Hope in sorting out confusion

Hope….
How much of it can one hold onto when one is constantly falling in and out of bureaucracies that condemn us to failure. Even those that truly do attempt to help the individual, agencies like Vera and all it’s spin offs that try to assist those who always get forgotten, can only but compartmentalize the issues and hone in on it that way. I would like to begin this discussion by suggesting a more holistic approach. I know this was mentioned in class by Jennifer Bryan, and she mentioned a few of the problems that said approach faced, but I think Vera itself should be more holistic and interconnected, just like the FBI, DEA, Bomb squad, the local police and other departments of security have some degree of an open communication in order to facilitate things, so should Vera to improve the level of helpfulness it can offer. Maybe a separate agency can manage that and the idea of a networking- mentoring system for CEO participants.
Although the concept of offering the participants of CEO with the opportunity to network with fellow CEO’s, employers, students and other people that otherwise might not be traditionally present in their immediate circle of assets sounds rather exciting, it does face a lot of obstacles. Time being a major problem as many of these people will not be able to find the time, the transportation or the mends necessary to attend. Others will simply not be inspired to go and might be well satisfied by just having a job.
On that note, I would like to introduce a point Professor Waterston brought up after the seminar when I told her I was not sure what to write about. She said that what moved her most, was that the people coming out of prisons and enrolled in programs like that of CEO are almost expected to be grateful for dead end jobs that are strenuous and monotonous not only physically but emotionally and mentally as well. “Is that really all I can look forward to?” asked Professor Waterston as she imagined and felt what many in that situation must feel. These feelings and thoughts were inspired in part by a five minute video clip on “cooperative community development in Cleveland based on Mondragon principles” that she had seen before. http://www.blip.tv/file/2749165
Professor Waterston said she felt strongly supportive for an option such PEP (prisoner entrepreneurship program) where many ex offenders that have now been released can work on realizing and creating their own business where they are or share ownership. In all reality however, how many people can be given such an opportunity? How many can we expect to save or help? I personally am still stuck on a moral dilemma. A friend told me Thursday after class (although rather extreme) as we were discussing this that why should someone who has committed a crime against society, such a rape be allowed to serve time, get out, and attempt to continue their life as if nothing happened? The victim will never be the same and that person he or she was before the rape is forever gone. Why should the rapist receive a second chance? Now I know that CEO participants are not rapists or high risk offenders, but they still committed a crime and are now forgiven, and given a job, which means it’s taking a job from a law abiding person. At the same time, why be so punitive and illogical and not give someone with a teenage mistake that got caught a second chance as he or she might very well not be that same person either? What I’m trying to get at is the risk of reforming the system from a punitive one, that might be quite extreme and cruel and even corrupt to a treatment system where the idea of repentance is completely gone and treats the inmates as medical patients that can be cured and rehabilitated. What does that say, if anything, about the natural goodness of people as opposed to just a medicated, taught goodness? Some people are just bad! And who benefits from either system at the end of the day!?
All that aside, CEO, Vera and the other agencies all have great potential to pragmatically improve society; after all, it’s all about the money and efficiency when dealing with the issues of a system that is so overpopulated. Yet we cannot forget our empathy and passion to genuinely and truly help others, which always brings me back to Herb Sturz, who found the balance between pragmatism, efficiency and a priority to help others in a way that only a “kind of genius” could do. It is very inspiring to follow his footsteps while I mesh out my own conflicting feelings of morality.

On Empathy in Our Judicial System

I think for the most part we all wish our judicial system took the human element more into consideration. However, I do not think that empathy in our court proceedings would necessarily be the best practice. Even with this apparent absence of empathy we see great disparities in how minorities are treated and how a cases' outcome can be influenced by what judge it is assigned to. Speaking with various people at my internship (Esperanza), visiting Brooklyn's family court (where juvenile cases are handled), and listening to Mr. Thomas Giovanni, I have learned of the huge amount of influence that judges wield in respects to sentencing and even as to how a trial is run. I have seen judges uphold every single objection raised by the prosecuting attorney, while the defense is rushed through their case and barely allowed to do their job. I have also seen thinly veiled racism and various off-color comments from judges that truly left a bad taste in my mouth.

Thomas Giovanni's anecdote regarding the young Irish man really stuck with me since our court tour. To sum it all up, a young white, Irish man takes a cab on St. Patrick's Day and for some reason snaps at the cab-driver who he winds up assaulting while hurling racial slurs his way. This is plainly assault and most likely a hate crime. In court, the judge sees that he comes from a pedigree of NYPD officers, tells him that from his upbringing he can see that he has great potential for good and wont sentence him to the prison term that he should get. I believe Thomas Giovanni said the young man wound up with one year of probation. Had he been "black,brown, or poor" the judge would've thrown the proverbial book at him. In this case, the judge saw past the crime and liked what he saw (white, family in law enforcement), made an assumption as to his upbringing, and cut him a break. To me this is an example of how a judge would misuse empathy if empathy was expected in our judicial system. Would a "minority" individual have gotten this break? I doubt it. Judges already exert a large degree of control over the fate of every single person that steps into his or her courtroom. Whether they choose to be empathic or not is their choice as we can see in Thomas Giovanni's anecdote.

Empathy can be, and i guarantee would be, distributed in a biased manner. We call for empathy from the very same judges we view as racist, time-constrained, and despotic. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think, as I mentioned in class, that empathy should come after sentencing. I do not plan to delineate exactly how our justice system should be run as i am neither well-versed in law (yet) nor delusional but maybe some policy changes or prison reform could make up for our judges' poor and biased judgments. Maybe a judge's job should be to interpret law as absolutely black and white. If you commit a particular crime, you should serve a certain prison or probation term. However, a committee of sorts, such as a jury of one's peers, could decide what happens to the individual as he or she enters the prison system or probation.

For example: Person A and Person B are both convicted for armed robbery which, lets say for now, carries a two year prison term. Person A is robbing to support a drug habit meanwhile Person B cannot find steady, meaningful employment due to not having any semblance of an education and crime is the only way he or she knows how to make some money. Person A should be sent into a rehabilitation program and then made to complete a drug education course while spending his or her sentence in a controlled, yet healthy environment. Person B meanwhile could be placed in various job training courses (not unlike CEO or WILDCAT) and made to obtain a GED or some vocational training also in a controlled environment (not necessarily a prison as we think of it today) as part of their sentence. Both individuals would, potentially and ideally, leave "prison" having gained something and can begin to piece their lives together. By addressing the circumstances and the motivations for the crime and giving the "criminal" the tools and knowledge to rise above those circumstances, their reasons for committing that particular crime would be eliminated. Their fates did not hang on the words, decisions, biases, or empathy of a single person. This is simply too much power to grant an individual. Also, it doesn't make sense to send both Person A and Person B to the same prison environment, specially under the prison system we currently have.

Simplifying a judge's job this way would leave little to no room for any bias, simplify his or her job, and possibly move the process along quicker. All by eliminating empathy, as it exists today, from court proceedings.

I am fully aware that the system I employed in my example is overly simple but I was just attempting to formulate a clear thought experiment to make my case that empathy does currently exist in the judicial system, is misused (bias), and that to demand it from judges is folly and will only lead to even further inequality and lack of consistency in the law. The key to bettering our judicial system, I think, is to interpret the law as black and white while humanizing how we deal with those we do convict. This is where, in my opinion, empathy would make all the difference.

But then again, what do I know? After reading this post over, i sound a little naive.

Where Do We Stand?

THIS IS VAUGHN'S POST.

Thursday's seminar was nothing short of amazing. "A Crisis in the Subjectivity of the Analyst" was one of the most thought-provoking readings this semester. There were a couple concepts discussed in the reading itself as well asin class that particularly intrigued me. The first was the recognition by Katiria that Straker was fearful of her wellbeing. I agree totally, however, I think she was always afraid of physical harm whether at the hands of those she initially saw as good (Stanley) or those she saw as evil (Apartheid). What I believe changed was her view of where she stood in the fight against this good and evil we've been at odds with for some time. Whether you're winning or losing everything seems to be worthwhile when you know you're fighting for the just. The moment that picture became blurry Straker lost her sight of the evil she saw in the beginning. Insome weird way all violence is perceived as bad even if it's in hopes of fostering change. How can change be fostered in a violent situation without resorting to violence as well? Katiria again brought up a valid point that yes, Dr. King accomplished it to some extent but even he used the threat of further violence by those who weren't as peaceful as he (Malcolm X, Black Panthers, and other militant groups.) The thought that people in general are inherently good ties into this very broad subject matter. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I don't think Professor Waterston got to finish her thought. On the one hand, I want to believe taht there is good in all of us. On the other, I'm not sure what the classification of good really is. Does the face that Stanley took part in this necklacing make him any less good than the millions of people who sit and watch conflicts just like these on the big screen for entertainment not doing anything to help the cause? Aren't spectators to be held just as accountable for their actions as those we deem as evil? Bringing the concept back full circle, judges in our criminal justice system hand out hundreds of thousands of sentences a year. Judges as well as appointed officials know that the flaws in the system prevent the exercise of any real justice. On the other hand they've also dedicated their whole life to a system that they don't want to believe is unjust. How many of these judges can we say make an effort to help the overall problem? So in that sense judges and government officials come into conflict with the same trauma of morality Straker faces, and if they don't god help us all!!