A Few Thoughts

At the risk of narcissism (always a risk I am willing to run), I wanted to take a few moments to write about how I got involved in criminal justice before offering a few thoughts based on some of your reactions to Good Courts (at least the ones that Caroline relayed to me).  

I should start by admitting that although I lead a criminal justice reform agency, I am neither a lawyer nor a criminologist.  I'm just a guy.  I graduated from college with vague aspirations to do good in the world.   I spent the early part of my career working for a series of non-profit organizations in Washington DC.  My big break (as it were) came in 1992 when I moved to New York to be a Coro Fellow.  

As part of the fellowship, I spent a month as an intern, working for John Feinblatt who was in the process of planning the Midtown Community Court.   As part of this experience, I spent several weeks interviewing misdemeanor defendants in the Midtown North and Midtown South holding cells in an effort to get a handle on their social service needs.  I also spent a week sitting on the bench with a judge at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan's criminal court.   I found this experience eye-opening, to say the least.  

Like a lot of non-lawyers, my thoughts about court were formed by my grade school civics lessons, books like To Kill A Mockingbird and popular entertainments such as Hill Street Blues.  I expected to see serious, felony cases, intense trials, eloquent battles between defense attorneys and prosecutors.   As I came to find out, all of these things are rarities in urban courts.  The vast majority of the cases, even in the early 90s, were misdemeanors, not felonies.  Less than one percent of the cases went to trial -- most were disposed of at arraignment via brokered agreements between prosecutors and defenders.

I think it is safe to say that the defendants who appeared in court that week back in 1992 were not criminal masterminds.  By and large they were individuals who were down on their luck.  Many seemed to be homeless or drug-addled.  If I had to guess, I'd also say that many were unemployed and undereducated.  

I could go on and on, but I'll try to sum up.  The bottom line is that this was a life-changing experience for me.  I left my time in the holding cells and on the bench with a firm conviction that there was a significant gap between the stated and performed values of the criminal justice system -- what the criminal justice system says it does is very different from what it actually does.  This struck me then, and it strikes me now, as fertile grounds for reform.  

I'd argue that this is where the movement toward what I call problem-solving justice begins: with a frank assessment of the justice system.  Notwithstanding the reductions in crime over the past 20 years or so, I think most reasonable people would agree that we still have a long way to go before we have a criminal justice system that lives up to its highest ideals either in terms of fairness or effectiveness. 

Problem-solving courts, like any reform effort, have attracted a fair amount of criticism.  Interestingly, in the early days, the primary critics were law-and-order types who accused these new courts (particularly drug courts) of being soft on crime since they emphasized alternatives to incarceration.  In recent days, the primary critics have come from academia and from the defense bar, many of whom raise fears about net-widening, coercion and paternalism.  

Needless to say, I'm not an unbiased observer so feel free to take my thoughts here with a grain of salt.  But as a thought experiment, let's give in to the critics and imagine a world in which there were no problem-solving courts.  What would be different?  Would the adjudicatory process be any less paternalistic?  Would there be more trials?  Would the life trajectories of defendants be any better?   I think the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.  

I won't bore you with chapter and verse, but I think there is good evidence to suggest that problem-solving courts, if implemented correctly, have the potential to improve both court outcomes (changing the behavior of offenders, improving public safety) and court process (improving both efficiency and perceptions of fairness).  

At the end of the day, what I like best about problem-solving courts -- and what I think accounts for their popularity across a broad political spectrum -- is that like a Reese's peanut butter cup, they bring together the best of two worlds.  They incorporate the wisdom of both the broken windows theory and the movement to reduce our over-reliance on incarceration. Problem-solving courts, and drug courts and community courts in particular, are an effort to ensure that all criminal behavior receives some sort of response while not using jail and prison as a default setting.  

Hmmm....I seem to have gone on a bit longer than I intended to.  I apologize for the length of this self-serving missive.  Let me just close by wishing you well, encouraging you to challenge/question me, and congratulating John Jay and Vera on this wonderful experiment.

Greg

A No Win Situation

Problem-solving courts(drug courts, juvenile courts, etc.) aim to be holistic and bring a set team of prosecutors, one judge and social service agencies who help defendants. I specifically would like to focus our discussion on domestic violence courts. In domestic violence courts, the defendant and the victim share or shared an intimate bond. Domestic violence cases may involve children and a victim who is economically, legally(immigration cases) and emotionally dependant upon her batterer. A point to note is that it usually takes women seven to eight times before they leave an abusive relationship.


A little history of domestic violence courts. Because of ground-breaking legislation in the 1990s on domestic violence, the 1994 Family Act and Violence Against Women Act were passed and the first domestic violence court in Brooklyn was created. The Brooklyn Domestic Violence Court was very successful where the Urban Institue of Justice concluded that eight years after the opening of the domestic violence court, no victim linked to an open case was killed.


Even though, this is a true success, we must keep in mind that many women do return to their batterers and they make logical choices to do so. I never thought before interning with Safe Horizon at the Integrated Domestic Violence Court in Queens, that the same problem-solving courts fail some women and compel them to return to their batterers. First of all, a domestic violence victim never presses charges against her batterer; legally, only the state may press charges in a criminal case. Therefore, this translates into more rights for her batterer and less rights for her. In cases where women have children, it is a civil case where she has to find an attorney to represent her. Here comes the structural violence, Legal Aid, one of the free-legal service providers is mandated by the government to not represent undocumented women. Eventhough, immigrant women are more likely to be in danger from intimate partner violence than non-immigrant women. Furthermore, many women who take the step to leave their batterers are seeking a validation from the legal system that they suffered. However, they feel disappointed when the same court holds up that even though they were violently abused by their partners, that does not terminate a father's right to see his children. One of the inherent principles of our courts is the right to parent. This means that just becuase he violently beat his partner, it does not mean that he is a bad father; eventhough, research in domestic violence has shown that child abuse and domestic violence are comborbid. This is what I would like to know your thoughts on, do you think our courts truly keep in mind and base decisions on the reality of a victims circumstances and what they really need? Furthermore, can courts ever really be an answer for issues such as domestic violence or is society just putting a band-aid on a bleeding wound?Moreso, should victims trust a court system that is set in place by the same system that has set in place the same structures(sexism, racism, barriers to economic opportunities, education) that leaves them vulnerable and dependent on their batterer? If courts and the criminal justice system are not a good answer, than what other answers do we have?

Education or institutionalization: Youth in the System

I wanted to write on the topic of Juvenile Justice, and a recent case sparked a perfect transition into the topic. To read the full story, you can click the link (if you do, I encourage you to read the comments): http://www.abc15.com/content/news/northernarizona/story.aspx?content_id=923deeda-30b6-47fe-88ae-8f9792672491

If you don’t want to, that’s OK; I’ll give a quick summary. An eight –y ear old boy has been arrested on two counts of murder for killing his father and his father’s friend with a .22. Allegedly the murder was pre-meditated- this is not a case of a kid who gets a hold of dad’s gun and it goes off: it was planned. The kid also shot each victim in a different location, so some time passed between each murder. The Police Chief wants to try the accused as an adult.
--
As a society, we are quick to see youth as victims- not as perpetrators.

Interning in the Juvenile division of probation over the summer I met, interviewed and shook hands with young people who were adjudicated for both sex abuse and violent crimes- crimes that make our hearts heavy and our stomachs hurt. It’s easy to channel our hurt feelings as anger at an adult that took advantage of a child- but when a child takes advantage of a child, who do we get angry at? The parents? Chemical imbalances in the brain (whether real or imagined)? Video Games? How about Eminem?

I want to hear what y’all think about our current Juvenile Justice system, how we should treat youth in the system, or what you think should be done about this case (psychological tests haven’t come back yet on the kid, nor has there been any evidence of abuse by the father or the friend)

Hope everyone is having a happy and healthy week…