Judge Orders Whites Out Of Atlanta Court

[Robert Toy]

Judge Marvin Arrington insists he's not a racist; despite ordering white lawyers out of his courtroom on Thursday.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15735848/detail.html

Understandable?

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Headline kinda makes it sound like it's racist, until you read the story.

[Plot Device]

I read the article. While I'm not black, I approve of the judge's intention, although I can certainly see the alternative and unintended message it was capable of simultaneously sending.

This situation makes me recall the controversy that Bill Cosby caused about five years back when he got up to a microphone and started raling against many of the social ills currently plaguing the American black community, citing children having children, boys committing rape and robbery, and parents who aren't there. He was criticized by black leaders NOT because those thnigs weren't true but for saying them at an open and public venue rather than behind closed doors. The general feeling that was expressed by his black critics was: "Blacks can certainly complain about other blacks, but NOT in front of whites." And so THAT is what this judge was doing that day: he was seeking to speak with frankness to those black kids about their crimes, but NOT in front of whites. He was trying to get personal with those kids in a way that would hopefuly make a difference in their lives, yet while still being culturally senstive to that particular more of the American black community.

[Robert Toy]

Agree

[donroc]

I do not agree. Next step will be segregated courtrooms. Fight the small battles to avoid having to fight the larger ones.

[Takvah]

Excuse me, but this is a jurist. Asking the attorneys to leave and delivering a speech to the defendants is highly irregular. While I think that the intent may have been good, from a professional standpoint it raises an eyebrow. If this judge wants to preach, he should preach. If he wants to mentor, he should mentor. In that courtroom though he is supposed to be the cold expression of the law made incarnate. I think this guy needs to get out there, visit some schools, go to boys and girls clubs and speak if he wants to make a difference. When they're sitting in that courtroom for murder, robbery or whatever else... it's already too late.

I don't think it was racist.

Just my opinion.

[SC Harrison]

Understandable?

Maybe, but it's still wrong. Communications between a judge and a defendent without the (retained) defense lawyer present is unwise if not outright misconduct.

He may have done it for the reasons stated, or he could have been merely trying to generate interest in what his personal opinions are so people might buy his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-My-Mark-Story-Wouldn%C3%86t/dp/0881460982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206799643&sr=8-1

I wonder how often he mentions the book in the courtroom? "This reminds me of something I wrote about in my book, blah blah blah." ;)

[Williebee]

Racist? Or just a reality of numbers?

"excused some of the lawyers, most of them white"

That's because most of them are/were white.

Maybe if there were as many black lawyers in the room as other races, we'd know the answer.

But, I'm with Takvah on this one. The man needs to get out into the community and deliver this message. Reach the next group of kids BEFORE they reach his court room.

[czjaba]

I usually don't get involved in political threads. But I think what the judge did was right. If it were a female judge, male lawyers, and female defendants, we'd probably still be having this discussion.
I blame the reporter on this one. I don't think this was news worthy, enough so to try and start racist bullshit against a judge that trying to help younger folks.

Again, this is just my opinion. I wish we had more judges to let younger adults know that the law is not to be feared, but rather respected.

[whistlelock]

probably be good grounds for a mistrial- having the lawyers shoo'ed out of court.

[onlyhere]

Judge Clueless could have as easily taken the youngsters into his chambers to talk to them, and should have done that. He needed a black audience? Please!

[NikeeGoddess]

Maybe, but it's still wrong. Communications between a judge and a defendent without the (retained) defense lawyer present is unwise if not outright misconduct.probably be good grounds for a mistrial- having the lawyers shoo'ed out of court.
it wasn't during trial proceedings. so he wasn't doing anything hurtful to any defendant. he was speaking as a black man mentoring to black kids. yeah, he can take it to the streets but, the opportunity was the here and now, and he took advantage of it.

most parents don't punish their children in public for all to see... unless it's other kids (like their friends) who need the same message. they wait til they get home.

But I think what the judge did was right. If it were a female judge, male lawyers, and female defendants, we'd probably still be having this discussion.yeah. and it would be something teenaged prostitutes getting lectured by a female judge with a similar message about respecting yourself and your body.

btw - IRL judges lecture to defendants all the time. they feel they have a right or maybe an obligation to do so.

[SC Harrison]

it wasn't during trial proceedings. so he wasn't doing anything hurtful to any defendant.

How do you know this? Have you seen a transcript of his lecture to these kids? I couldn't find one. For all we know, he might have advised them to go ahead and plead guilty instead of trying to fight their charges, or any number of other comments that could impact their (individual) cases.

While his intent might have stemmed from genuine concern for these kids, his sending the lawyers away indicates a serious flaw in judgment. Which then calls into question what he might have said to the kids. Follow me?

[sandyn]

I don't understand the need to send whites out. A good lecture on 'what are you doing with your lives' needs to be heard by all, methinks. I wonder whether the judge believed the lawyers would object to a good dressing down of these clients because he thinks the lawyers need the defendants to commit more crimes so they'll have more clients...

As for lawyers...

[billythrilly7th]

I don't know about the legal ramifications of what he did, but I understand why he did what he did and I don't have a problem with it.

[benbradley]

I read the article. While I'm not black, I approve of the judge's intention, although I can certainly see the alternative and unintended message it was capable of simultaneously sending.
I read the story, it was quite short, and yeah, the headline IS somewhat misleading, but in this day and age ya do whatcha gotta do to sell newspapers or online ads for news article hits...
This situation makes me recall the controversy that Bill Cosby caused about five years back when he got up to a microphone and started raling against many of the social ills currently plaguing the American black community, citing children having children, boys committing rape and robbery, and parents who aren't there. He was criticized by black leaders NOT because those thnigs weren't true but for saying them at an open and public venue rather than behind closed doors. The general feeling that was expressed by his black critics was: "Blacks can certainly complain about other blacks, but NOT in front of whites." And so THAT is what this judge was doing that day: he was seeking to speak with frankness to those black kids about their crimes, but NOT in front of whites. He was trying to get personal with those kids in a way that would hopefuly make a difference in their lives, yet while still being culturally senstive to that particular more of the American black community.
So, did Cosby really just all of a sudden come out and say that without having said things to people "behind the scenes?" I have no evidence either way, but I imagine he could have been blue in the face from trying to talk to people "behind the scenes."

But back to the judge, the last line of the article says: Arrington added that he may make a similar speech next week, but this time he'll allow everyone to hear it. Okay, I think he realized it was a somewhat questionable thing to do even if done with the best of intentions, so I say no harm, no foul.

[GeorgeK]

If the judge used his position of authority to get adults out of the room so he could be alone with juveniles, everything he says that happened is merely what he says. It doesn't matter white, black or polka dotted. I hope there was somebody else who would count as a witness.

[Plot Device]

So, did Cosby really just all of a sudden come out and say that without having said things to people "behind the scenes?" I have no evidence either way, but I imagine he could have been blue in the face from trying to talk to people "behind the scenes."

I hit Google up for the search terms "cosby controversy" and here's the #1 hit:

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2004/06/20040602_9.asp




Cosby Controversy
Story aired: Wednesday, June 02, 2004


Bill Cosby, appears on the Tavis Smiley show to explain his recent controversial remarks (AP)

It started with a speech commemorating Brown versus Board of Education before a well-heeled, mostly black, Washington crowd, but the comments made that night by comedian Bill Cosby, have reverberated through the entire black community.

[Plot Device]

And here's the #2 hit

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec04/cosby_7-15.html

[Voyager]

This whole blacks can talk about blacks but not in front of whites is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you're a jackass, it's not because you're black, it's cuz you're a jackass. If you don't want to be called a jackass in front of people, don't be a jackass. He's not going to solve anything by throwing all the white people out of the court and then saying, stop it, you're making us look bad. He needs to take his butt out into the streets and address the issues of poverty, drugs, education, etc, issues that cause high crime rates. Skin color doesn't create crime.

[benbradley]

CNN.com now has this video link on the front page (is today a slow news day, or does it just take a few days for these stories to get picked up by "major news sites?"):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/01/dnt.judge.talks.blacks.wsb

[NikeeGoddess]

yeah, it's old news now
anyhoo - did you check out the next video about the gator?
reminds me of a line from smoky and the bandit "Daddy, look at the big ol' ugly alligator on the road."

[Parkinsonsd]

He's trying. He saw a problem and tried to address it honestly.

[William Haskins]

An Atlanta, Georgia, judge who ordered white lawyers out of his courtroom so he could lecture African-American defendants called that decision a "mistake" Tuesday night.

"In retrospect, it was a mistake," Judge Marvin Arrington told CNN. "Because my sheriff said to me, 'Judge, that message should be given to everybody' -- 'Don't violate the law, make something out of yourself, go to school, find a role model, somebody that will help you advance your life.'"


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/judge.whites.out/index.html

[Jenifer]

I have zero problem with the basic issue. I don't think he's racist at all.

[dgiharris]

Excuse me, but this is a jurist. Asking the attorneys to leave and delivering a speech to the defendants is highly irregular. While I think that the intent may have been good, from a professional standpoint it raises an eyebrow. If this judge wants to preach, he should preach. If he wants to mentor, he should mentor. In that courtroom though he is supposed to be the cold expression of the law made incarnate. I think this guy needs to get out there, visit some schools, go to boys and girls clubs and speak if he wants to make a difference. When they're sitting in that courtroom for murder, robbery or whatever else... it's already too late.

I don't think it was racist.


I have to disagree with you musk man. The courtroom is more than just the hammer of justice, it is the juxtaposition of a person's life and their future. For many, it is the preverbial rock bottom.

As with most human beings, context is everything. What has more impact. A doctor visiting a high school telling you not to smoke, or a doctor looking down at you on a hospital table, telling you not to smoke after bringing you back from a heart attack.

Yes that is a bit drammatic but that is what a courtroom can be. Many people have stood in front of the judge, with their lives in the balance, and given the 'right' judge, have had their lives changed for the better. If ever a message has meaning, it is when it is being told to you from someone who has the power to irrevocably change your life with the bang of a gavel.

Yes, there are many hardened criminals who lectures are wasted on, but there are also many normal people (or newbie criminals) who do get turned around in the courtroom.

How do you know this? Have you seen a transcript of his lecture to these kids? I couldn't find one. For all we know, he might have advised them to go ahead and plead guilty instead of trying to fight their charges, or any number of other comments that could impact their (individual) cases.

While his intent might have stemmed from genuine concern for these kids, his sending the lawyers away indicates a serious flaw in judgment. Which then calls into question what he might have said to the kids. Follow me?

I have to disagree here as well. It's amazing how a Police officer can get away with tasering elderly, beating people to near comatose states, etc, yet a judge can't do a simple dramatic act to try to steer someone away from the darkside?

Judges do unconventional things all the time (Judge Judy anyone???) and this really isn't that extreme when taking into the proper context. Again, I think we are trying to play the gotcha game with this. Looking for things that aren't there.

In this case, it was about trying to reach these people. He felt that he had a better chance of reaching these people if he talked to them one on one.

Yes, it was unconventional, but I find this whole thing troubling. As a society, we will back a police officer in a heart beat despite evidence and common sense, yet when faced with a situation that a 5 year old could see was nothing but good intentions, we look for nefarious plans that aren't there and make deductions and twists of logic to paint this as something wrong.

I think the point was made earlier, if it was a female judge who kicked all the men out so that she could talk one on one with a bunch of prostitutes about how to not sell their bodies and have some dignity, I would be in support of that too.

Mel...

[SC Harrison]

In this case, it was about trying to reach these people. He felt that he had a better chance of reaching these people if he talked to them one on one.



You know what they say about good intentions.

By sending the attorneys away, the judge was basically saying, "I don't need you here right now, because I've got something else I want to try with these kids, and your presence might hamper that."

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, it isn't. Like it or not, our legal system is adverserial in nature, and defense attorneys are often fighting against not only the prosecuting attorney, but the judge also. Removing them from court while the judge interacts with their clients (en camera) puts the defense at a disadvantage, which also puts the accused at a disadvantage.

[Jcomp]

The whole "This message needs to be heard by everybody" thing is kind of silly in light of the fact that he excused LAWYERS, who kinda probably don't need the whole "Don't violate the law, make something of your life" speech (insert lawyer jokes aplenty here).

He didn't deliberately intend to excuse every white person in the room so far as I can tell from the link.

I think that professionally, because of the reasons cited by SC, it wasn't wise. Otherwise... seriously people...

[GeorgeK]

I think that professionally, because of the reasons cited by SC, it wasn't wise. Otherwise... seriously people...

It's also just a bad idea from the standpoint of placing himself at risk. It only takes one shyster lawyer alledging what happens when others are not in the room, or tabloid out of context photograph to put his whole career at stake, no matter how well intentioned or even successful he might be. In his position most likely he's seen that kind of thing.