As I’ve emphasized on several occasions, that the Neighborhood Court program depends in large part upon voluntary cooperation. Today’s blog gives you a chance to meet a typical volunteer. Please meet Sheri Gunner.
SHERI retired from United Airlines after twenty-two years as a flight attendant. Still in good health and probably one of the most vigorous of all the other retired flight attendant friends, she ran for and won the presidency of the retired flight attendant club, she began a rigorous regime of daily power-walks, and rode her bicycle for at least 35-miles, twice a week, along with her retired United Airline pilot. On top of all that she found time to watch at least two movies each week and read at least one book per week. The latter, actually motivated her to join a book club sponsored by the public library not far from her home. Last night was her first meeting of the book club that was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. sharp. It was apparent to all that Sheri had no intention of doing anything that resembled doing nothing at all. Aging wasn’t an option she considered for one single moment.
She arrived at the library for her first book club meeting with twelve minutes to spare. For only a moment, she was curious why no one else was there, but no matter, she was pretty certain that she was in the right place and, of course, she had a really good book with her to occupy her sufficiently until the others arrived. That’s just about the time two women and one man, all wearing power suits walked in. The man, a tall, thin Chinese fellow, was carrying four large, steaming hot, fresh pizzas obviously just out of the oven. Of course curious, Sheri asked, “Hi. Who are you? Maybe I’m in the wrong room.” They all gave a friendly laugh and suggested that fate had got her there.
“The guy was the first to speak. “Hi. How’s it going?” He shook her hand and introduced he and the ladies, “ I’m Rodney Lam, the Director of Neighborhood Court for the Office of the San Francisco District Attorney. Pointing to the short, square-shouldered woman on his right he said, “This is Sally Branson, our Neighborhood Court Prosecutor and this.” pointing to the woman on his left, “this here is Hilary Kramer, the director of CaCDS - California Community Dispute Services. Who are you?” “I’m Sheri Gunner and I’m curious what you’re up to and, oh my God, that pizza smells so good.”
It was suggested that she join them, and the other dozen that were quickly filtering into the room, for a couple of slices of pizza pie and an orientation meeting arranged to explain Neighborhood Court to potential volunteers. Was this up Sheri’s alley or what? Needless to say, Sheri never made it to her first book club meeting. Here’s what she learned.
• Neighborhood Court is an alternative to Criminal Court. Instead of charging cases for criminal prosecution, the District Attorney’s Office can refer certain cases to Neighborhood Court and a panel of volunteer “adjudicators’ will hear the case.
• Adjudicators are residents who volunteer to hear the cases. They have been trained in restorative justice and problem solving. They are people who have a stake in the community. They are not professional lawyers or judges. They are residents, merchants, students, parents or retired people.
• At Neighborhood Court, the adjudicators decide how to resolve the case. All parties may attend. Panelists hear from the offender, and the victim in cases where there is a victim, and discuss the impact of the crime on the community. To resolve the case, they issue “directives,” like community service and/or restitution, or they can dismiss the case.
If you would like more information on how the program works, you can call 415-551-9565, or you can go to www.sfdistrictattorney.org.
# #
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT (6 of 10)
This is the sixth in a series of investigative reports and fictionalized narratives that deal with an authentically chaotic criminal justice program found in our city of San Francisco where the District Attorney, George Gascón, has launched a pilot program, called Neighborhood Court. As the DA likes to say, “As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity.” During the five months of my involvement, I sense that the betting is on the DA pulling it off. I just hope we’re not too late. And I remain curious what will happen if George is not re-elected?
Based on the comments I’ve been getting, a more detailed look at the concept called Restorative Justice is called for. For some folks it’s hard to wrap their brain around it. So let’s take another look at it all. First, what are the pertinent questions you should be asking (according to experts)?
• What is it?
• What are its most basic principals?
• What is it for?
• What are the primary objectives?
• Why is it called Restorative Justice?
• How did the idea of Restorative Justice arise?
• What is the relationship of Restorative Justice to Legal Justice?
• What are the limitations of Restorative Justice?
The most complete resource I’ve found to answer all these questions is a report filed by Tony E. Marshall at the Home Office of Research Development and Statistics.
What is it? It is a process whereby the three parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future. Who are these three parties involved? That’s got to be, of course, the offender, the victim and the local community.
What is it good for? The objectives are clear: (a) to attend fully to victim’s needs - material, financial, emotional and social; (b) to prevent re-offending by reintegrating offenders into the community; (c) to enable offenders to assume active responsibility for their actions; (d) to recreate a working community that supports the rehabilitation of offenders and victims and is active in preventing crime; and (e) to provide a means of avoiding escalation of legal justice and the associated costs and delays.
What are the limitations? There are several limitations, but perhaps the biggest is that Restorative Justice relies in large part upon voluntary cooperation. If one party is not willing to participate the range of options is reduced. If neither party is willing, there is no option but to let formal justice take its usual course.
Next week I will take a look at the panelist - called adjudicators.
Please stay tuned.
Based on the comments I’ve been getting, a more detailed look at the concept called Restorative Justice is called for. For some folks it’s hard to wrap their brain around it. So let’s take another look at it all. First, what are the pertinent questions you should be asking (according to experts)?
• What is it?
• What are its most basic principals?
• What is it for?
• What are the primary objectives?
• Why is it called Restorative Justice?
• How did the idea of Restorative Justice arise?
• What is the relationship of Restorative Justice to Legal Justice?
• What are the limitations of Restorative Justice?
The most complete resource I’ve found to answer all these questions is a report filed by Tony E. Marshall at the Home Office of Research Development and Statistics.
What is it? It is a process whereby the three parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future. Who are these three parties involved? That’s got to be, of course, the offender, the victim and the local community.
What is it good for? The objectives are clear: (a) to attend fully to victim’s needs - material, financial, emotional and social; (b) to prevent re-offending by reintegrating offenders into the community; (c) to enable offenders to assume active responsibility for their actions; (d) to recreate a working community that supports the rehabilitation of offenders and victims and is active in preventing crime; and (e) to provide a means of avoiding escalation of legal justice and the associated costs and delays.
What are the limitations? There are several limitations, but perhaps the biggest is that Restorative Justice relies in large part upon voluntary cooperation. If one party is not willing to participate the range of options is reduced. If neither party is willing, there is no option but to let formal justice take its usual course.
Next week I will take a look at the panelist - called adjudicators.
Please stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
This is the fifth in a series that deals with an authentically chaotic criminal justice system found in nearly every large community in California, if not in the entire Western world. My focus is specifically on our city of San Francisco where the District Attorney, George Gascón, has launched a pilot program, called Neighborhood Court. As the DA likes to say, “As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity.” I think the DA can pull it off.
It is my intention in these reports to promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. Call it a cause, even a mission if you’d like. Whatever you call it, it is my passion to describe it to you. To be in close and to be able to witness the birth of an important evolution in our judicial system is significant enough to gain my full attention as a freelance writer.
Who knows? This might be so much fun that I will want to take on the state of our public education system in the spring of 2012.
The responsibility being the Prosecutor of this ambitious pilot program is huge. Ultimately, the DA placed the entire task onto the shoulders of one person. As we all can easily imagine, in that capacity it becomes a critical point of contact because each and every cited individual will meet with the Prosecutor. How many is that? Well, in the Mission and Bayview districts for example, police issue between 30 and 50 citations a day. Those who receive one will be given two choices - a court date in six weeks or a chance to see the Prosecutor immediately. So before the offender appears before the panelists at neighborhood court, he's already admitted his guilt and expressed his interest in wiping the crime off his record. Commit the crime today, see the Prosecutor tomorrow and be in neighborhood court quickly. That is what is promised. That is what is required to make this work. We are off to a good start, let me tell you.
More case studies next time.
# #
It is my intention in these reports to promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. Call it a cause, even a mission if you’d like. Whatever you call it, it is my passion to describe it to you. To be in close and to be able to witness the birth of an important evolution in our judicial system is significant enough to gain my full attention as a freelance writer.
Who knows? This might be so much fun that I will want to take on the state of our public education system in the spring of 2012.
The responsibility being the Prosecutor of this ambitious pilot program is huge. Ultimately, the DA placed the entire task onto the shoulders of one person. As we all can easily imagine, in that capacity it becomes a critical point of contact because each and every cited individual will meet with the Prosecutor. How many is that? Well, in the Mission and Bayview districts for example, police issue between 30 and 50 citations a day. Those who receive one will be given two choices - a court date in six weeks or a chance to see the Prosecutor immediately. So before the offender appears before the panelists at neighborhood court, he's already admitted his guilt and expressed his interest in wiping the crime off his record. Commit the crime today, see the Prosecutor tomorrow and be in neighborhood court quickly. That is what is promised. That is what is required to make this work. We are off to a good start, let me tell you.
More case studies next time.
# #
Thursday, August 18, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
This is the fourth in a series of fictionalized narratives that deal with an authentically chaotic criminal justice system found in nearly every large community in California, if not in the entire Western world. In this blog my focus is entirely on our city of San Francisco where the District Attorney, George Gascón, has launched a pilot program, called Neighborhood Court. As the DA likes to say, “As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity.” That is Gascón’s ambitious goal and one that has apparently achieved the unequivocal support of San Francisco citizens. (There is a city official in San Mateo who does not support it, but his reasons have not been offered up as yet. Let me get back to you about that).
At the moment I am the midst of describing the offenders who commit the infractions (sometimes called petty offenses) and the misdemeanors (criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction). What has preceded today’s posting and all that will follow in the coming weeks reflect my experience as a panelist, an Adjudicator, and a volunteer.
Case number three - Beverly T. (the victim) versus Selma S. (the offender) - Battery (Penal Code 242); Destruction of Evidence (Penal Code 135); Vandalism (Penal Code 594).
Officer Max T, of the police department’s district office, read the police report, which I paraphrase here to tell a fascinating story:
This two women have been next-door neighbors for 3-years. It should be noted that neither the victim nor the offender speaks the other’s language. With the exception of an occasional “good morning” or “buenos dais” there have been few if any interactions. As a matter of fact, there have never been any issues whatsoever between them until, that is, eight days ago, when Selma (the offender) walked onto Beverly’s front porch with an aluminum baseball bat and smashed the newly mounted video camera that was to provide security surveillance of Beverly’s porch, and did so very well - unfortunately it also was believed by the offender to be video-taping her front porch as well. Selma then rang Beverly’s doorbell. Beverly states that when she answered the door, she screamed in terror at the sight of a raging, red faced woman, holding a baseball bat as if prepared to strike a blow on her person and standing in the midst of shattered glass and metal of the video camera which had been mounted above the door. Selma then swung the bat once more smashing a hanging flowerpot. Beverly slammed the door shut and immediately called police. The message they got was “battery in progress.” When the police arrived the offender, who was still raging and threatening the victim with the bat, was thrown to the ground and handcuffed. The offender claims that she is the victim of the neighbor and her camera, which violated her privacy. Both parties accepted the police report as an accurate description of the events. It rang true.
DIRECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
We the panel, upon hearing the circumstances of the confrontation, voiced our concern that because these two parties are likely be neighbors into the foreseeable future, they should put into place an arbitration mechanism in order to avoid future misunderstandings and confrontations. The panel will assist them with the arrangements of such a mechanism. The offender was then directed to (a) three sessions of Anger Management Group, (b) to meet with Legal Aid so that she might come to understand the laws dealing with the destruction of personal property of others, and (c) to replace the camera. In other words: repair the harm.
TRADITIONAL COURT VRS. NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
The entire process, from beginning to end, occurred within a 3-week period versus the 3-months it would have taken in traditional court. The entire cost to the City & County was $300 versus the $1,500 it would have cost in a traditional court. When these numbers are extrapolated out for, oh say, 5-years the compelling reasons for supporting this pilot project cannot be denied.
At the moment I am the midst of describing the offenders who commit the infractions (sometimes called petty offenses) and the misdemeanors (criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction). What has preceded today’s posting and all that will follow in the coming weeks reflect my experience as a panelist, an Adjudicator, and a volunteer.
Case number three - Beverly T. (the victim) versus Selma S. (the offender) - Battery (Penal Code 242); Destruction of Evidence (Penal Code 135); Vandalism (Penal Code 594).
Officer Max T, of the police department’s district office, read the police report, which I paraphrase here to tell a fascinating story:
This two women have been next-door neighbors for 3-years. It should be noted that neither the victim nor the offender speaks the other’s language. With the exception of an occasional “good morning” or “buenos dais” there have been few if any interactions. As a matter of fact, there have never been any issues whatsoever between them until, that is, eight days ago, when Selma (the offender) walked onto Beverly’s front porch with an aluminum baseball bat and smashed the newly mounted video camera that was to provide security surveillance of Beverly’s porch, and did so very well - unfortunately it also was believed by the offender to be video-taping her front porch as well. Selma then rang Beverly’s doorbell. Beverly states that when she answered the door, she screamed in terror at the sight of a raging, red faced woman, holding a baseball bat as if prepared to strike a blow on her person and standing in the midst of shattered glass and metal of the video camera which had been mounted above the door. Selma then swung the bat once more smashing a hanging flowerpot. Beverly slammed the door shut and immediately called police. The message they got was “battery in progress.” When the police arrived the offender, who was still raging and threatening the victim with the bat, was thrown to the ground and handcuffed. The offender claims that she is the victim of the neighbor and her camera, which violated her privacy. Both parties accepted the police report as an accurate description of the events. It rang true.
DIRECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
We the panel, upon hearing the circumstances of the confrontation, voiced our concern that because these two parties are likely be neighbors into the foreseeable future, they should put into place an arbitration mechanism in order to avoid future misunderstandings and confrontations. The panel will assist them with the arrangements of such a mechanism. The offender was then directed to (a) three sessions of Anger Management Group, (b) to meet with Legal Aid so that she might come to understand the laws dealing with the destruction of personal property of others, and (c) to replace the camera. In other words: repair the harm.
TRADITIONAL COURT VRS. NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
The entire process, from beginning to end, occurred within a 3-week period versus the 3-months it would have taken in traditional court. The entire cost to the City & County was $300 versus the $1,500 it would have cost in a traditional court. When these numbers are extrapolated out for, oh say, 5-years the compelling reasons for supporting this pilot project cannot be denied.
Friday, August 12, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
This is the third in a series of fictionalized narratives will deal with the authentically chaotic criminal justice system in San Francisco and what our highly regarded District Attorney, George Gascón, has undertaken to discourage the endemic criminal violations that impact our city’s neighborhoods. His pilot program, called Neighborhood Court, was announced during the spring of 2011 and is now well on its way of making a difference in our lives. “As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity.” That is Gascón’s ambitious goal.
To prepare for this assignment I have positioned myself as an unofficial embed inside the District Attorney’s Neighborhood Court Program as an Adjudicator. I have willingly signed a legal document called a Code of Conduct Agreement that prohibits me from disclosing any confidential information received in the course of my service to Neighborhood Court or employing such confidential information for personal gain. It is my intention to report only my experience as a panelist in ways that intentionally promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. That is my tact because it is the truth. Let’s continue with a report from the same hearing as described last week.
Case number two -Miss Flora D. - Violation: Muni Fare Evasion - Municipal Police Code 1145
Maggie greets Flora and her 8-year old daughter (who by the way, charms everyone in the room) and presents her opening statement to the offender: She reminds Flora that if the panel finds that the citation was properly issued and that if the panel can come to an agreement as to its resolution, she will instruct the DA not to pursue the case against her. However, she is told to be very, very clear that if she were charged with the same offense again within 12 calendar months from the date of this incident it may be treated as a second offense and the consequences would be far greater. Maggie introduces the panelists on her left and right as individuals from the same community that is provoked by her offense.
Flora admits that she doesn’t pay any fare most of the time because she just doesn’t think it’s fair to be charged anything at all. She thinks fares are already too high and adds that she believes the fares will continue to go up and up and ultimately they will exclude all the regular folks of her community from public transportation. Flora says she was only going two blocks with her children to pick up free food being handed out a church and wondered why it was a “big deal”.
The panelists begin to ask her questions, such as:
o Are you able to walk? “Yes.”
o Does you understand the irony in that rather than walk two blocks for free food being offered in your community you elected to break the law in your very same community? “Hadn’t thought about it.”
o Do you think you set a good example for your daughter? “No.”
o Do you want to set a good example for your daughter? “Yes.”
o Are you aware that, like demonstrated by you, there is very little community respect shown for the T-Line in your community and that that lack of respect is more common here than any other parts of the city? “No.”
o Are you aware that she is likely entitled to a free Clipper Card. “I heard the program was ended, so I just didn’t check into it”
At that point in the proceeding Maggie asked Flora and her little girl to wait in the other room while the panel considered the case and what might be done to resolve the matter. It didn’t take long. In less than five-minutes Flora was asked to rejoin the group and advised what had be decided. She was given 10-hours of community service as well as a contact number where she obtain a Clipper Card at no charge. She was to get the card and report back to the Neighborhood Court in two weeks time. Needless to say, Flora and her little girl were pleased and agreed to come in.
Next case, next week.
To prepare for this assignment I have positioned myself as an unofficial embed inside the District Attorney’s Neighborhood Court Program as an Adjudicator. I have willingly signed a legal document called a Code of Conduct Agreement that prohibits me from disclosing any confidential information received in the course of my service to Neighborhood Court or employing such confidential information for personal gain. It is my intention to report only my experience as a panelist in ways that intentionally promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. That is my tact because it is the truth. Let’s continue with a report from the same hearing as described last week.
Case number two -Miss Flora D. - Violation: Muni Fare Evasion - Municipal Police Code 1145
Maggie greets Flora and her 8-year old daughter (who by the way, charms everyone in the room) and presents her opening statement to the offender: She reminds Flora that if the panel finds that the citation was properly issued and that if the panel can come to an agreement as to its resolution, she will instruct the DA not to pursue the case against her. However, she is told to be very, very clear that if she were charged with the same offense again within 12 calendar months from the date of this incident it may be treated as a second offense and the consequences would be far greater. Maggie introduces the panelists on her left and right as individuals from the same community that is provoked by her offense.
Flora admits that she doesn’t pay any fare most of the time because she just doesn’t think it’s fair to be charged anything at all. She thinks fares are already too high and adds that she believes the fares will continue to go up and up and ultimately they will exclude all the regular folks of her community from public transportation. Flora says she was only going two blocks with her children to pick up free food being handed out a church and wondered why it was a “big deal”.
The panelists begin to ask her questions, such as:
o Are you able to walk? “Yes.”
o Does you understand the irony in that rather than walk two blocks for free food being offered in your community you elected to break the law in your very same community? “Hadn’t thought about it.”
o Do you think you set a good example for your daughter? “No.”
o Do you want to set a good example for your daughter? “Yes.”
o Are you aware that, like demonstrated by you, there is very little community respect shown for the T-Line in your community and that that lack of respect is more common here than any other parts of the city? “No.”
o Are you aware that she is likely entitled to a free Clipper Card. “I heard the program was ended, so I just didn’t check into it”
At that point in the proceeding Maggie asked Flora and her little girl to wait in the other room while the panel considered the case and what might be done to resolve the matter. It didn’t take long. In less than five-minutes Flora was asked to rejoin the group and advised what had be decided. She was given 10-hours of community service as well as a contact number where she obtain a Clipper Card at no charge. She was to get the card and report back to the Neighborhood Court in two weeks time. Needless to say, Flora and her little girl were pleased and agreed to come in.
Next case, next week.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
This is the second of a series of fictionalized narratives will deal with the authentically chaotic criminal justice system in San Francisco and what our highly regarded District Attorney, George Gascón, has undertaken to discourage the endemic criminal violations that impact our city’s neighborhoods. His pilot program, called Neighborhood Court, was announced during the spring of 2011 and is now well on its way of making a difference in our lives. As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity. That is Gascón’s ambitious goal.
..........................................................................................................................
Not being familiar with Muni bus routes and schedules in this particular part of San Francisco, I arrive later than I had hoped at the neighborhood community center where today’s court will take place. There are only five minutes remaining before the doors will be opened and today’s session will get underway (at 1 p.m. sharp).
I am a newly trained panelist candidate here to observe the first of two Neighborhood Court sessions I must attend before I can be assigned as a Judicial Panelist in good standing. Maggie G., a seasoned volunteer adjudicator, is assigned by the DA’s office to be today’s facilitator and given the title of Judge/Arbitrator. Maggie graciously introduces herself to me as well as to Michael K. and Sarah R., the other two volunteers making up the panel. Also in attendance is Officer Max T. of the SF Police Department who assigned to this district’s station. His duties are to read aloud the police report pertaining to each case and also to provide security to the hearing as may be needed.
I’m reminded that I can only observe today’s process without making any comments or suggestions during the proceedings. It is recommended that I write down any comments, questions or suggestions that arise and discuss them with the panel at the end of the hearing day. With just a minute or two to go before opening the proceedings, Maggie includes me in her final instructions to her fellow volunteers, “Be positive, direct and honest. And by all means listen with courtesy and empathy. Okay, let’s do it.” With that we were ready to get underway.
It is announced that there are only cases scheduled to be heard during the next two hours. Not everyone charged has arrived in the outer office but there are individuals and cases to be heard at once.
Case number one - Wayne D. - Violation: Drinking in Public - Muni Police Code -21
Maggie thanks him for coming in and reminds him that this is a voluntary process and that he is free to leave at anytime. If that is his choice, she continues, his case will be sent back to the District Attorney who may charge his case and which case he will be required go into regular court and before a judge in black robes. Wayne states that he understands and that wishes to remain.
Wayne is a black male about 50-years of age who comes off as very dignified and handsome in his carefully trimmed goatee. He proudly tells the panel that he retired from the U.S. Coast Guard nearly twenty years ago and has never been able to find steady work. For “pocket money” he recycles bottles and cans. The police report states that eleven days ago he was cited for having a full and open can of beer near a church on a Sunday where parents and kids were present when he was confronted and cited by two officers on bicycles. When asked for his recollection of the circumstances, Wayne tells a sad but somewhat humorous story, to my way of thinking:
“It was about 11 a.m. and was I was pushing my shopping card full of empties down the street just like I always do. I seen an acquaintance there on my regular route and stopped to have a chat. We went to elementary school together a long time ago. Well, he gave me one empty can of beer for my collection and had just popped opened a second, when he seen two cops coming up from behind me. What he does is not say nothing but just hands me the full can and he takes off down the street and disappears around the corner. The cops that I never seen coming pull over and there I stand with the full can of beer. Like I said, I never even seen them coming.”
At that point Wayne is asked to wait outside while the panel discusses the matter. The panel quickly decides to dismiss the case. Wayne is asked to come back into the room and is given the panel’s decision. He agrees to do his collecting in the future away from where good people assemble. He thanks the panel for their understanding and leaves to go about his business. Nicely done, it seems to me.
More about today’s session to continue next time. Please stay tuned.
# #
..........................................................................................................................
Not being familiar with Muni bus routes and schedules in this particular part of San Francisco, I arrive later than I had hoped at the neighborhood community center where today’s court will take place. There are only five minutes remaining before the doors will be opened and today’s session will get underway (at 1 p.m. sharp).
I am a newly trained panelist candidate here to observe the first of two Neighborhood Court sessions I must attend before I can be assigned as a Judicial Panelist in good standing. Maggie G., a seasoned volunteer adjudicator, is assigned by the DA’s office to be today’s facilitator and given the title of Judge/Arbitrator. Maggie graciously introduces herself to me as well as to Michael K. and Sarah R., the other two volunteers making up the panel. Also in attendance is Officer Max T. of the SF Police Department who assigned to this district’s station. His duties are to read aloud the police report pertaining to each case and also to provide security to the hearing as may be needed.
I’m reminded that I can only observe today’s process without making any comments or suggestions during the proceedings. It is recommended that I write down any comments, questions or suggestions that arise and discuss them with the panel at the end of the hearing day. With just a minute or two to go before opening the proceedings, Maggie includes me in her final instructions to her fellow volunteers, “Be positive, direct and honest. And by all means listen with courtesy and empathy. Okay, let’s do it.” With that we were ready to get underway.
It is announced that there are only cases scheduled to be heard during the next two hours. Not everyone charged has arrived in the outer office but there are individuals and cases to be heard at once.
Case number one - Wayne D. - Violation: Drinking in Public - Muni Police Code -21
Maggie thanks him for coming in and reminds him that this is a voluntary process and that he is free to leave at anytime. If that is his choice, she continues, his case will be sent back to the District Attorney who may charge his case and which case he will be required go into regular court and before a judge in black robes. Wayne states that he understands and that wishes to remain.
Wayne is a black male about 50-years of age who comes off as very dignified and handsome in his carefully trimmed goatee. He proudly tells the panel that he retired from the U.S. Coast Guard nearly twenty years ago and has never been able to find steady work. For “pocket money” he recycles bottles and cans. The police report states that eleven days ago he was cited for having a full and open can of beer near a church on a Sunday where parents and kids were present when he was confronted and cited by two officers on bicycles. When asked for his recollection of the circumstances, Wayne tells a sad but somewhat humorous story, to my way of thinking:
“It was about 11 a.m. and was I was pushing my shopping card full of empties down the street just like I always do. I seen an acquaintance there on my regular route and stopped to have a chat. We went to elementary school together a long time ago. Well, he gave me one empty can of beer for my collection and had just popped opened a second, when he seen two cops coming up from behind me. What he does is not say nothing but just hands me the full can and he takes off down the street and disappears around the corner. The cops that I never seen coming pull over and there I stand with the full can of beer. Like I said, I never even seen them coming.”
At that point Wayne is asked to wait outside while the panel discusses the matter. The panel quickly decides to dismiss the case. Wayne is asked to come back into the room and is given the panel’s decision. He agrees to do his collecting in the future away from where good people assemble. He thanks the panel for their understanding and leaves to go about his business. Nicely done, it seems to me.
More about today’s session to continue next time. Please stay tuned.
# #
Sunday, July 31, 2011
NEIGHBORHOOD COURT
This series of fictionalized narratives will deal with the authentically chaotic criminal justice system in San Francisco and what our highly regarded District Attorney, George Gascón, has undertaken to discourage the endemic criminal violations that impact our city’s neighborhoods. His pilot program, called Neighborhood Court, was announced during the spring of 2011 and is now well on its way of making a difference in our lives. As a restorative justice program, Neighborhood Courts will strengthen communities undermined by criminal activity. That is Gascón’s ambitious goal.
In the coming weeks and months, I will approach the entire subject of Restorative Justice, by describing:
• The offenders who commit the infractions (sometimes called petty offenses) and the misdemeanors (criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction).
• The victims and what the system can do to repair the harm done to them, including issues material, financial, emotional and social.
• The community represented by trained volunteers brought together under compelling circumstances, each seeking in a selfless way to play a role in reinventing as broken judicial system.
To prepare for this task I have positioned myself as an unofficial embed inside the District Attorney’s Neighborhood Court Program as an Adjudicator. I have willingly signed a legal document called a Code of Conduct Agreement that prohibits me from disclosing any confidential information received in the course of my service to Neighborhood Court or employing such confidential information for personal gain. It is my intention to report only my experience as a panelist in ways that intentionally promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. That is my tact because it is the truth. Let’s get started, shall we?
Restorative Justice?
Another damn starry-eyed Progressive crusade? Not so fast. I suggest that you had better pay attention. It could very well affect your life, the lives of your children and the lives of your children’s children.
What first caught my attention about the program was the compelling fact that restorative justice has been used by indigenous populations going way back to a time of Native American “sentencing circles” and prehistoric Maori justice in New Zealand. Not matter what it is now called, it is a modern development that assumes that if low-level crimes, such as taxi fare evasion, shoplifting, or selling tobacco to a minor, could be handled in the neighborhood where the violations happened, a different result would be achieved. Instead of going to criminal court for these kinds of “life misdemeanors” the cited offenders are offered a chance to come to an agreement with a "neighborhood court." By simply admitting responsibility, the cited individuals are sent to a panel of community members who listen to his story and sentence him to some kind of "restorative justice," such as cleaning up graffiti or writing a letter of apology. Once he completes the assignment, his record for the offense will be cleared. Hooked yet? Please stay tuned.
# #
In the coming weeks and months, I will approach the entire subject of Restorative Justice, by describing:
• The offenders who commit the infractions (sometimes called petty offenses) and the misdemeanors (criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction).
• The victims and what the system can do to repair the harm done to them, including issues material, financial, emotional and social.
• The community represented by trained volunteers brought together under compelling circumstances, each seeking in a selfless way to play a role in reinventing as broken judicial system.
To prepare for this task I have positioned myself as an unofficial embed inside the District Attorney’s Neighborhood Court Program as an Adjudicator. I have willingly signed a legal document called a Code of Conduct Agreement that prohibits me from disclosing any confidential information received in the course of my service to Neighborhood Court or employing such confidential information for personal gain. It is my intention to report only my experience as a panelist in ways that intentionally promote public confidence in the integrity of the Neighborhood Court process. That is my tact because it is the truth. Let’s get started, shall we?
Restorative Justice?
Another damn starry-eyed Progressive crusade? Not so fast. I suggest that you had better pay attention. It could very well affect your life, the lives of your children and the lives of your children’s children.
What first caught my attention about the program was the compelling fact that restorative justice has been used by indigenous populations going way back to a time of Native American “sentencing circles” and prehistoric Maori justice in New Zealand. Not matter what it is now called, it is a modern development that assumes that if low-level crimes, such as taxi fare evasion, shoplifting, or selling tobacco to a minor, could be handled in the neighborhood where the violations happened, a different result would be achieved. Instead of going to criminal court for these kinds of “life misdemeanors” the cited offenders are offered a chance to come to an agreement with a "neighborhood court." By simply admitting responsibility, the cited individuals are sent to a panel of community members who listen to his story and sentence him to some kind of "restorative justice," such as cleaning up graffiti or writing a letter of apology. Once he completes the assignment, his record for the offense will be cleared. Hooked yet? Please stay tuned.
# #
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
THE MAKING OF "CROSSING THE BAR"
WELCOME TO MY MOST AMBITIOUS WEEKLY BLOG TO DATE. PREVIOUSLY I HAVE ONLY TOLD FICTIONALIZED STORIES ABOUT PEOPLE BROUGHT TOGETHER UNDER COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES AND SEEKING TO REINVENT THEMSELVES. THIS TIME I OFFER A TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE TENACIOUS, CREATIVE AND DIFFICULT WORK REQUIRED OF A WRITER-PRODUCER IN ORDER TO GET HIS INDEPENDENT, FEATURE-LENGTH FILM MADE AND SHOWN TO AN INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE. THE BLOG WILL DEMONSTRATE HOW ONE CREATES SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING - OR BUST.
IN THE BLOG THE FILM IS THE PROTAGONIST. THE STORY I WILL TELL IS ACTUALLY TWO STORIES IN ONE: THE STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED AND THE STORY OF WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED. IN THE FILM, AIMEE'S STORY IS ABOUT THE INFLUENTIAL ROLE SHE PLAYED DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY'S "SECOND-WAVE" EXPANSION OF THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT ON THE BAY OF SAN FRANCISCO. THE ANTAGONIST IS BOTH THE BLOG AND THE FILM IS THE ANCIENT, MALE DOMINATED WORLD OF MARITIME COMMERCE
CONCEPTION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOREPLAY - Blog 10 of 10
A fan of my blog (as well as a tax-deductible donor to the film itself) recently tapped me on the shoulder and asked, "How does the process of film-making resemble in any way, shape or form the title of this series "Conception and the Importance of Foreplay." What is the metaphor, pray tell?"
First, we must share a common definition of conception. It is quite simple. Conception is the moment of fertilization. A biologist might very well say that it is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism - or in our case, to produce a new idea, we like to think, whose time has come.
However before that moment in time a great deal is necessarily going on. Such as, an introduction to a potential donor, or as in our case, a non-profit called the San Francisco Film Society. The political flirtation begins. If there is no chemistry the relationship goes no further. That is to say when you present your film project in its best light to the right person, that person will scrutinize you and your project and indicate if any further contact is desired. And make no mistake about it, 'desired' is the operational word here.
Can you guess that this critical period is called ovulation and union? Who calls it that? Me. I do. This is the foreplay and is the politics.
It's now ranked as a love affair between idea sources and the result can be a perfect child manifested, in our case, as a beautifully and well told story that inspires audiences.
I'm meeting with the "right" person tomorrow. There is chemistry.
Copyright 2011 G. Leo Maselli
# #
IN THE BLOG THE FILM IS THE PROTAGONIST. THE STORY I WILL TELL IS ACTUALLY TWO STORIES IN ONE: THE STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED AND THE STORY OF WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED. IN THE FILM, AIMEE'S STORY IS ABOUT THE INFLUENTIAL ROLE SHE PLAYED DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY'S "SECOND-WAVE" EXPANSION OF THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT ON THE BAY OF SAN FRANCISCO. THE ANTAGONIST IS BOTH THE BLOG AND THE FILM IS THE ANCIENT, MALE DOMINATED WORLD OF MARITIME COMMERCE
CONCEPTION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOREPLAY - Blog 10 of 10
A fan of my blog (as well as a tax-deductible donor to the film itself) recently tapped me on the shoulder and asked, "How does the process of film-making resemble in any way, shape or form the title of this series "Conception and the Importance of Foreplay." What is the metaphor, pray tell?"
First, we must share a common definition of conception. It is quite simple. Conception is the moment of fertilization. A biologist might very well say that it is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism - or in our case, to produce a new idea, we like to think, whose time has come.
However before that moment in time a great deal is necessarily going on. Such as, an introduction to a potential donor, or as in our case, a non-profit called the San Francisco Film Society. The political flirtation begins. If there is no chemistry the relationship goes no further. That is to say when you present your film project in its best light to the right person, that person will scrutinize you and your project and indicate if any further contact is desired. And make no mistake about it, 'desired' is the operational word here.
Can you guess that this critical period is called ovulation and union? Who calls it that? Me. I do. This is the foreplay and is the politics.
It's now ranked as a love affair between idea sources and the result can be a perfect child manifested, in our case, as a beautifully and well told story that inspires audiences.
I'm meeting with the "right" person tomorrow. There is chemistry.
Copyright 2011 G. Leo Maselli
# #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)