina egna domare också? Vem skulle vinna på det och vem skulle förlora på det? Det är inte särskilt svårt att lista ut. Ändå är det precis den här sortens ”rättvisa” som vi kan förvänta oss under anarko”kapitalism”.