Judicial Activism or not? Beats The Hell Out of Me

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Judge's sentence: Church or jail
Man accused of racial slurs, threatening cabbie agrees to attend predominantly black service

By Dan Horn
Enquirer staff writer

A judge gave Brett Haines a choice Friday: Go to jail or go to church.

The Anderson Township man, convicted of disorderly conduct, immediately chose six weeks of Sunday worship over 30 days in the Hamilton County Justice Center.

But there's a catch.

Haines, who was accused of using racial slurs and threatening a black cab driver, must attend services at a predominantly black church.

"It seems readily apparent to me that you don't like black people," Judge William Mallory Jr. told Haines. "That's OK with me. But you have to understand that you are at the whim and authority of a black judge."

That's when Mallory offered church as an alternative sentence, an option he said might broaden Haines' cultural awareness.

"If you want to get out of jail, you're going to have to raise your black consciousness," the judge said.

Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining a separation between church and state, so he asked Haines whether the option would offend his beliefs. Haines said he was not a church-goer, but would like to give it a try.

"Absolutely," he said when given the choice.

His lawyer, Dennis Deters, said his client told him that the sentence might do him some good, and assistant prosecutor Kirstin Fullen raised no objection.

She said Haines, 36, was arrested Nov. 26 in Newtown after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife.

Fullen said the intoxicated Haines threatened to punch Wilson, used racial slurs and said he hated black people.

Mallory told Haines he must attend six consecutive Sunday services, starting this Sunday, and get the minister to sign a church program to prove he was there.

Wilson said he hoped the sentence would work, but he would have preferred Haines serve his 30 days.

"Church don't change everybody," he said.
Click to expand...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/NEWS01/601140399

It's a unique suggestion, which, if church was the only sentence provided, would clearly be what many decry as "judicial activism."

But, the judge did put an offer on the table to avoid such a sentence entirely, and serve a more "traditional" sentence. I could see how you might argue that only a fool would choose jail; at any rate, while this is certainly an interesting sentence, is it activism? Why or why not?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Any sentence other than jail time, fines, or rehab is judicial activism.[/QUOTE]
Even in the presence of an option of a traditional versus nontraditional sentence?
 
No, but poor sentencing with good intentions. For reasons you mentioned I'm concerned this might infringe on separation of church and state, and jail or church isn't really an option and virtually all but the most ardent anti (whatever church) people will take.

There is a significant difference between a judge saying "attend church" and "attend a black church", since we are dealing with a white racist and it is probably difficult to find an environment where the guy can be surrounded by blacks (can you think of an alternative that isn't a black only event?). But its still too close for my tastes.

Though I wonder what benefit the alternative would have. The guy was drunk when he did this (ie. less likely to mask his opinions), and he would be sentenced by a black judge. Seems like his racism could only increase, or stay the same at best.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No, but poor sentencing with good intentions. For reasons you mentioned I'm concerned this might infringe on separation of church and state, and jail or church isn't really an option and virtually all but the most ardent anti (whatever church) people will take.

There is a significant difference between a judge saying "attend church" and "attend a black church", since we are dealing with a white racist and it is probably difficult to find an environment where the guy can be surrounded by blacks (can you think of an alternative that isn't a black only event?). But its still too close for my tastes.[/quote]

Well, Cincinnati's pretty segregated, save for the art nerds and junkies, who tend to live in the downtown proper (where the urban poor minorities are concentrated; other than that, there is one integrated middle-class urban neighborhood, a few middle/working class integrated neighborhoods (just south of Cincy in Newport - where I live - and Covington, Kentucky)). I lived in that neighborhood of Cincy (Over-the-Rhine) for 1.5 years, and I could certainly see this person being given community service cleaning up that neighborhood (both because it is fucking filthy, and because every saturday the community service orange vested people would clean up. However, sweeping a dirty street of trash won't do anything to change this man's mind (and, if that's the goal, is that in itself activism?). Going to church, however, would put him in a social environment where he has to interact with other people. I think the judge hopes that the church, being a church after all, will try to welcome him in/forgive him/be kind to him.

Though I wonder what benefit the alternative would have. The guy was drunk when he did this (ie. less likely to mask his opinions), and he would be sentenced by a black judge. Seems like his racism could only increase, or stay the same at best.
Click to expand...

I think I follow your logic, but I also consider the church option to be the more lenient of the two. If he had "the book" thrown at him, I could see how it might lead him to reaffirm his racism. Being given the much more lenient option of attending church (irrespective of activism) provides an avenue for rehabilitation.
 
Trying to rehabilitate people seems more a form of social activism. That is not alien to our justice system, though not central either as I would prefer.

Considering this is a situation that often may result in a slap on the wrist, a real punishment isn't necessarily required (unless the threat is more serious than the article seems to suggest). If the guy had robbed a store because of his racism then yes, simply attending church for 6 weeks would be judicial activism since the judge decides that an attempt at rehabilitation (which he himself said may not work) overrides any other factors. It throws out the more traditional "jail him to make a point" argument, and harms the victim as well, since he had to deal with the likely fear and trauma of a robbery and the guy who did it wasn't really even pushed. It really would indicate that the judge is implementing his opinion of what has greater social good and that he is overriding the typical standards of justice. But considering its a low level crime, where there is often much leeway, I don't think it really qualifies. Now, again, if it was just church because "church makes you a better person" then yes. But it seems the central point is getting him around black people who can be viewed positively, and not church itself.
 
He should have gotten community service in a black neighborhood. Attending black church is a reward, since it's nearly as entertaining as the black church at the beginning of the Blues Brothers. More like going to the circus or a concert, really. It would probabl be even more funny if he is a racist, as he would find plenty to snigger at.
 
This falls under the "no cruel and UNUSUAL punishment" category. What's next? The offender has to become their butler? :)
 
[quote name='atreyue']He should have gotten community service in a black neighborhood. Attending black church is a reward, since it's nearly as entertaining as the black church at the beginning of the Blues Brothers. More like going to the circus or a concert, really. It would probabl be even more funny if he is a racist, as he would find plenty to snigger at.[/QUOTE]

You just made my ignore list.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Even in the presence of an option of a traditional versus nontraditional sentence?[/QUOTE]

The option in itself is activism, what in the world is this country comming to when you get to choose your punishment?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']The option in itself is activism, what in the world is this country comming to when you get to choose your punishment?[/QUOTE]
Now, that's actually an interesting proposition. Criminologists argue that future criminal activity after the first incarceration can result due to feeling unfairly punished. The need to get back at authority figures and "the system et al." outweighs any suppressed deviant interest that would create a citizen prepared to obey by the rules and laws we all agreed upon. I think it's "defiance theory," but I'm not certain ATM. Basically, they argue that arrest/prison/rehabilitation only works if the criminal views the punishment as "fair." Too easy, they'll do it again because of a lack of proper corrections. Too harsh, and they'll revolt given the opportunity. The major problem with this theory (other than empirical proof of its validity, as I've never studied it) is that, when a criminal "accepts" a sentence, how can you identify their acceptance of a "fair" sentence or one they consider to be "easy"?

I don't think a criminal choosing a sentence is outrage-inducing; mediated with a judge and perhaps the victim or a representative of the victim, something could be negotiated upon.

That's all OT, I guess.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']when a criminal "accepts" a sentence, how can you identify their acceptance of a "fair" sentence or one they consider to be "easy"?[/quote]

Simple, most states have a range of fines, jail time, etc. that are meant to be used as punishment. Use them, not some bullshit judgement you pull out of your ass.

I don't think a criminal choosing a sentence is outrage-inducing; mediated with a judge and perhaps the victim or a representative of the victim, something could be negotiated upon.
Click to expand...

If you want a fair justice system the vicitm and the criminal must always be left out and punishment cannot be something to be negotiated upon.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You just made my ignore list.[/QUOTE]

Why's that? Having attended Black churches for all of my life, taken white friends to church with me before, and been to their churches in turn, I feel comfortable in saying that one of the main differences is that Black churches are usually far more entertaining. And if you don't think that racists don't watch BET and laugh at the "silly black people", or blame me for this site making perfectly good words look like slurs, then I don't really mind being on your ignore list.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Why's that? Having attended Black churches for all of my life, taken white friends to church with me before, and been to their churches in turn, I feel comfortable in saying that one of the main differences is that Black churches are usually far more entertaining. And if you don't think that racists don't watch BET and laugh at the "silly black people", or blame me for this site making perfectly good words look like slurs, then I don't really mind being on your ignore list.[/QUOTE]

Racism is the biggest taboo of all in America, your choice of wording was suspicious (or at the least poorly chosen given the discussion - snicker would have worked better), however it is a real word and should be respected as such. Unfortunately some people see another word hidden inside the one you used and insta-ignore you before even reaching for a dictionary.
 
I don't mind the word "snigger," though I'm not certain if it is a word. I don't believe it was meant as a pun. What bothered me is the broad strokes you used to paint your picture. "Black churches are entertaining" is one of them. In many cases, you are correct, but not in all; using a generalization as fact is how racisms develop.

Also, the idea that black churches are "entertaining" is questionable. To you? Maybe. your friends? Maybe. The point I made earlier is that, by being in church, he will have to interact socially with members of the black community (which he would not do if he was just street sweeping). Keeping in mind the "contact hypothesis" that many people hate other races/sexual orientations/mindsets/etc. primarily because they are not around them as much (or at all), this is a direct attempt to rectify that. Who knows what could result; he could find out that they are good christian folk who hate abortions, homosexuals, and high taxes, and they will become great buddies that way.

I don't respond well to overgeneralizations (saying "black churches are entertaining" and "blacks love watermelon and fried chicken" aren't too far removed in the degree of truth they hide and elicit, in my opinion). That's all I'm saying.
 
The chat client replaces the naughtiest of racial slurs with the "ninja" graph. Atreyue used that word, which is (both in spelling and in definition) just like "snicker," but with a double g instead of the ck.
 
[quote name='Cheese']What's a S-Ninja?[/QUOTE]

I doubt many people know this, but in Leprechaun 6: Back to tha hood one of the characters takes to using the word ninja instead of the slur and it's a running joke thoughout the movie.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, the idea that black churches are "entertaining" is questionable. To you? Maybe. your friends? Maybe. The point I made earlier is that, by being in church, he will have to interact socially with members of the black community (which he would not do if he was just street sweeping). Keeping in mind the "contact hypothesis" that many people hate other races/sexual orientations/mindsets/etc. primarily because they are not around them as much (or at all), this is a direct attempt to rectify that. Who knows what could result; he could find out that they are good christian folk who hate abortions, homosexuals, and high taxes, and they will become great buddies that way.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you can go in the US where you can exists as a homogeneous society (except maybe Utah). I think people of all types and backgrounds work and interact daily, it's just that they don't normally socialize or openly talk about cultural differences. I think it's a fair critisism of the "political correctness" movement that it attempts to whitewash the differences between races and cultures by promoting generic catch-all phrases, interactions, and portrayals.

It's like watching the Cosby show verses the Bernie Mac show, one of these shows is the polically correct view, the other is a more honest (and I believe genuinely humorous) portrayal. Even though I also agree with Cosby when he talks about how all people should learn to speak proper grammatical English for formal settings.
 
It is very, very easy to find areas that are generally homogenous (ie. the differences aren't obvious at first). Finding diverse areas is a problem, at least in the northeast.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It is very, very easy to find areas that are generally homogenous (ie. the differences aren't obvious at first). Finding diverse areas is a problem, at least in the northeast.[/QUOTE]

To the point where you can get on a train, goto work, and grab lunch at a local restaurant, all without encountering people of a different race or cultural background?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It is very, very easy to find areas that are generally homogenous (ie. the differences aren't obvious at first). Finding diverse areas is a problem, at least in the northeast.[/QUOTE]

There is a saying, and I don't know how true it is, regarding status/financial attainment and residential segregation, and how they trigger racial animosity: In the north, it isn't how high you get, it's how close you get. In the south, it isn't how close you get, it's how high you get.
 
[quote name='camoor']To the point where you can get on a train, goto work, and grab lunch at a local restaurant, all without encountering people of a different race or cultural background?[/QUOTE]

Ya. Finding a place where you almost certainly won't find a minority is difficult, but places where you possibly won't and, if you do, its only a few is easy. The easiest visible minority to find around here is probably indian people (from india, not native americans), and its not like there's a lot of them. If you get into more city areas that changes though. If you were to stay entirely local (ie. in my town) then going to a local restaurant you are much more likely to find all whites than any minorities there. The only train around here is the commuter rail that goes into boston, and there's no bus, so public transportation doesn't really count.

My family used to run a business, in 7 years (I only worked there the last 3) I saw one black customer the whole time.

Other non city areas I've been in (upstate new york and the rest of new england) seem to be the same as here.

In the north, it isn't how high you get, it's how close you get. In the south, it isn't how close you get, it's how high you get.
Click to expand...

Somewhat true for here anyway. Indians are accepted in my neighborhood, but since there have been 2 indian families on my street since the 80's its kind of a necessity. When the first one (my next door neighbor) moved here they egged the house and slashed their tires, though that was the early 80's. There was a black guy on my street a year or so ago and the whole neighborhood was stairing at him.

But a lot of people aren't true racists, its more they have nothing to go on in regards to other races. In my elementary school (think around 1000 students) there were no black kids, and my jr high and high school (same school) never went higher than 6, and 2 were twins. That school also had around 1000. Honestly, the first time I ever dealt with black people as actual people (not just store clerks) was when I went to school in toronto.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't mind the word "snigger," though I'm not certain if it is a word. I don't believe it was meant as a pun. What bothered me is the broad strokes you used to paint your picture. "Black churches are entertaining" is one of them. In many cases, you are correct, but not in all; using a generalization as fact is how racisms develop.

Also, the idea that black churches are "entertaining" is questionable. To you? Maybe. your friends? Maybe. The point I made earlier is that, by being in church, he will have to interact socially with members of the black community (which he would not do if he was just street sweeping). Keeping in mind the "contact hypothesis" that many people hate other races/sexual orientations/mindsets/etc. primarily because they are not around them as much (or at all), this is a direct attempt to rectify that. Who knows what could result; he could find out that they are good christian folk who hate abortions, homosexuals, and high taxes, and they will become great buddies that way.

I don't respond well to overgeneralizations (saying "black churches are entertaining" and "blacks love watermelon and fried chicken" aren't too far removed in the degree of truth they hide and elicit, in my opinion). That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

It's my personal opinion that black churches are more entertaining and lively, although there are exceptions to every rule(AME churches for example). But I think that it is a cultural difference that is very real and ought not to be written off as racism. The differences between gospel music and contemporary christian are staggering and obvious. For most black people I know, the quality of the choir plays a substantial part in how they feel about the church as a whole. The passion conveyed through a sound is often much more important than the meaning the words themselves carry. Since singing is basically the cornerstone of most any black church, many are often engaged on a visceral emotional level. Most non-black churches, on the other hand, tend to engage more on an intellectual level. This is not to say that hese types of churches are either emotional or intellectual on a cultural level, just that one can eclispe the other because of the fundamentally different way in which Blacks approach singing. So I definitely wouldn't call it an overgeneralization, nor would I equate it with watermelons and fried chicken. It doesn't hide the truth, although I will cede that my brevity certainly contributed to assumptions and misinterpretation.

As for the possibility of the church sentence positively educating the supposed racist, I would say it is possible but unlikely for an adult, especially since simply being there doesn't ensure real interaction. Thus I would say that it's better to punish a racist so that he learns to keep it to himself than to try to change his ways.
 
All this talk about churches is quite amusing. Churches are the most segregated communities I've ever seen. I've been in 'white' churches and never see any black people. I've been to 'black' churches and have never seen any other white people. I wonder if it's the government's fault for not making enough laws and we should make some new ones requiring integration. AA for god, I love it !

You know what's also amusing? Closet racists, not true racists, who relate the novelty in seeing minorities in their day to day activities as if it absolves them from the guilt of being so white and can reminisce about that 'indian' family and the black guy everyone staired at. "Well, we're not racists becuase we hired a nice little black woman to clean our house and we say hello to the nice chineese family down the street."

Oh, what a white bread world some of us have.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']All this talk about churches is quite amusing. Churches are the most segregated communities I've ever seen. I've been in 'white' churches and never see any black people. I've been to 'black' churches and have never seen any other white people. I wonder if it's the government's fault for not making enough laws and we should make some new ones requiring integration. AA for god, I love it ![/quote]

You. In church. :lol: Well, you have to learn to hate religion somehow.

You know what's also amusing? Closet racists, not true racists, who relate the novelty in seeing minorities in their day to day activities as if it absolves them from the guilt of being so white and can reminisce about that 'indian' family and the black guy everyone staired at. "Well, we're not racists becuase we hired a nice little black woman to clean our house and we say hello to the nice chineese family down the street."

Oh, what a white bread world some of us have.
Click to expand...
I think the other thread (the one that became the AA thread again) I managed to piss of zionoverfire something fierce. It was, I assume, the result of making a broad statement on the belief that people in general are racist. Your statement above made me think of that, and I'm curious to get your thoughts. This "benign racism" mentioned above need not be consciously racism (as you mentioned, many people seem to think they're community exemplars for this kind of behavior). What I think pissed off zion is my claim that people who behave in racist ways, regardless of their intentions (or beliefs of their own potential for racism), are still racist. So, my question is simply about your thoughts on that: if I don't intend to be racist, but do things that are unintentionally racist, am I one or not? I wouldn't expect you to think that they are racist, but your quote above seems to suggest otherwise. Just curious, that's all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the other thread (the one that became the AA thread again) I managed to piss of zionoverfire something fierce. It was, I assume, the result of making a broad statement on the belief that people in general are racist. Your statement above made me think of that, and I'm curious to get your thoughts. This "benign racism" mentioned above need not be consciously racism (as you mentioned, many people seem to think they're community exemplars for this kind of behavior). What I think pissed off zion is my claim that people who behave in racist ways, regardless of their intentions (or beliefs of their own potential for racism), are still racist. So, my question is simply about your thoughts on that: if I don't intend to be racist, but do things that are unintentionally racist, am I one or not? I wouldn't expect you to think that they are racist, but your quote above seems to suggest otherwise. Just curious, that's all.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's the conscious decision to separate people into groups that marks a racist. Whether you decide to take over a pie or burn a lower case t on their lawn is just secondary. If you have identified them as 'other' the end result can only be bad.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You. In church. :lol: Well, you have to learn to hate religion somehow.


.... if I don't intend to be racist, but do things that are unintentionally racist, am I one or not? I wouldn't expect you to think that they are racist, but your quote above seems to suggest otherwise. Just curious, that's all.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, me in church is pretty funny. Let's just say I did it all for the nookie.

As far as the 'subtle' racism is concerned, I think this is the most detrimental of all, but it's the easiest to change. Detrimental because it's the most pervasive form and is the root of your so-called "institutional" racism. It's the hidden racism that causes people only to congregate with their own kind, only hire their own kind, and describe others primarily on their ethnicity, e.g. johhny is my black friend, not just my friend.

At least with overt racism, you can meet it head on and confront it. With the subtle kind, it's potentially more damaging to me, as an individual, to call out someone I know for doing it. I could lose a friend, client, partner, or contact and have on many occasion. Granted, most people don't even realize they are showing their inner prejudices and can usually be educated politely about their behavior. Confronting this kind of racism can force many people to look inside and change their attitudes about people who are different than themselves.
 
We find something to agree upon. Well stated.

And, of course, implicit in your post is the notion that people make racist delineations/decisions without being aware of it even being racist. That makes it that much more difficult to call out, as the acting racist will almost certainly defend their statement/action, since it occurred in the absence of intent and malice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top