We are closing the seventh calendar year of the existence of the Davis Vanguard. In some ways, our mission has changed over that period of time, but in fundamental ways, we remain the same with the idea of providing the alternative voice to the discourse provided in more mainstream publications.
DA Jeff Reisig’s view of the ACLU, as expressed in his July op-ed on the death penalty, is telling.
He wrote, “The ACLU and its agents are responsible for endless delays in the criminal justice system, frivolous appeals and a mountain of misinformation.”
While he was speaking on the issue of the death penalty, it’s clear that his disdain for the ACLU runs far deeper, into the realm of basic constitutional protections for the rights of the accused.
In the time the Vanguard has covered the courts, from 2006 on – and from 2010 on as part of the Yolo County Judicial Watch, now known as Vanguard Court Watch – we have seen numerous cases where innocent people were accused of crimes. Some of them were convicted, while others had their lives altered. People were routinely overcharged, and charged with serious offenses for relatively minor crimes.
Through this work, we have met numerous people whose lives have been altered by false accusations and, in some cases, false convictions.
The average person, perhaps, cannot relate to this. They do not have this kind of contact with law enforcement and the district attorney, and so it is understandable that they may remain skeptical.
The DA’s office has systematically ignored the Vanguard‘s request to talk, to meet, to discuss, to learn more about each other. Perhaps they believe that it would be pointless, but every other agency and political leader in this county has done exactly that. It is quite telling that I have personally never met or talked with the district attorney.
This morning, my friend Jann Murray-Garcia has her regular column in the local newspaper. Many people in this community know and respect the work of Dr. Murray-Garcia. Some perhaps misunderstand her work.
I have known Dr. Murray-Garcia for much longer than the Vanguard has been around. I have found her to be a conscientious and compassionate, but ultimately reluctant, advocate. Contrary to what many many believe about her, she is very reluctant to speak out, she is very reluctant to take a leadership role – but like many, she ultimately recognizes that if not her, then who?
At the Breaking the Silence of Racism event, Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven made public his interest in having Dr. Murray-Garcia join their new Multicultural Community Council.
Dr. Murray-Garcia had several times declined the offer, and told him so publicly.
Today, she has decided to come out and describe in detail in her column why she has chosen to do so.
She writes, “I told Jonathan I was not interested, because I had accompanied too many Davis folks in Yolo County Superior Court who were inappropriately charged, investigated, overcharged, gang-labeled and unnecessarily prosecuted at great taxpayers’ (yours and mine) expense, and residents’ turmoil.”
Sound familiar?
She said that seven cases came to her mind within 30 seconds – we can of course name far more, but that’s not the point.
She writes, “I was called out again – this time publicly – by panelist Raven, as someone he was trying to convince to join Reisig’s community council. So, I am publicly writing ‘no’ to this D.A., as I said publicly ‘no’ during the forum.”
She notes that Mr. Reisig faces reelection in 2014, but said, “I do not think my advice will make a bit of difference in what seems to be a systemic pattern of racial injustice at the hands of his office.”
She also quotes Cruz Reynoso, who also spoke at the December 1, 2012 event. He told the panel, among other things, that he had personal experience in Yolo County: “There are real problems in the Yolo District Attorney’s Office.”
Dr. Murray-Garcia then goes on to tell the story of Bernita Toney. Part of that is in a story the Vanguard covered in early 2007, when she was acquitted of child endangerment charges.
More recently, Ms. Toney was providing care to a frail African-American diabetic.
She writes, “When Mr. John had a stroke and needed extended nursing home care, Bernita continued to do his laundry, incontinent as he was in an understaffed facility; drove him to doctors’ appointments; made sure his bills were paid so he could return to subsidized housing; and set up and attended ‘family’ meetings at the facility to ensure optimal treatment. When Bernita was out of town, she’d prep me to stand in for the meetings and appointments, as Mr. John had no family in the area.”
However, what Ms. Toney did not know was the IHSS (In-home Support Services) should not have been charged for some of the services and support she provided this individual.
“When she was told, she immediately set up a repayment plan. IHSS employees deemed the oversight as ‘overpayment’ versus fraud, well acquainted with Bernita’s meticulous and patient care of Mr. John,” Jann Murray-Garcia writes.
However, a week later, DA Jeff Reisig, whose office receives numerous fraud grants, charged Ms. Toney with 11 felony counts.
Writes Dr. Murray-Garcia: “Bernita raised the money and paid the entire balance. Still, the D.A.’s Office pursued prosecution over the next 12 months, expending our taxes in the face of dire county budget deficits.”
She argues, “I believe the office was practicing what American University Law School professor Angela J. Davis, author of ‘Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor,’ refers to as ‘prosecutorial bullying,’ coercing the innocent to plead to lesser crimes they did not commit.”
Bernita Toney’s case went up to jury selection day. Suddenly, the prosecutor offered to reduce her 11 felony counts to a single misdemeanor charge if she would plead to the misdemeanor.
Ms. Toney, however, would refuse. When she did, the DA’s office dropped all of the charges, but retained the privilege to retry her. For this reason, the Vanguard chose not to cover this case until the one-year window passed.
Writes Jann Murray-Garcia: “This is the third time the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has dragged Bernita through an extended court process when its officers must have known she was innocent.”
She writes, “Bernita was charged in 2005 with leaving her young children unattended in a car, based on a Davis police report that the D.A.’s Office knew was false before the trial. Spilling over into Reisig’s administration, it took two years, two public defenders, thousands of public dollars and more than 20 court visits for Bernita to be acquitted by a jury in less than three hours. Reisig’s office sent Bernita a bill for the public defender.”
Jann Murray-Garcia writes, “I am saying ‘no’ to yet another community board or advisory council that exhausts community members, giving the appearance that the status quo is being challenged when it isn’t.”
Instead, what Dr. Murray-Garcia wants to see is public entities who participated at the December 1 forum to publicly present data “by race/ethnicity, language status and age that we can access electronically and track over time.”
One piece of data she suggested is one that she has been asking about for at least seven years – regarding traffic stops in Davis.
She writes, “This kind of public accountability would hold our tax-supported public entities accountable to a status quo that pursues not just high conviction rates or recovered checks, not just equalized test scores, but justice. Supply the necessary supporting text and education, but give us the data without a crisis necessitating that we beg and then wait for it.”
Each of the public entities represented at the event including the city of Davis, UC Davis, Davis Police Department, the Yolo County DA’s office and the School District agreed to find a way to provide the type of data Ms. Murray-Garcia asked for at the event, and we will elaborate on in a future column.
Jann Murray-Garcia does not want to become part of the DA’s office public relations move. She has taken a huge risk, personally, to her reputation by publishing her account publicly.
We applaud her for taking this stand, while at the same time we fear that this cuts herself and others off to the access needed to make a change. It is a difficult line to tow, and we know this better than most. To this day, we have not been able to even meet with the DA or his chief deputy privately to talk about important issues – even in areas of agreement.
People in this community, many of whom share our concerns, have largely been silent for a long time on these issues. Unfortunately, the nature of life is that people do not want to rock the boat and risk personal ridicule until the day the entity comes for them – and then, as the saying goes, it is too late.
2013 will see a revamped effort by the Vanguard Court Watch to bring the public a closer seat to what is happening in our court rooms. Stay tuned to important announcements and changes in the coming weeks and months.
—David M. Greenwald
I passed on a key lesson to my two sons as they were growing up: it was the lesson of the line. I told them that society in general, and other smaller communities within, will always have a behavior line that you must always be careful not to fall below. Because we live in an increasingly competitive world… where more people are demanding a share of the earth’s resources and earned wealth, it is even more important that we don’t screw up and make mistakes that put us below the line. Because, it is getting more difficult, and even impossible, to recover once we do.
My problem with the work of many racial-group advocates is that they perpetuate a mindset that society is treating racial minorities unfairly. Armed with this mindset, a person would tend to develop a chip, an attitude, maybe a level of hopelessness at times… all of these things contributing to a greater tendency for below-the-line behaviors and mistakes being made. Then the problems for the group multiply because of statistical-driven suspicions. The racial-group advocates focus on this problem… which is only a symptom and not a root-cause. And in doing so, they fail to provide much real progress making improvements.
I think the thinking is: “If only we can get society to start treating the people in these minority groups without any bias whatsoever, their situation will improve.” But what this concept lacks is any deep and honest assessment of the motives for racial bias in this current time in our civil rights march.
The 90-10 rule is at play here. If we have 10% ignorant or mean people having racial bias… we will likely ALWAYS have 10%. We solve no problems continuing to point this out. The fact is that racial bias is no longer a systemic problem in our society. We are about as fully racially accepting as a society as we will probably ever be. We should be proud of what we have accomplished. The US is the most diverse large successful society on the planet… even historically. We should celebrate that while we work on REAL solutions to the problems of over and underrepresentation of minorities in various social categories.
On the category of crime, it is simple. We need to teach all children – especially boys – that they CANNOT participate in certain behaviors that are below the line and expect to not be treated like suspected criminals.
For example, one of my youngest son’s best friends purchased a used Cadillac Escalade with big spinning chrome rims and blackened windows and a booming loud stereo system that he plays hip-hop/rap music on. He is constantly pulled over by Davis cops and checked out. He is a Caucasian kid. His car choice and the image he is pushing are below the line. He is taking extra risks to be cool in a way that clearly connects him to a media-sensationalized image of a possible drug dealer. Tattoos, baggy pants pulled down, wide baseball hat brims turned to the side, gang affiliation, language, drug use, public drunkenness, fights, petty crimes, etc… the list goes on. Any of these things and many others can be considered items and behaviors below the line of positive accepted social norms. My son’s friend is a good kid… but he is taking some risks with this below-the-line behavior. If those risks end up causing him problems with the cops, he has only himself to blame. But then, he is not a minority.
Jeff – Your example, while well-meaning, is laughable.
Rock ‘n Roll, a slicked-back ducktail haircut and a lowered ’52 Merc were once the way teenagers rebelled (or extablished their own generation’s cultural identity).
I think what you are saying is the only socially-acceptable path is to be a ‘Stepford’ kid.
Really?
I think there are still many ways to have an identity ‘above the line’, so Jeff wasn’t suggesting that there is only one socially-acceptable path.
[quote]On the category of crime, it is simple. We need to teach all children – especially boys – that they CANNOT participate in certain behaviors that are below the line and expect to not be treated like suspected criminals.[/quote]
I think that people who intentionally behave like criminal are irresponsible, even if they enjoy being treated like suspect. Those people need to think from the perspective of the police. The police force is not a single agency that is supposed to solve all crimes on its own. It is only a component of system. The system requires cooperation by the people.
On the other hand I think this comment is tangent to the article because I don’t see the relation to Dr. Murray-Garcia’s decline and Ms. Toney’s case.
On the case of Dr. Murray-Garcia, I think that her decision to decline is acceptable because she was clear about what data she wanted to see. But even if she did join, couldn’t she continue to voice her concerns?
[i]I think what you are saying is the only socially-acceptable path is to be a ‘Stepford’ kid.
Really?[/i]
Only if you expect to be treated as a Stepford kid.
I anticipated this type of response. I think it is overly-simplistic. Certainly anyone can choose to be different… to be a rebel of sorts. One of things about the US that I think we should celebrate is our progress to be more accepting of individuality breaking from the social norms.
But those things don’t translate to being below the line if they are positive in nature. Your example of the early evolution of the rock-n-roll culture is comparable to a lot of other points of music pop-culture evolution. But grunge rockers, punk rockers and metal heads are not often associated with crime. Gansta’ rapp culture is. It is below the line because society in general associates with it with crime. It has severe negative social connections.
Regardless though, there is a general lesson to be delivered to all people that chose to behave in ways outside of expected social and cultural norms. That lesson is that there will be a price to pay in some bias and discrimination. If you have tattoos up and down your arms and neck, you will not be employable in some jobs. Maybe one day we will progress to the point where the sales person at Nordstroms will be able to proudly wear all types of body art, but not today.
Skin color, racial origin, gender, sexual orientation, age… there are things we can all agree on that demand protection against bias or discrimination that causes any material harm. But I think we need to stop demanding that private people and private organization drop their freedom of association when it does not cause material harm. Getting feelings hurt is not material harm in my book.
If we really want to help prevent these kids from having their lives destroyed, we need early intervention with a clear message that they cannot behave like criminals and act like criminals and then expect to not be treated like criminals.
Good article, David. Woodland has a very bad reputation regarding our judicial system. Surely we can find someone qualified to run against our current DA by 2014. Can we start some kind of membership of those against the present regime?
[i]On the other hand I think this comment is tangent to the article because I don’t see the relation to Dr. Murray-Garcia’s decline and Ms. Toney’s case[/i]
I agree, but Ms. Murray-Garcia is an advocate for people of certain racial groups, and I see her contributing to some of the problems I point out. I think her intentions are very noble, but her methods and approach is likely to net little to no improvement for the very people she advocates for. It is time to get real on the challenges we face with over and under-representation of certain minority groups. We keep pointing fingers and making excuses for what is basically a problem allowing and tolerating too much negative behavior below the line.
There is a principle in life that you cannot change others, you can only change yourself. Delivering this message to some minority groups causes anger because – they and their advocates say – it is blaming them for their problems that they see as external and done to them. That is an overly simplistic politically-correct response, and by rejecting this bottom-up approach we cause too many to miss out on the best solution for making improvements to their life.
It is really quite simply about teaching kids how to model their behavior as successful people. Image and perception are very important in life. I advise people in their career pursuits to dress and act as they see the people having the job or life they want to advance to. I absolutely reject the argument that a person of color dressing, acting and behaving as a non-criminal is going to be treated as a criminal different enough than others to justify much attention from the racism activists. Maybe 10% different… but then we need to go back to that 90-10 rule and realize that we are never going to be able to stomp out all ignorance and rid ourselves of all mean people. At the level, everyone experiences it from time to time.
[quote]But grunge rockers, punk rockers and metal heads are not often associated with crime. [/quote]
These subcultures have certainly been associated with drugs, though, which is a type of “crime,” no? Maybe not with “violent” crime, but I’m sure people still conjure up unsavory things in their head when they see “punk rockers” or “metal heads.”
I experienced problems w/ local law enforcement in the year 2007 that continued until I moved away from Davis. The only way I can move past those events (therapy did help a lot, thank you, Dr. “T.”) is to continue to work on my memoir. If I did not have 2 children, I would have taken more aggressive action with Kamala Harris’ office. But I have to protect my children. This is my private hell, not theirs. I wish I was braver.I wish I had the courage of Dr. Murray-Garcia. Thank you.
P.S. I was extremely fortunate to have a great health insurance plan that paid for “Dr. T”‘s sessions. I feel sorry for people who deal with similar issues and do not have private therapy available to them. It would have been 10 times more difficult for me to raise my teenagers without that help.
Maybe it’s the beginning of a new year that makes me feel hopeful, and benevolent. It would be nice for David G. to actually get an interview w/ Mr. Reisig. I bet some of the public is curious about his “back story”. Maybe he was a victim of violent crime, or maybe his family experienced a tragedy? People are surprisingly forgiving and compassionate, once they understand where a person is coming from. I wonder what motivates Mr.Reisig?
I don’t know Ms. Murray-Garcia enough to comment on her position. Personally I also don’t yet know a person who is simply blaming others for their predicament, if I knew those people I would have said I agree with you, but since I don’t know them I can only with your in theory that people who finds themselves in a predicament should first consider if they are partially responsible for it, and what they could do.
This type of philosophy is personally helpful because it makes the person who subscribe to it emotionally and spiritually invincible despite all odds. But I also don’t know how to explain the philosophy in a way that does not offend people.
Unfairness and oppressions are not adversaries. It is just the background that let people see how bright goodwill and courage can really shine.
Some of the remarks posted re: the wrongfully accused contributing to their problem: is this similar to the argument that bully victims need to stand up to their bully? It’s somehow the victim’s fault? The Jews should have stood up to the Nazi’s better? The argument doesn’t make sense to me, an unarmed civilian. How was I supposed to take responsibility for law enforcement harming me? They were armed, I was not. Why was I responsible? I was innocent.
Great article, David.
I suggest the DA invite David to join or observe the DA’s advisory
Community Council.
In east Davis it’s hard not to notice the police profiling by race, ethnicity, economic level, and/or the type of vehicle. Driving a new
red truck is enough for a stop and a very lengthy encounter. Driving an older car, same thing. Black or Latino, you can expect to be stopped for that reason.
Perception is reality. This DA and his office does not care about truth or justice. DA Reisig cares about stats for grants, money and getting re-elected. His job is to confuse a jury to vote guilty when he should be seeking the truth and convincing the jury to vote for the truth.
Do a crime in a suit and tie and it will be a mistake in judgement and you will get a behind the scenes sweetheart deal. Do the same crime in red or blue or baggy pants and be Hispanic and even if the crime was a mistake, you will attacked much more aggressively and have the book tossed at you and can expect every legal trick or deception to be used by this DA. And yet somehow he gets re-elected?
Is he really the problem is the people that keep voting for him the problem.
How does a sad little inexperienced steroid user, who can’t make it as an attorney in Sacramento, somehow crosses the river, comes to Yolo, is hired as a Dep DA with NO experience and in 10 years has a average Dep DA become the head DA? And this same DA, while in office, is surrounded by scandal, lies, court misconduct, over turned cases, hiding evidence, court sanctions and various others ethical issues, some how gets re-elected?
I guess what they say about if you can’t make it in a big pond, find a small pond where the competition and standard is low. Look at who picked Reisig and endorsed him, the last DA Henderson who was arrested for drunk driving, tried to use his DA status to get out of charge, then after using the same alcohol test to convict people in his county, challenged these same test as being unreliable when used against him. Yep, Yolo knows how to pick a DA… Maybe someone getting out San Quintin with a law degree can run next time, his background and ethics would be comparable.
Jeff: What do you think Bernita did wrong that got her falsely accused of crimes (once acquitted by a jury and once the charges dropped)?
Come on David. You are smart enough to know people who are found not guilty or have charges dropped are not necessarily falsely accused.
That’s true but she was. In the second instance, she was overpaid, and repaid it. Why prosecute an overpayment criminally?
In the first case, the children were left in the car for a brief time, they were not in danger, they were not overheated or in distress, so why prosecute it as a crime?
Neither case should have been prosecuted.
I am grateful to have Murray-Garcia here. She is courageous and the only chip I can imagine is not on her shoulder but maybe on a tooth from keeping a so-called civil tongue in her head reading some of these comments. I say this as a former deputy public defender in Solano County, used to disparity in charging and sentencing vis-a-vis white clients/clients of color; and as a woman with a severely mentally ill sister who has been caught up in the same system because we lack resources for the mentally ill. Fortunately for my sister, she is white. She’s not in jail. Not so fortunate for my nephew, who is mixed race. He, too, suffers from mental illness but is in Federal Prison. Noting the difference in treatment of similarly situated people treated differently isn’t advocating for “a group”– it’s advocating for all of us, for who we are as a society. Looking at statistics is one way to measure how we’re doing. No one is free when others are oppressed. Thank you, Jann Murray-Garcia, for your integrity and your voice, and for chipping away at bias and unfairness.
[i]Jeff: What do you think Bernita did wrong that got her falsely accused of crimes (once acquitted by a jury and once the charges dropped)? [/i]
David: I don’t know enough about this case and the accused. Does she have any prior record? My guess is that she has, and hence she would be a greater suspect as she had fallen below the line.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that she has no priors, and the DA just pursued the case based on its single merits.
I think there is a big known problem about the fraud in IHSS program.
There is also a lot of media attention paid to incidents of children being harmed or dead from being left in a car alone.
You are chastising the DA – a government entity – for failure to use common sense. Isn’t it ironic that government in general sucks at applying common sense, and the tendency for the media to sensationalize certain incidents – no matter how rare they are – to epic levels which then result in public outcry lacking common sense?
Just wait until the media-driven lack of common sense moving us toward gun bans takes hold. Then watch how the DA will have a whole new wealth of case work going after the very people you advocate for.
It really drives me nuts… liberal progressives scream for more laws and regulations to protect stupid people from themselves, and also over-reach in applying rules to low-probability incidents because of their emotive impact quality… and then cry that these laws trap the classes of people that they advocate for. More stupid laws and stupid rules-based programs that immoral people can scam, and moral ignorant people make mistakes using, makes greater victims out of those liberals see as already being victims.
It is a big cycle of stupid in my book.
Happy New Year!
Jeff, you obviously didn’t read the back link. No priors. They offered her diversion in 2006, offered to drop it to a single misdemeanor this year. You are making excuses now.
David: I know this might come as a surprise to you, but people lie. Obvioulsy the cops and the DA thought she was lying about leaving the kids unattended.
Your point about me making excuses is what? That I am excusing the DA and cops for their racism?
David: Thank you for your commitment to continue reporting through the Vanguard Court Watch. This community needs people like you and Dr. Murray-Garcia who are not afraid to speak up for those that need your help.
You have it right when you said, “…we have seen numerous cases where innocent people were accused of crimes. Some of them were convicted, while others had their lives altered. People were routinely overcharged, and charged with serious offenses for relatively minor crimes.Through this work, we have met numerous people whose lives have been altered by false accusations and, in some cases, false convictions.”
We experienced this first hand in Ajay Dev’s case. Although the prosecution was surely smart enough to know the accuser’s story was not credible, they still pursued the case against him and made up stories to cover up the accuser’s inconsistent and unbelievable testimony.
Even the jurors blogged later that her testimony was not believable. They only found Ajay guilty because of a phone call that the accuser translated. The prosecutor kept spouting about a confession by Ajay in the phone call, which only the accuser seemed to verify and an independent translator denied. Any lawyer who cared about the truth of the matter would not use the accuser as the translator because she may have a motive to lie about the translation.
Winning the case was more important to the DA’s office then the truth. So sad that this is what our “justice system” is in Yolo County.
Please keep up the work you do so that our legal system can become more of a true justice system. For more stories go to. http://www.seekingjusticefortheinnocent.com
[quote]Some of the remarks posted re: the wrongfully accused contributing to their problem: is this similar to the argument that bully victims need to stand up to their bully? It’s somehow the victim’s fault? The Jews should have stood up to the Nazi’s better? The argument doesn’t make sense to me, an unarmed civilian. How was I supposed to take responsibility for law enforcement harming me? They were armed, I was not. Why was I responsible? I was innocent. [/quote]
Responsibility and Heroism are on the same relative scale. Whether an action is seen as one’s responsibility or an heroic act depends on the culture. To solve this communication gap, people could accept that the journey to become a hero, while accessible to everyone, its difficulty could be different for each person. A stable culture should look up to heroism without looking down on those who had not manifested as heroes.
What JB did, was that he inspired his sons to be responsible. But when that message was expressed, it has the effect of saying that others are irresponsible. People get offended because such a message would be insensitive to those who had done more than their fair share to fix the problem not only for themselves but for the community at large.
I think JB could potentially made a mistake when he tried to use a real case to explain his view. If you strip the context of his posts and focus on what JB said, he was saying this:
1) The legal system cannot operate unless it is given to authority to act within a margin of doubt. This is what JB mentioned when he pointed out the 90-10 rules. The legal system will make mistakes, will over charge people, and false convictions will happen. These outcomes are expected because the legal system is not perfect.
2) Just because the legal system is not perfect, it doesn’t mean that the errors are caused by racism of the police or the DA. Racism could be the reason, but it does not help the community to assume that racism is the reason.
3) Given that the legal system is not perfect, everyone can help to reduce the false convictions by not acting in ways that makes it difficult for the legal system. This is what JB said about now falling below the line. As JB explained, this line is not about race, but other behavior or appearance pattern that gives the legal system the dilemma that: a) If the legal system target them, the legal system might be accused of being unfair to a subculture. b) If the legal system does not target them, the legal system would become ineffective or hamstrung in catching real criminal. JB believes that in situations like this, it should be the responsibility for the citizen to distinguish themselves from the criminal to help the legal system.
Re: JB
According to my understanding above, the legal system is not perfect, and can falsely convict people. What is your stance on people who try to free the falsely convicted? Should they exist or should they not?
How do you tell if they are doing just what the community needs to support the legal system, or that they are being unreasonable and causing harm to the system? How do you draw the line?
Edgar: First, thanks for the help. You nailed it. There is nothing I can add to your explanation of what I was trying to say… only much less effectively.
[i]According to my understanding above, the legal system is not perfect, and can falsely convict people. What is your stance on people who try to free the falsely convicted? Should they exist or should they not?[/i]
They absolutely should. As you say, and I agree, the justice system is not perfect. No system is ever perfect. The other 90-10 rule is that the last 10% of defect correction will take up 90% of the total cost. So, as you say, we could be completely risk averse about wrongful conviction, and hamstring DAs so they cannot make a move without some citizens’ committee review… trying to get it closer to 100% perfect, but then we would have much more crime… and hence much more cost.
[i]How do you tell if they are doing just what the community needs to support the legal system, or that they are being unreasonable and causing harm to the system? How do you draw the line?[/i]
I draw the line at the point of morality and material harm. Good people make mistakes. These are just learning opportunities. So, I say the system needs to have a constant-improvement loop so it is constantly learning and improving. To this end, I support public oversight and input… but not those that are hostile, punitive or that seek retribution. But bad people are bad people no matter which side of a badge they live and work in.
But then there is also the issue of material harm. If bad people or good people make mistakes that cause material harm, there needs to be just punishment. For example, if a good person makes a mistake and drinks and dives and crashes and injures or kills another person as a result, they should suffer punishment commensurate with the harm they caused. However, if a good cop makes a mistake stopping and questioning an innocent person of color, then there was no material harm (only hurt feeling which we cannot accommodate as a society or we will go nuts). However, there very well might be a learning opportunity for the cop to get better at assessing real crime threats and risks.
But the main point I was trying to make is a recommendation for us to focus on a bottom up crusade to help minimize the risks for people getting in trouble with the law. Do we explain to our kids how to behave and how to interact with law enforcement to minimize the chance that they will get in trouble? I think we don’t do enough. Instead, we scream and yell at the cops when our kids are singled out. I think we will make better progress improving things with the former approach than with the latter approach.
Jeff and Edgar
I think that you are both directing far too much blame to those who are falsely accused because of
“falling below” some arbitrary “line” that Jeff has decided that everyone should meet or be subject to suspicion.
What this brings to mind for me is one sign being carried by a young Indian woman at one of the recent protests following the death of the gang raped medical student. The sign read ” Don’t teach us how to dress, teach your sons not to rape us !” The fault is not in someone dressing in a certain style. The fault is in the perception and belief system of the observer that allows them to think that they are capable of making a snap judgement about the character of an individual based on external appearances.
People need to speak out about the abuse of power the DA’s office wields otherwise we are in for a brutal police state here in Yolo County. Have you wondered why a fairly small county like Yolo County seems to be a hot bed of crime? The grants that the DA’s office gets to combat crime seems like a great idea, they get money to combat crimes that we all feel are heinous. In reality to get the grants the DA needs to show that crime here is exceptionally high. Look at some of the grants the DA’s office receives now or has received in the past and think of some of the crimes and sentences you have read about in David’s blog and in the DA’s own press releases. The latest grant is for drugged driving. The “study” is ridiculous please follow the link to read why you will now need to be worried about being stopped for drugged driving.
Driving Under the Influence of Drugs
(The study quoted as to why law officials say this is a problem is so laughable, Read the study in the link.)
http://stopdruggeddriving.org/pdfs/2012CADrugAndAlcoholRoadsideSurvey.pdf
http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=26&recordid=2237&returnURL=/index.aspx
Gang Task Force
Sex Crimes
Computer Crimes
Child Pornography
Life Insurance Fraud
Victims Services Grant
Identity Theft and Counterfeiting
Cell Phone Crackdown
Avoid the 8- DUI crackdown
For those of you who see nothing wrong with receiving grants to fight crime, just remember Jennifer Beeman from UC Davis. The amount of sexual assaults reported by her to receive the grants awarded to UCD should have sent shock waves through this community but it didn’t because of the tough on crime mentality. We need to be much more vigilant in watching what a powerful DA does in the name of “protecting the community” because there are no legal ramifications other than being voted out of office. right now it is the poor and minority community that have been targeted but soon it will be the rest of us that need to worry-just look at the UCD pepper spray incident.
Re: Medwoman
I think this is one of the times when plain language would fail to communicate the meaning. Please forgive the following list that is monotone by logically necessary to clarify the meaning.
As far as I understand, our positions are these:
1) A person who dresses and behaves like a drug dealer should expect to be stopped by the police more often (Accept: JB, EW) (Object: None) (Unknown: MW)
2) A woman who is raped can be ‘at fault’ for the rape if she dresses in a way that ‘invites’ rapes. (Accept: None) (Object: MW, EW) (Unknown: JB)
3) When a father teaches his sons not to dress in ways that make themselves look like criminals, the father is being realistic and responsible. (Accept: JB, EW) (Object: None) (Unknown: MW)
4) When a father teaches his daughters not to dress in ways or hang out with friends that would increase the chance of them being attacked, the father is being responsible. (Accept: JB, EW) (Object: None) (Unknown: MW)
5) A father who teaches his daughters not to dress in ways that would increase the chance of them being attacked, but does not teach his sons to not to attack women is irresponsible. (Accept: JB, EW, MW) (Object: None)
6) It is irresponsible for a person to assume that a rape victim must have done something wrong that makes them deserve to be raped. (Accept: None) (Object: JB, EW, MW)
7) All people who are falsely accused only have themselves to blame because they must be doing something wrong. (Accept: None) (Object: JB, EW, MW)
8) It is possible that some police officers and DA are racist. (Accept: JB, EW, WM) (Object: None)
9) Metrics used to incentivies productivity could have adverse/perverted result. (Accept: Nemesis, EW) (Object: None)
Could you confirm your position for #1, #3, and #4?
For #9, my comment is that there is a difference between being motivated and being incentivized. Something that is worth doing should be done even when there is no incentive. If a community needs to incentives to make its member do the right thing, true moral is suppressed. That is the difference between a Rank 1 society and a Rank 2 society as I mentioned here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5961:my-view-why-the-nra-shot-itself-in-the-foot-yesterday&catid=81:civil-rights&Itemid=105&cpage=30#comment-172539[/url]).
Police shouldn’t be incentivized to fight crime. If LE officers asked for that, I think the society hired the wrong people for those role. My [u]impression[/u] is that LE didn’t ask for those quota and metrics. Those metrics were imported from the business world by civilians because they sound effective. The problem is that the “business world” as we know it in the present is a Rank 2 society construct. In hindsight it seems obviously inappropriate trying to manage a system that needs Rank 1 morality using Rank 2 rules.
“
David: I know this might come as a surprise to you, but people lie. Obvioulsy the cops and the DA thought she was lying about leaving the kids unattended.”
People do lie and in this case, the police officer was caught lying on the stand.
Wow. So much to comment on here. Women can dress however they feel like dressing, legally. Men should not use that as an excuse to say a young woman contributed to an assault or even a nasty comment. In the summer, when it is 110 degrees, I might choose to wear 2 layered tank tops with with no bra. Get over it. It’s 110 degrees. I have every right to be comfortable, I will not advise my daughter to be uncomfortable because someone cannot handle it. I instead taught my daughter there is safety in numbers & never get in a car with a casual acquaintance & don’t let a guy buy you a drink at a bar if you cannot see the drink the entire time before he hands it to you, etc. Also, Davis Police offers self defense classes for teenage girls. Thank you Davis Police for doing that.
Fathers: guess what? You do not own your daughter’s sexuality. Sorry, you don’t. If your daughter is over 18 years old, there is nothing you can do. So raise your sons to respect all people instead. It is a much better use of your time.
Re: JimmysDaughter
To clear JB, it is necessary to note that in his statement, he was addressing a father’s advise toward a potential [b]aggressor[/b] (a son not to dress like a criminal). The concern MW made was about a [b]hypothetical[/b] advise that a father could make toward a potential [b]victim[/b] (a daughter not to dress like a victim). Because JB never made that advise, MW’s comment was a strawman argument.
A strawman argument can be avoided if the each poster give the other posters the best context for interpreting their words. If posters do not given one another this ‘slack’, and accuse one another, two things will most likely happen:
1) People will stop talking because despite their good intention to bring their perspective to the discussion, they are being attacked left and right, their messages are being misinterpreted and they as people are being demonized.
2) People will continue to talk by the volume of the message increases, as people protect their words with elaborated explanations, boiler plate text, and disclaimers. The discussion will increasingly look like legal documents where every single word has to be precisely defined and agreed upon.
So the short answer is that, people aren’t as bad as rhetoric make people think they are.
The long answer is that there is value in your reply because you are telling me what advises are acceptable to you. This content is valuable because you are closer to the actual stakeholder of the topic. Overall, when time permits, it is better to voice the differences in perspectives and resolve them to reduce assumptions in communication. People should not be afraid to raise objections. It is possible to raise objections without using strawman.
[b]Demonstration of how to object without using strawman:[/b]
Mr.A says: I teach my sons to behave and not get into trouble.
Mr.B reads Mr.A’s message and feels that Mr.A didn’t address the role of ‘daughters’. However, since Mr.B views Mr.A’s message in the best light, Mr.B says the following.
Mr.B says: I agree and I would also assume that by ‘sons’, you also meant ‘daughters’ if you had daughters.
Mr.A says: Yes.
Mr.A and Mr.B are in agreement, the statement is clarified, and no strawman was created. Mr.B said it this way because his default assumption is that they are in agreement, but there could be ambiguity when a concept is expressed. When in doubt, the default action is to ask a question with the intention to clarify.
Views on Parenting Advices
If you are looking for a precise discussion, I have started a table with references: [Views on Parenting Advices] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-01-02_-_Parenting.htm[/url]). You are welcome, but do not have to refer to it, I am just showing you what I would need on my side to keep up with such a discussion. Without such a reference table, I could forget what you actually said and unintentionally reply with strawman arguments. The table is a technique to reduce the length of the discussion by highlighting areas of agreements and reasons of disagreements.
So, who is the guy in the picture? Any way to have a caption on photos?
My short answer is that women have a difficult time understanding what is it truly like to be raised as a man in a sexist society. I saw glimpses, while my husband & I raised a wonderful 22 year old young man who is my son. But I never really “got” it. Thank God his dad was always there to guide him. & any man will never realize what it’s like to have someone, usually a man, tell a woman how to dress. Be that high heels, which really, really hurt our feet (even the Jimmy Choo’s and Ferrigamo’s, jeans that are uncomfortably tight, or high necked tee shirts when it is 110 degrees in Davis. Does a man ever worry, even when he dons those tight black bike shorts, “gee, I better not wear this outfit today, I might be assaulted in that dark parking structure when I leave the movies tonight…” No, you don’t. So your credibility is lacking when you advise a young woman how to behave…. Sorry. I’ll try not to offer too much advice to young men if you try to limit your advice to young women. Thanks. Peace.
P.S. Please do some research re: the outfits that women are wearing when they are assaulted. That may open your eyes. It’s not the clothing because sexual assault is about the mental illness of the assaulter, not the act of sexual intercourse and Sexy clothes do not cause sexual assault. Nuff said. Peace.
Re: JimmysDaughter
Your message has no addressee.
There is no person in our discussion who proposed that men should tell women what to wear. When messages like this circulate in a community it distorts the truth, promotes mistrust, prejudice, and conflict.
How about the next time you see someone who seriously is making such an argument, you bring that person to this discussion or bring me to that discussion?
Re: JimmysDaughter
I found a stakeholder related to the following view:
[quote]Does a man ever worry, even when he dons those tight black bike shorts, “gee, I better not wear this outfit today, I might be assaulted in that dark parking structure when I leave the movies tonight…” No, you don’t. So your credibility is lacking when you advise a young woman how to behave…. Sorry. I’ll try not to offer too much advice to young men if you try to limit your advice to young women. Thanks. Peace. [/quote]
I heard advices like this not from a man, but a woman. It was one of the advices that my aunt would give my sister when she was growing up. The logic was this:
1) Depending on how my sister dresses (not a single night, but in general), my sister will end up with different friends.
2) Friends affect perspective of values. In this case, the concern was having bad friends and bad influences. Roughly speaking, by bad friends she meant those that do drugs, smoke, drink (under-age drinking), do dangerous things, have sex. The collective concern was bad influence, rape was just one of the many potential bad outcomes.
3) In my aunt’s perspective, my sister would be either unaware or underestimate the risk of dressing in revealing ways to be cool or to fit in with friends. My aunt was the force to undo that peer-pressure and the way the media portrays how a cool girl should look.
4) The line of what dress was appropriate, follows to the archetype of the ‘party girl’. The point was to keep distance from the ‘party culture’.
5) The intention of my aunt was to protect my sister. An argument that my sister was responsible for her own decisions would be unacceptable in our family. If my sister turned bad because my aunt was too ‘lenient’, my aunt would certainly blame herself.
6) From the perspective of my aunt, she does not care what the ‘boys’ do because she can’t act on them. She may not even know who those ‘boys’ might be at my sister’s high school. All she could do to protect my sister was to act on my sister. My aunt could not control which boy sees my sister, but she could control what those boys can see.
7) The logic was not about blaming the victim. The logic was about whether my aunt had done all she could practically do to protect my sister. The advice came from the intention to protect her.
8) I don’t know what would happen if my sister fought against it, met bad friends and got rape because she was drunk at a party. At that point, if my aunt said something in the line, “I told you so,” that would have been harsh if my sister was the victim. But even if my aunt didn’t say it, I would expect her to blame herself in her mind. At this stage, there would be a sense of guilt in the victim.
I think this type of effect is the same for all advices against bad outcomes. If someone warned you not to do something and you had to do it regardless and become a victim, the victim is going to feel guilt. It was the guilt for not listening to the advice. It is not an optimal advice, but in the context above, I think that my aunt was being responsible in giving the advice.
Earlier you talked about advising your daughter to go in numbers. Guilt could result if the daughter fought against that advice and gets the bad outcome as forewarned. That is the psychological risk of giving advices against bad outcomes.
If you ask any parent, “what advice would you give your child to avoid becoming a victim?” You can always turn the answer around and suggest that the parent is blaming the victim instead of the attacker even though that is not the intended message. This is because the structure of the question places the decision point at the victim.
“There is no person in our discussion who proposed that men should tell women what to wear.”
“When a father teaches his daughters not to dress in ways or hang out with friends that would increase the chance of them being attacked, the father is being responsible. (Accept: JB, EW) (Object: None) (Unknown: MW)”
“The line of what dress was appropriate, follows to the archetype of the ‘party girl’. The point was to keep distance from the ‘party culture’.”
————————–
“I don’t know what would happen if my sister fought against it, met bad friends and got rape because she was drunk at a party.”
Women do not get raped because they are drunk at a party. Women get assaulted because the assaulter is mentally ill.
Re: JD
I think the confusion is in the logical meaning of English words, which I explain in the following:
[b]Statement 1:[/b] “There is no person in our discussion who proposed that men [b]should[/b] tell women what to wear.”
Here, the word ‘should’ means that if a man does not tell a woman what to wear, the man is irresponsible.
[b]Statement 2:[/b] “When a father teaches his daughters not to dress in ways or hang out with friends that would increase the chance of them being attacked, the father is being responsible. (Accept: JB, EW) (Object: None) (Unknown: MW)”
This statement means that when a father gives these advices, the father is being responsible. There are many possible advices. A father who does not give an advice that involves appearance, but involves other teaching can still be responsible. It is not exclusive.
[b]Statement 3:[/b] “The line of what dress was appropriate, follows the archetype of the ‘party girl’. The point was to keep distance from the ‘party culture’.”
This is from the stakeholder that I brought to the discussion. By this statement, there is a stakeholder in the discussion connecting appearance to crimes, both as a crime-doer (engaging in illegal activities), and as a victim of a crime.
Just to be clear, there should be no argument on what person (a man or a woman) may give advice to a woman. The determining factor should be on the merit of the advice, not who came up with the advice. The determining factor is the intelligence of the listener, not the credibility of the speaker.
[b]Statement 4:[/b] “I don’t know what would happen if my sister fought against it, met bad friends and got rape [b]because[/b] she was drunk at a party.”
The word ‘because’ indicates that being drunk is a factor. It does not imply that it is an exclusive reason. In the situation where a mentally ill person rapes a girl while the girl is drunk, it is necessary to identify the coincidence of the factors that make the particular case happen.
Please observe the following logic:
1) We expect that people who are mentally ill, who spontaneously tries to rape anyone near them are institutionalized. When we talk about a typical ‘rape’ case, we aren’t talking about this type or rapist.
2) One of the possible scenarios where a man rapes a woman, is when the woman is drunk. Therefore, being drunk increases the chance of rape. Being drunk is a risk factor.
3) Physically speaking, the man has to be in the same space as the woman to rape the woman. To do so without being stopped, implies that the man is either in an isolated or hidden place, or that the man is surrounded by people who do not care if the woman is raped. Getting in a car with a stranger increases that possibility. That is a factor that increases the chance of rape. Voluntarily going to a place where people routinely have sex also increases the chance because the surrounding people may not be able to tell if the woman is just having consensual sex, or being raped. Therefore, friendships is also a risk factor. Friendships are formed for a number of reasons, and how a person appears and behave are some of the factors. They are also risk factors.
To analyze and make sense from this type of causality, it is necessary to see the context of the case. Statistics that are collected over a wide number of cases could distort the truth. Is there a particular scenario you want to discuss?
(Cont.)
Your concern is that rape victims are stigmatized when people assume that the victims did something wrong to ask for it.
I am explaining that part of the stigma comes from the psychology of warnings, the associative thinking when spoken words are interpreted, the ideology that associates chastity and goodness along with the ideology that associates rape and power, and the ignorance about rape in general. These may not be the main causes in your mind, if you can think of more important ones please inform.
[b]The Psychology of Warnings:[/b]
Warnings work by informing the bad outcome. When the listener ignores the warning and encounters the outcome, the listener may feel regret or guilt. In good intention, the giver of the warning assumes that once the listener learns about the outcome, the listener would listen to the warning, and the outcome will not happen. Your protest, was against those who assume that:
1) When a person is raped, the person had chosen not to listen to the warning.
2) The person who was raped never got the warning because the one responsible to teach them did not teach.
To avoid the effect of warnings, the giver of warnings could choose warnings that the listener would accept, instead of repeating warnings that the listener would most likely reject.
[b]Associative Thinking of Spoken Words:[/b]
In the reports of rape, more often the report mentions the victim but not the rapist (because the rapist is not identified). This draws people’s attention to the victim. Since the rapist could not be identified, the strategies tend to focus on how a potential victim could avoid the chance of being raped. By associative thinking, the focus makes some people think that the victim is to blame. Also by associative thinking, even when a speaker has no intention to blame the victim, by simply speaking about the victim more than the rapist, the listener may think that the speaker is blaming the victim.
To avoid this effect, the speaker can focus more on the rapist when the rapist is identified.
When the rapist is not identify, people tend not to talk about it at all because otherwise the focus would be all on the victim. This may explain how the good intention to protect the victim makes rape a taboo to discuss. To avoid this effect, I think we need people from the potential rapist group to speak up against rape. I mean this:
When a woman is raped and the rapist is not identified, men should automatically talk about what each of them could do to build a world where no man would rape any woman under any circumstance. In general these strategies have three parts:
1) Find the origin of the concept of rape. (We don’t see news where a man ‘attacks’ a woman by feeding them babyfood. The concept that rape is form of expression comes from somewhere.) Once it is found, either resolve it, or change the expression into something harmless.
2) Identify the source of the emotion or ideology that required the expression. Once found, resolve that emotion or ideology. Resolve situations where a person’s emotion or ideology would be badly altered.
(Cont.)
[b]The ideology that associates chastity and goodness:[/b]
This is the ideology where a woman who has been raped, regardless reason, is somehow inferior to those who had not been. I think I am too far away from this ideology to understand it. I will need to talk to someone who has this ideology to re-discover why someone would think that way.
I think a way to avoid this ideology is to understand that a person’s worth and happiness is rooted in the worth of their ideal and their commitment to it.
As long as a person stay true to their ideals, their self-worth remains the same. A rape victim whose ideal is to free the world of hunger, or to bring peace to the world, is still the same person before or after the rape.
The solution is to associate one’s self-worth to ideals (which cannot be changed as long as the person is committed to it) instead of status (which can be changed and be made impossible by events outside the control of the person).
Throughout the ages, I think most cultures did not teach this concept properly. When this is taught properly, everyone will always have meaning to live and they will always be happy.
At this point I can’t tell if what I said is inspiring or offensive because many people associate happiness with status, and use happiness as a reward to motivate achievement. I have no strong reason to convince them otherwise. But if they ever feel depressed they might consider this as an alternative. In this alternative perspective of life, happiness is not a reward of achievement. Happiness opens creativity and fuels achievement.
[b]The ideology that associates rape and power:[/b]
This is ideology that the more woman a man has sex with, the more awesome the man is. This thought pattern comes from evolution, but so is the residual tail. This thought pattern will be a relic of evolution, because the competitive view of life will evolve into a super cooperative view.
To avoid this ideology, each person should study and advance their own skills in cooperating, and express respect for those with the skills and intention. When this happens, people will listen to disagreement and seek to understand before they judge, problems will get resolved, relationships get strengthens, and the strongest people in society will be the ones that can mend all broken relationships, bridge diversities, keep people together, and freely teach others how to do the same. The concept that conquest is power will become archaic.
[b]The ignorance about rape in general:[/b]
In some sense this is a good sign. People are ignorant about rape because they aren’t rapists. Ignorance itself is not the problem, prejudice is. Prejudice comes from ideologies like the two discussed above.