Monthly Archives: July 2009

Thinning The Thin Blue Line

TalkLeft picked up an interesting post over at the Dallas Morning News’ Crime blog on police corruption.  It relates to a recent story where a Dallas police officer “doused” a man with pepper spray in what appeared to be a fit of rage and when confronted about the incident by superiors claimed that the spray canister had “malfunctioned.”  The truth did not come to light until a rookie officer belatedly blew the whistle on the spray-happy officer.

In analyzing why the rookie officer failed to immediately report the incident – his excuse was fear of retaliation –  the blog post  distinguished between two types of police corruption: “noble cause corruption” and “bad corruption.”  Quoting a police misconduct expert:

“Bad corruption” would be something like taking a bribe or robbing a drug dealer, and they would not hesitate to report such criminal behavior.

The line gets blurry when dealing with so-called “noble cause corruption” — the idea that police are at war and the ends justifies the means, i.e. raiding a drug house without having probable cause to do so or roughing up a gang member.

It’s in those cases that officers often suddenly get the “I didn’t see or hear anything” syndrome.

As with anything else, once an officer crosses that line, it’s a slippery slope to doing something far worse.

At the risk of starting a chicken-or-the-egg debate, I wonder whether noble cause corruption will actually result in more crime.  It is true that the tactics employed in situations of noble cause corruption will free an officer from the restraints, i.e., search or arrest warrants, that might otherwise prevent him from catching a suspect.  And in the short run that may mean higher arrest rates and good PR for the police department.  But in the long run, such corruption will almost certainly turn the community against the police, whose reaction to the unjust treatment will be more crime.

A Pool For Us and A Pool For Them

I am part of a listserv of solo attorneys and received a link to a disturbing situation in Philadelphia that harkens back to the days of segregated water fountains among other things.  Here is the story as reported by NBC Philadelphia:

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

“I heard this lady, she was like, ‘Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?’ She’s like, ‘I’m scared they might do something to my child,’” said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers’ first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.

“When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool,” Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. “The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately.”

The next day the club told the camp director that the camp’s membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.

“I said, ‘The parents don’t want the refund. They want a place for their children to swim,’” camp director Aetha Wright said.

Campers remain unsure why they’re no longer welcome.

“They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything,” said camper Simer Burwell.

The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.

“There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club,” John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

While the parents await an apology, the camp is scrambling to find a new place for the kids to beat the summer heat.

The actions of the camp officials are disturbing to say the least.  But I wonder what the kids who were already in the pool were thinking when they ran for the hills after seeing the “minority children” enter the pool.  Were they simply acting out their fear of the unknown because few if any of them have non-white friends or was there something more invidious at work in their little noggins?  Granted both scenarios are less than encouraging signs of our country’s progress toward racial equality, the former is at least forgivable from a moral standpoint – that is, if children are as impressionable and ignorant as they are often made out to be – while the latter would, I think, be condemned by almost every decent individual.

Thoughts on Independence Day 2009

peachtree-roadrace-2009As is the tradition on July 4th in Atlanta, runners – some 55,000 of them – gathered early this morning for the running of the annual Peachtree Road Race.  My girlfriend and I had a nice view of it from our apartment, and we cheered on the runners as they zoomed toward the finish line.  It was inspiring not only to see the cheering masses urging the runners on but also the runners themselves responding to the cheers by quickening their pace and pumping their fists.

Rare is the time when one sees an informally large  and diverse group of individuals from the community supporting the same cause, as was the case this morning along the streets of Atlanta.  Even in the post-Obama era, we are defined more by our differences with one another than our similarities, whether in terms of political ideology, culture, or religion.  That, of course, is not an entirely bad thing; indeed, such diversity is what makes the United States the envy of other nations.  Yet if that envy is to be deserved, we, as a community – one that stretches beyond the next county line, but to the limits of the country – must band together and take on the problems that are now plaguing the nation, such as a limitless debt, astronomical health care costs, and mass incarceration.  We can start by admitting that America is not the benevolent and seemingly invincible power that it once was, or, has continually proclaimed itself to be, and that what entitlement we have to so-called superpower status is due as much to our exploitation of others and luck as it is to our ingenuity and industriousness.  We should seriously question whether our representatives in government truly reflect our values and interests, and if not, why we continue to tolerate such a situation.  And do this not in an intellectual but human capacity.  Go to an upcoming meeting of the city council and listen to what’s being debated (or not) and what positions your local council member is taking.  I did this recently for one of the first times in my life as a member of a local public safety organization and came away from the experience a bit less disillusioned that I had been about the functionality of our political process.  Will your concerns always be heard by our many tin-eared government officials?  No.  But one can almost be sure that the alternative of apathy and delusion will lead to much harsher and dangerous results.  (See 9/11, neoliberalism, and our current financial crisis.)

To Protest is a Sin

Photo courtesy of WSBTV News

Photo courtesy of WSBTV News

Yesterday, a jury in Fulton County Superior Court handed down a death sentence for Cleveland Clark in a murder-for-hire case that had all the intrigue of a potboiling mystery novel.

The story, which by now may be familiar to many of you, is that Chiman Rai, a native of India, hired Clark to kill Sparkle Rai, Chiman’s daughter-in-law, because he did not want his son marrying an African-American woman, which Sparkle was.

I didn’t follow the case so I cannot comment on the validity of the verdict or the sentence.  However, I do want to dispel the notion, perpetuated by the press and prosecution, that a man protesting the injustice of a system which has condemned him to near certain death, as Clark did during yesterday’s proceedings, is the equivalent of evil personified.

One of the prosecutors, Kellie Hill, commented after the proceedings that “the jury got to see the killer that Sparkle has to face, when they saw his outburst today.  That’s exactly what they saw.”

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Murderers come in all shapes and sizes, as do cabdrivers, cooks, plumbers, and yes, even lawyers.  Clark’s decision to voice his disapproval by shouting, swearing, and banging a table, is proof of nothing else but his frustration, anger, and disappointment, perhaps at himself, perhaps at the prosecution or judge, or perhaps at everyone and everything. After all, the man was, up until that point, facing the possibility of death in a system that has historically and disproportionately sent blacks to death row.  To conflate a protesting man with a murdering man makes the condemner no better than the condemned.  It is egoism and racsim at its most extreme.   I doubt Clark himself knows his true self, let alone the prosecutors or the press, who, assuredly, have had little if any contact with him.

It is truly the height of injustice if a condemned man cannot speak his mind without being vilified for it.

The Emergence of the Roberts/Sotomayor Court and Its Effect on the Rights of the Criminally Accused

Photo Courtesy of TakePart Blog

Photo Courtesy of TakePart Blog

In today’s New York Times, Adam Liptak, the paper’s long-time legal correspondent and now Supreme Court guru, surveys the latest Supreme Court term that just ended this past Monday.  He called Justice Kennedy “the most powerful jurist in America” – an especially scary proposition, since that can only mean more 5-4 decisions for the foreseeable future, with both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings of the Court courting the vote of America’s most powerful and perhaps fickle jurist.

The introduction of Sonia Sotomayor as the Supreme Court’s next Associate Justice will, of course, do little to change that power dynamic.  As Liptak observes:

If Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed by the Senate, she will succeed Justice David H. Souter, a liberal who spent almost two decades on the court. Her record on the federal appeals court in New York suggests that her views are largely in sync with those of Justice Souter, though there is some evidence that she will turn out to be more conservative in criminal cases.

The arrival of a neophyte justice coupled with Chief Justice Roberts’s increasing mastery of the judicial machinery foreshadow a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era.

Chief Justice Roberts has certainly been planting seeds in this term’s decisions. If his reasoning takes root in future cases, the law will move in a conservative direction on questions as varied as what kinds of evidence may be used against criminal defendants and the role the government may play in combating race discrimination.

Sotomayor’s presence on the Court will, however, mean dark days for the criminally accused.  As Liptak himself pointed out, when push comes to shove, Sotomayor has generally sided with the Government in criminal matters.  The fact that Sotomayor received the endorsement of eight national law enforcement organizations is reason enough to be worried.  The Alliance for Justice, a public interest organization, reviewed Sotomayor’s record on criminal matters as a judge in federal court in a lengthy report.  It praised her “cautious style” which, according to the organization, “reveals the temperament of a former prosecutor who understands the real-world demands of prosecuting crime and fundamentally respects the rule of law, while remaining alert to the rights of criminal defendants.”    Judge Sotomayor couldn’t have said it better herself.  More troubling is the fact that Sotomayor is supposed to have lived in areas like the South Bronx whose residents and communities have been ill-served by increasingly harsh and conservative policing and anti-crime policies crafted, as is the case here in Atlanta.  Of course, reasonable people may differ on what “criminal justice” means, and Sotomayor’s current views on the matter are by no means an indication that she has forgotten her roots or those regular joes she often claims to have in mind when crafting her judicial decisions.  Yet it is puzzling that for someone who shares Obama’s newly minted judicial philosophy of empathy for the individual, Sotomayor is all too comfortable siding with the institution and those in power.  Then again, there is little indication she has ever strayed from that circle for most of her adult and professional life.

Barring any last-minute revelations, Sotomayor will eventually take the bench on the Supreme Court.  When she does, Justice Roberts will have gained another ally in his quest to strip criminal defendants of their rights.

- AW