Gina Harris's Blog, page 186

Lessons from Judge Judy - Where we disagree

Yes, Judge Judy is often harsh with the people in her courtroom. Usually it is amusing, and there is a sense that they deserve it. You have people refusing to give a straight answer, and it is still clear that they are not good people, and have not been at all responsible or even minimally considerate of others. As often as she has to deal with people like that, and reach some resolution with them, well, I would get cranky too.
Sometimes though there are points where I feel the contempt is not completely deserved. Maybe they have made bad choices, but there are circumstances where they are not that surprising. She really looks down on state assistance, but those programs serve purposes. That's not saying that they are immune to abuse, or that the people who are likely to abuse such programs might not be the type do other things that would get them on the show, but I sense an unnecessary level of prejudice on her part.
I guess the short way of saying it is that she comes across as politically conservative.
It makes sense. We have covered this before, but if the system works for you, you are more likely to be conservative. The system has been good to her. That doesn't mean that there was no hard work or determination involved on her part. I admire her, she had a good legal career before the show, and I think she was a great find for the show. I do think, and this probably goes back to that normal bias in one's own favor, that it is easy to think that the good things that come to you are totally deserved, and that other people's problems and shortcomings are totally deserved, when that may not be the case.
I have been thinking about that more because of a few people whose criminal charges came up in the case of dealing with the civil suits. Some have accepted pleas, and that is taken as proof of guilt despite their protestations of innocence.
I know that some of them, and probably even most of them, did in fact do the things that they pled to. Because of the things that you have to swear to there, and she has referenced it, technically no one should accept a guilty plea unless they actually did it. You have to confirm that you haven't been coerced, and you understand what you are doing, and similar statements.
It seems like a way of preventing any innocent person from ever losing their chance to be cleared by a jury, so it should be a good thing. For an innocent person who has no faith in the system, and no reason to have faith in the system, it's pretty cruel. If you are scared and desperate, is that not coercion? Sure, you can take your chances, but what are your chances?
I am thinking about one of the examples in The New Jim Crow. She was taken up in a neighborhood sting, she had no drugs, but she was going to be held until trial if she pled innocent, and she had children to get home too. She pled guilty, and then for most of the people who were being held the charges were dropped, but it was too late for her.
I am thinking of Marissa Alexander agreeing to a plea deal. Yes, she could have made a good case for defense, and some people were disappointed in her for accepting the plea, but she was looking at sixty years, and she didn't even injure anyone!
I am thinking about Candice Anderson who pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide because she lost control of the car and her boyfriend died. She didn't think she had been negligent, but what other explanation could there be? Only a faulty ignition switch, which GM knew about, because they had reviewed her case five months before she entered the guilty plea, but they didn't tell anyone until they had no choice, years later, after her parents liquidated their 401K and she had paid fines and restitution.
And of course I remember Josh Marquis that night in Powells. Actually, I'm just going to quote myself:
"Marquis never came right out and said that he still thought the guy was guilty, but there were different points that he raised that would lead one to believe so. For example, the way this man, Edward Lee Elmore, got out of prison was that after the most recent conviction was overturned, he entered a plea that is not accepting guilt but not denying it either, and Marquis' point was now that he has a good lawyer, and he would certainly not be sentenced to anything worse than time served, why not go for it and prove innocence? Well, from the point of view of the legal team, the prosecution played dirty three times in a row, and they did not want to risk it again, and maybe Elmore would just like to be out after 28 years in jail."
Well if you were really innocent you'd risk it. Would you?
The Innocence Project keeps clearing more people, and some of them have to wait a long time.
Maybe we can't expect the legal system to be perfect, but it feels like we have set our expectations too low. A lot of the flaws have to do with economics, and a lot of them have to do with race. We have to face those things if we want the word "justice" to have any meaning at all.
Related links:
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/07/and-thats-when-i-gave-up-on-death.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/business/woman-cleared-in-death-caused-by-gms-faulty-ignition-switch.html

More thoughts from Judge Judy - Legal shortcomings

Yesterday I referred to being able to relate a story without using hearsay, but there is also a lot to be said for just being able to tell a story clearly. It is common that the judge will ask one simple question, and the person seems completely unable to give a simple answer.
There are several reasons for that. Sometimes people do not grasp the specific question. That can be partly nerves, which is understandable, or it can be issues with speaking and thinking clearly, which is sad and will affect them in other circumstances.
Sometimes the story is overly rehearsed. Asking the specific question disrupts the narrative, which is useful for getting to the truth.
(I want to do a series of posts on things everyone should be able to communicate someday.)
Along those lines, people will often feel the need to get certain points across that show that they are good, and were doing the right thing, and that the other person is bad, and was clearly in the wrong, though those issues often have nothing to do with the law. There are people who are being deceitful here, whether it is outright lying or somewhat unconscious serving of the normal bias in their own favor. There is something else I see, though, and it makes me kind of sad so I wanted to address that.
Often, the events that get people into court have been very emotional. There is anger and grief and all of these messy emotions that the people feel a need to express, but the court is there for the law.
The emotions are not law. They want to have their say, but it doesn't really belong in the courtroom, and there is frustration there. Even if their suit is successful, it may not bring closure.
One factor there is that not everything is a legal matter, and that's a good thing. It would be horribly burdensome to have every bit of minutiae in our lives dictated by law. I think it is reasonable that there can be things that are unethical and immoral but nonetheless legal. That ultimately works best. At the same time, if not all grievances can be dealt with by law, then there have to be other remedies for dealing with them.
So, if you adored someone, and you thought they adored you, and in the process they got a lot of money out of you but there was never any promise to repay, you have been burned. The person who burned you may be manipulative, exploiting scum, but that is not illegal. A lawsuit will not help, but other things might.
Some therapy might, not just for rediscovering your worth, but perhaps for identifying bad patterns and changing them. Assertiveness training might help. Taking action to strengthen your financial position might help. The person who hurt you may not be cooperating, but there is a lot that can be done with you, and that's work looking at. A lot of my healing comes from my faith, so don't rule that out.
Law is important, but it's not everything, and it's important to understand the boundaries.

Valuable lessons from Judge Judy

When I was writing about television I forgot to mention another show my family often watches together. We often tune in to Judge Judy.
At first the show turned me off. Not only could the judge herself be really rude, but so many of the people involved in the suits were really vile. I did eventually notice that sometimes she was very patient, and that there was a pattern to her harshness.
I really started to feel differently when I heard something on the radio. I don't remember who was talking, but it related to psychology. The guest was talking about how people are biased in their own favor. Perhaps you have borrowed money and not paid it back, but in your mind you may feel like you paid more than you did, or you gave the equivalent value in some other way, or their was some reason why your failure to repay was justified. I realized that I was seeing that every time I watched.
Maybe at that point I started viewing watching the show as a course in sociology, but I now see it as even more valuable for instruction in law and civics. Many things come up that seem like they should be obvious, but apparently they aren't.
One is the importance of documentation. If you are going to court, and it will be important to show that you received or paid a sum, get proof of that. Canceled checks can be obtained, or bank statements. That is one reason why having a bank account is valuable, though we are going to get back to that in a different post.
If you do not have the option of using checks or electronic transactions that leave a record, get a receipt acknowledging payment. It doesn't have to be paper; text and e-mail messages have been used as proof.
There are other kinds of documentation, like photo records. These can be especially helpful with property rentals. If there are damages, there should be pictures of before and after, and they should be dated. Maybe nothing will go wrong, but if something comes up, you can't go back in time and take the before pictures. Knowing what precautions to take may just make you more aware of things in general, which has many benefits.
If someone is borrowing money from you, and agreeing to pay it back, get it in writing before you give the money. Sometimes a verbal agreement can be demonstrated after the fact, and that's helpful, but it is much better to get it spelled out before. Remember, a lot of people who agreed to pay it back at the beginning later feel that repayment is not necessary. If that can happen, someone doesn't want to sign at the time of the loan is sending up a red flag.
If someone agreed to pay you back, and then the payments never start, don't keep waiting to bring action. That waiting can be taken as a sign that you never expected repayment previously, and that maybe now it is just retaliation. (A lot of these cases involve people who were once a couple but no longer are.) Justice delayed is justice denied.
That doesn't mean that payback on a loan needs to start immediately. There may be reasons why you agree that no payments will happen for six months, or until a new job is started, or some event that relates to the ability of the debtor to repay the loan. Once you are thinking in those terms, it is easy for that to be spelled out in a written agreement, and then both sides get a copy, and it takes away ambiguity. It doesn't eliminate all potential difficulties, but it eliminates some.
Cases can also be used to demonstrate hearsay laws - when hearsay might be acceptable, and how to relate an incident without relying on hearsay, and when you really need a witness to be present.
The show could certainly be valuable for demonstrating proper courtroom decorum, which a lot of people seem to have no idea on anymore.
Yes, the show is for entertainment, but it can have educational value, and being entertaining is a nice trait when trying to educate. I think there is some potential there.
(I am aware that some people question whether the show is real. The show itself admits that it is edited, which would be necessary, and is not surprising at all. I will also say that I know at least one person who has been on it, and my sister has a coworker who knows two people who have been on it, so yeah, it appears to be real.)