“The American criminal justice system is racist, classist, sexist and oppressive. Please, correct me if I am wrong,” Thomas Giovanni, my mentor, said to me on the first day of my internship in Neighborhood Defenders Service of Harlem (NDS). At that time I did not correct him. He gave me the whole year to find some evidence that could prove his statement wrong. And I sincerely wished to prove him wrong. Every experience that I am getting from my internship, however, proves that he is a one hundred percent right. One may object: “How come? We are the most just nation in the whole world, with our rights of freedom of speech, religion, and so on….” Now, I want to give you the same task as my mentor gave to me. Would you be able to prove to me that the U. S. criminal justice system is not classist, racist, sexist and oppressive?
While entering the Court Downtown Manhattan, we saw the quotes that are put on the top of its building. The first one is by Epicurus: “Only the just man enjoys peace of mind,” which, to put into simple words, translates: “Please, come over and if you are not guilty, you have nothing to be afraid of.” Can a person who was taken by police (whether they were guilty or not), all terrified and scared, after having spent twenty-four hours in arraignment, have a peace of mind while entering the building of the Court? The whole look of the Court with its massive columns, all lawyers dressed up professionally, and policemen everywhere, is scary, if not terrifying. Can this person enjoy a peace of mind at that stage of his or her lives?
The second quote reads: “Every place is safe to him who lives in justice, be just and fear not.” My interpretation of this quote is: “If you have not committed a crime, you do not have to be afraid of anything because our criminal justice system treats everybody equally.” I wonder whether there is any truth to that statement. Two examples from life prove the opposite. The first one involved a eighteen-year-old girl who was eight months pregnant. She was put into prison for shoplifting (I still cannot forget that horror) because she did not have enough financial resources to survive. The second one involved a wealthy Asian gentleman who, armed with two lawyers, was able to get a less severe punishment than the poor pregnant girl. Can anybody please point out any fairness in that example? Our system can make mistakes. Innocent people are put into prison. After twenty years in prison for something that they did not do, how can individuals return to a normal life? Twenty years passed, everything has changed. What is normal now? They have no families (rarely, a family is waiting for somebody to get out of prison). They cannot find a job because of the criminal record hanging over their heads like swords. Their personalities too have taken a toll, changing inevitably under the harsh conditions of imprisonment, sometimes for the better, but most of the time for the worse. Where is equal treatment over here?
The next stop we made was in the courtroom. “In God We trust” – a striking phase a person sees when they enter the court. The emotions are ambiguous. Some may hope that God will help them and start praying at the moment they see this phrase. For others who do not believe in God, the sign seems to say: Abandon all hope yee who enter here. What is the purpose of this sign? Does it have the same purpose as the one on the banknote? If so, what is it? On one side in school we read that we live in a system where there is a separation of church and state and on the other hand we see this sign in our courtrooms all over the country. One cannot feel but a little suspect of truths told to us.
How does a picture look in the court? The three-fourth of those being charged during a day is low-income African Americans/Latino males. Is there any coincidence in it? The fact is that there are “more African Americans under correctional control today -- in prison or jail, on probation or parole - than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began” (Alexander, 2010, para.3). Another fact states that “as of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race” (Alexander, 2010, para.4).Will anyone be able to prove that this criminal justice system is not racist? If not, then why such terrible discrepancy in figures?
Another episode that struck me in the court room is how little time is given to a person when they want to plea. Any guesses on how much time?... The right answer is that a person’s destiny is being decided in approximately thirty seconds. If you had an option - to fight the charges with a possibility of a loss and a severe punishment or to plead guilty for something that you have not done in return for less severe punishment– what would you choose? To make the picture more vivid - all of this is happening in a courtroom full of people the majority of whom you have never met in your life. That picture reminded of me a reality show. Sadly, it was real life.
All these situations described are happening on an everyday basis in the NDS. Not all of the NDS clients are criminals, though. They might have been at the wrong place in the wrong circumstances, or with no one who could support them at that time. One of the hilarious cases that the NDS deals with is a person charged with trespassing in their own building. The police officer’s comment on that was: “They looked suspicious to me.” And that is it. Is it enough to look suspicious to be arrested? And what is the definition of “suspicious?”
All of our clients are from low-income families. Two proverbs below explain the reason for many of the crimes committed:
“Hunger makes a thief of any man.”
Pearl S. Buck, quoted in You Said a Mouthful, edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
“Poverty is the mother of crime.”
Marcus Aurelius
How can we prevent crimes committed because of the lack of food or poverty? Are the existing social programs of any help?
There is a huge debate over legalizing marijuana. If it happens, 80 per cent of convicts will have to go free. What are the consequences? First of all, the unemployment rate will increase. How can the government support those who work in the correctional facilities? What could be done? If we have fewer criminals, what would police officers do?
We speak about some changes. However, no one wants to admit that those changes need time and effort. They will not happen in a year. Results could be seen in at least ten years. But no one wants to wait so long. We want a better life right here and right now.
I want to finish with a never-ending debate on who defines law. Who defines what a crime is? Who defines who a criminal is? Looking back in history, by law, slavery existed. By law, women could not vote. By law, legalized structural violence caused by billion dollar corporations was allowed. Things have changed. Now, all those laws are considered unjust. What has happened? Has society changed? In a few decades, those things that many criminals sit in prisons for now might become lawful. Is there any fairness?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Nadiya,
Thank you for your passionate post!
You point out some of the same issues that I have been thinking about. Yesterday's court visit was eye-opening to say the least. Perhaps most unnerving is Thomas' point that "it is never about innocence or guilt" regarding cases. You are right, Nadiya, to be disturbed by the fact that the quotations on the outside of the building contradict what actually happens inside the building. I am also disturbed by the way cases seem to be dealt with on a regular basis.
I am glad that I got a chance to get a peek at some of the inside workings of the system because some of the misconceptions that I had about how the system works was clarified. I actually thought that if you were innocent, you would be safe to some extent, but I was wrong because as Thomas said, "the judge does not care."
One can argue that it is better to just keep out of trouble with the law in the first place, and I agree that it is better to uphold the law. However, there are cases in which individuals are innocent, so I feel that the system should be capable of addressing such cases fairly as well.
The game that Thomas had us play at the end of our session made it clear to me that sometimes innocent people have no choice but to take a plea in order to escape or cope with the harsh dealings and realities of the system. It is almost as if even within the very system that is supposed to protect the rights of the individual, the innocent individual still has to struggle to protect their most personal rights to freedom and fair trial. Indeed, this revelation is saddening because it speaks volumes about the overall operation of the criminal justice system.
Nadya, I am thrilled with your passion and bold stance regarding this matter and your strong words have inspired this reaction.
Our experience at 100 Center Street was very alarming to say the least. Now I understand why you think so highly of your mentor Thomas, he has an amazing way of helping someone to understand the miscarriage of justice that is taking place in the "greatest" country on the planet.
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870
So I am glad that you mention the disproportionate amount of black and hispanic men that are incarcerated because it is what I see all day at CEO; rooms and hallways filled with black men of all ages. Rarely do I see white, chinese, or any other race, not to mention not many woman either. These Life Skills Classes that I observe each week, are a small sample that reflects the entire prison population of New York State.
So when a participant informed me that parolees are not permitted to vote, I began to analyze the gravity of the situation. I have heard some compare incarceration to slavery because the people there are being held against there will, and in most instances prisoners are expected to maintain a job where they receive only several dollars per week. And being that most of these men are black, it seems obvious to me that there has been a violation of the 15th amendment. Has our government found a loophole to preventing black men to vote?
(Cont)
I had a question that I would have liked to ask Thomas but given the short amount of time I decided to ask at a later date. But I feel like I am getting close to answering the question myself. I wondered why the innocent and people convicted of minor offenses are kept in prison, yet there are people that deserve to be punished and stopped from threatening the safety of others(and in this case I am speaking of wealthy and poor offenders), yet they are still walking free? Well, like Nadya says in order to keep jobs we have to have crime. Cops, lawyers, DEA, need to defend the streets, while probation officers, parole officers, watch commanders control the inside. But if we lock up all of the criminals then there will be less of a need for cops, but if we don't send anyone away, where will the PO's and CO's turn. So I guess the innocent and people in need of substance abuse and psychiatric treatment must suffer.
As discussed in a previous blog, we have to pay attention to who this agenda is really benefiting. We say there is no money to create jobs like more teachers, social workers, court appointed attorneys, health care workers, mentors. I learn today at CEO that the Fatherhood Program is not renewing its contract. I also learned that a program for placing adolescents in steady jobs did not renew its contract, despite the fact that they surpassed their quota of 400 placements by finding 650 young adults employment. Why are we cutting programs that work?
I feel like this illusion of normalcy is becoming even more distorted, and we are lacking a sense of urgency. Oppressive institutions are not being held accountable for their crimes and it is time that we seek justice.
Alice Paul was an educated woman with a Masters and a PhD. She was one of the leading women of the suffragist movement. She and many others such as Elizabeth Stanton petitioned for their right to vote, even while our country was at war. They were arrested on false charges of obstructing justice and were incarcerated. Alice Paul was eventually transferred to the psych ward after starving herself. The other women followed her in the hunger strike. Eventually, in 1920 the 19th Amendment was enacted. In this instance one women who was able to organize and guide many women to rebel, and they reached their goal. It is women like them that allow me to have faith that one day we will be able to unite in a stand against injustice!
It’s not even Sunday night and the blog is already full steam! Nadiya, Jamie, Christina (and Lenny’s post at the tail end of the previous blog) all take up the issue of inequity. What I think is happening now to the third generation of Vera Fellows is something that happened to me along the way, too: I went from being very focused on individual actors (I still am, in my work) to beginning to recognize the inseparability of people and the systems that host them: the family, the institutions, the economic structure, the culture. We cannot speak of any of these organizing influences on their own. Each modality is inextricably bound up in the meanings ascribed by the next higher level of integration. Unlike a Russian nesting doll, there is no “essential” center.
The complex context within which the criminal justice system functions-and the difficulty of assessing it fully-was highlighted by a conference on inequality this week at Columbia University (Scrutinizing the Elite, NY Times, Oct. 16). Scholars from multiple disciplines discussed the difficulty of studying the system, in part because we only focus on those who are disenfranchised. As Prof. Waterston has pointed out, the poor are all too visible while those with money or power are hidden. Therefore, if I decide to study men in prison, I can write a protocol, get IRB permission, and go interview whoever will agree (in my experience, that will be most incarcerated people, just to break up the unrelieved boredom.) I have done this. But how could I study Jamie Diamond, who runs J.P. Morgan Chase? Even if I could get close to him, he would orchestrate the circumstances and control the flow of information. So we end up studying the poor, the homeless, the incarcerated rather than the rich, the landlords, the prison wardens; this perpetuates the idea that the problem is coming from the bottom up.
It is a conundrum for those of us who, on the one hand, want to give voice to suffering unheard but, on the other, recognize that only researching and writing about the disenfranchised leads to its own kind of skewed narrative.
Each year I find the visit to NY’s Criminal Court, with Thomas as our guide, to be a powerful and eye-opening experience. I send my thanks to Nadiya and Thomas. This year, the tour was as revealing—and disturbing—as ever.
Later that evening, I shared with my husband what I had seen and heard in the morning. We proceeded to have a discussion about the political-economy of oppression, the contradictions (of “victim” and “victimizer”—the intersection of race, class and gender in “victim”-on-“victim” violence, etc.), and about what we see out in the open and what remains hidden (see also Prof. Stein's comment on this).
The Criminal Court building in all its austerity is a monument to power and inequality, not justice and equality (despite the quotations). It signals to purported or actual “criminals” who is in charge. But it also signals to “all the rest” that the “riff-raff” (innocent or guilty; the poor—disproportionately black and Latino) will be contained and controlled and again, “all the rest” will be safe, untouched, unthreatened, unharmed. It’s like the flip side of gated communities—those neighborhoods surrounded by gates to create a barrier, to prevent the threatening others from entering. Only here, the Criminal Court building is the gate—come inside so we can protect all those “outside” its gates—all those who believe that their lives (our lives?) are immune from what happens inside the gates (those outside are safe).
But in class and on the blog, we’ve also been talking about the ways in which the larger systems and structures are part and parcel of the problem—indeed, some have argued that the root of the problem is in these larger systems and structures and to resolve the “social problems” we see on the ground, we need to get at the root (restructure things so there’s more equity). If things were restructured so there’s more equity, those on the outside (outside those gates) would have to acknowledge two things: 1) the benefits they accrue from the (political economic) system as it currently is; and 2) the responsibility for crime does not fully lie with the individuals committing (or accused of) those crimes, but responsibility also lies with “all the rest.”
So what can be done to turn things around, even a bit? My husband came up with what I think is a good idea. For every case, the “client”/”defendant” has to pay his or her dues (the punishment). AND the larger public also pays its dues in the form of a financial penalty (a crime tax, if you will). The revenues from such tax would go directly to public programs and services—the public schools (lower the teacher-student ratios starting in elementary school), quality low-income housing, rebuilding infrastructure in poor neighborhoods (community gardens, playgrounds, sports fields, etc), training for the good, living wage jobs in our information society [i.e., not flipping burgers at McDonalds]), etc.
Hmmm. What do you think? How do you think such a policy proposal would be received?
Dear Nadiya,
Thank you so much for your intriguing post!
After visiting the courts on Thursday, I must say that the trip itself wasn't all that surprising to me. Being that I have visited criminal and civil courts in my junior and senior year of high school (as a member of the Law club), I felt the reactions that many felt, back then. Being that I study International Criminal Justice with minors in History and Political Science, a lot of the innocent shock has gone away. It hasn't faded in a way where I have lost all faith in the system, but rather that I am acknowledging the wrong doings by the system and the injustices that many individuals have to and or are forced to endure.
While reading the posts of my fellow classmates and professors, I must say that our system seems to lack compassion and literal understanding of the individual. What I mean to say is, we live in a society where everyone is constantly trying to be someone and attain economic stability. The fact that everyone isn't born into money or at least a family that is of the working classe, gives those with less economic stability a high chance to fall. And while there are social programs out there to help those who lack funds, society can't help to show that crime occurs most from those who lack resources and also, those who have an abundance of resources. To this I say, I agree with Prof. Waterston and her Husbands compromise, in that people brought into the court should be punished for their crimes and the money tax payers pay should go towards helping social and public programs that would better society. As the theory goes, if you give ill education to those of low economic standing and give them little to no good opportunities, then society is to blame for creating criminals who steal resources that they lack (food, clothing, ect).
Additionally I want to comment on your quote Nadiya where you state "Abandon all hope" when the individual is in the court room and views the quote "In God we trust". If they are a non believer as you stated, it would be obvious for them to feel like all hope is gone. The quote you presented reminds me of the sign that Dante Alighieri writes in his famous novel Dantes Inferno, when he is entering hell. In some way, I suppose that being in a court room is similar to Dante's book about hell in that, the court doesn't give the individual hope that something good can happen if they lack resources; however, the feel/environment in itself can too be similar to entering an inferno in which your life's path and or choice is in the hands of the system and not yours. Being that the system is filled with flaw and has no compassion, can make the individual feel as if the people choosing his/her fate are less human than they are.
“The American criminal justice system is racist, classist, sexist and oppressive.” I agree there is a class system in the United States that is based on income. This class system does affect the American criminal justice system. A rich person can afford a better skilled, experienced and zealous attorney, while the poor settle for whomever they are offered. The system protects this concept because it is an adversarial system, where the better orator and persuasive argument sometimes overpowers the evidence presented. In medieval times if two nobles had a dispute a dual would be initiated where each side would pick a “champion” to fight in their place. Whichever champion won the dual that meant that was the person who also won the dispute. Maybe we haven’t evolved so far from this idea, the lawyers fight in our stead and act like our “champion” and whichever “champion” is better that is sometimes the side who wins. Nadiya and Thomas Giovanni are correct the American criminal justice system is classist.
Maybe the question posed by Nadiya and Thomas is incomplete. Toward the end of our tour of the downtown Manhattan criminal court tour, Thomas stated, “the criminal justice system is almost perfect on paper.” How could the criminal justice system be racist, classist, sexist and oppressive if it is almost perfect on paper? I think the answer is a more frightening one than most of us would like to admit. Maybe the answer is that much of the American society is racist, classist, sexist, and oppressive. Plato once said, “Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.” I think the system is above racism, sexism, and oppression. Like a well oiled machine, if the operators are abusing the mechanics then the machine will surely break. This is what is happening to the criminal justice system. Too many of the “operators” are abusing its “mechanics” and the result is that the criminal justice “machine” is failing. For example, if a judge is racist most likely he will impose a harsher punishment on someone who is of the race he or she is against. The 14th amendment protects every citizen from acts such as that one, why if the law says it is illegal to discriminate the rights of citizens does it happen in the criminal justice system?
(Cont.)
I believe we must look in the mirror to answer that question. Professor Waterston and Jessica’s statements that society is part of the problem are true .We as citizens and voters allow, encourage, and legalize the abuse of the criminal justice system by placing the abusers in seats of power. In New York State the judges in the supreme and criminal courts are elected by voters. That means we decide if a racist, sexist, or oppressive judge sits in the chair presiding over our cases. The aldermen, congressmen and senators who make the laws are also elected by voters. When someone wants to blame a particular law for being racist, sexist or oppressive we must again look in the mirror. Finally the heads of the executive branch who enforce the laws, the president, the governors, the mayors, and sheriffs are also all elected by voters again we decide which type of oppressor to place in power and whether or not to look over the people who would protect and conserve our rights in the criminal justice system. Finally the last resort to hold some type of justice within the criminal justice system rests with twelve people during any trial. The jury is one of the most important parts of our criminal justice system. As a juror you are the judge to the innocence or guilt of another person. We have the duty to serve, but the right to excuse ourselves from that service too. Many people see jury duty not as a duty but as an annoyance. As a juror you can eliminate the oppressiveness, the sexism, the classism, and the racism of the system. Instead we rather escape that duty, and possibly by escaping that duty we send the responsibility of judging our peer on the hands of the oppressors, the sexists, the classists, and the racists of our society. If we have power to eliminate or at least alter the abuse, why don’t we?
(Cont.)
The quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero aids in answering that question. Cicero stated, “The foundation of justice is good faith.” I have heard many people state that the criminal justice system as not a system of justice. This lack of faith combined with the lack to exercise our power as voters and citizens weakens our criminal justice system to be powerless against the motives and influences of the oppressors operating within the system.
“Where is fairness?” The American people as a whole take freedom and civil liberties for granted. We are quick to recite the bill of rights to an officer when he or she pulls us over for talking on our cells while driving. What we forget to think about is that our forefathers had to fight, sacrifice and bleed for those rights. We disregard the acts of our ancestors and feel we deserve our inalienable rights, but when a generation is unwilling to earn their liberties that is the time when oppression and tyranny will reign and justice and fairness will be lost.
Nadiya, I really enjoyed your analysis of the quotes we saw at the courthouse. I agree with your understanding that it is hard to believe in those words given the circumstances in which most people interact with our criminal justice system. I had a hard time relating to a lot of the ideas most commonly held about the injustices in the system, but after the visit to court I can thankfully say that I now look at the procedures and traditions of criminal justice in America from a whole new angle. Arriving late to the courthouse, I was already frustrated with the trip. I thought it unlikely that I would learn something new. I had been to court before, spoken with lawyers, and witnessed court proceedings. I thought I understood all I needed to about what went on. I was wrong, and I have to thank you Nadiya, and your mentor, for showing me so. A lot of the information presented in the handout you prepared made it easy to put myself in the place of someone who had been recently arrested, justly or unjustly. The conversation with Mr. Giovanni at the end of the day helped me to come to terms with how little the truth matters, at least in the scenarios we witnessed and spoke about. I like that you added the quote by Marcus Aurelius to your post because it is indeed true that “Poverty is the mother of crime.” Poverty, it became apparent to me, is not only often a cause of crime. Poverty allows for the perpetuation of injustice during what is suppose to be a fair trial process. I had always been one to think of getting arrested as an inconvenience (if I thought of getting arrested at all). Knowing that I had access to a lawyer at anytime allowed for a less serious relationship with the police. I’ve never found myself worried about what would happen if I got caught in a compromising circumstance. I had seen friends get arrested for various offenses, but it never took more than a phone call to handle the situation, and shortly after they would re-appear without a care, ready to do it all over again. It took a lot for me to finally realize that this is not the average position of most people. For some reason, I had severely trivialized the justice system, thinking of it as a formality, a front, for the backroom deals that really decided someone’s fate. I guess that is still true; that what happens in the courtroom is a mere fraction of all the decisions that happen behind the scenes. It just never occurred to me that those decisions might not be in favor of, or even explained to, a defendant. It amazes me that something so small in my life, access to an attorney, can so greatly affect someone’s future. It seems somehow tragic that organizations like NDS seem to be few and far between and that, even when they have proven great success, they are not given the funding they deserve.
Correction: The CEO of JP MOrgan Chase is Jamie Dimon, not Jamie Diamond. Now that's a Freudian slip!
Thank you everyone for quick and so interesting responses.
Jamie,
I am glad that out visit to the court helped you clarify some of the misconceptions that you had. I am glad that you brought up the point that in the majority of the cases a person has to plea even being innocent. Just assuming the situation that you got caught for something that you have not done, and you do not have enough financial resources to pay for a lawyer, what would you do? Would you plead guilty? Or would you fight?
Christina,
I was also shocked when I discovered the fact that parolees were not permitted to vote. From my perspective, it is not fair that after committing a crime you have no right to vote. You continue living in this country, you are still its citizen, and the policies of a new government will be influencing you, no matter if you are on parole or not. I am wondering if you know why it is so and what the reasons for it are.
The second point I like about your post is your great comparison of prison and slavery. Even though we have Civil Rights Movement in 1960’s, nothing has changed. Sadly, minorities have their rights only on the paper.
You also mention some programs that benefit the society, and the fact their funding is being cut now. Do you think the only reason for it is the lack of financial resources in the country? Or someone else could benefit from such an overturn of the situation? From your perspective, what are some possible explanations of this “picture”?
Prof. Stein,
I support your idea that “we end up studying the poor, the homeless, the incarcerated rather than the rich.” As a result, we are brainwashed that the problem is coming from the bottom. Who do you think benefit from it? Is it our government only? And why the rich people try to cover their problems? Lately, it became popular to show Hollywood drug-addicted and alcohol-addicted stars on TV, do you think that it is the possible way of advertisement them or it might be propaganda as well?
Prof. Waterston,
I like the point that you make that not only a criminal is responsible for the committed crime, but also the society in which they live. You and your husband created a unique approach how the problem could be solved. Do you think our government and tax-payers, specifically, will be willing to pay for those programs?
Additionally, we have so many programs and create even more of them every year. However, as Christina mentions those programs that work are being cut or shut down. Why is it so? Why some of the programs that are successful are being shut down? What should be done to prevent it? And who benefits in this case?
Jessica,
I like that novel by Alighieri as well! And thank you for great comparison of hell and the courtroom. I agree with you on that our system does not understand every individual. Don’t you think that it is time-consuming, money-consuming, and almost impossible to find an individual approach to everyone? What are your suggestions to overcome this barrier?
You suggest that “I am acknowledging the wrong doings by the system and the injustices that many individuals have to and or are forced to endure.” What could be done to prevent it?
CONT.
Joseph,
Thank you for a passionate response. We definitely should look at the mirror and then judge the system. You are stating that the whole society is classist, racist, sexist, and oppressive. Then, the problem is deeply rooted in us. What should be done in this case? Do we have to change ourselves? If so, how long will it take? What could be done now? If people fulfill their jury duty, if could be a good start, but do you think it is enough?
Lenny,
I am glad that the whole tour was helpful for you and it has broadened your understanding of the whole criminal justice system in the U. S. I am glad that you brought up the example that shows how money, connections, good lawyers influenced the way a person was treated.
My question to you and Christina is: what should be done by small organizations, such as NDS and CEO, in order to get funding? And who should they address to?
So many good things have been said about the Big Theoretical Questions related to our trip through the (in)justice system. I think we all had our eyes (re)opened. I know I went home and told my sons that they are coming with me next year. I've been spending more time reflecting, like Professor Waterston, on what you can actually do given the situation. More money to NDSH, for sure. But I'm also struck by Thomas's answer to my question about case load. Recall that when asked, if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED (pace Joseph's questions about the isms afflicting those in charge of the laws) but case load, would there be a more just dispensing of justice, Thomas answered that the difference would be night and day. So how do we reduce the case load? More money for more lawyers, of course. But this question was on my mind this morning when I heard on the radio that former Clinton Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders has gone on record for supporting the legalization of marijuana. Decriminalizing some drugs would almost certainly lighten the caseload at 100 Centre Street. I don't want to hijack the blog to a question of the legalization of drugs. I'm not even sure I have a strong position on this; as someone who has never felt the allure of drugs, I have neither a respect for their powers of attraction or destruction. But it sure as heck seems like what we have now isn't working, that I'd be willing to risk a few more stoned drivers on the road/stoned students in class to see if it doesn't free up some lawyers to make sure their clients were getting better representation.
Nadiya,
I think first we need to have faith. I stated in my comment that Marcus Tillius Cicero once said, “the foundation of justice is good faith.” We should have faith that the system can be fixed. Often when we examine a system like the criminal justice system which seems to be failing its core values we dismiss it or assume it is totally corrupt. At least that is the message I hear when people critique or make observation. Maybe we are also being hypocrites because we accuse the system of disregarding the individual, and we disregard the power of certain individuals within the system. We dismiss the power of the judge, the legislator, and the other elected officials.
I say use your vote and have faith, pick the right person for the right job, put those in power who will aid the system and fight for you, not against you. We are not the whole problem, but we are part of the problem. We are the ones with the power to change things. Thomas Giovanni said towards the end of our tour that “the criminal justice system is almost perfect on paper.” Let us start by embracing that concept, use our faith in the system and change what we can, before assuming all is lost.
Professor Reitz
You have a good point. The huge case loads weaken the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. I forgot about your question to Thomas about this issue, but I’m glad you brought it up, because it shows a solution.
Professor Waterston,
Could you expand your proposal for the public crime tax?
First I have to say, I am SO sorry for my very last minute post, but I loved the topic. I have to say I had a fantastic time in the court house. It was eye opening and shocking. I found myself sitting in the arraignment courtroom with my jaw wide open.
There is one point that I would like to focus on, and that is the conviction of innocent people. As some of you might have heard, there is a new movie that will be coming out soon called Conviction. It is about the conviction of a man for murder where he was to spend a life sentence. The sister of the convicted man went to Roger Williams (in Rhode Island my state!) and she was driven to prove his innocence (innocence project). She did prove his innocence and he was set free after approximately 18 years in prison. It is a remarkable story and unfortunately about three months after he was set free, he was killed in a car accident.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that our criminal just system is terrifying for the fact that innocent are often convicted. As Professor Waterson exclaimed after being in the arraignment court room, when the court officer yelled for everyone to be quite, or else, she automatically felt guilty! But she had not done a thing wrong! Even those who are completely innocent feel guilty when put in the court house, when around police officers, or when the criminal justice is involved period!
Last semester in my CRJ 710 class my professor showed us a movie on how you should NEVER speak to police officers. Nadiya’s mentor brought this up. Even the innocent can be convicted through what they thought was an innocent conversation with an officer. An example of this would be, a person is murdered, you did not do it, you speak to officers because you feel like you are helping and you know you have nothing to hide. While you are having your interview you say “I did not like her but I did not kill her”. Well you just dug yourself a VERY deep hole. Even though you are innocent, the prosecution is looking for a conviction and you just gave a motive.
Not only is our criminal justice system sadly racist, classist, sexist, and oppressive, it often convicts individuals who are innocent, and puts them into a system that never dispense the same individual that entered the doors.
P.S. our trip to the courts pretty much sealed the deal on me wanting to go to law school! Woo Hoo!
Nadiya, you asked me who benefits from the lack of transparency at the top of social, political, and economic hierarchies. It’s easy to see how the small concentration of wealth and power at the top margin is sustained by its invisibility, and thus can keep reproducing itself, almost endlessly. What is sometimes harder to envision is the complicity of larger swaths of the population-particularly those we call the middle class-in maintaining the status quo.
Since the American ethos is so tied up in the notion of individuality, self-reliance, and achievement, middle-class people-because they want so much to identify with the rich and powerful rather than the poor and dependent-often support policies that help the rich get richer and the powerful stay in control. The middle-class had been manipulated to fear the poor instead of ally with them, when in so many ways they are complementary constituencies who could align themselves against, for example, insurance companies that decimate their health care options or a military industrial complex that kills their sons and daughters and robs the community chest of funding for other pressing needs. I am incensed when I see something like the tea party movement labeled as “grassroot” when it actually relies for most of its funding and publicity on the billionaire Koch brothers and former congressman Dick Armey’s powerful “Freedomworks” organization. (By the way, most people in the tea party probably have little idea that they are being manipulated by these powerful forces to support agendas like preserving tax cuts for the wealthy.)
I usually try very hard not be so overtly political but, like Joseph, I am moved-not in a good way-to conclude that the hearts and minds of Americans may not be in a place that allows them to give a full throated defense of liberty and equal justice for all. I am always astounded that countries where people must brave bullets to vote have very high voter turnouts when ours sometimes hover around 25%.
In trying to understand the Justice System it is important to look at who created it and why. I would argue that the current system of laws only functions, in the sense that it was designed, for one particular group of people and one group only: the white Anglo-Saxon male. The law is meant to serve and protect, but currently we find that it vilifies and is often circumvented by those who know how to. Law functions most efficiently, I would argue, in small localized collections of peoples, where deviation is unlikely because of the co-dependence of people upon one another. But in a large metropolitan society where the actions of people are less supervised then even a deviant can blend and be lost in the myriad of people. Large societies lend to law breaking for multiple reasons.
Obvious class distinctions that relate to the material conditions of different individuals.
The lack of a sense of community that implies that my actions do not affect the person beside me.
The categorical and historical distinctions of individuals; including but not limited to, class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc.
The constant drive for profit and material wealth.
Unfortunately there are too many to mention here. But the laws that currently exist help to uphold the fact that most people who commit crimes are those who have been wronged in some way shape or form by the White Anglo-Saxon male. Remember, most people don’t rob and steal simply because they want to rob and steal; they do so because their material conditions necessitates the acquisition of goods or money to survive, but if one does not readily have access to said goods then one might resort to taking them. Plus it does not hurt to point out that those who developed the system understand its nature and know how to circumvent it, whether it’s through money or just through sheer manipulation, which often seems to be the case with the White Anglo-Saxon Male.
Chad Out!
Prof. Reitz,
The case load is shocking.
We hear people talking about legalizing marijuana every day. I might happen, but when. Now, nothing is being done.
Joseph,
You are mentioning that we dismiss people within the system. But judges and lawyer are not perfect. They are humans and make mistakes every day. Do you think they are allowed make mistakes? What if a person gets into jail by mistake?
Katie,
I am definitely going to watch that movie. And I am happy that it helped you to make your choice. I am actually debating if I want to get J. D. It is emotionally too difficult for me.
What law do you want to specialize? Are you planning to become a public defender?
Post a Comment