This judge must truly have been fed up when he decided to kick white lawyers out of his court room so that he could lecture the black defendants on their wayward lifestyles.
On CNN, the judge, Marvin Arrington, had this to say:
I came out and saw the defendants, and it was about 99.9 percent Afro-Americans, and at some point in time, I excused some lawyers — most of them white — and said to the young people in here, ‘What in the world are you doing with your lives?’
More from Arrington:
“I didn’t want them to think I was talking down to them; trying to embarrass them or insult them; be derogatory toward them,” said Arrington, explaining his decision to send the white lawyers out of the courtroom, “and I was just saying, ‘Please get yourself together.’” [Source: WSJ]
In his apology, Arrington made a good point that he should be giving this talk to everyone–not just Blacks. But, you know, I can’t get too mad at him for what he did. How ’bout you? Was he wrong for this?
**Thanks to E for sending this my way**
8 responses so far ↓
1
E
// Apr 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm
This one’s tough Mike. We are talking about law here. As a Judge, Arrington (whom I respect) is an umpire. His role is to supervise and administer the rules of Justice. He can’t root for one team over the other, and he can’t provide assistance to any side.
It was best expressed in Aristotles, “Politics,” that ‘Law is wisdmon without desire.’ As such, injecting our personal feelings, biases, and passions sullies the just application of the law.
As a litigator, I too get frustrated when I (far too often) walk into a Court room and see that almost every single defendant is a young black man. I share Judge Arrington’s angst and desperation. However, I, like Judge Arrington, have a law degree and not a social work degree. As a Judge, he is to guarantee that all are equally treated, regardless of the personal hardship it brings. He could have counseled the defendants in front of everyone in the Court room, or he could have devoted his time to a youth program, outside of the bench, to help mitigate the flow of black defendants in our courts.
I understood Arrington’s intent, but the forum, unfortunately, was not appropriate.
2
Mike
// Apr 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm
E, I’m in full agreement with you. Given his role, he should not have done this in the way he did. Yet, I have a lot of sympathy for his actions which is why it’s hard for me to come down hard on the man.
However, I do hope that Arrington directs his power, concern, and frustration in a more productive way because I’m willing to bet that lecturing some brothers and sisters in court has little impact on their subsequent behavior.
3
L
// Apr 3, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Roberts’s invocation of the role of judges as umpires is flawed and incomplete, and so is yours, E. As much as it is necessary to pretend that the people who comprise our government –judges among them–are impervious to human instincts (good and bad), they are not. Nor should they be.
As humans, we are susceptible to any manner of prejudice, affliction, affinity, etc. We take that stuff with us: to church, to our jobs, on the bus, on the court, to the bedroom. We need to accept that.
Say an umpire thinks there are too many homeruns in baseball anymore. He doesn’t think that personal opinion affects how he calls balls and strikes, but that subtle value judgment may encourage him to favor “low” strikes (which are less likely to be hit in the air and out of a ballpark) to “high” strikes (which are more likely to go into the stands in center field). He is biased, but unaware. I would much rather have an umpire aware of the bias (and take effort to guard against it) than have him function under the fantasy that he is a machine because he has a breast plate and helmet (or a robe and gavel).
Moreover, if umpires are simply there to apply the written rules of the game to the unique action on the field as it unfolds, why might I think a certain pitch a strike and another umpire call the same pitch a ball? When we strip our judges of their humanity–completely–we are not a society of laws; we are society of rules. The fundamental difference between rules and laws is the injection of human deliberation in the latter and its lack in the former. This is most telling in the criminal sentencing context. We went to a “rule-based” system in the 1980s (the Sentencing Guidelines, which were rules), but those Guidelines, as applied, have been found unconstitutional simply because they did not afford judges the ability to exercise their PERSONAL discretion in imposing sentences.
My dad was before a judge when he was 17 for a pretty serious offense. The judge lectured him and jailed him until he could figure out what to do with him. Stuck, he had my grandmother bring my dad’s most recent report card to the courthouse; it was the only thing he could think that would determine whether he was destined to be a crook, or whether there might be some hope for him. The judge was shocked to see that my grandmother had kept and brought all of my dad’s report cards from 1st grade on. He was even more shocked when he observed that my dad had never earned anything lower than A. He “sentenced” my dad to the Army recruiters office rather than jail, requiring him to serve at least three years. He served 25 and was the first black man in the nation’s history to graduate from Officer’s Training School. He served three tours in Vietnam, supervising thousands of troops (in the 1960s and 70s). He retired a rank below General. He went back to college (full time) at 40, and got his MBA at 45.
Ball or strike?
4
E
// Apr 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm
L., In response to your penultimate question (Shout Out to the 12th Letter), I must answer that it is undoubtedly a STRIKE.
A learned friend of mine, once said of Justice Robert’s Court, that “In fact, I think the Roberts court will do more for blacks than the esteemed Warren era ever could: it will get us out of the courtroom and onto the streets and into city hall. That’s where the real fight is.”
I did, and continue to agree with the preceding characterization of Roberts who indeed famously declared that the role of Judges in our justice system is “to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
L., no judge is without preconceived notions and biases. Judges are human, and not machines, and as such one would be a fool to think that their personal biases do not influence the manner in which they perceive a case. Nevertheless, one would also be foolish to believe that the correct manner to “judge” a case is to inject personal biases. Where a black Judge may understand the nuances in black culture that may have lead to a bright young black man appearing before him on a criminal matter, this knowledge should not be substituted for the role of the private lawyer (or public defender) whose role it is to zealously advocate on behalf of that bright young black man to prove that his case can be distinguished from the cases for which the statute mandates a harsh punishment.
I enjoyed and appreciated the story of how the Judge in your father’s case took the extra step and made a difference in his life. That Judge did a great deed. However, save for the inclusion of a Judge, that story is far different than what occurred in Judge Arrington’s Court.
I answered your story be calling it a STRIKE, because you committed what my Intellectual History professor taught was the logical fallacy of ‘Argumentum Ad Misericordiam’. This occurs in debates where one appeals to emotion in order to confuse and misdirect the subject at hand. Let me explain.
Missing from your story is information such as: whether your father’s Judge was black and removed everyone of the Caucasian race from his courtroom. If Judge Arrington scolded the young black man before him (as I’ve seen many black Judges do) in front of everyone in the courtroom, there would not be any attention from CNN. Your father’s judge, used mitigating evidence (the report cards) to weigh his sentencing. Perfectly legal, and within the rules. This is apples and oranges.
Judge Arrington’s actions, while well intentioned, was wrong for a Judge to do. When Judges traverse outside the ambit of their roles as umpires of the judicial process, we rob our people of the insight and compulsion to take on the “real fight.” And as my very good friend once counseled me, pounding the pavement and influencing our elected representative at, for example, the mayors and congressional offices, is where indeed the “real fight” to save our people is.
5
L
// Apr 4, 2008 at 4:35 pm
The judge was white. I mean, this was the 1950s in New Jerusalem we’re talking here (shout out to Lauren Hill, before the breakdowns). And I don’t disagree that Arrington’s conduct was beyond the pale. However, I do take exception to Roberts’s metaphor. The fight for blacks is on the streets and not the courtroom. But, judges as impartial arbiters of laws is a fiction we should be dealing with honestly, particularly in the context of criminal law. On that point, my intention was not to inject emotion into the debate as a rhetorical tool, but to use the story as an exemplar of the variant calculus that goes into judging people under the laws. That calculus, so long as it is done by people, is susceptible to human foibles, proclivities, and prejudice; for better or worse. Arrington wasn’t applying the law at all, so you’re right to call a foul in the comparison. My comment, however, had moved beyond him to your analogy.
6
E
// Apr 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,…I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability.”
Roberts conclued, “And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” By saying that he will “remember” that he’s the umpire, Roberts acknowledges that human beings, as you rightly noted “are susceptible to any manner of prejudice, affliction [and] affinity.
There is indeed a calculus that goes into judging people. However, under the law, the calculus that goes into sentencing people takes into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The Judge’s role is to weigh them appropriately as they are presented.
My friend, I believe (Shout out to Sounds of Blackness) that your criticism of Roberts is misplaced.
7
L
// Apr 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“Weigh them appropriately,” you say. My point exactly.
8
Mike
// Apr 4, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The fact that judges and human beings are partial is a given. I have no expectations of judges losing their biases. What I do expect is for them and others of great influence (e.g. teachers) to have some insight of these biases and to do their best to ward against them in an effort to strive for the elusive ideal of absolute fairness (L, you spoke to this). When they inevitably stray from these ideals, it’s their job to recognize it as such, learn from it, and correct their action (as Arrington did).
I agree with E that there is nothing wrong with a judge living by Robert’s standard of “calling balls and strikes.” It is good for people in such a position to have an idea of perfection in mind to continually reach towards. This is analogous to the Christian striving to be like Jesus.
Leave a Comment