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.

Wired for Justice

I recently read an article in the New York Times titled “Wired for Justice.” You can find the link on the right side of this page. While the article focused on our yearning to punish those who were responsible for the economic crisis, I would like to discuss the themes of the article in a broader sense. (Actually, I just want to avoid talking about the economic crisis...)

The piece discussed the “public’s urge for punishment.” One experiment mentioned in the article identifies the psychological motivation for this urge not as deterrence, but rather as just-deserts retribution; people tend to want to punish just for the sake of punishing. The article also said that the need for punishment is instinctual to humans and other animals.

The article mentioned one downside of our urge to punish: that the punishments seem to be spiteful. I have been thinking about the negative impact that our instinct to punish can have, like when we support punishments that do not effectively address the crime, criminal, or victim; when we want to punish, or get revenge, rather than identify a solution to the problem. I immediately think of sex offender notification laws, which were created basically on a whim to calm down the public’s hysterical reactions to sex offenders living “undetected” in their own neighborhoods. The enforcement of these laws has been problematic, and there has not been evidence to show that they effectively reduce sexual offending, but they do make the public feel safer- and therefore the public continues to support them. Many laws seem to do nothing but allow the public to retaliate against the criminal. Maybe the offender deserves to be retaliated against, and the public deserves to get their revenge, but I am wondering: are we “wired for justice,” or wired for revenge- and what, if any, difference is there between those two concepts?

Thinking out loud about the Mentor Coffee talk

We liked what we heard on Thursday about your intitial impressions of the experience so far. We'd like to hear more -- and we know that you are each other's best audience. So use the blog this week to talk about what you might talk about and to offer feedback to one another. You can post and then receive comments from others, or you can write your thoughts in the comments section to this post. Whatever works for you. Remember, we want 3 minutes max with a clear point and a memorable example. Professors Stein, Waterston and I will be reading, too, so feel free to ask questions.

In The Spirit Of The 2008 Election

I moved to the United State from Canada in 2002 and became a U.S citizen in 2005. Having a keen interest in politics, and recognizing the sacrifices that were made on behalf by my ancestors, my suffrage is of high value to me. I therefore made it a priority to educate myself regarding the voting process, the different levels of government and their responsibility, the councilmen and women, and the issues that affect my life in order to make an inform decision when it is time to vote. Upon citing several sources, I came across the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is an indirect election. In other words, ordinary citizens of the United States vote indirectly for the President and the Vice president. This is done by voting for electors (538 members of congress) who are free to vote for any candidate eligible to be President. Essentially, U.S citizens do not actually vote for the president. According to my sources, there are various reasons given for this process: 1. the Founding Fathers did not trust the democratic system or rather the judgment of the general public. 2. The Founding Fathers believe small states would be underrepresented. 3. At the time of the creation of the Electoral College, issues concerning the popularity of one candidate over the other, as a result of minimal communication access were a concern and a clear disadvantage to some candidates. Clearly, that is not the case in today’s society where internet, cell phone, t.v are prevalent in many household.

In this process it is understood in many states that winner takes all. Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. And electors are not obligated to stick with a particular party. Strategically a candidate can concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally. Interestingly, a president can lose the popular vote yet still win the presidency. This is what happened in 2000 with George W. Bush.

What I found even more interesting was that a lot of people, both young and old did not know of the Electoral College or its role. They actually believe that they directly vote for the president and most were more observant of the November election, than the election of congress members, who, unlike the president can be directly voted for by the public.

My concern or questions are: is this (Electoral College) an outdated system that needs to be replaced in order to put more power in the hands of the people? Should there be more effort by the government in shedding light on the Electoral College and its role as there is on the presidential election?

Talking about "The Wire: Drugs, Prison and Community Survival"

Hi Everyone. This is not Kerry-Ann's post -- you can look for her post sometime towards the end of the weekend. But I was so interested (depressed? outraged? impressed?) by the panel discussion we attended today that I thought I'd open up the blog to your comments about it. I also want to point out that you can access the article in Time magazine about jury nullification through the "Check it Out" link list on this page. Given that we never have enough time in our seminar to get to everything, I figured we wouldn't be able to spend class time discussing the many issues raised today. Maybe we can cover some of that ground here. And three cheers for Kerry-Ann, who stood up and asked an eloquent, provocative question at the panel!

Room for Compassion?

After reading the material assigned and reflecting back on our discussions in class last week, I felt compelled to address two topics: Compassion and the ulterior motive behind public policy.

But first, compassion. Compassion is defined in the dictionary by a deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. For me, this is something I experience everyday; a hardened New Yorker, my heart is still wrenched from my chest at the sight of those who are suffering. It goes without saying that this compassion carries over to my educational endeavors. For this reason I pose the question, "How can we distance ourselves in such a way that we remain empathetic without becoming emotionally involved?"

Someone last class had mentioned education. I feel that education is one vehicle to obtaining this a balance, but it does not tackle the full problem. People in our positions will be faced (or already have been faced) with numerous situations that evoke compassion. To what extent should we hold back or let loose our compassion? When does compassion interfere with the goals of justice, or of equality? Is there a place for "compassion" in the American Criminal Justice System?

It is my personal opinion that another way of controlling this is through mere exposure. The more you are confronted with situations that draw compassion the better one becomes at dealing with it. I think this is something that we learn in our internships, but not necessarily as formal education. When I first started commuting to Manhattan everyday, I had very strong emotional reactions to the setting (mainly, homeless people); It was as if I wanted nothing more than to buy them a meal and suit. Now, even though these reactions are slightly subdued, I still can not help but want to help. I get by telling myself I can't help everyone.

I was recently struck by a conversation I had with my mentor about a program that works to keep prisoners in contact with their close friends and family. Studies have indicated that increased ties with those outside the prison can reduce the likelihood of that person recidivating (Bales and Mears, 2008). Furthermore, it is very likely that this program will save the state money in the future. Why is it then, that these programs are being cut? Where is the compassion?

I feel that a lot of the reason is related to what Professor Waterson discussed in Anthropologists on Writing. There is definitely an "underlying objective" governing a large majority of public policy. This is well reflected in cutting funds for a program that allows inmates more outside contact. If social programs really are designed with the purpose of "maintaining and reproducing a population under existing social conditions (Waterson, 2009)", then I understand why this program was cut. This program allowed inmates a means to transition into society, in addition to the myriad of other psychological and emotional benefits one gets from contact with loved ones. This is a program that if properly funded, could truly help ex-offenders to reintegrate back into society. If this program is cut, I feel it would be in part because someone along the line lacked compassion. There was some "underlying objective" that this program was not meeting.

I feel that compassion is sometimes perceived as an all consuming feeling of angst that obscures all reason and ability to perform professionally. While such may be true in some scenarios, it is at times hard to control feelings of compassion, and we therefore must learn to work with it; draw a critical eye to how you can become impaired in a "compassionate" situation and learn from it. It is our job to carve out a niche between the cold, distanced, scholarly education snob and the good hearted, compassionate person inside of us that makes us want to relieve all the suffering we see.

P.S. Anyone interested in reading the Legal Action Center's Blueprint for Criminal Justice Reform, it can be found on LAC's website (www.lac.org) under the publications section on the left hand side of the toolbar!

Having your cake and eating it too...

This past week I started my internship at the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. The two days I worked were a flurry of introductions and way too many names to remember. However, when I met the director of the agency, we had an incredible discussion about the idea of preventative measures for incarcerated prisoners. At the end of our conversation, I walked away with no resolutions, but it sparked my interest into how this type of solution is received by society, and whether or not it is a viable option.

Consider an offender who consistently beats his wife and children. He is arraigned and released on bail, and released back into society with the chance of him committing an even more heinous crime against his family…or possibly he might have just learned his lesson. In order to protect society, is it infringing upon an offender’s rights to have him locked up on the off chance that he might commit a crime again?

As a member of society, I can fully support locking up a person who harms other people. However, if I was in that person’s shoes, I would never want to be locked up in jail unnecessarily. So how can we solve this? Can preventative measures reduce the number of offenses that occur in our city? Or are we putting a person’s liberty and freedom at stake? But what about the government’s duty to protect society from harm? Each question is answered by a million more questions.

Before starting my post, I reread the comments from last week and Professor Waterston’s comment really struck a chord with me. By looking at the political-economical perspective and thinking in terms of the larger society, perhaps preventative measures are the way to go. On the flip side, the very first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is “…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom…” Where do we draw the line? Are ankle bracelets that track the offender’s every move, yet release him back to society a fair compromise? Do daily phone calls and a detailed log of every move give the offender enough freedom without compromising his liberty? How about house arrest? Should we even be considering a compromise? Is the answer to this an obvious no-brainer?

There are no conclusions that I’ve come up with that satisfactorily solve this conundrum. I understand the motivation behind both perspectives of this debate, kind of like wanting to have my cake and eat it too.

Are All Dreams Attainable In Society Despite Ones Past?

I was very lost in what I should choose to blog about. The very theme of being lost and our discussion in our class of our personal experiences helped me bring it all together. As I was reading the speech to M.L.K I had many emotions that overwhelmed me with how many people in today’s age are still suppressed, despite their rights as an American. One example that came to my mind was a man that one of my mentors works with. She told me his story, and how times she deals with these type of clients. From the ages of 16-55 he was in and out of jail. He has been so accustomed to the way of living inside the jail system that he is faced with serious issues with being able to reintegrate him back into society. His whole entire life he has not had a job and can’t seem to learn the life skills that C.E.O offers. This is not only the struggle of one man, in fact there are millions of released felons that are faced=2 0with the same issue. This is in a sense a monopoly affect caused by our society. If we keep suppressing their voting rights and not allowing them to hold certain jobs of employment, than how can those handful be determined to alter their lives? What happens to those individuals that have changed and learned from a turning point in their lives but could no longer follow their dreams because we as a society have shut the doors on them? The question I raise is if we all have dreams shouldn’t every equal man be able to pursue theirs despite obstacles every imperfect human may have encountered?

Do We Need Another Hero?

Professor Reitz

This week my sons and I have been finishing up this 1,000-piece Civil War puzzle, and I was struck by the choices the artist made in capturing this major event in American history. All of the generals are featured along the border in postage-stamp sized images, the major generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman) get a little bigger picture and then in the middle are large drawings of Abraham Lincoln (of course), Confederate President Jefferson Davis (o.k., I guess that makes sense) and, interestingly, Frederick Douglass. This week we are reading from Douglass’s Narrative and while I’ll save specific questions about that text for our class discussion, his image on that puzzle got me thinking about heroes, our need for them, and how they relate to social justice.
In this week of Barack Obama speaking 45 years to the day after MLK spoke in Washington, D.C. (we’ll read MLK's speech next week) – neither of those men could have been where they are without the Frederick Douglasses -- it is impossible to say that we don’t need our heroic individuals to rise up out of the masses and shape our stories, give us hope and lead the way. And I was thrilled to have the opportunity to tell my sons, as we looked for the weird puzzle piece shaped like Ohio that we assume our dog must have eaten, that Douglass was as important a player as Lincoln or Davis in the events that shaped the Civil War and its aftermath. How fantastic, in a history that all too often seems like a sea of white, male faces floating in clouds, to be able to include people of color, or women (Harriet Beecher Stowe and Harriet Tubman are on the puzzle, though not as big as Douglass).

But it is also a problem. Our culture tends to glorify the hero, the individual who can stand apart from everyone else. We see this with our bizarre fascination with celebrities, or our tendency to celebrate individual athletes (Michael Phelps) over teams (women’s soccer). We will talk about our culture’s ideology of individualism later this semester, but I think our need for heroes owes something to our tendency to recognize the excellent individual over the group. Of course we could and should celebrate both the individuals and the group. But this is hard to do. Once someone distinguishes his/herself, he/she tends to be seen as an individual, rather than a representative. He/she tends to move outside the group he/she came from.

Jacques Derrida, a post-structuralist critic that, if you study hard and stay out of English graduate school, you may never have to read, describes this problem as “the paradox of exemplarity.” He was writing about Nelson Mandela, whose heroism is without question, but his point was that the individualism associated with the hero tends to support the power structures that exist and that, by and large, tend to work against the interests of the masses. We see this in our history books that are comprised of the stories of Great Men (and Women) and therefore fail to reflect the stories of the millions of average folks whose lives constitute the under-represented background for these great individuals. Mandela embodied the interests of deeply oppressed South Africans, but in being the hero he also separates himself from them, becomes different from them even as he represents them. While heroes make for good stories and perhaps personal inspiration (your writing assignment for this week) -- not to mention puzzles -- is the idea of the hero somehow unjust or at odds with the broader aims of social justice?