I'm a Judge and I Think Criminal Court Is Horrifying
themarshallproject.org
themarshallproject.org
Normally, after your arrest, you have to have a hearing within 24-48 hours, but if they arrest you on a Friday as they did me, they are allowed to detain you for an extra day because it's the weekend. I'm sure this is a tactic used often to frighten and goad people. My hearing was exactly as the judge in this article describes. There were lots of minor, non violent offenders in the court room with me, most minorities, and many couldn't speak English well at all. The judge would openly mock them and condescend. One man obviously had no idea what he was even pleading to because his English was so poor.
Once I got to higher court for my actual sentencing, it was no different. The judge didn't even read my case and the clerk forgot to have it presented and available for the judge to review. My lawyer had to give him her own copy which he briefly skimmed without adjournment. I later discovered that the prosecuting attorney was good friends with the plaintiff and the investigating FBI officer assigned to my case.
The courts in America are a joke, the legal system is in bad need of an overhaul. I couldn't believe the level of incompetence, racism, bias and prejudice existed there.
So let's say this is the case. There are a lot of stupid people in this country, I might be one of them (the term is imprecise. Do behavior disorders call under that category?). What do we do about (to/for) these people? We can't find a better way towards a well functioning society than beating and jailing people?
Many of these criminals (especially drug sellers or users) are a manifestation of the cycle of poverty and mental illness while the court systems seem to make it worse instead of offering solutions for the community.
My solution is to deal with poverty as a whole, to reform the justice system, to recognize that we can give people the freedom of a basic standard of living so they do not have to live in crushing desperation. And the rest of us do not have to live as unwilling accomplices to an horrific system.
If you could provide more specific information to me on what would be beneficial/useful to FOIA, I'd be more than happy to take a look, and likely send them -- and put them up on a public Github repo with a license that makes the data useful.
Email me -- arthur [at] dantonio [dot] co [no M].
jonathan [dot] j [dot] mason [at] gmail
Straight off the top, one problem is that transcripts aren't routinely generated, AFAIU. Yes, there's a court reporter taking down the proceedings, but what's generated isn't itself directly intelligible. Preparing an actual transcript from the proceedings for a small (2-day) case can run close to a thousand dollars. Doing this at scale would likely be highly expensive.
You bring to mind an alternative though: an automatic, random, appeal of a select number of cases to a review system of some sort. This might initially be a completely random sampling across all courts, but could then be subject to some sort of stratified sampling, with more cases subject to review from areas highlighted as problematic, and periodic reweighting.
That said, the records I've seen have been accurate.
Digital audio can be more difficult. Automated transcription sucks, and the costs for human annoyed machine transcription are very high.
Your AI solution would 1) tremendously reduce consts and 2) almost certainly remove a large share of the income of these independent reporters.
Mind: the problem could be resolved by making reporters employees of the court.
Get drunk and drive off the road into a corn field, well if you can get out without anyone noticing then no big deal.
One particular combination showed a 10x increase in correlation with charges being significantly reduced or dropped.
It would be very interesting to see a proper dataset and analysis on this type of information.
Spread the available resources around.
Passive aggression and resentment. The implicit loathing of a compulsory task.
The article is written by a volunteer. She finds the scenario repulsive, because there is stark contrast between her optimistic anticipation of a rewarding display of civic work ethics, and the dismal reality of thankless routine with no hope of escape and no end in sight, for anyone caught in this whirlpool of limbos pointed at hell. Neither the law, nor the victims, nor the accused may leave, all inclusive.
Taking a punitive mindset and trying to use it against the only population of participants who might have a glimmer of choice in the equation could backfire, with profoundly terrible side effects.
Use the lack of choice implicit in jury duty as a bellwether, to gauge the realistic level of enthusiasm any given non-adversarial participant carries into a court room. Not your own, but the observed ambient enthusiasm jury duty enjoys.
Like mercury concentration in seafood, that disposition likely magnifies, with ascent through the food chain.
This article is one judge's visceral reaction to a cavalcade of nightmares, on day one, going in cold. Now ask her to do it again, and again, and remain gagged, holding her tongue as she did in the article, and prevent her from acting in favour of any change. Her enthusiasm would choke and die after six months, although it would probably take longer to strangle any hope she harboured.
But the parade of misery curls around the block, and is longer than one judge's reaction or hope. It's a problem that's bigger than knee-jerk gut reactions. A direct attack on the situation might go all kinds of wrong.
An organisation of volunteers would really be a better strategy. This article highlighted one hotspot that needs volunteers to augment the workload, and the treatment of the cases. A conduit for volunteers, such as an exchange program to aid circulation, and help rotate operators of the system between duties (easy and hard), might improve results. It would need a monitor to ensure improvements are real.
If there's a strong link between the judge and the DA, eventually you will run into a problem with power. This is if you survive the initial onslaught of please of desperate help from desperate people (not all of whom will be paragons of virtue).
At that time, the political pressure brought to bear will be immense.
This reminds me of the recent case where the public defenders office attached the Governor to a case because of the constant budget cuts to their department.
Combined with some of these other accounts, that's more or less the definition of structural racism, isn't it?
There are a number of other posters who hit the nail on the head. The problem is really with how we fund the courts. More volume needs to equate with proportional increase in resources.
That doesn't necessarily imply it isn't racist. There is such a thing as indirect discrimination. http://blog.oup.com/2015/07/indirect-discrimination-us-uk-la...:
"Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral rule or policy has a disproportionate and adverse impact on a protected group, and supposedly neutral policies become suspect unless they can be shown to be necessary for achieving legitimate goals. For example, prohibiting headgear (which would affect Sikhs), imposing a minimum height requirement (which could exclude women), or requiring a graduation degree (in a social context where a particular racial group has very few university graduates)."
In this case, one may wonder why courthouses in poorer neighborhoods aren't as well maintained as those in richer ones, and why, if the court is overloaded with cases, there aren't more judges applied to it. _If_ that's because of a rule "a courthouse per X citizens", one could argue that's indirect racism.
However, that same blog post seems to indicate that US law isn't that strong in making "disparate impact" illegal, if the impact isn't intentional.
Not being from the U.S. or another common-law country, I'm tempted to ask: isn't this a natural outcome of the common-law principle "by lawful judgment of his Peers"? I.e. peers in Bronx are, on the average, quite different from peers in a wealthy white suburb.
I realise someone might take this as mocking but that is not my intention. I see it as a genuine problem in common-law systems. This then exacerbates other problems of equality. (If I'm a well-to-do expatriate who comes to work in New York, would I pick a place to live in this Bronx neighbourhood? Likely not. But, in a way, anyone who does not want to be a "peer" in such an area is just as guilty of creating the situation.)
They are professionals assigned to a court and are supposed to be impartial.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unite...
Also, IANAL, but "lawful judgement of his peers" sounds like it is related to trial by jury, not common law, I think you are mixing up two very distinct concepts.
EDIT: And finally, most court cases are not going to be judges making new common law decisions, but simply applying existing ones. The issue we are talking about is that in the US it is not being done fairly in criminal courts in some areas.
I'd see someone appealing a sentence for selling some OxyContin and think, "geez, what a waste of money to put this guy in prison." But he's got a rap sheet a mile long - theft, robbery, assault, etc.
The treatment of the criminally-accused in this country is deplorable. But it's also the product of a society that got fed up with skyrocketing crime a few decades ago and responded in a harsh and heartless manner. Crime is a lot lower today than it was in the 1990s, but even in the safest American cities murder rates are 5 times higher than big cities in Europe that aren't even considered that safe (like Berlin). And crime is heavily concentrated in poor places like the Bronx.
And the usual canard - for profit prisons - isn't even applicable here. Private prisons are illegal in New York. This isn't lobbying at work, this is purely a product of the democratic will reacting to devilish social issues. That's what makes it so hard to fix.
[1] I was also living in downtown Baltimore during the post-Freddie Gray unrest. I was disappointed to see the acquittals. At the same time, if I were in those cops' shoes, I'm not sure if have the moral strength to be any different. Society needs a certain amount of order to function. In much of Baltimore, that order doesn't exist. Gangs are in charge and the law-abiding people of those neighborhoods are the biggest victims of that.
[1] http://www.npr.org/2016/05/05/476844416/colorado-springs-agr...
I suppose if you asked a honest Democrat bigwig, they'd say something like they're just focusing on the problems that are practical to fix right now, and they can't fix everything at once because they need the support of these other groups to be able to accomplish anything at all.
Anyway, one of the jobs I did back then was to move a Paradox db to Access. (Yes, this was a LOOOOONNNNGGGGG time ago.) It was for a company that provided goods to jails around the state for the commissaries, as well as providing food for the inmates meals. I recall doing double takes at the prices that they were charging for some of the things they were "selling". A simple small bag of Cheetos would be marked up 5 or 6 hundred percent. Sanitary goods might be marked up a thousand percent. The list went on and on. It was crazy. And it was, most likely, VERY good money for that firm.
I don't know if they have gotten rid of those firms, but that is one place where A LOT of money was being made at the time. The more prisoners there were, the more money that company would make. Because the prisoners would buy these goods from the commissaries at ENORMOUS markups.
Not only that, but I always thought there was a HUGE potential externality built into that business. I mean, this is just speculation, but let's suppose companies like this supply prisons as well as jails. Well you could have a prisoner that is allowed to buy Cheetos and Snickers bars and sit around and get obese for his 30 year term. Only at year 20 he comes down with diabetes, or heart disease. (Not surprising.) And the tax payer is actually stuck with the bill for the medical care for the last 10 years, even though those companies made all the money off of selling the prisoner the Cheetos that contributed to the heart disease.
That job really was eye-opening for me.
That is what I stated. And band-aids are roughly the same price per instance. And there are also staff-related line items. And there is a completely separate EMT bill if you are transferred from the scene of an accident.
A stay of about 16 hours with no procedures, just a transfer by EMT, a few bandages and Tylenol, with about 30 minutes total of staff interaction was billed at almost $15,000.
There are absolutely "legitimate" charges involved, and there is a markup that would be considered legitimate, but there is also a lot of abuse that goes straight to overpaid doctors, overpaid hospital administrators and insurance companies, in the same way prison's are charged 6x or more for miscellaneous items.
Legitimate charges would be listed as legitimate line items, not hidden in other marked up line items.
(I'm making some assumptions here) each bag of Cheetos needs to be individually inspected to make sure that nothing is being smuggled into the prison. This would go for every item being sold into the prison.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if there was competition in selling into prisons, but my guess is you'd end up with some kind of split duopoly at best where things would be about the same as they are now. The reason is that no one can just establish a new business, which is the most important thing for creating competition.
Why so? Here they just got a few pallets of normal grocery store stuff and mostly used inmate labor to run it.
Really simple and costs essentially nothing to operate, especially since they don't have to be open every day.
The only complexity comes from potentially transporting the inmates to the commissary, but that's not a particularly efficient way to do it when you can just give inmates paper "menus" where they can just fill in their orders and have them brought to their cell blocks.
I don't disagree that the mark up mentioned in the post was extreme, but I don't have a good idea of what it would be otherwise.
Based on my having visited places with high tariffs, or a difficult place to deliver things (top of a mountain) you definitely see large markups. Not 6x, but 2x-3x isn't uncommon.
I wouldn't expect the supplier to bear this cost; it's the jailers who are doing the inspecting.
But surely they aren't charging 2x-3x more because they need to make profit, but because it's justifiable for them to charge 2x-3x more (mostly due to lack of competition).
However, profiting from prisoners by exploiting artificially restricted competition seems rather unethical to me.
Contractors aren't responsible for security -- that's a threat to their margins and to the corrections Union.
The reality is that prisoners are just seen as a mark. Inflated goods bring more money into the prison, because inmates don't make enough to buy $8 Cheetos. So relatives wire money in through some scammy system. Often the prisons get commissions for these types of sales as well.
I'm not a bleeding heart for prisoner luxury. But I hate seeing people getting ripped off by profiteers.
Allow competition and let the free market decide.
But hygiene items? Tampons or pads, shampoo, soap, toothpaste, and other such things shouldn't cost any more than they do on the outside. I'd argue that these things, at a basic level should be free and one can pay for higher quality items unless medically necessary. As far as we understand, being clean helps folks stay healthy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/07/appeals-court-puts-on-ho...
A personal attack for no apparent reason, and no actual content - that's wrong with it.
I don't see anything controversial about rayiner's point that US voters have often rewarded a "tough on crime" stance with a vote.
The justice system is the way it is because communities like the Bronx have serious social problems. It's a bad solution to a bad situation.
The idea of a quick sentence without a fair trial is abhorrent and kryptonite to the functioning an actual robust society,
It sounds like this is a clear indication the justice system is failing. This guy has committed crimes in the past serious enough to land him prison and he has come out and repeated those mistakes. Why? That's the question we need to get an answer too. Is he just a bad person? Can he not change? If we believe that why not lock him up for life and save all the hassle of a trial every few years? I don't believe this is the case. He's likely put in prison, become accustomed to violence and injustice, pitting him even more against the 'system'/'man' and then came out to no money and no job possibilities. This seems to be to be something that could be fixed very easily. Private prisons would probably be against it (fewer repeat customers) and in a state where private prisons are illegal politicians probably can't campaign successfully on a promise of more money to help rehabilitate criminals.
I'm sure you meant that as a reductio ad absurdem, but we do in fact do exactly that:
The thing is, though, the Baltimore police aren't agents of "order." See http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/articl... -- these clowns belong in a Batman movie.
Gangs are in charge
Yes, that certainly appears to be true, as that newspaper article makes clear.
At the same time, if I were in those cops' shoes, I'm not sure if (I'd) have the moral strength to be any different
I think you would, as would most of the rest of us.
A large number of our people seem to think if we're sufficiently cruel and inhuman to people accused of breaking the law, then people will magically stop getting suspected of breaking the law. It's more than a little horrifying seeing people's eyes light up when they talk about how our cops aren't afraid to kill people and how merciless our prisons are.
This horrifying system is a symptom of our cruelty, and any move to make this more humane (or less of an atrocity) will face stiff resistance from people who get off on seeing people get punished.
I don't know what I can do, or what anyone can do.
Personally I think that people should be in jail for as long as they remain dangerous, but many people are not comfortable with that logic.
The point of "Pscho-Pass" is "What is justice?" Who decides? What is the standard? Why is it the standard? Should it be the standard?
The problem of re-integrating felons with society is difficult and often ignored. It can be impossible to get work for many of these people, leading almost inevitably back to criminality (primarily narcotics, thence prostitution and petty theft).
However, reasons matter. If policy dictates the purpose is to punish, then that justifies longer sentences "to make sure they are sufficiently punished" and to be ill-treated because "they are here to be punished".
If policy dictates the purpose is to act as a deterrent to other crimes, then sentences are not justified as any longer than required to serve that purpose. That can be empirically observed, and I believe it has been studied and shown there is a strong scope insensitivity to the magnitude of punishments. This is even more pronounced in criminals, who are disproportionately more likely to have lower-than-average general intelligence or impulse control issues.
If policy dictates the purpose is to keep the criminal out of society until they are ready to rejoin it, then incarceration should be optimised for preparing them to return to society, and they should not be kept imprisoned any longer when they are ready. How to judge whether this has been accomplished is difficult, but the effectiveness of the methods can be empirically observed, principally by recidivism rates.
Note that the purpose of "punishment" is the only reason of these that cannot be empirically observed. It can justify just about any mistreatment, and doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any firm ethical justification except for the religious or pseudo-religious.
So even if it seems like a minor question, deciding the purpose of the criminal justice system is of the utmost importance and has wide-ranging policy implications.
Withdrawing a person from society is certainly punishment, but that should not be the point.
I don't think anyone is arguing that convicted criminals don't deserve to be punished, just that punishing them shouldn't be the primary goal of our justice system.
What doesn't get shown is that the judge spends 3 minutes looking at your case and passes a mostly-arbitrary sentence. They don't show that you get crammed into a courtroom and forced to wait 5 hours before your case is heard. They don't show that lawyers are more than happy to let you rot if you can't forward them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that many public defenders consider their cases a total joke (or that many private attorneys frequently blow off their smaller clients). They don't show technicians more considered with linguistic niggles than a moral and fair outcome.
Things like Making a Murderer (which had to be shown on Netflix, not a major broadcaster) are helping to break the trance, but there's still a long way to go.
Americans have been thoroughly programmed by the elite for decades. We have to undo it and try to show reality, not the flashy Hollywood-style rendition of events. Most people are sympathetic and helpful if they truly understand what's going on.
There were three judges in that court and one was known to be particularly rough. A defendant (drug charges, heroin) was asking for bail to be set, had secured a bed in a locked down rehab facility and the judge denied his bond. The bondsman said he had never seen someone leave the courtroom so broken.
Here is a case where a man acknowledges his crime, says he will do his time but wants more than anything to get clean. And securing a bed in a lock down rehab facility, besides being expensive, is not easy. Here is a case where the state had every interest in sending the man to rehab, even to save the cost of housing them in a jail, but the system doesn't care. The DA, the judge, don't care. Bail denied because the man had missed a hearing due to being in another jail after being picked up on the street with dope.
The bondsman said he sees this kind of thing every day. It was the rule, not the exception. People are just cycled in and out of the system. The addict will get locked up, released and locked up again.
It is a dark and deeply depressing thing. There is little compassion for victims, the accused, the convicted. I could write a thousand words but it pains me to think about it.
I pray I never get falsely accused of a crime and I'm so glad I'm not black. If all the boring white folk who couldn't fathom finding themselves so much as suspected of a crime had to go through the criminal justice system as the average YBM the system would be massively overhauled yesterday.
Most of the boring white folk I know think everyone in jail is a cold blooded psychopath who works out all day and dreams of stabbing people... "hardened criminal".
The system is just full of unlucky humans. God knows I did shit in my youth I could still be in prison for. The extremely violent type are actually quite rare.
Though that also comes with it the horrifying possibility of dystopian societal control.
I am always surprised when I (very often though) hear/read "normal" people, generally meaning good, who think that there are two separate kinds of individuals, the "we" and the "them"; who cannot fathom that all of "us" may slide slowly or fall suddenly into the "them" category.
Fixing 'them' may also involves fixing 'us' since crimes also occur in the context of our social environment. Think of prosecutors and the police. They are driven by incentive and cognitive bias to commit gross miscarriage of justice and get away with it.
In order to do that, you have to know humanity on an uncomfortably and dangerous deep level.
Those are the violent criminals, repeat offenders, lowlife, etc.
There a huge number of "criminals" that are perfectly normal people like you and me that got dragged in some criminal act somehow.
Including totally innocent people that just looked too black, were in the wrong place, etc.
You don't even have to go that far. "Impulse control" is the big one. Several inner city social programs were all about getting people to simply think for a moment before doing things like killing someone for "disrespect". It's really surprising how strong the taboo for killing people is and how well it asserts itself if you just give it a moment to kick in.
Biologically, risk taking when things are going well is a bad characteristic. Risk taking when things are going badly is probably a good characteristic. So I think you over value risk taking without any other considerations.
Or at least, without breaking the law any more than anyone else does: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1248668478.shtml
(I don't find Kozinski and Tseytlin's original in a brief search, though it should be out there. Very much worth reading, and helpful to consider that federal law isn't the only possible risk.)
That is in fact what happens in poor and minority districts everywhere. It can happen elsewhere, and does and has in despotic regimes and times.
Tons of tech businesses are built on the back of open disregard for intellectual property and tech access laws. It just takes the wrong combination of events to get hauled in for that. Look at Aaron Swartz, whose conviction proceeded purely based on Carmen Ortiz's desire to get a cybercrime prosecution on her resume.
The truth is that a good deal of the work that HN users are likely to get involved in could be considered criminal because of unfair laws like the CFAA, DMCA, and the Copyright Act, all of which prescribe criminal penalties.
There are other laws that stalk startups and businessmen, ranging from tax law to esoteric industry regulations. If a businessman makes the wrong person mad, he could easily end up locked in jail. Martin Shkreli is another good example of this -- a few days after he made the news and pissed everyone off, the SEC filed an indictment. They did that because it's easy to accuse anyone who's done anything slightly out of the ordinary of crimes. This really has almost nothing to do with the person's moral fortitude or the harm they've caused in the world, except insofar as you believe that people in authority are unwilling to target innocent people (true pretty often, but not often enough).
Funny you put it that way... I made this account to tell about the time I tried to protect my girlfriend from the mental health system. The hospital wouldn't let her go, so I went to the superior court and got a hearing. The commissioner looked into the matter and ruled that my girlfriend's detention by the hospital was not legal, and ordered the hospital to let her go.
I should have called the police to accompany me to retrieve my girlfriend from the hospital's illegal custody. I got attacked by one of the security guards, who I'd later learn knew exactly what to say to the responding police officer because he was a retired cop himself. I got arrested, and my girlfriend was sent to be professionally misdiagnosed and mistreated by the system.
That was last September. I'm going back to the courts next week to ask for another hearing. I have looked at the laws regarding compulsory mental health, and have found several that are not being complied with or respected.
But... Someone I respect told me soon after I was arrested that... "missionaries get eaten by cannibals." The system perpetuates itself.
I basically follow the law, on par with other folks that follow the law. I've never had a ticket even, though I've gotten pulled over. In the states, I worked in a pharmacy. They do background checks per federal regulation. Etc. I've generally found it would be bad to get in trouble for stuff, even when I disagree with the laws and/or punishments.
I also have blue hair (the color changes from time to time). That means that unless I'm established in an area, I'm a target. I'm in my late 30's and get followed around for theft in stores and have been most my life. Even if I'm dressed professionally. I've stopped in McDonalds where cops have stopped and gotten followed out of town. Some employers would have fired me for my hair or never given me a chance. I'm likely to get searched at airports (and have, once for bombs because of artists pastels). Luckily I'm living in a different country now, and though there is a bias, it doesn't hold me back nearly as much there.
What boring white folks really means is: People that look and act like the average white folks for the area, and are into the average things (or at least what can be observed). People that fit in place and aren't on the fringes.
And before someone says it's similar to pleading not guilty when you are guilty, AFAIK, a plea bargain is different; It's an admission of guilt, not a declaration of guilt. Declaration != admission.
I got the impression it was because the state's attorney felt I would best learn my lesson with that outcome than the otherwise mandatory sentence for the crime with which I was originally charged — non-violent, mind you; it was a bounced check. Yes, really.
So in some cases, plea bargaining is a "way out" of otherwise too-harsh sentencing. Yes, the sentencing guidelines should be overhauled, but in today's legislative climate, the path of least resistance is simply to allow the prosecution the flexibility to charge a defendant with a lesser crime.
Just from a purely game theory perspective, as a defendant you can easily find yourself in a position where it's stupid to reject the bargain even if you're innocent.
Anyway, they remarked one day on the phone, "we've never dealt with criminal Court, and we don't know anything about it, except the lawyer doesn't sound very optimistic. The only hope we have is because the system is so racist that being middle class and white might actually save us."
They also said something about how the police were pushing some angle about using Tor. I'm very concerned about that: I can just picture the ghost story that the prosecutors are going to tell some septuagenarian judge about this special internet for terrorists and arms dealers.
Thereby instantly disqualifying herself from the privilege of serving on the bench. Ample grounds for impeachment, by any reasonable standard.
1. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments...
Judges should be hard to replace (see e.g Turkey right now) - but peer review based bonuses or some kind of measure to get rid of bad behavior seems like a reasonable compromise.
The idea that anyone who ever utters anything that could possibly be interpreted as being slightly racist should be burned at the stake is just one political fad among many others that have came and went over the years. As well as the Gestapo-like idea that anybody who offers any resistance to the idea that anybody deemed to be racist must be burnt at the stake should also be burnt at the stake. And the primary reason why judges cannot be removed easily is to protect them from political fads exactly like that. If you deem that your favorite fad is "special" somehow, then the next one will be as well, and the next one too, and that protection becomes worthless.
And that quoted statement is not obvious racism. It was condescending and insulting, but not racist, except in the most mild sense. Actually racist would be "I am sentencing you to an extra 5 years because you are Hispanic, and Hispanics cannot control their impulses".
> She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have lengthy criminal records by the time they reach a certain age.
I think that's pretty obvious racism. By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right? I think it's racist to say in court that most Latinos have lengthy criminal records, and the judge probably knows it or they wouldn't have used the (totally transparent and pro forma) euphemism "with names like yours."
Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Re-reading, I see that this wasn't stated either, but I still read "some defendants" as contrasting rather amplifying the previous use of "a Hispanic defendant". It's possible you are right, but it's far from "pretty obvious".
The Bronx is sufficiently multicultural that I'm sure there are groups I've scarcely heard of who have widely held prejudices against groups that I'd never even guess. I think you, and I, and probably everyone who wasn't in that courtroom are reading things into the account based on our own preconceptions. Racism is one explanation, and likely at least partially present, but I don't think there is any way to know how from this short account how much of a role it plays.
For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? What about the court officers laughing at the "young man" with his pants around his ankles? I don't know, but I wouldn't be startled if both the humiliators and humiliated belt-less defendant were all of African origin, or Spanish speaking, or both.
And what about the "85-pound drug addict who was arrested because she was in a park after hours" or the "pale, slight, and visibly anxious" woman there for a protective order? Is there any reason to presume that judge's lack of sympathy for either of these two was because race? As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally?
So no, it's not "obvious racism", unless we start by assuming that racism is the only reason that one person would mistreat another. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?
So I just looked up "Guns and Butter" to try to understand why someone might have this nickname. To my surprise, the phrase is originally a reference to a macroeconomic model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model
The guns versus butter model is an example of
a simple production–possibility frontier. It
demonstrates the relationship between a nation's
investment in defense and civilian goods.
Or 1980's Australian Power Pop / Political Punk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA
And 2000's American String Band Resurgence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg
But I'm guessing this scene from Baby Boy is probably a more likely direct reference, but who really knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40
This then gets remixed by a number of Hiphop DJ's. I think I like this one best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss
It's even got Youtube parodies at this point, complete with reference to Gangnam Style as an example of "Butter": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105
It's also the name of a radical leftist radio show on Pacifica: http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm
I wonder if any of the people giggling in the courtroom knew any of these references, or whether they were just laughing at the guy. I wonder if they would have cared. I wonder if the defendant himself even knew why people called him "Guns and Butter". I hope so.
Okay, still racist.
> For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?
Not much.
> As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally?
Yes.
Not at all.
I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?
Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring. The point is that she's obviously biased against defendants based on family origin and language background (and incredibly condescending, to boot). Which are both attributes manifestly incompatible with her job description.
>> Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself
>> was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?
>
> Not at all.
> Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring.
Sure, the judge probably holds racial prejudices, and these probably influence some of her behavior in the courtroom. But I'd wager though that there are many other factors involved, and one of them (economic prejudice, overwork and burn-out, ignorance and stupidity, simple lack of compassion) is playing a larger role, and that a correct diagnosis is the first step to improvement. I'm not excusing the judge's behavior, I'm claiming that putting false blame on racism is a distraction from the real issues (whatever they might be).
Edit: Here's a couple other articles about the author, Judge Shelley Chapman:
http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/
http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial
These don't contradict anything anyone here has said, but may offer additional insight into her views.
Defendants? Yes. Judge? No. The sex of the actor is irrelevant in determining whether their actions demonstrate systematic bias against a particular sex in their judicial decisions.
(There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.)
Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.
(There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.)
Yes, and not only for discussing, but to have any reasonable chance of working toward a solution. I think the "fix" almost certainly depends on the cause of the prejudice, which I think almost certainly depends on the sexes of the parties.
Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.
But that's the question, right? What stays the same, and what changes? And in this case, do you think that "racism" is a helpful diagnosis?
Racism isn't a political fad though - it's contrary to the idea that everyone is equal under the law. That is a theme that is at least as central to democracy as the separation between judicial and legislative.
Just like you say the judicial branch must be well protected and no kind of political influence can exist.
This is why peer review could work. If a judge is condescending and insulting something has to go. The protection of the judicial from the legislative is important but not important enough that one can shrug at judges that can't do their jobs.
Which isn't to say the system can't be reviewed. Perhaps theoretically we could imagine some system of peer review that would be useful. But it's crucial that judges have political independence and can't get fired for making unpopular rulings or rulings not liked by those in power.
"Bonuses"? Judges don't get bonuses. And I have trouble imagining any system of 'bonuses' for judges that would steer clear of encouraging politically (in any sense of the word) motivated rulings.
Although the judges in this article actually _weren't_ federal judges, were they?
It so happens that there is a correlation (not universal, but a correlation) with race and whether you get fair treatment in court though. I think it actually goes beyond judges just 'not liking' black people or latinos though, it's an issue of the structure of our society, not just bigotry in judges. But those bigoted comments from judges do give a hint that this is certainly not something that has nothing to do with race.
About the names: It could be nicknames, it could be names common in a militant (i.e. political) subculture. There is no information what was meant - only the conclusion that it was racist.
About the physical standards of the building, and the assembly line of verdicts: That is something to fix!
(Also this clumsy confusion of 'pen' for 'pentitentiary' and 'pen' for 'farm animal enclosure' should be corrected with a new sign.)
That is the point of posting bail, but that is not the standard of granting a defendant the right to post bail/bond.
The standard is more along the lines of: a) is the defendant a flight risk; and b) does the defendant present a danger to the community.
As to b) it is not simply enough that the charges are non-violent, which seemed to shock this Judge. For example, DUI while not a violent crime generally one eligible for bail/bond by default, may not be granted if, say, it is the 3rd or 4th DUI. Or if say the defendant was already out on bail/bond and picked up a new charge, a Judge may revoke the bail/bond on the 1st crime. I'm not claiming this is always how it works and the decisions are always just, but I just want to give a little more perspective.
As to the shock of the state of the courthouse, only a Federal Judge would find that shocking. Don't get me wrong it's a pleasure to practice in a gorgeous Federal Courthouse, complete with grand marble accents, but I'm of the opinion those types of luxuries are a waste of tax payer dollars.
Obviously I don't need to sound off as an echo chamber, racism/off color remarks have no place in the court. That said I also went to law school and read SCOTUS opinions openly referring to African-Americans in ways that would make any decent person shudder. In my own experience, practicing in South Florida, I see similar comments regularly in the Court. Then again in my time I have also filed Motions for Fraud against prosecutors and lodged formal complaints against prisons guards (one example, an immigration detention center guard called my client a "bitch" in front of me and my client suffered from a chromosome issue that mad him look like a women).
There are some other things that might sound bad to lay persons, and maybe were, but are quite normal and not necessarily egregious or inhuman. For example, a judge engaging in small talk with prosecutors/PDs or bailiffs is not unusual or necessarily a bad thing either.
I completely agree that elaborately ornamented and luxurious buildings are a waste of money. However, it sounds like the courthouse in the Bronx was not just plain and simple, but instead actually decrepit and hostile. You don't have to spend a lot of taxpayer money to have public buildings that are clean and pleasant. (Not that you would necessarily disagree, based on your comment, just adding my own couple of cents).
But I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. I think it's necessary symbolism. The rule of law works because we collectively agree to abide by the rulings of people who don't even have guns. Which is really incredible if you think about it: only in an advanced civilized society like ours can a tiny octogenarian woman like Justice Ginsberg wield the kind of power she does. The fancy marble edifices are part of how we express that collective commitment.
I have practiced in both Federal and Court courthouses in Florida, and have been fortunate enough to do the same pro hac vice in a few States. I have seen plenty of Nice County Courts (Palm Beach County is like a mirror image to a Federal Courthouse, though the rooms themselves are not comparable) and some very poor ones too, but I have never seen a poor Federal Courthouse, though they likely exist too.
I guess part of my post is just imagining a NY Federal Judge's reaction entering a poor County Courthouse. While your position on necessary symbolism is well received (and I agree), I also think if, say, Bankruptcy Courts were removed from the Federal Courthouse and placed in County Courthouses (even poor ones) it would have little if any impact on the authority and function of that institution. Certainly I wouldn't extend that suggestion to the SCOTUS, though I would probably be intimidated by the bench no matter where they sat.
> only in an advanced civilized society like ours can a tiny octogenarian woman like
> Justice Ginsberg wield the kind of power she does
Wu Zetian was the formally-crowned emperor of China at the age of 80 years old in 704. Hatshepsut was the formally-crowned king of Egypt at the age of 50 (she died at 51) in 1459 BC.
The most powerful position, king, actually appears to be much more open to women than lesser positions do, historically. I tend to think that's because people really, really don't want power struggles.
It'll last almost forever. See POS city buildings or annexes built in the last ~50 years. At a certain point all of it will will rot. There's no need to paint marble. And no matter how much you paint drywall, it'll still need painting again eventually and there's a limit at which point it increasing looks like junk. Carpeted public places? Gross. Marble everywhere, nice and clean.
I think the scenario of a DUI being talked about was interesting, because in our stereotypes wealthy white men DUI plenty too. I think the statistics show that DUI is one of the few crimes that there is relatively little racial disparity in arrests, probably because it's a lot less subjective. I do know some white people who have been arrested for DUI, all of them were let out on affordable bail prior to trial, none of them served any prison time.
I don't like to watch crime/legal drama and even I know this. How does someone who work in the legal system as a day job not notice this?
What background are you from that allows you to presume ignorance is more likely than malice? Are you perhaps from a more civilized country where those in power don't use petty humiliation to assert their superiority? Or were you employing some sort of subtle trolling humor that flies over the heads of us Americans?
I'm sure lawyers and judges look up and down at each other with elitism, and they can take that up among themselves or whatever. But this "too cynical to be outraged at a really fucked up system" stuff helps nobody, and is just it's own kind of pretentiousness, directed at the rest of us.
my particular case was in quincy, mass, i remember the faces of the judge, deputy, and clerk that waited to put my case towards the very end after about 10 cases and all other people had left, behind closed doors, seemed i didnt understand much about the system back then, but this was an arbitration, under the guise of a court order to reappear for an appeal. the landlady, a chinese national, had lost the claim originally and had ninety days to appeal, she appealed after 138 days, and the court ordered me to show up with an official court summons. in looking back, i should not have showed up, i had no need to show up, this was over a measely 700-900 usd if i recall correctly. and the way the judge, clerk, and deputy nodded their heads in contempt of me as i spoke my case was so planned and orchestrated that in my mind i decided that this was useless and to go ahead and tear up the check that she was asked to pay me for my security deposit after the first decision which i hadnt even cashed because it was never about the money.
if these are the shenanigans in the lowest of courts, i wonder what things are like in the upper courts. my lesson from that day was 2 fold, try your best never to go the legal route, and the american system, although perfect in many ways, still cannot provide perfect justice.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on...
Perhaps we need judged for judges.
My gut tells me that white-collar transgressions will always be punished less often (and less severely) than outright blue collar crime.
It sounds like the bankrupcy judge who wrote the article is surprised by the fact that the justice system actually punishes people for doing bad stuff.
Maybe it's not the criminal justice system which is harsh - Maybe it's her who is too lenient with her own cases...
Or maybe both need some recalibration.
Also, I'm not saying that the criminal courts are doing it right - I'm saying that maybe we have two extremes and the ideal justice system operates somewhere in the middle.
I can't stand that self-righteous legal crap about 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' - In my books, if you can't prove something mathematically, it's not proof - In effect, you can never really prove anything in a legal context - In reality, everything is always judged "on the balance of probability".
Humouring your dislike of such judicial proofs, it is reasonable to view the system of justice as a series of ever more precise and expensive diagnostic tests. At all stages there is a desire to finalise the proceeding to reduce the bill for enforcing the law, with the dual goals of (A) not letting too many innocents be shafted or (B) too many guilty walk.
Many would argue that the current system is broken. I doubt the fix is just fair trials, because most of the defendants are indeed guilty. It is related to lack of opportunity, a predilection for jailing people for minor offences rather than rehabilitating them, and systemic racism.
I'm hoping there's a strong enough backlash that this kind of speech and attitude gets called out more often. I hope the long-term effect is not to make this judge's behavior even more accepted.
Trump is distasteful, maybe even dangerous, but this judge and the officers of the court are absolutely despicable.
But it's worth pointing out that in his speech, Trump is promising extra-judicial murder of family members of terrorists and torture of suspected terrorists if he's made commander-in-chief. Were he able to actually implement these, it would actually be worse.