Equal Justice Doesn’t Mean Prison for All : Courts: To demand jail time for every curfew violator ignores fairness and reason.

Prosecution and punishment of offenders arrested in the violence in Los Angeles requires a commitment to fairness and reason. If the justice system succumbs to passion, overreaction and disregard for the individual in its response to this crisis, the perceptions and experience of injustice that fueled the chain of events following the Rodney King verdict will surely be reinforced and perpetuated.

As a Los Angeles Municipal Court commissioner assigned to the arraignment courts, I was scheduled to preside over some of the first misdemeanor cases that arose out of the civil disturbances, including curfew violations. At arraignment, defendants can either plead guilty and be sentenced or plead not guilty and have a trial within 30 days. On Friday, May 1, prior to the defendants’ arrival in my downtown courtroom, the city attorney’s office let it be known that their prosecutors would urge harsh jail sentences. A minimum 90 days in jail followed by probation would be demanded for every curfew violator, regardless of the specific circumstances of the case, the individual’s explanation or the defendant’s criminal record or lack thereof. Later, the minimum jail sentence sought was reduced to 30 days.

Information about the curfew law, especially when it was first declared, was inconsistent at best. From Mayor Tom Bradley’s pronouncements, many people were left with an understanding that curfew did not prohibit lawful or necessary activity between dusk and dawn. Taxi services announced that they would operate; stores and restaurants remained open, implying they could be visited. News footage showed traffic on streets and freeways with no comment that such activity was unlawful. People believed they might be detained after curfew, but would be allowed to proceed if not engaged in otherwise unlawful behavior. However, by Monday the jails were packed with hundreds of people arrested simply for being in public places after dusk.

Enforcement of the curfew and arrests for violations varied from neighborhood to neighborhood. Violations that were ignored or excused in some areas resulted in incarceration in others. Justice abhors unequal or selective enforcement of the law. Some might argue that there was a rational basis for more aggressive curfew enforcement in areas of the city more vulnerable to civil unrest. But most curfew arrests were in minority, low-income communities, many of them not touched by the earlier violence. While some arrested for curfew violations were suspected of dangerous intent, most were non-English-speaking people unaware of the curfew, or homeless or people on innocent errands.

Because the curfew law technically provides no exceptions, few people wanted to plead not guilty. Almost all wanted merely to plead guilty and explain mitigating circumstances. Still, prosecutors held firmly to their jail demands.

Severe consequences should face those whose rage and opportunistic greed led them to commit felonious acts of wanton violence and destruction. But normally law-abiding individuals arrested in selected areas for an activity that many others pursued with impunity did not deserve still more days in jail than they had endured waiting to come to court. Otherwise, the word justice again becomes empty rhetoric to communities that are already profoundly skeptical

The prosecution knew it could rely on its right to disqualify judges whose sentences didn’t conform to their demands. With very few exceptions, the courts acquiesced and imposed jail sentences greater than time already served, regardless of the individual circumstances. If those arrested asked for a trial, courts followed the prosecution’s demand for unaffordable bail.

If the justice system surrenders its responsibility to treat each individual fairly, equally and dispassionately, where will those crying out for justice turn? Recent events demonstrate the answer.