Sunday, May 30, 2021

An Obituary and Judicial Bias


 A prisoner who has been writing me for a while asked me if the obituary of his sentencing judge, which boasted of being "Known for giving long sentnces for sex offenders" or "especially tough on those convicted of domestic, sex or child abuse", is evidence of judicial bias. 

Intrigued, I asked to see the newsclip; once he sent it to me, I scanned and copied it, which is posted above. 

It is quite amazing to know that judges can be extremely biased and get away with it. In a 2012 interview with NPR, Steven Lubet, professor of law at Northwestern University, explained to listeners what constitutes Judicial Bias:

LUDDEN: So how do you define judicial bias?

LUBET: The courts define bias as favoritism or an inclination to favor one party to the litigation or one of the lawyers. So they exclude things like predisposition to have a certain view of the law. It needs to be personal, or directly in favor or against one side of the case.

LUDDEN: So you can't read bias in their whole history of decisions from the bench.

LUBET: Well, typically you can't read bias through their whole history of decisions. And another factor, which is directly relevant to the Zimmerman situation, is that it needs to come from something outside the case itself. This is called, sometimes, the extrajudicial source rule. So if a judge got mad at Mr. Zimmerman for something that happened in the course of the case, that would not be bias.

LUDDEN: Huh. Interesting. Now, the - is it true that the definition, though, or the parameters for deciding bias can vary from state to state?

LUBET: There is a general approach that most states follow, which is called - the issue is whether there is a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality. But some states have adopted different rules.

LUDDEN: And then what about state versus federal courts?

LUBET: A reasonable question about impartiality is the rule in federal courts...

LUDDEN: OK. Is there a most common list of allegations, a most common reason people might suggest this or allege this?

LUBET: Well, the most common one, of course, is some sort of financial relationship. That happens fairly often, and usually judges just step aside on, you know, of their own accord when something like that shows up. There's also the situation where a judge might have a relative - say the judge is sitting in criminal cases and has a child or a spouse who works for the public defender or the prosecutor or the probation department.

LUDDEN: OK. And then who decides? I mean, is it always the judge who recuses him- or herself? Is there someone who decides for them whether this is a legitimate concern and they should not hear that case?

LUBET: That's a pretty sensitive issue, actually, and it differs from state to state. Almost everywhere, motions to disqualify a judge go initially to the judge herself or himself. Then, in many places, many states, the motion would be referred to another judge, which seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it?...

So the short answer is that predisposition is not considered bias; it seems only proven acts of favoritism or bias one party over another would be considered judicial bias. Personally, I disagree from a common sense standpoint. If a person has a "predisposition" against a particular group of people, the case would be judged according to the "predisposition" of the person. What is a predisposition of not the potenial for bias? i'm not a judgr or attorney so my opinion is just that, an opinion. Still, I feel this is unethical. 

Friday, May 28, 2021

NextDoor.com is STILL denying services to Registered Persons; they claim law enforcement demands it


 In 2019, I wrote an article for SOSEN.org regarding the neighborhood-focused social media platform NextDoor.com. Considering vigilantes are known to use NextDoor.com (as illustrated by the sign from a proest in Miami-Dade), there is a valid reason for concern for those unable to check the site for potential activity. 

In 2017, NextDoor justified this act of overt discrimination, stating, “We have the added challenge that the success of Nextdoor in a community depends on our members feeling comfortable sharing personal information (both required information like their real names and addresses, as well as optional profile information–including the names and ages of their kids) with their neighbors. So if members decide they no longer feel safe sharing this information on Nextdoor, even if this belief is misguided, Nextdoor can no longer be successful in that community... Nextdoor works with with thousands of police departments and public agencies, whose willingness to work with us and to recommend Nextdoor to their constituents depends in part on our commitment to keeping our members safe. So we have to be conscious of setting policies that these partners are comfortable with. And when I asked our Agency Team the question you asked us (which partner agencies feel strongly about this policy), they responded that they wouldn’t be able to single out specific ones because they are asked about this policy in every single meeting they have with potential agency partners.” 

If government agents are using NextDoor to pass along sensitive info that is typically a violation of the terms of use policy, then this is all the more reason not to exclude anyone from NextDoor.

So here we are in 2021, nearly two full years after I wrote the SOSEN article, and nothing has really changed. Below is an email sent to a Registered Person recently, who lost their account after being able to access the site for a while:

"I'm sorry to hear about the trouble you had accessing Nextdoor."

"Unfortunately, since public records indicate that you are a registered s** o*** on the ****, our policy blocks you from using Nextdoor:"

"https://nextdoor.com/member_agreement/

"We understand there are many people on the s** o***** registries who do not pose a threat to their neighbors. Unfortunately, we have no way to reliably distinguish between those who do and those who do not."

"In addition, Nextdoor has partnerships with more than 500 police departments, city governments, and other public agencies, and they have made clear to us that a no exceptions policy with regard to registered sex offenders is a necessary precondition for these partnerships."

"I'm sorry that we're therefore unable to grant you access to Nextdoor."

Best, Kiefer

Nextdoor


It is intriguing to me that Nextdoor.com claims Law Enforcement agencies are requiring the company to keep Registered Persons off their platform. I'm not sure I buy that explanation. 

There was a lawsuit in the works against Nextdoor in late 2019 but with the courts running behind schedule due to COVID, who knows then that case will be resolved in court?