Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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)

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...

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com