First and for most, thank you to Thomas Giovanni for giving us your time and pearls of wisdom: Why is it that everything I heard yesterday wasn’t a surprise but still hit me as if I had just heard it for the first time? As I heard the statistics and looked around me, a weight weighed heavily on my spirit. As I sat in that courtroom and saw one by one as each individual had an average 6 minute hearing, I couldn’t help but scuff and chuckle at how ridiculous this
reality was. Is this really OUR system? Irrevocably and undeniably to my disdain, it very much is! Mario Rocha was tried and convicted on 1st degree murder and spent 10 years of his life in prison before his conviction was reversed. Fernando Bermudez was tried and convicted of 1st degree murder and spent 18 years in prison before his conviction was reversed. Jeffrey Deskovic was tried and convicted of sexual assault and murder and spent 15 years in prison before his conviction was reversed. All three men have been exonerated since and have had their records wiped as if it never existed. BUT IT DID. These men were given counsel and were tried by their peers by the very same system that we say prevails of which I guess in some ways it did for these men. On the other hand, those ten minutes that was allotted Mario Rocha, Fernando Bermudez, and Jeffrey Deskovic were obviously not enough to help their counsel better prepare an argument to the judge for at least bail. None were released from the point of being arrested. Did these men really get their ‘Due Process? While in D.C., Christal Wood, a single mom and law school graduate is now suing the state of Washington for involuntary servitude. I never really realized it until Thomas put it into words but the system does run on indigenous communities of which if there would be none if they didn’t exist. I will finish with a wise man’s quote regarding what is supposed to be our social justice system: “I thought we were supposed to keep people in cages because we are afraid of them not mad at them.”
21 comments:
I agree with you that one of the most shocking points Thomas made was his statement about the degree to which the system depends upon poverty. I remember asking him to repeat the percentage he gave of how many defendants qualify as indigent. The question was the verbal equivalent of a double-take. The shocking answer: 77% of defendants who pass through criminal court qualify as indigent. Another way of saying that is that three-fourths of the Manhattan criminal court is a system for managing poverty. The statistic connects criminal "justice" with social justice and crime with economic inequality in a way more immediate and visible than any other I've encountered.
I also can't fail to comment upon the judge's talk to us and to connect it to our recent class discussions about narrative and the "work" they perform, not to mention our earlier discussions about perspective. She started with the jarring statement, "I love doing arraignments." And she went on to explain that she loves them because in doing them, she is protecting constitutional rights. She ended her comments to us by noting, without any hint of irony, that "less than 1% of cases go to trial; we simply don't have the resources to try every case." The right to trial is among the most fundamental constitutional rights we have. Her closing statement, almost a footnote, represents a narrative rupture--a fissure in the tale of how the justice system is about protecting constitutional rights. Yet the tale is told and repeated, working to stitch up the fissures and obscure what's really happening. As Ruby suggests, perhaps if judges' caseloads were decreased by about 77%, they would have more time to spend on protecting constitutional rights--hearing arraignments and trials.
Ruby has mentioned three cases in which the individuals were convicted of crimes they did not commit and as a result spent many years in prison. Unfortunately, I do not believe these to be isolated incidents. I can't help but to think of how many innocent people were falsely accused, convicted and has done long prison sentences or even put to death before the existence of DNA testing to exonerate defendants. In addition to the fact that the death penalty is disproportionately distributed, cases like these give good reason to oppose capital punishment.
As I sat in the courtroom and observed the arraignment process, It appeared that the "main characters", the defendants were facing the seriousness of loss of liberty while it was just business as usual for all the employees of the court. Including "us" the audience, we knew that we were going home and to our respective destinations to eat what we desire. As for these defendants that was not released, returned to a cell presented with cold bologna sandwiches and medicated tasting juice.. Don't ask how I know.
I was also curious to know if the defendant's attorneys were paid lawyers or public defenders. There is a common perception that public defenders do not "fight" for the defendant in the advasary process as well or as hard as a paid attorney would. I happen to feel that the attorneys I saw on that day did a great job in representing the defendants.
Lastly, am I the only one who noticed the woman on the bench handcuffed with the officer standing over her? She did not appear to be threatening but she was there during our entry and was still cuffed sitting there when we exited. That is approximately two hours!
Yes! The woman outside the courtroom who was definitely on something and drooling which was terrible. What was the point of keeping her on that bench with her arms cuffed behind her back like that, her arms and shoulders probably felt like they were breaking , why keep her like that? And the officer also hadn't moved except to ask for a bathroom break from a fellow officer walking by. Did anyone notice the little girl that was sitting across from her staring? That was almost more upsetting, I was praying they didn't know each other....talk about trauma. The woman was completely dehumanized in the situation, it was like walking past a zoo animal. Questions were running through my head, Did she piss off the officer? Had she done something to offend him? What was with the control, she wasn't going anywhere fast.
Thomas's last statement that Ruby brought up was perfect, and that officer proved him right. He was making her suffer because he was mad at her, not because it was lawful. I thought law was supposed to be a humbling experience for both sides of it, not a pride game of who has the most feathers...
Truthfully, I felt like I was in some candid camera show and watching these people's lives be destroyed in less then 6 minutes...
Robert and I almost couldn't keep our jaws from dropping as the judge went into her 'justice-equality' speech. It almost made me uncomfortable...how did we get this delusional?
For me, the entire experience was an eye opener. I guess everybody was talking about the injustices of the criminal justice system to me and I heard of it, but I never understood it. Even though I work at the Family Courts and see the differences between the clients and the employees, I never understood the problem because it's family court. Not as serious as people who go to criminal court.
I think a lot of people who study the field of criminal justice agree with Mr. Giovanni's statement. It would save taxpayers a lot of money if they didn't have to pay for every single person being locked up. Especially people who committed non-violent crimes.
Our trip with Thomas is always an eye-opening experience -- even for those of us who, for a variety of reasons, would have said their eyes were already open (and no, I'm not claiming any street cred: I've been on the tour with Thomas before!). Partly, I think this is because of the "In a Grove"-like nature of the court system: there is always another perspective popping up. Just in the responses here, we have the impartial stories of: the exonerated defendants (who I'm sure got more than 6 minutes, but that's even scarier since justice was still not served); the hand-cuffed woman; the judge (SUCH an "In a Grove" narrative -- her contradictions, which y'all have noticed, seemed to me like the blackouts of the wife, and yet from her own Latina perspective, her whole story, rather than the talk-to-students stump speech, might add more complex layers to our analysis). For me, the untold story most full of pathos was that of the very tiny girl next to, I'm assuming, her young father. She was so little and so well-behaved and yet, in a Dickensian way, so much of their future lives was being written out for them in that impersonal, imperfect institution. You just wanted to turn back the clock to right before whatever it was that brought them there.
The fact that the little girl was so well behaved was almost terrifying. In an odd way, It was borderline making me uncomfortable with how quiet and simple she was acting. It made me wander if she had been there before and like Professor Reitz said on how her life was already laid out so young...
Proofreading morality tale: I did not mean "impartial" in my comment above, but rather "partial" -- and look what a difference in meaning a seemingly harmless "im" makes! It is the difference between objective and incomplete. My bad.
And Dani, you are right. Her excellent behavior is what caught my attention at first -- because it probably did mean what you think it means, or maybe it meant that she had complete and total trust in her authority figure (presuming her father) and that was one of the many things that might start to get turned upside down that day.
The trip to the Manhattan court house was great. Even though it was a slow day their was still an apparent disparity in gender and race. Thomas Giovanni made an interesting point that the criminal justice system too often target certain individuals leading to this disparity. As a people who makes these laws we cannot let out poor perspectives on certain people be the reason why we throw certain people in cages.
What I mostly took from the visit was the quotes imprinted on the court's walls. As soon as Giovanni's intern wasn't checked, but our Vera Fellow was, I was amazed at how that quote became contrary to the message held within the court. During the arraignment, what shocked me most was the way the judge spoke and how each individual was being assessed. I learned that it's always good to know both sides of the system. I did get a uncomfortable feeling as I saw the woman handcuffed. The reality of the system showed me that society's ways do creep into what we know as the "Justice System".
Timothy you are right; these three cases are just a few examples of the gaps in our justice system and I’m sure there are many other injustices. Look at our most recent broadcasted injustice of which lead to no exoneration, instead we as a nation MURDERED an innocent man: Troy Davis. I mentioned these three men because two; Fernando Bermudez and Jeffrey Deskovic are going to be holding an open panel discussion on Thursday November 3rd,2011 in the North Building( 2 sessions) of which I urge all of you to attend if possible and Mario Rochas case is something I have followed for many years now. He’s one of my inspirations. The panelists will be discussing along with their stories, the errors in the criminal justice system when in regards to eyewitness testimonies and coerced wrong confessions along with the reentry challenge.
Now in regards to that woman who was sitting on the bench, although I understand that we are all empathetic, we cannot forget about those who are legitimate criminals who indeed did the crime(s) and have no intention of stopping. Along with the injustices we have to remember that the police are in a lot of dangerous situations. That woman was obviously high and we don’t know what she did to sit on that bench with an officer. Maybe she’s too dangerous to be put in a cell with other detainees. Whatever the circumstances, we have to be realistic. They have to keep her cuffed if she is a threat to others, herself or tried to run. In the end It’s very easy to say that we hate the system and that they are the bad guys but the fact of the matter is that none of us have done 10 years of public defense litigation, have been police officers dealing with the same thing every day for 20 years, or be an arraignment judge for a long period of time to make a valid judgment on the system. We sit on one side of the fence and wave our banners without really walking a mile in EACH pair of shoes of which I understand isn’t really possible but is it really fair to be so critical? Yes I get angry when I see injustice by the system but when I hear people like Mario Rocha say that he believes in the system because it was this very same system that set him free, I can’t help but have hope.
Ruby, you remind us of an important point. We ARE only looking at things from one side, with an imperfect view of the whole picture. While I was sitting there, I did try to imagine myself as one of the police or corrections officers, and I thought about things like how routine and job-like the "ceremony" of justice must feel to them. You're right, I didn't consider how dangerous their jobs can be at times. But I also wondered to myself whether "society" would be less safe if everyone of the people whose stories we heard that day had never been brought into the court. I guess the main reason we've all focused on the "other side" of the story in our discussion is that we are bombarded almost constantly by the view that you point out we're missing here. Thomas offered us an alternate perspective and showed us evidence to support it. That doesn't invalidate the other side, but it gives us a new way of seeing. Because it's new, we focus on it here, I guess.
As you have pointed out, it feels almost impossible to hold seemingly contradictory narratives in mind simultaneously, as we are forced to do in the criminal justice system. Right alongside the banner “Peace through War” from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984, we can now paraphrase the judge’s speech as something like “injustice is the quickest road to justice”. Yet I have absolutely no doubt that the judge feels committed to the equal distribution of justice and feels that she is working to make the system fairer.
Prof. Reitz and I were talking on the way home about my question regarding the effect of peopling law enforcement and the judiciary with greater numbers of people of color-granted there may be class distinctions here that simple ethnicity does not reveal-and Thomas’s response that so often, once people put on the costume of their profession, it covers over their skin; whatever race or class based allegiance they have may change. It reminded me of how many forensic psychiatrists and psychologists I have known who shift their empathy (and hence their loyalty) from their patients to representatives of the criminal justice system. I have always thought that, psychologically speaking, this had a great deal to do with how much more attractive and comfortable it is to identify oneself with those in power.
Here at John Jay we are, on the one hand, trying to make students aware of the inequities of the system-particularly the fact that being poor is, in vivo, a criminal offense. (By the way, that is nothing new; the poor have always been incarcerated at a much higher rate than people of means. See: the Vagabond and Beggars law of 1495 and, of course, debtor’s prisons.) In the classroom, students bemoan the horrid injustices of the system. On the other hand, I have seen our psych students seduced by “criminal profiling”, our CRJ students seeking jobs with law enforcement entities from Homeland Security to the Drug Enforcement Administration, our budding sociologists dazzled by the grant money they can get to study online predation, a phony offense if I have ever heard one. As their teacher, I can never lament the students I love becoming successful, so I applaud their step up into real jobs. On the other hand, I worry how many will become Latina judges, no longer seeing a problem reconciling justice with injustice so seamlessly.
Professor Stein begins her comment by talking about the impossibility of holding contradictory ideas in one's head. And one of the problematic results of that impossibility is that we tend to forget the contradictions, we tend to iron out the creases, so that things make more sense to our tired, stressed out heads. But the creases are, of course, really important. It is what I first got out of Ruby's title for her post. When I read the title, I thought that she could have written a post that decries the injustices of our system (pointed out so meaningfully by Thomas) OR she could have celebrated our system arguing that it truly was great. "Say what?!" you say. Well, one of the things that occurred to me as we were talking in the hallway was how great our system actually was to allow for criticism (our class visit) and reform (embodied by the efforts of Vera, for example). We were standing in the hallway picking apart the system in the presence of the system. Not possible other places in the world and quite remarkable as Ruby says in her subsequent comment.
Since it wouldn't be a blog comment without a mention of Orwell, he covers exactly this same problem (or hermeneutical bog, if you prefer) in his fabulous essay on Salvador Dali, whose art he finds repellant but worthy of analysis. He makes the argument that art can be both good and bad, right and wrong, a thing of genius and full of shame. While the blind lady with the scales might not take comfort from being compared to a surrealist artist, I find it a useful position from which to reflect on all that is wrong -- and right -- with our criminal justice system.
Being at the Manhattan Criminal Court with Thomas Giovanni gave me a new perspective on the court system. This was a new experience because besides interning at Esperanza, I have always interned on the side of law enforcement. During the summer, I interned at the same courthouse, but with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, located on the fifteenth floor. When I observed arraignments during the summer, I was standing right next to the prosecutor and helping him find the different case documents. I wanted to observe the cells below the court house and the cells located in the back of the courtroom. When I asked him, he looked at me like I was crazy and replied, “Why would you want to go in there? It smells horrible.” He never thought about what it meant to be forced to sit in a horrible smelling cell or even considered, yes, the radical notion that the individual could be innocent. I absolutely love Mr. Giovanni’s argument on the presumption of innocence. Was it just to keep someone in a cell under those conditions when one has not established guilt? I was always the first in line to take a trip over to the correctional facilities, but the other interns would be content staying at their desks. I even casually asked Judge once, quite excitedly I might add, if she had ever gone to a correctional facility. She responded, “No…why would I want to go there?” Their attitude towards “the other” limits them to a further understanding of the impact they make on those particular individuals. It takes time and experience to learn those differences and unfortunately many of the district attorneys are straight out of law school.
It always baffles me when I come across minorities or women in the legal field or in law enforcement who are not advocates for social justice. Like Mr. Giovanni stated, they are not always on the side of the minority or even on the side of the same gender. I understand their need to be objective, but isn’t being subjective sometimes good? What also struck me was how the court does not have a translator for the Asian woman. The constant mistreatment of those who do not understand the English language is punishable by law, yet the government itself fails to abide by the same rules.
So how do we solve the money issue? The reading suggests that each individual should be given there own trial, but how can the government cut costs and give everyone “a fair trial” at the same time? They could cut costs by utilizing alternative sentencing and then use that money to provide trials for those who are accused of a crime. Who then decides the guilt? I’m positive no one really enjoys jury duty and is overwhelmed with responsibilities in their day to day life. With the number of trails increasing, would citizens be happy to be summoned for jury more often?
Ruby, I find it quite interesting how you acknowledged the innocence of a man that was "MURDERED" by the same nation, or system if you will, that you somewhat later defend and have hope in. The statement of Mario Rocha believing in the system because it is the same system that set him free is mind boggling. If I were to be "kidnapped" from society, my freedom taken away, forced to endure years of psychological abuse; being exonerated and set free would not lead to me having faith in the same people (system) who put me through this life altering experience in the first place. Why would I, because they finally righted their wrong? What it would do is force me to recognize their incompetence, how fallible they are and that they are in desperate need of change.
Although I believe in exploring situations from various point of views, I think neutrality can leave a person vulnerable to brainwashing. IF YOU DO NOT STAND FOR SOMETHING YOU MAY FALL FOR ANYTHING. But as I previously stated, personal experiences may influence our perception of the CJS. Ruby's association with individual(s) of law enforcement may be a contributing factor to why she takes the stance that she does. As for me, being frequently stopped and frisked (always because I "fit the description"), dragged out of my car by officers and physically abused for having playing music too loud (or maybe for the type of music), and several other instances that I will not mention at this time, I am sure a reasonable person can under and overstand why I stand where I stand. Without going into NWA learics, If I am asked to put myself in "their" shoes, I would look myself in the mirror, probably resign as a police officer, join Internal Affairs and go after the other bad guys!
Our criminal justice system does not only represent "Equality" or "Justice" as it says, but it uses discrimination, poverty, and racism to perform its job. What if we did not have any minorities committing crimes than what...would a criminal justice system exist? One of the most impressive and unforgettable statement Thomas Giovanni mentioned was how he reworded the quote that was outside on the wall of Manhattan Criminal Court. It started with Equality and Justice....and he said Inequality and Injustice. It is so true.
Sitting in an arraignment is not new for me because That is what I do with CJA. Every time I go to work, I always see the disparity of class, race, and gender. In my own mind, from what I have seen, observed, and analyzed, the criminal justice lives off from the disadvantaged and misrepresented individuals, who some are already struggling to make a living to survive.
The following is from Thomas Giovanni:
Hi, Guys,
Your comments have been incredibly thoughtful, and I can see you're grappling with the same concerns that bother many of us: what to do with those who are truly dangerous; how do we fairly AND efficiently ($$) asses that; and how does our humanity play out as we work and live in and alongside the criminal justice system. (And make no mistake: the furthest away from the criminal justice system you will get is "alongside" it. 1 of 4 Americans has a criminal record of some sort, and that's not counting juvenile justice involvement. If it's not your spouse, it's your family; if it's not your family, it's your friend; if it's not your friend, it's you.)
After my 10 years working on “my” side, I've come to my conclusions; the greatest harm, by far, is being done by those in power. Given the binary nature of our system (guilty/jail or not guilty/free), I'll choose free for my individual clients every time. As we develop third/fourth/fifth ways, I'll be open, but as for tomorrow, I'm happy pushing this way against the system's massive, long-term injustices, as opposed to overly punishing my clients’ very short-term transgressions, mostly in the form of self-inflicted wounds.
I could rant, but I shall not (until next semester!), but I want to give you a few thoughts in response to some of your comments:
Yes, we murdered Troy Davis. You should never say anything else. This isn't a case of good-hearted prosecutors who made an honest mistake; they and the police manufactured the case against him at the trial level, to the extent of making a deal with the actual shooter and forcing witnesses to tell the story they decided to use, not the truth. It's not uncommon in these cases. Look up Connick v. Thompson, which we'll be discussing in our class on prosecutorial discretion next semester.
And to the discussion of how the prosecutors and judges didn't even want to get near jail cells: No, those in law enforcement generally are not empathetic to those in the cages, but they have loads of it for victims and officers. Consider what sentences a judge would hand out had they spent a week, or even a night in a cage. If I were in charge of judicial appointments, I'd make anyone sitting on a criminal bench spend one week, ANONYMOUSLY in jail. (Check yourself on the horror some of you just felt: "OMG, what if the judge got beat up, or even killed?" THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. Why should that happen to someone writing a couple bad checks? Or addicted to drugs, or mentally unbalanced? Or anyone?)
Continued on next post...
Thomas Giovanni continues...
For those of you interested in trying to at least conceive of the nature of incarceration, I'll paraphrase and augment thought experiment I heard a former inmate: put an old mattress into your bathtub and go into your bathroom. Lock the door and turn off the lights. That's it. Now stay there until you get bored. Stay there longer, until you get uncomfortable. And stay there past uncomfortable, until you want to cry. Stay. Stay. Stay. For the toughest of you, that will probably take you up to Hour 4 of your incarceration experiment. Prisoners in California are on a hunger strike now, in part because some of them have spent DECADES in solitary confinement. In rooms without a toilet, sink or window for 23 hours a day. Tell me what someone does to deserve that, and I'll call you a liar, fool, monster or all three (oops, I slipped into a rant. “sorry.) I'm not religious myself, but I feel like that level of vengeance is what God meant when He said "Vengeance is mine." The original intent of the penitentary was to provide inmates quiet reflection about the harms they'd done and hard work, so that they'd be better people when they came home. That sounds much like the Restorative Justice model. Where are we now? I recommend reading Angela Davis' book, Are Prisons Obsolete? if you want a good synopsis of how far we’ve fallen. The ironic thing is that the prison system was supposed to be the humane alternative to standard punishments.
The Woman On The Bench: The woman who so disturbed you all was in court being returned on a bench warrant. At some point she had failed to return to court. Since it was the arraignment part, I would bet that the warrant was generated from her failure to appear in response to a summons, for something like peeing in public, having an open container of alcohol or that level of "crime." Based upon the drooling and her general affect, I'd say she had mental health issues and was probably homeless. Surprising that a crazy homeless woman couldn't follow through and come to court weeks later to deal with a summons? I don't like to be callous, but I've seen it too many times. There are some programs now being set up to deal with this, but NY isn't in the 20th century in many ways, much less the 21st.
You can wonder sometimes about safety, but this woman wasn't thought to be dangerous. You can tell by the officer's demeanor, and by the fact that only one officer was "on" her. If she was a threat, they would have had at least two watching her closely at all times, and they would have gotten her into a cell immediately, rather than waiting their turn for the warrant paperwork to come up. I'm betting she was exactly what she appeared to be; a drooling, homeless woman with mental health issues. The handcuffs were just the rules. I didn’t see the officers trying to go any extra distance to be mean to her, but the system’s baseline inhumanity is what it is. (which is also what’s disturbing about the little girl in court, who was soaking it all up. I don’t know what her deal was, but without a good filter/interpreter for what she sees, I worry. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing. Are we so conditioned to subordinate our instincts towards freedom to authority that we will allow this system to run forever? As long as we teach the children that this is what it is, and we don’t tell them that it is wrong, we can expect generations more of the same. Which is why I love OWS..)
Continued on next post...
More from Counselor Giovanni...
Officer Safety? I pointed out when we were outside that I'm all for officer safety protocols where reasonable. But I also remember a bit of common sense wisdom that all these Stop N Frisk cops and those who want this hyper-aggressive law enforcement in nearly every aspect of our lives: Don't Start None, Won't Be None. Watch the news a little more carefully, and ask yourself whether citizens are really provoking these officers, or vice versa. The cop in the news the other day, saying that he “fried another Nigger” is the one who started it. Sean Bell would be married now. Diallo. And so on..
I'm looking forward to talking more to you all. Your views help me refine (and sometimes) change mine. I'm thankful for your energy and participation in creating a better world. Though I also regret when people go into law enforcement work during a time like this, I like to think that after participating in the program, and engaging the work and wisdom of your KICK ASS PROFESSORS, you'll be different police/probation officers; different case managers; and most of all, different jurors.
Talk to you soon,
Thomas
The trip to Manhattan Criminal Court was not completely an eye opener for me. Oftentimes, I hear people’s anecdotes of the court system and its functioning, which has in some ways shaped my perception and what I expect from the criminal justice system. I expected to see a divided atmosphere, where the people of color (disadvantaged) are on one side, and the people of non-color (advantaged) on the other. What did surprise me, was the idea that all offenders get arraigned in a 24-hour time period when on a daily basis 900-1,000 offenders are arrested. That is a pretty awesome ratio! I was just really delighted to hear that. I was a bit caught off guard when the Judge said she loved doing arraignments because she protects the constitutional rights of all offenders. I’m not sure to what extent I believe that comment. In fact, I don’t think I believe it at all.
When we walked out the court to debrief about what we saw in the court, Mr. Giovanni had made a statement that really upset me. He pointed out that the two men in suits on the right-hand side of the arraignment gave advice to the Judge as to what sentence or consequence would be appropriate for the offense. He also added that these individuals were often college graduates and inexperienced. I think the idea of being experienced and have the power to determine the route of someone’s life is very dangerous and unfair. To me, it’s like giving fire to a toddler.
What Mr. Thomas has said is truly remarkable. I feel that it is our perspectives as human beings, to so quickly judge people and quickly cage them because of our fears. But when it comes to taking peoples liberties away we should be more reasonable as to what we do and why we do it. After reading Connick v. Thompson and having prior knowledge of Troy Davis, both are constant reminder as to how people with poor perspectives towards certain individuals can hurt people in our current system of seeking justice. Even though I didn’t come with this issue face to face, I witnessed how peoples perspectives may change over time.
On Friday night after hanging out with some friends they sent me out to pick up some Chinese food so we may continue our night. While I walked in I saw a uniformed police officer who was eager to have a conversation with anyone who walked into the store. As I walked into the Chinese store he said hello and asked me how I was doing. I simply nodded my head and said hello (where I come from talking to any police officer is looked down upon). He started talking to me about the weather. I looked at him as if he was crazy because never in my life has a police officer talked to me without the words "may I please see some ID" or "you fit the description". For some strange reason I started talking to him. We spoke about football, the NBA lockout, and even a little about politics. With a shocked look on his face he asked where I lived, he was in disbelief when I told him I lived in the neighborhood my entire life. When more people started coming into the store I became paranoid that someone I knew was going to see me and label me as a "snitch". Realizing this he tried to speak to other customers in the store but everyone ignored him. When we left the store he asked me to write my email address down. I became more paranoid because I saw one of my childhood friends coming towards me looking at me confusing wondering “why I was speaking to a police officer”. I told him my email address and told keep talking and act as if he were giving me a ticket. He laughed but he understood and scribbled something down and gave me a bogus ticket. Although this may seem a little funny and even simple, I would like think of it as a way of showing the other side of the system that people should not be caged because they are scared of but because they did something wrong.
I like to think that our conversation enhanced his outlook or gave more belief to his current outlook on young black males. This may even cause him to probably police the neighborhood better and ultimately serve the community he is serving better. But as I was saying before poor outlook towards people can lead to a poor criminal justice system. In a way me and the police officer reached out to each other and some way I felt we both had a better understanding of each others social arena. If these things could occur more often specifically speaking where; where people learn to understand the people that are punished or held in our current system of justice.
Post a Comment