7 ms·

I went to court in New Jersey in a wealthiest white suburb and what I saw seemed perfectly fine. There was a man there who, a rather sad case really, was in an

by c3534l 10y ago

I went to court in New Jersey in a wealthiest white suburb and what I saw seemed perfectly fine. There was a man there who, a rather sad case really, was in an accident that gave him brain damage and caused him to behave strangely. His wife had a restraining order against him and apparently he had broken into the house in the middle of the night to give his son a birthday present, then gone to sleep on the couch. It took around half an hour for the judge to patiently explain to him what was going on ascertain bail and all that jazz. He was very patient. I think the key thing about the article was that this is a courthouse in the Bronx. The way we treat the poor in this country is absolutely atrocious. We give them substandard educational facilities, poor infrastructure, treat them like garbage in the justice system, then perpetuate the myth that successful people in America deserve to be successful and that if you're poor it's because there's something wrong with you and must not have tried hard enough or been smart enough.

chillwaves 10y ago
> or been smart enough. 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.
tankenmate 10y ago
I wonder if someone could get all the court transcripts from these jurisdictions and do sentiment analysis on them and correlate against the average house prices in the courts' area.
- tristor 10y ago
  If someone does do this, I'd be very interested in reading the outcome. Sounds like a fantastic idea. There's a few people who I've seen post on HN before that are familiar with filing FOIA requests. If the dataset can be acquired and released, I'm pretty sure there's enough people on HN who might be willing to work together in the open to write the analysis.
  - tankenmate 10y ago
    Count me in; if I can help I will. I live outside the US but I suspect this problem probably exists in countries all around the world.
    - vijayr 10y ago
      Is there a ranking of countries by fairness of their justice system, done by a neutral party? Would be interesting to know where countries stand.
      - jacalata 10y ago
        http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index
      - markdown 10y ago
        http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index ?
  - adanto6840 10y ago
    Admittedly, I didn't read the article. That said, I'm very familiar w/ the FOIA process and have a legal team setup to send them out; if the volume isn't huge then the cost isn't tremendous. 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].
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
So the solution seems simple - have the rich white suburb courts take half the cases in the Bronx. Spread the available resources around.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  I like the spirit of this, but there's a major problem with it. Sending poor people out of the city into the suburbs for rich white court can be a tremendous burden. Why not just have those judges take on some of the poor city caseload? They surely can afford the commute.
  - T0T0R0 10y ago
    There's a massive potential problem, in either idea. 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.
philwelch 10y ago
> I went to court in New Jersey in a wealthiest white suburb and what I saw seemed perfectly fine. Combined with some of these other accounts, that's more or less the definition of structural racism, isn't it?
- maratd 10y ago
  No. The reason he had the experience he had was because it was a "wealthy" suburb, not because it was "white". There is a difference between correlation and causation. The root cause wasn't race, but the low volume typical of wealthy suburbs, allowing the judge to take his time. Put him in a situation where he needs to arraign a 100 people in a session and he won't be as nice anymore. 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.
  - kgppkr 10y ago
    If you feel the parent's assertion of racism isn't sufficiently well proven, then your counter argument (that it's just about wealth) should also be dismissed for similar logical flaws. As such, you should NOT be saying 'No.' Your decision to strongly reject racism and instead assert an economic explanation with precisely equally flawed evidence tells us much about you (that you hold your own evidence to a lower standard than others; that you are eager to argue that racism does not exist; that your logic is weak), but it does not add to the conversation. Additionally, it's unreasonable to assert that there's "really" just one problem at work here. Your ability to program a computer does not mean that you know how to diagnose and fix a very complex system that you haven't studied, and that is broken in a multitude of ways. I get that you think it does... but that's just your giant white male tech ego. You're ignorant on this topic, and anything you write will make the world dumber and a worse place. Just stop. Don't defend your idiocy. DOn't talk about race or justice ever again. You clearly don't care enough to do a good job of it.
    - hobs 10y ago
      Please dont mix a useful argument and things like "Dont talk about race or justice ever again" that is the same type of drivel as the GP.
ptaipale 10y ago
>* I think the key thing about the article was that this is a courthouse in the Bronx. The way we treat the poor in this country is absolutely atrocious. * 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.)
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Judges, which is what the article and the two parent posts are talking about, are not peers but trained lawyers. A judge in the bronx will probably not be from the bronx. They are professionals assigned to a court and are supposed to be impartial. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d 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.

by c3534l 10y ago

chillwaves 10y ago

> or been smart enough. 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.

tankenmate 10y ago

I wonder if someone could get all the court transcripts from these jurisdictions and do sentiment analysis on them and correlate against the average house prices in the courts' area.

tristor 10y ago
If someone does do this, I'd be very interested in reading the outcome. Sounds like a fantastic idea. There's a few people who I've seen post on HN before that are familiar with filing FOIA requests. If the dataset can be acquired and released, I'm pretty sure there's enough people on HN who might be willing to work together in the open to write the analysis.
- tankenmate 10y ago
  Count me in; if I can help I will. I live outside the US but I suspect this problem probably exists in countries all around the world.
  - vijayr 10y ago
    Is there a ranking of countries by fairness of their justice system, done by a neutral party? Would be interesting to know where countries stand.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index
    - markdown 10y ago
      http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index ?
- adanto6840 10y ago
  Admittedly, I didn't read the article. That said, I'm very familiar w/ the FOIA process and have a legal team setup to send them out; if the volume isn't huge then the cost isn't tremendous. 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].

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

So the solution seems simple - have the rich white suburb courts take half the cases in the Bronx. Spread the available resources around.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
I like the spirit of this, but there's a major problem with it. Sending poor people out of the city into the suburbs for rich white court can be a tremendous burden. Why not just have those judges take on some of the poor city caseload? They surely can afford the commute.
- T0T0R0 10y ago
  There's a massive potential problem, in either idea. 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.

philwelch 10y ago

> I went to court in New Jersey in a wealthiest white suburb and what I saw seemed perfectly fine. Combined with some of these other accounts, that's more or less the definition of structural racism, isn't it?

maratd 10y ago
No. The reason he had the experience he had was because it was a "wealthy" suburb, not because it was "white". There is a difference between correlation and causation. The root cause wasn't race, but the low volume typical of wealthy suburbs, allowing the judge to take his time. Put him in a situation where he needs to arraign a 100 people in a session and he won't be as nice anymore. 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.
- kgppkr 10y ago
  If you feel the parent's assertion of racism isn't sufficiently well proven, then your counter argument (that it's just about wealth) should also be dismissed for similar logical flaws. As such, you should NOT be saying 'No.' Your decision to strongly reject racism and instead assert an economic explanation with precisely equally flawed evidence tells us much about you (that you hold your own evidence to a lower standard than others; that you are eager to argue that racism does not exist; that your logic is weak), but it does not add to the conversation. Additionally, it's unreasonable to assert that there's "really" just one problem at work here. Your ability to program a computer does not mean that you know how to diagnose and fix a very complex system that you haven't studied, and that is broken in a multitude of ways. I get that you think it does... but that's just your giant white male tech ego. You're ignorant on this topic, and anything you write will make the world dumber and a worse place. Just stop. Don't defend your idiocy. DOn't talk about race or justice ever again. You clearly don't care enough to do a good job of it.
  - hobs 10y ago
    Please dont mix a useful argument and things like "Dont talk about race or justice ever again" that is the same type of drivel as the GP.

ptaipale 10y ago

>* I think the key thing about the article was that this is a courthouse in the Bronx. The way we treat the poor in this country is absolutely atrocious. * 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.)

mattmanser 10y ago
Judges, which is what the article and the two parent posts are talking about, are not peers but trained lawyers. A judge in the bronx will probably not be from the bronx. They are professionals assigned to a court and are supposed to be impartial. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d 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.