Here is a a sad story to illustrate a piece of advice I often hang my hat on. When anyone in a position of authority--an employer, the police, a school administrator--advises you not to hire an attorney, it's time to hire an attorney. When they advise you not to hire an attorney because it will create a confrontational atmosphere, you should have hired one yesterday; you're being railroaded.
And isn't it especially true in a disciplinary action? Anything other than a confrontational hearing is a process based on the presumption of guilt. The entire idealized system of justice is based on the necessary and desirable nature of confrontation, especially the accused's right to confront his accuser and demand proof. It's a long-since perverted ideal, obviously--just consider the extraordinary power and latitude of prosecutors and police in this country. But the idea is sound enough, and it's an important principle to hang onto. There is a popular complaint that we live in an overly litigious society, but the opposite is true. We are an insufficiently litigious society. We are in particular far too willing to depend on institutions to fairly arbitrate disputes to which they themselves are party, whether through the costumer service department or the school disciplinary board.
So in the linked story, some poor kid, nice quite literally to a fault, gets busted for buying what he thinks is a pot pill, and then his school effectively sets out to ruin and destroy his life. His parents presume--why?--the best intentions on the part of the school until it is far too late. If the school had the slightest interest in mediating the situation reasonably, they'd have made the guy write "I will not buy fake drugs" a hundred times on a blackboard. He'd've felt ruhl bad and never done it again.
If you are a parent and have a kid in school, especially in public school, you should impress on them the imperative never to say anything to anyone until they've spoken to you first. They should politely decline to answer any questions, sign any papers, or make any statements until they've spoken to mom or dad. Remind them that teachers and administrators will try to shake them from this position, as surely as cops will try to convince suspects not to call their lawyers. They will imply that a lack of cooperation with the relevant authorities will harm their case, and they will suggest that they will not be able to be helpful or lenient unless your kids forgo rights and consultations. These are all lies and damned lies.
As a trial lawyer uncle of mine sometimes observes, the system has a word for a guy without a lawyer, and it's guilty.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Teach Your Children Well
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
"Dana Scanlan, lead hearing officer for the superintendent, said the goal is fact-finding. 'We want to put the situation into its proper context,' she said, in order to determine the consequences. Hearings can be emotional, she said, but 'I don't believe our hearings are adversarial or confrontational.'"
Dear god yes, why would anyone regard a formal disciplinary hearing before a government hearing officer to be adversarial or confrontational?
See also:
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20110218_ap_pajudgeguiltyofracketeeringinkickbackcase.html
Agree with you completely IOZ but I wonder if this sentence has a gimpy phrase:
Anything other than a confrontational hearing is a process based on the presumption of guilt.
First 3 words seem out of place as they narrow the scope needlessly.
Of cousre a formal hearing is confrontational, even when the hearing ofcr or his/her rep or mouthpiece says it's not. Any proceeding where there are opposed interests is confrontational. The only question is, how inflammatory and dangerous is the confrontation.
I volunteer as a GED tutor at a county jail in Illinois, and last week, one of the men had been transferred unexpectedly to a DoC prison to begin a 4-year sentence. The week before, he felt confident that he was going to be paroled.
The rest of the class explained to me what happened: someone from the state prosecutor's office came to the jail and told the inmate that in order for the judge to be merciful at next week's hearing, the inmate needed to sign a pledge that he would accept a sentence of up to 4 years. It was presented as a sort of good-faith agreement to secure the parole.
He signed the agreement, returned to his cell, and 10 minutes later, officers showed up to transfer him to a DoC facility to begin the 4-year sentence he'd just agreed to.
Contemporary bureaucratic authority in its rawest form looks less like Stalinist Russia and more like a car salesmen closing a sale.
School officials described Nick's infraction as possession of "an imitation controlled substance" and behavior "incompatible with a k-12 educational environment."
What does it say that buying a single capsule of a legal IMITATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE(!)merits expulsion for creating a dangerous situation, while actually harming other students barely rates a detention? I guess it says that school discipline is like any other form of law enforcement.
Your uncle is right. And there is a word for a lawyer that let's his client talk to the government and its malpractice.
drip
The substance is legal, it's sold in gas stations and head shops across the country, you can smoke it in the presence of a police officer. Beyond the overly adversarial and punitive actions the school took once the poor kid was in trouble, I don't understand why he was in trouble in the first place. How does the school have a right at all to reprimand, much less expel, a kid for buying a legal substance. If he'd purchased an advil, would he be in the same boat? What's the difference?
"As was common in such cases, Nick had signed the admission before school officials had alerted his parents of the trouble."
Seeing as how he was a minor, how is that admissible? Assholes.
If he'd purchased an advil, would he be in the same boat?
Quite possibly, in fact. Increasingly common to so-called zero-tolerance policies are blanket bans on all drugs, including prescriptions and over-the-counter stuff. A bit of googling will turn up any number of tales of girls getting in trouble for taking mild painkillers for cramps and the like.
If he'd purchased an advil, would he be in the same boat?
Maybe not the same boat, but an equally unpleasant one.
you're no Al Pacino
Asinine extension of the War On Drugs is as much to blame for this sad story as anything else. "Zero tolerance" may be a comfortingly simple and impressive-sounding credo for school bureaucrats, but under even these measly facts the boy was treated as badly or worse than if he'd beaten somebody up or brandished a knife.
HEADLESS LIVES!
jesus fucking christ.
The problem is fighting in court is time consuming and costly. It can work, and I've seen it work personally.* But the courts are as much in the hands of nefarious powers as anything else and lawyers (and event to some extend unions, by the way) basically part of a protection racket. One gets whatever rights one can buy.
By all means one should lawyer up (and plead the 5th); but in the long run we should find an activism-based workaround that keeps us out of court altogether.
*The people of Ecuador recently won about $8 billion against Chevron, but the case dragged on for decades and Chevron may never pay a cent.
Times like this, I wish I believed in hell.
"There is a popular complaint that we live in an overly litigious society, but the opposite is true."
I call bullshit on that one. See Thomas Geoghegan's "The Law In Shambles".
Thanks.
The Real Donny
"in the long run we should find an activism-based workaround that keeps us out of court altogether"
Oh god I just came
both football players, huh
handbook says that a first offender under the influence of cocaine or Ecstasy at school would get five to 10 days of suspension
Being under the influence is different, she said, because "that student hasn't brought anything on school grounds" that endangers others.
okay anyone who's been around someone spun up while not in a reciprocal state can call bullshit here. the danger of coke-influenced conversations is real and should be taken seriously.
It was oregano, Dave. It was 10 dollars worth of oregano.
Yeah, but your client thought it was marijuana.
My client's a moron that's not against the law.
...I have people to answer to just like you do. I'm going to charge him.
With what? Possession of a condiment?
I'll add: When an authority figure tells you that a lawyer will be provided for you, hire a lawyer.
Those school teachers and administrators are the only thing standing between today and a complete dismantling of the middle class, doncha know?
(otoh, maybe it's that since Va ones aren't properly unionized, that's why this sort of stuff happens)
The Lower Merion School District officials who activated remote webcam spyware on their pupil's laptops, and who took tens of thousands of clans=destine photos of them (some in their bedrooms) could not be reached for comment.
But research shows that even suspensions, which are temporary, tend to increase academic problems and lead to further behavior problems and higher dropout rates.
But the process is for the student's own good!
Man this is an infuriating story.
Dropping out of school was one of the best decisions I ever made.
There is a popular complaint that we live in an overly litigious society, but the opposite is true. We are an insufficiently litigious society.
As a litigator, I endorse this message.
Seriously, though: the civil justice system, for all of its bias in favour of deep-pocketed litigants, and for all of its bias in favour of the state as against its citizens, is still one of the few remaining mechanisms by which it is at all possible for the powerless to protect themselves against the powerful. The reasons our society is described as overly litigious are twofold:
1. The people describing it this way represent the interests of the powerful, and see the civil courts as an occasional irritating limitation on their patrons' otherwise complete dominion.
2. As all other institutions have atrophied or abandoned their advocacy of lower- and middle-class interests (e.g. labour unions, the Democratic Party generally), more people are forced to turn to the courts as their final refuge against the predations of the ruling class and the state.
you forgot the 3d reason
3) Because the system is skewed in favor of those with lots of money, which equates to lots of legal resources, the "social justice" angle tends to be perverted by people who use that theme to argue a lie, an exaggerated case, a fabricated injury.
Is a battle of liars really the best system we can get here in Murikkka?
Maybe.
But I doubt it.
Post a Comment