Asians In O.J.

I think it was very interesting to hear how many incidents there were involving racism towards Asians in a seemingly unrelated case like O.J. Simpsons. Perhaps we ignore these incidents because we see Asians as a model minority, one that does not get discriminated against. If we were to admit that we were racist against a minority that is more acceptable than most, we would have to admit that we were horribly racist towards the rest, and after everything we've already discussed I think it's clear that this is not something we care to do.

“ Real it y,” (RE)AFFIRMING RACE: Negotiation, and the “Trial of the Century”

Up until now I had not know that the O.J. case was based in such a racial divide. The fact that on a jury of twelve only two of the jurors were white is very interesting, especially given the neighborhood that Simpson was residing in. To see Hunt's analysis here regarding whether race really had anything to do with the jury's decision is very intriguing, and gives me a little less confidence in the jury system.

TV News Hyper-Coverage and the Representation of Place: Observations on the O. J. Simpson Case

While I agree with Alderman that it is interesting to see the hyper-coverage of the O.J. Simpson case, I am very disappointed to not see any in-depth look into why the chosen case is the Simpson case. The part of this that creates intrigue is that question, and from what I can tell Alderman fails to adequately address this question of how the media decides what is important and why, instead he just focuses on the fact that they do decide this.

Christian Right as Civil Right: Covenant Marriage and a Kinder, Gentler, Moral Conservatism

Feld's article from 2002 begins by stating his belief that the Christian Right movement is fighting a losing battle, and he goes on to explain how their only significant recent success was in the idea of "Covenant Marriages," which exist as an alternate option to regular marriage that has more restrictions placed on it. These marriages as of 2002 existed in 3 states.

I am very curious if Feld would still maintain his argument after our most recent election. I say this because despite their loss in all referendums that intended to place further restrictions on abortion, the Christian Right did succeed in prohibiting gay marriage in one form or another in fout out of four states. Now, while these decisions may well be overturned by the Supreme Court, for the time being the Christian Right has struck a decisive victory and seems to ahead of the liberals once again.

A Reconsideration of the Effects of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce Rates

Glenn's brief article here contends that no-fault divorce laws cannot be proven to increase divorce rates based on the research presented by Nakonezny, Shull, and Rodgers. Their research simply looked at national divorce rates and their relation to the rise in no-fault divorce laws.

Glenn's dissention here raises a point that sociologists must be very aware of when they conduct research based on national trends. That point is that in this type of research the researcher will likely find exactly the answer they are looking for. Nakonezny, Shull, and Rodgers failed to consider the fact that this is hardly a scientific experiment, because the nation is subject to an infinite number of other factors, each of which could have more or less to do with the divorce rates than no-fault laws. Glenn didn't stop at making this point though, he went further to actually show a blatant flaw in their research based on when the individual states adopted no-fault laws in relation to their divorce rates.

"Who Protects and Serves Me?": A Case Study of African American Women In One U.S. Law Enforcement Agency

In this article Texeria studies the harassment of women in the law enforcement profession, and by association reflects on all women who join the ranks of a traditionally male profession. It details several black women's stories of how they have been sexually harrassed in their workplace, and how they handled it.

I was very disheartened reading this. This article portrays not just sexual harassment, but rape, as a common occurence for women in men's jobs. I still want to believe that the fact that these were all from a single agency leaves room for the possibility that it is an isolated set of incidents and these kinds of practices don't permeate throughout our police forces. I guess I would need to find out if further studies have been done that corroborate or reject this one, until then I'll remain optimistic.

Boundary Lines: labeling Sexual Harrassment in Restaurants

My initial draw to Giuffre's research was the fact that in High School I actually waited tables, and so I felt like I might have an idea of what the research would say. As it turned out, I did have some of the same experiences as their interviewees, however I never viewed the information through their Giuffre's perspective. He points out that waitpeople are subjected to sexual harrassment every day by their customer's, and this is perceived, but tolerated due to the institutionalized nature of their position. This was what I expected.

What I didn't expect was the analysis that examined the idea that many waitpeople are subjected to the exact same harrassment by their fellow waiters and waitresses, but they don't classify these experiences as harrassment. I found it very interesting, looking back, that this was actually my experience too. I tolerated the tables of forty-something women making suggestive comments because it was a part of the job, but I never even considered "friendly" comments from some of the waitresses to be offensive. It's an interesting perspective to take on now.

The Hollow Hope

In one of my previous entries I said that I thought maybe the court should have taken more steps to ensure that the law was properly carried out as they intended, however in reading the opening to this article it immediately struck me that this is simply not the intended nature of the courts. The introduction summarizes several cases that occurred following Brown v. Board, and I noticed that these all come several years after the initial decision, but they pertain to the exact same issues, which means that the law is still not being followed as intended.

I guess reading this me realize that the problem is not so much their failures, but the inherently reactive nature of the system. Rather than ever acting in a preventative manned the courts are forced to act in a way that only allows them to interact with an incident after it has already happened. Legislature is supposed to be able to deal with anticipating the problems and creating law to deal with them, but even today, perhaps more than ever, it takes absurd amounts of time for decisions to come down about issues that have been issues for extended periods of time. I guess these readings did manage to make me pretty pessimistic as I have no ideas for how to actually make things better, only observations about how they are wrong.

The Paradox of the Promised Unfulfilled: Brown v. Board of Education and the Continued Pursuit of Excellence in Education

Greene's article here makes the interesting assertion that although Brown v. Board was the right decision regarding "separate but equal's" inherent inequality, the procedures used to solve the problem only cemented already racist ideas, and in some ways actually hurt black communities.

Greene first explains that many black teachers and administrators lost their jobs following the decision. This is due to the fact that in response to the decision many black schools simply shut down and their students were bussed to formerly white schools in the area. To this day there are far more minority students than teachers, and Greene shows numbers from many cities across the country that are a little astounding. Along with the lost jobs there was the idea in the shutting down of black schools that they were, in fact, inferior to the white schools, and the only way for black's to get a proper education was for them to learn from the whites.

It's very interesting to me, because while I understand how structurally it was probably easier for things to work out as they did, I never really considered the alternate ramifications that Greene explains here. Despite this I still have a hard time believing that the case was decided incorrectly, but it does make me consider the idae that maybe they should have spelled out in a little more detail how the desegregation would happen, and keep a closer eye on the process.

The Whole United States is Southern: Brown v. Board and the Mystification of Race

Payne's article actually explains a really interesting idea, and demonstrates one of the core reasons that the field of Law and Society exists at all. In his article Payne explains that many people, both at the time of the Brown v. Board decision, and now, believe(d) that the decision was the wrong way to go about ending racism. These people argue that a simple change in law cannot affect the way people think and feel about a subject, so to simply change a law in hopes of altering public opinion was wrong.

The reason I found this article most interesting was that I find myself actually torn as to what the better way is. On one hand, idealistically, of course it would be better if these thing could simply work themselves out interpersonally, and no laws were necessary to ensure justice was served. If this had been our means perhaps we wouldn't have a need for institutional policies that unfairly push opportunity for minorities in an effort to offset what has come to be seen as a natural inclination to racism. However, at the same time, this law does seem to have set things in motion, and blacks certainly meet less racism than they did 50 years ago, which is not to say that racism is gone. I guess part of me wonders though, could we have gotten here without the threat of laws?

Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?

Ellsworth's article discusses the processes that are gone through by the average jury and examines how true these are in practice to our ideal of due process. The study involves looking at several mock juries, and examining how they come to reach decisions.

The phases of this study I thought were very interesting, along with the analysis of each. The foreman selection process was kind of surprising to me, because I actually was unaware that it was so informal a process as it apparently is. It's really nothing more than somebody saying "I'll do it," and the others at the table accepting it. Then came the interesting part, where their actual deliberation was examined. It was interesting that while by and large there were no errors of fact among the jurors, there were often disagreements about how the law actually applied and interacted with the defendants and their cases.

While the discovery is interesting, I don't necessarily find it all that surprising, nor do I think it is necessarily helpful to actually changing the process in and of itself. Ellsworth offers little in the way of means to institute change.

The Role of the Jury in the Killing State

One thing struck me above all else in this article. This was the point Sarat made that prosecution attorneys insisted that jurors be shown brutal and visceral images and evidence evoking strong emotion in capital cases, however, there is no equivalent allowed for them to be able to see the brutality of the death penalty that they, themselves, are actually deciding to be someone's fate. It's a very interesting thought that jurors, the very people we put so much faith and responsibility on, on never really shown what exactly it is that they are choosing when they sentence someone to death.

Sarat seems to believe that this lack of exposure to the death penalty itself is by design. He explains that no such evidence is allowed in the courtroom by the defense. The defense is not allowed to actually make a contention that the penalty being served for a crime is actually more brutal than the crime it is punishing. Sarat also notes that jurors are far removed from the actually killing that they are sanctioning. They are not the ones flipping a switch or administering an injection. They also believe that there are failsafes such as appeals courts, where they can defer blaim should they have any attacks of conscious. I guess the biggest thing I got from the article was just that it's interesting too examine how much is done to make killing by the state an easier process.

Real Jurors' Attention to the "Off Stage" of Trials

In this article Rose, et al. examine the content of discussions made by jurors in civil cases. They look in these deliberations for examples of jurors looking to "off stage" behaviors, defined as anything in a courtroom or courthouse that takes place, but is not meant to be the jury's immediate focus at the given time, for reinforcement or contradiction of statements made in cases.

I actually was quite surprised that similar research hasn't been done before. As mentioned in the article there are manuals about how parties should act in order to best present themselves to juries. This manual covers situations both in and out of the courtroom, and both in and out of the spotlight. This clearly shows that there is a market for research in this field. Yet, no real empirical evidence exists to cooroborate this manual that many professionals apparently use.

That being said, I think the information presented was very interesting, however inconclusive. They say that most cases' deliberations were not focused on the off stage content, however, the amount of off stage content presentecd to juries is significantly less than the amount of material they receive in the courtroom to examine. There is also the idea that these off stage performances may prejudice a jury and skew their understanding of the way things may be unfolding as they happen in a courtroom. Just some more food for thought I guess.

The Impropriety of Plea Agreements: A Tale of Two Counties

David Lynch's article draws on his own personal experience as a public defender and an assistant district attorney in two different counties. He takes an insider's perspective at how simple it really could be to put more criminal cases in a courtroom rather than resorting to plea bargaining. Much of his evidence is anecdotal, however despite this, it does not sound as if it only occurs in the region he was working. The problems he discusses make sense that they could take place anywhere across America.

One anecdote he offers is his experience as a public defender bringing a case to trial. The judge wanted to postpone the trial for his own personal reasons. He inisisted that his client not be left in a jail for two months. The judge granted the trial, but was openly hostile to both the defendent and Lynch himself, eventually delivering both a guilty verdict, and a trumped up sentence.

He then offers a description of his move to be an ADA at another county. He explains that suddenly a trial wasn't such a scary thing, and even offers one anecdote, where the defense attorney actually turned out to be so afraid of goign to trial that after stubbornly refusing to bargain, he instantly transformed when he realized that a case was actually going to go before a jury.

I really liked this article. A lot. Lynch's accounts make a lot of sense, and are written in a very readable manner. They also explain what the system looks like from the inside, rather than the trumped up, overworked impression most lawyers portray. Lynch shows that a system that abolishes plea bargaining is not only feasible, but in his own experience worked out to the benefit of all involved. He seemed to get a greater satisfaction out of his work when he saw it through to the end, and there was much less anonymity between judges and lawyers who wanted a trial. The only question I have to raise is the one of how much his changed position between the counties altered his viewpoint. I understand that the statistics are factual either way, but it does seem that being on the prosecution end of things would inherently feel more fulfilling than being a public defender with openly hostile clients. This is just a small concern though, overall I still think his insights are incredibly valuable.

A Wake-Up Call from the Plea Bargaining Trenches

Schulhofer's article explains how plea-bargaining systems are an inherently unfair system. This is due to conflicts of interest on the parts of both prosecution and defense attorneys. Both parties are able to accomplish their "job" with minimal effort, and in a shorter amount of time than would be taken if all trials took place in the adversarial system.

I really liked the way this article was written. It was in clear, easy to understand language, and got right to the point. There was a very clear lack of unnecessary fluff. This strikes me as a very interesting subject that I would like to hear more about. The idea of abolishing plea-bargaining systems seems extreme, but according to the limited information presented here it sounds like it would be a much fairer system to the defendants, who currently are simply pushed to plead out. I guess the major question is: Is this encouragement in their best interest or the lawyers'?

Prosecutorial Discretion: An Examination of Substantial Assistance Departures in Federal Crack-Cocaine and Powder-Cocaine Cases

This article by Hartley, et al. takes a more in depth look at an issue that most of us have probably heard about in one way or another at this point in our lives: the disparity for sentencing guidelines between crack and powdered cocaine. There has been much contention that the reason for these difference is race related, because of who uses the drugs. Hartley takes a different approach, however. Rather than looking at the sentencing guidelines Hartley recognizes that there are loopholes to the mandatory minimum sentences, loopholes that judges and prosecutors are very familiar with. One loophole occurs if a defendant provides information that leads to the "prosecution and conviction of another offender." Hartley examines these cases and their frequency between the two drugs, and across race and gender lines.

The part of this article I actually found most interesting came in the beginning when they were discussing the amount of discretion that really has been placed in the hands of our prosecutors. They discuss the 1984 federal act under which judges were mandated minimum sentences for certain crimes. This act essentially took discretion away from the judges, and forced them to operate within a narrow set of guidelines. However, Hartley points out how there has been no such standarization for the prosecutors. The prosecutors are the ones who can decide what charge is applied to a case, the severity of the charge, and when it is appropriate for charges to be dismissed. To this list of discretions Hartley, et al. would also add the mitigation of sentences, such as in cases where the defendant provides useful information for another case.

What has essentially happened is the power that judges once had has been completely transferred over to the prosecutors, a party that one could argue is far less partial than a judge. The prosecutors have a stake in the number of convictions they attain, whereas the judge has more of a stake in justice. Knowing that the judges are held to minimum sentences the prosecutors can also adjust their charges in order to get the sentence that they would want for an individual. I guess it just seems a little scarier to see this power in a prosecutor's hands, rather than a judges.