By Paul Goldfinger
There were three of us in court today unofficially representing the citizens of Ocean Grove regarding the Parkview Inn case. There were two editors from Blogfinger and one concerned citizen. We sat together observing the court proceedings. One of us was a paralegal while the other two were newcomers to the court scene. We were among a handful of white people in the room. The majority were black.
You could easily divide the session into two parts, each quite different from the other. In the beginning we saw a parade of poor mostly black people who were before the judge because they had to answer a charge of not paying fines for a variety of reasons. Most of them testified on a TV screen broadcast from the Monmouth County Jail. None of them was represented by a lawyer, and every case was quickly decided by the judge who gave most a simple choice: pay the money or go to jail. For the few who pleaded not guilty, she offered them a public defender. The judge was flexible as she allowed many the chance to pay the fines over time, usually $50.00 every two weeks. But sitting there we got the impression that some of them could not keep their promise. It was ironic to hear the judge conclude each case by saying “Good luck.”
But when the Park View Inn case came up, the complexion of the scene changed dramatically. The lawyer for Neptune Township was an elegant gentleman in a three piece suit. The lawyer for the defense was a woman who sat next to her client. The judge went into private chambers to talk to the attorneys and then she came out and announced that the case would be postponed. Everyone involved in the Park View Inn case, including the three of us, was white.
So what can you conclude about this slice of life described above? Most of you are probably not surprised. This country has many problems having to do with poverty, justice, and race. I believe that most Americans want to see progress in these areas, but we differ sharply as to how to solve complicated social issues. Witnessing reality first hand is a good way to start seeking solutions.
Stephen,
I too value all sides of a vigorous debate. It is only thru honest dialogue, sans vitriol, that a consensus can be reached. Too bad the people in Washington can’t seem to learn from our example here. I look forward to future dialogues with you.
Respectfully,
Kilroy
WOW! 35 Comments! Now if everybody put as much thought into the Permit Parking issue a solution would be forthcoming in no time at all.
ken
Jerry and Kilroy, I value all sides of a debate and tip my hat to you both.
Stephen, “now there you go again” with the elitsim. As to the rules, I have already said, it isn’t rocket science as to how to stay out of court.
Carol, deep obeisance and a hearty cheer of HURRAH for your incisive and informed comments. Thank you.
That should read “I don’t mean any OF this to sound heartless”… I want a real keyboard again (sigh)
Stephen,
While your argument is well-reasoned, your presumption of my being a “well off” member of society is incorrect. I am, and have always been, working class at best. You also assume bias where there is none. To Karen and Kaycee’s points about the role that money plays with regard to one’s outcome in court, I reiterate my disdain for lawyers. Toward the end of my second post I state, “Lawyers are partly the reason that morality and legality seldom have anything to do with one another”. I am not defending the judicial system. I agree with the sentiment, though oft misconstrued, that “first we must kill all the lawyers” (Shakespeare -King Henry VI, part 2). If one reads Henry VI carefully, what Shakespeare actually said was, “If tyranny is to prevail, first, we must kill all the lawyers”. Shakespeare is in fact defending lawyers, but I digress. I’m speaking figuratively of course, I abhor violence. My intent was to simply point out the idea of “institutional racism” implied in the original editorial. When I mentioned “stealing cars”, I was echoing a post from Mary Beth in which she stated, “Get caught breaking into cars or committing another non-violent crime, and you’re remanded to the Monmouth County jail and hope that your family can post your bail and pay for a lawyer.” I do not make assumptions of innocence or guilt on the basis of race of economic status. Rather, I am an ardent believer that justice should be blind. I take a very binary view of the law. Right or wrong. Guilty or not guilty. Zero or one. Are there mitigating circumstances in some crimes? Of course. But if we allow ourselves to ignore one’s personal responsibility in one’s choice to commit a crime, then the law becomes meaningless. I also find the assertion that I’m “blaming the victim” offensive. Please explain how a criminal is somehow the victim. Was there absolutely no other choice open to them but to commit a crime? In the sociology of the Left, there is nothing the minority community does that is not ultimately the responsibility of malicious whites. Are we so caught up in the melodrama of victimization and racial oppression, that we find it natural to collude with demagogic race hustlers in supporting a fantasy in which minorities are no longer responsible for anything negative they do… even to themselves? The defense of criminals as a civil rights issue is part and parcel of the Left’s cry of “institutional racism”. If minority children grow up to become criminals, it must be the result of white oppression, of white perfidy. Doesn’t some responsibility fall on parents to educate their children, or to at least instill in them the idea of right from wrong? To your statement that, “people are essentially being imprisoned because they have to choose between feeding their children and paying fines”, I would counter that had they not broken the law in the first place they wouldn’t be facing the choice you pose. I don’t mean any this to sound heartless. Sometimes we all make bad decisions; I have my own sins to atone for as well… I have a long line of ex’s that will attest to that. The best we can hope for is to learn from our mistakes.
Lastly, I thank you for not pointing out my failure to proof my original post. ”Prima facie” is indeed what I meant. Trying to type on a touch-screen tablet will take some getting used to.
Respectfully,
Kilroy
I commend Stephen for his remarks.
I will not apologize for my belief that poor people are systematically victimized by a system that favors those with money and influence. Notice I did not say poor, black people. However it is difficult to dispute that blacks and Hispanics which together make up about 29% of this nation, yet are disproportionately poor. Both groups have a poverty rate of around 35% as compared to whites at 13%. This is fact. Further it is hard to deny that the stereotypes that exist about poor blacks and Hispanics further victimize those for whom that stereotype does not apply.
All over this county, this state and this country, being poor is a license for those with money and influence to take advantage of their situation to further diminish the opportunities for people trying to get out of their desperate situations and make a better life for themselves. For those who think it is just a matter of will, you should take a walk in someone else’s shoes and see how you like the fit.
If we truly believe that education is a great equalizer, why do we insist on funding education through property taxes which advantages affluent areas, rather than an egalitarian appropriation of tax dollars to every school district from a general fund.
Why is eminent domain used more often with poor people. Why are NIMBY projects like halfway houses and sewage treatment plants mostly placed in poor areas.
As to justice,please… any prosecutor will tell you it is easier to get a conviction on poor people because they don’t have the money to hire a lawyer and they often don’t have the money for bail. As to fines, people should not go to jail for failure to pay a fine. Smacks of 1800s justice and debtors prisons.
If you do not believe that black people get stopped more often, then you live in a fantasy land. I get stopped for failing to turn on a signal and I get off with a warning. A black woman does the same thing, she gets a ticket.
I’ve been a lawyer for over 20 years. I have never practiced in criminal law at either a municipal or county level. However, I have worked in tenancy, family, domestice violence, etc., here and in other counties. When I say the discrepancy of people “in the system” is not as large as you think it is, between black and white or any other color or nationality, it is true. It is all about the socio-economic background. Those people who can afford to pay for representation, do. Those who can’t either learn how to do it themselves or work with the assigned public defender or case worker. If they are aggressive, they can become their own advocate and do very well. I had the opportunity to go to Asbury Park Municipal Court last week on behalf of some friends for a matter that was being dismissed. It was my first time there. White or black or grey or green, the Judge was EXCELLENT. By that I mean willing to listen and take appropriate action in a compassionate manner. The prosecutor was there as well as the public defender. I happen to know the public defender personally and didn’t know he was the public defender for Asbury. Let me say that anyone who opted for an Attorney in Asbury was given excellent legal services from an experienced, caring practitioner. Sometimes the system works even for those who can’t afford it, because of the people who are hired on their behalf. Just an observation. All the best…
Jerry, your supercilious list of rules is extremely naive. Stay out of trouble? Don’t do drugs? What are you? A Jesuit priest living in a remote abbey in the Alps. Or perhaps you’re stuck in the year 1955. Give me a break. And yes, many perpetrators are victims, victimized by racist cops, racist bureaucracy and an overarching hegemonic system whereby money and color (white) has the preponderance of advantages. I’m not an elitist, Jerry, just a realist, and yes, a humanist too. You should try it for a change.
“is that you clearly don’t understand the complexities of race in this country” illustrates a belief that someone might just be better than another.
Poor choice of words by Stephen, IMHO
Jerry: Can you define “elitism” for us?
Thanks, Paul
So, what’s the solution to all of this?
1) Stay out of trouble
2) Don’t do drugs, don’t steal cars, ect
3) Stay in school
4) Work to better yourself so that you have a job where you can afford a better lawyer if and when needed
5) Stop making perpetrators the victims, hold them accountable
And don’t tell me the “system” holds down people from bettering themselves. There is NOTHING in the US Constitituion or the “Book Of Life” that guarantees a perfect life. What a shock that is to folks that just don’t realize that there are bad and evil people in the world, and there is a certain justice that must come due
Besides, there are countless thousands upon thousands of wonderful stories where people born into the poorest of poor, or down on their luck bootstrapped their way to the top.
Careful Stephen, your elitism is showing.
As to being in jail for “fines they can not afford,” simply go back to rule #1, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
IF YOU DON’T GET IN TROUBLE, take the right path; you don’t put yourself in positions of even “innocuous situations.” Come on folks, this isn’t rocket science.
Quit trying to make victims out of people who break the law.
So many opinions on personal responsibiliity, justice, having (or not having) money….life’s a bitch, not much is fair about it. I learned something about this 60+ years ago while in college. The accounting majors were to get jobs (internships) with acct. firms in NYC the summer between jr. and senior year. In my class was one young man on a scholastic scholarship who had been to several interviews but not offered a job. It took the personal intervention of the dean to call a top accounting firm officer and embarrass them into hiring this kid. What was wrong with him that no job was offered? He was BLACK and all the accountants were WHITE in those days. What has changed since then? Not that much from what I read.
ken.
Kilroy, my prima facie impression of your original comment is that you clearly don’t understand the complexities of race in this country, especially in poor neighbohorhoods. Your typically right of center nostrum about people rising above their circumstances is specious at best. Poverty, particularly for poor blacks in this country is a vicious cycle, where one generation’s disadvantages, feed into and amplify the next’s. It is not as simple as pulling up the old bootstraps and voila you’ve got the American dream. Most of the people in jail regarding this particular editorial are there for fines they cannot afford to pay. No one mentioned stealing a car as you so biasedly stated. The fact is that there is an inherent imbalance in this country when people are essentially being imprisoned because they have to choose between feeding their children and paying fines for assorted legal pecadilloes. It is a socioeconomic problem and yes, unfortunately, a racial one, whereby poor blacks get sucked into this legal vortex of a system, not because they are criminals, but because they are without the means (viz…money) to get themselves out of otherwise relatively innocuous situations that the better off, like yourself, I presume, could easily extricate themselves from without much ado. Molehills quickly become mountains when a judge tells someone who’s living on public assistance, ‘fail to pay, then in jail you stay’. Of course, many of these human beings (not car thieves) are parents and of course, speaking of vicious cycles, what does it do to a child who witnesses their parent(s) being immured in a prison cell and who attends to that child’s well being and proper development while their father or mother is being shunted into oblivion by a jaded and uncaring system? Riddle me that, Batman. Alas, what happens, is the situation persists until a more egalitarian system of checks and balances is put into place and the ravages of poor communities (ie black communities in particular) are given their proper due, attention and intervention. Blaming the victim is an old bully’s tactic that only creates more divisiveness and disempowers those who are already disempowered while empowering those who already have too much power and handle it poorly at that.
Kaycee, I think your points go beyond the criminal system. When you’re buying a house, probating a will, straightening out issues with the IRS or dealing with an on-the-job or chronic disability application, the better representation you can afford, usually the better the outcome of your situation. As the chasm between the financial haves and have-nots grows (regardless of race), there’s a lot of people who are facing down complicated legal situations armed only with internet advice whose lives will be negatively impacted.
Kilroy, I have to agree with you about people getting themselves into the “system”. Certainly makes sense to advise someone to abstain from committing a crime so they can avoid being caught up in our legal system. But there is a truth to be reckoned with: money buys lawyers. Whether the lawyer is Clarence Darrow or Ima Shyster having one will help you in dealing with the prosecutor and the judge. Having a good one will strongly influence the outcome of your case. For some unfortunate souls, in criminal cases, it can mean the difference between an excessive sentence, even death, or a more reasonable and lenient sentence. Let’s leave race and class out of this and just talk money. Remember OJ? He had money. Money is the determining factor. Gotti? The velcro Don. He had money. Eventually even that wasn’t enough. But money talks. It spells the difference between a $150 an hour mouthpiece and a $400 an hour one. Let’s try to imagine who would be more persuasive, shall we. The societal question is who has more money or access to accumulating it in case some day they need to pay a lawyer. That is too complex a question for this discussion but I stand by my assertion that if you can pay for a good lawyer your odds of prevailing in court are greatly improved.
Jerry, I agree. Personal responsibility is at the core of every court case.
Wandering slightly off the topic path, I’m looking forward to a series starting in mid-February on Investigation Discovery (channel 171 on Cabalvision) which teams up a documentary filmmaker and an FBI civil-rights cold case investigator. They’re revisiting crimes committed during the civil rights movement that were never solved and looking for new evidence.
Ken,
I sincerely apologize, my comment was meant for Kilroy!
Karen
“Drugs and alcohol are the main reasons people interact with the court system, at least at the municipal level,” Mary Beth said.
But, as Kilroy talked about, “don’t do the crime unless you are prepared to do the time.”
It’s STILL a matter of personal responsibility, either to avoid poor choices or to get yourself straight. it’s not society’s problem to fix people’s bad decisions. There comes a time when people come to a fork in the road.
Choose wisely and you will almost never have to worry about being in a situation where you “don’t have representation” no matter what the color of your skin.
Cascading effects happen with just one poor decision.
I’m going to agree that the best way to avoid needing a criminal defense lawyer is to not commit a crime. However, there are those in this world, of all races, who either by poor judgment or lack thereof, or in the throes of addiction, make the decisions that land them in that position.
Eloise, I know exactly what you’re talking about and where, and it’s absolutely reprehensible and well-known throughout the county.
Drugs and alcohol are the main reasons people interact with the court system, at least at the municipal level. Mix those two with motor vehicle violations, domestic violence, physical altercations with non-family members, and robberies and burglaries committed to obtain more drugs and alcohol or money to procure them, and you have the majority of Neptune’s court docket. It’s a vicious cycle.
Karen, You have badly misread my comment. I noted that some comments represent a concern about the issue blogfiner raised while others show a lack of concern.
I did not express my opinion. BUT, let there be no doubt that: money talks, better yet…money SHOUTS!
KEN
Cthulu, with respect… I am neither righteous nor indignant. I’m simply stating the fact that if one wishes to stay out of the judicial system, one should not violate the law. I also stand by my assertion that by absolving someone of their culpability in their crime, the assumption is then that they are not responsible for their actions due to socio-economic or racial reasons. If we are to truly judge each other on the content of our character, then we must also negate any excuse for criminality based on anything other than some people are simply criminals. I am grateful for the acknowledgement of our Rights as laid out by the Founders, but not because they were granted to me. No one can grant Rights. The Constitution only acknowledges our Rights and puts limits on what the government can do in light thereof.
To your comment that I should be grateful for lawyers… I would have to say NO. Lawyers are partly the reason that morality and legality seldom have anything to do with one another.
Respectfully,
Kilroy
Ken,
Are there no workhouses? Are there no poor houses? Surely our society has all types of people who commit crimes, both the poor and the well off, and our laws prohibit illegal behaviour. The point was that the poor have less access to the type of legal assistance where money buys less accountability for the crime.
Kilroy, if it was that simple we wouldn’t need a lawyers or a Bill of Rights. You should be grateful for both.
But then again, you know as well as everyone else that morality does not equal legality nor do either equal good decisions or common sense.
The righteous indignation displayed at this post is disturbing, and very, very telling.
Here is a simple idea…. How about NOT breaking the law? I don’t think that is too hard a concept. Don’t want to go to jail? Try not stealing a car. The math on this seems pretty easy. The whole idea of “have & have not” is flawed prima facia. You have the freedom to pursue whatever course you want, but equal outcome is not a guarantee. What this editorial does, is perpetuate the idea of ‘vicitimization”. This assumes that based on race, class, or economic status, that one is incapable of personal responsibility. It also precludes the idea that one can rise above one’s circumstance. That way of thinking is inherently prejudicial. Is the legal system perfect? No. But blaming “the system” for the criminals that are caught up in it, because they broke the law, is not the way to fix it.
Blogfinger, The varied responses appear to represent the state of, or lack of, concern about the issue you have (bravely in my opinion) raised.
ken
Someone sent me an email questioning the purpose of this editorial. Here is my response to that person:
This editorial is what I said it is–a slice of life. I observed contrasting scenarios which were vivid and so I wanted to describe them. I was not making any specific point other than to depict reality.
I hoped that sharing that reality might provoke people to think about the racial divide in this country as revealed in this session of municipal court. A person could witness similarly striking differences in other venues such as going into an office building where the executives are white while the maintenance people are black.
Witnessing such contrasts in the courtroom might make people wonder why so many of those who experience the most demeaning aspects of our judicial system are poor blacks while so many who get to participate in the privileged exercise of the law are advantaged whites. I did not think that the contrasting courtroom scenarios were miscarriages of justice; everything was done properly, but why do so many blacks wind up at the bottom?
So my point was that seeing our divided society in action, as in this courtroom, could perhaps stimulate people to consider the issues of race, poverty and justice in our society. My goal was to open up thought and discussion. I make no pretense about offering solutions in this piece.
This is about the dearth of discussion regarding these issues. No one ever mentions these things on our blog. Even the president of the United States avoids the subject. The responses here have been varied and interesting, and that was my goal.
Sal. This is what our policy says, “we will draw a line at accusations about the motives and/or character of a person or group.” I don’t recall the wording of your original comment about Mr. Chambers, but your statement above does not question Mr. Chamber’s motives or character, so I have posted it. Thank you for participating in our on-line dialogues. Paul
Why Mary Beth?
Because I saw no need to bring color into the discussion.
Mary Beth,
Thank you for articulating what I’ve been thinking but have had trouble expressing. From a recent Kafkaesque experience in a nearby municipal court (i.e., not Neptune!) for a “questionable” traffic violation, I truly believe one gets the justice one pays for. In my case, I was fortunate enough to have the means to hire an attorney. Looking around the courtroom and overhearing pieces of conversations from people waiting their turn in front of the judge, I doubt that many of these folks had a similar advantage.
Tom,
Are you asking which group can afford to see a health care professional?
Mary Beth… if the article was written without stating the color of the litigants I would tend to agree with you. However, by making this a black / white issue to further drive a wedge between the haves (regardless of color) and the have not’s seems pointless. Medical care is available to anyone that walks in to the Booker facility, located on West Lake Avenue. Let’s hope that the residents currently without coverage realize they can get care.
Mr. Blogfinger, if you are going to edit my comments as you did earlier please do not post it at all. I did not say anything untoward towards Mr. Chambers and anyone in town knows he costs taxpayers tens, if not hundreds, of thousands in legal fees on fruitless land use lawsuits.
“Connecting the dots” with another popular and important Blogfinger discussion, I couldn’t help but wonder what percentage of the individuals in the first group had seen a health care professional of any kind in the past year/decade/at all?
Really, Jerry? Why is noticing the chasm between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in the justice system worthless? In our system, you get the best justice you can afford. Get caught breaking into cars or committing another non-violent crime, and you’re remanded to the Monmouth County jail and hope that your family can post your bail and pay for a lawyer. Own a building that is an eyesore and potential danger to the community, flaunt previous agreements with the court to make repairs, and because you have a private lawyer, you walk out of court. To me, that’s the point of the article. I could be missing the point completely, but I think the author was trying to point out that your ultimate outcome in a court case comes down to being able to afford private legal representation, which is beyond the reach of many with cases waiting to be tried.
And as for being pulled down, this piece was written by one of the owners of this site, and they may post what they please. We can just skip over it if it offends or doesn’t interest us.
This so called “editorial” is an embarrassement and should be pulled down. One issue has nothing to do with the other and the rest is just worthless to comment on.