Thursday, September 25, 2008
Talking about "The Wire: Drugs, Prison and Community Survival"
Hi Everyone. This is not Kerry-Ann's post -- you can look for her post sometime towards the end of the weekend. But I was so interested (depressed? outraged? impressed?) by the panel discussion we attended today that I thought I'd open up the blog to your comments about it. I also want to point out that you can access the article in Time magazine about jury nullification through the "Check it Out" link list on this page. Given that we never have enough time in our seminar to get to everything, I figured we wouldn't be able to spend class time discussing the many issues raised today. Maybe we can cover some of that ground here. And three cheers for Kerry-Ann, who stood up and asked an eloquent, provocative question at the panel!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
If only we had a lifetime to discuss these issues!!!
While I was in the hallway and unable to hear the beginning of this panel discussion, I was really amazed at how well this fits in with all we have been discussing!
I really want to comment on how often I heard the word "employment", or words synonymous with this, as a solution to crime (mainly, drug dealing). Job training is great. Offering ex-offenders a better means of obtaining an income is awesome...
but this is easier in theory than it is in practice.
I will now bring my anger at this repetitive answer into perspective.
One of my best friends has been unemployed for a few months now. His previous jobs required him to own a car. When his car broke down, he had no other option but to quit the two jobs he was working that allowed him to pay rent and eat. He is not an ex-offender, and he does not use drugs. He has been actively searching for a job since the day he had to quit, with no luck. He is literate, clean cut, has job experience, a High School Diploma, and all the other things a "good" applicant should have, yet still cannot find a steady job that allows him to feed himself and pay rent.
I have a front row seat to his struggle. I am still in the process (as well as my father, a union worker of over 10 year with many connections)of trying to help him find work.
Is this our because of our economy? If it is (and this is the only answer I have come up with), then what about those in a less advantageous position, such as ex-offenders? I can only imagine how it must be for them. No wonder they sell drugs.
It is easy for us to say "education = job = stable income and a life free of crime", but unfortunately, it is not so simple.
People need housing and food, and sometimes the only way to obtain this is through illegal means. As was touched upon at the panel, not all drug-dealers are drug users. These people are no more a "criminal" than the local liquor store or tobacco retailer, yet often serve felony offenses.
Yes, as Prof. Reitz shared, we could not stop talking after the event.
Most relevant to our consideration of the stakeholders in any social program or institution is the examination of who profits from any social arrangement, even (perhaps especially) those arrangements with the most deleterious effects for the largest number of people.
The prisons exist, partly,to warehouse the poor, and people of color, (also the mentally ill), so that capital can be kept in the hands of the few. As we heard, this is easily accomplished through Draconian drug laws, among other things.
But sweeping oppression cannot be accomplished without the unconscious cooperation of large groups of people. So, in addition to being an insidious ethnic cleansing program, the prison system is also an important economic underpinning for rural communities that no longer have factories, or the small businesses that support factory towns. In this way, working class whites-who have been disenfranchised from the larger capitalist system too-profit from the ills visited upon people of color, in much the same way that poor white sharecroppers were turned against blacks after the civil war. Who benefitted from this divide and conquer strategy post-slavery? You guessed it: the same folks profiting from incarceration rates now...those hoarding the capital. In the case of the sharecroppers, the distraction kept blacks and whites from banding together against their economic oppressors, and the same thing is happening now.
How do we even begin to decapitate that dragon? Jury nullification? A revolution? What do you think?
I was posting at the same time as Maureen so I wanted to go back and respond to her thoughtful words about being so marginalized that, at some point, you are no longer even capable of taking advantage of possible opportunities.
What is so insidious is the way that the culture's estimation of us gets inside our bones and decapitates our individual will to move forward. All the more reason to be aware that systemic solutions have to be tried along with "individual" ones, particularly where people can be empowered to create their own systems, like neighborhood food co-ops throughout the U.S., encapsulated "women-only" villages in Nigeria that were formed in response to domestic violence, and other ground up programs. Where people create their own systems-in which they have equity-the opportunity meets the sweet spot of motivation, so sorely missing in inequitable arrangements.
I would love to hear if students felt that jury nullification was an option or an ethical thing to do. At John Jay, students are weirdly in the middle: you see, often firsthand, social injustices and yet you are also studying/training to be part of social service systems (from law school to grad school to these types of Vera agencies) that, according to some of the panelists, could be part of the problem. So going bac to Prof. Stein's question: jury nullification? revolution? or reform within the existing system?
America spends $167 billion annually to fight crime. Federal prisons operate at 34% above their capacity. Most of us agree that the number of prisoners increased because of changes in legislation. 26 States in the U.S. still have in effect the three strike laws. California enforces the tree strike law for non-violent crimes. Prisons incarcerate many mentally ill people who commit small offences. These people do not get a proper treatment and due to their mental disabilities, they disobey the officers’ rules and get in maximum security prisons. Less than 10% of the incarcerated people committed a violent crime. More than 26% of the people who are re-incarcerated had only technically violated their parole. These are overwhelming numbers. So, there are too many problems to have only one answer. I believe Professor Stein is right. Someone has an interest in keeping such an imperfect system. More than that, I believe that we need a reform within the existing system.
There are other countries that deal with substance abuse and mentally ill people. However, other countries do not incarcerate these people. They send them to detoxification clinics and to sanatoriums. Is this the answer? Not necessarily, but at least in these places people receive the help they need and they may not further engage in criminal activities. Maybe, instead of building 11 maxi prisons in NY State in the past 10 years we could have built clinics. If fighting unemployment is the reason why prisons are being built in specific areas, then building clinics could have had the same result. In a capitalist society, demand creates supply. If we manage to reduce the demand maybe the supply is going to reduce itself. Anyway, more people are incarcerated for drug abuse than for drug sale.
We can also try to understand, why some people in these problematic communities do not commit crime. Maybe we should look closely at these people and see what motivates them to stay outside the criminal justice system. More than that, we should teach the others to follow their example and not to look for the easy ways out. I prefer to work for minimum wage than to be an offender. I still do not believe that we are setting the right example when we are telling people that if there is no other option to make a living, it is OK to commit a crime. When one commits a crime violates other peoples’ rights and constrain their privileges. The victim and others tax payer money are used to keep an offender in jail.
I would also like to know, since when selling drugs became such a small offense? Some people say that if there is no other way to provide for their families, they would engage in drug sales. Is this different than killing someone to take their wallet and buy food for your own starving kids? Most of us would jump and say yes, it is different. Just take a moment and think about it. If that person sells drugs to your own child, and your child dies from an overdose, is it is still ok, or is it different? People should stop thinking that turning to crime is the answer to their problems. People should not have the guts to say out loud that survival justifies crime; it sets a bad example and teaches others no values. And, if there are no opportunities out there, how come millions of immigrants find them?
The Jury question is a hard one. The American system of jurisprudence developed from the Common law. Judges do not have a precise legislation as the one in Civil law. This is why their decisions can be biased. However, a jury is formed by 12 people, with little or no knowledge and experience in criminal justice. Their decision can be based on feelings rather than knowledge. I would recommend the use of professional jurors that are taught and trained in American legislation.
Professor Stein’s statement about a culture’s estimation overtaking our own ideas is very true. One of my family friends was arrested for defending his wife, verbally only, when a passerby attempted to touch her. Because of his limited English and knowledge of America’s laws, he could not defend himself and spent time in jail through no fault of his own. This was over two years ago and he is still unemployed. Employers and even members of our community view him differently than everybody else; they look at him with fear. Formerly incarcerated people face similar situations for years. I too, can understand them for seeking to be a part of a culture where they are accepted and can bring in a steady income. The risk they take on each time they head out to sell drugs is small compared to the security, both financial and mental; they gain for themselves and their families. While I completely understand Octavia’s point about the different opportunities out there, you have to ask yourself, what you do if you were in the situation where not even a minimum-wage job is available.
I believe that education is more of a preventative measure, than a measure to radically change the opportunities and resources available for offenders and drug sellers/users. By educating the population about the better options available, it can persuade children to turn away from the drug culture that might be prevalent in their communities and work for something better. However, to create a change in communities where the drug culture is deeply embedded is a challenge that few can solve. I can understand the idea of communities creating their own systems – I don’t believe that can happen. While it is difficult to convince children to reach higher than the drug culture, it is even more difficult to convince members of a community to rebel against the established structure of their lives, people who have accepted and live with the status quo (even if that includes drug dealers everywhere). I think easing the rules and regulations on employment and past felonies would be a big improvement. This would allow more people to apply for jobs and increase opportunities available. It also allows people to move past their own past and helps to decrease the stigma associated with having served time.
Training jurors should definitely be a mandatory part of being a juror. Without the proper knowledge of the criminal justice and legal system, the jurors will never fully comprehend the impact they are creating until it is too late.
I’ve had a hard time composing my thoughts after the panel- so I apologize for my jibber-jabber!
I think it is so important and worthwhile to ask the question “who is profiting from this arrangement?” So often people fail to recognize the act of imprisoning people as an industry; a business. I was kind of shocked at how long it took for the real underlying issues to be raised during the panel, like the idea of prisons replacing the ghetto.
Jury nullification is a hard concept for me to swallow, and I have a hard time explaining why. Because the purpose of a trial is to prove innocence or guilt, I do not know if I would be able to purposely acquit someone when the evidence against him/her is strong enough to prove guilt (if I want to stay true to act in accordance with the law)- but then how "just" is it to create these criminals? I’m stuck when it comes to the solution to the problem, and I think other people feel stuck too, and so that is why they might think jury nullification is their only option. And maybe it is their only option. The fact is that ruling someone innocent won’t solve the problem, but as Dr. Thompkins’ said “the best re-entry is no entry.”
One thing was clear after the panel: we are all better at identifying the problems than the solutions. But as Dr. Clear pointed out, we should be willing to try anything- considering just about anything would be better than what is currently going on.
Thank you Professor Reitz for creating this post!
I don't know where to start..
I think EVERYONE on that panel WANTS GOOD THINGS and it was so, so frustrating to hear only anger being slung back and forth. Maybe the 7 of them wouldn't cure world hunger- but their knowledge and resources and dedication being used collectively could do so much. (divide and conquer..)
And not only do I think multiple solutions are okay- I think they're absolutely necessary. I'm willing to bet that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to lessen poverty, hunger, homelessness, the spread of HIV, racism, sexism...
Unfortunately for David Simon, I don't see those in power (or the masses) rising up to dismantle "the machine" and start over again.
What I would have liked to hear from "The Wire" folks would have been solutions, instead of just problems. Jury nullification is only a reaction to a problem- not a solution.
To our nation's credit, we do have 300,000,000 DIFFERENT people with different needs and wants and conditions. It makes sense that as long as we're crazy enough to subject 300,000,000 people to the same rules there are going to be a lot of rules with a lot of exceptions and a lot of fine print. How "we"- meaning "the USA"- manage to get anything done at all is beyond me.
I also wished we had more time to discuss the "war on drugs." I also had questions but after attending a couple of these events, they hardly ever answer the questions that we ask. In addition, I felt disappointed in the panel that they went back and forth between one another, especially the prosecutor from Brooklyn and the reporter from Baltimore. I wanted to see more unity among the panel but instead I heard fundamental disagreements between the speakers.
Lately, I’ve been feeling a sense that our conception of justice is obscure and contrived. This week, through Job Path, I learned of a service that the National Institute for People with Disabilities/YAI offers that determines one’s ability to give sexual consent. As we know, this is very important in determining abuse or even rape of people with disabilities. It is a service intended to safeguard members of our community who are not necessarily able to protect themselves but, there is something so bizarre and unnatural about it.
Having served on a jury about a month ago has influenced my perspective on the panel discussion (especially with regards to jury nullification). I can attest to the fact that juries need better training and how torn I felt as a John Jay student sitting on a jury. I was struck by how deliberations and reactions within the jury were formed around lines of race, class, and education level. It seemed to me that jurors (maybe including myself) had made their decision based on their experiences and their view of the world and used ideas such as “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” to support their decision, rather than evaluating everything impartially. To complicate matters, these ideas of the rights we are entitled to are degraded by their overuse so that I found myself questioning what their authors actually intended by them, and if they were really still applicable today (with changes in our technology etc.) What struck me most about my time as a juror was how heavily I felt the responsibility.
I see jury nullification as borderline extremely destructive means of protesting drug laws. Voting not guilty in all drug cases would undermine our whole criminal justice system. I am wary of applying civil disobedience in this case and many others. I feel that often people misdirect their disobedience. In the case of Gandhi, he disobeyed laws that were very specifically directed to his cause. That is to say if complying with a law violates one’s conscience one can disobey it. Civil disobedience cannot be arbitrary. If we want to protest laws housed in the legislative branch of our government, how can we justify practicing civil disobedience in the judicial branch? I would also say that any American who participates in this form of civil disobedience is, in effect, forfeiting their rights to an impartial trail and wasting taxpayer money and police efforts. No system is perfect, and ours certainly has flaws but there is wisdom in the system of government our founding fathers set up. A more fitting way to protest these laws is through protesting, petitioning and writing, not through destroying our jury system. Despite this, it seems that a law that incriminates large portions of the population is not a good law. It is neither enforceable nor practical. Usually, this means that society’s attitude toward the issue of the law is in conflict or in the process of evolving.
Finally, I am also wary of being patronizing (to put it mildly) in our efforts to find justice for those with disadvantages. Just as there is something off-putting about determining someone’s capacity for sexual consent through a formulation, similarly there is something disconcerting about identifying our criminal justice system as a discriminatory systemic herder of the underclass. While there needs to be some systems to look out for those who are under privileged, I wonder if the dignity such groups would gain from helping themselves rather than getting labeled as victims would be invaluable and would balance the scales more evenly in the long run.
By the time I got to the end of these comments, I was standing on my chair and cheering. From Kerry-Ann's initial question to the panel to Greta's final comment here, you all have provided such a wide range of thought provoking points. It IS a shame we don't have time in seminar to get to all of them, but thanks to all of you for taking time to express them on the blog from week to week.
Post a Comment