
I Got Myself Arrested So I Could Look Inside the Justice System - ilamont
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arrested-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360/
======
blisterpeanuts
I'm sorry to be a curmudgeon but I don't like this guy at all. He wasted
valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have
predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury.

Why were the police and the criminal justice officials apparently angry with
him? Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police
profile people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a
violent and unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse
snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or
emptying a cash register.

It's not so much that he prevented one of these other cases from being
pursued, but that he seems so oblivious of the effects of his actions. Thus,
it seems perfectly natural and reasonable for them to say, "OK, you make twice
the salary we make yet you wanna be a petty criminal? Poof, you're a petty
criminal. Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made, and here's hoping you will be
permanently cured of f##king with us in the future, a##hole."

The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are
severely punished. If they don't bend the rules, and the rules don't always
apply the way liberal suburban white folks might imagine they do on the
street, then they get castigated for not "doing their job" i.e. catching the
bad guys. At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin
in law enforcement, because it's the mission. If you fail the mission, you're
facing demotion, punishment, deprivation of public support and sufficient
budget, and the public will view you with contempt and disgust.

I'm not justifying that that diabetic guy who wanted his sugar pills should be
denied his pills. I'm not justifying that the police handle the lower socio-
economic cases more brutally, giving them bruises and cuts that the suburban
white boy somehow was spared. I'm not justifying racial profiling.

Yet, to walk a mile in their shoes, both the police and the criminal justice
system as a whole, is to see the world a little differently from the average
Atlantic Monthly reader or Hacker News reader.

Just my 2 cents.

~~~
DanBC
> Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile
> people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and
> unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or
> beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a
> cash register.

You're missing the point that police profiling is already focusing attention
on people not committing those crimes, or that plenty of people are getting
away with the same behaviour but not facing any consequences for their
actions.

Police stop and search someone because that person is black - they're missing
the real crook.

Police don't take actions against white kids - they're missing real crooks.

> I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for
> things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs. As our
> office handed down arrest records and probation terms for riding dirt bikes
> in the street, cutting through a neighbor’s yard, hosting loud parties,
> fighting, or smoking weed – shenanigans that had rarely earned my own
> classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings

Whether these crimes deserve any police attention is something that could be
discussed, but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white
kids is something that drives inequality in society?

~~~
Crito
I agree with the general point, but _" riding dirt bikes in the street"_ is
possibly not as innocent as it may seem.

In rural areas riding dirt bikes on the street might conjure up images of a
couple of brothers tearing around a few fields, generally making a mess but
ultimately just doing it to have fun. In cities however there is _often_ (by
no means always, but _often_ ) something else going on.

At least in Philadelphia, gangs use dirt-bikes and 4-wheelers to 'patrol their
turf' and flee the police (who are largely powerless to stop them, as they
travel in groups of 10 or more, and all split the second a cop turns his
lights on). In these instances it isn't harmless fun, they are basically
neo-'biker gangs'. It is a big problem in north and west Philadelphia.

~~~
stingraycharles
Over here in The Netherlands, about 10 years ago, there was a lot of commotion
about a group of white supremacy-gangs wearing Lonsdale bomberjacks, and
people wearing those were banned from certain clubs, etc.

According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale bomberjack
would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by law? Isn't that
outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual problem?

EDIT: Apparently this was not just an issue in The Netherlands, but more
widespread:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/147...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1473185/British-
firm-Lonsdale-tries-to-lose-Nazi-image.html)

~~~
Crito
> _" According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale
> bomberjack would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by
> law? Isn't that outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual
> problem?"_

What? No. Just no.

It may be different in the Netherlands, but in the US riding dirtbikes on
public streets is illegal. The bikes themselves are not street legal. The
bikes don't have plates, turn signals, mirrors or horns. They are not
registered with the DMV. In Pennsylvania they are _wildly_ in violation of
noise laws for motorcycles (they drown out conversations _indoors_ when they
pass on the streets). Totally unlicensed and almost certainly therefore
uninsured (which is again illegal). Riding bikes of any sort in gangs is
further illegal, breaking all sorts of traffic laws.

This going after dirt-bike riders is not about going after a symptom or
superficial attribute of some other crime. It _is_ the crime. _It is the
actual problem._

If I were saying _" go after cars with spinney wheels"_ (which are perfectly
legal) or _" go after people wearing only red or blue"_ (which is perfectly
legal) then your comparison would be apt, but that is not what is going on
here.

~~~
evan_
You might want to just clarify since I could imagine it being a regional
language issue- a "Dirt bike" is a type of off-road motorcycle, not a human-
powered bicycle.

~~~
Crito
Ah, good point. A dirt-bike is basically a stripped down off-road motorcycle.
Fast, loud, and cheap.

~~~
andybak
That clarifies it for me. I was imagining a bicycle.

------
nate_meurer
This is simultaneously the funniest and most tragic thing I've read in a long
time. It's nearly unbelievable.

It reminds me a bit of Eddie Murphy's skit for SNL where he dresses up in
white-face so he can experience society on the other side. This is almost as
funny as that skit, no exaggeration. The tragedy is that this story is true.

~~~
stevenleeg
What part of this did you find funny?

~~~
nate_meurer
I hope I'm not remiss in perceiving strong dry humor throughout the first half
of the story. My favorite part is where he looks at the cop in the car and
keeps right on spraying:

 _As I moved the can back and forth, a police officer in an Interceptor go-
cart saw me, slammed on his brakes, and pulled up to the curb behind me. I
looked over my shoulder, made eye contact with him, and resumed. As I waited
for him to jump out, grab me, or Tase me, he sped away and hung a left,
leaving me standing there alone._

And in the next paragraph...

 _I woke up the next morning and Fox News was reporting that unknown suspects
had vandalized City Hall. I went back to the entrance and handed the guard my
driver’s license and a letter explaining what I’d done._

Fox News, unknown suspects... Maybe it's just me, but this had me laughing out
loud.

~~~
spinlock
I bet the police dispatch described the suspect as a young black man wearing
jeans and a black hoodie.

~~~
chadillac83
African-american male Between 5'5" and 6'2" between 16 and 30 years old about
150 to 200 lbs.

Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson...

~~~
arprocter
I'm glad someone else made this reference. The first half of the story
reminded me of Chappelle's "I'm sorry officer - I didn't know I couldn't do
that" bit

------
kaffeinecoma

      The judge [...] ordered three years of probation, a $1000 fine, a $250 surcharge,
      a $50 surcharge, 30 days of community service, and a special condition allowing police
      and probation officers to enter and search my residence anytime without a warrant.
    

Wow. Perhaps I'm naive, but I was unware that a first-time, nonviolent
misdemeanor could be grounds for removing your 4th amendment rights.

~~~
skwirl
So were you under the impression that incarcerated persons could not have
their cells searched without a warrant, too?

The 5th and 14th amendments provide that no person shall "be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, _without due process of law_ ". He was convicted of a
crime. The punishment can include random searches, drug tests, ankle monitors,
etc., as long as it is provided for by law.

~~~
scotty79
So you are saying that crime is a crime even if it's first-time, nonviolent
misdemeanor and you can be deprived of life, liberty or property if due
process of law happened?

That horribly low standard for a justice system. Especially that due process
of law basically boils down to judge deciding what tickles him the right way.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
So do you think that crimes should have no legal punishments? Really?

~~~
scotty79
I think crimes should have punishments proportionate to the damage done. At
the same time I'd like punishmeants themselves to cause as little damage as
possible.

------
blhack
I don't "get" this article.

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

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

\--

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

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

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

~~~
Edmond
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.

~~~
DigitalJack
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.

------
mdturnerphys
Interesting aside about the author's accidental ability to elude two members
of the NYPD counterterrorism division:

"Two Intelligence Unit detectives arrived and testily walked me outside to a
waiting unmarked police car. Court papers show that they’d staked out my
apartment to arrest me, and that I unwittingly kept eluding them. In one
dramatic instance, two officers had tailed me as I walked down Eastern
Parkway. I’d entered the subway station at the Brooklyn Museum, unaware that I
was being followed. One of the officers had followed me through the turnstiles
while another guarded the exit. The report states that the officers then
inexplicably lost contact with me."

~~~
badman_ting
I wonder if the "inexplicable" part has to do with the desire not to be the
officer who has to deal with the hassle (paperwork or whatnot). "Oh yeah, gee
I dunno, we lost him."

~~~
dopamean
That's exactly it. The guy was about to get on the subway and go who knows
where. The cop probably wanted to make sure he got home for dinner.

------
dragontamer
[http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46357.htm](http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46357.htm)

Alternative take on what has happened here.

>>> This reporter accompanied Constantino on one of those trips, watching as
the lawyer handed a guard his passport and driver's license. After calling
City Hall staffers from inside the guard booth, the officer told Constantino
to come back the next day.

>>> Instead, Constantino dramatically turned himself in at Manhattan Criminal
Court that Friday, after the stop-and-frisk protesters were convicted of
disorderly conduct.

>>> "Your Honor, I refuse to leave this court," Constantino told the judge. "I
am choosing in peace and love not to leave this court."

\------------------

The purpose of getting arrested was to protest the Stop and Frisk laws in NYC.
It seems like Bobby Constantino is milking the story for all its worth though,
and turning it into something else.

Not that it is a bad perspective or anything, but I think it is important to
remember his original purpose for getting arrested.

~~~
refurb
Wow, I wish I could upvote this a dozen times. No surprise here, the guy
painted the story in the most supportive light possible.

This is not news, this is a political piece. He's free to publish such a
thing, but people need to be more discriminatory when giving so much weight to
his "facts".

------
rayiner
This is a great article, and I really appreciate this paragraph:

> But in between the important cases, I found myself spending most of my time
> prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity
> growing up in the suburbs.

However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these
"crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves
are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are
dangerous, namely gang activity.

In not going after the author, the police simply did the analysis they are
required to do: is this guy a threat within _the spirit_ of the law?

Now, obviously there are shortcomings in the heuristics the police are using
here. It's not okay to conclude that someone is a threat because they're a
black teenager in a hoodie and aren't a threat because they're a white
professional in a suit. But I don't think we really want a mechanical justice
system that follows the mere letter of the law instead of the spirit. We don't
want police to ignore the distinction between someone tagging a public
building to make a point, and gang members tagging a private building to "make
a point."

~~~
coldtea
> _However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these
> "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts
> themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things
> that are dangerous, namely gang activity._

Millions of people do graffiti -- and very few of them have anything to do
with "gang activity".

This "proxy" notion doesn't hold. Neither would such retribution to such
"offences" be fair even if it was so.

In fact, sending people to jail for such trivial stuff is a more effective
introduction to serious crime than their initial offences.

~~~
logfromblammo
The conditional probability that someone will tag given that he is a gang
member is high. Gangs mark their territory in this way. The legislators,
probably not even knowing who Bayes is, feel free to reverse the conditional
and say that the probability someone is a gang member given that he tags is
also high.

At the least, they are not fully independent events, so it's not totally
idiotic. If you combine that with broken window theory, it makes a lot of
sense [to the cops] to rely on such statutes as a way to fight gangs at the
same time as other petty crime.

~~~
catshirt
you've reversed the condition. what matters is the probability they are a gang
member given they tag. in gang fueled areas this probability will be high. at
a general average, it's probably very low.

~~~
logfromblammo
Legislators are bad at math. Didn't you know?

------
vph
The author hypothesis is that criminal profiling is based on race. A simpler
hypothesis is that such profiling is based on looks. Now, instead of wearing
suits, if he wears baggy jeans that almost fall off his butt, puts on a few
tatoos, nose rings to match, and starts doing seemingly illegal things. And if
the cops still don't stop him, then maybe being white has something to do with
it.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Allowing people to discriminate based on cultural markers like baggy jeans
instead of skin color is creating a loophole. It's analogous to the voter
disenfranchisement laws after the civil war. You can say that you're not
barring black people from voting, that you're only barring people who fail a
literacy test. But if the effect is that you mostly ban black people, then
it's a de facto racial discrimination.

~~~
lmm
We're talking about a culture that esteems criminality - that jeans style is
prison fashion. People don't get to choose their skin colour, but they do
choose what they wear (and no, you don't need a $2000 suit to avoid police
harassment, a $20 one will do just as well).

~~~
moocowduckquack
If you have to wear a business suit to avoid police harrassment then your
society is fucked. And large sections of society adopting prison fashions
doesn't tell you that those people are all criminal, it tells you that your
society jails too many people.

------
tokenizer
Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

We might as well call in the Criminal Punishment System, or the Government's
Justice System, as it doesn't engender my views of justice, and nor should it
for you.

~~~
rayiner
> Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

No, and when it comes to white people in the suburbs we largely don't do that
(except serious financial crimes).

When it comes to the inner city and gang activity, that's not so clear cut.
What are you going to do, issue monetary fines?

~~~
jbooth
Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any
hell then good for you, I guess.

What are you going to do, prosecute black/brown teenagers with extreme
prejudice while giving white teenagers a ride home and a stern talking to? And
then wonder why the statistics wind up how they are, why so many black kids
don't have a father in the house?

If more policy-makers had to deal with this situation in their neighborhoods,
seeing their nephews get locked up with hardened criminals, the situation
would change. They don't, so it doesn't, and young black men turn into
statistics.

~~~
rayiner
> Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any
> hell then good for you, I guess.

Yes. The difference is that in the inner city, they're idiots without fathers,
without authority figures, living in an environment where that power vacuum is
replaced by gangs. Teenage idiocy amounts to a qualitatively different threat
under those conditions. It's unfortunate that black or Hispanic kids are far
more likely to find themselves in that situation than white kids, but does
that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the
same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank?

I'm not saying that our approach is the best one. I'm saying that there is
more to the story than "zomg, the police are oppressing minorities!"

Look, I live in one of the most inner-city inner cities (Wilmington, DE). It's
a place where the murder rate is comparable to Bogota, Colombia, and where
there was a shooting this year on Main Street (rumor is more than one, and in
one case the target was a public bus) just blocks from the central business
district.[1] It's a really complicated situation. On one hand I feel bad for
the kids without fathers, etc. I lament the de-facto segregation and
oppression that continues to exist as a direct consequence of de jure
segregation and oppression.

On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life
isn't all about idealism. I have a wife and a kid and we live here and
sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if
the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a
low simmer. I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other
middle/upper class people, who have just abandoned the city altogether and
live in homogenous enclaves in the suburbs, just driving in for work and
quickly shuffling the distance from their office to the parking garage every
day.

[1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck
late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place
made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the
civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the
U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the
earthquake...

~~~
sophacles
There's a lot of implicit circular reasoning in this post.

1\. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated
harshly.

2\. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must
be a bad one. (goto 1)

The other circular problem that exists is this:

1\. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on
record) are probably going to do them again.

2\. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are
bad.

3\. There aren't a lot of options or opportunities left but to do bad things.
(goto 1)

~~~
rayiner
Nothing circular:

> 1\. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated
> harshly.

How people deserve to be treated isn't the sole consideration. It's also
relevant how people must be treated in order to maintain a certain level of
order.

> 2\. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's
> must be a bad one. (goto 1)

Did I say anything about sentences? My evidence was murders and shootings (on
a per capita basis).

> 1\. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on
> record) are probably going to do them again.

Yes, it's called "recidivism" and is an empirically measurable phenomenon.

> 2\. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are
> bad.

I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support those things. But people like me who
have the money to pay taxes aren't going to continue to live in a city if they
feel like it's unsafe for their wives to walk home from work at night. It's a
sad truth of life, but if you cater too much to the concerns of the poor,
you'll drive out the people with the resources to implement the programs to
alleviate those problems. See, e.g., Detroit or Wilmington or Camden, etc.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, but this all makes sense as long as it's someone else. "I don't care if
there's gross miscarriage of justice for hundreds or thousands of other people
as long as I feel safe" is what you're saying.

~~~
rayiner
Not just me, but everyone who wants to live in the city and feel safe doing
so. I.e. the hundreds of thousands or millions of other people. Life is messy,
and human interactions are messy, and all that comes to a head in cities where
people live in such close proximity. Creating sufficient order to let the
majority feel safe _is_ an important consideration that deserves its due
weight. Ideally, that's achieved without trampling on anyone's rights, but a
slavish focus on rights to the exclusion of security will just cause people to
"opt out."

To put it another way, I grew up in a lily-white upper middle class suburb
surrounding by morally righteous people who believed it was better to let
10,000 guilty go free than to send one innocent person to jail. That was easy
to believe in a town where political assassination was more likely than gang-
related crossfire.

~~~
jbooth
I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you
described. I lived in the hood for a few years once, I knew what I was doing,
minded my own business, and I didn't want police to crack other people's heads
for me to feel safe. I get that it's different if you have a family, I don't
live there anymore. But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness
isn't going to work in the long term.

~~~
rayiner
> I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you
> described.

The majority of people in Wilmington are hard-working folks who deserve to
live in a safe neighborhood as much as any suburban family. They aren't
involved in gangs, and steer clear of the kind of activity that might get them
hassled by the police.

> But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness isn't going to work in
> the long term.

You know what won't help the situation? Focusing so much on the rights of the
people committing crimes that you ignore the mass exodus of middle class
people looking for safer surroundings. Chicago has lost 200,000 black people
in the last decade, and I guarantee you they didn't leave because of police
profiling. They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of
the gang activity pervading the south side. And of course these were the kind
of people you didn't want leaving: the ones that can afford to.

~~~
pessimizer
>They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of the gang
activity pervading the south side.

I don't think this is even vaguely true. They left because of the property
bubble raising prices, the crash shattering the black middle class, the
dismantling of Chicago public schools, and having the half of the city that
they occupy being utterly neglected by the administration.

Crime is bad in Chicago, but crime is down in Chicago.

>And of course these were the kind of people you didn't want leaving: the ones
that can afford to.

No, it isn't. Most of the migration is people moving South, where they have
family, because they can't afford to live in Chicago anymore. This city caters
to upper-middle class white suburbanites and the cream of the small town
Midwest to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

~~~
rayiner
I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's
driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city. The neighborhoods with
the highest population losses include some of the neighborhoods with the
highest crime rates: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-
edit-x...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit-
xproject4a-crime-1027-20131027_1_curb-crime-homicides-middle-class-families).
In some of these neighborhoods, crime is up in the last 20 years!

Moreover, the public school situation is intertwined by the security
situation. There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of
Chicago's schools until gang influence is removed from the school grounds.
Kids can't learn in an environment where the gangs are bigger authority
figures than the teachers and parents.

~~~
pessimizer
>I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's
driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city.

Other than that people started leaving the city before the latest rise in
crime, and that crime is vastly

[http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Could-See-
Fewes...](http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Could-See-Fewest-
Murders-Since-1965-234056831.html)

down since I was growing up here?

>There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of Chicago's schools
until gang influence is removed from the school grounds.

I think you're mistaking the cause for the effect. It's the horrible schools
that largely create the gang problem, a gang problem that has drastically
declined since the 70s and 80s, post-crack.

~~~
rayiner
Chicago lags other major cities when it comes to the overall decline in crime
(and thus is getting more dangerous relative to other cities even as crime
goes down). While New York had less than 1/5 as many murders in 2012 as it did
in 1990, Chicago had only 1/2 as many murders in 2012 as it did in 1990.
Moreover, crime in certain neighborhoods has even gone up since then:
[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-
edit-x...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit-
xproject4a-crime-1027-20131027_1_curb-crime-homicides-middle-class-families)
("The homicide rate per capita on the West, South and Southwest sides today is
higher than it was 20 years ago, and the gap between safer and more dangerous
areas is wider.", "The citywide homicide rate has fallen because certain areas
— basically the entire North Side — are safer and mask the increases in the
killing fields to the west, southwest and south. Some of those areas are now
just as violent as or more violent than they were 20 years ago.").

> It's the horrible schools that largely create the gang problem

That's utterly absurd.

------
scotty79
I think there should be kind of mystery shoppers for justice system. They'd
commit misdemeanors and get arrested so they can report how they were treated
to improve operation of police and justice system and to weed out personnel
that doesn't obey the law or neglect procedures.

------
maaaats
> From Brownsville to downtown Manhattan, I would estimate that I passed more
> than 200 police officers, some from a distance, some close enough to touch.

Wow, is police that common in NY / the states? That's more police than I have
seen in my entire life.

~~~
rayiner
To provide more context: in 1990, London and NYC were of a similar size (~8
million) though NYC was and is quite a bit more dense. London had 184
homicides. NYC had 2,262. This past year London was down to 86, versus NYC's
414.

~~~
grecy
To put that in more context, the murder rate in America is 10 times that of
the next developed country.

The murder rate in NYC and Chicago is higher than Mexico City

~~~
tptacek
That's because Mexico City's murder rate was so bad that the country plowed an
avalanche of money into it, resulting in the world's densest police coverage;
it also assumes that murders in Mexico City are reported as reliably as they
are in the US, which is a dubious proposition.

Mexico's various other cities are world leaders in violent crime; Juarez has a
murder rate over 147/10k, more than 10x Chicago's, and that again assumes that
everything is reported in Juarez, which is extremely unlikely.

For whatever it's worth to you, neither NYC nor Chicago makes the top ten _for
the US_. Chicago witnesses an astronomical number of murders, and is for that
reason a national disgrace, but the rate isn't anomalous for the population.
Chicago is a huge city.

------
mschuster91
3 years of probation for a single graffiti tag? Talk about proportions here.

~~~
nealb
The point of the 3 years seemed to me to be mostly making an example of the
author to discourage civil disobedience.

~~~
shittyanalogy
You know what I never understood? The concept of "making an example" out of
someone in the justice system. How can we give one individual a sentence that
is exceptionally harsher than the norm and not have that sentence be
considered unusual as in cruel and unusual? The whole point is that their
sentence is unusual for the circumstance. How is this in any way a just and
equal, and legal for that matter, application of the law?

~~~
tptacek
It really depends on what you're "making an example of".

The words "making an example" are just a way of describing deterrence, which
is a core function of the criminal justice system.

Deterrence is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It depends on what you're
deterring. If it's arson, deterrence makes a lot of sense: it's fun and easy
to set fires, and very easy to underestimate or disregard the harm those fires
will do to others. If it's political tagging, deterrence makes much less
sense. The justice system needs to extract a penalty for damaging people's
property, but politically-motivated tags are a low-intensity problem.

Beyond deterrence, criminal penalties must account for the inefficiency of
policing and the rewards to crime. A 1:1 damage/penalty system is
intrinsically ineffective; it makes crime a rational decision.

It's easy to agree here that 3 years of probation for tagging in a deliberate
attempt to get arrested to make a political point is abusive.

~~~
gtz59
This describes how deterrence is justifiable, not how it is fair.

~~~
tptacek
What is the difference between justice and fairness?

~~~
gtz59
"justifiable" \- defensible, makes sense

"fair" \- treating people equally

In other words, I interpret the original question as: "how is making an
example not considered unusual?".

------
alexhutcheson
In a similar vein, I would highly recommend the book _Newjack: Guarding Sing
Sing_ [1] by Ted Conover.

The author was a journalist who wanted to do a story on the prison system in
New York State. The Department of Correctional Services froze him out and
refused to give him any sort of access or interviews. To get the story, he
actually took a job as a correctional officer officer in Sing Sing prison and
worked there for a year. His account of the entire experience is fascinating.
I think the whole discussion around these sorts of issues could really benefit
from more accounts like this that introduce some transparency into the
criminal justice system.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Newjack-Guarding-Sing-Ted-
Conover/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Newjack-Guarding-Sing-Ted-
Conover/dp/0375726624/)

------
enkephalin
_We avoided inner city streets because they were dangerous, and we relied on
the police to keep people from those places out of our neighborhoods. Whatever
they got, we figured they deserved._

i find the last statement just as disturbing as the rest of the article.
carrying this sentiment around plays a big part in the apathy we see all
around us, towards most of the atrocities being committed these days.

~~~
redblacktree
That's exactly the point, of course. He changed his view by experiencing
criminal justice in the city.

------
Eliezer
Is there anywhere on the planet with a functioning criminal justice system?
Where should I live if I don't want to live in fear?

~~~
rayiner
Lots of places that have low violence, low social instability, high social
homogeneity, high socioeconomic equality, etc, to begin with have
correspondingly docile criminal justice systems.

------
base698
Works bombs, mixing Works Toilet Cleanser and Aluminum foil in a 2L plastic
bottle were popular in my high school. I can't imagine the charges the
children would get today if they were brown. Lucky for them they lived in
rural NC.

~~~
Crito
> _" I can't imagine the charges the children would get today if they were
> brown."_

The answer is _" threatened with expulsion, arrested, and charged with
multiple felonies"_. Google or HNSearch "Kiera Wilmot".

~~~
brohee
She was obviously guilty of CWB. (Chemistry While Black)

------
tn13
"Simply carrying those items qualified as a class B misdemeanor pursuant to
New York Penal Law 145.65."

Are you serious ? And I make fun of Indian laws.

------
dmourati
To me the whole problem comes down to one of discretion. The police officers
in the beginning of the story had too much discretion. By not arresting
someone defacing city hall, they trivialized a property crime. The author
intimates this was because of his race or at least his appearance. Maybe so.

Next the judge exercises his discretion to come up with a non-standard
sentence for the crime. Any non-instigator first offender would have gotten
the slap on the wrist. A minority, we are lead to believe, probably much
worse. Same crime but the discretion is wide in the sentence.

Later, the issue swings the other way. He has some real cause to go the rally
in honor of the fallen student. Here, the discretion is taken away from the
parole officer.

Discretion is power. In some instances, society grants too much discretion. In
others, too little. We know this is the case but it still shocks us and we
like to second guess.

------
tsaoutourpants
The first officer had it right: "What are you, some kind of asshole?"

~~~
PythonicAlpha
To sad, there is no link to down-vote a comment.

~~~
dsego
there is, you just need more karma.

------
3am
This reminds me of the work I read about Nellie Bly (Elizabeth Cochrane) doing
around mental health and institutionalization in the late 19th century
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly#Asylum_expos.C3.A9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly#Asylum_expos.C3.A9)).
It's not a complimentary comparison for our criminal justice system.

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
He made eye contact; he didn't run; and he's surprised the policeman left him
alone? Hasn't he seen any real criminal behavior or maybe a painting of it in
a fine art gallery? I'm glad he got his wish though, but for a minute I was
worried he wouldn't.

------
anuraj
Criminal justice system as it exists has lots to answer 1) What is the
purpose? 2) Is it getting achieved 3) What kind of people are administering
the system 4) Why biases exist? 5) What should citizenry and political
authority do? 6) Ultimately - what is the true conscience of the society?

------
hawkharris
The article's description of racial profiling brings to mind a statistic that
the ACLU reported a few weeks ago (it was also featured on HN): _in U.S.
federal courts, blacks are about twenty times as likely as whites to be
sentenced to life in prison for non-violent crimes._

------
thedrifting
So, the author set out to prove how unfair the justice system is between
races, and to some extent he did show that. But, didn't his experience also
show that a white person was treated just as by the courts as any other
person? Am I missing the point of this article?

~~~
dragontamer
He's just ranting aimlessly, probably because he's pissed off about his
probation.

------
adamzerner
People could be assholes. I'm sure this sort of mistreatment happens all the
time, and I'm sure that the reason for it is because people behave as
described by the Stanford Prison Experiment.

------
LekkoscPiwa
There is a lot of BS in the PC thing with profiling. I'm an Eastern European.
Almost all Polish people I know work in construction or baby sitting, etc.
However, none of them or us Polish immigrants blames the United States for
that. Or the Government. They know they aren't educated very well, so they
don't finger point to any type of discrimination for their fate. But somehow
there are people there, like some Latinos I know who just don't even try. They
just want to be illiterate all their life. One Lady I know who is from Mexico
doesn't even teach her children English. Doesn't want them to speak English in
the US. But blames US for her shitty job and standard of living.

This is a little bit too much even for me (an immigrant) to stomach, you know?

If they voted Obama into Presidency… what racism? Bunch of racists and secret
Ku-Klux-Klan lovers voted for a Black President? Like really, some people have
way too much time on their hands. If I can be consulting for 60-100usd/hr
after 6 years of living here, why some people need to steal and deal drugs
instead is beyond me.

There is equality in Cuba and Canada. If these people are for real why don't
they just immigrate there?

I will be honest. I see a Pole in the US I think he is doing construction or
picking up garbage or baby sitting, taking care of elderly. I see a Mexican I
suspect he doesn't speak English. I see a black person I check if my wallet is
safe.

Everybody does that. Trying to change the way we think about Blacks without
them changing their ways is never going to work. Not all Poles in the US are
in the construction business. Not all Mexicans in the US are illiterate. Not
all Blacks in the US are criminals. But big chunk of all these peoples are, so
it's good to be opened minded and don't pretend that things like AIDS epidemic
in DC being on levels with Sub-Saharian Africa aren't true. Because they are.
And this isn't fault of anybody else but people who live there and make
choices they do. I came to this country with 300usd in my pocket. I could have
excuses to do nothing and portray myself as a victim too. But who does that in
this country?

~~~
RokStdy
I think there is a lot wrong with this comment. Perhaps since you're an
immigrant you're not familiar with the concept of institutional racism[1].

Regarding Obama's 2012 Election: according to [2]and[3], 62 million of 221
million possible voters cast their ballot for Obama. ~28% of citizens voting
for you does not really signal the end of racism in the US.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Institutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Institutional_racism_in_the_United_States)
[2][http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html](http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html)
[3][http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.h...](http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.html)

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
28% of citizens voting or number that's as low happens every election. And the
reason for it is:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)

And has nothing to do with racism.

If institutionalized racism in fact existed it wouldn't have allowed us to
have a Black President in the first place. Actually, it wouldn't allow Obama
to even be considered a contender. You can talk your talk but the facts speak
for themselves. The Leader of the Free World (or however you want to call it)
is Black. What type of institutionalized racism built in the system in the US
would allow for that? Because the institutionalized racism is a myth, we do
have a Black President. If you want to find out what institutionalized racism
is look at apartheid system that existed in South Africa and not at the United
States. IMHO, you are intellectualy dishonest to suggest racism in the US. Try
having a black president in any of the European or Asian nations. Go doing
shopping with a black person in Paris. You will find out what a real racism
is. When I worked for IBM there was this Black Lady hired by us. She was late
her first day for 2 hours. When gently asked by the Manager what happened, she
started yelling at him and never showed up at the office. A month later we
find out she sued IBM for racism on false accusations that the Manager didn't
like her skin color. The Manager's wife is Black. There institutionalized
racism if you talk about "affirmative action". That's the only example of
institutionalized racism I can see in the US.

And any _arguments_ instead of usual Marxist "there are a lot of things that
are wrong in what you say" ????

~~~
RokStdy
No. I think the idea of inverted totalitarianism ridiculously abdicates the
individual's role in our society, but I don't care to argue that point.

The point I was making is that you cannot use the election of Obama as
confirmation that racism is dead. If the argument you make is that "Obama
isn't elected if racism exists" you have zero facts behind you.

Giving you the greatest benefit of the doubt you could assert as fact that 28%
of the voting eligible population isn't racist. Again, being as generous as
possible to your (in my opinion horrible) argument 72% of the voting aged
populous _may or may not_ be racist.

That's a FAR cry from "no racism to see here, move along". You simply provide
no facts at all to support your position. I grant you that racism is a
difficult and nuanced issue, but dismissing it cavalierly is sad.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
The point I was trying to argue with you was _institutionalized racism_ not
racism in general.

Again, as I said before, there is no _institutionalized_ racism in the US. And
the Obama success story is a great point to see that. US being racist society
can be disputed if you want to. Personally, after living for a long time in
the US, I can assure you that I couldn't see any racism in the DC area, but
yeah some, very little, in LA area. In DC, people -- and really white people -
take pride in being open. I mean like they are proud of this that there is no
racism in their life. For me saying there is racism in DC is a ridiculous lie.
In LA, maybe. Then maybe in places like Alabama it is common place. I don't
know. But I'm not buying even for 1 nanosecond an idea of _instituionalized_
racism in the US which is the claim you made and I responded to. And again, I
can't even imagine 10% of Brits or Germans or French (forget Japanese) voting
for Black President.

Again, from personal experience, I met a Black American in Paris. He was
originally from Texas (San Antonio). He told me that the trip was life
changing experience for him. Because he experienced what racist _society_ is.
In France. Not in Texas.It is just this bad in super-hyper-liberal Paris
compared to backwards Texas. He said he has never, ever experienced racism in
San Antonio. There are a little subtle hints, but it's not like you go to a
restaurant and hear "Get Out!!!". Which happened to him in Paris. Just one
incident. There were more. But then to be honest, I heard that too on occasion
when in Strasbourg (France) talking Polish, so maybe they just don't like
anybody who isn't white French. Again, I'm not making whole movement and
covering my life in tears because of that. Somebody else made money that night
on my meal, right?

Another thing you conveniently didn't address is affirmative action which is a
great example of institutionalized racism in the US. The Law says if you are
Black - purely based on race - it is easier for you to get to certain schools,
or to certain jobs. And whatever the excuses you might have for it, if you are
looking for examples of _institutionalized_ racism - that would be great
example.

And to give you full disclosure Poland is a racist as it gets. I have a good
comparison. Yes, there might be still issues in the US, but to say there is
_instituinalized_ racism is a little too much. Maybe on a personal level some
people are prejudiced or racist, I understand that and I'm not denying that.
And it's a shame. But institutionalized?

I stayed overnight at friends place in New York, Brooklyn. I got quite bad
allergic reaction about 3am and had to go outside. A lot of Black guys, really
- if you forgive me - criminal type. Nobody cared about me. I was just
wondering on the streets, the reaction was to cat, I couldn't go back to the
apartment. I took a few pills and decided for a walk. Nothing happened to me,
I was ignored. I wasn't even scared after initial 10 - 15 minutes. Then cops
show up from nowhere. All white 5 of them. There are shady types all over the
place, they approach me and on of them yells "And what is your f __ing
problem?! ". I explained, showed him the hives and they went their way. But I
was the only guy stopped. Now invert the situation. Don't you think if you
were the only Black there and others where White, you'd feel targeted by the
cops. I know I was. Because clean and shaved, wearing nice clothes white guy
isn't a common sight in this area of Brooklyn. That's why they approached. Am
I yelling racism left & right? No, I don't give a crap, I'm happy I survived
and I'm happy with my life and career. And some people just see racism
everywhere they turn their heads to. No, there is no institutionalized racism
in the US. Some people are racist. I'm not their psychiatrist, I can't help
them.

------
jebblue
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

There's nothing new in the article. He proved nothing other than dressing
decent makes a good impression, we all knew that. Nothing of race or the
justice system in general was proved one way or the other in my opinion.

~~~
vog
_> ... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon_

Interesting new phenomenon: People doing an "audit" of the justice system by
themselves arrested.

