Posted on 03/29/2008 12:54:02 PM PDT by kingattax
ATLANTA -- Judge Marvin Arrington insists he's not a racist; despite ordering white lawyers out of his courtroom on Thursday.
The Fulton County Superior Court judge said he was just fed up seeing a parade of young black defendants in his courtroom.
"I came out and saw the defendants, about 99.9 percent Afro-Americans, and some point time I excused some of the lawyers, most of them white, and said to the young people in here 'What in the world are you doing with your lives,'" he told WSB-TV Channel 2 reporter JaQuitta Williams.
Arrington said he thought his message might have more power if it was delivered to a blacks-only audience.
"I didn't think about racism or reverse racism, I practiced law for 30 years and 75 percent of my partners were white," he explained.
The judge said the majority of people who appear before him accused of crimes such as murder, rape and robbery are black and he wanted to do something about it, one on one.
"I didn't want them to think I was talking down to them; trying to embarrass them or insult them; be derogatory towards them and I was just saying 'Please get yourself together,'" he said.
Arrington added that he may make a similar speech next week, but this time he'll allow everyone to hear it.
I thought that was a racist term replaced by Black, replaced by african american”
How about ‘pigmentedly prosperous’ or ‘melanine gifted’?
Dontcha know whitey cannot be privy to the secrets of the true black soul?
We are still at war my brotha!
Uncle Tom done tripped over his tap shoes.
All the more reason to leave the defendant's with their attorneys. We wouldn't want the judge to be visiting the defendants in their cells. We wouldn't want the judge participating in the gathering of evidence.
I think that the bad "judgement" that was shown is most clearly indicated by the fact that the judge isn't going to do it again.
Here is another story on the guy from the day before.
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL=3%2F28%2F2008%4022281
>”I had a case not long ago involving three young defendants: a white female, a white male, and an American Indian male. The crime took place in the Little Five Points section of Atlanta. These three attacked two young black men on the street for no apparent reason. The black men happened to be brothers. Somehow, the five got into a shouting match and the brothers were beaten, kicked, and stomped.
Many in the black community were outraged. The case was all over the news every night. Two or three years before this incident, the state legislature had passed Georgia’s first hate-crimes law, which allowed stiffer sentences in cases that prosecutors successfully argued were motivated by racial or ethnic hatred.”<
>”The black district attorney in this case was under pressure from the community to throw the book at these defendants, so he tried the case under the hate-crimes law. I drew the case. I was aware of all of the publicity surrounding the case, but I was determined to judge it on its merits and not let political considerations sweep me away. When the convictions were rendered, all attention was on me. How much time would I give them? Surely, I would throw them under the jail. The expectations were unavoidable. I took my time, studied the case, looked at the law and the lives of the five young people.
I concluded that what took place was an aggravated assault. I looked at the average sentence in my county for aggravated assault. It was 4.8 years. The defendants were young and, I believe, salvageable. The young white female was a vagabond, moving from home to home, and she wrote me a very long letter in which she admitted what she did was wrong and that she was, basically, not that type of person. She said she knew I had the power to lock her up and throw away the key, but she was sorry for what she did, and she wanted a chance to improve her life.
I gave the white male and female sentences of eight years. I sentenced the American Indian male to four years and lectured him severely. I couldn’t understand how he—a member of a minority group that suffers much discrimination—could be involved in something like that. I also told the defendants’ lawyers that I would make it possible for them to try for an expedited appeal of the hate-crimes conviction, because—in my mind—there were questions about the way the law was written.
The young woman thanked me. The white male said I had gotten his attention, and, likely, saved his life. I believed I had done the right thing.
Many in the community disagreed. Man, did they disagree. Some in the civil rights community and other social activists were incensed by my ruling. They questioned not only my blackness, but my manhood and intelligence as well. A state legislator with ties to the hate-crimes bill and an Atlanta city councilman basically accused me of being a traitor to my race. The legislator threatened to take me before the Judicial Qualifications Council. There were angry letters and phone calls.
But that wasn’t the end of it. I was in the grocery store one day, trying to get a little shopping done and get home, when a man ran up to me shouting and threatening me. “You’re that damn brother who let them crackers off!” he said. He lunged toward me, but somebody pulled him away. He was still shouting nasty things about me.”<
Look at it this way. Maybe the whites in the courtroom didn’t need to hear the speech.
What? Some old guy talking at them? Remember when you were a teen and having to listen to some old person -- say over thirty or, God forbid, over forty-- giving you a "lecture".
And if I were a bettin' woman I'd bet that going to prison holds no shame in the black community. Heck, it's probably a rite of passage!
What’s the problem? The judge deserves a standing ovation.
The judge wasn’t conducting a court proceeding, so there was no constitutional violation. He was giving a speech to a group of people.
As for me, I think the guy did the right thing.
“...but everyone deserves it regardless of color.”
Agreed. 100%. I don’t think the judge had any idea about the message he was sending by singling out the black defendents, but he was definitely sending the wrong one.
Mark this one under good intentions executed badly?
“I think Afram is next in line.”
I hope so. Seven syllables is just too many for a term that gets used so frequently.
He’s a racist.
“What is a JaQuitta?”
Someone who never Ja-wins?
Once again, the media fanning the flames of racism. I'll also bet this judge and the TV crew are PIAPS supporters.
It should pointed out that prosecutors were also excused. While I agree that it’s not something that judges should make a habit of doing, but in this instance there doesn’t appear to be anything improper that went on, like gathering testimony or asking for pleas or ruling on evidence in particular cases. You can be a purist I suppose and say that this was categorically wrong, but I can’t really fault the judge’s intentions here.
Time was, a judge could send delinquents like that to the armed forces and make decent citizens out of them. I knew a kid who was a complete troublemaker back in the 70's, smoking pot and committing all kinds of petty crimes. He got caught vandalizing a business and was offered a choice of felony charges or the military. I think the business owner paid for his bus ticket to San Diego. He ended up commanding a destroyer and is now pleasantly retired.
-ccm
It's sad to say this, but singling out black defendants in a courtroom is like singling out Christians in a church and I think that's why the judge felt he needed to say something.
This is not the Democrap underground. This is Free Republic. We do not need to resort to gutter language to get our point across.
Nevertheless, you are 100% correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.