Introduction
Justification defenses are commonly used in our courts by defense attorneys to justify the crime that was committed by their clients. Herring (2012) defines justification defenses as a situation where “The defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim that what they did was right (justified) under the circumstances.” This scholar says that there are some cases where one would commit a crime without intent. It may be a case where the defendant acted knowing well that the action would constitute a crime, but at that moment, that was the only option or the best alternative of options he or she had. This is very common in cases where a person acts in self-defense, and in the process inflicts harm to their aggressors (Schmalleger & Hall, 2013). It may also apply in cases where one acted with the intent to protect life or property, and the act results in injuring another person. In this essay, the researcher will analyze Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority of 1973 to determine how the defense attorney managed to convince the jury that his client was innocent based on the justification defense principle.
Bio-Analysis of the Case
It was the closing date of the year when a group of high school students went on a rampage, damaging various school properties in protest. Some of the students entered the Transit Authority bus and started vandalizing it. The driver acted promptly and closed the bus door and started racing towards the police station. The intention of the Transit Authority driver was to take the rowdy students to the law enforcers who would be able to contain them and help in stopping the damage of property. Along the way, Sindle decided to escape before reaching the police station. The boy jumped out of the bus and sustained serious injuries because ran over him. The boy was rushed to the hospital and survived. Spindle’s father sued for the damage caused by the actions of the authority’s employee. The claim was that his son was not part of the team that went on a rampage on that particular day. This meant that the act of taking him to the police station alongside other students who were involved in vandalizing properties within the school was wrong. For this reason, the father argued that the act of arresting the son illegally led to the injury sustained. For this reason, the authority had to compensate the family.
Discussion of the Final Verdict of the Case
The lengthy legal battle that followed had many twists and it was clear that the defendant was losing the case at first. The defendant’s attorney realized that he had to convince the jury that the driver’s action was in good faith and upon his jurisdiction. The driver was charged alongside the authority which was the employer. The problem for the defense team started when the attorney was denied leave to amend the pleading. There was no other way that the defendant could win the case if this amendment was denied. The defense attorney had not considered it necessary because he thought that the logic behind the actions of the driver was clear. He also argued that the action of Sindle of jumping out of a racing bus was also unreasonable because if he were innocent as claimed, then he would have been released at the police station. This would not have brought any physical harm for which the father was seeking compensation. However, the defense attorney was unable to win the case on these grounds. He sought an appeal when the court rejected the amendment.
The court of appeal held that it ruled in favor of the defendant. The defense was allowed to amend the plea to include justification as a defense in explaining the actions of the driver. Finally, the defense was able to convince the jury that the actions of the driver were justified at that particular time because it was the only way of stopping the vandalism. The driver acted within his jurisdiction, as an employee of the authority, to stop the vandalism that was taking place. Taking the involved students to the police station was one of the best ways of stopping the students from engaging in the destructive activity. The jury was not particularly convinced with the claim that the victim was innocent. The defendant’s attorney questioned his presence in the bus among other students whose sole intention was to vandalize the bus. If he were innocent, then he should have walked away from the rowdy students who were damaging this property. In such circumstances, the court held that the driver was not able to determine who among the students was innocent. His actions were, therefore, justified as a way of stopping any further damage of property by these students.
Explanation of the Defense
The defense lost the first case because of ignoring justification defense principles in its plea. It was convinced that the jury would easily determine that the defendant acted in good faith to protect the property and that the accident which occurred was not the intent of the driver. However, this failed to work, and this made it necessary for the defense attorney to introduce the justification defense into the plea. This plea was granted in the appellate court which overruled the decision of the junior court. Using this plea, the defense explained their case. At that particular time, the bus driver of the Transit Authority had a number of options to make. He could stand by and watch the destruction take place. He could also walk away from the scene to a safe place where he could escape the wrath of these students. However, he did not choose any of these options because it would clearly demonstrate an act of irresponsibility on his side. He was trusted with the bus, not only as of the driver but also as its guardian.
As the employee of Transit Authority trusted with the bus, he had the responsibility of ensuring that it was safe from any form of damage (Schopp, 1998). This is why he preferred to make an attempt to save the bus. His intention to protect the students was clearly shown in his actions. He knew that some of the students would try to escape when the bus was speeding, and this could cause them serious bodily injuries. To protect them from any injuries, he closed the door. He knew that once in the police station, the students could be controlled, and the damage stopped. However, these individual students decided to jump through the window. The defense argued that in such circumstances, the defendant had no capacity to protect the victim. The defendant, therefore, pleaded guilty to the charges but held that the actions taken by the driver were the most reasonable ones at that particular time. The justification defenses did work in favor of the defendants as the court ruled in their favor.
Personal Opinion of the Final Verdict
I believe that the decision of the appellate court was justifiable when the entire case is analyzed carefully. I disagree with the initial decision of the court because it failed to put into consideration the intention of the driver. Sindle had indeed sustained serious injuries that were as direct actions of the bus driver. However, the actions that led to the injury were made out of good faith. If the bus driver failed to take the action he took, then Sindle and his colleagues would have been subjected to more harm from their own actions. Damage to the school’s property would have continued. This meant that his action was meant to protect the students and the school property. This justifies the actions of the driver. At that particular time, the driver had no capacity to quell the violence. He could not control the students because there were possibilities that they could turn their anger towards him. I, therefore, believe that his actions were in good faith, just as the appellate court held. The jury was able to realize that the authority’s employee committed the crime in the process of protecting more lives and the property of the authority. I believe that at this court, justice was finally served to the defendant.
References
Herring, J. (2012). Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmalleger, F. & Hall, D. (2013). Criminal Law Today. New York: Pearson Education.
Schopp, R. F. (1998). Justification defenses and just convictions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.