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:
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
300th 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?
16 comments:
I think Joseph needs to send his post to the New York Times op-ed page (with just slight edits for reframing to the newspaper readership as opposed to us, his seminar colleagues). I'm not just trying to give a compliment here. I meant it seriously that this be sent to the paper (and how fitting, given our last assignment).
I won't comment on the substance of Joe's remarks until others have posted.
Agree with Waterston! Super job, Joseph. And thank you so much for the links to the other material. Everyone should check them out.
I am still witholding comment but wanted to share two more excellent exoneration articles,appearing just today:
NEW YORK | October 20, 2012
CRIME SCENE: An Arrest in the News, an Exoneration in Silence
BY MICHAEL WILSON
A mistakenly charged Brooklyn man faces the effects on his life of having been identified publicly as a possible murderer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/nyregion/exonerated-in-silence-travis-tremell-faces-effects-of-a-public-arrest.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
NEW YORK | October 20, 2012
2 Convicted in '95 Killing of Livery Driver Near Exoneration
BY COLIN MOYNIHAN
Two people who were imprisoned since 1997 for the fatal shooting of a cabdriver are being released conditionally as prosecutors re-examine the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/nyregion/two-convicted-in-killing-of-livery-cab-driver-near-exoneration.html?ref=nyregion
What a thought provoking post, Joseph! And thank you for making the rest of us look bad. Just kidding! ☺ Great Job!
First of all, albeit the needlessness for me to compliment the quality of the show, I still want to take a short moment to make a tribute to those extraordinary actors and actresses and their superb performance in narrating the tragic stories of those wronged by our justice system. However, to my greatest surprise, it takes the opportunity to sit in a high-end theater located in the center of New York City, of which the vast majority of Americans do not have such luxury to attend, for me to learn about the shocking prevalence rates of wrongful convictions and the distorted nature of the Criminal Justice System.
Meanwhile the mass media, to which most Americans have access, are fed on misleading sentiments like the fear of delinquency and the eagerness to ensure the delivery of justice. For instance, whenever American families turn on the news on their televisions, their are instantly showered with the perception of criminals’ aggressive intrusions into the lives of law-abiding citizens, as criminal activities are given the highest priority in present-day news reports. There is an additional “bonus effect” to these fear-inducing propagandas—to produce mind-numbing stimuli. As a result, our society has put greater emphasizes to punishing deviant criminals than to protecting innocents from wrongful conviction. More specifically, whenever a crime is committed, people’s primary and often the only concern is finding the perpetrator in the shortest time possible. The general public regains its peace of mind as soon as someone is arrested, be it innocent or guilty; subsequently, we quickly move on with our busy lives.
The article “An Arrest in the News, an Exoneration in Silence” has also caught my attention this afternoon as I was browsing the New York Times website. (It is certainly a pleasure to know that professor Stein and I shared at least some similarities in literary taste!) The experience of the protagonist coincides with the growing trends of the American society’s disproportionate social attention given to exoneration when compared to the excessive importance we attach to the procedure of condemnation. Without positive social attention and sympathy, alleged offenders are left alone at the mercy of the system. This phenomenon has led me to question the moral substance in our social values! It is disturbing to see the way our social values are turning into fear-driven and ill-advised biases.
How could we, as social justice advocates, alter the American masses’ injudicious views on the importance of preventing miscarriage of justice?
As I travelled home on the B train with David last Thursday night, I thought long and hard about the exonerated performance. I naturally have developed a kind of distrust in our legal system for the same reasons that we have been discussing in class, i.e., un-equal treatment and making profit off of others suffering. Even within this distrust I discovered two additional ideas surrounding our legal system.
I first noticed that race was not a determining factor in the exonerated performance. What I mean here is that three of the individuals who fell into this hole of false conviction were actually white. The reason this blew my mind was because it is easy to take things at face value, especially when discussing times in history where racism was still very much engrained in this country’s culture. I have grown accustomed to view these types of issues through a colored lens, meaning I expect minorities to directly suffer as a result of faulty governing and policing. Although it seems simple, David and I discussed this issue at length as this realization finally hit me.
Second, was the use of death row. Prior to this play, I did not take a stance on the death penalty. For example, in cases of first-degree murder I can defend a 25-life sentence and in cases of mass killings and other felonies I can see myself defending punishment by death. However, this play made me realize that the risk outweighs my personal desires. Each of the individuals portrayed in the play were wrongfully accused and a few were sentenced to death. Kerry Max Cook's story particularly touched me. After hearing his story I truly believe that sparing one persons life from wrongful conviction will definitely outweigh placing someone in prison for life. Also placing a person in prion for life has an added benefit over the death penalty; they now have the option to try and change and appeal their cases if they truly did not commit the crime.
My final realization relates to my personal growth that I alluded too in our last blog. Many issues this semester have inspired me to act but each time I come to a painful realization; I am still only a student with no influence to change the system. David reminded me of this point with our conversation. I am passionate about many issues but I know deep down that I am in no position to fix them. This comment also relates to our discussion of community service from earlier this semester. I constantly donate my time, money and energy to help others who I believe are in need. Psychologically, community service has been my way of coping with my inability to directly impact the law the way I would like. Although this realization is not an enjoyable one, it adds to my drive to get through academia and into the real world where I can make an impact.
Although these realizations discourage me, I do intend to give up. I feel that this answers your question directly Joe. The play allowed me think about why I decided to attend college in the first place. It was a great night and the stories were truly compelling.
I often wonder what biases I bring to the field of social justice (i.e. our seminar) by virtue of being an English professor. Some issues I am just plain ignorant about and some I only know what your average reader of the New York Times would know. Truly in the field of criminal justice, I am just a layperson. I think my constant harping on language and various perspectives (Orwell and "In a Grove") are examples of my disciplinary point of view.
So what struck me about last week's performance was the power of personal (first person) narrative. The play was really just readings of first person accounts culled together from the first person stories that make up our criminal justice system (testimonies from cops, lawyers, judges, victims, perpetrators, family members). We love first person stories because we can "relate" to them (whatever that means). It is especially potent when the actual person comes on stage to talk about the veracity of the account and the powerful effect it has had on awareness of and activism about wrongful conviction.
The power and importance of first person stories also made me think about the resulting -- and invisible -- injustice when some group does not really have a first person perspective to draw attention to the issue. Who tells the story of Poverty? Of Environmental Disaster? Of War?
This is a very passionate and thoughtful blog, Joseph. I agree with Professor Waterston, this is a piece that should be sent to the newspapers, not only because of the deep thoughts and facts which you so carefully put into it, but also because it comes from a young person who has never been in a predicament similar, in any way, to the predicaments these individuals faced. This blog comes from a young man who despite maintaining a clean, goal oriented, straight forward life, can manage to see the effects, certain disadvantages, can have or can place on people.
All of the stories portrayed in the exonerated were of people who in one form or another were at a disadvantage in life and their particular disadvantage led to their wrongful conviction.
Imagine being black in the South, in the late 70’s, the 80’s or even the 90’s, well even now, lots not forget the Trayvon Martin’s case in Florida a few months ago. Then also imagine being a young man from the “wrong side of the tracks”, who like many young men, wants to be rebellious and push the bar a little further. These are the people who will end up in these circumstances and no one will think twice about rendering a “guilty” verdict. However the circumstances are very different for a person of means and with financial and social advantages.This is why I believe that Joseph’s piece puts a special kind of emphasis, on the matter, that should be shown to as many people as possible.
That being said I believe that the exonerated brought the issue of the death penalty into focus for me. I, like Andre, have never actually taken a stance on the death penalty. Being a mother, I have always felt that if someone were to hurt one of my children, I would want that person to pay the harshest penalty possible. However, being the mother of two young men who have been stopped for “fitting the profile,” it scares me tremendously to think that one of my children could end up in a situation that they did not bring upon themselves.
In recent years I have heard a lot about people wrongfully accused and convicted who were later exonerated, after many years in jail, and then I think about those who were executed before they ever had that opportunity. I think the death penalty has no place in our society. If we are to condemned a person for taking some else’s life, then how can we do that when we are doing the same thing, only legally. The course of our justice system must change and that must include changing the death penalty.
Hello Joe,
Great post! I definitely agree with the points that you have made. I loved the performances and the play was extremely powerful. It made me rethink our justice system in a whole other perspective. (Not to say I thought it was perfect before) but after listening to the performer’s stories and testimonies of real survivors, I just thought “wow…”
What stood out to me the most is in reference to your third paragraph. I completely agree. It was deeply disturbing how many of the individuals were exonerated, but were not released until many years later. This makes me question, how can an individual trust our justice system, when the very system that was made to protect us, continues to do us unjustly even after we are found innocent? Not only does it cost a lot of money to keep someone on death row, but the primary issue IS the injustice. If that individual is found not guilty, then let him/her be free. Even after being exonerated, the individuals were still kept on death row… For what?!
The entire performance was extremely touching and made me reanalyze our justice system. However, the story that stood out to me the most was Kerry Max Cook’s. Similar to Andre and Minerva, I never took a stance on the death penalty simply because I believed that it can be argued both ways and it is too controversial. However, after listening to Cook’s story and the cruel treatments he endured, I was speechless. As Andre said, “After hearing his story I truly believe that sparing one persons life from wrongful conviction will definitely outweigh placing someone in prison for life,” I wholeheartedly agree. Cook’s story made an even greater impact on me when he came out on stage at the end of the performance. It brought the reality of the stories to a whole new level. There was something very powerful and inspirational about him and the ora that he expressed. He showed the audience his story, and I got the clear message that something NEEDS to change about our system.
As part of Vera, we are all interning at a social justice agency. By each of us making a strong contribution towards our agencies and contributing to reform the criminal justice system, I am still optimistic that a positive change will occur eventually, one step at a time. It is clear that this play has made an impact on almost all the Verons and the Professors. By each and every one of us focusing, working together and working towards that common goal of reform, I am positive that a lot of good will come out of it.
Having watched the play, and reading these blog posts (e.g., Joe’s clear articulation of the failures of the system [see also Sylvie and Michelle], Andre on race in the CJS, and on capital punishment, Professor Reitz on the power of personal narrative, and Minerva on her own vulnerabilities as a mother/as a mother of children who superficially “fit the profile”), some additional thoughts and questions come to my mind:
1) “The Exonerated” focuses on those who were falsely accused, who suffered terribly by their imprisonment, and were then exonerated. What about those who are guilty? Do we believe they “deserve what they get” and leave it at that? Or should we also be thinking about what is to be done about “them”? What IS to be done about “them”? Are the current approaches (these need to be identified), the best we can come up with for all interested parties—society at large, “victims,” communities, families, and the “guilty” party?
2) On race and CJS. Here’s where data is so important. “Minorities” are disproportionately represented among the imprisoned—they do not comprise 100% of the imprisoned. Race does matter. The statistics reveal this. The USA is a big country and there are huge differences by urban/suburban/rural and region. It’s always important to examine the intersection of race/class and place. Here are some useful references: The Sentencing Project (many reports—nation as a whole; by states, and more): http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/index.cfm; Michelle Alexander’s book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” (The New Press); and David Cole’s “No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Criminal Justice System” (The New Press).
3) On capital punishment: As an individual I can understand wanting to lash out at someone who brought harm to my loved ones. But might we want the state to protect us from our base instincts? There is the very real issue of the state killing an innocent person. But does the state have a right to take the life of ANY human being? Put another way: what gives the state the right to take a human life? (Of course it does so all the time by means of ubiquitous war but that’s another subject)
4) On the power of (first person) personal narrative. I love what Professor Reitz has written. It’s what I have long struggled with in my work as an anthropologist who studies poverty AND war. I am the outsider looking in, and I constantly struggle with the issue of "representation." In my writings, I have privileged the voices of “others” coupled with my analysis of the larger forces that shape the conditions within which the people depicted live their lives--but there are huge limitations to that approach. I can totally see some among the Verons writing powerful personal narratives. They are getting the skills they need (see Andre on going to college) so they can apply them to making a difference in the world AND perhaps writing their own first person, personal narrative.
Finally, here are links to the related subject of solitary confinement. I heard this interview with Shane Baueron the radio yesterday (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/22/no_way_out_after_iran_ordeal), and here is a link to the article he has just published titled “Solitary in Iran Nearly Broke Me. Then I Went Inside America's Prisons” (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/solitary-confinement-shane-bauer)
Joe: I hope you will consider reworking your post and submitting it to the NY Times op-ed page.
I like Prof. Waterston’s question about those who actually commit crimes. The prisons are filled with young people who have been convicted of low level non-violent drug offenses for which those with more money or of a different race would never be arrested, much less prosecuted. Their sentences never end. Yes, they are released eventually but the stain on their record often prevents them from engaging in civic life in any meaningful way. In reality, they are serving a life sentence, too.
I have heard people working in the criminal justice system say of the wrongfully convicted that “they may not have done this but they probably did something”, a heartbreaking indication of the cynicism that has corroded our judgment about a population that we so readily “other”. Last year, when we visited the holding cells behind the Brooklyn Criminal Courts, we saw how effortless it was to assume the guilt of those who had merely been detained. It is so easy to become complicit in the sequestering of other human beings.
Thank you for the wonderful post, Joe. And thanks to my colleagues for inciting such a rich discussion.
The way I first reacted to the play was to observe the set. I found it extremely interesting that the two men who played the prosecutors (they also played the parts of witnesses, police officers, district attorneys) were sitting on elevated surfaces, or pedestals, on opposing sides, while the "exonerated" sat on a lower level, sandwiched in between them. This seemed to represent the almost god-like. It was like watching the powerful act against the powerless. With their unbridled authority, these men, blinded by either personal gain or an autocratic view of justice (where you are guilty until proven innocent), held these innocent people captive. They became the arbiters of judgment, rather than justice.
I was so sickened by the fact that, in once case, a prosecutor had succeeded in turning an innocent man into an "immoral homosexual," hinging on the fears of conservative southerners and the stigma of sexuality. When I watched the play my contempt for these prosecutors just kept growing. Especially the fact that some of them prolonged new evidence from being reviewed, or sought to keep their conviction rates high.
I don't want to put all the blame on prosecutors--society, the police, some within the criminal justice system: they all share some blame. I have to echo Andre's sentiments that (currently) it's hard to think of ways to counter the misconduct that occurs within the criminal justice system. Perhaps, as Michelle has noted, by continuing the work in our agencies, we will be able to make some small difference to promote justice in other areas. But the big problem still remains: how do we combat the hostile culture of the criminal justice system in a meaningful way?
I'm also going to come back later to respond to Prof. Waterston's question.
Joe, you should definitely put your post up on the New York Times it is an amazing post.
The play itself highlights as Joe said the many problems, the justice system faces today. It makes a huge difference. When the playwrights conducted the interviews, there were only 89 people who had been exonerated now there 297, became exonerated. Although the number shows that we are making progress it also show that there most likely a huge number in the number of people who faced injustice which makes a huge difference. During this past summer my friend interned at the Innocence Project. She explained to me how the innocence project played a huge role to the ones who faced injustice. She explained to me an ongoing issue that was highlighted by the play. When a victim or a witness picks out the supposed criminal they may be picking out that individual after a period of time. She explained to me the many faults of doing the process this way. For example, choosing an individual not because they remember who it was but because the individual was similar to what the offender was wearing to something completely arbitrary such as the color of one skin. The selection of an individual based off minor details leads to incidents such as the one that occurred during the play, when the individual chose the African American since he was a “nigger”. He used this language to choose this individual out of a lineup this “language” is wrong.
My friend told me that the Innocence Project is trying to find ways to counter that such as bringing in a third party to help during the process of choosing someone out of a lineup to limit bias from police and the witnesses. Another unfortunate result from that process once that person has been chosen the witness is more inclined to stick with the choice that the witness chose because otherwise that would mean that they would have made an mistake.
To answer Professor Waterson question, I believe that it varies from case to case because for in some cases the one who been falsely convicted for the most part received the majority of the punishment whereas the offender gets a free pass. For example if someone who is falsely accused of a crime is convicted and spend 30 years in prison for a crime he doesn’t commit. The real offender could die peacefully or become so old that the punishment becomes utterly worthless. In terms of what should be done to them, I believe Nicolas’s organization; Common Justice could come into play. For example in the example that I mentioned restorative justice could be used as an alternative, sure it isn’t the original punishment but it is an alternative answer.
To answer the capital punishment question, I believe that at this point the idea of capital punishment is so ingrained in American society that is too late to make the change. I believe the state has the right to capital punishment as long as the people are ok with it.
Hi Joe and fellow Verans! I was wondering why no one was answering to my post, and then I realized that I didn't post! First off, I want to thank the professors creating the opportunity for us all to attend the play. In addition, a BIG thanks to David for organizing the dinner!
It appears that our professors know us too well because this play definitely forced us to confront a number of different issues. On my way home, I, like the rest of the Verans, began rethinking all the important elements of the play that pushed each of us to really think beyond the literal meaning of our criminal justice system and its role. For some odd reason, the case that stood out to me the most was Sunny's. Sunny Jacobs, a white woman who was convicted of a crime she did not commit, lost 16 years of her life to death row. Her husband was killed on death row as well for the same crime, in turn ruining her life. Sunny's story was not unique, but more importantly it was NOT stereotypical. Like Andre, I was quite surprised that most of the exonerated individuals were not the typical stories you hear or read about involving racism in the criminal justice system. These stories occur dozens of times right here and right now in the United States. An important element missing in the criminal justice system seems to be the idea of creating dialogue among personal stories like The Exonerated. It also seemed as though the average American, who doesn't have access to go to a downtown theater production, would know about it. In fact, the media makes us think that we should be fearful of the things that people do. For example, during the presidential debates between President Obama and former Governor Romney last night, there were clear indications to how and why the general public should fearful. Continually, both candidates keep talking about the fear regarding Iran and them possessing a nuclear weapon, which in turn allows us to feel safer if we have a better military and police the world. With that being said, it seems like we have the same idea when we think of our criminal justice system. We want to make sure that we are caged away from the danger and would be willing to take the risks that come with it. Finally, I also want to say that The Exonerated is an extremely important play that allows us to see the forgotten people. Seeing the personal struggles of those who were unfairly treated in the criminal justice system truly illustrates some deficiencies in our criminal justice system.
Joe,
This was great! And yes, send it to the NY Times!
I want to touch upon something I have a constant struggle with. As I was watching the play, I could not help but feel this sense of extreme rage toward the system and how corrupt/inefficient it really is. Justice, where is it? Is it an ideal that we will never reach? But what concerned me most was the individuals who were responsible for creating a system that doesn't work. But I caught myself super antagonizing the system, the few "evil" men that were out to oppress the masses, especially people of color. I wanted to blame them, and only them, to say that the only way out or to get closer to true justice was have them taken out. For a moment, I wanted the oppressor to no longer exist.
It dawned on me that this emotional outburst was a very real and consistent feeling among many of my peers and people across the country. With being a witness to such cruel and often times inhumane sentencing such as capital punishment, or how the process works, isn’t it understandable that so many people just “hate” the system and see that it isn’t reparable? So the question I asked myself was, do we need to destroy this dichotomist mentality where the system is the enemy?
We need to work with the system, and it has proven to be the only way that we can actually come up with real change. But my belief is that we need to be careful when presenting the flaws of the system, because it may antagonize it more than show how it needs to fundamentally change. Rage and anger, while emotions that will be felt regardless should not be the motivation – and it usually isn’t. However, when addressing the masses, we must be careful in not letting them be motivated by anger and rage.
Thank you, Amara, for noticing just how purposeful every choice a Director makes is. After your comment, I reflected about how mobile ten sedentary bodies could be: active/passive, invisible/spotlighted, higher/lower, first she is one man’s wife and then another’s; etc. I felt like the play was all the more powerful because the movements were so circumscribed, making any action more riveting. It seemed like a metaphor for imprisonment itself.
Nico’s (out)rage contrasts with the seeming lack of anger on the part of many of the exonerated. Someone must feel that burning anger; it can be a kind of accelerant for social justice. The trick, as Nico points out, is how to use the fire productively, in a targeted way, instead of just burning down houses indiscriminately.
The Herb Sturz way of doing good has been to partner with systems to change them from the inside out. The downside is that systemic interventions, while they accomplish much,also tend to support much of the status quo, perpetuating the life of the very institutions they hope to dismantle. So, change from the inside or the outside?
A case in point might be the Tea Party versus Occupy Wall Street. Theoretically, I would align myself much more with the Occupy Movement (thank you for putting income inequality on the map!) but I would have to admit that the Tea Party, by infiltrating the corridors of government, has had a much more substantial effect on the country.
How do we align our beliefs with real solutions?
Post a Comment