Overview<\/p>\n
New Jersey\u2019s Office of the State Public Defender is housed in the state executive branch. Chief Public Defender Joseph Krakora is appointed by Governor Phil Murphy to a five-year term in office. There are two tiers of public defense, at the state and municipal level. All of state funding goes to the state level, which handles felonies and juvenile delinquency cases. As of 2013, there are 520 public defenders employed as full-time litigating attorneys in a state with a population of 8.9 million people (BJS Statistics). There is also a pool of private criminal defense attorneys who are contracted by the state to represent indigent defendants. In addition to lawyers, New Jersey boasts 174 investigators, no social workers, and only six paralegals.<\/p>\n
The municipal level deals with \u201cnon-indictable\u201d misdemeanor cases and receives 100 percent of its funds locally (6th<\/sup> Amendment Center). Municipal public defenders are appointed to part-time, one year positions which allow them time to conduct private criminal defense work (Justia, L.1997,c.256,s.4). These part-time public defenders are also beholden to their private defense responsibilities.<\/p>\n The New Jersey statute understands an indigent defendant as \u201ca person who is formally charged with the commission of an indictable offense, and who does not have the present financial ability to secure competent legal representation, and to provide all other necessary expenses of representation\u201d (2A:158A-2). An indigent defendant is a person of little means who does not have the funds to pay for a private lawyer.<\/p>\n Public defense is not free in the state of New Jersey. To receive a public defender, the indigent person must submit an application, accompanied by a fee of 200 to 250 dollars. This fee can be waived if the court determines that there is a preponderance of evidence that the filing fee presents a burden to the individual (A.4435). Some are able to have the initial court filing fee waived. But that is not the only cost they need to worry about. It is also the responsibility of the client to pay the public defender a reasonable fee for their services.<\/p>\n The client is required to pay the public defender a flat fee which is based on the services rendered and the seriousness of the charges. The flat fee schedule<\/a> would have an indigent client charged with 3rd<\/sup> and 4th<\/sup> degree crimes pay 250 dollars for a post-indictment plea, or 500 dollars for a trial which lasts up to five days. The defendant can look at the flat fee schedule and determine the charges that will be incurred based on their decision whether to plead guilty or pursue a trial. It is the responsibility of the client to determine whether to pursue legal action which corresponds with a fee that they are able to pay. All indigent defendants are required to pay for the services rendered, even if they cannot afford it.<\/p>\n First, the defendant is informed of the reimbursement fees for their lawyer. If a person is unable to pay the total cost of representation, with at least 150 dollars due, a lien will be taken out on their house or whatever property assets are available (2A:158A-17). In some situations, the government can take out a lien on the property of the defendant for less than 150 dollars. In six months, if the payment is not made in full, the indigent defendant becomes in debt to the state of New Jersey.<\/p>\n What Is Just<\/p>\n If the indigent defendant cannot afford to pay the flat fee, they do not have the full range of defense available to them. This is problematic because the quality of defense stems from the willingness of the client to pay the fee or go into debt. The New Jersey public defense structure depends on these reasonable fees that the state collects from the poor. It is a head scratcher that for public defenders to gain money, they have to take it from the poorest in our society. There is the argument that since the defendants are the users or beneficiaries of the public defense system, they should be the ones to contribute their personal funds. However, it is dubious what we can expect to receive from the indigent. When the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender asks for a reasonable fee from their clients, they impose an undue burden. According to a Federal Reserve 2015 Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households<\/em>, \u201cForty-six percent of adults say they either could not cover an emergency expense costing $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money\u201d (Federal Reserve). This data offers the perspective that it is not possible for a significant portion of households to pay an emergency fee without the need to borrow money or sell something in order to make the surprise payment. If households that are not considered poor have difficulty scraping together 400 dollars for emergency expenses, how can we expect the poorest among us to fund their own defense?<\/p>\n In New Jersey, the indigent defendant reimburses their public defender for their expenses. But is this fair and just? The New Jersey method is dissimilar to the New York plan. In New York, public defenders are free for their indigent defendants. There is no fee for clients to pay. Instead of funding the public defense system with reasonable fees from their indigent clients, New York state has established an indigent legal services fund to pay for public defenders (NY State Fin L \u00a7 98-B (2016)<\/a>. The fund was created by state legislators to ensure that individuals receive quality defense, and public defenders have the resources and time to work on their cases. The New York state financial code for public defense dictates:<\/p>\n \u201cThe purpose of such fund shall be to (i) assist counties . . .\u00a0 in providing legal representation<\/p>\n for persons who are financially unable to afford counsel . . .; (ii) assist the state, in improving the quality of public defense services and funding representation provided by assigned counsel . . .; and (iii) provide support for the operations, duties, responsibilities and expenses of the office of indigent legal services and the indigent legal services board . . .\u201d<\/p>\n The purpose of the indigent legal services fund is to support legal representation for those who cannot afford it, to provide public defense services, to fund representation, and to offer monies for administrative and nonlegal services. The New York plan is more effective than the New Jersey plan because it does not deduct a reasonable fee from their indigent clients. An indigent defendant in New Jersey must concern themselves with a fee schedule which corresponds with the services they received from their public defender. If the same defendant had been charged with the same offense in New York, they would not have to worry about the cost of their lawyer. The defendant would not feel discouraged whether to take a plea deal or go to trial, because in New Jersey, a trial will cost them twice the amount of a plea. In New York, all public defense legal services rendered cost nothing to the indigent defendant. Depending on what state the indigent client lives in, they can keep their monies or go into debt.<\/p>\n The New Jersey plan for public defense is fueled by the indigent. But how do these flat fees compare to that of a private criminal defense attorney? The law offices of Jonathan F. Marshall are a large firm based in Red Bank, New Jersey. The attorneys charge a flat fee of 3,500 dollars to 6,000 dollars for an indictable crime of the third or fourth degree (John F. Marshall). Their hourly rate is typically 395 dollars. A trial that lasts up to five days for third- and fourth-degree charges will cost 3,500 dollars with a private defense attorney, compared to 500 dollars plus extra expenses with a public defender. The cost of a public defender pales in comparison to the cost of a private attorney. The indigent cannot shop around and choose from a pool of attorneys. Rather, they are assigned one and must pay the flat fee that is owed.<\/p>\n The super indigent who cannot pay their fees have a lien taken out on their house and become in debt to the state. A lien can be put on a property for a period of 10 years (2A:158A-17). Further, the office of the public defender can do all things necessary and proper to collect any fees and can \u201center into arrangements with one or more agencies of the State or of the counties to handle said collections on a cost basis\u201d (2A:158A-19). A person who is simply looking for defense can easily become in debt to the state if they cannot pay the reasonable fees assigned to them. There is no solution for the super indigent to resolve these fees. They can contest the fees, but likely, they will have to pay them over time. Interest accrues, and the reasonable fees become larger. The extremely poor defendant becomes in debt to the state and is one of the many indigent funders of the New Jersey public defense system.<\/p>\n Ideas for Reform<\/p>\n The New Jersey public defender system requires the indigent to pay a flat fee for all the services rendered. This flat fee is unaffordable for some of the indigent and can lead to them being in debt to the state. New York is an example of a public defender system which does not require funds from the indigent to pay for their defense. In the case of New Jersey, a person may only be able to afford a plea deal and cannot afford the expenses associated with a full trial. This can lead to the client not receiving quality defense. Reforms should be made to bolster the funding of the New Jersey public defender\u2019s office, so they do not need to take funds from indigent clients.<\/p>\n There is a myriad of reasons not to support funding for public defenders. Some may ask, \u201cWhy would I want my tax dollars paying for the representation of criminals?\u201d If you harbor some reservations about public defense, you are not alone. Beyond the idea that public defenders represent people who are accused of crimes, many are concerned about the safety of their community. Why would they support a program which works to defend people who are convicted of crimes? If a public defender is successful at their job, some may wonder that there may be more people convicted of crimes wandering the community.<\/p>\n Do not make the indigent pay public defenders. One reason to support funding for public defense, is so that we do not drive the poor into abject poverty. The fee schedule is restrictive and limits indigent clients in their access to justice. If a client cannot afford a more expensive trial, they have limited options. They can plead and save money, they can go forward with a trial and rack up debt, or they can waive their right to a defender and try to represent themselves before the court. None of the options are favorable, and the indigent client is put in between a rock and a hard place. Imagine if the indigent did not need to pay for the services of a public defender. If the office of the public defender could find funds through different avenues, the poor would not need to decide based on personal finances what legal action they should take. Instead, their choices would be wholly dependent on the circumstances of their case and the advice of their public defender.<\/p>\n New Jersey voters just legalized the use of recreational marijuana. The government should set aside a portion of tax revenue from recreational marijuana and put it towards public defense. The legislature is already proposing that we do the same for specialized police officers. In a recent WHYY<\/em> article, Joe Hernandez shares that legislation regarding the marijuana market has consistently included stipulations that police trained to spot drugged driving get part of the spoils. Why not allocate a portion of the tax proceeds to the NJ office of the public defender? This would be an act of justice which supports the indigent and forgotten. The public defender\u2019s office represents so many individuals who are charged with possession of marijuana or a nonviolent drug crime. It is fitting to channel monies to public defenders, who represent the have-nots of society.<\/p>\n Social workers are valuable members of the public defender team. Add social workers to the Chief Office of the Public Defender. Social workers have skills like making defendants comfortable, bonding and connecting with clients, and handling other necessary duties. Importantly, the time of a social worker is worth less than that of a lawyer, so hiring more social workers is financially savvy. Social workers can connect with clients and encourage them to have confidence in their lawyer and believe that they are being fought for. Their exceptional perspective makes them an asset to a team of public defenders.<\/p>\n Tax the ultra-wealthy and have a portion of those funds go towards public defenders. The poorest should not have to pay fees for their defense that will lead to them going in debt. Instead, it should be considered that the ultra-rich are taxed and a portion of those tax dollars go towards funding for public defense and related resources.<\/p>\n A public defender is advertised as affordable legal counsel. In New Jersey, there is a price that comes with indigent defense. For those who are eligible, there is a flat fee associated with the costs of hiring a public defender, differing according to what kind of legal services are needed. A plea deal cost less than a trial, and the indigent defendant may not be able to afford the cost of their defense or make a less favorable legal decision because of what money is not in their wallet. When it comes to public defense, the indigent in New Jersey are shortchanged. Compared to New York, the Garden State is not impressive in terms of its public defender system. New York state does not issue a fee to their clients who receive a public defender. That alone puts New York far ahead in terms of justice. In New Jersey, even the super indigent have to pay the flat fee associated with public defense. If they cannot afford it, the government will have to take out a lien on their property. These individuals become in debt to the state. The Chief Office of the Public Defender must receive funding from somewhere else. The public defender\u2019s office should stop asking indigent clients to pay a \u201creasonable\u201d flat fee. What is reasonable to some is subjective, and this fee can be detrimental to someone\u2019s financial situation. Some other ideas for reform are to appropriate some of the legal marijuana taxes to the public defender\u2019s office, to add social workers, and to tax the ultra-wealthy. Public defenders need proper funding to do their jobs effectively. The system cannot succeed when it preys on the indigent and demands funding from the poorest among us.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n \u201cChapter 158A: PUBLIC DEFENDER.\u201d Office of the Public Defender<\/em>, www.state.nj.us\/defender\/home\/opdstatute.shtml<\/a>.<\/p>\n Dancer, Ronald S. \u201cStatement.\u201d A4435<\/em>, 2018, www.njleg.state.nj.us\/2018\/Bills\/A4500\/4435_I1.HTM.<\/p>\n Flat Fee Billing <\/em>, Treasury , 2014, www.state.nj.us\/defender\/documents\/Flat%20Fee%20Billing.pdf.<\/p>\n Hernandez, Joe. \u201cCops Trained to Spot Drugged Drivers Could Get a Cut of Tax Revenue from N.J. Weed Sales.\u201d WHYY<\/em>, WHYY, 29 Nov. 2020, whyy.org\/articles\/cops-trained-to-spot-drugged-drivers-could-get-a-cut-of-tax-revenue-from-n-j-weed-sales\/.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Common Questions Regarding NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys.\u201d The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall<\/em>, 24 June 2020, www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com\/criminal-process\/common-questions-regarding-new-jersey-criminal-defense-lawyers\/.<\/p>\n U.S. Department of Justice. \u201cState-Administered Indigent Defense Systems, 2013.\u201d Bureau of Justice Statistics <\/em>, 2017, www.bjs.gov\/content\/pub\/pdf\/saids13.pdf.<\/p>\n \u201c2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: Title 2B – COURT ORGANIZATION AND CIVIL CODE :: Section 2B:24-4 – Requirements for Municipal Public Defenders.\u201d Justia Law<\/em>, 2013, law.justia.com\/codes\/new-jersey\/2013\/title-2b\/section-2b-24-4\/.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n https:\/\/www.njleg.state.nj.us\/2018\/Bills\/A4500\/4435_I1.HTM#:~:text=While%20the%20Office%20of%20the,without%20support%20from%20State%20funds<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Overview New Jersey\u2019s Office of the State Public Defender is housed in the state executive branch. Chief Public Defender Joseph Krakora is appointed by Governor Phil Murphy to a five-year term in office. There are two tiers of public defense, at the state and municipal level. All of state funding goes to the state level, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2656,"featured_media":133,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2656"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}},{"id":115,"date":"2020-10-02T02:08:33","date_gmt":"2020-10-02T02:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/?p=115"},"modified":"2021-03-08T03:32:04","modified_gmt":"2021-03-08T03:32:04","slug":"antiracist-pedagogy-and-new-jersey-bail-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/2020\/10\/02\/antiracist-pedagogy-and-new-jersey-bail-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Antiracist Pedagogy and New Jersey Bail Reform"},"content":{"rendered":" INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n The United States criminal justice system through its longstanding implementation of cash bail favors what a person has in their wallet over the risk that they pose to society. When a person is arrested, they are charged with a crime and put behind bars (Rabuy and Kopf 2016). The proceedings can carry on in three different ways: they are denied bail, meaning that they are immediately detained, they are able to post bail and roam around until their trial date, or they are unable to pay the price of bail which results in pretrial incarceration (Harvard Law Review 2018). The weight of a person\u2019s wallet determines how they are treated by the criminal justice system. \u00a0This creates an immediate distinction between those who can afford to post bail and those who are unable to pay the price and as a consequence, are locked up in jail up until their trial date.<\/p>\n While the topic of monetary bail might sound niche, it affects seventy percent of the individuals locked up annually in local jails (Rabuy and Kopf 2016). The time that people spend behind bars as a part of pretrial detention comes with similar consequences to those of people who have been convicted of crimes serving jail time; they often experience a loss of jobs, shelter, an increased time spent away from family, great difficulty with reentry, and the trauma that they may associate with their experience in prison (Laisne, Wool, and Henrichson 2017). Conflict theorists can make the argument that individuals who are locked up pretrial are the real victims of the system. (Okada, Maguire, and Sardina). It can be effective to explore emerging methodologies which prioritize qualitative information from individual experiences over scientific data collection, as offered by race scholar (2005) Andrew C. Okolie. Antiracist pedagogy is at the very precipice of this change. Dr. Ibram X. Kendi (2019) defines an Antiracist as \u201cone who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.\u201d In this definition, it is implicitly stated that it is not enough to be deemed \u201cnot racist, but rather, the only correct solution is to be actively antiracist. With this in mind, this essay will address the strides made by the radical New Jersey criminal justice system in its ability to eliminate the cash bail system, the flaws of the New Jersey system, the role antiracist pedagogy plays, and finally, the suggested policy solutions.<\/p>\n NEW JERSEY JAIL STATISTICS<\/p>\n According to data collected by the New Jersey census, Black men account for 44 percent of the population in New Jersey\u2019s local jails (VanNostrand). This information becomes frightening when understanding that New Jersey census data taken within the same time period reflects that Black or African American people only account for 13 percent of the state\u2019s population (New Jersey Population, 2010). Plain and simple: when Black and African American people are disproportionately represented in the local jail population, the system is broken.<\/p>\n RISK ASSESSMENT PROGRAM<\/p>\n The Garden state is hailed as a change maker in the realm of bail reform due to the decision to eliminate cash bail and shift to a risk assessment program as first outlined in policy 2014 and described in further detail in 2016 (P.L. 2014, Chapter 31; Directive No. 2016-6). In (C.2A:162-15 of P.L. 2014, Chapter 31) the initial policy, it is noted that the state is \u201cprimarily relying upon pretrial release by non-monetary means to reasonably assure an eligible defendant\u2019s appearance in court when required,\u201d and which prioritizes community safety. This law was the first step in prioritizing the rights of the individual and the community over the financial contribution they can make to the government.<\/p>\n In 2016, the Garden State proposed a risk-based assessment program through the Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2016-6, which eliminated cash bail and instead offers guidance in the judge\u2019s decision as to whether or not a person will be detained pre-trial (Porrino, C. S.). The system is imperfect, regardless, it is held as the shining example of what an ideal criminal justice system can look like. The automated pretrial risk-assessment process as outlined by Directive No. 2016-6 (2016) considers the nature of the present offense and the history of the defendant, among other factors. The (Directive No. 2016-6) policy also specifies that the automated pretrial risk assessment process does not consider the specific facts of the case and rather, acts as a tool of discretion for New Jersey judges to have at their disposal. This system is a progressive step in correcting the criminalization of poverty which is perpetuated by pretrial confinement on the basis of being too indigent to post bail.<\/p>\n ANTIRACIST PEDAGOGY<\/p>\n Expert Andrew C. Okolie argues that the antiracist research framework is a rejection of the traditional method known as Positivism, which has been celebrated by many scholars, one of the first being sociologist Emile Durkheim. Instead, Okolie argues, antiracist research is based in the historical-sociological method popularized by Karl Marx and Max Weber (Okolie, page 243-34). A way to differentiate a Positivist from a Historical-sociologist is that the former might suggest that people are born criminals, including people of color. To contrast, a Historical-sociologist may argue that multiple factors, such as policing in certain areas, living conditions, family or occupational background may lead to statistics that overrepresent people of color in statistics regarding drug-related offenses. With this understanding, Okolie explains, it is valuable for research and the policy, which is derived from it, be amenable to the individual lived experiences and how these experiences connect and differ. Antiracism, through this framework, gives individuals more discretion than the cold natural science extracted from Positivism (Okolie, 245).<\/p>\n Antiracist pedagogy is thought to be in direct opposition to Positivism because it rejects \u201cthe application of natural science methods to the study of social phenomena\u201d which is a defining piece of the scientific-based theory (Okolie 2005). In contrast, the historical-sociological method requires less emphasis on data analysis; and instead, an attentive focus to individual experience.<\/p>\n FLAWS OF THE SYSTEM<\/p>\n While New Jersey has been regarded a changemaker in its elimination of cash bail, it is not exempt from all scrutiny. A 2018 \u201cReport to the Governor and the Legislature\u201d on criminal justice reform supports the unfortunate fact that New Jersey\u2019s progressive risk assessment-based program is not financially sustainable and will \u201cface an overall negative funding balance in the late fiscal year 2020 and early fiscal year 2021\u201d (Grant, Glenn A.; Sullivan, S.P.). In other words, the system will be financially under water in less than a year. The New Jersey program which has abolished cash bail has effectively eliminated the main source of income for its Pretrial Services Program. While the 2014 criminal justice reform policy known as P.L. 2014, Chapter 31 deliberately increased court filing fees in an effort to overcome the loss of revenue once earned through the cash bail system, it has been unsuccessful in its effort to satiate the building structural deficit (Grant, Glenn A.). In the pursuit of an ideal justice system, New Jersey has built its pre-trial services program upon a shaky foundation. Radical change in legislative policy which provides the program with long-term financial security is the antidote to this crisis.<\/p>\n POLICY PROPOSALS<\/p>\n New Jersey has taken a valuable step in its elimination of cash bail. However, it is not financially sustainable and continues to disproportionately jail people of color (VanNostrand). In order for the New Jersey legislature to make effective policy, it must be antiracist. State representatives can achieve these ends through critical and constant evaluation of how their policy impacts citizens walking down the street. The decriminalization of marijuana should be considered as an antiracist solution to a mounting financial and racial issue. It is demonstrated in a New Jersey criminal justice report (VanNostrand) that people of color are convicted at higher rates for drug crimes, including marijuana. This is not because marijuana is a racialized drug that is used exclusively by people of color. Antiracist Dr. Abram X. Kendi (2019) would argue that the saturation of people of color charged with certain drug crimes is reflective of the tools of the system, which are flawed. It is suggested that the decriminalization and distribution of the drug can allow for it to be taxed and financially contribute to the mounting deficit produced by the New Jersey pretrial services program.<\/p>\n Further, it is valuable that the state legislature reviews the systems and policies which govern the criminal justice system; and flip them inside out to evaluate their racist crevices. The constant and critical review of New Jersey state laws with the goal of seeking equity and the active improvement of the lives of people of color is inherently antiracist. According to Dr. Kendi (2019), \u201cthe only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it \u2013 and then dismantle it.\u201d The New Jersey pretrial services program has effected positive radical social change; however, it is racist in its inability to address the longstanding wrongs of an overrepresentation of people of color involved in the criminal justice system. A better system, an antiracist one, actively works to suppress the policies which oppress and target marginalized groups; and instead build antiracist ones in their place. These ends can be achieved with the constant and critical self-evaluation of how to improve a broken system.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Reference List<\/p>\n Must Issue Findings of Fact When Setting Unaffordable Bail for Indigent Defendants.<\/p>\n Harvard Law Review<\/em>, 131 (5), 1497-1504. http:\/\/proxyau.wrlc.org\/login?url=http:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&db<\/p>\n =aph&AN=128431908&site=ehost-live&scope=site<\/p>\n KENDI, IBRAM. X. (2019). How To Be An Antiracist<\/em>. S.l.: VINTAGE.<\/p>\n Laisne, M. Wool, J., & Henrichson, Christian. 2017. Past Due: Examining the Costs and<\/p>\n Consequences of Charging for Justice in New Orleans. Policy File Index, pages 1-36.<\/p>\n http:\/\/proxyau.wrlc.org\/login?url=https:\/\/search.proquest.com\/docview\/1918304609?acco<\/p>\n untid=8285<\/p>\n NJ Rev Stat \u00a7 2A:162-25 (2014) https:\/\/law.justia.com\/codes\/new-jersey\/2014\/title-2a\/section-<\/p>\n 2a-162-25\/<\/p>\n Okada, D., Maguire, M., & Sardina, A. D. (2019). Critical issues in crime and justice: thought, <\/em><\/p>\n policy, and practice<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.<\/p>\n Okolie, A. C. (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies<\/em>. (G. J. S. Dei & G. S.<\/p>\n Johal, Eds.). New York: Lang.<\/p>\n Population of New Jersey – Census 2010 and 2000 … (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2019, from<\/p>\n http:\/\/censusviewer.com\/state\/NJ.<\/p>\n Porrino, C. S. (2016). ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO.<\/p>\n 2016-6. State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General,<\/em> 8-84.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Rabuy, Bernadette and Kopf, Daniel. (2016). Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an<\/p>\n endless cycle of poverty and jail time. Prison Policy Initiative<\/em>.<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/reports\/incomejails.html<\/a><\/p>\n Sullivan, S. P. 2018. The good news: N.J. bail overhaul is working. The bad news: It’s already<\/p>\n going broke. Retrieved from<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.nj.com\/politics\/2018\/02\/report_finds_nj_bail_reform_is_working_–_but_its<\/p>\n .html<\/p>\n VanNostrand, M. (2013). Identifying Opportunities to Safely and Responsibly Reduce the Jail<\/p>\n Population. Drug Policy Alliance<\/em>, 1-22.<\/p>\n Grant, Glenn A. (2018). Criminal Justice Reform Report to the Governor and the Legislature.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" INTRODUCTION The United States criminal justice system through its longstanding implementation of cash bail favors what a person has in their wallet over the risk that they pose to society. When a person is arrested, they are charged with a crime and put behind bars (Rabuy and Kopf 2016). The proceedings can carry on in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2656,"featured_media":125,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2656"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/125"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}},{"id":78,"date":"2019-01-17T05:45:07","date_gmt":"2019-01-17T05:45:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/?p=78"},"modified":"2021-03-08T03:34:53","modified_gmt":"2021-03-08T03:34:53","slug":"a-reflection-on-the-purpose-of-a-liberal-education","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edspace.american.edu\/mk7220a\/2019\/01\/17\/a-reflection-on-the-purpose-of-a-liberal-education\/","title":{"rendered":"A Reflection on \u201cThe Purpose of a Liberal Education\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":" \u201cAre you being challenged in your fundamental beliefs?\u201d asked\u00a0Dr. Robert George<\/a>, a political philosopher and American legal scholar at Princeton University. Robert George was accompanied on stage by his ideological rival\u00a0Dr. Cornel West<\/a>, a political activist and American philosopher at Harvard University. If you were to see these two intellectuals speak on the news or simply glance at their social media accounts, you would never guess that George, a conservative, and West, a progressive, share the same core values, especially when it comes to the importance of a liberal education.\u00a0During a discussion <\/a>moderated by\u00a0Dr. Tom Merrill<\/a>, an associate professor within the School of Public Affairs, the men spoke about the importance of making yourself uncomfortable in the process of learning.<\/p>\n Before I walked through the doors of Constitution Hall, I had little idea of who Dr. Cornel West was, my only understanding being that he holds progressive values. As for Dr. Robert George, I knew nothing about him except that he supposedly held the exact opposite political beliefs of West. I found that my lack of background on the two scholars was essential in allowing me to see the two simply as individuals with opinions rooted in philosophical and political thought. This discussion challenged my beliefs in a way they had not been tested since I arrived at American University.<\/p>\n Cornel West and Robert George spoke of the value of challenging your own existential beliefs in search of truth. It is something that must be endlessly sought after and requires a constant state of learning, questioning, and challenging. George made the audience chuckle by suggesting that us students pay American University a great deal of money to be made uncomfortable. In that quip the law scholar conveyed the value of listening to the opinions of your peers and reflecting on some of the best historical philosophers in order to challenge and rethink your set of beliefs. Learning is a process which encourages the seeking of truth, rather than the gathering of information to compliment an existing perspective. This acquisition of information is not something to be handed over. To gain a true liberal education is to chase after the discomfort in which you feel like your most core beliefs are being constantly challenged.<\/p>\n\n