By Charles M. Thompson. CNS Commentary from Citizenaction.net. 30 March, 2000
"And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword to the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other."
Knowing the outcome, we often overlook the dramatic human tragedy of this particular trial. Two heartbroken mothers, each desperate to win custody of a tiny baby; a wise king saw through the swirling emotional conflict and understood a ruling was not enough, for Solomon knew the difference
between a verdict and a decision.
A verdict would determine the outcome of the trial - which of two competing parties would get custody. A decision would settle the issue in a way that would reveal the facts and make plain the course of justice.
Solomon is remembered for his decision. He wisely put the parties into a public position where the facts forced the dispute into reality - and resolution. Today, thousands of years later, it is a timely and relevant model for good decision making in complex and difficult matters.
It is time for a wise decision about Elian Gonzalez.
The dispute over Elian is much more than the future of a child. His tragic trip and miraculous survival have come to symbolize a community divided between America and Cuba. A six-year-old boy caught between two competing worlds - buffeted by the political and ideological whirlwind that has
divided them for forty years.
Over Elian Gonzalez hangs a two-edged sword. One edge is a verdict on humanitarian grounds and the other is the razor sharp verdict of literal law. Either edge can cut a small boy in two. What would Solomon do?
I believe he would recommend the pursuit of wisdom in this case, not just a verdict. How to do this isn't nearly so complex as many would make it. In fact, custody cases are heard every day when there are conflicting versions of the family's past and their dreams for the future. The judge calls
into court all who know the facts and, with the help of guardians ad litem and others, examines the witness' testimony and renders a decision based upon the credibility of all the participants.
This familiar, proven process is exactly what the appeals court should order. A full trial, with all the witnesses needed personally present in court to give their testimony would do much more than render a verdict.
It would help clear the air of motive, intimidation and political expediency. And it would put the two sides of divided community in touch with each other by bringing the extended family together.
Such a trial need not be a great burden on the government, and with all the witnesses available at one time it should be able to proceed in a timely way. As for the expense, with their history of generous hearts, it is likely many Cuban Americans would open their homes and wallets to help the
family and related witness' come to America for the trial.
In a free and open court the two sides can interact as well as dispute - and in the process help bridge the gulf between two communities and lift the weight of 40 years of international bitterness from the shoulders of a six-year-old boy.
Too simplistic? When common sense makes good sense we must ask ourselves "Is this really so complex, or do we plead complexity because we fear the outcome?"
Charles M. Thompson is founder of the Florida-based Citizenaction.net. |