A Few Thoughts

At the risk of narcissism (always a risk I am willing to run), I wanted to take a few moments to write about how I got involved in criminal justice before offering a few thoughts based on some of your reactions to Good Courts (at least the ones that Caroline relayed to me).  

I should start by admitting that although I lead a criminal justice reform agency, I am neither a lawyer nor a criminologist.  I'm just a guy.  I graduated from college with vague aspirations to do good in the world.   I spent the early part of my career working for a series of non-profit organizations in Washington DC.  My big break (as it were) came in 1992 when I moved to New York to be a Coro Fellow.  

As part of the fellowship, I spent a month as an intern, working for John Feinblatt who was in the process of planning the Midtown Community Court.   As part of this experience, I spent several weeks interviewing misdemeanor defendants in the Midtown North and Midtown South holding cells in an effort to get a handle on their social service needs.  I also spent a week sitting on the bench with a judge at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan's criminal court.   I found this experience eye-opening, to say the least.  

Like a lot of non-lawyers, my thoughts about court were formed by my grade school civics lessons, books like To Kill A Mockingbird and popular entertainments such as Hill Street Blues.  I expected to see serious, felony cases, intense trials, eloquent battles between defense attorneys and prosecutors.   As I came to find out, all of these things are rarities in urban courts.  The vast majority of the cases, even in the early 90s, were misdemeanors, not felonies.  Less than one percent of the cases went to trial -- most were disposed of at arraignment via brokered agreements between prosecutors and defenders.

I think it is safe to say that the defendants who appeared in court that week back in 1992 were not criminal masterminds.  By and large they were individuals who were down on their luck.  Many seemed to be homeless or drug-addled.  If I had to guess, I'd also say that many were unemployed and undereducated.  

I could go on and on, but I'll try to sum up.  The bottom line is that this was a life-changing experience for me.  I left my time in the holding cells and on the bench with a firm conviction that there was a significant gap between the stated and performed values of the criminal justice system -- what the criminal justice system says it does is very different from what it actually does.  This struck me then, and it strikes me now, as fertile grounds for reform.  

I'd argue that this is where the movement toward what I call problem-solving justice begins: with a frank assessment of the justice system.  Notwithstanding the reductions in crime over the past 20 years or so, I think most reasonable people would agree that we still have a long way to go before we have a criminal justice system that lives up to its highest ideals either in terms of fairness or effectiveness. 

Problem-solving courts, like any reform effort, have attracted a fair amount of criticism.  Interestingly, in the early days, the primary critics were law-and-order types who accused these new courts (particularly drug courts) of being soft on crime since they emphasized alternatives to incarceration.  In recent days, the primary critics have come from academia and from the defense bar, many of whom raise fears about net-widening, coercion and paternalism.  

Needless to say, I'm not an unbiased observer so feel free to take my thoughts here with a grain of salt.  But as a thought experiment, let's give in to the critics and imagine a world in which there were no problem-solving courts.  What would be different?  Would the adjudicatory process be any less paternalistic?  Would there be more trials?  Would the life trajectories of defendants be any better?   I think the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.  

I won't bore you with chapter and verse, but I think there is good evidence to suggest that problem-solving courts, if implemented correctly, have the potential to improve both court outcomes (changing the behavior of offenders, improving public safety) and court process (improving both efficiency and perceptions of fairness).  

At the end of the day, what I like best about problem-solving courts -- and what I think accounts for their popularity across a broad political spectrum -- is that like a Reese's peanut butter cup, they bring together the best of two worlds.  They incorporate the wisdom of both the broken windows theory and the movement to reduce our over-reliance on incarceration. Problem-solving courts, and drug courts and community courts in particular, are an effort to ensure that all criminal behavior receives some sort of response while not using jail and prison as a default setting.  

Hmmm....I seem to have gone on a bit longer than I intended to.  I apologize for the length of this self-serving missive.  Let me just close by wishing you well, encouraging you to challenge/question me, and congratulating John Jay and Vera on this wonderful experiment.

Greg

A No Win Situation

Problem-solving courts(drug courts, juvenile courts, etc.) aim to be holistic and bring a set team of prosecutors, one judge and social service agencies who help defendants. I specifically would like to focus our discussion on domestic violence courts. In domestic violence courts, the defendant and the victim share or shared an intimate bond. Domestic violence cases may involve children and a victim who is economically, legally(immigration cases) and emotionally dependant upon her batterer. A point to note is that it usually takes women seven to eight times before they leave an abusive relationship.


A little history of domestic violence courts. Because of ground-breaking legislation in the 1990s on domestic violence, the 1994 Family Act and Violence Against Women Act were passed and the first domestic violence court in Brooklyn was created. The Brooklyn Domestic Violence Court was very successful where the Urban Institue of Justice concluded that eight years after the opening of the domestic violence court, no victim linked to an open case was killed.


Even though, this is a true success, we must keep in mind that many women do return to their batterers and they make logical choices to do so. I never thought before interning with Safe Horizon at the Integrated Domestic Violence Court in Queens, that the same problem-solving courts fail some women and compel them to return to their batterers. First of all, a domestic violence victim never presses charges against her batterer; legally, only the state may press charges in a criminal case. Therefore, this translates into more rights for her batterer and less rights for her. In cases where women have children, it is a civil case where she has to find an attorney to represent her. Here comes the structural violence, Legal Aid, one of the free-legal service providers is mandated by the government to not represent undocumented women. Eventhough, immigrant women are more likely to be in danger from intimate partner violence than non-immigrant women. Furthermore, many women who take the step to leave their batterers are seeking a validation from the legal system that they suffered. However, they feel disappointed when the same court holds up that even though they were violently abused by their partners, that does not terminate a father's right to see his children. One of the inherent principles of our courts is the right to parent. This means that just becuase he violently beat his partner, it does not mean that he is a bad father; eventhough, research in domestic violence has shown that child abuse and domestic violence are comborbid. This is what I would like to know your thoughts on, do you think our courts truly keep in mind and base decisions on the reality of a victims circumstances and what they really need? Furthermore, can courts ever really be an answer for issues such as domestic violence or is society just putting a band-aid on a bleeding wound?Moreso, should victims trust a court system that is set in place by the same system that has set in place the same structures(sexism, racism, barriers to economic opportunities, education) that leaves them vulnerable and dependent on their batterer? If courts and the criminal justice system are not a good answer, than what other answers do we have?

Education or institutionalization: Youth in the System

I wanted to write on the topic of Juvenile Justice, and a recent case sparked a perfect transition into the topic. To read the full story, you can click the link (if you do, I encourage you to read the comments): http://www.abc15.com/content/news/northernarizona/story.aspx?content_id=923deeda-30b6-47fe-88ae-8f9792672491

If you don’t want to, that’s OK; I’ll give a quick summary. An eight –y ear old boy has been arrested on two counts of murder for killing his father and his father’s friend with a .22. Allegedly the murder was pre-meditated- this is not a case of a kid who gets a hold of dad’s gun and it goes off: it was planned. The kid also shot each victim in a different location, so some time passed between each murder. The Police Chief wants to try the accused as an adult.
--
As a society, we are quick to see youth as victims- not as perpetrators.

Interning in the Juvenile division of probation over the summer I met, interviewed and shook hands with young people who were adjudicated for both sex abuse and violent crimes- crimes that make our hearts heavy and our stomachs hurt. It’s easy to channel our hurt feelings as anger at an adult that took advantage of a child- but when a child takes advantage of a child, who do we get angry at? The parents? Chemical imbalances in the brain (whether real or imagined)? Video Games? How about Eminem?

I want to hear what y’all think about our current Juvenile Justice system, how we should treat youth in the system, or what you think should be done about this case (psychological tests haven’t come back yet on the kid, nor has there been any evidence of abuse by the father or the friend)

Hope everyone is having a happy and healthy week…

Incarceration, an outdated system?

As I recently read an interesting article, “Reconsidering Incarceration”, published by Vera Institute of Justice in January 2007, I would like to bring up a few points for consideration.
In 1990, America saw a rapid drop in crime rate and a continued decrease for more than a decade. However, in the past couple of years, crime rate appeared to rise again. This shift in the crime rate may call for tougher and longer sentences. This actually will transform our prisons in human beings warehouses. Our already crowded prisons will become even more crowded, absorbing enormous resources. It costs tax payers annually $40,000 and up to incarcerated one inmate, depending of the type of prison.
We all know that in 1970 America began one of the largest experiments in the world, mass incarceration. From 1970 until 2005 our prison population grew by 628 percent. By the year 2000, 5.6 million Americans spent some time in a state or a federal prison. These huge numbers urged the scholars in the field to analyze if imprisonment is the most effective way to reduce crime. The result of these researches showed that incarceration was responsible for only 25% in the crime drop, registered between 1992 and 1997, and the remaining 75% was due to factors other than incarceration. Some of these factors were policing, education and employment. One study estimate for NY City shows that 24.3 billion dollars can be saved by investing in policing and not in incarceration to achieve the same level of public safety.
Incarceration is used to reduce crime by incapacitating active offenders and deterring “future” offenders. However, massive incarceration of drug offenders may reduce the effectiveness of prison. Most drugs offenders are non-violent offenders. So, by incarcerating these types of offenders and crowding our prisons, we prevent the incarceration of offenders that commit serious crimes. Incarceration is a reactive measure that responds to crime. Incarceration does not take into consideration the causes of crime. In the past 20 years, correction budget increases by 202 percent. All the other factors that seemed to have such a high impact on crime were mostly ignored. For example, in the same time frame, higher education grew by only 3 percent.
My question is: If there are so many other factors that can increase our public safety and save tax payers money, with all the studies done in the field, why policymakers still put emphasis on incarceration as the only measure to reduce crime?

Resilience: What Neil Young Can Teach Microsoft, And Us

Hi All,

I'm Stew Friedman, and I'd like to thank Prof. Stein for inviting me to post here. My Web site is http://www.totalleadership.org/, but I'm not yet posting blogs there. I will be soon.

In the meantime, I also blog at harvardbusiness.org, and here's my latest:
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/friedman/2008/10/resilience-what-neil-young-can.html.

I'd love to get your comments.

/Stew

Continuning our discussion

I hope I'm not breaking the rules by posting.

I was sent a link to the Vagina Festival, and although I can't attend I thought maybe it would be of interest to some folks in the Vera Seminar, especially in light of the conversation we had on Thursday.

It's this weekend and it seems to be a collection of visual and performance art about femininity and also justice issues. One piece is about female genital cutting.

I believe parts of it are free. The link is vaginafestival.com

Being a Lady vs. Being a Woman

So far we’ve talked a lot about the injustices of the system that comprises our conception of criminal justice, especially those faced by the “accused”. We’ve also spent some time talking about some of the struggles we will and have faced as criminal justice workers or even observers. But, I’d like to take this opportunity to talk about the unique challenges, we, as women face; especially as we attempt to become leaders in a male dominated world and field.


A few weeks ago the New York Times had an article about the growing number of female corrections officers in New York City prisons. One of the officers interviewed for the article describes her need to harden herself for her job. She makes a distinction between ladies and women. Ladies, she explains, “do not belong in jail”. This is an issue I often discuss with my sister, as she is in construction management. There’s an inherent contradiction between being a good woman and being a good professional. On one hand we’re expected to be soft, pretty and helpless, but to do our jobs we need to be tough, serious and capable. This contradiction seems to be especially palpable when women have the responsibility of leading or delegating to male subordinates. I regret to say that my sister and I have yet to come up with a solution. We usually leave the conversation feeling very uneasy. Not only do we have to overcome sexual harassment and overall inappropriateness, but then it seems we have to work harder than our male counterparts just to prove ourselves. I understand that many of these problems are larger societal issues. So realistically, we may simply have to employ coping mechanisms to tolerate them. I wonder what coping mechanisms are appropriate and when they are healthy as opposed to enablers of injustice.

But, the article also pointed out some the benefits of having more women corrections officers. Statistically, NYC jails seem to be getting safer and less violent. This means that whatever dynamic the shift in the gender of corrections officers brings has had some positive effects. Whatever unique abilities women bring to their jobs (stereotyped or not) they can improve things. We shouldn’t necessarily abandon all things ‘feminine’ for success, when success is measured by a masculine paradigm. Rather, we should assess our abilities on an individual level. Hopefully, we can cultivate our personal virtues and talents and apply progressive compassionate justice to all levels of our mission in a way that transcends gender.