TS - Gallegos "My Word" Universal justice is not universally popular

◼ Gallegos campaign ad, I mean, "My Word"

◼ Universal justice is not universally popular
Paul V. Gallegos/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 06/24/2010 01:37:11 AM PDT

I want to send a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our spring campaign a success. It would not have been possible without each and every one of you who volunteered, donated and endorsed. Thank you for all you have given and the many hours of hard work and dedication you selflessly gave over the last several months. It is the sum of your very efforts that made our campaign successful.

I am grateful for the votes and affirmation I received, and to those who did not vote for me, I want you to know that I have heard your voices and I intend to redouble my efforts to earn your votes in November.

Joanie and I moved here about 15 years ago, and fell in love with this remarkable community. Eight years ago I ran for district attorney on a platform of Justice For All -- including those historically neglected by the justice system such as children, victims of domestic violence, people of color, and victims of corporate fraud -- and for modernization. It's hard to believe now, but when I inherited the office, criminal case information was kept on index cards-- not computers.

Since then, my office has aggressively prosecuted the powerful -- even when it's been unpopular. My office prosecuted Maxxam/PL on evidence of fraud. We prosecuted Blue Lake's police chief for multiple felonies including illegal weapons. We prosecuted an oil company and won a major settlement to protect our drinking water.

But universal justice is not universally popular, and some would rather go back to how things used to be. This would be a mistake.

When I came to office, the murder of Blue Lake teen Curtis Huntzinger was still unsolved after 18 years. It was presumed to be unsolvable. But my investigators cracked the case and obtained a full confession from his murderer, Steven Daniel Hash.

During the campaign, one of my opponents made the disturbing accusation that I had let a child abuser off with a slap on the wrist. It was odd because she, under the previous office, had handled the case back in 2000, and should have known the original sentence was overturned on appeal; my office had to re-prosecute it anew in 2004, and the perpetrator was sentenced to eight years in prison.

I'll be the first to admit how much I've learned in the past eight years. Delivering justice to all is not easy. Behind the big publicity stories are thousands of small success stories and dozens of daily tragedies. We can't bring back loved ones -- but we can prosecute to the full extent of the law with the best evidence we have, which is what we do.

We cannot go back to how things were; the improvements and progress we've achieved over the last eight years are simply too precious to give up.

I ask for your support on my campaign as we move toward a November victory. For more information, go to votepaul.org.
Paul V. Gallegos is the Humboldt County district attorney.

Where to begin.

Sorry Garr

◼ Public safety is an investment, not a cost
Garr Neilsen's My Word in the Times Standard 12/16/2009
◼ http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/1740052.html
Jerry Dyer Op-Ed in Fresno Bee Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
Word for word.
Desperate? Stupid? Being pushed by the "Progressive" overlords to get something out?
Unbearable, incredibly unimaginably stupid? Sorry, Garr, this is not cool.
Caught by someone in the comments, starting at #29
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA

Liberal for Life wrote:
Wow.
I always believed that Eureka deserved a literate, public-oriented police chief.
Well done.

Not a chance. Your moron Chief did not write this he plagiarized it from the Fresno Chief.
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA

Lib for life too wrote:
Actually, this is written like he is running for office. Chief, if that is true, don't you think you should finish your one job at EPD before moving on and taking on another?

He will fit with Gallegos in taking credit for another's work. Chief Jerry Dyer from Fresno PD wrote this piece.
***

Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Dyer's original piece ran in the Fresno Bee on December 8.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/174...
***

Walter Sobchak Wildomar, CA

Liberal for Life wrote:
Wow.
I always believed that Eureka deserved a literate, public-oriented police chief.
Well done.

Darn straight. Of course, if all he'll do is publish others' work without attribution, that would actually make him a thief. Intellectually dishonest, AND a thief? Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Remember this:
◼ Filed under Gallegos' Plagiarism
RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
Back up links, Eureka Reporter coverage"
◼ ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'? 9/7/2006
◼ ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution 9/8/2006

UPDATE and clarification:
◼ Pla-Garr-ism? The Journal
***
Neilsen's Press Release

I wish to clarify any confusion that may have arisen from the opinion piece published earlier this week in the Times Standard. This was a position piece adopted by the California Police Chiefs Association. The editorial was distributed to regional directors to be modified for local media and presented as a position supported by local chiefs. This is a common practice that is intended to distribute a consistent position.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused regarding the authorship of the piece. There was no intent to claim it as original, but rather reflect consensus of opinion of California Chiefs.
Thanks
gn

◼ Police Chief clears air over editorial
◼ A letter to our readers

The Times-Standard contacted the column's original writer, Fresno Chief of Police and former President of the California Police Chiefs Association Jerry Dyer, who said he was asked to write the Clemmons piece by the Fresno Bee, as he's a regular contributor for them.

At a recent Cal Chiefs meeting, Dyer said he told everyone that he was working on the piece and that he would be submitting it. As he's done before, he said he urged all the regional chiefs to localize the piece -- either using it as a jumping off point or using parts or all of it -- and to submit it to their local papers.

It is important that individuals who submit columns acknowledge when information, ideas, viewpoints or phrases are coming from another source. In this case, a simple citation or sentence of attribution would have sufficed, giving us a chance to weigh whether we were interested in running the opinion of Fresno's police chief -- even with a local angle -- and allowing readers to understand the full picture of the piece's origin.

*********
not formatted yet
Public safety is an investment, not a cost

Garr Nielsen/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 12/16/2009 01:30:12 AM PST

On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe
Advertisement

the way to reduce California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time, the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. The Eureka Police Department is committed to providing a safe community and we have made great strides in our efforts to become a more effective, collaborative and responsive organization. The wholesale release of prison inmates into our community will adversely impact much of the progress we have made and further tax our scarce resources.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two-year period.
A portion of those inmates would be released to the Eureka community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them “nonviolent” or not serious offenders.
Do not be fooled; “career criminals” will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison, and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those “nonviolent” inmates being released, 70 percent will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these “nonviolent” criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life. But finger pointing after the fact serves no useful purpose. We need to ensure that we support a system which does not allow for the release of the Maurice Clemmonses back into our neighborhoods.
Remember, “Public safety is an investment, not a cost.”
Garr Nielsen is chief of the Eureka Police Department.
*************
*************
JERRY DYER: Invest in our public safety
Posted at 07:27 AM on Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009

E-MAIL
PRINT
TEXT SIZE:
Comments (20) | Recommend (16)
SIMILAR STORIES:
•
Man charged with helping WA gunman elude capture
•
Vote 'no' on Proposition 9, an ill-considered crime victims bill
•
Fresno Co. forced to release juveniles early
•
Is killer in '84 Fresno slaying a danger today?
•
Officials: Gang rivalry led to Calif. prison riot
On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington, and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe the way to reduce the California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state Parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. Fresno experienced this in the 1990s when drive-by shootings, car-jacking and home invasion robberies occurred nightly in our city, and crime soared out of control. We cannot afford a return to the '90s.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two year period.
Of the 40,000, about 1,600 inmates would be released to the Fresno community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them "nonviolent-nonserious" offenders. Do not be fooled, "career criminals" will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those "nonserious-nonviolent" inmates being released, 70% will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these "nonviolent-nonserious" criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life.
Remember, "Public safety is an investment, not a cost."

JERRY DYER HAS SERVED AS FRESNO’S POLICE CHIEF SINCE 2001.

DeadFall author Robert Scott responds to Paul Gallegos Op Ed

Obviously, Robert Scott is still following events here in Humboldt County. When he made this post, he must not have known that Gallegos' "My Word" was largely plagiarized. Perhaps he has followed the story since then:

Response to Editorial
Recently the District Attorney of Humboldt County, Mr. Paul Gallegos, wrote an editorial in the Eureka Times Standard. This is my response to that editorial. I am posting it here, because according to Lisa, the Times Standard does not take editorial comments from people who live outside the county. Mr. Gallegos' editorial was entitled - Vigilantism a force of anarchy.

Though Mr. Gallegos' recent editorial about vigilantism didn't make specific references to any particular case, I'm wondering if he had the cases of Sherry Lynn Smith and Andrea LaDeRoute in mind when he wrote it. The reason I believe this may be is that both the surviving sisters of Sherry and Andrea have been very vocal in their displeasure at the way the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office has handled those cases. If he was not referring to Smith and LaDeRoute, then it has to be wondered how many victims family members feel disenfranchised by the DA's office in that county.

As has been written about many times over the years in Humboldt County newspapers, including the Times Standard, Mr. John Annibel is the main suspect in the murders of Smith and LaDeRoute. In fact, the Fortuna Police Department has stated that Mr. Annibel is the only suspect in the murder of Andrea LaDeRoute, and has submitted all its evidence to the DA's office in that regard.

No one is advocating vigilantism, which would take Mr. Annibel out of the court system and somehow administer arbitrary justice. Instead there is an agreement that the system should work exactly as Mr. Gallegos stated, "the report of a crime and its investigation, the review of that investigation and possible accusation, the disposition or trial on the accusation, a verdict, and a judgement." Neither Pam Smith Annibel nor Lisa LaDeRoute Lawler disagree with that assessment. What they do agree on is that the system on these cases has failed at the District Attorney level.

In the probable cause report concerning Mr. Annibel, Detective Mike Losey wrote, "Based on the evidence and information, probale cause exists to believe LaDeRoute has been murdered. Further, the available physical evidence, as well as circumstantial evidence, indicates that John Annibel murdered Andrea LaDeRoute." It was only the failure to proceed by then District Attorney Bernard C. dePaoli that short-circuited the trial. Mr. DePaoli was later arrested and convicted for taking a bribe to change a witness' statement in the murder case of Philip Kellotat. To say the least, it should cast doubt on his handling of other murder cases during his tenure as District Attorney of Humboldt County, especially Andrea's case.

One thing Mr. Gallegos failed to mention in his editorial on vigilantism is the role of the District Attorney's Office. It is to stand up for the rights of a victim of crime. In the case of Sherry Lynn Smith and Andrea LaDeRoute, the District Attorney's Office is their voice, because they can no longer speak for themselves.

Once again, Pam Smith Annibel and Lisa LaDeRoute Lawler do not want to railroad John Annibel. All they want is for Sherry and Andrea to have their day in court. Without the district attorney's office, functioning as it should, they can never have that happen. This is a far cry from vigilantism. Both sisters understand that neither the prosecutor, nor defense attorney, or even a judge is the trier of fact. The trier of fact in these cases are twelve ordinary citizens of Humboldt County who would decide upon Mr. Annibel's guilt or innocence. Mr. Annibel's rights would be protected by his defense counsel, as they should be. It is the duty of the of the District Attorney's Office to stand up for Sherry and Andrea's rights.

Robert Scott

Mr. Scott, if you read this post, here are links to stories relating to Paul Gallegos' "My Word" Op-Ed on Vilgilantism:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

And, another take on what he was trying to say, who he was trying to go after:
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed

There may be other answers to some of your questions, and Lisa's questions here as well.

Read more/DISCUSS this at http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/

TS - Words of wisdom -- but not my own

The only one in the world who doesn't see anything wrong with Gallegos lifting 17 passages from one author's works, and swiping quotes from JFK for his own "My Word"s published in this very paper, the Times Standard of Eureka, California. Oh, you meant it as a j-o-k-e....


Words of wisdom -- but not my own
Bully Pulpit by James Faulk
Article Launched: 09/12/2006 04:31:48 AM PDT

In light of recent revelations that the county's beloved surfing DA has apparently been skimming the Internet waters looking for words of someone else's wisdom, I have decided to from now on always quote my sources.

It's just the right thing to do (Pythagoras). For one, I'll certainly feel better about myself (Plato), and gosh darn it, my thoughts aren't that bad (Hulk Hogan).

While four score and seven years ago (Lincoln) I wasn't even a twinkle in Great Great Great Granddad's eye (my mother), I do live and let die (Ian Fleming) so let's get together and feel all right (Bob Marley).

I'm hard pressed to figure out how this kind of thing happens (John Driscoll, referring to the recent unexpected killing of a cormorant) but obviously Gallegos -- a man trained to make arguments before one of our most important institutions, the judicial system -- wanted to seem like a Kennedy, as well as some other guy.

But frankly, Paul Gallegos, I knew Robert Kennedy ... and you are no Marilyn Monroe (Lloyd Bentsen, sort of).

It's that time again

The masses are lining up to seek seats on the Arcata City Council, including incumbents and a few familiar faces. It's always entertaining to watch thegrab-bag personalities wrestle for the reins of power in that fair city. Let's not forget this is the town that has given us candidates Nick Bravo and Dex Anderson, who wanted to build a city-owned Tesla Coil, as well as long-time Mayor Bob Ornelas, he of the outspoken tongue.

This year's election season again promises to have some surprises, and again a crowded field of incumbents and challengers. As one election observer recently put it, at least we have Alex Stillman running on the “Adult Supervision” ticket.

TS - A question of ethics (w/letter from Paul Gallegos re: plagiarism)

A question of ethics
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/09/2006 04:31:56 AM PDT

On this page, for decades, we have printed the criticism, praise and other commentary of community leaders and our readers kind enough and concerned enough to share their thoughts -- your thoughts -- with us.

Also, for years, we have noted that writers have to be responsible for their own words. We have urged all authors of letters, guest editorials and other submissions to state their own thoughts -- not copy those of others or submit items under false names. This and every other newspaper faces the same challenge in publishing readers' comments.

At times, we've had to tag someone for not following those basic rules. This is one of those times.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos turned in a My Word guest editorial to us, which ran last Saturday, that -- as reported by The Eureka Reporter -- contained some plagiarized views on the subject of vigilantism. There are also questions about at least one earlier guest editorial.

We've endorsed the DA on this page, and we've also been critical of some of his past actions -- as now.

As many of us were taught in college, it's not plagiarism if you cite your source, which is just doing your homework -- in a legal case or anywhere else.

We don't expect perfection from elected leaders. But if a mistake is made, it should be quickly noted and corrected. After two days of questions, the DA finally did respond in full, and that response appears below.

The district attorney is supposed to uphold the law, and the spirit of the law, and above all be an upstanding community example of the law.

Our DA should shine the light on wrongdoing, including theft, and not lift passages from someone else's work.

Gallegos ran and won on a platform of fairness, honesty and integrity, and he should be held to that standard.



Dear Editor:

Thank you for your patience and understanding in this matter. As you know, I am in trial and the early parts of a trial, most especially a murder trial, are a little time consuming. So you know, I was very embarrassed to learn that I had inadvertently quoted Robert Felix, professor emeritus, without attribution. At my earliest opportunity, I telephoned him to apologize and he graciously accepted. Great teachers like the professor and great leaders like I believe Robert Kennedy would have been are and have been a constant source of inspiration to me. I take their words, their thoughts and their deeds to heart. In the future, I will certainly strive to be much more careful when writing. I provided a similar statement to Heather Muller of the Eureka Reporter so she too will know of both my embarrassment, my regret, my apology to the professor and my commitment to work to prevent such an embarrassing moment again.

Paul Gallegos

District Attorney

TS - We're on our way to justice for all

From the Times Standard, posted on Gallegos' Campaign website ("Course they didn't tell you it was largely plagiarized, and it was not discovered until after the election, when it was uncovered following another incident of plagiarism, Paul Gallegos' "My Word" on 'vigilantism.'

My Word: We're on our way to justice for all
from the Times-Standard | Editorials | by Paul Gallegos | May 7, 2006

Four years ago we challenged ourselves to build a community that is courageous, compassionate and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its people; to create an independent District Attorney's office that is more effective, responsive and accountable to the people of the Humboldt County and that focuses not on punishment -- but on community safety and crime prevention; and to bring meaning to the phrase “Justice for All.”

This has not been an easy challenge. On June 6, we are, once again, faced with the question of whether we have the courage and can sustain the commitment to uphold these ideas. Because change is coming to Humboldt County whether we want it or not. While we can affect the character of that change, we cannot affect its inevitability.

Therefore, we must again ask ourselves what we really mean when we say that all people are created free and are equal before the law; that being American is not about where you are from but about a commitment to our deeply held beliefs about individual liberty and the celebration of the individual, not as an instrument for accumulating wealth, but as a reflection of the divine; and that the only legitimate power in a democratic system of government is power that comes from the people through the electoral process.

We must also, once again, ask ourselves how we will respond to the many challenges facing this community. Will we respond to recent tragic death of Ms. Moore and too many others with hatred, violence, lawlessness and division or with patience, wisdom and compassion toward one another -- not just as members of this community, but as human beings? Whenever anyone's life is taken by another unnecessarily -- whether done in the name of the law or in defiance of it, by one person or by a group, in cold blood or in passion, in violence or in response to violence -- our entire community is diminished.

We cannot continue to disregard the humanity in each of us. Will we respond to the culture of lawlessness and violence in our communities by standing firmly committed to the principle that to be free and to enjoy the rights we are entitled to we must vigorously protect the freedoms and rights of others? We cannot continue to assert that the protections and liberties of our society apply only to those we deem worthy of them.

Will we respond to the terrible costs to this community associated with our addiction and abuse of legal and illegal drugs and alcohol by reflecting on our own behavior and commit to coming up with realistic, effective solutions or by continuing to see it as a problem of others? We must accept we are as involved in the process of addiction and abuse as the addicted and the abuser, and we must work to address the causes of that addiction and abuse.

Will we continue to respond to spousal, child and elder abuse with denial or fear or as community ills that can only be meaningfully addressed by community participation? We must commit ourselves to the idea that we will only make our streets safe if we make our homes safe.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have the responsibility of answering these questions. If we fail, our children will harvest the fruit of our indifference: A Humboldt County we did not want, we did not choose, and that we could have made better if only we had shouldered the responsibility of our generation.

While I can run on my record, I cannot rest on it. None of us can. Clearly, there is much more work to do.

Change is coming to Humboldt County. It will be peaceful if we are wise enough, compassionate if we care enough, and just if we are committed enough to finish what we began four years ago. I have been, am and will remain committed to that challenge.

Paul Gallegos is district attorney for Humboldt County.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.
***
Donate/Volunteer Now!
• Donate to the Campaign
• Get Out the Vote
• Volunteer Opportunities
Paul's Endorsements
Paul has received endorsements from numerous community organizations and figures. View the endorsements and then add your name to the list.
Why Re-Elect Paul?
• Representing the People of Humboldt County
• Paul's Endorsements
• Attorney General Statistics
• Paul's Bio
Recent News
Jun 7 - Paul Gallegos Wins Re-Election
Jun 7 - Gallegos Wins
Jun 7 - Gallegos heads for DA win
Jun 6 - Results to be broadcast on local radio
Jun 6 - Both sides getting out the vote
Jun 4 - Dikeman is clearly 'in bed' with local law enforcement

More News Stories
Pass it On
Share this website with your friends. Click here to send a personalized email message.
Search

What's this?
Paid for by Friends of Paul Gallegos • FPPC #1282810 • Content © by its original author • Gallegos Recall Archive Website

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

ER - Response to Gallegos' "Vigilante' My Word

When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed
by Shannon Miranda, 9/4/2006 The Eureka Reporter

I’ve been in the public hot seat myself from time to time, so I can understand that Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is feeling a little defensive.

But that in no way explains the ridiculous article about vigilantism he wrote in Saturday’s Times-Standard that was titled “Vigilantism a force of anarchy.”

In it he argues that no one but lawyers could possibly understand the complicated pursuit of justice, and that those outside his profession who work hard to see that right occasionally prevails over wrong should mind their own business and stop subverting the goals of our legal system.

I couldn’t disagree more. And, Paul, let’s be honest. There is no rise in vigilantism. There’s a rise in people demanding that you do the job you’re paid to do, and picking up the pieces when you don’t.

There’s a rise in people like me and Barbara Shults and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States and The Eureka Reporter and a lot of other people and organizations daring to ask questions about a colossal failure on the part of the Humboldt County legal system that resulted in the cruel deaths of more animals than anyone can count. And that little article was your way of telling us to shut up and stop questioning your judgment.

Let’s stop talking in circles and call it what it is. You’re mad because we’re asking questions about how well you do your job. If your failure to file charges against Kiki Bugenig in 2004 for her obvious neglect and abuse of her animals is any indication, I’d have to say you’re not doing it very well. You left those animals there to suffer and die, because you didn’t think reports, photographs, witness statements and an actual videotape of the animals’ pathetic conditions constituted enough evidence to get a conviction.

You saw in Mad River how well that situation turned out. But instead of learning from mistakes and trying to make improvements, you’ve resorted to calling us names. “Vigilantes” is the term you used, which might not have been a very good choice, because you clearly don’t know what it means.

According to your article, “Vigilantism is when all or most of the functions of the administration are performed by one person or persons.” I don’t have a law degree or anything like that, but I do have a dictionary, and what it says is that vigilantism is actually “the summary action resorted to by vigilantes when the law fails.”

Pay close attention to that last part. The law failed these animals. You failed these animals. And you have not stepped up to the plate and tried to make things right. Now you’re trying to accuse me and others of plunging the county into anarchy simply because we’ve had to clean up the mess you left behind.

The dictionary also defines a vigilante as “a watchman or guard.” That applies here too, because we have had to watch and guard the precious lives of animals ourselves because you won’t do it. We’ve had to be vigilant precisely because you are not.

And one other thing. Nobody cares if you think you can get a conviction in the case against Kiki. It would be nice if you did, but that’s not the point. You yourself wrote in the article that “What is often misunderstood is that our legal processes have greater importance than getting the right results.”

Now that’s something I agree with. Part of that “greater importance” is standing up and saying that right is right and wrong is wrong. Even if you can’t get a conviction in a particular case, sometimes you have to stand up for what’s right.

Animal welfare is my job. Prosecuting people who break the law is your job. Instead of telling me to mind my own business, maybe you should start minding yours.

(Shannon Miranda is the owner/operator of Miranda’s Animal Rescue in Fortuna.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

RELATED STORIES:
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down

And more Related Stories:
Two mass dog graves discovered near Mad River 8/16/2006
Trinity County Animal Control warned of dogs' plight since 2005 8/18/2006
"Dogs seemed fine," Animal Control Officer Edwards says 8/18/2006
Defense attorney says John and Stacy Malcolm not to blame for abuse of dogs 8/18/2006
Dogs' condition consistent with starvation, report states 8/20/2006
Death toll rises in Mad River dog deaths 8/22/2006
IN THE 'INTERESTS OF JUSTICE'? 8/23/2006
Evidence mounts in animal abuse case 8/24/2006
Report details 'horrific' conditions 8/26/2006
Community responds to dogs' abuse by donating to rescue 8/27/2006
51 CHARGES FILED IN DOG CASE 8/30/2006
National Animal group challenges Gallegos over abuse case 8/30/2006
National, international animal groups weigh in on abuse scandal 8/30/2006
ER Editorial - Specious arguments
8/30/2006
78 additional felonies charged in Mad River dog abuse case 9/1/2006
Malcolms 'walked through' arraignment 9/2/2006
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed 9/4/2006
Third suspect in dog case arraigned 9/7/2006
Mad River dog abuse case suspect speaks out 9/9/2006
Hearing set for Mad River dog suspects 9/14/2006
Dog suspects head for trial 10/13/2006
Code addressing animal abuse requires low burden of proof 10/16/2006
Animal abuse linked to serial killings, needs to be addressed 10/16/2006
Gallegos says he will not file felony in Bugenig horse case 10/21/2006
If Lucky had been seized, perhaps he would have survived 10/23/2006
Original owner of Mad River dogs released from prison 11/1/2006
Malcolm attorney requests charges be dropped 12/13/2006
Defendant in Mad River dogs case accepts plea deal 8/20/2007

TS - DA Gallegos caters to whims of the left

DA Gallegos caters to whims of the left
Leo Sears
Article Launched: 09/08/2006 04:28:44 AM PDT

Count me among those who take issue with District Attorney Paul Gallegos' declaration that he doesn't make decisions “based on politics.” His track record belies his claimed political neutrality, as well as his statement that his office only files charges where there is sufficient evidence for a "likelihood of success." The cases against Palco and Debi August are oft-cited examples of his political squandering of resources on the weakest of evidence.

The exodus of attorneys (including the very expensive, zero accomplishment, sojourn of Stoen) and all the cases that have been dropped or under charged also lend considerable credence to his critics when they say: It is his catering to the whims of the environmental left that has kept him in office despite his lack of competence.

The unintended release of “confidential” files is revealing what attorneys and professionals with expertise are calling the Mad River “dog abuse scandal.” It only reinforces the ongoing criticism from attorneys and those in law enforcement.

If it were not for all the resources wasted on the failed Palco and August cases, perhaps his deputies might well have given higher priority to the recommended charges in the “dog abuse scandal.” The abuse of those animals and the way it has been handled is absolutely deplorable, but there are some who feel that the handling of the Martinez-Hernandez child sexual abuse case is in many ways much worse.

In that case, as in the “dog abuse scandal,” the investigators' recommended charges were ignored. Although he was accused of nearly 3,000 counts of sexual intercourse, oral copulation and fondling, he was charged with only one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (without any allegations of force or substantial conduct) and received a sentence of only 16 years. This was a figurative slap on the wrist for an illegal immigrant who, over several years, forcibly raped a young child -- a sexual predator who by all evidence should be serving a sentence of hundreds of years without parole.

The high profile Palco and August boondoggles aside, critics close to the issues consider the Martinez-Hernandez case to be one of the most telling examples of the district attorney's incompetence. They also say it is a case where Gallegos has absolutely no way of shucking the responsibility, because he personally charged the single count without allegations, appeared in court on the case, and personally took the plea.

Now we have his recent rambling “My Word” seeking to discredit his critics by pointing the finger of vigilantism and anarchy. Lashing out at his critics, like a spoiled child reduced to name calling, is sophomoric (adjective: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature) and only confirms his incompetence in discharging his duties as the county's top law enforcement officer.

Gallegos' oft-stated independence from the rest of law enforcement is seen by more and more people as not only catering to special interests, but simply a cover for incompetence.

Leo Sears writes a weekly Times-Standard column on issues of local interest. He can be reached at lsjb@cox.net.

NCJ - TOP KID ESSAYIST LAUDS GALLEGOS w/update

TOP KID ESSAYIST LAUDS GALLEGOS
North Coast Journal 5/12/05

Congratulations to Kevin Zhou, 11th-grader at Monte Vista High School in the Bay Area town of Danville. Late last month, Zhou was named as one of two winners of the annual "Profiles in Courage Essay Contest," a program of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, for his essay on Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos' lawsuit against Pacific Lumber and last year's recall attempt against him. Locals may quibble with some of the facts asserted in Zhou's eight-paragraph essay -- he identifies then-Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti as a "long-time supporter" of the DA and baldly states that Gallegos' home was broken into twice during the campaign (an allegation that was never proven) -- but he seems to have absorbed some of the fervor that Gallegos supporters exhibited during the recall. "District Attorney Paul V. Gallegos' courageous actions marked a turning point in the dominance of the timber company's interests in the county, and reflect a man who was willing to act on principle and not politics," Zhou writes. The kid is on a roll -- earlier this year he won an essay contest sponsored by the United Nations Association, and he picked up honors in last year's National Peace Essay Contest. On Monday, Kennedy's daughter Caroline will present Zhou with a silver Tiffany lantern -- representing a "beacon of hope" -- at a ceremony in Boston.

###

Update:
Given that the hero of the story Paul Gallegos is now shown to be ripping off Robert Kennedy's quotes...
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

Another newspaper column bearing the name of District Attorney Paul Gallegos contains the words of another man — in this case, the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

The column, published as a “My Word” guest commentary in the Times-Standard on May 7, during Gallegos’ heated re-election campaign against Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman, contained numerous phrases closely resembling those used by Kennedy in a variety of writings and public addresses.

The discovery of this second incidence of apparent plagiarism occurred Wednesday, when phrases from Gallegos’ column were entered into Google, an Internet search engine.

In the initial search, a Web site called “Robert F. Kennedy The Dream Lives!” was found containing a collection of Kennedy quotes. A manual search of the quotes on that site revealed a series of similarities between Gallegos’ writings and quotes previously attributed to Kennedy.

Earlier this week, The Eureka Reporter learned that at least 10 sentences or parts of sentences in a Times-Standard column published Saturday under Gallegos’ name had appeared six years earlier in a scholarly paper called “The Ox-Box Incident,” written by Robert Louis Felix, professor emeritus of legal research at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

Gallegos said Wednesday that he did not intend to represent Felix’s work as his own. “It certainly wasn’t my intention to make direct quotes. Sometimes when you’re using things, you make use of an expression or a phrase,” he said.

While making the case for his re-election in May, Gallegos made use of a number of other expressions and phrases.

He wrote, “Whenever anyone’s life is taken by another unnecessarily — whether done in the name of the law or in defiance of it, by one person or by a group, in cold blood or in passion, in violence or in response to violence — our entire community is diminished.”

The statement is strikingly similar to one attributed to Kennedy: “Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily — whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence … the whole nation is degraded.”

On the subject of change in Humboldt County, Gallegos wrote in the “My Word” column, “While we can affect the character of that change, we cannot affect its inevitability.”

Forty years earlier, Kennedy spoke of revolution in similar terms: “We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.”

In at least five other instances, phrases from Gallegos’ “My Word” column resemble or duplicate phrases previously attributed to Kennedy.

When informed of the second known occurrence of Gallegos’ apparent quotation without attribution, Lee Bowker, Ph.D., emeritus dean of Humboldt State University’s College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, said, “I don’t know if I could trust someone who was caught doing that twice. That’s not just as a professor, but as a citizen in this society. Because if you found him doing it twice, how many times did he do it and no one found out?”

As previously reported in The Eureka Reporter, Bowker said Wednesday that in academic circles, at least, plagiarism or the appearance thereof is considered a serious matter.

“The taking of even a single line from another source without attribution is plagiarism. That’s the academic standard. It’s an extremely serious offense.”

On Thursday, Bowker said a second instance was more serious still.

“Chances are, it’s a habit for him. That’s what I would conclude about any student who did that. What else can you conclude?”

When contacted Thursday for comment on similarities between his writing and Kennedy’s, Gallegos, who is currently prosecuting a murder trial, said he needed to put his job first and was unable to talk at that time.

***
Paul Gallegos
From “We’re on our way to justice for all”
Times-Standard
(May 7, 2006)

While I can run on my record, I cannot rest on it.

If we fail, our children will harvest the fruit of our indifference.

While we can affect the character of that change, we cannot affect its inevitability.

Change is coming to Humboldt County. It will be peaceful if we are wise enough, compassionate if we care enough, and just if we are committed enough… .

… a community… strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its people…

…what we really mean when we say that all people are created free and are equal before the law…

Whenever anyone’s life is taken by another unnecessarily — whether done in the name of the law or in defiance of it, by one person or by a group, in cold blood or in passion, in violence or in response to violence — our entire community is diminished.

***
Robert F. Kennedy

“Robert F. Kennedy The Dream Lives!”
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/rfk.html

We democrats can run on our record but we cannot rest on it.

If we fail to dare… the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference

We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.

A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough… .

…a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its own people…

…what we really mean when we say that all people are created free and are equal before the law.

Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily —whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence… the whole nation is degraded.

by Heather Muller
9/8/2006
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
***
RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'? 9/7/2006

WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?

Significant portions of a guest commentary submitted by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, and printed in the Saturday edition of the Times-Standard, appeared earlier in an academic paper written in 2000 about a World War II-era Western starring Henry Fonda.

Gallegos’ commentary appeared as a “My Word” guest column in the Times-Standard, under the title “Vigilantism a force of anarchy.” In it he argued that vigilantes put the rights of all people at risk by overriding the safeguards of due process — an argument legal scholar Robert Louis Felix made six years earlier in “The Ox-Bow Incident,” a paper written about a 1943 film by the same name.

“There’s certainly nothing earth-shattering about the thoughts,” said Felix, a professor emeritus of legal research at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

But it was not just the thoughts that Gallegos used. In at least 10 instances, complete sentences and parts of sentences from the 2000 paper — found on the Internet by using the Google search engine — appeared in Gallegos’ submission.

“There’s such a thing as fair use, which means that within certain limits work can be quoted for academic purposes. I’m saying quoted now, not lifted. I think clearly phrases are taken out of the article,” Felix said.

“If I knew that the article had been read and parts of it lifted without any intention to acknowledge or attribute it, I’d be offended.”

The movie, based on a 1940 novel by Walter van Tilburg Clark, tells the story of three innocent men who are lynched for a crime that didn’t occur.

“I couldn’t say if this is a crime or not, but in academic circles we call it plagiarism,” said Lee Bowker, Ph.D., emeritus dean of Humboldt State University’s College of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bowker had not seen the two articles and spoke only in general terms about a problem that is common on college campuses. “The taking of even a single line from another source without attribution is plagiarism. That’s the academic standard,” he said. “It’s an extremely serious offense. It’s so serious that presidents of universities have been fired for it. Faculty members have had their tenure revoked. A single instance proved against a faculty member can ruin that person’s career.”

“I would not accuse him of plagiarism,” Felix said, “but it’s difficult to imagine he wrote this particular (opinion) piece without some knowledge of the article.”

Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Gallegos initially said he was not specifically aware of the article Felix had written, but later said that he believed he had read it, adding that he had read a lot of articles about the “The Ox-Bow Incident.”

“It’s one of my favorite stories. ... As a prosecutor, I loved the story.”

When asked if he knew that swaths of his “My Word” commentary had previously appeared in Felix’s article, Gallegos responded, “No. I was not aware of that.”

“Obviously the question here is whether I intended to take direct quotes without attribution, and no, I didn’t intend that,” he said.

“Certainly when you’re getting ideas sometimes you write them back in a way that sounds very similar.”

But Gallegos maintained that he did not intend to represent Felix’s work as his own. “If I’ve done that, I certainly apologize to the professor.”

Felix said his paper had originally been presented at a 2000 meeting of the American Culture Association in New Orleans. A version of the article has been collected in “Screening Justice,” a book of essays about law and film.

Felix said he does not know who currently holds the copyright on the article.

by Heather Muller , 9/7/2006
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

TS -Paul Gallegos' MY WORD Vigilantism a force of anarchy W/LINKS

This is Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos' Op-Ed "My Word," published in the Times Standard, and later revealed to have been largely plagiarized, with the theme and key passages taken from THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX

Links to related stories below, including a second case of Gallegos' plagiarizing in an earlier "My Word" piece.

Times Standard
Vigilantism a force of anarchy
My Word / Paul Gallegos
09/02/2006 04:28:23 AM PDT

Our legal system involves several stages, starting with the report of a crime and its investigation, the review of that investigation and a possible accusation, the disposition or trial on the accusation, a verdict, and a judgment. Responsibility for each of these stages is allocated to different independent entities ranging from the investigative agencies, to the District Attorney's Office, to the Probation Department, and to the court. The proper allocation of these duties and the independence of these roles is necessary to independently evaluate both the evidence of guilt and the risk of error at each stage in the proceeding.
When the person convicted is guilty, the system has worked. However, what is often misunderstood is that our legal processes have greater importance than getting the right results. Specifically, since absolute truth regarding guilt is not possible in all cases, some toleration of error is necessary and is required to protect us from the potential of abuse of power. Accordingly, we place the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the prosecution and require a unanimous jury verdict. This manages the risk of error in a way that is most favorable to the citizen. These stages, the independence of the various entities, the high burden of proof and the requirement of a unanimous verdict provide us with assurance in the accuracy of the final determination.
When the legal system is adhered to, the system demonstrates its commitment to the very laws it tells citizens they must comply with. It also manages risk in favor of its citizenry. If the accused is found guilty, the system has worked. If the accused is found not guilty, the system remains intact, functions as a model of compliance with the law, and firmly establishes that our individual freedoms are intricately intertwined with the maintenance of our laws.
By contrast, vigilantism is when all or most of the functions of the administration of justice are performed by one person or persons. Today, I see a growing tendency for individuals or a group of individuals to disregard our established practice in the administration of justice: orderly progression within the limits of official power and rational decision making. Instead, those individuals or a group of individuals try to assume all of the functions of the administration of justice and to, not only behave as a vigilante by acting as accuser, jury and judge but, incite that behavior in our communities as well. It is especially troubling when those individuals or group of individuals engage in and promote this vigilantism to further their particular viewpoints or goals to the detriment of both the individual and the community.
Quite frankly, we cannot have a presumption of innocence, a requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or due process when the investigation, accusation, trial and judgment is taken over by one person or a group of persons. All you can have is vigilantism and vigilantism is a force of anarchy without much promise of justice.
Therefore, I ask that we, as individuals and as a community, recommit ourselves to the foundations upon which our country was formed. Similarly, I ask that we recommit ourselves to strive to honor and respect both the rights and the responsibilities of the individual that necessarily follow a belief in free will and personal responsibility. If we fail to do this and we allow ourselves to succumb to the vigilantism of others, we not only deprive that particular individual who is accused, found guilty and sentenced without the benefit of our laws of justice, we threaten the rights of everyone and our entire system.

Paul V. Gallegos is district attorney for Humboldt County.

Opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

***
LINKS to Related Stories, including the original
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

THE OX-BOW INCIDENT (The Original)

Legal Studies Forum 
Volume 24, Numbers 3 & 4 (2000)
reprinted by permission Legal Studies Forum

THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/felix24.htm

    The Ox-Bow Incident is a Western that tells of a vigilante "posse" that lynches three innocent men for a murder that has not been committed. The novel by Walter van Tilburg Clark and the Hollywood film, which is based on the novel, are expressions of American literary and popular culture. Both deal with vigilantism in the historic American west of cowboys, large spaces, sparse population, and a halting legal system, in ways that invite continuing speculation about the implications of vigilantism. 
As a springboard for law and literature, the novel and the film provide narrative and dramatic illustrations of the evils caused by the deliberate or misguided failure to observe established practice in the administration of criminal justice: orderly progression within the limits of official power and rational decision making. The disregard or distortion of these elements by the "posse" become lynch mob is responsible for the injustice at the Ox-Bow. Both novel and film present vigilantism as destructive of due process and fidelity to law.
Clark wrote his novel in the late 1930s, and it was published in 1940. Nazi Germany was conquering much of Europe, and the United States was being swept into war. Clark's vision of society, unrestrained by the Hollywood star system and Hollywood's code of film values, is darker than that of the film. Vigilantism is a force of anarchy without much promise of correction.
The film was issued in 1943. War was world wide, the United States was in the midst of it, and patriotism was in full cry. In the Hollywood film version of the story the anarchy of vigilantism remains at the core of the story, but the story ends with the promise of correction. That justice will be served is a promise the novel does not make.
The film is a black and white small screen production that runs only seventy- five minutes. It was issued in 1943 by Twentieth Century-Fox. Produced by Lamar Trotti and based on his screen play from the novel, the film was directed by William Wellman. Of the well known actors who play the large cast of individual characters, Henry Fonda remains the most notable today. The film received an academy award nomination for best picture but did not win. For this reason perhaps, and because of its stern message, the film was an artistic but not a commercial success.

[645]

* * *

The story is that of a hastily thrown together "posse" that becomes a lynch mob almost from the start. The hurried report of a fatal shooting and cattle rustling propels townsfolk and the rancher friends of the victim into an unchartered hunt for the supposed culprits. They come upon suspects and cattle in the mountains at the Ox- Bow, a high meadow in the Sierras, seize them and, after perfunctory examination and a grudging wait until sun-up, give them a moment to pray and then hang them. Almost immediately thereafter the sheriff arrives from the site of the imagined crime to report that the victim is alive and the cattle were fairly bought. The sheriff promises to investigate and to have the wrongdoers punished. The audience is left with the impression that however wrong the lynchings were, right may win out and justice will be done to those who deserve to be punished. The cowboys return to town, mope along the bar at Darby's saloon, at which some of them eavesdrop while Gil Carter, the cowboy played by Henry Fonda, reads the letter the hanged rancher wrote to his wife during his last hours. The letter is a mournful combination of final affections to widow and children and reflections on justice in the face of an unjust execution. A pot of money is gathered up along the bar, and Gil and his sidekick Art ride off to deliver the letter and the money to the bereft family. End of film.1 (The screen then invites the audience to purchase U.S. War Stamps and Savings Bonds which are sold at the theater.)
The novel is not so clear about how the story may end once the telling is over. Clark's sheriff cannot pick the lynchers out of the snow flurries, and the return to town is much more ambiguous about how justice will (or will not) be served. This is perhaps the most serious thematic departure from the novel. There are structural changes, transposed speeches, and some switching of the two main characters to accommodate Fonda's star status. However, these do not substantially alter the theme of justice gone bad and the ways in which the story portrays the injustice of vigilante reprisal.
    This theme can be explored by tracing the disorder in the criminal process, the confusion of roles, and the distortion of rational persuasion. Thus, the film's plot can be seen as a series of departures from the way in which the steps of the criminal process are supposed to be carried 

[646]

out, the blurring of offices that are established to perform those steps, and disregard for the function of rational persuasion in reaching conclusions about facts and in compelling belief in guilt or innocence.
Both the novel and the film can usefully be studied in a law and literature syllabus. They present a popular art form-the Western- with all its stereotypical images in plot, character, dialogue, language, setting and, in the film, music. Even if that were all, the book and the movie would still provide a good ride through time in a part of history which is peculiarly American-the west, the cowboy, and self-help in dealing with threats to the social fabric. But the story presents the dark side of do-it-yourself justice, and the work of the lynch mob is an expression of terrible injustice. A stock western would leave the matter at that, and in the simplification of moral values that is characteristic of melodrama, guide us through the spectacle of wrongdoing and redress to a proper moral conclusion. The novel does not do this in a finished way-it does not mean to-and although the film tries to pull it off with a more promising ending, it does capture much of the novel's unsettling narrative of mixed motives and disconnected social drives. The accomplishment of the novel and the film is to dramatize how a mix of characters, mostly law abiding in their daily lives, can come together to do justice, be quickly turned awry and then proceed in a grimly majoritarian way to commit the worst of all crimes against the person, murder in the guise of reasonable accusation, fair trial, and just execution.

* * *

The film opens in the dusty, somewhat deserted looking town of Bridger's Wells, Nevada, in 1885. Two cowboys--Gil Carter (Henry Fonda) and Art Croft (Harry Morgan)--ride into town and enter Darby's Saloon to begin drinking and to catch up on news. They learn that Gil's girlfriend Rose Mapen has left town and that there is concern about rustling. As they gaze over the bar at a timeless saloon cliche--the painting of a woman on a sofa being approached by a man who never seems to reach her--they are soon joined by Farnley and Moore, two ranchers from the valley. The subject of recent cattle rustling quickly leads to animosity against Carter and Croft who are strangers. The now drunken Carter attacks Farnley but is quelled by a bottle to the back of the head from Darby the bartender. The distrust of Carter and Croft by the other ranchers and their isolation from the townsfolk will limit their capacity to withstand the injustice that is to follow.

[647]

A kid rides in on horseback proclaiming that Larry Kinkaid, Farnley's buddy, has been shot to death down in the valley near his ranch, and looking for the sheriff-a sheriff who Art has noted "never got closer than Reno, except on special call." This is the report of a crime, and the decision whether to investigate is the next step in the administration of criminal justice. The kid's report is a mixture of excitement, self-importance, and garbled fact, with sufficient interest to prompt inquiry; and once the headstrong Farnley can be dissuaded from immediate pursuit, an attempt is made to form a posse. 
At this point, the film remains full of ambiguous potential. To investigate is reasonable, to pursue is the readiest way to carry out investigation. Without a standing constabulary, i.e., a police force, a posse is fairly called for. Historically, the role of the posse comitatus (the force of the county) was to assist the sheriff in maintaining public order and to pursue felons. Here, the call to able- bodied citizens to form a posse is flawed from the start. The sheriff is away and without him a posse cannot be properly deputized. However, his mean spirited deputy, Mapes, jumps at the chance to assert his authority and give legal color to the group, some of whom are already disposed to go beyond the proper function of a posse and to carry out vigilante justice. "One good fast job without no fiddling with legal papers, and that's all there is to it," says one of the riders. Davies (Harry Davenport), the old storekeeper, is a voice of reason in the midst of this turmoil; and his devoted, but ultimately powerless, pleadings for lawful process and justice represent one of the ironies of the story. The role of Davies as the most articulate voice of justice is played off against the "might is right" theme that ultimately overcomes reason. His plea foreshadows the outcome and even sets its terms:

"Wait a minute men. Don't let's go off half-cocked and do something we'll be sorry for. We want to act in a reasoned and legitimate manner, not as a lawless mob."2

Even Smith, the town drunk, paints Davies as a man of profit who would go along, too, if the hangman's rope were bought from him. Smith also engages in sinister banter with Gil, cautioning him against interference with mob justice.
Another inducement for the defectively formed posse to exceed its office is the portrayal of the victim by a lynch-hungry braggart, Bartlett:

[648]

"Larry Kinkaid-one of the finest most god-fearing men that ever lived--is lying out there right now with a bullet hole in his head." To the appeal to pity for the victim is added an appeal to self-interest and security: "If you let that go, there won't be nothing safe-our cattle, our homes, even our women folks." Farnley immediately follows with an ad hominem barb at Davies: "Shut up, Grandma. Nobody expects you to go." The slur of age and womanly weakness against Davies helps whet the mood of the crowd to act quickly. The contamination of rational proof of guilt by irrelevant or unfounded considerations is an incentive to the looming distortion of order and the confusion of official roles.
Meanwhile, Davies attempts to form an alliance with the outsiders Gil and Art, and he sends Gil unwillingly to fetch Judge Tyler in the hope that judicial authority will stem the movement of the crowd. "If I can make this thing regular, that's all I ask," says Davies. Along the way, attention momentarily shifts to a well dressed man who sharply orders his son to get his hat and gun and come along. This is Major Tetley who becomes the film's eminence noire, literally its man on horseback.
Gil is met at Judge Tyler's house by his housekeeper Mrs. Larch, whose haughty and protective manner triggers a remark by Gil that mingles comic banality with the theme of the law's delay and indecision as an excuse for vigilante justice: "Well you can see why there are times the Judge don't seem to be able to make up his mind." They are shown into the Judge's study where he is closeted with the Deputy Mapes (Dick Rich).
Judge Tyler (Matt Briggs) is, in dress and manner, a caricature of the old-time politician, blustering and verbose. His ineffectiveness is in obvious contrast to the surly bully Mapes, who intends to seize the opportunity to command the makeshift posse whatever the outcome. Ironically, we learn from Mapes that Sheriff Risley is not in town because he has gone down to Kinkaid's ranch, probably for a couple of days. Tyler moans: "The sheriff's not here! Today of all days!" Reluctantly-"I haven't any police authority"-Tyler agrees to address the rapidly forming group at Darby's. 
As they continue to assemble, Smith tries to goad the negro handyman-preacher Sparks into joining the crowd with an expression of the vulnerability of idle hands to the excitement of self-interested pursuit: "Better come along, Sparks. It ain't every day we get a hanging in a town as dead as this one." Sparks, however, is persuaded to go along by Smith's mocking promise of the chance that "there gonna be some praying done."

[649]

Next to arrive is Ma Grier (enthusiastically played by Jane Darwell) whose oversized coarse good humor will add fun and comparable ruthlessness to the grim escapade that is forming. With quick repartee she answers Tyler's warning to the crowd against impeding the course of justice: "You can't impede what don't move, anyway." 
Davies seizes upon the fact that Sheriff Risley is even now at the scene of the supposed crime. The prospect of a cold and perhaps useless ride begins to lose its urgency, and the promise of a good night's sleep in town after a few free drinks almost persuades all except Farnley to forego the cold night's ride. Farnley, the film's most single minded avenger and most bitter critic of the law's delay vows that the killers will not be returned for slow and easy justice. He spits out at Tyler that "Larry Kinkaid didn't have six months to decide if he wanted to die."
At this crucial point in the story, Major Tetley (Frank Conroy) arrives in the gray uniform of a confederate officer; he is perhaps a veteran of the war-or a sham, as Gil and Art will later surmise. Tetley is clearly accustomed to obedience and unchallenged command. His contemptuous inquiry whether the group is disbanding and the compelling news he brings of a reported sighting of three men driving cattle by Pancho, his Mexican hand, reanimate the group to action. The "raiders" have not left by the South Draw, which would allow them a night's rest; they have gone east by Bridger's Pass through the mountains over the old stage road to Pike's Hole-eight thousand feet up, but apparently a quicker escape route. The most incriminating aspect of the report is Pancho's description of the brand on the cattle which Farnley recognizes as Kinkaid's mark.
Pursuit has become irresistible, and Davies is reduced to negotiating the scraps of fair terms for the ride after the suspects. To his plea for the promise of bringing the men in for a fair trial, Tetley allows only the vaguest compliance in a way that hardly disguises his obvious leadership in the enterprise: "It's scarcely what I choose, Davies . . . . I promise that I'll abide by the majority will."
Judge Tyler's implorations against the formation of a posse under these circumstances and his sternly hollow order to "bring those men in alive," or else, are hardly more effective than Davies's appeal to Tetley. At Tetley's invitation, Mapes "deputizes" the group-joined somewhat reluctantly by Gil and Art lest they too become suspect-and they ride off out of town, twenty-eight in all, leaving Tyler, and by extension justice itself, isolated against the threatening sky. The very oath defectively administered by Mapes foretells the mischief to follow: "I hereby solemnly swear I am duly sworn as a deputy in the case of the

[650]

murder of Larry Kincaid and I am willing to abide by the decisions of the majority-so help me God."
As the riders go out of town, they troop along in pairs or small clusters, Tetley and Mapes in the lead, closely followed by Farnley and Bartlett and then others, trailing back to Gil and Art, and finally to Sparks bringing up the rear, soon to be overtaken by Davies who has decided to come along in the hope of seeing justice preserved. When they come to a rest, Gil scornfully reveals to Art that "that renegade Tetley strutting around in his uniform-pretending he's so much! He never even saw the South until after the war-and then only long enough to marry that kid's mother and get run out of the place by her folks." A moment later, Gil and Sparks disconnectedly exchange views about the search. To Gil's weary observation that "It's a way of spending time," Sparks rejoins that "it's man taking upon himself the vengeance of the Lord." Sparks reminisces about the lynching of his brother, while Gil distracts himself with a slug of Darby's bad whiskey from his canteen. "Feels like fire creeping in the short grass. I think I'll just let her spread a minute." The moment reveals between the outsider cowboy and the outsider preacher a common ground of helplessness in the inevitable movement of the narrative.
Suddenly strange horses are heard, and a stagecoach is seen moving at great speed. The driver has mistaken the posse as robbers, and he attempts a desperate escape. His co-rider shoots at the horsemen and wounds Art in the shoulder. The tumult ceases and the affair is quickly sorted out. Once aware that they are not being pursued by robbers, the driver halts the stage in its precarious descent around the cliff road. The passengers are revealed as Rose Mapen (Mary Beth Hughes), Gil's old girlfriend, Rose's new husband, a possessive and somewhat dandy Mr. Swanson from San Francisco, and his sister Miss Swanson, whose manner indicates no frivolity. During the time it takes to tend to Art's shoulder wound, the recognition that takes place between Gil and Rose, full of ambiguity and reminiscence, piques Swanson. He haughtily reminds Gil that Rose is now his wife and that, as bridegroom, he is not yet ready to welcome the attentions of Rose's old friends. The coach takes off, leaving Gil flabbergasted. The episode is curious in the movie, arguably less so in the book, and seemingly useless except to introduce Rose Mapen (why? one may ask) and perhaps to further isolate Art and Gil by the gunshot wound to Art.
The group rides on in the cold night to the Ox-Bow where an arched tree standing alone against the sky symbolizes their mission. They have come at last upon their quarry-a fire is seen burning and cattle are heard. With ostensible dispassion, Tetley announces that the party

[651]

should "avoid any shooting or rough work until they have had a chance to tell it their way." Tetley deploys his troops, and they move upon three sleeping figures wrapped in blankets around a campfire. Tetley orders them awake and, while they are held at gunpoint, Gerald, at Tetley's harsh command, awkwardly collects their firearms. They are an unlikely trio, a shrewd looking Mexican who professes not to understand English, a disshelveled old man, and an innocent looking young man, Donald Martin. Their hands are tied, and the group circles around them, all armed and some holding coils of rope. The lighting and the play of shapes of men and horses in the shadows give an eerie and frightening effect to the scene.
The purpose of the group to avenge murder is obvious at the outset. Ma Grier exclaims to the bewildered Martin that "most of the men ain't never seen a real triple hanging." The captives are bullied and menaced, particularly by Mapes and Farnley. When Tetley cuts off Farnley's prodding the Mexican with a gun after Bartlett claims to know something of the man's past, Farnley explodes at him. "I've had enough of you playing God Almighty! Who picked you for the job anyhow? We got'em and I say let's swing'em-before we all freeze to death!" Tetley cooly rebuffs Farnley and directs him to warm his hands at the fire.
Tetley proceeds to interrogate Martin (Dana Andrews) who, to the disbelief of listeners, tells that he has just moved into a place at Pike's Hole, which he bought, sight unseen, from the owner in Los Angeles for four thousand dollars. Martin allows that he may have been taken, but pleads that his story is true and can be verified by consulting his wife and children, who are not far away at the Pike's Hole place. He is refused, and a critical aspect of presenting a defense is foreclosed.
The inexorable movement toward a make-shift trial becomes more and more threatening as the group abandons the function of posse and assumes the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury, and, finally, executioner. Tetley, responding to Martin's angry outburst that he has a right to a trial, sums the matter up: "You're getting a trial, with twenty-eight of the only kind of judges murderers and rustlers get-in what you call this 'Godforsaken country'." From the crowd a menacing voice is heard: "So far, the jury don't like your story." When Martin states that he won't say another word without a proper hearing, Ma Grier reminds him that "this is all the hearing you're likely to get short of the last judgment."
Frightened by the rope held in front of him by Smith, the town drunk trying to be important, Martin admits that he has cattle with him, fifty head he claims to have bought from Mr. Kinkaid. Martin's explanation is plausible enough, but it feeds the assumptions of the

[652]

posse regarding the murder of Kinkaid. Martin's plea that they seek corroboration of his story from Kinkaid himself reveals the deep division between Martin and the others regarding the truth of the matter. Farnley reacts in utter disbelief-"That's a good one! He wants us to wait and ask Larry Kinkaid"-and Martin is stunned to be told that "Kinkaid can't tell us anything. He's dead." To this Farnley adds the ever present concern about an unresponsive legal system, "the law's mighty slow and careless around here sometimes, and we're here to see it's speeded up." 
When Tetley claims that they have been sent by the sheriff, Carter bursts out, "That ain't true!" Tetley's self-correction is at once an indirect lie regarding the legality of their pursuit and a sop to Mapes's vanity: "I beg your pardon-I should have said the deputy sheriff." Davies's challenge to the proceedings-"this is a farce and it'll be murder if you carry it through"-ends with an affirmation that he believes Martin is innocent. Ma Grier matter of factly states: "Then I guess you're the only one, Arthur." In a brazen exercise of power, Tetley briefly looks to Mapes to silence Davies. Like a dog at a nod from his master, Mapes grabs the helpless Davies out of the forefront and throws him into the shadows. The voice of reason is again repudiated and discredited.
To make matters worse, the well meaning Davies has unintentionally given Tetley the pretext to conduct a trial whose legitimacy Davies might concede. As he struggles against Mapes, he calls out: "If there's any justice in your proceedings, Tetley, it would only be after a confession. And they haven't confessed! They say they're innocent and you haven't proved they're not."
Meanwhile, as Tetley's interrogation of Martin proceeds, the unfortunate greenhorn becomes victim to the truth of his own story when he reveals that he has no bill of sale for the cattle. He purports to have bought them on the range from Kinkaid, who not having papers with him, promised to mail a bill of sale to him. This is received as an incriminating admission by Moore and other ranchers who know it is customary to give a bill of sale and who have never known Kinkaid to sell cattle after Spring roundup. The utter irony that truth is incriminating enhances the tragedy of the event in a way that points up the importance of fair proceedings, regularly conducted by proper officers in a way that ensures proof and avoids error as much as possible.
After Davies has been forcibly pushed aside, Gil and Art are threatened. Gil states: "If you've got any doubts, Tetley, I say let's call off this party and take'em to the Judge like Davies wants." Tetley's reply is cool and seemingly dispassionate as he offers Gil the

[653]

opportunity to leave: "Otherwise your interruptions are going to become very tiresome." Art takes the menacing hint and calls Gil back "Take it easy. This ain't our picnic. If you keep on butting in, I've got a hunch it may be."
With Martin reduced to tears and trembling, Tetley methodically turns on the old man in the hope of extracting a confession, however treacherous. The old man babbles that the Mexican did it. As Martin protests that the old man is feeble minded, Mapes strikes Martin down in another brutal affront to justice. Bartlett now steps up again to declare that the Mexican (played with considerable effect by Anthony Quinn) is a gambler wanted for murder. The Mexican will not speak, the old man cannot speak coherently, and Martin will not take Tetley's lure of time to live in exchange for an accusation ("None of us killed anybody").
As the three men are untied and led away to a tree, Martin pleads for his family and for the chance to write them a letter. Knowing that the Sheriff will not soon arrive in the bad weather, Tetley allows a delay until daylight, grimly observing, "We don't want to give anyone cause for complaint." Just as quickly as the group assemble to carry out the hanging, they disperse to while away the time between three o'clock and sun up, some to eat the captive's food, some to revel, some to ponder, and the victims to order their last hours. The scene seems to last longer than the time it takes to view it. This is accomplished by spreading the audience's attention about.
Martin gives the letter he has been permitted to write to his family to Davies for delivery. Davies reads the letter, whose contents are not revealed, and in the hope of saving Martin attempts to show it to Tetley, who refuses to look at it. Martin, feeling betrayed and broken in spirit, is briefly outraged; but he and Davies, both decent men, reconcile.
While the group is diverted, the Mexican tries to escape on one of the tethered horses. He gets away momentarily, but is shot in the leg and brought back by Farnley and Bartlett. Yet another piece of incriminating evidence is revealed. The Mexican has Larry Kinkaid's gun, which, to the disbelief of the group, he claims, now in perfect English, to have found along the road. Removal of the bullet from the Mexican's leg is first attempted by Tetley's too nice son, Gerald, with a knife from Farnley; the boy, much to Tetley's silent disgust, has no stomach for blood. The Mexican takes the knife from the distraught Gerald (William Eythe) and removes the bullet himself with courage and aplomb, to self-accompaniment with a Mexican song. Then, with a deft throw, he plants the knife at Farnley's feet. This display of bravado

[654]

and insolence does nothing to allay belief in his complicity in the murder of Kinkaid.
Davies now tries to show Martin's letter to Gil and Art and the others. When they refuse, he unsuccessfully challenges their fairness and their courage. "Is it because you've made up your minds. Or because you believe everybody else has and you're afraid to stand up for what you feel is right?" Art, seemingly shamed by Davies's description of Martin's letter, allows that Martin might perhaps be innocent, but insists that "all that kind of argument in the world can't stand up against branded cattle, no bill of sale, and a dead man's gun." 
In a triumph of lawless rule making, Tetley puts the matter to a vote. "Gentlemen, I suggest we act as a unit so there can be no question of mistaken reprisals. Mr. Davies, are you willing to abide by a majority decision?" No answer. Davies stands diminished as the mob throws in, "Sure. Majority rules." A vote is taken, and only six others have joined Davies to oppose the hanging: Sparks, then Moore (in spite of his earlier acknowledgment that Kinkaid always gave a bill of sale for his cattle), Art and Gil, and another, and finally, to Tetley's surprise and astonishment, Gerald. The votes have been cast. The mob, in the solidarity of their mixed motives, have won. (The image of justice as a virtuous minority is clearer here than in the book where Gil and Art remain with the larger group.) Even though there is probable cause to hold the captives for further investigation, the desire to pursue vengeance at the cost of taking life has taken its inexorable hold on the majority. 
While Martin and the old man wait helplessly for the execution to proceed, the Mexican asks to make a confession-giving Tetley a momentary hope to have the lynching legitimated by an admission of guilt-to a priest. Pancho will have to do as intermediary to hear the confession in Spanish and as messenger to convey the confession to a priest. As the early rays of sunlight begin to flood the scene, Pancho hears the confession, only a jumble of Spanish sounds to the audience. This obscures whether the confession is a statement of probable truth or proof for the confident surmise of the lynchers that the confession contains an admission of guilt. Since we are not permitted to hear the confession clearly, it doesn't matter whether it was in Spanish or English. Later, in another irony of the film, when the condemned are given two minutes to pray, we clearly hear the Mexican intoning the Lord's prayer.
Farnley and Mapes throw three nooses over the limb of the tree and others stake down the ends of the ropes. The three men are to be lifted onto the horses, which are then to be whipped out from under them.

[655]

Tetley assigns the execution of this task to Farnley, who wants the Mexican, to Gabe Hart, and, malignantly, to his son Gerald. When Hart begs off, all but Ma shift their gaze and she agrees to do it. Gerald tries to refuse and is met with his father's fury: "I'll have no female boys bearing my name. You'll do your part and say nothing more."
In a tantalizing last second hope that the lynching may be averted, Davies tries to persuade Pancho to reveal the Mexican's confession. However, Pancho remains true to his commission and, unhappily, refuses to reveal what the Mexican has told him.
In the final moments, Martin urges Davies to find some trustworthy person to look after his family. Davies sorrowfully agrees. Martin, now in his last fury at the injustice of his fate, lashes out at Tetley (who has told him, "It's too bad, but it's justice."). "Justice! What do you care about justice? You don't even care whether you've got the right men or not. All you know is you've lost something and somebody's got to be punished." 
Martin breaks completely when the Mexican sarcastically states, "This is fine company for a man to die with." When Martin turns on him-"Shut up! You shut up!-Mapes strikes him down and is himself struck down by Gil who has had enough of Mapes. In a scuffle that threatens to derail the execution, Gil is finally overcome. Tetley signals to Mapes to start the hangings; at his gunshot, Farnley and Ma whip their horses cleanly and they bolt out, leaving their riders to dangle at the noose and die quickly. Gerald remains fixed in place, unable to act, and Martin is left in the torment of incomplete death. After Tetley strikes Gerald senseless with his pistol butt, Farnley dispatches Martin with a rifle shot. The lynching accomplished, however badly, the party rides off; Sparks's voice is heard singing another spiritual as the shadows of the hanged men drift across the screen.
The final scenes of the movie proceed quickly, taking perhaps ten minutes. Along the mountain trail the party is met by two riders, Sheriff Risley and a rancher. The Sheriff's inquiry about the shooting is answered by three of the men, who, besides Tetley, are most responsible for what has happened, Mapes, Farnley, and Smith-the eager bully, the blood thirsty avenger, and the drunken hanger on. As in harmony, they answer serially: "We got'em Sheriff!" "Kinkaid's murderers! We got all three of'em!" "And hung'em, too, Sheriff!" 
The Sheriff knows better. He has just left Larry Kinkaid with a doctor over at Pike's Hole, and has got the fellows that shot him. As Mapes recites the evidence against the hanged men, Sheriff Risley takes away the deputy's badge and asks Davies to reveal the culprits-"All but seven."

[656]

The law has begun to reassert itself. Tetley, now displaced, remains motionless and without show of feeling. The Sheriff vows to the others that "God had better have mercy on you, because you won't get any from me!" The administration of justice promises now to become more predictable. Here the film is much clearer than the book, more reassuring, but less challenging to one's sense of trust in society. Hollywood promises to bring down the lawless in a way that the novel does not. In the novel, the snow flurries through which the sheriff purports not to recognize the members of the lynch mob, may represent the moral opacity of the community, or perhaps worse, its capacity for moving on.
On the ride back to town, Gil asks Davies to let him read Martin's letter. Back at Bridger's Wells, the men enter Darby's Saloon. Tetley, now isolated, rides on alone, with Gerald some distance behind. Not unpredictably, Smith says, "If you ask me, that Tetley's the one we ought to lynch!"
Tetley enters his house, and Gerald follows him to find the door locked against him. Gerald denounces him in a nearly hysterical diatribe, whose main charge is that Tetley is an unfeeling monster governed by power and cruelty toward the captives, without concern for their guilt or innocense, and without compassion toward him for his weakness and cowardice. A shot is heard. Tetley obviously has taken the only way out.
Back at Darby's, men are lined up along the bar. Gil tells Art that even Mapes has chipped in for a pot of about five hundred dollars for Martin's wife. Art's reply sums up the cruel reality of the episode, "Not bad for a husband who don't know any better than to buy cattle in the Spring without a bill of sale." Gil now reads Martin's letter to Art. It is an affectionately bittersweet farewell to his wife, even expressing compassion for the otherwise good men who went along with the lynching-"They're the ones I'll feel sorry for, because it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives." As others begin to gather around Gil and Art, Gil reads on

A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurting everybody in the world, because then he's not just breaking one law but all laws. . . .

Law is a lot more than words you put on a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people have ever found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have got a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is

[657]

anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived?

Without ceremony, Gil and Art ride off to deliver the letter and the money to Martin's wife, leaving the town as before, dusty and a little deserted. The ending is sympathetic, but it need not have been motivated by the letter, the contents of which remain unrevealed in the book. The sentiments about justice, perhaps a bit lofty for a man with a rope around his neck, are, in substance, expressed earlier in the book by Davies in opposition to the lynch mob.

* * *

If the sole purpose of the Ox-Bow Incident were to demonstrate that lynching is bad, a documentary film would have done as much and perhaps done better. A real murder would have required more pointed focus on the need for adherence to legal forms than does the absolute waste of innocent lives when no crime has been committed. When the person convicted is truly guilty of the murder (or crime generally), the legal system has expended its formal efforts successfully to establish all the requirements for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, adherence to legal forms needs more to commend it than getting the right results. Since absolute truth regarding guilt is not possible in all cases, some toleration of error is necessary, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt manages the risk of error in a way that is most favorable to the accused. When legal forms are adhered to, the system demonstrates its fidelity to law, whether the accused is found guilty or not. If the accused is found guilty, the system has worked perfectly. If the accused is found not guilty, the system remains intact at the cost of preferring a high standard of proof to a system that tolerates greater risk of error in finding innocent persons guilty.
    The Ox-Bow Incident involves the grossest miscarriage of justice, the lynching of innocent men for a crime that has not been committed. But this is a lesson of hindsight if one allows to the charactors in the story a perspective that reasonably assumes that Kinkaid has been murdered, or at least that the report of his killing bears reasonable investigation. Then the formation of a posse is properly called for and the apprehension of the suspects for return to the next legal authority to deal with the matter seems appropriate, especially in view of so much circumstantial evidence pointing to probable guilt, if not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, proof of the corpus delicti rests upon unverified report, and the proceedings beyond the apprehension of the suspects, if not from the very beginning, are mere vigilantism.

[658]

    The indictment of vigilantism in the Ox-Bow Incident rests importantly on the premise that proper allocation of roles is a necessary component in the orderly administration of criminal justice. The division of official functions in the legal system is required, not simply because the total of functions cannot be performed without division of labor, but because division of viewpoints enhances the management of persuasion regarding the numerous steps in the sequence of official actions that constitute the orderly administration of criminal justice. Otherwise, vigilantism, in which all or most of the functions of administration are performed by the same persons, might have its merits, particularly in a setting in which the legal system and those officially charged with administering it operate inefficiently or corruptly.
    The Ox-Bow Incident shows us the abuse of the requirements of proof because the conduct of trial and judgment is performed illegally by a group whose only proper role is that of posse. Respect for the point at which the risk of error presents a greater concern is required as the process goes through its several stages through report of crime, investigation, pursuit, accusation, trial, verdict, and judgment. By contrast, the derailment of the proper sequence in the administration of criminal justice is more likely to be found today in the misconduct of officials in roles they are properly charged with carrying out-the crooked policeman, the corrupt judge, the bribed juror-than the abandonment of restraint by vigilantes who choose to perform all roles and take over the legal process beyond the confines of their role as posse. 
The due process theme of The Ox-Bow Incident is, of course, of central importance to the story, but the greater contribution is to show the interaction of human beings who believe in due process as desirable but slow and sometimes mistaken and the extent to which they are willing to forego its requirements in the service of other goals-some higher, some lower-all of which involve understandable and sadly human compromises.
In the Ox-Bow Incident, Hollywood has chosen a more didactic approach to teaching the lesson of fidelity to law than Clark chose in the novel. This is, of course, at the expense of fidelity to source, but it is a clearer argument--and arguably healthier--for fidelity to law in popular culture than Clark's somber vision of a society incapable of justice. In the film, at least, wrongful conduct is likely to be punished, the evils of vigilantism are exposed in their grossest commission of error, and we are reassured that a few good men, with whom we can more happily identify, exist to restore hope in the promises of fidelity to law, if not in

[659]

its everyday perfection. Who knows? The good deed of Gil and Art to see to the needs of Martin's widow and children might lead to domestic tranquility. They could pick up the cows that may have been left stranded at the Ox-Bow, Gil and the widow might hit it off in Ox-Bow, the Sequel, and Art might go on to pursue a literary career. (He is, after all, the first person narrator in the novel.)

[660]

ENDNOTES

* James P. Mozingo III Professor of Legal Research, University of South Carolina School of Law. A version of this article is scheduled to appear in a book of essays about law and film entitled Screening Justice edited by Teree Foster, Rennard Strickland, and Frederick Dennis Greene and appears here with their permission.

1. For earlier discussion and analysis of the film, with some comparisons with the novel, see Harry F. Tepker, Jr., The Ox-Bow Incident, 22 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 1209 (1997). For more detailed and critical comparison of the film and the novel, see Mary Beth Crain, The Ox-Bow Incident Revisited, 4 Literature/Film Quart. 240 (1976).

2. Quoted dialogue is from the film and follows the Lamar Trotti screenplay. See Lamar Trotti, The Ox-bow Incident, in John Gassner & Dudley Nichols (eds.), BEST FILM PLAYS OF 1943-1944 511-560 (New York: Crown Publishers, 1945).


Questions or comments about this page?
Last Updated: November 06, 2003. Copyright 2003. All Rights Reserved. UT Web Privacy Policy

***
RELATED STORIES
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution