An Eye-Opening Experience- A Tour of The Manhattan Criminal Court House

Hi everyone, first of all I would like to thank Mr. Thomas Giovanni for his time and the very insightful information he so generously provided, but most of all for the passion and dedication he demonstrated throughout the tour and in his speeches. The tour for me was an eye opener and I was and am, extremely impressed.

To begin I would like to first comment on the information section we had in front of the courthouse and the significance of the makeup,(composition), of the people waiting on line across the street. As Mr. Giovanni explained, this particular line was made up of people who most probably will be chosen to form the next Grand Jury. The group of ordinary citizens, who will be in-charged of deciding if a crime has been committed and if a particular individual, police officer, witness or even defendant, is telling the truth. This was an interesting piece of information (or evidence) depending on how one looks at it. The significance of the very low number of black and Hispanic males represented on that line brings into question the quote, “Equal and exact justice for all men of whatever state or persuasion,” which is so firmly and largely presented on the front of the courthouse. We promise an “equal and exact justice” but we do not afford an “equal and exact,” number of men, from “whatever state of persuasion,” to have an equal say on that “equal justice.”  How can we say that every person that passes through our criminal justice system will be treated the same, with the same amount of respect and afforded the same amount of dignity, if we cannot afford every person an equal number of representation under our system?

As we walked through the courthouse what stood out for me most, was the sign outside the police office door, which states, “Police Personnel Only.” Most of us ordinary citizens, walking through a courthouse  find ourselves already very much overwhelmed just at the fact that we are walking through a criminal courthouse. We would never think to question the veracity of any information or sign posted within the courthouse. Having been informed by Mr. Giovanni that a  police office, located within the courthouse, is a resource that should be and is supposed to be, available for family members searching for pertinent information regarding a criminal case, me question just how much more information are we, as normal everyday citizens, being deprived of? How much more information, are family members of criminal defendants, not provided with, when they come to an office, or an officer who represents our justice system and us for that matter, looking for help and/or information.

My question is, if our criminal justice system is supposed to make our life better, as Mr. Giovanni stated why is information so hard to come by within our justice system? If our justice system treats people, not only the ones arrest for a crime, as being less than human, how is it that we expect people to act any different? If we are to make society better and afford everyone equal protection and representation, how can that equality really come to play, when only a certain and specific number of people, who pass through our criminal justice system, are treated as human beings? How can we or anyone who wants to make a difference in society make a change? How can the system be made to work for everyone in the same manner as it is stated in our constitution and as it is screamed throughout our criminal justice system?

Well I said my question is, but as you noticed I had more than just one.

The Exonerated: When the System Fails—A Public Discourse

First, thanks to the professors for organizing the night (and David for the dinner). The performance was powerful—both acting and content-wise. There was so much to reflect on afterwards. 

So, let me start there.

On my way home, I just started jotting down ideas that stood out during the night—aspects that lead to these wrongful convictions and the subsequent human repercussions…false, internalized, and coerced confessions; the innate human mentality to profess our innocence, combined with the questionable interrogation practices, acting under the belief of presumptive guilt and coercion (see “Reid technique” and the nine steps, for example); prosecutorial misconduct and poor public defense lawyers; false identifications and eyewitness testimony; lack of scientific advancement; the psychological adjustment while incarcerated and then the readjustment during reentry into society; the “other” impact of incarceration—on families, friends, significant others; the questioning of faith; protrusive ignorance and racism; biased jurors and jury selections; the death penalty; the unending stigma; the human resilience…and the frightening thought of how many innocent individuals are probably still incarcerated.

There are countless topics to discuss when it comes to this, but I felt particularly moved (and disturbed) by the final message at the end, regarding exonerees reentering society. Not counting independent legal appeals, compensation after exoneration varies widely by state, and 24 states offer no compensation at all. For those without family and/or friend support systems in place, reentry and reintegration can be overwhelming. Not only the psychological readjustment, but also the practical readjustments of finding employment, housing, education, etc. become imminent. Particularly for the exonerated, how does it feel to be wronged by your state once and then left to fend for yourself when you’re set free? We as a society should do whatever it takes to right these wrongs (to the extent that we can) for these individuals.  

Refer to a CNN article and table on the topic here: 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/25/justice/wrongful-conviction-payments/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/

Wrapping all of this together, there remains a need for public discourse about these issues. Albeit the play had a tone of stereotypical, southern-twang racism, and, understandably so, a charged perspective from the people caught up in these injustices, the humanized message is still there: There is an urgency to recognize that our criminal justice system is imperfect... all throughout the country. This is not to say that perfection is attainable for our CJ system (because it's not), but these stories and the relevant research behind it need to be divulged. There is a need for this awareness to be made on a larger scale, and a concurrent need for passionate individuals to continue the cause in order to foster social justice in our legal system

At John Jay, we have researchers who are leaders in these fields of study—Saul Kassin (false confessions), Margaret Bull-Kovera (lineup and eyewitnesses), Steve Penrod (juries and eyewitnesses), etc. In NYC, we have the home base of an organization called “The Innocence Project,” which is dedicated to exonerating falsely convicted men and women (they achieved their 300^th exoneration two weeks ago). Plus, we all are involved in a social justice-based internship experience.

We are surrounded by opportunities to alleviate injustices in our society and to pursue social change. And after continuously and frustratingly hearing goose bump inducing accounts like these, it’s difficult for me not to feel pumped up and impassioned about it. Constant reminders like this put it all in perspective and solidify the motivation.  

-----

How did you feel about the performance? What stood out to you the most? 

Perspectives, perspectives, perspectives

Dream exercise: I think we all have great aspirations for our work at the spinoffs (and Vera itself for Joe). During the short exercise in this week’s seminar, and ever since, I started thinking more in-depth about what impact or contribution I can have at Center for Employment Opportunities. I realize this was kind of pre-mentor coffee but I just wanted to thank the professors for getting the wheels turning and giving us some quick feedback.

We also talked a lot about perspectives, credibility, evidence, and objectivity. At least for me, this workshop helped reinforce the premise that these are factors that should be taken into account with every reading. In the past I have often been ignorant of these personal influences unless they were blatantly obvious. Fundamental questions such as; “Is the author objective,” “What is the authors perspective,” and “Are they credible” really help to decipher how reliable or trustworthy a source is. I’d also like to note that Amara and Sally both said they knew they would probably agree with the Krugman article because they read previous works and knew his background. The rest of us, who did not have previous knowledge of the author, had to find credibility within the piece itself. Some of us focused on his knowledge of economics, the sources he quotes, and who he identified himself with.

As we saw with the letters to the editor we prepared and read in class the number of different perspectives can at times be overwhelming. In the case of Krugman’s article some of the possible other perspectives we discussed were; the rich who agree with him, the rich who disagree with him, the people in poverty (not middle class) who agree, and the politician who disagrees. As the professors said, the more perspectives on a situation you can get the more one can get a full understanding of the complete picture. Professor Stein wrote the word intersubjectivity on the board and defined it as, “consideration to how there is always subjectivity but more perspectives leads to closer and better understanding.”

                                             

My question to the class is: How did you find the peer review at the end of class. After reading the comments were they useful? Do you agree? What was the most helpful comment you received?

Language, Institutions, and the Poor

In my opinion, Oscar Lewis’ article was very schizophrenic; it had split meanings and often contradicted itself. First, “The Culture of Poverty” generated diverging interpretations in the U.S. and abroad. As Bourgois notes, “while Lewis’ books are read by a U.S. public as an interpretation that…blames victims, in France his work is interpreted as a critique of society’s failures to remedy…class based inequality.” Essentially, these split interpretations come from the inconsistent, self-contradicting arguments Lewis made in his article. While, on the one hand, he argues that those afflicted by this “culture” needed some kind of rehabilitation, on the other hand, he faults “free-enterprise, pre-welfare-state stage capitalism” for the creation of it. So what is the main cause of poverty? Is it this "culture" he speaks of? Is it our broken institutions? Is it both? Neither? Which is it, Mr. Lewis? Thus, my first question relates back to Orwell’s essay on politics and language. Battistoni points out the confusion and furor created by Lewis’ thesis, while Bourgois points out that Lewis himself was confused by his own topic. He left so much open to interpretation, and at times it feels like his writing comes from split personalities. Does this relate to a language problem? Did Lewis’ inability to express his main idea clearly cause this confusion? Did you have any problem with the language he used?

Another thing that struck me about the Lewis article was this line, one that Andre alluded to in class: “The disengagement, the nonintegration, of the poor with respect to the major institutions of society is a crucial element in the culture of poverty.” This statement hands responsibility to the poor for failing to engage in politics, and faults them for their mistrust larger institutions. But isn't it the other way around? Haven't these institutions failed to reach out to the poor? They have “disengaged” from their responsibility to serve the lower classes, turned their backs to them to serve more 'amenable' individuals, and perhaps they too are stymied in a “blame the victim” culture—a view that Battistoni holds. How can institutional [political, economic, healthcare, etc.] change be fostered, and how do you think our agencies play a role in this?

Lastly, I want to connect the Bourgois article to the “town hall meeting” we had in class. At the end of his article, he states: “The culture of poverty furore reminds us that academics fight so hard over so little...concerned academics continue to fiddle in their ivory towers, arguing over how to correctly talk about the structural violence of poverty.” At that meeting, where we discussed whether to terminate the Robert F. Wagner housing projects, we all played a certain “role.” I ended up being a fiscally conservative Councilwoman, representing the neighborhood.  My part of the conversation and others, such as Lewis (Aaron) and Moynihan (Nico) revealed that we were very disconnected from the poor.

Now that I look back, our ‘characters’ didn't directly think about their needs—to counter violence, drug abuse, prostitution, etc. We were too busy in our ivory towers, hooking our ideologies into the situation at hand. This is too reminiscent to reality, as our politicians use the “culture of poverty” argument to further reduce government’s responsibility to the poor. But this is just my opinion. How did the rest of the class feel about this discussion?