A contrast and comparison of justice systems

An article I read today reminded me of a situation in Toronto not too long ago. In that situation, headlines were screaming:

• Crown drops all charges in Lawrence Heights murder

• Video of killing reveals no secrets

Owen Smith, 25, and Wendell Damian Cuff, 25, were charged with the first-degree murder of Abdikarim Ahmed Abdikarim. The Crown, citing insufficient evidence to pass a preliminary hearing, dropped the charges. The victim's family are further pained by the continued suffering in such a sad, terrible loss. I have two kids, and I wouldn't dare presume to know what this must be like for them. Raising a child to end up the victim of a murder - and an as yet unsolved murder at that - is beyond grasp.

The cops are disappointed, thinking they had gathered sufficient evidence that a case was worth putting before a jury. The public is outraged. Another bad guy gets away, it appears.

Yet, as painful as it is for all, dropping the charges was still right.

Our society has already decided we do not want to live in a world where someone can lose their freedom and go to jail without evidence that passes a rigorous series of tests through due process. It's a decision we, as citizens of a free society, ought to continue to make, uphold and defend.

Let's flip it around. The video is absolutely inconclusive in terms of the identity of the shooter. For all intents and purposes, the video was just as likely to point to your neighbour, your friend, or even you, than to the accused.

In this situation, it's not even a matter that the accused was tried and the verdict was returned not guilty. That would have been due process as well. But, well short of that, the evidence didn't even stand up to warrant trial. It's simply insufficient. What else should we do? Had he gone to trial and been convicted with evidence that wasn't even deemed strong enough to be worth the time and money to go to trial, would our society be better off? I say no with no hesitation. It would mean we'd arrived at the place where anyone, anytime, could end up going to jail without the benefit of a trial through which evidence had to pass.

Society should be clear on this. There are societies on our planet where governments exercise absolute power and impunity in terms of who walks freely and who disappears in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again; or who can have an opinion and who ends up being stoned to death without a fair trial. We have decided we do not want that world. These checks and balances are there to help protect our rights and freedoms.

This freedom comes at a price - we'd rather a guilty go free than an innocent get locked up. It happens. Bad people get away with it (IF such is what has occurred here) sometimes. Tipping that balance to the opposite slant would be the end of free society as we know it.

Having said all that, here's the headline today:  Review sees flaws in dozens of N.C. prosecutions

So, the question warrants revisiting: do we want a society in which the guilty may get off scott-free, or a society in which the innocent could lose their free lives?

While pondering the implications of either choice, I'll toss another idea out there: if the prison population's ethnic profile is markedly disproportionate to the general population's ethnic profile, is it reasonable to extrapolate that some percentage of the incarcerated are there as a result of being in a system that favours  cutting corners in due process to put people behind bars?

And, if so, with respect to the topic of social factors such as fatherless families affecting the academic performance of black males (recently discussed), the OughtThought here is a question  - is a questionably-managed criminal justice system one of the social systems challenging the opportunities for black families to keep their males at home?

The case that was thrown out before getting to trial in Toronto is an example of what should happen. If a review in Toronto was performed as the one in North Carolina, would this instance be the norm, or the exception? For the record, I think it ought to be the norm.

Resource allocation in education

Two articles I read today speak to the single issue of resource allocation in education.

• Grim Graduation rates for black males highlight racial gap

• Why standardized tests matter

The first article ("grim graduation rates") mentions, among other things, that New Jersey's higher results are due in part to a deliberate effort to reallocate resources to level the playing field. The suggestion here is that, given a fair shake, black males are not only equally capable, but equally willing to do their part to learn, with higher results to prove it.

The second article ("standardized tests") discusses standardized testing in Ontario. While my issue with a particular shortcoming of standardization in education is mentioned in StudyRite, and echoed in another article that ran today, there is some merit to standardization, although I'm not sure it came through clearly.

In my opinion, standardized testing should not be about how well the students are learning. Nor should it be about how well the teachers are teaching: standardized testing should be about assessing how equipped a school is to meet the needs of its students. All things being equal (and human nature being what it is) most teachers will teach and most students will learn; government is thus left to determine how it will allocate resources to support teachers' teaching and students' learning.

I remember reading a Maclean's Magazine article back in 2001 about John Chambers, head of Cisco Systems, and his  project, called Networking Academies, which champions the value of computers and new, customized teaching methods. "We run more than 6,000 Networking Academies with 180,000 students in 110 countries and, given technology and the correct environment, these kids all score high, no matter the disparity in incomes or situations," Chambers said at an international economic conference. "Education is No. 1, but even the rich countries are leaving behind 25 per cent of their kids," (my emphasis).  (Francis, Diane. "A Learning Revolution". Maclean’s Magazine. March 5. 2001.)

The results in New Jersey appear to support Mr. Chambers' assertion. As such, the OughtThoughts here are that under-performing students are not always inherently to blame for their poor performance, and that we can make different decisions to improve the learning environment and expect progressive results to follow.

If lower scores on standardized tests in Ontario are indications of where more attention is required, and there is a weak correlation between scores and school location in higher or lower income areas, we may reasonably go ahead and look at teaching methods and student issues. If, however, there is an observable correlation between lower results and lower income area school locations, reallocation considerations must be in play, because these kids may be, in Mr. Chambers' words, "being left behind" in spite of their true capabilities.

Mind the gap

Sharon Otterman, writing for the New York Times (“Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools”, New York Times, August 15, 2010), noted that

• Among the students in the city’s third through eighth grades, 40 percent of black students and 46 percent of Hispanic students met state standards in math, compared with 75 percent of white students and 82 percent of Asian students. In English, 33 percent of black students and 34 percent of Hispanic students are now proficient, compared with 64 percent among whites and Asians…

• …Experts have many theories, but no clear answers, about why national progress on closing the gap has slowed. They included worsening economic conditions for poor families and an increase in fatherless black households, social factors that interfere with students’ educational progress.

"Worsening economic conditions for poor families" is misleading, since there are poor white families, too. And "fatherless black households", which certainly is a factor, is still but a symptom of a range of issues beyond the control of the black household - but that argument is beyond the scope of this post.

It might appear we're trapped in a vicious circle - we're doing poorly in school, so we can't raise our socio-economic profile, and as our profile diminishes, we do increasingly poorly in school. Which comes first, the chicken of better socio-economic circumstances or the egg of doing better in school?

It is impossible to change society in one action, but the OughtThought here is that it is possible for an individual to change one's outlook, and I think StudyRite can help.