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?

The Mother Ship

We have jokingly called Vera the "mother ship" because it is, on some level, the origin of your journeys as John Jay - Vera Fellows.  For those of you NOT interning at Vera, you have really interesting perspectives since your greater familiarity is with the work and space of the spin-off (the child and not the parent, to keep the metaphor going). So what did you learn today as you returned to the mother ship?  What immediately struck you in what you saw or heard?

If you need more of a prompt than that (and I'm thinking most of you don't!), here are a few specific topics that occurred to me:

Did last week's conversation give you a greater attention to language and, if so, what were your thoughts?  For example, I jotted down phrases such as "school-disconnected youth," "post-conflict," "resistant," "strengths-based" and "population."  We routinely use the word "population" in our seminar to discuss the folks served by your agencies and yet Dr. Elkin was eager to clarify his use of that word by saying that the youths are not just a population but "are people we care about."  What work is each of these phrases attempting to do?  What implications are they hoping to avoid?

Not all non-profits look like Vera.  From the bejewelled Woolworth Building to the polished, rather swank conference room (admit it, you wanted to take a mug, too), the aesthetic style of a place communicates a message just as much as our language choices.  What does the style say to you?  How does this contrast with the aesthetic of your agency?  What message is communicated by your agency's aesthetics?  (And since I'm an English professor, I'd love to open this space to vivid, detailed descriptions of the places you work.  Remember, we haven't visited all of them -- make us see what you see!)

All of our speakers admitted to altering or abandoning various career choices on their pathway to Vera.  For some, it was realizing grad school was the wrong fit, or that the direction of the field had changed (I love the phrase Dr. Elkin used: "professional dissonance"!), or that grad school wasn't even necessary to pursuing one's vision.  Hester Lyons shared my favorite revelation of the day that it wasn't until decades later that she realized how one choice led to another.  I think it is tempting to think, when you are young, talented, ambitious and anxious, that those of us doing what you want to do had some great plan all along.  We don't (I'm using the royal "we" here -- I'm not accusing any of you of wanting to be English professors!).  We make choices, we quit jobs, we eat ramen, we avoid military coups, and we work hard to make those questionable decisions the "right" decision.  What did you hear in this conversation that helped or confused you?

The Social Interest of Social Impact Bonds

“We like our victims a certain way”

            This was the comment that Professor Stein left us with after our engaging discussion surrounding the potential benefits and drawbacks of social impact bonds. We ended the discussion on the note exploring if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risk, as people in the status quo need help now. However, big businesses “like their victims” to be complacent, meaning they want to be able to provide them with relief while simultaneously avoiding the stigma of their motives. We broadened this analysis but we also began exploring the significance of advocacy and methods of creating solidarity with the poor. Our analysis was great but I would like to first backtrack a little in order to bring more breath to some of the earlier arguments in the discussion as well as arguments that really framed our inquiry and my overall thoughts.

            Let us first discuss the root cause argument that we could have analyzed further throughout the discussion. In a broad sense, isolating root causes are beneficial because they allow us to explore potential reasons why negative events occur, find solutions for the base problem and prevent the future occurrence of this negative impact indefinitely. To be more specific, if people are consistently dyeing from the flu, we must isolate what the primary cause of the flu is in order to prevent future deaths indefinitely. However, the idea of social interest bonds seems to be prolonging the sickness by simply, as Joseph put it, “clearing the symptoms of the disease.” It amazes me how profit and short-term stability have become our end goal for societies toughest problems in contemporary America. If two people are cold and homeless, we see it fit to find them a shelter to stay in overnight and many feel the problem is solved. If someone has not eaten for days and we feed that person a great thanksgiving meal, we feel that this is enough to help alleviate their struggles. Hilfiker made this point clear that charity and non-profit work does not and can not substitute justice but does it not bridge the gap between the two? Does it not make justice that much closer and achievable for the vast majority when we build our assemblages and fight for what’s right? Even if people are self-interested in participating in these community-mobilized events, the lack of profit motive and fundamental desire to give outweighs the selfish act. These “bandages” are great in the short term but the overarching problem still exist or how to find a long-term solution to these issues. These charity organizations may not alleviate peoples suffering over long periods of time but at least a charity organization has not been co-opted by this profit incentive.

            Charity therefore differs from social impact bonds greatly. Social impact bonds are the epitome of this co-option in my opinion.  Its just another way for business to make profit off of displaced and underprivileged people who have most likely already encountered hardship within our system. Lets take a second to imagine a world where you have to pay in order to eat and survive, medication and healthcare is not universal and the betterment of communities relies on the government decisions and financial interest. Sound familiar? Sally made the great point that health care and the progression of medicine has already become economically optimized. She claims “if they [doctors] found a solution for cancer tomorrow, pharmaceuticals would go out of business” as they would not be able to profit off of people spending money to survive with cancer day to day. This is a product of our greed but lets get back to the issue at hand because social impact bonds supercharge this greed initiative. Put the idea of capital gain in context of prison re-entry. The government and their partners will fund programs for convicted criminals so long as recidivism rates drop next year. Lets assume that recidivism rates stands still or even go up… what now? Do we stop funding the programs and leave former prisoners vulnerable to re-entry? The answer in the context of these bonds is yes.

            Now, lets tackle the opposing argument, as it deserves to have some light shed on its credibility. David firmly believed that this short-term interest heavily outweighs potential long-term drawbacks. He claimed that we can isolate many reasons why the program is potentially hazardous, but at least something will get done. In retrospect it is hard to disagree with this statement but I still have to question the motive behind these bonds. If recidivism mattered to Goldman Sachs why do they have to pursue solvency through the lens of capital gain? What is the difference between distributing ten million dollars to a multiplicity of not for profit organizations aiming to lower recidivism rates and find a solution to the problem? Or why, as Niko pointed out, can’t the money simply be donated? The answer is in the question: NOT FOR PROFIT. If we continue to allow money motives to govern our decision-making, the notion of community turns on its head and money continues to rule us until the gap between the rich and the poor is absolute. Do not misunderstand my skeptiscm for inaction because I too believe that something needs to be done. But when thinking of these bonds in great detail we must wonder, and many of us have started to do so already, if people would actually be worse off in the long term even though they are obtaining short-term relief.

            Now that I have summarized most of our class discussion I would like to discuss my preferred solution. Sylvie’s articulation about Framer’s idea of “preferential treatment for the poor” is the best model for this type of conflict. Framer initially wants to explores methods of creating practical ideas in solidarity with poorer people so that they do not get misplaced in the decision making process, which is something that happens too often. Framer’s ideals have been practiced on a minute scale without our even notice. This solidarity has actually entrenched itself in the mission statements of most not for profit organizations. Ironically enough this includes the organizations we currently intern with and have researched. For example, CASES aims to create solidarity between the workers and the youth offenders in order to prevent their deeper entrenchment into the justice system; Esperanza aims to utilize research and illuminate trends in drop out rates in order to create solidarity between struggling adolescents and the staff who want to help them; HSI attempts to create solidarity between recently homeless individuals and case workers in order to prevent them from reverting back to homelessness and getting lost in the system. The list goes on and remains true through each organization. These organizations are at the forefront of solidarity and yet these social impact bonds stand to eliminate their cause because government would be able to allocate their funds into businesses rather than administering grants to community based institutions. Under the ideology of social impact bonds, the value of poor people, troubled youth and even formerly incarcerated individuals in society starts and stops at their economic stability.

I would like to now open this for discussion.

1         1)   If you believe that the long-term benefits and stability of the disadvantaged matters, than what can we do to assist that group. As future leaders, how do we make a systemic impact in a world where non-profits begin disappearing or where community activism is co-opted by business and government? Where do we find our voice?

2        2)   If you believe that the short-term goals outweigh the long-term interest as a few of us have articulated, than how do you remedy the potential dangers that our colleagues and myself have mentioned? What does the world look like post-social impact bond in your opinion? Why exactly does the “now” outweigh the “then” and do you believe that our voices do in fact become misplaced? Where is the human element in this solution?

3       3)   For all, what is the best approach to societies toughest problems? Is it the integrated model that Niko and Joseph defended or do we need more advocacy and hardcore solutions as Sally and I briefly mentioned?

Ultimately, the final question is this: How do we successfully transfer the power of decision-making and political know-how into the hands of the underprivileged?

In a Grove

I guess, for this first post, I would like to talk about some main points I’m interested in and leave the discussion open from there.

First, I continue to float back and forth as I evaluate my stance on the definitions of ideology and agenda. We started to talk about this at the end of our first class meeting. And, in the last blog posting, Professor Waterston continued the discussion, saying, “We often hear calls for the value of objectivity, of staying neutral, of not taking a stand. But aren’t we always taking a stand or position on something whether or not we make explicit what it is?”

Thursday’s class brought this statement to life. We all brought something different to the situation in deciding who was the killer and what really happened in that grove. Professor Reitz’s follow-up question—“what does this say about you?”—elicited the inner, subjective feelings

…Sally empathized with the rebelling, norm-rejecting Tajomaru, albeit not his narcissistic features. Andre and Aaron opted for a “concrete,” “factual,” and “logical” approach to the story’s facts, hence leading them to choose Tajomaru, too, but for a different reason than Sally. Nico, Professor Stein, and myself took more of a psychological approach, however, coming to different conclusions based on the value of emotion (i.e. validity of truth vs. a false confession).  On the other hand, Professor Waterston saw the woman’s account for its historical, gender value, through the broad lens of an anthropologist.

What does this tell us? Well, it makes me consider that we might just all have some kind of agenda or ideology. I suppose I’ve always associated both of these terms with rigid ideas and political leanings. But, what if it can just denote our inner feelings and motivations, as seen in class? We have to be driven by something, right?

As my cognitive psychology professor always said, “we all bring something different to a situation.” Our biases, expectations, education, values, etc. lead us to unique reactions to the world around us.

Overall, what does this story really mean, though? I ask myself what the purpose of the assigned reading was: how does this tie in to social justice and Vera's work? Isn't the advancement of social justice (and any process, for that matter)  about gathering support for a cause, melding or putting aside personal views, and seeking a common goal? 

What is objective truth—does it exist? From whom can we trust truth? We all saw in class how we believed some characters over others for various reasons (social class and position in society, perceived morality, gender, personality).

Flip to page 43 in A Kind of Genius and Sturz talks about how he “…learned very early that most of what people say is to be discounted. They’re either lying to protect themselves or just to sound impressive, or they don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’ve vaguely heard something or other.” Maybe that’s a cynical view of the world and human nature, particularly coming from a guy who worked with the system and its players for so long, but does it hold some truth? I think so.

1. Do you agree? What do you think we bring to situations, if anything?
2. How does this story translate into reality, our internships, and/or to the field of social justice?
3. What is truth? Is it ever objective? Who can we trust?

So, any other comments? Any thoughts regarding the above prompts?