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.
17 comments:
Great post Minerva, and thanks again to Mr. Giovanni.
Two points that you write about stand out as eye openers for me. First as you stated, information is not readily available or easily accessible. Unless you have the unfortunate experience of having to go to court looking for loved ones on multiple occasions you are placed at a huge disadvantage. Signs such as the one on the police door are not only misleading but are completely wrong, all because some officer doesn’t want to do the job he is paid to do. I was actually very surprised that the sign is permitted and that no lawyers (particularly legal aid/defense counsel) have argued for its removal. Finding your loved one in the mess of docket numbers, court rooms, arrest numbers, and penal codes just seems daunting. Like Mr. Giovanni was saying, unless you have the app to look those codes up you have no clue what crime the person is charged with. And this leads me to my other eye opener.
The exonerated dabbled on this issue but it was reinforced while getting the tour of the courts. Crime doesn’t just affect the victim and suspect or defendant. Families of both parties also travel through the system. They are usually clueless to what the next step in the process is. I feel this is completely unjust. The parent or guardian, sibling or spouse is accused of committing any crimes yet they are the ones who take off work, reading court dockets, and possibly gathering funds for the bail process. Obviously this is something any of us would do in a heartbeat for loved ones but is there not a way to make it easier? Maybe if the police are too “lazy” to do the serving part of protect and serve then an information both or even directory should be created to help people find and help their loved ones.
Hello Everyone,
I would also like to thank Mr. Thomas Giovanni for taking the time to speak to our class and providing us with the reality of the system and what goes on within the Courthouse. He helped me realize the extent of the huge divide between society’s views of the ideal criminal justice system, compared to the actuality of the system. His use to statistics was very powerful in demonstrating and supporting his statements.
In regards to Minerva’s first point, I agree with her and I too question what group(s) “equal and exact justice” was truly meant to represent. The phrase “Equal and exact justice for all men of whatever state or persuasion” was stated by Thomas Jefferson. However, as Mr. Giovanni pointed out, Jefferson was a slave owner himself. It makes one question how these words can be so highly represented in front of the Courthouse, when right across the street is evidence that the statement is false. How can Jefferson make claims, when he had contradicted them with his own actions? What is the definition of “equal and exact justice” in relation to the criminal justice system then?
Something that caught my attention was the racial disparity of the individuals inside the courthouse, whether they were waiting to be arraigned, currently arrested, family members, etc., they were primarily African American and Hispanic. There were very few Caucasians, and I did not see any Asians. However, compare these racial groups inside the courthouse, to the people potentially chosen for the next Grand Jury standing across the street. As Minerva stated, “the significance of the very low number of Black and Hispanic males represented on that line brings into question the quote” again. How is it “equal and exact justice” when there is still that wide gap in ethnicity between the individuals actually in conflict with the system and the individuals soon to be chosen to represent them in the court of law?
In regards to Minerva’s question, one of the reasons why I believe that information is so hard to obtain in our criminal justice system is because of a matter of control and implementation of fear of the unknown. I believe that the system doesn’t necessarily want people to obtain all the information they need. Mr. Giovanni mentioned early in the tour how the criminal justice system uses the practice of “othering.” When the system treats someone as no longer human, that is when they believe they can take control, and I truly believe that is what they try to do. After an individual is accused of violating the law, society takes on an approach to punish them. When the system uses the process of othering, the defendant become detached from us and the system takes control because he/she “messed up” whether in actuality, they are guilty or not. As Minerva said, most citizens walking through a criminal courthouse are already overwhelmed with the situation they are in. By the court not providing enough vital information, that only adds to the stress more. “Othering” further displaces the defendant and their family and loved ones, till they are pushed beyond a point of stress and hopelessness. Perhaps society believes that since the accused “broke a law,” guilty or not, we need to put them away and they do not deserve to know this information pertaining to their case. There is already and issue to hyper-incarceration within the system and this practice of the court is not making it any better.
Continued...
Another issue that was brought to my attention was the how fast the arraignments were, and the amount of legal jargon involved. Even though the defendant had an attorney present, I still believe that it is unfair to him/her because he/she does not necessarily know what is going on. This visit was the fourth time that I had witnessed arraignments and it was still hard for me to keep up with the whole process and figure out what was going on. The arraignments lasted no more than five minutes. If one truly thinks about it, how is this “justice” when an individuals’ future and criminal charges are being determined in such a short time span? This is someone’s life that is being determined, and they are only given about five minutes? The other point of attention deals in regards to the legal jargon. Though I find it fascinating, I still believe that it is highly unfair for the defendant. As I mentioned, this is their future being determined, and they deserve the right to understand the language being used in their case. Most of the defendants do not have the extensive knowledge of legal jargon and terminology. How are they expected to understand what is going on in determination of their charges then? Perhaps this is a method of creating fear that the system implements. Because they know that the defendant does not understand, they are not likely to say anything.
Mr. Giovanni also mentioned the importance of connections within the system, whether it is an attorney, a police officer, or someone who has knowledge of the legal system. “65 million Americans (adults) have some form of criminal conviction,” Mr. Giovanni stated. Wow… This goes back to Minerva’s question that was posed. An ordinary family who has none of these connections won’t know they can actually enter the office with the sign posted “Police Personnel Only,” that they have to refer to the case list posted upon entrance to the court or outside the courthouse, or even navigate around, or who to even speak to about what is happening.
As I said, many of the defendants or family involved do not have that extensive knowledge of the legal system. One of the defendants that the class watched during arraignment was held in jail for more than 24 hours. In a question that Minerva asked Mr. Giovanni about what the defendant can do about being held longer than he was supposed to, Mr. Giovanni responded that he can sue… But will anything actually happen? No. This is another factor that disturbs. One, defendants are being treated unjustly and sometimes held incarcerated, longer than they need to while awaiting arraignment, which is already a violation of justice. Two, yes the defendant can sue, but how often do they actually know they can do that? The process is overwhelming enough, and I doubt that they want to become involved even more. However, let’s make the argument that they do want to sue, how will they know? Will his/her attorney tell him/her? Three, even if they do sue, as Mr. Giovanni pointed out, nothing will happen. That is deeply disturbing. I keep asking this, but what is “justice” then? How is this system really supposed to protect us and make our lives easier?
I would like to thank Mr. Giovanni for taking the time out of his busy schedule to give us a tour it is definitely helpful.
I think one of the numerous issues that Mr. Giovanni explained was the huge caseloads that public defenders receive. The results of public defenders receiving such caseloads in turn directly correlate with the allotted time for each client which effectively becomes reduced every time. One of the issues that Mr. Giovanni pointed out was that individuals who could hire good lawyers had a better chance in fighting the charges and have a better chance of “beating the rap”. Whereas the ones who can’t afford to attain a pricey lawyer to fight the charges is instead referred to a court appointed attorney who is stretched thin. In a court case as Mr. Giovanni indicated that individuals from low income neighborhood don’t have the time or money to fight the case. To be specific outside factors prevent them from pleading not guilty, as Mr. Giovanni pointed out life moves on while you are being held in jail till trial (assuming you aren’t able to post bail) and your job will not be so kind and hold your position for you while the case being litigated. The situation is exacerbates when that the majority of the offenders are form the low income bracket and may work low level entry positions such as Wal-Mart or McDonald so most individuals are going make a practical decision. Mr. Giovanni also pointed out the need of a support system if one doesn’t have a support system then who going to take care of the child that the individual may have.
Another issue of great importance is pleading guilty to lesser charges rather than to fight the case because as I explained earlier because as Mr. Giovanni explained there are external factors that may prevent you from fighting the case. There is however issues such as that trials are expensive, can affect your status as an immigrant and the biggest factor of all is that if the individual lose you could be stuck with serving “mandatory sentences or other harsher penalties”. The judge doesn’t usually determines a sentences however if there are mandatory he has no say but to follow the procedure. This in turn empower the prosecutor who “have gained greater leverage to extract guilty pleas from defendants and reduce the number of cases that go to trial, often by using the threat of more serious charges with mandatory sentences or other harsher penalties”. Here is an article that explain in much greater detail http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all
I believe the problem of representation doesn’t just stop with criminal because with criminal you are guaranteed representation whereas in civil cases there is no guaranteed. The situation in civil cases had become so serve that a catholic priest with no experience or formal training took on more clients than the Legal Aid Society’s entire immigration unit. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/nyregion/priests-former-caseload-exposes-holes-in-immigration-courts.html?ref=legalaidforthepoor
I believe there are actions being done right now to help remedy the problem so that more individuals can get representation in October “New York State’s chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, is moving ahead with his groundbreaking rule requiring law students to perform 50 hours of pro bono legal services as a condition of admission to the state bar.” This new rule would allow more individuals to receive more representation. Here is an editorial of an individual view explaining their stance on the judge actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/a-challenge-to-aspiring-lawyers.html?ref=legalaidforthepoor
Thank you Minerva for this post and Mr. Giovanni for taking us on a tour of the courts.
As I mentioned to Mr. Giovanni on Thursday, this past summer I had the experience of interning for the Kings County Supreme Court and District Attorney’s office. While interning, I noticed that the vast majority of individuals coming through the double doors of justice were African American and Latino. At first I was surprised to see this but as my summer continued it began making sense to me. The reason that so many people on trial were of minority decent was not because they were naturally bad people and did not know how to behave in the presence of cops. It was because they grew up in neighborhoods that glorified disorder and stigmatized the law.
This leads to the answer of your first question Minerva. The reason we are all not equal under the law rest in the fact that people are brought up in culturally different environments but the laws punish everyone equally. In other words, because of its nature to always be objective be are constantly subjugated by its rule. What a paradox. I will personalize my story a bit further. This past summer I witness one of my childhood friends on trial for assault and battery in the first degree with a deadly weapon. According to the facts of the case, he got into a fight with another young adult and struck him with a brick in the side of the head before fleeing the scene. When you hear this story it is horrifying and I myself cringed when I heard that he would do this. But I knew better than to think of this as just another case. When we were younger in elementary school, he used to show up to school with bruises and marks on his body. We remained in contact through junior high school and he constantly would get into fights with other kids for simply looking at him funny. The reason I tell this story is because nothing was done to prevent this kind of violence from escalating since his childhood years. If the problem would have been addressed earlier with some kind of intervention he could have received help from someone who was willing to listen to his story. But instead, he was met with glorification for every fight he “won” and was encouraged to be the aggressor so that he does not end up on the wrong side of a gun or deadly weapon. Culture turned him into what I saw in court and the law did nothing to take that into account. He was just another minority troublemaker who the judge felt deserved to be in jail.
Culture is a prior issue that we must address and the police do nothing to change this culture. With every “police personnel only” sign put up more psychological damage is done in the eyes of the beholder. By placing this sign up people begin to feel different from authority not in status but as people. In other words, when you walk into the courthouse handcuffed or simply looking for information about someone you get the sense that it is you against him or her. You begin to believe that police are obviously not going to help you because they took the time to make you acknowledge that you are not allowed behind the doors where they work. This type of message is damning and we all witnessed how obvious this was when we visited the court.
This psychological separation between the people and authority creates a natural tension between the two groups. Authority figures are not welcome in dangerous neighborhoods because the people who are acting “unjustly” see them as the enemy rather than the solution. I am not claiming that people are right in breaking the law but I am claiming that the current surge to end law breaking in impoverished neighborhoods does not create safer communities; it only infuriates the troublemakers. Lets take stop and frisk as an example. Mr. Giovanni claimed that although stop and frisks across the US has risen dramatically over the course of one year, police arrested the same amount of people as they did the year prior for some type of unlawful possession. This is a staggering statistic and people in the communities that are constantly being frisked (i.e., minority communities) use this as a reason to act against authority. The only message that authority is sending to the people here are that they simply do not trust them. The natural response will be to return the favor. Unlawful actions result directly from these types of issues between authority and community members.
Thanks for the post, Minerva, and again thanks to Mr. Giovanni for the tour.
What continues to stand out as one of the most apparent injustices in our system is the racial disparity. No matter how many times you hear it, the shock doesn’t go away—“more than 60% of those in prison are racial or ethnic minorities” or “1 in 4 Black men go to prison.” It is surreal that certain groups of people continue to be marginalized.
Mr. Giovanni alluded to the broken windows theory and how our reactions to crimes—i.e. zero tolerance, the War on Drugs—may just be increasing “crime,” however you may define that, rather than reducing it.
The system will be made to work for everyone when certain groups are no longer subjugated. Why is it, for example, that the proportion of drug users to imprisoned individuals within certain races is heavily skewed toward minorities? It comes down to policies and how we "crack down on crime."
And building off Andre’s point, how does a relationship between community and law exist when policies continue to alienate these individuals? What message does it convey when police are frisking hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals based on race… or rather, “furtive” movement?
I also finally wanted to thank Thomas for bringing so much relevant research and evidence to us. I think we/leaders/anyone can talk about values, plans, why plan XYZ will work, but the hard facts are sometimes left out (presidential debates, anyone?). Yes, research can be flawed/irrelevant in some cases and may not solve everything, but the introduction of such existing evidence should be mandatory in any discussion where it can be used.
Minerva,
Great overview of the tour. I would also like to thank Mr. Giovanni for the great presentation and showing us how the criminal court functions on an everyday basis. The experience was extremely insightful.
This is my third criminal court I have been two, the others have been in the Bronx and Brooklyn. I wasn’t sure if I expected something different this time around, given that the court was in Manhattan, but I did feel that I shouldn’t be surprised if I were to witness the same injustices I saw in the other courts. And, as I expected, I wasn’t. Even before entering, having been very well informed by Mr. Giovanni, I could already sense what the inside of the courts looked and felt like. Walking through the halls, I felt a strong sense of “strength”, but not the strength that we speak of when referring to courage, but the strength we think of when we remember what hard cold steel feels like – oppressive and strong. I don’t want to delve into the aesthetics or the architecture, but a feeling of “stressful vigilance” overcame me, just like when I would go to the courts in the Bronx or Brooklyn. But what I also felt was even more uncomforting – I felt confused and lost.
As Minerva stated, we are often lost in places such as these because of how unavailable or not easily attainable information is. Many of the papers on the wall that have valuable information are seemingly more complicated than some data analysis software, at least to me when I first looked at them. Even the multitude of people, cops (whom many of us have learned to “fear” in some sense or another) and people who look like they’re too busy to even look at you makes you nervous. Who do you go to? Who to talk to? What questions do you even ask? As Vera Fellows, we got a crash course on how the system works, but what about everyone else who doesn’t have that opportunity? Is this intentional?
I can’t say. I honestly don’t know why the system is like this. For me, an easy answer is that the system is inherently oppressive and the makeup of the building and the movements of the people in it were manipulated to just work thus. The harder answer, or harder to accept without sounding naïve is that it was an accident. Mr. Giovanni did mention that this did, in some form, make the lives of the employees easier. I agree, but I also think there is much more to it, but I wouldn’t be able to say what it is – more of a hunch due to my lack of knowledge as to why the system works in that fashion.
However, I do have an answer as to how we can change the system and change it for the better. Things have gotten better. If we look back a hundred, two hundred, five hundred years, we can say that things have gotten better, but we can always move forward. How? I think this is multilayered, the problem, in that we need to first make hyper visible how the system actually works, and show how it isn’t efficient. Afterward, a movement must occur, a conscious movement, which includes those that work within the criminal courts, in opening a dialogue that will allow change, a conversation. From there, it gets tricky, and the options start becoming much more complex. I won’t delve into it, but I believe that is how all great movements begin, with a conversation that happens everywhere. The challenge is to have that conversation start.
Hello Verans,
I’d like to thank Mr. Giovanni for taking time out of his day to share his insight and take us on a tour through Manhattan Criminal Court House. I hope everyone is safe inside their homes as Hurricane Sandy approaches.
As someone who has never been inside a courthouse, I am grateful that I finally had the chance to see first-hand many of the judicial procedures that are part of a system that I am very critical of. In addition, I was impressed with the insightful information that Mr. Giovanni provides, and I hope that we are able to have him participate again in some capacity during the rest of the academic year .
One thing that was extremely important during our tour was Mr. Giovanni’s constant emphasis on race and the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, more often than not, the racial disparities in sentencing and access to equal treatment are not highlighted. Individuals with greater access to resources are able to get better representation and avoid getting pressure into plea deals. For this reason, Thomas Jefferson’s “equal and exact justice for all men of whatever state or persuasion” does not reflect the current state of affairs in the 21st century. Poorer individuals, primarily in minority communities, are not extended the equal and exact justice. Recent reports show that there are differences in sentencing between a black and a white person for the same crime. Surely, one can attack Jefferson’s and many of the founders’ intentions during the drafting of the Constitution because many of them did not include people of color or women in equal representation. Moreover, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly can be vilified as collaborating in aggressive police policies that disproportional target people of color. Regardless of intentions of those individuals that played an integral role in shaping public policy and those current individuals who continue certain policies, one thing for sure: institutional racism can be found in the criminal justice system. As Michelle pointed out, the criminal justice system appears to be used in some cases as a social control.
Another failure that tends is neglected involves with the effects of the criminal justice system on the family and friends of individuals in contact with the criminal justice system. The large number of young men of color in the criminal justice poses significant burdens for families that depend on them as sources of income. For example, despite the fact that some stop and frisk arrests do not lead to any charges, individuals are not reimbursed for time loss on the job. Along the same lines, family and friends that recognize the large racial disparities within the criminal justice system detach themselves from viewing it as an effective vehicle for keeping communities safe. As a result, this growing conflict between communities that feel that they are under siege and under attack will continue to manifest.
A key to addressing the issues relating to the criminal justice system that many of you have pointed out revolves around reevaluating the broken windows theory. Many politicians—especially within New York City—credit the crime drop beginning in the 1990s to more aggressive policing policies. For example, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani constantly credits the crime reduction in New York City to the adoption of broken windows policy. However, as a simple introduction to any logic course would highlight, correlation does not always lead to causation. As Steven Pinker outlined in his recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature, crime has been on the decline world-wide beginning in the 1990s. Moreover, increases in education, housing, and other services to individuals has led to the reduction in crime. Similarly, Professor Bernard Harcourt at the University of Chicago has traced the beginning of the decline in crime before the Giuliani administration. More recently, Commissioner Kelly cites the adoption of stop and frisk, which yield a .01 percent success rate in the goal of recovering guns, as the solution to decline in crime during the recent decade. No scientifically accepted study definitely proves that the broken windows theory or stop and frisk policing leads to crime reduction.
So, how then can we make a change to highlight the flaws in this type of thinking and make the changes to truly create a responsive criminal justice system that makes communities safer rather than “making our lives better.”
As tempting as it is to promote a color-blind society, this approach hurts further dialogue involving race relations and the criminal justice. Refusing to acknowledge institutional racism that has been woven into the criminal justice system will not produce desired results that many grassroots movements are hoping to gain. So, individuals must continue to foster dialogues that aim at addressing this problem. Second, grassroots movements must continue to form and push for changes. For example, Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) in New York City is a large campaign within New York City that aims to end discriminatory practices and surveillance by the New York City Police Department. Large groups like CPR will create a reason for politicians to feel comfortable to begin confronting the prison-industrial complex without fear of losing reelection. Third studies and projects to reevaluate broken windows theory need to be championed. These three parts, along with other changes like changing mandatory minimums and creating alternatives to incarceration, will begin to shatter the misconceptions regarding race and crime. Moreover, it will provide large movement that will be provided with an arsenal of research to confront the misconceptions within the news. Most importantly, it will begin to bridge the gap between the mistrust that communities feel regarding the criminal justice system.
Thanks for the wonderful post, Minerva! I also would like to thank Mr. Giovanni for the eye-opening visit to the Manhattan Criminal Court.
To my surprise, one of my deepest impressions of this visits lies in the transparency of the criminal justice procedures (not including its implicit biases). It is fascinating that ordinary citizens like us could easily gain assess to observe the criminal court despite its worrisome problems. It seems like the criminal justice system is perfectly comfortable with allowing citizens to observe its unjust characters such as racial disparity. In my opinions, ethical and procedural issues in the criminal justice system have been granted with normative power as many American have gradually ceased to question their existence. The populace’s silence and passive attitude towards this issue has become a force that fosters injustice in our system.
An interesting example would be the polar opposition between our criminal justice system’s attitude towards its flawed character and the approach of the Chinese government. The Chinese authority attaches great importance to prevent its citizens from becoming aware of the prevalence of injustice within its criminal justice system. It appears that the Chinese government fears the consequences of its citizens becoming aware of the distorted nature of its criminal justice system, whereas the U.S. criminal justice system could barely spear any effort to hide its deficiencies. Many Americans are well aware of the injustices within our criminal justice system, but we still lack collective efforts aim to achieve profound changes. This is exceptionally disturbing because it suggests that a significant number of Americans see little or no wrong in these apparent injustices in our criminal justice system.
The main point of my post concerns the lack of collective consciousness among the American masses regarding the urgency and the need to address issues in our criminal justice system. Meanwhile these injustices continue to target and marginalize a selective portion of the population, mostly ethnic and racial minorities. In short, in order to achieve effective and consistent social and political changes, it requires the grassroots efforts. In other words, as long as the American masses continue compromise with those implicit biases in criminal justice policies, the system would continue its current practices.
I am writing this after the devastation of the storm. We are all okay, although most are without power.
It struck me this morning. What happened to those being detained downtown in the criminal court? There is flooding and no power there. Did they just keep everyone under arrest, in holding cells? Were people moved in advance? Where? And what kind of backlog until arraignment ?
Professor Stein I was just asking the same question! I thought about what could possibly happen to even those in Rikers Islan here is something i found!
http://solitarywatch.com/2012/10/28/prisoners-to-remain-on-rikers-island-as-hurricane-sandy-heads-for-new-york/
It seems like people were more concerned with making sure prisoners don't escape!
Here another article if anybody interested in knowing more about the fallout from sandy on rikkers island http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/03/hurricane-sandy-s-fallout-what-about-rikers-island.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
I was able to temporarily gain internet access today, so I'll just quickly say that I want to thank Minerva for this edifying post (as I was unable to attend the Court Tour last week). There is certainly a lack of diversity and devastating disparity in our criminal justice system, as you have vividly described. There is no such thing as "equal and exact" justice when the groups that make up the majority of those incarcerated are skewed towards minorities (while the "jury of their peers" are made up of a whiter audience). I am also amazed by the points Andre and Joseph offered--that the way the system reacts to "crime" inadvertently creates more of it. The criminal justice system is both the catalyst and the reactant. So interesting!
I also agree with Joseph's point that, in order to make a system that works for everyone--for criminals, enforcement officials, and the general public--we need to remove the subjugation and disparity that incessantly plagues those entangled within our system. But, as in everything, there is no simple solution. Joseph alluded to research; Sylvie mentions grassroot efforts. It's hard--how do you fight for expanded criminal rights in a society so hardened against "criminals". If we see an individual behind bars, we often think they deserve to be there, innocent or guilty. Must we first attack the consciousness, the culture or mindset, that makes us think in such a zero-sum, black/white way?
Just wanted to let everyone know that I haven't heard from Thomas since the storm. He may be without power or internet access. I will let you know when I hear from him.
And David, thanks so much for that terrific article.
Sally, I am googling yours right now.
Thomas is okay and will try to respond to the the blog, as he is able. I'll let you know.
Post a Comment