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
13 comments:
Hey everyone!
I admit, before starting this internship I had no idea about criminal justice or the inner workings of criminal courts. As soon as I heard and read more about problem-solving, it seemed like such an obvious answer to today's rising recidivism and crime rate problems.Problem-solving courts are such an innovative approach to criminal justice, it surprises me immensely that this practice hasn't been implemented more rapidly. Working with New York City Criminal Justice Agency, I deal with a lot of defendants who are just looking for a break and for someone to help them out. Problem solving courts answer that call and provide the resources for defendants to get back on their feet, which traditional courts do not provide. The success stories we read in Good Courts were eye-opening and solid proof that problem-solving courts can help reduce the rates of recidivism and crime. With traditional approaches, such as harsher sentencing, clearly not working, I can't see any reason for courts today to adopt the policies of problem-solving courts.
Hello everyone,
Once again we encounter the two different approaches of the criminal justice system. The old traditional school of punishment that fits the crime "the so called law and order “or, the contemporary rehabilitation and reintegration to society theory.
Not surprisingly the vast majority of offenders are the minority, poor, uneducated, and those with substance abuse issues. Interestingly enough the vast majority of cases in court are from misdemeanors rather than felonies. If we as a society make a commitment to stop recidivism certainly the good courts are an excellent tool for alternatives to incarceration.
Without forgetting the fact that these individuals commit crimes we should focus and provide drug treatment programs for the addict, educate and give vocational rehabilitation for the uneducated to break the cycle of poverty that is associated with crime.
Welcome back from break everyone and a huge thanks to Greg Berman for writing a thoughtful (and well-written!) post for us this week. I look forward to reading your comments and encourage you to ask Mr. Berman questions about his post and his work. GOOD COURTS provided a "happy ending" to our relatively more pessimistic readings and discussions this semester, but this approach raises a lot of questions as well. So ask away! One that I have: given the current financial crisis, can an economic argument be made for problem-solving courts or are they necessarily more resource-intensive than more traditional forms of criminal justice?
Thanks again.
p.s. I'm sure this will not be lost on you, but did you see that GB's journey started as a FELLOW on an INTERNSHIP?!? That should serve as an inspiration to you tired, overworked college students!
Hello, thank you for posting your wonderful blog and your personal history on how you became the director of the Center for Court Innovation. Your journey is truly inspiring! However, I have a question to ask you. You admit that you are not a criminologist or a lawyer and more of an individual who is dedicated to improving the gaps and injustices of our criminal justice system. Do you think you would have had a different outlook on courts if you were a lawyer? What if you were an attorney with the District Attorney's office where you serve primarily as an agent of the state before justice? A bigger question that I want to ask you is what directions do you want to take the Center for Court Innovation for the future?
When I finished reading the few chapters assigned to our class from your book “Good Courts”, I immediately thought that this is the right and proper answer to today’s problems in this broad field of justice. However, looking back I cannot stop thinking about the “mass incarceration” experiment that America started 40 years ago. At the time, it seemed to be the best approach in fighting crime. But, forty years latter the effects are still devastating. So many people have been or are behind bars, so many families have been broken.
My question is: Where do you picture good-courts in 40 years? What are the elements (if any) that may turn this new project (experiment) into a failure? And, what do you think that are the obstacles that we face in implementing this system on a larger scale?
Thank you so much for your post! I found your personal experience very interesting and enlightening! My experience reading "Good Courts" lead me think a lot about what I have learned and experienced about our court system. One factor that I have recently spent time ruminating over is inconsistency. All too often people will receive greatly varying sentences for extremely similar crimes. I pummel myself with hypothesis’; race, gender attractiveness, jury comprehension, lack of proper defense... there are so many reasons why these discrepancies exist!
I feel like specialized courts have really made a dent in tackling this issue. While this is somewhat of a relief to me, I would love to know what you think the next step should be. How do we make this the rule rather than the exception?
Not only this, but what is needed to amend regular courts? It goes without saying that people involved in state and federal courts are victims of vast amounts of injustice and often face much harsher sentences than those who would attend a specialized court. Personally, I believe that much of this injustice comes from our trial process…. Various studies indicate a multitude of factors contribute to this inconsistent sentencing; some may be avoidable, and some may not be. Do you think that methods utilized in “good courts” (such as bringing in people with specific knowledge about the situational factors involved in the crime)could assist regular courts in being more consistant?
I found the reading for “Good Courts” so refreshing! We’ve spent so much time discussing the huge problems with our Criminal Justice System, and “Good Courts” laid out real, feasible remedies for many of those issues. We’ve always talked about education as a sort of preventative measure, and I can’t help but wonder how effective, over the long term, coupling educational opportunities and the reforms of the Center for Court Innovation would be.
This semester in my Philosophy of Rights class we’ve spend a lot of time talking about how the Judicial System has become more powerful, particularly since the Civil Rights movement. What an interesting contrast: while civil courts are becoming stronger (some would argue stronger than was intended), the Criminal Courts are, at least in the public view, losing their ability to adequately deliver justice. And though, through the Courts many civil rights have been gained, the Criminal Courts remain an oppressor of marginalized populations. How do you think problem-solving courts fit into this power dynamic? Will they ever become too powerful? Will they ever become powerful enough to mitigate the effects of traditional courts?
Thanks so much for your thoughts and comments (particularly the complimentary ones).
I noticed that several people posed questions related to the future of the Center for Court Innovation and problem-solving justice. It is a fool's game trying to predict the future, but I thought I'd try to offer a few thoughts. All of what follows comes with a giant caveat, which is that we still don't know what kinds of long-term havoc the current economic climate will wreak on criminal justice budgets. To be honest, I've been spending a great deal of time over the past several weeks fielding calls from our funders in both government and the private sector telling us that our funding would be cut. This includes news from Parole that they were eliminating funding for a reentry program that we operate in Harlem. Good times.
Nonetheless, I am quite bullish on the future of both my agency and the problem-solving justice movement in general. While crime was, thankfully, not an issue in the presidential election, Obama did speak a fair amount about criminal justice on the stump. Everything he said, from endorsing drug courts to arguing for a greater investment in crime prevention to urging a rethinking of incarceration for non-violent offenders suggests that his administration will be supportive of the concept of problem-solving justice.
If we are to capitalize on this opportunity, there are a few things I hope will happen. The first is a renewed focus on research. One of the things that I've learned from Jeremy Travis and other folks that I look up to in the world of criminal justice, is that we should aspire to a world in which policy isn't made in (over)reaction to tragedy, anecdote or the latest fad but in response to emerging problems and sound research. While I think there is a fair amount of evidence to support the efficacy of drug courts, there is clearly a need for a great deal more research about community courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts and other expressions of the problem-solving idea. So my first hope is that we can figure out a way to make a deeper investment in research.
My second hope is that we can figure out how to have a more honest conversation about criminal justice reform in general, and the kinds of results that can realistically be achieved with problem-solving courts in particular. The longer I am in this game, the more I grow concerned about the phenonmenon of over-promising and under-delivering. It seems like you have to promise the world in order to win political and financial backing for a new idea...and it is very hard (nay, impossible) to deliver the world. So I hope we can set modest expectations for ourselves and be candid about them with policymakers and the public.
My third hope is that we figure out a way to uncouple the concept of problem-solving justice from court specialization. I think we are coming close to the saturation point with specialized initiatives in the courts. While I think they play an important role, specialized courts also come with some drawbacks -- they are resource-intensive and they almost always have limitations in terms of the amount of cases they can handle. Going foward, I'd like to see more experiments like the one we are attempting in the Bronx (http://changingthecourt.blogspot.com) that attempt to spread the problem-solving concept beyond a single courtroom or a hand-picked judicial superstar.
My final hope is that all of this makes sense.
best,
Greg
ps, I think Caroline's point about the value of internships is a good one. While I'm sure that you all have had to do your share of menial tasks, I think it is enormously important to have a hands-on experience within an agency like the ones that are participating in this seminar. I'd encourage all of you to make the most of the experience by asking lots of questions of everyone you meet in the agency -- How did they get their job? What do do they like about it? What would they change if they could? What advice do they have for newcomers to the field, etc. etc. I can think of no better learning experience.
When I started my summer internship at the Center for Court Innovation, most, if not all, of the people I worked closely with were lawyers. Even the other interns were law students. Though I had no intention of ever becoming a lawyer, I started to think that maybe I needed to become a lawyer in order to “get anything done” in this field. When I learned that you, Mr. Berman, and some others at the Center were not lawyers, I’ll admit I breathed a little sigh of relief.
On the topic of questions: I listed “questioning” as one of my core values for our previous assignment. I have come to learn the importance of asking questions, because I have found that’s the best way to become engaged in the workplace/classroom and learn the most information.
Working on the Newark Community Court initiative gave me some insight into the obstacles all of you face when creating a new court/project. I am curious as to which of the courts or projects have been the most difficult to get off the ground, and why?
There is a saying, which goes like this, “you cannot do the same things over and over again and expect different results”. I think this was what really attracted me to support Barack Obama for president; as many of you who followed the campaign might have remembered how much he repeated this phrase.
I truly enjoyed the excerpt that we read from, A New Approach to Justice by G. Berman; and took the liberty to recommend it to President-elect Obama, when I was recently invited by his website, of which I am a member, because of my monetary contributions over the course of his campaign, and still is today; to give my opinion and suggestions on where the country should be heading (let’s hope he really does read it).
It really does make me wonder who benefits from the massive incarceration rate, especially those of minorities, since they represent the higher percentages of those behind bars. I agree with Ridhi, that it is surprising to know that the Good Courts concept have not yet been implemented throught our court system, which leads me to question who really benefit from this broken judiciary system, specifically the drug courts.
I have consistently stressed during the course of blogging how important it is for American society to think of themselves as one society, because what happens to one group, surely will affect the other, it’s just a matter of when. The aids epidemic is a striking example of this. I sincerely believe this to be true.
I have to admit, when I started the first page of your book, I was skeptical when I read:
"These innovators are united by the common belief that courts need to reassert their relevance in society."
I had underlined it, hi-lighted it, and wrote "Yikes!" by it.
That statement very powerfully suggests how much is wrong with our current system, but it also suggests the level of power courts have over people- human lives- if they have been given (or have taken) the power to "assert their relevance."
I think "Good Courts" suggests a solution in which courts may not have to assert their relevance- because they ARE relevant to the lives of individuals and the interests of the larger society.
Also, I think you very importantly noted in your Third Hope that specialized courts are not a panacea: that existing courts have proven successful, but are not meant to hear every traffic violation in NYC. It is clear that we need a range of solutions that work.
Thank you for posting, and thank you for the work that you are doing. I look forward to finishing "Good Courts", right after I take my last final!
Post a Comment