Category Archives: Criminal Justice

AUTHORITARIANISM AND TRUMP: Black Lives Matter

Black lives matter. This is an undeniable truth not to mention brilliant piece of sloganeering. Some people object to the slogan as if it in and of itself it were discriminatory, implying that black lives matter and white lives don’t. But reading this into it is so far off the mark, it doesn’t merit consideration. Others object to the idea of a new civil rights movement. Didn’t we do this already? And they might be right if this were simply 2.0 of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, an academic attempt to eradicate any and all vestiges of white prejudice and racism, as if problems could be wished away with good intentions. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that it has no connection to the 60s Civil Rights Movement because it is clearly linked; potentially nothing less than an attempt to finish the job of previous civil rights eras by lifting up those who for whatever reason or combination of reasons were left behind.

Of course, on the surface Black Lives Matter is principally about cops killing, otherwise mistreating and discriminating against blacks, and a host of related downstream issues implicating the entire criminal justice system. But it’s not just that the criminal justice is inherently racist or otherwise mysteriously went awry. It went awry for a reason, and that reason is that the criminal justice system came to be the de facto replacement for the social welfare system that began to be systematically dismantled under the Reagan Administration. This Darwinian economic and Orwellian political reality led the mainstream Economist Magazine to somewhat shockingly declare what had become only too obvious to many: that the richest nation on earth was all too willing to tolerate enclaves of third world life among its citizenship. Such is not just to say that poverty is rampant in certain neighborhoods as has unfortunately always been the case; third world conditions imply a separate and unequal set of standards. The Bill of Rights offers precious comfort and protections to those living in America’s first world, but in third world America, it may as well not exist.

Seen in this context, the challenge facing Black Lives Matter is as clear as it is broad: to put an end to third world conditions that persist in the United States whether they are related to poverty, health, or safety. Viewed in this light the Affordable Care Act which pulled many out of third world health care in one fell swoop was the most significant civil rights act of the twenty-first century, and the House Republican Don’t Care Act is not just flawed policy based on hysterical opposition to a former black president, but a broad statement that for them black lives simply don’t matter.

Of course, it’s not always a matter of black and white. Black Lives are not the only lives that don’t matter. For the most part the poor don’t matter, black or white. If you watch the nightly news one can’t help notice that the unattractive matter less than the attractive, those without a compelling story line less than those who fit neatly into a tidy narrative. One could argue taken together a majority don’t matter. This has to be turned around sometime and it may as well begin with Black Lives Matter. Whatever it takes to pull blacks out of their third world lives will just as assuredly benefit poor whites because as President Obama often said the fate of all of us are intrinsically tied together.

Where does the Donald fit into all this? As with all authoritarians Trump is right about some things, if wrong about most. The lives of the black underclass are not what they should be and Trump has said as much. This applies to the white underclass as well, and this too is recognized by Trump. As to what to do about it, this is where things fall apart. Trumps response to Black Lives Matter is Cops Lives Matter. Of course, they do. A cop’s job is tough and anyone on the left who thinks anyone will ever score a political victory by picking a fight with the police has got to be nuts. Picking a fight with individual cops though is altogether a different matter. Every good cop should be only too happy to be rid of the bad cops that bring down an entire force. Attorney General Holder was proceeding in a sensible fashion and A.G. Sessions’ reversal of federal oversight is a slap in the face to every good cop and a disservice to the public at large.

Many forget that in the seemingly distant 90s the nation was humming along so smoothly pundits claimed that there was very little of great importance for a president to do. A mature economy with an advanced civil society, an efficient bureaucracy, and Congressional Republicans and Democrats limited to disagreements around the edges, the country tended to run itself. The implication was that any idiot could run the country and things would work out just fine. (Who would have imagined then that the day would come when this would actually be put to the test?)

During the 90s, as there was with so many matters, there was a growing political consensus on matters of race. It was commonly agreed that no individual or group was wholly responsible for his or her station in life, and might need help from time to time. (Democratic position) On the other hand, it was commonly conceded that but for a few severely disadvantaged and in rare circumstances, no person or group was entirely free from responsibility for his or her station in life, and that government assistance should not necessarily be unconditional. (Republican position) If one were to watch the media coverage of the police killings of recent years you’d think the country had never dealt with issues of racism before and there was no collective wisdom whatsoever to draw from. Of course, this is another area in which there is a sliver of truth to what the so-called President says: the American media, or infotainment industry if you will, is indeed flawed, but in a way totally at odds with what’s been alleged.

 

 

Black Lives Matter

Prague

 

BLACK LIVES MATTER

What’s this headline possibly have to do with Eastern Europe? First there’s the fact that when an American writes about someplace else, more often than not he or she is implicitly, if not explicitly, comparing and contrasting it with the United States. Treatment of minorities and criminal suspects are sometimes overlapping issues that every society must deal with and the manner in which different societies do so are as legitimate of an area for comparison as anything.

Secondly, it no longer strikes me as mere coincidence that I spent six years in Washington, D.C. as an attorney for the indigent immersed in a culture in some respects every bit as foreign as post-communist Eastern Europe would later prove. I wonder if I would have been so open to Eastern Europe if I had not previously been exposed to a culture turned upside down by a notorious cocaine and crime epidemic.

The following is an article I penned a decade ago:

 

Washington, D.C.

The only white people D.C’s black poor have contact with on a regular basis are social workers, cops, and once in a while an oddball defense attorney like myself. When I showed up at an all-black school (virtually all the nation’s capital’s schools are all-black) the kids on the school playground started shouting at me, asking to see my gun. They took me for a cop. What else could I be? They said they knew where I kept it: under my sport’s jacket stuck into the back of my pants. I turned around and pulled up my jacket to reveal that I didn’t have a gun. They seemed genuinely perplexed.

The next day I was in one of the roughest projects in Northeast D.C. when suddenly out of nowhere cops were swarming all around me. They grabbed whoever was out and about at the time and shook them down. No one seemed the least surprised. There was no apparent ‘probable cause’ or ‘articulable suspicion’ for these actions as we learned was legally necessary in law school, and later rotely muttered in criminal court at Suppression Hearings, usually to no avail. Where was the evening news team when you need them? Where was the ACLU? But middle class rights and legal niceties didn’t much apply here. A cop approached me and asked what I was doing in the neighborhood. I told him I was a defense attorney here to see a client. He seemed to find this response satisfactory, not to mention amusing, and wondered off to find someone else to roust.

One evening I was at a McDonald’s with one of my clients, an 10-year old black girl. I was her guardian-ad-litem and I periodically checked in with her at her foster parents’ house and took her out for some one-on-one time. A man came over to me and asked what was up with me and the girl. I wasn’t offended. He didn’t mean any harm. I was only too happy to explain the situation and was frankly glad someone was paying attention.

Occasionally I shot a few baskets with a teenage client at some neighborhood park. I’d been a pretty good player in high school—for a white boy as the saying goes—though out of shape and practice, not to mention fast approaching middle age. As it turned out I was better than any of the kids I played with. The fact is that most black kids aren’t any good at basketball and most can’t jump either, stereotypes to the contrary.

The black kids I knew in D.C were not prejudiced. They just weren’t. They didn’t distinguish much between establishment blacks and establishment whites. They didn’t hate either one of them, but that’s not to say there was necessarily a lot of love lost amongst them either. Once I asked an 11-year old who his previous lawyer had been, as it is often useful to talk to previous lawyers to get insights beyond the facts of the case. He told me he’d had a woman lawyer the last time he was in court, but he couldn’t remember her name. Trying to narrow things down a little, I asked if she were black or white. He didn’t directly say she was either, rather with all the innocence and purity only a child could muster her responded that “[s]he was your color.” I looked down at my hand and contemplated my color: even in the pale of winter a sort of beige, nearly as distant from white as black.

On weekends I’d often call on my clients, whether they were in jail, at home, or hanging around on the streets. One client happened to be in the hospital recovering from a stab wound. I had it in the back of my mind that I would go to the hospital this particular Saturday to check up on him, but I got involved in other things and never got around to it. Watching the evening news, I saw a report about a couple gun-wielding kids who had busted out their wounded friend from the hospital earlier that day. Safe to say, I was glad I hadn’t been there. D.C. was like the Wild West during Ronald Reagan’s go-go 80s; crazy stuff like this was happening all the time.

Sometimes my clients didn’t show up for their court appearances. More than once this was because my client had been gunned down. I’d become particularly close to Chris and his mom, and when I heard he’d been killed, I didn’t know what to do. I’d been to Chris’s home many times, preparing our case, sitting at the kitchen table with my papers strewn about as his siblings and friends came and went. Chris and his mom clearly loved each other. He joked with her all the time, sometimes saying outrageous stuff to just get her goat. His mom would shake her head and roll her eyes, but with a twinkle in her eye she’d smile because she knew he didn’t really mean what he said. The most surprising thing about clients like Chris was—despite the fact that they lived in a drug infested violent world—they were not all that different from what me and my solidly middle class had been like as teenagers. I don’t mean this in some corny well-meaning, liberal-ass way. I say it simply because it’s undeniably true. Of course, I had some friends that got into trouble with the law when they were teenagers. Some were from the wrong side of the tracks, some from more privileged backgrounds. No matter what the background though, when I was a kid it was no big deal to screw up and be involved in the juvenile justice system. It was assumed that kids would grow out of their problems, and for the most part they did. The world had become a less forgiving place today. Screwing up has more serious consequences. As bad as things were in D.C., so long as they stayed alive at least the courts still believed in the rehabilitation of minors. By the mid-90s rehabilitation of minors in many parts of the country had become a cruel joke. Increasingly it was about punishment and retribution and punishment and retribution only.

During six years I never had a white client in Washington, but for a young Iranian woman who was picked up in her evening gown in front of a Georgetown disco with a group of young people who happened to have a trunk load of guns in their car. Although she spent an unpleasant weekend in jail, she was never arraigned, never charged with a crime, so she didn’t count as a real client. During this time I represented only one juvenile client who fit the stereotype of being tough and hardened beyond his years. He was resigned to doing time, so he pled guilty and thanked me for my “help.” More common were the kids who broke down in tears in lock-up, though if you read about them in the paper you’d have gotten the impression they were tough as nails and without remorse.

In Washington I was always struck by how well blacks and whites got along, given half a chance. Most of the witnesses I called upon in the city’s projects were so surprised to see a white guy come knocking on their door, that they were disarmed and willing to answer questions and chat about anything and everything under the sun. I remember once after the first day of trial, I was blowing off steam by shadow boxing, and horsing around with a 17 year old witness. The kid probably weighed 250 pounds and if a white person were to come across him on the streets of Washington, I can pretty much assure you that eye contact would have been avoided, much less pleasantries exchanged. As I’m goofing around with him, suddenly turns to me and blurts out in his baddest street jive:   “You know, I could mess you up bad, man.” I did a quick double take, and thought for a moment that yea, I suppose he could. Then our eyes met, and we simultaneously cracked up.

Middle class Americans for the most part know don’t know any poor people, black or white, and consequently tend to believe they don’t really exist. The poor are everywhere, of course, and we bump right up against them in or city streets, even in small towns and hamlets, yet they are somehow invisible to us most of the time. When a talking head on the TV screen comes on and tells us about a Tsunami or Katrina, or just some local down on his luck sob story, for a moment, they’re no longer invisible. Americans consider themselves generous to a fault, and in a sense we are. We’re only too happy to donate to the nice people on the TV screen. Still, there is something disturbing about responding to the TV monitor this way, seeing only what we’re told to see.

 

Copyright © 2015 by David B. Brown

Criminal Justice Commentary

I used to write quite a bit about the juvenile justice system, about how rehabilitation was a misnomer because the fact was the kids had never been given half a chance in the first place, that sort of thing. Back then I lived in Washington, D.C. All my clients were black. In Vermont nearly all my clients were white except one young black man whose marijuana charge we beat. A couple months later he called me up to tell me about the discrimination he’d experienced applying for a job. His story was pretty convincing, but as a public defender it wasn’t my job to take on cases like this on my own accord, so I referred him to the Attorney General’s office. I’ve felt bad about it ever since because he trusted me, and I somehow doubt he ever pursued the case any further, and it’s too bad because I suspect he had a legitimate grievance and it would have been interesting to bring such a case in a state that prides itself in being prejudice-free.

Since the cop killings of young black men in recent months the criminal justice system is under something of a microscope. (It’s about time) Former prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece in the New Yorker about the institutional bias of prosecutors. The New York Times ran an article about the unfairness of the bail system. When and where will it end? The sad fact is that we imprison far too many human beings and too many human beings of color in particular, and even if tomorrow we removed the rogue cops, addressed institutional bias in every prosecutor’s office in the nation, and “fixed” the bail system, it would only scratch the surface of the problem. 
 The criminal justice system is and perhaps always has been a war against the poor. Blacks, who are disproportionately poor in the U.S. are, therefore, hit by a double whammy. The fact is that few rich people go to jail in VT. I’m sure there are some, but anecdotally I never observed any while I was practicing. Was it because they had superior lawyers ? No doubt, that’s part of it, and of course if that’s the case, it’s a problem in its own right, but I think it’s more than just a matter of a lawyer’s skill. I’d argue that it’s a deep seated institutional bias that rich people don’t belong in jail (high profile exceptions only make the rule), poor people do.

*************************************************

Myth #1 Non-violent offenders are not sent to prison. This statement is not entirely false, but it is misleading. It’s true that first or even 2nd time nonviolent offenders are rarely sent directly to prison at the conclusion of their trial or plea deal; usually they are placed on probation. But probation is such that it is almost always possible for a probation officer to find some kind of technical violation and bring the probationer before the court for a revocation hearing that would send the probationer to prison. In fact this is the route by which nonviolent offenders usually find themselves in prison. It’s particularly disturbing when a probationer is waiting for an opening in a drug treatment or alcohol treatment program, and would be violated before even having a chance to enter the program. The idea that a person with a recognizable disease would be expected through pure willpower to overcome the disease, while waiting treatment, was, of course, absurd.

Myth #2 Drug courts mean that anyone who wants help with his or her drug problem will not be sent to prison. Governor Shumlin deserves great credit for highlighting the heroin problem in the state of Vermont, and he has certainly been a strong advocate of drug courts. I can only hope that the state of Vermont is well on its way to making myth #2 no longer a myth. All I can say is that there are drug courts and then there are drug courts. In the early days of drug courts in Vermont they were stingy and highly restrictive.

Myth #3 there are no innocent people in prison. Of course, no one really believes this anymore since the Innocence Project has managed to have so many death row inmates released through DNA evidence. The odd thing is that this hasn’t really filtered down to less serious felonies and misdemeanors in the public’s eye. In other words, if errors are made in high profile cases receiving a great deal of public scrutiny, imagine if you can how many errors are made in run of the mill cases receiving little to no public scrutiny.

How do innocent people end up in prison? Take a case where there is no physical evidence, and weak circumstantial evidence, an accuser and an accused. This leaves little before the jury but the issue of credibility. It’s more than likely that the jury will find one side more believable than the other, and even possible that the jury will find one side significantly more believable than the other. Yet how is it even theoretically possible for the accused to be be so lacking in credibility that the jury could find him or her guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” with only a smidgeon of other evidence to go on? But it happens all the time. A lawyer might pick this hypothetical apart. The case should never have been brought to trial. The case should have been tried before a judge. The defense attorney was incompetent. Maybe, but certainly not in every case. The point is that the fear of crime has been so instilled in the public over the years that the very hard to meet standard of beyond a reasonable doubt has begun to erode, to more closely resemble the civil standard “more likely than not.” Of course the jury hears the judge mouth the words “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and even has it carefully explained, usually with hypotheticals. But does it really sink in? This is particularly true for certain crimes. There are crimes that offend us so much that it is quite natural to identify with the alleged victim. The public thinks why would he or she make it up? Or their visceral fear of seeing a wrong going unpunished outweighs their fear of making a mistake

At the end of the day we might just find that the problem with the criminal justice system is not just rogue cops, institutional bias through the criminal justice system, and shortsighted government spending decisions, but us.

What if anything does all this have to do with East European Diaries? Some might be inclined to say not very much, but for those inclined to read between the lines I’d suggest that’s not necessarily true.