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.