Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: INTRODUCTION"Lennie" refers to Lennie Small, the intellectually disabled character in John Steinbeck's famous novella Of Mice and Men, which tells the story of two Depressionera wandering farmhands, George and Lennie, who dream of getting their own stake and living "off the fat of the land." 1 Their dream dies hard when Lennie accidently kills the young, beautiful, and flirtatious wife of a ranch owner's son and then tries to cover it up because he realizes that he has "done a bad thing." 2 George, in turn, kills Lennie to prevent him from being lynched or tried for murder.3 Lennie was doomed because he lived in a fictional world where virtually no one understood the nature and severity of his intellectual disability, and thus people were predisposed to believe that Lennie was a cold-blooded murderer who deserved the ultimate punishment.But how would Lennie fare today-not in Steinbeck's fictional Depression-era America, but in the twenty-first century and in our current criminal justice system?Is the criminal justice system equipped to fairly treat mentally retarded defendants in the quest for "truth"?We wish the answer were "yes, of course."However, if Lennie were arrested for a similar crime today, he would be at an extreme disadvantage.Once arrested, Lennie would (probably) be read his Miranda rights, 4 but he almost certainly would not understand them or be able to clearly invoke his rights.The police would quickly persuade him to waive his rights, and then, using common police interrogation techniques such as positing his guilt as given, playing "good cop/bad cop," or lying about having an eyewitness, Lennie would eventually (if not quickly) confess, admitting he had done a "bad thing."The officers would press for details, offering scenarios much more incriminating than the accidental killing that occurred.Lennie might meekly deny any premeditation or intent to kill, but, when pressed or threatened with the death penalty, Lennie would likely agree that he had planned the young woman's murder.Even if leading questions did not prompt Lennie to admit an intent to kill, the resulting statement almost certainly would omit the exculpatory truth.With Lennie vulnerable, afraid, and placed in a jail cell, more sophisticated inmates would soon realize that Lennie was an easy mark.They might become Lennie's friend or offer him protection from other inmates.After learning about his case from Lennie or the case documents in Lennie's cell, they would contact the prosecution claiming that Lennie admitted that he murdered the young woman, and they would agree to testify in exchange for, or in anticipation of, some future benefit.Lennie would likely be charged with first-degree murder.Lennie's attorney would be hobbled in his effort to establish that Lennie lacked intent because Lennie's 1.
Authors: John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Susan E. Millor
Language: English
Topic: Criminal Law and Evidence
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1583310366