While the following may sound offensively repetitious, please recall that I am discussing a repeat offender—One of such magnitude, so well-known and opportunistic, that his achievements in the fields of Gentrification Advancement and Gubernatorial Distraction, while short-sighted and predictable (we predicted them), were nonetheless so vigorously pursued (albeit, largely by proxy), and with such breathtaking levels of duplicity, callousness, and patronage (ah, the classics) that the thought of bestowing upon this Mayor a chance to further champion these sorts of priorities and interests at the State level (can’t you just see it? how about HOPECalifornia? then maybe Project Old Growth Redwood Connect? oh, the potential! oh, the humanity!), has yielded us, of the Coalition on Homelessness, simply bumper crops—absolute record-breakers—of apprehension, cynicism, dismay, and concern. The offender embraces a career politician’s traditional shunning of innovation (who knows how voters might fear a new idea?), which naturally strengthens his propensity for Policy Recidivism! These traits, combined with Newsom’s displayed predilection towards regressive “enforcement first” policies, serve nobody but those with an interest in widening the gaping maw of the Prison-Industrial Complex. Which brings us again (and again), to our recurring nightmare du jour: poverty courts.

Did you ask, “What’s this poverty court?” Okay, here’s a refresher: It’s Newsom’s administrative assault on the human and civil rights of San Francisco’s poor and homeless people. You heard about it on the news: that special homeless hoosegow, the new bargain brig; his Honor the Mayor calls it “Community Justice Center” (or “CJC”): a whole new bureaucracy, dedicated to adjudicating the persecution of the low- and no-income community, sorta the Mayor’s way of saying, “Thanks just for being there.” Or being here. Here or there—either one’s good enough for the cops, and no matter how ya slice it, it’s gotta be one of the last things poor and homeless people anywhere need.

In Dickensian England there were debtors prisons, where they jailed people who owed money. Later on, the English people noticed that this was counterproductive, decided it was unjust, and chose to eliminate those prisons from their systems, a long time ago! In 2006, I think, Newsom took a(nother) trip to New York and saw one of the city’s poverty courts. He made mention of the concept in his ‘07 “State of the City” address. Then, in the May 17, 2007 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Mayor and Kamala Harris by-lined an op-ed touting the notion as a “compassionate” alternative to an inhumane status quo. The Mayor’s Office then repeatedly tried to get the idea past the Board of Supes over the next several months. Eventually, the Mayor succeeded in cramming the Court down the Board’s collective throat. However, just to rub it in, His Honor used his authority to put it before the electorate on the November ‘08 ballot. Much to his chagrin, it was roundly rejected by the voters.

Then, against the will of the people, he spent our tax dollars on it anyway! It opened for business just a few weeks ago. The Public Defender of San Francisco, Jeff Adachi, has been there in person, stepping up to his office’s new responsibility himself. When I heard about that, I really wondered just what was on his mind. Acting on a tip from my editor, I pimped my position as a journalist and e-mailed Mr. Adachi a few questions. Mr. Adachi has a somewhat more temperate view of the CJC than my own, but this has not stopped him from being a stalwart defender of poor people’s rights at the court:

SS From your point of view as Public Defender, what are the highlights and/or lowlights of the Community Justice Center?

JA The Community Justice Center, as originally proposed, concerned me deeply because it was discussed as a court targeting homeless people. The crimes that target homeless people are called “status crimes” because the so-called crime is based on a person’s [economic] status. Partly because of the advocacy of the Coalition on Homelessness and other groups, the focus changed to a broader range of offenses, including felony cases.

Another thing worried me: that it was based on a carrot and stick approach to providing services. In my experience, forcing a person into services usually yields negative results. The only exception I’ve seen is addiction treatment. I don’t think services should be coerced. It’s one thing to offer someone help, and quite another to use threat of incarceration to secure participation in a program. The idea behind this court was to offer help to people who were charged with crimes indicative of underlying problems they might have—for example, people who sell drugs to support their own addiction. San Francisco has drug court that provides treatment-based alternatives to incarceration. The CJC is supposed to have assistance-based alternatives to incarceration.

That is why I insisted participation in the CJC be voluntary. Not everyone wants or needs services, but if you’ve a quality service to offer, then people will want to avail themselves of it.

SS Previously, you spoke publicly in favor of the CJC. Is the court you see now what you spoke in favor of, or is it different?

JA I spoke in favor of the concept of a court that would offer real services in lieu of criminal prosecution. It has only been a few weeks, so maybe it’s not fair to judge the court yet. In the first week, I saw a number of people charged with status crimes. I have made it very clear that I oppose dealing with this type of case in this court since that was not its stated purpose.

I think one of the problems is that it isn’t clear what kind of cases the CJC will hear. The police officers are making the decision as to which cases to have heard in the CJC, and from what I’ve seen so far, the cases sent there are without merit, what I call “non-cases” that normally wouldn’t even be filed.

There was one case last week where the prosecution decided to file. It involved a homeless woman who had been cited multiple times for sleeping on the sidewalk! She had no other criminal history and had received multiple citations from the same police officer. She did not come to court and the DA said she’d file a complaint and asked that a bench warrant be issued. In court, I offered to attempt to locate her so she wouldn’t get arrested. We found her at her usual spot, and, because she had a relationship of trust with one of our attorneys, she agreed to come to court to clear the matter up.

In cases where the individual seeks to participate in services, that participation is voluntary. Since that first case, we have helped one man get into a temporary shelter, and another man agreed to counseling to help mediate disputes. The vast majority of cases have been dismissed or discharged, and no one has been convicted of any crime to date. I suspect this could change as the number of cases increases.

SS Representing CJC defendants personally must have been a considered decision. What are the reasons?

JA When the CJC was initially discussed, the Mayor’s Office promised my office two full-time lawyers to staff the CJC. Two weeks before the court opened, I was in the Mayor’s Office asking for the lawyers. I was told that because of the deficit, [the Mayor’s Office] would not budget defense attorneys to staff the court.

What’s unfair is that the Mayor’s Office paid for all the other staff for the court: clerks, bailiffs, probation officers, prosecutors, but no defenders. I have been in a debate with City Hall about not funding my office properly. I consistently maintain that because we, as Public Defenders, are constitutionally mandated to provide a competent, vigorous and diligent legal defense to the 24,000 indigent people we represent each year, we must be adequately staffed to provide for their need!

Public Defenders have heavy caseloads, up to 200 cases each. I couldn’t just pull lawyers from one group of clients to assign them to the CJC. I had to make a choice. I could have refused to staff the CJC, or I could have left existing clients undefended. Rather than those, I decided to staff the court myself.

SS How long do you intend to continue to do this?

JA Until I receive from the Mayor’s Office the personnel needed to adequately staff the CJC.

Karl

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 at 12:06 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.