In the wake of the recent ruling in the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, I have come to a conclusion. I am not going to talk about the decision one way or the other. Suffice it to say, though, I was in no way surprised by the verdict.
What I did come to realize is how much our court system has become like the world of boxing. You may be scratching your head right now and thinking that I am an idiot. And while you may not be far off, just give me a few moments to explain.
In boxing, you have two adversaries. In a court case you have two sides as well, the defendant and the prosecution. However, the comparisons do not stop there. In our courts, you have a judge who oversees the conflict within the courtroom. In boxing, it’s the referee that has the hand-to-hand oversight inside the ring.
Courts give us lawyers. And while we all have our opinions of this fine breed, lawyers strike a fair resemblance to the corner teams and promotion teams of each boxer. They tell us how great the fighter is. They train the boxer in what to say, how to fight and to get in shape, much like lawyers shape the appearance, sound and projection of a defendant or witness.
Managers and cornermen have to react and make decisions on the fly in the middle of a fight, just as lawyers do in the midst of courtroom drama, be it cross examination or re-cross. Lawyers re-evaluate information to make objections, decide what evidence to show and how hard to push witnesses. A fighter’s corner team does the exact same thing to a fighter in the midst of a fight. Whether to push the fighter harder or settle him down are important “in game” moves for a corner team.
There is also the pre-fight press hype that compares favorably to lawyers going on the evening news stating their case and throwing out ridiculous accusations. We could probably step up the courtroom drama by allowing press conferences in which both the defendant’s team and prosecution team are in the same room talking back and forth.
Imagine a lawyer telling his counterpart he’s “gonna kick his butt” before the start of the case. Oh, the fun.
The final pieces of evidence of my ridiculous analogy are judges in boxing. Typically, the judges for a boxing match are anonymous groups of three guys that are supposed to watch the fight and keep score every round and, at the end of the fight, tally up their score and send down a decision.
In a court case, the jury does the exact same thing. They take notes and make mental decisions on what to accept and what to throw out. They weigh the argument and the counter-argument.
In a boxing match, much is made about whether the judges like an aggressive fighter or a “counter-puncher,” and the same can affect a jury during the course of a trial. If a juror doesn’t like “in-your-face” people, then they may disregard whatever argument a lawyer brings to the table for that personal feeling.
Without question, personal feelings, individual beliefs and biases play a part in a jury’s final decision. Anyone that believes otherwise is either fooling themselves, living in a fantasyland or just plain stupid. It is the way we work as people. We all do it, everyday. We make snap judgments based on our own personal experiences. Judges in a boxing match do the exact same thing.
For instance, if a boxing judge grew up hating Muhammad Ali for his social stands, then there is a decent chance that he wouldn’t like a fighter that greatly resembled The Champ. It’s just human nature. We can all talk about professionalism or “doing the right thing,” but it is what it is. And we all know that biases play an important part in not only jury selection but also the jury’s final verdict.
Lastly, when a boxing match ends, there is a lull when all the people involved are just milling around waiting for the decision and no one really knows what the final call will be. The final verdict in a court case has much of the same “unknowns” — people, press and participants wandering around the courthouse just waiting for the jury to return with its decision.
Finally, in boxing a decision is announced and, often, the decision meets astonishment. The crowd, press and participants spew displeasure with a decision that no one saw coming. You can watch a fight and know who the winner is and when the final decision comes down and it goes the other way, most of us just go away thinking “well, that’s boxing.”
Our courts have become the same. No final verdict is surprising anymore, is it? Casey Anthony, O.J., Sean Bell (who was shot 50 times by three cops and all three were exonerated) or Rodney King are all just a few verdicts where many just shook their head, voiced their disagreement and wondered aloud about what is wrong with the system.
In boxing, the same thing happens several times a year in high profile fights. Nine out of 10 people saw a fight a certain way, while lo and behold, the judges come back with a decision that leaves us confused and outraged.
Of course, that leads to a saying in boxing: “Never let it go to the scorecards.” And this is obviously a mantra that many lawyers decide to take by making plea agreements often when they feel they case isn’t winnable. Can you imagine a boxer asking before the fight takes place if he could just get marked down as the loser by technical knockout in, let’s say, round 5? Crazy right, but the courts make a living doing just that.
All of this being said, the one thing that boxing has that a courtroom doesn’t are ring girls. Maybe we can go out and get some former Hooters girls to walk through the courtroom during each recess.
It’s just a thought.
Richard Clark is the universal desk chief for Halifax ENC; his column appears in this space every Sunday. You can reach him at 910-219-8452 or at Richard.Clark@jdnews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @kpaws22.