Hacker News Reader

Comment by blhack | Hacker News Reader

I don't "get" this article.

The beginning seems to be him talking about how difficult it was for him to get the police to think he was suspicious. The article was really interesting, and it seemed to be a point about racial/socio-economic profiling.

But once he got into the system, he was treated terribly. Probation, not being allowed to visit his family, for a misdemeanor.

Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention while he was wandering around in a suit and tie.

View on HN

>Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention while he was wandering around in a suit and tie.

Not really. The idea is the system is flawed both ways:

At first, he was ignored because he was white, well groomed and such. (Racism).

In the second part, he was punished harshly not because suddenly the system made a u-turn and decided to "apply justice evenly", but because they didn't appreciate him making waves and questioning their practices.

I disagree. The police don't consistently arrest people for committing minor infractions. For example, spitting on the sidewalk is a violation in NYC, but the NYPD isn't issuing thousands of summonses. It doesn't make any point re: the police and race.

This guy is a professional agitator. He didn't get arrested for carrying graffiti tools, so he tagged city hall. The officer present decided to not deal with a political speech issue and moved along. Then he decided to be a smart ass and annoy people who have the power and broad discretion to apply the letter of the law upon him. When you do that, you tend to attract harsh treatment.

The second part isn't a problem per se -- the District Attorney's office and Probation Department are legally invested to use their own discretion. I suppose that if he built a rapport with the PO and had his requests granted, that he would be complaining that he received favorable treatment for being white.

I always wondered, why are those laws that are being ignored by most of the police force (spitting, jaywalking and such) not being removed? Is there any reason to keep them besides having a reason to arrest anyone at any time?

>Is there any reason to keep them besides having a reason to arrest anyone at any time?

A former NYC ADA mentioned that this was a popular way for the cops to arrest people because they felt like it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/nyregion/minor-offense-on-...

Most people voluntarily comply with the law. Think of laws as requirements that society engineers around. Enforcement by police is the most intrusive and expensive way to get compliance with the law.

Having a law against, say jaywalking helps to make sure that things like crosswalks and other pedestrian safety features get engineered into projects.

I agree this whole piece comes down to discretion.

Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part. His point is that if you're poor, and black or hispanic, once you're in the system (which is easier to happen to you), these are the restrictions that get put on you and we wonder why opportunities for these groups are quashed.

> Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part.

He doesn't come out and say it, probably to avoid the perception that he's complaining about something he did voluntarily, but reading between the lines that's exactly what's going on.

He points out that standard practice for a simple non-violent misdemeanour would have been dismissal with a slap on the wrist and a tiny bit of public service. The justice system couldn't handle the volume of cases it does if every misdemeanour graffiti case got probation.

Having his file flagged 'do not dismiss' by higher ups at the DA's office and the judge come down abnormally hard on him (more than what the DA was asking for) is almost certainly retaliation for them being aware he was doing it for a story.

the selective enforcement of laws and punishment is a well known form of tyranny hiding under pretense of "law and order". The wide discretion given to police, DAs and courts combined with extremely tough laws - carrying a spray can is a misdemeanor (obviously in the real life it is a misdemeanor only when you're black or have saggy pants) - is the foundation of that regime and is clearly depicted in the article.

I don't disagree with you in any way, but I wonder if there's any other real option. I often see cases where mandatory sentencing causes miscarriages of justice too.

I guess the solution is more mandatory sentencing, but make the mandates better?

The first big step is to reduce the number of laws, and things that are considered criminal. When we stop legislating morality and inconvenience much of this discretionary enforcement goes away.

I agree that was the main point, but the description of his court hearings strongly suggests that both the prosecutor and the judge were retaliating.

To be fair it would be nice for a black journalist do the same in a suit and tie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV__Y_JcFVc

Rights Advocate Maintains Police Beat Him in a 'Sting' He Arranged

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/16/us/rights-advocate-maintai...

Alleged Police Abuse Case Is Settled : Litigation: Long Beach will pay $170,000 to Don Jackson and friend over a secretly videotaped confrontation with officers after a traffic stop in 1989.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-12/local/me-49365_1_long...

I hope that was a joke because I don't see how that would be a smart thing to do even for the purpose of investigative journalism. Unless he or she has a way to quickly call mayday if things start to go wrong which they most likely will. The criminal justice system is fairly dangerous for blacks, especially men.

It's not a joke, but I do take your point. I just think investigative jounalism is the best way to expose this shit. Frankly I'm pretty isolated and don't see or take for granted this level of racism. It shocks me.

I think some hardcore expose work will have to happen. And I Mean seriously hard core. Like sacrifice an eye to hold an embedded camera type hardcore.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Exactly. I'm sure the reason he wasn't being arrested in the beginning is not solely because of race but also due to his _attire_ and _calm behavior_. Cops are used to street criminals looking shady, behaving strangely; not just being black and hispanic (for the most part). So yes, if a black journalist in a suite quietly painted graffiti on a street — would he be treated _much_ differently than this guy did?

It's not a safe endeavor for a black journalist to do what this man did. I'm sure he would have been arrested early on, and probably even charged with a worse offense out of spite (such as resisting arrest). That would probably result in significant jail time. (Max jail time of 6 months in some states, max 2 years in others... and 'unlimited' fine amounts)

No, it was not applied evenly. Most people in his situation would not have had their plea deal revoked at the last second. The state's attorney and the judge singled him out and piled on extra charges because he publicly embarrassed the justice system. His real "crime" was bringing a reporter along to witness him handing over his signed confession.

The instant he did that, he lost all hope of seeing how justice works for normal folks. How is anyone to know whether his ill treatment was due to his actual crime or due to the pseudocrime of creating bad publicity for the powers that be?

his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly

He is one of their own who had gone out of his way to make them look foolish. Once that was clear he was treated more harshly than an equivalent first offender, not less. edit - and not equally.

How do we know this? Why would we assume that the prosecutor would have gone to the trouble of digging that deep over a misdemeanor graffiti charge?

The prosecutor recommended the standard dismissal before noticing the sticky attached to his/her file that presumably said something like "troublemaking asshole - smash this guy".

Mockery of justice, that.

Enough to make one doubt the legitimacy of any verdict, much less that particular one.

I dunno, maybe because we read the article?

> The district attorney’s office, responsible for prosecuting offenders, asked the judge to dismiss my case with three days of community service. This is standard practice for first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor offenders. The judge read through the paperwork and agreed, though he raised the number of community service days to five.

> I accepted the sentence and the clerk began reading it into the record.

> “Your honor, wait!” the assistant state attorney interrupted. Startled by the outburst, the judge looked up and scowled as the attorney read something written on her file. She blushed and continued, “I’m sorry, I have to withdraw my offer.” As the judge shook his head and set a date to return, I felt an odd pang of empathy for her. Once, as a rookie prosecutor, a judge had humiliated me in open court for being evasive about a file that had an ominous yellow “do not dismiss” sticky note on it.

He was making two points, the first that it isn't being applied evenly (just because it's applied evenly after a guilty verdict, that doesn't change the fact that the system is less willing to find certain people guilty in the first place). The second point is then that people are treated badly after being found guilty, regardless of race.

And that this is what he was up against as a suit wearing white person. Others get it much worse.

The article describes the imbalance of policing white and black communities.

It then describes the stupid sub-optimal workings of the punishments, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion about how someone subject to those restrictions is supposed to move away from crime.

It is stupid that a non-violent misdemeanour offence can prevent someone from travelling outside an area.

It fits together perfectly. At first they couldn't notice him, then they arrested him and embarrassed with their incompetence, they inconvenienced him as much as they could (they couldn't beat him up because if he said they did people would believe him). After that they prosecuted him diligently for a long time (because that's what they thought will look best). But in the end prosecutor dared only to demand 15 days of community service for him. But the judge (whose basically a god in justice system) got annoyed and on a whim locked the poor guy inside New York for 3 years out of spite and allowed police to pay him a visit any time if they'd like to harass him a bit.

You could say that justice has been applied evenly but only if you average out severe neglect at the beginning and revenge at the end. If he didn't piss of the judge (by being who he is) he'd get 15 days of community service after long trial and if he didn't influence the prosecutors (by being who he is) he'd get 3 days without much fuss.

So as a non-lawyer white guy he'd get arrested (if he wanted to be), inconvenienced and get 3 days of community service. As a black guy, he'd get snatched of the street much earlier, get beaten up, and get much more severe sentence (maybe year of probation).

Yes you didn't and No the conclusion is not that justice is being applied evenly.

Be white professional == not get arrested. Expose the system == get inordinately punished as severely as possible even if (or maybe more so) you are white professional.

The system is unjust and abuses its authority to intimidate / curtail anyone pointing that out (or otherwise embarrassing the system, it's components or people).

I thought the same thing as you. The police he encountered possibly weren't 'used' to the sort of behavior he was exhibiting, and the way he was going about the crime. It's difficult to conclude that it was necessarily tied to his class / color, and I wonder if the author didn't go in with an idea in mind, and simply saw what he wanted.

>The police he encountered possibly weren't 'used' to the sort of behavior he was exhibiting

They aren't supposed to be used (e.g to crime being black).

They are supposed to use their eyes and investigate.

That's their work.

I think the point is that it is a contrived and arbitrary circus. No rhyme or reason. Filled with prejudice, brutality, and inhumanity.

"But once he got into the system, he was treated terribly"

Compared to what? And where else has he personally has experienced?

While I'm sure it wasn't a walk in the park (or a stay at the Four Seasons) even reading hotel reviews different people can say wildly different things about the same hotel on different days.

He had the basis of a good article here though no matter what. A good experience or a bad experience gives him the basis for something that people would find interesting that have never been arrested before.

Compared to the customary practices of light sentences for nonviolent offences that he was accustomed to seeing __in his career as an ADA in Boston__. Compared to the plea that the DA was originally willing to extend to him, and later rescinded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com