
I'm a Judge and I Think Criminal Court Is Horrifying - juanplusjuan
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/11/i-m-a-judge-and-i-think-criminal-court-is-horrifying
======
bleachedsleet
Several years ago, I was arrested on a hacking charge and got to see first
hand the appalling nature of our legal system in criminal courts.

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.

~~~
c3534l
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.

~~~
tankenmate
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
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.

~~~
adanto6840
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].

~~~
drizzzler
I would be willing to donate (a small amount) for these expenses. If it comes
together, please put me in any mailing lists or message me directly.

~~~
lostlogin
Ditto.

------
rayiner
The criminal justice system can be jarring, even to those of us who are
lawyers. I was a clerk for a judge in Philadelphia, and saw a ton of criminal
convictions - usually drug cases - come up on appeal. Two things stuck out:
(1) we jail a lot of people for stupid things; (2) there are a lot of bad
people in these communities.[1]

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.

~~~
chillwaves
Just because it is a public prison doesn't mean there aren't people making
money to lock people up. There is prison labor, there is money handling (it
costs money to send money to prisoners), there is the commissary, there are
phone calls that cost $5 for 15 minutes. At every step of the way, the system
beats down and exploits the most vulnerable in society. And they do profit.
There are people doing time for petty theft simply because they can't pay the
fees to get out of jail. [1]

[1] [http://www.npr.org/2016/05/05/476844416/colorado-springs-
agr...](http://www.npr.org/2016/05/05/476844416/colorado-springs-agrees-to-
stop-jailing-people-too-poor-to-pay-court-fines)

~~~
bilbo0s
Back in college I used to do odd programming jobs for local companies to make
ends meet. (It was basically contracting, but I was too young to know that at
the time.)

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.

~~~
bluejekyll
What should the markup be? What you say sounds very high indeed, but there is
a certain markup that will be required. Why? Operating a commissary in a
prison is more complex than a local convenience store

(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.

~~~
ryanlol
>Operating a commissary in a prison is more complex than a local convenience
store

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.

~~~
bluejekyll
The reason (the only reasonable one o can come up with) is the added cost of
inspection before selling them.

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.

~~~
marcusgarvey
> the added cost of inspection before selling them.

I wouldn't expect the supplier to bear this cost; it's the jailers who are
doing the inspecting.

------
twoquestions
And I hear from family and friends about how we 'coddle' people in the system
too much, and we're not 'tough' enough.

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.

~~~
WalterBright
I'd like to see a move away from sentencing being regarded as punishment. It
should be more along the lines of a person needing to be withdrawn from
society for a time because they cannot behave themselves. I.e. it should be
about protecting society from them.

~~~
maxerickson
That removal from society _is_ punishing. Confinement and institutionalization
are harsh things to do to a person.

~~~
dkbrk
I agree with you: deprivation of a person's liberty is, in itself, a harsh
punishment, even without taking into account the details of their
incarceration.

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.

~~~
maxerickson
Neither GP or I expressed a great deal of nuance, but _I 'd like to see a move
away from sentencing being regarded as punishment._ calls for a reply. It
should absolutely be regarded as a punishment. It's just that we are damn
fools if that's all we use it for.

~~~
WalterBright
I see a very big difference in imposing a sentence as punishment and imposing
a sentence as protecting society from the offender.

Withdrawing a person from society is certainly punishment, but that should not
be the point.

~~~
maxerickson
Yeah, I said _Neither GP or I expressed a great deal of nuance_ because I
didn't expect much disagreement. It's just the phrase you used is an
unfortunate way to express the thought, because we should always keep in mind
the harsh part of it, and it sort of sets it aside.

------
chillwaves
I had a friend who ended up with a drug related charge. When bailing them out,
the bondsman, who was a conservative, ex cop, hardened and huge, told me how
my friend was lucky to get the judge they got.

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.

------
ryanmarsh
I've observed the criminal justice system at work in Texas a few times. A
murder case, some misdemeanors, a few felonies. I've seen it from arrest to
prison life.

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.

~~~
nibs
My observation is that most criminals fall into a category that would be
solved with "impulse control" pills and/or better mental health treatment. The
big difference I have observed, independent of race, wealth, etc. is that
people who have criminal records tend to "go off" while others do not.
Otherwise it may as well be the same person.

~~~
kiba
I believe that if we can understand what make them tick, we can fix them.

Though that also comes with it the horrifying possibility of dystopian
societal control.

~~~
wott
"we" vs "them"...

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.

~~~
kiba
Just to be clear, I thought everyone has a capacity for murder and other
crimes.

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.

------
foepys
I never understood the concept of "plea bargain" in the USA that comes up in
the article. Either somebody is guilty and should be convicted by a judge or
they are not guilty and should have the chance for a fair trial. I can see
that there are situations where they can be useful but they seem to be the
norm instead of being used in certain, limited situations. Scaring somebody
into pleading guilty for a lesser sentence is simply unfair and in my eyes
undemocratic.

~~~
colejohnson66
What I never got isn't how plea bargains are treated differently than bribing
a witness. You're paying the witness (defendant) in the form of a lesser
punishment to possibly commit PERJURY by admitting to doing something they
didn't in a court of law. Just because the bribe isn't with currency doesn't
mean it's not a bribe. And even ignoring that fact, it's still perjury. How is
that legal?

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.

~~~
spdustin
In my younger days, I was offered a plea bargain to plead _nolo contendre_ (no
contest, as in "I do not contest the charge nor do I admit guilt") to a lesser
charge in exchange for: probation, adjudication withheld (no conviction on my
record) and, once probation was served, record expungement.

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.

~~~
cookiecaper
The prosecution already has the flexibility to decline to prosecute. They
shouldn't prosecute anyone who doesn't deserve to be punished. In theory, it's
an important check on the legal system, but in practice, it turns out
attorneys like being employed, so they make work for themselves.

~~~
ptaipale
I guess here the point was that here we had someone who deserved to be
punished. But a slap on the wrist was a more appropriate punishment than
putting the person in jail - and at the same time, not prosecuting wasn't
appropriate either.

------
tbihl
I have some family friends, and their son recently got arrested for a felony
drug dealing charge at the end of his spring semester at college. From what I
understand, the police built this whole sting to catch the guy at his school
mailbox when he got his shipment from whatever Silk Road's current successor
is. Anyway, he confessed everything and now he's just waiting around, unable
to get a job because interviewers invariably ask why he stopped school.
Apparently having a job really helps in these cases.

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.

------
kafkaesq
_I was shocked at the ​casual racism emanating from the bench.​ ​The judge
explained a “stay away” order to a Hispanic defendant by saying that if the
complainant calls and invites you over for “rice and beans,” you cannot go.
She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have
lengthy criminal records by ​the time they reach a certain age._

Thereby instantly disqualifying herself from the privilege of serving on the
bench. Ample grounds for impeachment, by any reasonable standard.

~~~
billh
Just to give you an idea of how difficult it is to actually impeach a judge,
only fifteen(15) Federal judges have been successfully impeached in the entire
history of the United States.[1]

1\.
[http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments...](http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html)

~~~
alkonaut
Shouldn't have to be so drastic as impeachment; it would be enough that judges
and other staff are watched and their performance reviewed. This judge clearly
should get a stern warning that racism will not be tolerated. Repeat offenders
should simply be fired. They are employees that have superiors after all.

~~~
jrochkind1
Nope, federal judges are not "employees that have superiors" they are civil
officers of the united states whose appointments are approved by the Senate.
Impeachment is the only way to 'fire' a federal judge. I suppose the plus side
of this is that the government can't fire them for political reasons or
because they don't like their judgements. Without impeachment anyway. A
federal judge does not have a 'superior'.

~~~
alkonaut
Thanks for that explanation. Sounds completely broken if only 15 were ever
impeached (assuming a lot more than 15 were likely bad apples). Even a short
clip of obvious racism _should_ result in impeachment as you can't be fit to
serve as a judge if you don't consider everyone equal.

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.

~~~
ufmace
Uh, I think you have a deep misunderstanding of how the Government is meant to
work here. The Judicial is a branch of Government on-par with Legislative and
Executive that is intentionally meant to be sovereign from public influence
except for limited checks and balances by the other branches. Opinions like
yours are the exact reason why.

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".

~~~
jrochkind1
Not obvious racism? Are we talking about this:

> 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."

~~~
nkurz
_By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right?_

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"?

~~~
kafkaesq
_Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or
Hispanic, or Jewish?_

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.

~~~
nkurz

      >> Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself
      >> was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?
      >
      > Not at all.
    

Could you walk me through that? I don't see how an accusation of "racism" can
have meaning unless we care about the races of the parties involved. For
example, if I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way
she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the
judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? And
at least one example of how the judge treated a male differently than a
female? Perhaps you feel that "racism" and "prejudice" are synonyms at this
point, and that it's pedantic to differentiate them?

    
    
      > Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring.
    

Yes, and if it's a red herring --- a false clue designed to distract and
mislead the reader --- why should we let the accusation stand just because the
subject has other shortcomings? How does this improve the situation for future
defendants?

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://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/)

[http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-
trial](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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does
> because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge
> and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true?

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_.

~~~
nkurz
I carefully avoided saying that it wouldn't be sexism if the sexes were the
same. At least, I tried to, although perhaps I edited badly. I started out
with a longer example including reference to the US Census's definition of
Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than a race and including North African's as
White, but decided it was too confusing and ended up "wouldn't you want to
know".

 _(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?

------
will_brown
>Even I, as a bankruptcy judge, know that the point of bail is supposed to be
simply to ensure that a person will return to court.

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.

~~~
rayiner
My friend gave me a tour of the Supreme Court the other day. Apparently, each
quadrant of the building is made with marble sources from the corresponding
regions of the US, and the marble in the main courtroom is Italian. My first
reaction was that that this building would never get built today.

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.

~~~
will_brown
That is one gorgeous building. I have been twice and done official tours, I
imagine a private tour is quite special.

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.

------
teddyknox
There's a new HBO series called "The Night Of" that portrays the New York
justice system this way.

Trailer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=556N5vojtp0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=556N5vojtp0)

~~~
ScottBurson
Yes, excellent series. Very eye-opening. Recommended. I can't speak to its
accuracy, but I have no trouble believing it's a fair portrayal.

------
desdiv
>Once the court officers caught their breath from laughing, they barked at
him, “Where is your belt?” Of course, it was taken from him in the lockup, he
said.

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?

~~~
nkurz
The writer's implication is that officers of the court knew in advance that
his belt had been taken from him, and simply enjoyed humiliating people who
they consider beneath them. It's akin to arresting someone for getting blood
on your uniform after you beat them:
[http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/348010247/in-ferguson-mo-
befor...](http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/348010247/in-ferguson-mo-before-
michael-brown-there-was-henry-davis).

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?

~~~
desdiv
I completely missed the implication that it was out of malice. My naive self
wasn't able to, and still can't, imagine an officer of the court deriving
pleasure from humiliating someone like that. I would be so screwed if I ever
end up on the wrong end of the American criminal justice system.

------
ak217
We need a better accountability system for judges. Even for those judges who
are elected, the public is usually not meaningfully informed about the judge's
performance.

~~~
briandear
It would be cool to live stream every courtroom in the US continually. Then we
can visit and watch any court we wanted and actually make some meaningful
comparisons that aren't based on hersay.

~~~
ptaipale
I don't really know for sure, of course, but I'd guess that almost all of
these live streams would be _incredibly_ boring. A few then would be
interesting. But wouldn't it require changes to laws in many places? I
understand that currently you can't even take photographs in courtroom in many
jurisdictions?

------
ChuckMcM
Great, where is the follow up with the judge in chambers? Don't judges talk to
each other? Standards and mores are upheld by peers not by individuals.

~~~
skewart
I was hoping to read about that at the end of the article too. Or, it would
have been nice if the author suggested something actionable we average
citizens can do to improve the situation.

------
jostmey
After reading this article, I have to wonder if the criminal court system is
under funded and overworked. I think America's core institutions have been
under decay for some time now.

------
marklyon
An actual criminal attorney in NYC did a far better job of deconstructing this
judicial tourist's article than I can:
[http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/08/13/the-dilettante-
judge...](http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/08/13/the-dilettante-judge/)

~~~
jrochkind1
As far as I can tell, the point of view of that 'deconstruction' is "Yeah,
criminal court is totally fucked up, but we're used to it, what you think
you're better than us because it's still shocking to you? fuck you elitist!"

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.

------
epynonymous
i must say, though i was in people's court once trying to get my security
deposit back from my landlady, which is by definition the lowest level court
in the land, i too have many apprehensions about the "fairness" of the
judicial system in america. that's not to say that my 1 incident should be
representative of the entire judicial system, as i still believe that there
are lots of excellent examples of upstanding individuals, probably more so
than bad ones, but the judicial system is powered by people and their
interpretation of the law, and though with some checks and balances, people
having unconscious biases and tend to work these around the system, just like
her example of guns and butter, no one's going to penalize that judge for this
and she knows it.

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.

------
peter303
Some of the modern courthouses reduce the courthouse violence problem with a
"triple entrance" system, one for all the court personal, a second for
defendants briefly released from county jail, and a third for public witnesses
and spectators. You dont have the hallway encounters between the three parties
you had in older facilities.

------
shams93
In Los Angeles it's quite a bit more professional. When I served on a jury in
a criminal case the judge was very professional.

~~~
mikelward
Very few cases make it to trial. At least 90% accept a plea bargain. What you
saw was not most defendants' experience.

------
tomohawk
And then you have politicians like Martin O'Malley using the system to further
their careers at others expense.

[https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-
on...](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-
s-anguish)

------
Qantourisc
A judge holding the court in contempt basically. And since the judge is part
of the court, the court is holding the court in contempt.

Perhaps we need judged for judges.

------
jondubois
I wonder if that has something to do with the different level of 'leniency'
which is accorded in bankruptcy cases versus criminal cases.

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.

~~~
angry_octet
Perhaps you should read the article again. It is quite clear that she is
dismayed by the blatantly pro-prosecution behaviour, guilty-until-proven-
innocent bail hearings and plea bargaining, and the racially coloured nature
of discourse. At no point is sentencing even discussed, and no punishment is
dispensed (these are first appearances), so your contention is completely
unsupported.

~~~
jondubois
I agree with every fact you make here, but I don't see how that disproves my
statement. I didn't mention anything about sentencing - I used the term
'leniency' in a general way; as the tendency to view defendants as innocent.

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".

~~~
angry_octet
Well, despite your view that considering those accused as innocent is lenient,
the burden of proof falling on the accuser is in fact a core tenet of common
law justice (and supported by the 5th, 6th and 8th amendments to the
Constitution). And if someone accused you of wrongdoing you would see the
value in that.

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.

------
mLuby
It's heartening to read so many thoughtful posts about our justice system.
Gives me some small hope for the future. :)

------
japhyr
This is what bothers me so much about the Trump campaign. Even though he'll
probably lose, he's helped legitimize the kind of speech and attitude this
judge demonstrates.

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.

~~~
adrusi
What this article describes is much worse than anything Trump has done in his
campaign. It's one thing to engage in "hateful" speech on a podium to get
people to like you, and an entirely different thing to do so in official
government capacity, directed at specific individuals, right at the moment
when they are most vulnerable.

Trump is distasteful, maybe even dangerous, but this judge and the officers of
the court are absolutely despicable.

~~~
zeroer
That's true in a very technical sense that Trump is only spouting speech at
this point. (And of course technically correct is the best kind.)

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.

~~~
douche
Is that significantly different from the current status quo? Drone strikes and
Gitmo are functionally equivalent to the worst of Trump's remarks.

~~~
zeroer
Trump's words are no different than the reality of what's been done by the
past 2~3 presidents. The important difference now is that the torture, etc.,
is a _campaign promise_ rather than something the administration was ashamed
of.

