What do you think?
Rate this book
Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court by Amy Bach (3-Aug-2010) Paperback
"A groundbreaking book . . . revealing the systemic, everyday problems in our courts that must be addressed if justice is truly to be served."—Doris Kearns GoodwinAttorney and journalist Amy Bach spent eight years investigating the widespread courtroom failures that each day upend lives across America. What she found was an assembly-line approach to a system that rewards mediocre advocacy, bypasses due process, and shortchanges both defendants and victims to keep the court calendar moving.Here is the public defender who pleads most of his clients guilty with scant knowledge about their circumstances; the judge who sets outrageous bail for negligible crimes; the prosecutor who habitually declines to pursue significant cases; the court that works together to achieve a wrongful conviction. Going beyond the usual explanations of bad apples and meager funding, Ordinary Injustice reveals a clubby legal culture of compromise, and shows the tragic consequences that result when communities mistake the rules that lawyers play by for the rule of law. It is time, Bach argues, to institute a new method of checks and balances that will make injustice visible—the first and necessary step to reform.
Paperback
First published September 1, 2009
53 people are currently reading
567 people want to read
About the author
Amy Bach
3 books8 followersAmy Bach, a member of the New York bar, has written on law for The Nation, The American Lawyer, and New York magazine, among other publications. For her work in progress on Ordinary Injustice, Bach received a Soros Media Fellowship, a special J. Anthony Lukas citation, and a Radcliffe Fellowship. She was a Knight Foundation Journalism Fellow at Yale Law School. And she is a graduate of Stanford Law School. She lives in Rochester, New York, where she has taught legal studies at the University of Rochester.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
March 28, 2020
2.5 stars
Disclaimer: I'm pumped full of antihistamine at the moment and so I'm not sure how coherent this review will be. But it is too early to go to bed so I'm going to fight sleepiness by trying to collect my thoughts.
I'm truly torn on how to rate Ordinary Injustice. I didn't particularly "like it" (definition of three stars); at the same time, "it was ok" (two stars) feels inadequate. It deserves better than okay. The author clearly put more than two stars worth of work into it. It shows years of research and interviews and engaging with the criminal justice system. And I feel unusually guilty dismissing all that work simply because it didn't strike a cord with me the way it did other readers.
But it didn't strike a cord, at all. I am not left feeling indignant, accepting, or even resigned. I agree we have a deeply flawed system. And this book does draw attention to it. But it lacked hard research or data and that left me struggling throughout to take it too seriously.
The first, and perhaps biggest, problem with the book is simply the layout. It breaks into four chapters with an introduction and conclusion to tie things together. Practically, this means each chapter is roughly 60 pages. And it is simply too much. It is hard to digest everything because you never get a breather point. You just keep going and going and going and oh my gosh the chapter doesn't end I want to be done already. I know that sounds dramatic and I kind of mean it to be. But in a book like this which is heavy on emotion and narrative and light on actual statics, you need a breather occasionally to let your head catch up with your emotions.
Second, though written by someone with a law degree, the book reads much more like a journalistic exposé than a legal critique. Though I will give Bach credit for not making herself the heroine of her work like most journalists, she is clearly present throughout, with her biases and reactions open to the reader. I didn't go in expecting objectivity--there is clearly a level of indignation that must fuel a book like this--but I especially struggled with her chapter on under-enforcement from the prosecution. She focuses on one prosecutor, one office, and a handful of heart-tugging stories that even in the most positive light don't sound like a slam dunk for the state. I don't blame the prosecutor for letting them drop. Of course, child victims and abused girlfriends do get railroaded in the system, and I've lived in the south long enough to know that personal biases can color justice, but the exclusive focus on stories like theirs gave me a bad taste.
Third, Bach likes rabbit trails. Sometimes, they seem to add to her overall narrative. (Like, the different ways judgeship are appointed in various states.) Other times, they feel extra and unnecessary. (Like lengthy histories on domestic abuse or statutory rape statutes in the U.S., pertinent only in that she seems to determined to pin historical biases on the prosecutor without much evidence.)
I don't lightly dismiss this book and I understand the lack of "hard" data. The fact that she concludes by basically calling for more attempts to gather data seems to give answer enough for its lack here. But I was left skeptical of sample size, interviewees, and choice of case studies. The book does not try to give a holistic look at the justice system and instead focuses on individual narratives. The problem is, without more facts about Bach's journey, I at least was left wondering how many of these were found at the bottom of the barrel and how many were actually "ordinary injustices."
Disclaimer: I'm pumped full of antihistamine at the moment and so I'm not sure how coherent this review will be. But it is too early to go to bed so I'm going to fight sleepiness by trying to collect my thoughts.
I'm truly torn on how to rate Ordinary Injustice. I didn't particularly "like it" (definition of three stars); at the same time, "it was ok" (two stars) feels inadequate. It deserves better than okay. The author clearly put more than two stars worth of work into it. It shows years of research and interviews and engaging with the criminal justice system. And I feel unusually guilty dismissing all that work simply because it didn't strike a cord with me the way it did other readers.
But it didn't strike a cord, at all. I am not left feeling indignant, accepting, or even resigned. I agree we have a deeply flawed system. And this book does draw attention to it. But it lacked hard research or data and that left me struggling throughout to take it too seriously.
The first, and perhaps biggest, problem with the book is simply the layout. It breaks into four chapters with an introduction and conclusion to tie things together. Practically, this means each chapter is roughly 60 pages. And it is simply too much. It is hard to digest everything because you never get a breather point. You just keep going and going and going and oh my gosh the chapter doesn't end I want to be done already. I know that sounds dramatic and I kind of mean it to be. But in a book like this which is heavy on emotion and narrative and light on actual statics, you need a breather occasionally to let your head catch up with your emotions.
Second, though written by someone with a law degree, the book reads much more like a journalistic exposé than a legal critique. Though I will give Bach credit for not making herself the heroine of her work like most journalists, she is clearly present throughout, with her biases and reactions open to the reader. I didn't go in expecting objectivity--there is clearly a level of indignation that must fuel a book like this--but I especially struggled with her chapter on under-enforcement from the prosecution. She focuses on one prosecutor, one office, and a handful of heart-tugging stories that even in the most positive light don't sound like a slam dunk for the state. I don't blame the prosecutor for letting them drop. Of course, child victims and abused girlfriends do get railroaded in the system, and I've lived in the south long enough to know that personal biases can color justice, but the exclusive focus on stories like theirs gave me a bad taste.
Third, Bach likes rabbit trails. Sometimes, they seem to add to her overall narrative. (Like, the different ways judgeship are appointed in various states.) Other times, they feel extra and unnecessary. (Like lengthy histories on domestic abuse or statutory rape statutes in the U.S., pertinent only in that she seems to determined to pin historical biases on the prosecutor without much evidence.)
I don't lightly dismiss this book and I understand the lack of "hard" data. The fact that she concludes by basically calling for more attempts to gather data seems to give answer enough for its lack here. But I was left skeptical of sample size, interviewees, and choice of case studies. The book does not try to give a holistic look at the justice system and instead focuses on individual narratives. The problem is, without more facts about Bach's journey, I at least was left wondering how many of these were found at the bottom of the barrel and how many were actually "ordinary injustices."
December 2, 2009
There's no such thing as perfect justice. That's not cynical, it's realistic. It's also the take home message of Amy Bach's book, Ordinary Injustice. In her book, Bach examines some of the persistent systemic failures of America's criminal justice system as it's actually carried out, day by day in courtrooms all over the country. It's a revealing look at justice and injustice as it's meted out, usually out of the public eye. Most of the action takes place at the gritty intersection where the theory of justice and the reality of it collide. That's where you'll find a paucity of reasonably paid and reasonably competent lawyers for way too many poor defendants, judges whose primary concern is to push cases through the courts, prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of discretion, defendants who commit hideous crimes and never face prosecution, while other defendants receive harsh sentences for minor offenses.
Bach's analysis is thoughtful and incisive. Typical is her examination of America's overburdened courtrooms, and the dilemma of cash strapped governments struggling to pay for the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. As Bach notes, justice has become very expensive, with the typical criminal trial now lasting over 7 days, as opposed to just an hour 200 years ago. The bottom line is that "the system simply cannot afford everyone a ful-blown trial." The reality is that poor defendants accused of minor crimes can't afford to take advantage of the safeguards the system in theory affords them. Hence, many defendants are deprived of a meaningful day in court. But the reality is that even if they could afford to take advantage of their rights, the system isn't equipped to conduct trials for everyone. That's why plea bargaining is widespread and probably here to stay. So some defendats get off easy and others who may well be innocent are pressured into pleading guilty because they may spend more time in jail awaiting trial that the maximum sentence for what they're accused of.
The problems Bach looks at are serious and deeply embedded in the system, and are illustrated with telling typical examples. As she says, "the patterns that emerge... show that American courts have inherent vulnerabilities. Wherever cases are pled, attorneys cut deals, nd prosecutors act with unchecked discretion, the ground is fertile for ordinary injustice." Her solution, more transparency and more public awareness of what really goes on in our courts is, ironically, good in theory, but probably impractical. The truth is that few people know or care about what goes on in America's courtrooms, except in high profile cases, which bear little resemblance to the vast majority of the more mundane, "ordinary" cases. The reality is that ordinary injustice is probably going to continue to be meted out for a long time to come. Without it, the system would break down, meaning that ordinary injustice is necessary injustice.
s
Bach's analysis is thoughtful and incisive. Typical is her examination of America's overburdened courtrooms, and the dilemma of cash strapped governments struggling to pay for the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. As Bach notes, justice has become very expensive, with the typical criminal trial now lasting over 7 days, as opposed to just an hour 200 years ago. The bottom line is that "the system simply cannot afford everyone a ful-blown trial." The reality is that poor defendants accused of minor crimes can't afford to take advantage of the safeguards the system in theory affords them. Hence, many defendants are deprived of a meaningful day in court. But the reality is that even if they could afford to take advantage of their rights, the system isn't equipped to conduct trials for everyone. That's why plea bargaining is widespread and probably here to stay. So some defendats get off easy and others who may well be innocent are pressured into pleading guilty because they may spend more time in jail awaiting trial that the maximum sentence for what they're accused of.
The problems Bach looks at are serious and deeply embedded in the system, and are illustrated with telling typical examples. As she says, "the patterns that emerge... show that American courts have inherent vulnerabilities. Wherever cases are pled, attorneys cut deals, nd prosecutors act with unchecked discretion, the ground is fertile for ordinary injustice." Her solution, more transparency and more public awareness of what really goes on in our courts is, ironically, good in theory, but probably impractical. The truth is that few people know or care about what goes on in America's courtrooms, except in high profile cases, which bear little resemblance to the vast majority of the more mundane, "ordinary" cases. The reality is that ordinary injustice is probably going to continue to be meted out for a long time to come. Without it, the system would break down, meaning that ordinary injustice is necessary injustice.
s
July 18, 2017
Ah, the beauty of the adversarial system: two clearly defined sides, defense and prosecution, working within well-established rules and loyal to their respective roles, battling it out under the neutral eye of the judge-referee! The truth will be told, in all fairness, and may the best argument win. An exemplary legal system, symmetrical, rational and logical, admired the world over and amply projected in the public arena by the (over?) abundance of films, series and books depicting courtroom dramas representing the best (rarely the worst) of the system. Inquisitorial systems, as practiced in many countries (as here in France) seem positively unbalanced by comparison.
Except for one thing. The adversarial model is not always fair, nor does it always function as it should, as Amy Bach points out. She highlights the dysfunctions from all sides with concrete examples ( defense, prosecution, judicial) and analyzes the systemic failures that allow ordinary injustice to happen. Her position, if not entirely neutral, is nonetheless very measured and pragmatic: she's not accusing individual participants of fraud, cheating and unfair-play, she's attempting to understand the underlying impetus of the systems in place that favor rule-bending, cutting corners, professional communitarianism, etc. that lead to a compromised system. Her examples are highly readable, and her research thorough. Throughout the four main chapters, she presents without accusation or excess judgment the main functional problems observed in the system:
1) Legal defense for those without means has a cost that is not or cannot be absorbed by the state resulting in unequal access to quality counsel
2) judicial misconduct (coerced pleas for example) that is not only tolerated, but condoned by all courtroom players in the interest of expedience
3) faulty justice for victims of crimes whose cases remain under-investigated and disregarded at the discretion of DA’s who have limited resources and little incentive to pursue low-profile cases (domestic violence, for example)
4) prosecutorial zeal in high-profile cases, compounded with police, public and jury pressure, can skew perceptions and result in wrongful convictions of innocent defendants (somebody’s head has got to roll!)
So, what can be done? Here, the author offers realistic, pragmatic ideas for internal and external monitoring. Basically, she suggests greater visibility of the records – not necessarily to pick out specific examples of misconduct- but to detect patterns of dysfunction. This seems to be her key idea on why ordinary injustice occurs in the first place: the actions of one individual judge, DA, public defender etc. are rarely consequential unless there is cooperation and collusion (well-meaning or otherwise) by all members of the courtroom triad.
The subtitle, “How America Holds Court” excludes any detailed discussion of inquisitorial systems used in many other countries, although the author does mention them briefly (nice addition as I’m convinced that many non-specialized Americans are not aware of the existence of other systems) but stresses the cultural importance of the adversarial system as America’s legal backbone. The system may need fixing, but it’s generally considered to be a damn good system, on the whole. I’m inclined to agree; at any rate, inquisitorial systems present the same and other sets of problems and dysfunctions resulting in unequal treatment and injustice.
A very solid and readable exposé, 4 stars.
Except for one thing. The adversarial model is not always fair, nor does it always function as it should, as Amy Bach points out. She highlights the dysfunctions from all sides with concrete examples ( defense, prosecution, judicial) and analyzes the systemic failures that allow ordinary injustice to happen. Her position, if not entirely neutral, is nonetheless very measured and pragmatic: she's not accusing individual participants of fraud, cheating and unfair-play, she's attempting to understand the underlying impetus of the systems in place that favor rule-bending, cutting corners, professional communitarianism, etc. that lead to a compromised system. Her examples are highly readable, and her research thorough. Throughout the four main chapters, she presents without accusation or excess judgment the main functional problems observed in the system:
1) Legal defense for those without means has a cost that is not or cannot be absorbed by the state resulting in unequal access to quality counsel
2) judicial misconduct (coerced pleas for example) that is not only tolerated, but condoned by all courtroom players in the interest of expedience
3) faulty justice for victims of crimes whose cases remain under-investigated and disregarded at the discretion of DA’s who have limited resources and little incentive to pursue low-profile cases (domestic violence, for example)
4) prosecutorial zeal in high-profile cases, compounded with police, public and jury pressure, can skew perceptions and result in wrongful convictions of innocent defendants (somebody’s head has got to roll!)
So, what can be done? Here, the author offers realistic, pragmatic ideas for internal and external monitoring. Basically, she suggests greater visibility of the records – not necessarily to pick out specific examples of misconduct- but to detect patterns of dysfunction. This seems to be her key idea on why ordinary injustice occurs in the first place: the actions of one individual judge, DA, public defender etc. are rarely consequential unless there is cooperation and collusion (well-meaning or otherwise) by all members of the courtroom triad.
The subtitle, “How America Holds Court” excludes any detailed discussion of inquisitorial systems used in many other countries, although the author does mention them briefly (nice addition as I’m convinced that many non-specialized Americans are not aware of the existence of other systems) but stresses the cultural importance of the adversarial system as America’s legal backbone. The system may need fixing, but it’s generally considered to be a damn good system, on the whole. I’m inclined to agree; at any rate, inquisitorial systems present the same and other sets of problems and dysfunctions resulting in unequal treatment and injustice.
A very solid and readable exposé, 4 stars.
January 3, 2018
If you want to learn about the justice system and all of its faults, then this is the book for you. Read part of it for class assignments in my Criminal Courts class, and it was such an intriguing book that I had to finish it. Every lawyer or potential lawyer should read this book.
November 12, 2011
A journalistic account of the fundamental defects of the criminal justice system with respect to the poor & neglected. Based on stories highlighting the errors of individual attorneys, Amy Bach blames systemic failure over individual flaws.
What’s supposed to happen:
“America has an adversary system of justice. A trial is a contest between the prosecutor, who represents the state, and the defense attorney, who represents the accused. The facts of the case or an appreciation of the truth at the heart of it arises from the combat between these two sides. The role of the judge is to oversee what happens, impartially enforcing rules of evidence and procedure.”
What really happens: (told via the tales of 4 different counties)
(1) Greene County, Georgia –where the public defender system is woefully inadequate & constitutionally improper. Darel Mitchell, an assistant public defender for the county, took the job after working for 12 years in the private civil sector because he thought it would “be like semiretirement, but no one told [him] it would be five hundred to six hundred cases.” Hm, welcome to the overdone public defender stereotype – overworked and underpaid. Attorneys like Mitchell result in such epidemics as defendants accepting pleas on the date of arraignment (i.e. pleading guilty on the day they are charged, without facts, without investigation, etc.), and show the sad state of the public defense system. Why should a defendant even have an attorney in this scenario?
Well, perhaps not EVERY public defense system is like this – there are three different organizations: (1) Public Defender Structure – full time defense lawyers employed by state, provided with central offices, secretaries, computers, investigators; (2) Panel Program – private attorneys on pre-approved list appointed and paid to represent indigent defendants on as-needed basis; and (3) Contract System – attorneys contract with county to represent max number of cases for a fee, while typically taking on cases in their own private practice simultaneously. The latter category was the fate of Greene County, and likely why defendants had no idea what their rights were, and pled guilty immediately. In reality, public defenders are more than lawyers; they are partly social workers meant to preserve rights, lower fines, expunge records, and make sure an indigent defendant is not swallowed by the system. Despite numerous examples of successful public defense offices (→Cook County, IL), Bach claims it’s a systemic problem – in what psychologists deem a strong situation of controlling structures and norms, an individual has almost no chance of changing a system, especially with drained funds & billions of cases. Although the stereotype-overworked and underpaid-factors in, I would contrarily suggest in this context it was the individual that adversely affected the defendants…Mitchell should not have been a PD.
(2) Troy, New York – where an unfair judge is revered by entire town…oxymoron? Not in Troy, where “substantive justice” is practiced by judges like Judge Bauer. Substantive justice is the idea that an accused gets what’s fair in the end, even if the process accorded him is not exactly what is required. Accordingly, lawyers don’t mind it because the judge does the work for them + public doesn’t mind because it ostensibly keeps streets safe; the only people that DO mind (or at least should mind) are society’s poor & neglected, whose cases are decided in this manner.
Integral to this chapter is the subject of judges being elected, an American phenomenon. Judges are part of a branch of government that is supposed to remain apolitical in order to preserve constitutional values without worrying about being unpopular and thrown out of office. YET only federal judges are uniformly appointed for life, while state judges are typically elected and removable at citizen will. (On the other hand, as author questions, “who’s to say appointed judges aren’t simply beholden to a different community of people,” i.e. the appointers?) An egregious example in Judge Bauer’s courtroom: Chris Cruz, with no criminal record, was charged with loitering, riding a bike on sidewalk, and riding a bike without a bell (No bell is a crime? Can one loiter and ride bike simultaneously? – problems not herein discussed.). Cruz had a state-appointed attorney and was willing to go to trial on his minor charges. Despite this, on 5 different occasions Judge Bauer wasted court appearances by repeating the state’s attorney plea offer: 90 days in jail, fine of $200, and forfeiture of $120 Cruz had in pocket. Cruz then awaited trial in a jail cell (because he could not afford bail) for SIX MONTHS on charges of loitering and biking without a bell. Judge Bauer wanted to keep area clear of riffraff, and so took justice into his own hands. Substantive justice.
(3) Quitman County, Mississippi – where prosecutors have too much discretion in choosing whether to prosecute certain cases, leaving many victims without justice/closure. Laurence Mellen, an assistant state’s attorney of Quitman County, is known for only taking on high profile cases and cases that are guaranteed wins (in order to keep a positive conviction record). As a rule, he doesn’t take on domestic violence cases because they are hard to secure convictions when couples are repeatedly breaking up and getting back together. Result: the legalization of domestic battery!
Historically, the only check on prosecutorial power was the 5th Amendment right to a grand jury – this means that after arrest, and after selection of the case by prosecutor, a grand jury of your peers will hear the evidence of your charge and decide whether it is sufficient to potentially convict you. However, AGAIN, this right to a grand jury is only granted to federal matters. Accordingly, some states allow prosecutors to merely file a written accusation to inform the defendant of charges, and this suffices to move the case forward. The largest problem with failing to prosecute certain cases is that there is a lack of transparency because if a case is not prosecuted, the public will not hear of such case and thus can’t protest.
(4) Chicago, Illinois – opposite of Quitman County…where overzealous prosecution occurs in “high-profile show trials,” resulting in wrongful convictions. Though I think this chapter could have been combined with the previous chapter on ‘underzealous’ prosecutors to keep balance, this chapter highlights a popular problem in Rolando Cruz’s case. In 1983, in the little town of Naperville, IL, Jeanine Nicarico was sick at home alone when someone broke her door down, abducted her, raped her, and left her dead in the woods. Rolando Cruz was convicted, despite no physical evidence linking him to crime, and based solely on street kids testifying at trial that they heard he was involved. Two years later, Brian Dugan admitted to the crime after being convicted for the rape and murder of a different young girl. Instead of reopening the case immediately, DuPage County prosecutors simply said Dugan was lying. A total of three trials and 10 years in prison later, Cruz was finally freed on the basis of DNA evidence implicating Dugan. This is a stunningly frequent occurrence, and the reason IL Governor Ryan placed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2000, and IL Governor Quinn abolished it in 2011.
Bach’s solution:
Social scientists should create and implement yardsticks for court workers’ performances, particularly regarding discretion – judges’ decisions to assign counsel and set bail; prosecutors’ choices to charge defendant; defense attorneys’ distribution of time spent with clients & investigating cases. In other words, the implementation of a court monitoring system. Disappointments abound…this is wishful thinking for a project that will never happen. Who would fund this? How would it reach all the actual defects? And most importantly, would it really cure the individual attorneys who affect the system? I think 90% of the above problematic cases are the result of lazy (OK, as well as underfunded) public defense attorneys + prosecutors/judges overeager to punish ‘violent criminals.’ We have to blame individuals, and new benchmarks in a monitored court system don’t seem to fix that problem.
What’s supposed to happen:
“America has an adversary system of justice. A trial is a contest between the prosecutor, who represents the state, and the defense attorney, who represents the accused. The facts of the case or an appreciation of the truth at the heart of it arises from the combat between these two sides. The role of the judge is to oversee what happens, impartially enforcing rules of evidence and procedure.”
What really happens: (told via the tales of 4 different counties)
(1) Greene County, Georgia –where the public defender system is woefully inadequate & constitutionally improper. Darel Mitchell, an assistant public defender for the county, took the job after working for 12 years in the private civil sector because he thought it would “be like semiretirement, but no one told [him] it would be five hundred to six hundred cases.” Hm, welcome to the overdone public defender stereotype – overworked and underpaid. Attorneys like Mitchell result in such epidemics as defendants accepting pleas on the date of arraignment (i.e. pleading guilty on the day they are charged, without facts, without investigation, etc.), and show the sad state of the public defense system. Why should a defendant even have an attorney in this scenario?
Well, perhaps not EVERY public defense system is like this – there are three different organizations: (1) Public Defender Structure – full time defense lawyers employed by state, provided with central offices, secretaries, computers, investigators; (2) Panel Program – private attorneys on pre-approved list appointed and paid to represent indigent defendants on as-needed basis; and (3) Contract System – attorneys contract with county to represent max number of cases for a fee, while typically taking on cases in their own private practice simultaneously. The latter category was the fate of Greene County, and likely why defendants had no idea what their rights were, and pled guilty immediately. In reality, public defenders are more than lawyers; they are partly social workers meant to preserve rights, lower fines, expunge records, and make sure an indigent defendant is not swallowed by the system. Despite numerous examples of successful public defense offices (→Cook County, IL), Bach claims it’s a systemic problem – in what psychologists deem a strong situation of controlling structures and norms, an individual has almost no chance of changing a system, especially with drained funds & billions of cases. Although the stereotype-overworked and underpaid-factors in, I would contrarily suggest in this context it was the individual that adversely affected the defendants…Mitchell should not have been a PD.
(2) Troy, New York – where an unfair judge is revered by entire town…oxymoron? Not in Troy, where “substantive justice” is practiced by judges like Judge Bauer. Substantive justice is the idea that an accused gets what’s fair in the end, even if the process accorded him is not exactly what is required. Accordingly, lawyers don’t mind it because the judge does the work for them + public doesn’t mind because it ostensibly keeps streets safe; the only people that DO mind (or at least should mind) are society’s poor & neglected, whose cases are decided in this manner.
Integral to this chapter is the subject of judges being elected, an American phenomenon. Judges are part of a branch of government that is supposed to remain apolitical in order to preserve constitutional values without worrying about being unpopular and thrown out of office. YET only federal judges are uniformly appointed for life, while state judges are typically elected and removable at citizen will. (On the other hand, as author questions, “who’s to say appointed judges aren’t simply beholden to a different community of people,” i.e. the appointers?) An egregious example in Judge Bauer’s courtroom: Chris Cruz, with no criminal record, was charged with loitering, riding a bike on sidewalk, and riding a bike without a bell (No bell is a crime? Can one loiter and ride bike simultaneously? – problems not herein discussed.). Cruz had a state-appointed attorney and was willing to go to trial on his minor charges. Despite this, on 5 different occasions Judge Bauer wasted court appearances by repeating the state’s attorney plea offer: 90 days in jail, fine of $200, and forfeiture of $120 Cruz had in pocket. Cruz then awaited trial in a jail cell (because he could not afford bail) for SIX MONTHS on charges of loitering and biking without a bell. Judge Bauer wanted to keep area clear of riffraff, and so took justice into his own hands. Substantive justice.
(3) Quitman County, Mississippi – where prosecutors have too much discretion in choosing whether to prosecute certain cases, leaving many victims without justice/closure. Laurence Mellen, an assistant state’s attorney of Quitman County, is known for only taking on high profile cases and cases that are guaranteed wins (in order to keep a positive conviction record). As a rule, he doesn’t take on domestic violence cases because they are hard to secure convictions when couples are repeatedly breaking up and getting back together. Result: the legalization of domestic battery!
Historically, the only check on prosecutorial power was the 5th Amendment right to a grand jury – this means that after arrest, and after selection of the case by prosecutor, a grand jury of your peers will hear the evidence of your charge and decide whether it is sufficient to potentially convict you. However, AGAIN, this right to a grand jury is only granted to federal matters. Accordingly, some states allow prosecutors to merely file a written accusation to inform the defendant of charges, and this suffices to move the case forward. The largest problem with failing to prosecute certain cases is that there is a lack of transparency because if a case is not prosecuted, the public will not hear of such case and thus can’t protest.
(4) Chicago, Illinois – opposite of Quitman County…where overzealous prosecution occurs in “high-profile show trials,” resulting in wrongful convictions. Though I think this chapter could have been combined with the previous chapter on ‘underzealous’ prosecutors to keep balance, this chapter highlights a popular problem in Rolando Cruz’s case. In 1983, in the little town of Naperville, IL, Jeanine Nicarico was sick at home alone when someone broke her door down, abducted her, raped her, and left her dead in the woods. Rolando Cruz was convicted, despite no physical evidence linking him to crime, and based solely on street kids testifying at trial that they heard he was involved. Two years later, Brian Dugan admitted to the crime after being convicted for the rape and murder of a different young girl. Instead of reopening the case immediately, DuPage County prosecutors simply said Dugan was lying. A total of three trials and 10 years in prison later, Cruz was finally freed on the basis of DNA evidence implicating Dugan. This is a stunningly frequent occurrence, and the reason IL Governor Ryan placed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2000, and IL Governor Quinn abolished it in 2011.
Bach’s solution:
Social scientists should create and implement yardsticks for court workers’ performances, particularly regarding discretion – judges’ decisions to assign counsel and set bail; prosecutors’ choices to charge defendant; defense attorneys’ distribution of time spent with clients & investigating cases. In other words, the implementation of a court monitoring system. Disappointments abound…this is wishful thinking for a project that will never happen. Who would fund this? How would it reach all the actual defects? And most importantly, would it really cure the individual attorneys who affect the system? I think 90% of the above problematic cases are the result of lazy (OK, as well as underfunded) public defense attorneys + prosecutors/judges overeager to punish ‘violent criminals.’ We have to blame individuals, and new benchmarks in a monitored court system don’t seem to fix that problem.
June 24, 2020
"Plenty of social science evidence proves that systems often shape the individual. In what psychologists call a 'strong' situation of controlling structures and norms, an individual has almost no chance of changing a system. J. Richard Hackman, an organizational psychologist at Harvard University, has given much thought to the individual's capacity to oppose the cultural current of a group or organization. 'The power of the situation is like the current,' he said. 'To try and swim against it is a losing proposition.' Extraordinary individuals are 'extremely rare,' Hackman says. [...]
Surrency really only had two good alternatives: find a way to alter the situation or get out. To alert the system of its failings was not something he would do; he never saw himself as a problem in the first place. He was also helpless to change it. [...]
After leaving Greene County and joining Terry Everett's office, Surrency behaved in keeping with his character and perhaps human nature. He melded into the system. Without a conversion experience or sudden condemnation of his past performance, Surrency changed--or the system changed his behavior--for the better. He wasn't redeemed. His workplace simply created new expectations that he was capable enough to fulfill."
This book hit close to home to me. It's about the systemic failures in our court system, but I found multiple parallels between the issues Bach writes about and the issues I see in my own job. We adapt to fit the system that we're in, and if it's a bad system, it's very difficult to be aware of it and seek to make it better- we are comfortable in our complacency, even if it means that people are being hurt by our actions.
This book was a timely reminder to me to respect and be aware of multiple perspectives and to always, always, always, fight for what's right- even when it's painful.
Surrency really only had two good alternatives: find a way to alter the situation or get out. To alert the system of its failings was not something he would do; he never saw himself as a problem in the first place. He was also helpless to change it. [...]
After leaving Greene County and joining Terry Everett's office, Surrency behaved in keeping with his character and perhaps human nature. He melded into the system. Without a conversion experience or sudden condemnation of his past performance, Surrency changed--or the system changed his behavior--for the better. He wasn't redeemed. His workplace simply created new expectations that he was capable enough to fulfill."
This book hit close to home to me. It's about the systemic failures in our court system, but I found multiple parallels between the issues Bach writes about and the issues I see in my own job. We adapt to fit the system that we're in, and if it's a bad system, it's very difficult to be aware of it and seek to make it better- we are comfortable in our complacency, even if it means that people are being hurt by our actions.
This book was a timely reminder to me to respect and be aware of multiple perspectives and to always, always, always, fight for what's right- even when it's painful.
August 1, 2025
This does a fantastic job discussing the failures of our criminal justice system I highly recommend for everyone interested in criminal law or just learning more about our system
January 29, 2020
(not a review)
My simple reaction is, this book reinforced a saying I'd heard listening to the "Short Circuit" podcast (a show discussing cases in the US Circuit Courts of Appeal)*, about the state of the criminal justice system in the United States: (very roughly from memory) "if you have the means, you may be able to fight for your right to due process; everyone else gets 'processed'".
Feeding this problem is my belief that we vastly overrely on The Police (agencies tasked with law enforcement in the field) and the criminal justice system to handle all manner of activities and behaviors that might be better addressed with lower-stakes mechanisms for community participation.
Police do too much "law enforcement", and not enough "policing", as in persuading someone who is in technical violation of some law or code to behave better. Or discovering why someone who appears to be aberrant and a scofflaw might be misbehaving and offering the most compassion and service possible under the situation (e.g. the person is mentally disordered or partly incapacitated, and needs shelter and healthcare rather than a beating and some jailtime).
Society hasn't generally helped police, however, who expect clean and orderly neighborhoods while not doing enough to establish statutes and provide resources to productively help and address those who are marginally attached to our society. E.g. we've defunded and closed most public mental-health institutions because we were rightly horrified to discover inhumane treatment occurring within them sometimes. However, we never circled back to provide a replacement delivery mechanism for the sorts of safety-net services which these institutions were responsible for dispensing to keep our society safe and orderly. We just shoved the burden onto police and jails; in the process, making negative progress in treating the indigent with humanity.
Police training sometimes makes officers completely tone-deaf to situations of mental distress: police man demand exact, speedy compliance with demands, assuming and expecting the subject being commanded is of sufficient mental status to willingly comply. Any mistake is viewed as a challenge to authority, and in the worst cases, the subject is harmed or killed, for no societally useful reason other than they were sick or incapacitated.
The "War on Drugs" has done much to erode the basic rights and freedoms of all of us; we'd do much better by intervening case-by-case in specific negative actions precipitated by drug use, where they occur, and as treating drug use that provokes a societal impact as a public health concern. A person should be held accountable for the harm they do to another, not for some substance that might be in their pocket. Our stance on this as a society who vested powers in a government, has reversed the progress we once made post Prohibition, and has ended up evolving in that government a zeal for powers and I earnestly feel would have shocked our founders (or the mythic version of them we hold as something to cherish in the name of freedom and liberty).
This book was for me weight on the scale, informing my opinion that the justice system in general is not particularly interested in seeking justice. This normally happens by accident, or as a side-effect of another process. Justice is political, and so are the courts' officers. Occasionally you'll see a story worthy of recording into the myths of this Republic**, but most of the time, justice is not a right but a good, which must be purchased when it's needed, and our systems have made that good scarce and expensive to obtain.
* https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-en...
** (like Liberty for All, Justice for All, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, etc.)
Books like this are useful to read and compare against testimony from books like Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". The more things within our own system we can recognize as somehow familiar in his, the more like his Soviets we've become. It is shameful evidence that we have not in our time handled well the legacy of liberty our forebears entrusted to us.
My simple reaction is, this book reinforced a saying I'd heard listening to the "Short Circuit" podcast (a show discussing cases in the US Circuit Courts of Appeal)*, about the state of the criminal justice system in the United States: (very roughly from memory) "if you have the means, you may be able to fight for your right to due process; everyone else gets 'processed'".
Feeding this problem is my belief that we vastly overrely on The Police (agencies tasked with law enforcement in the field) and the criminal justice system to handle all manner of activities and behaviors that might be better addressed with lower-stakes mechanisms for community participation.
Police do too much "law enforcement", and not enough "policing", as in persuading someone who is in technical violation of some law or code to behave better. Or discovering why someone who appears to be aberrant and a scofflaw might be misbehaving and offering the most compassion and service possible under the situation (e.g. the person is mentally disordered or partly incapacitated, and needs shelter and healthcare rather than a beating and some jailtime).
Society hasn't generally helped police, however, who expect clean and orderly neighborhoods while not doing enough to establish statutes and provide resources to productively help and address those who are marginally attached to our society. E.g. we've defunded and closed most public mental-health institutions because we were rightly horrified to discover inhumane treatment occurring within them sometimes. However, we never circled back to provide a replacement delivery mechanism for the sorts of safety-net services which these institutions were responsible for dispensing to keep our society safe and orderly. We just shoved the burden onto police and jails; in the process, making negative progress in treating the indigent with humanity.
Police training sometimes makes officers completely tone-deaf to situations of mental distress: police man demand exact, speedy compliance with demands, assuming and expecting the subject being commanded is of sufficient mental status to willingly comply. Any mistake is viewed as a challenge to authority, and in the worst cases, the subject is harmed or killed, for no societally useful reason other than they were sick or incapacitated.
The "War on Drugs" has done much to erode the basic rights and freedoms of all of us; we'd do much better by intervening case-by-case in specific negative actions precipitated by drug use, where they occur, and as treating drug use that provokes a societal impact as a public health concern. A person should be held accountable for the harm they do to another, not for some substance that might be in their pocket. Our stance on this as a society who vested powers in a government, has reversed the progress we once made post Prohibition, and has ended up evolving in that government a zeal for powers and I earnestly feel would have shocked our founders (or the mythic version of them we hold as something to cherish in the name of freedom and liberty).
This book was for me weight on the scale, informing my opinion that the justice system in general is not particularly interested in seeking justice. This normally happens by accident, or as a side-effect of another process. Justice is political, and so are the courts' officers. Occasionally you'll see a story worthy of recording into the myths of this Republic**, but most of the time, justice is not a right but a good, which must be purchased when it's needed, and our systems have made that good scarce and expensive to obtain.
* https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-en...
** (like Liberty for All, Justice for All, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, etc.)
Books like this are useful to read and compare against testimony from books like Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". The more things within our own system we can recognize as somehow familiar in his, the more like his Soviets we've become. It is shameful evidence that we have not in our time handled well the legacy of liberty our forebears entrusted to us.
August 30, 2018
Amy Bach is a tremendous writer. In this book she closely follows a public defender, a judge, a district attorney, and a show trial. Two innocent Black men are put on trial for crimes they didn't commit. Each chapter delves into the specific practices of each person and situation. She looks locally for the specific example, nationally for the data, and then back locally to wrap things up. Her analysis offers tremendous potential for how to change these completely unjust systems. She also offers commentary on the problems. Her last chapter ties it all together. We need to do better:
"All these criticisms have the power to shut down conversation. Albert O. Hirschman, one of the great thinkers on social change, writes that opponents of progressive reform often argue that attempts at social transformation will have no effect or are inept. Hirschman condemns this 'disabused and bitter' stance that does not allow for the possibility of 'social learning or for incremental, corrective policy-making.' The debate over justice–that we don't have enough money for it and yet justice must be done–needs the opportunity to take hold. As of now, there is not even a starting point for communities to identify the kinds of legal errors that are taking place. Without this, we cannot even begin a discussion about how to create better local adversarial systems. Moreover, greater funding and more radical remedies don't stand a chance of success if there is no means of jump-starting and sustaining the political will." (p. 265)
Exceptional writing, a solid structure, and a compelling conclusion. Read this book. Thanks to Karen Porter for the rec! <3
"All these criticisms have the power to shut down conversation. Albert O. Hirschman, one of the great thinkers on social change, writes that opponents of progressive reform often argue that attempts at social transformation will have no effect or are inept. Hirschman condemns this 'disabused and bitter' stance that does not allow for the possibility of 'social learning or for incremental, corrective policy-making.' The debate over justice–that we don't have enough money for it and yet justice must be done–needs the opportunity to take hold. As of now, there is not even a starting point for communities to identify the kinds of legal errors that are taking place. Without this, we cannot even begin a discussion about how to create better local adversarial systems. Moreover, greater funding and more radical remedies don't stand a chance of success if there is no means of jump-starting and sustaining the political will." (p. 265)
Exceptional writing, a solid structure, and a compelling conclusion. Read this book. Thanks to Karen Porter for the rec! <3
November 13, 2017
Amy Bach’s thesis is that there are deep deep flaws in our criminal justice system. She sets out to prove this with four stories, each highlighting a particular area of oversight or undersight: public defenders, underzealous DAs, lazy Judges, and overzealous DAs. For the most part, she largely succeeds in her quest or showing how underfunding or merely going through the motions when it comes to administering justice can be detrimental. There is a real clash between the ideals of the American justice system, and the day-to-day drudge and grind and the cultural values of the American population. This book is long on well-documented injustices but short on real solutions. There is a perfunctory conclusions chapter in which Amy throws out some ideas, but overall she is trying to point out systemic, long-term, widespread problems. It is quite a fast and easy read and often left my jaw on the floor reading some of things that judges, attorneys, and cops had to say. Quite a fascinating, aggravating, and depressing read. Some chapters are better than others. If all four were as amazing as the first this would rank five stars, but the later three don’t hold a candle to her opening anecdote.
November 19, 2017
While I appreciate the undertaking from the author, as a public defender, I have serious concerns with some of the issues and conclusions in the book. I completely agree with the chapter on judges. The chapter regarding defense attorneys is valid, however, the author failed to fully show the other side - that there are amazing public defender offices that do better work than most private lawyers. The chapters regarding prosecutions assumes that every "victim" who reports a crime is correct and without motive. She fails to show what the merest hint of an allegation on a falsely accused person can do to their lives. Instead she focuses on the lack of prosecution on "victims". There are definitely crimes that are reported and not prosecuted for many reasons. But in my experience, it is the overzealous prosecutors and police who tend to cause the most harm and havoc to our society. Interesting information and worth reading. 3 stars
Read
August 3, 2019This book highlights the patterns and messy details of the US judicial system, and how it comes to be that there are lapses and failures every day without any malicious intent. The author uses four representative counties as case studies of different aspects of the process, showing no one party can be considered for all the blame. I especially appreciated walking through the history of how things came to be this way, going back to roots in English law. Courtroom drama TV fans who want to preserve their mental image of how the system works should avoid reading it. Anyone else interested in the topic would do well to pick it up.
(I'm withholding a rating because I've worked with the author.)
(I'm withholding a rating because I've worked with the author.)
January 18, 2022
I found this book to be fascinating. The inner workings of the American court system along with its inherent challenges made for interesting read as did the uncovering of clear problems as it pertains to the indigent.
I particularly like how the author offered concrete solutions and improvements that would provide for a much better outcome for the people most effected.
Definitely a book full of insight and one that will leave the reader with much to ponder.
I particularly like how the author offered concrete solutions and improvements that would provide for a much better outcome for the people most effected.
Definitely a book full of insight and one that will leave the reader with much to ponder.
January 4, 2018
Everyone should read this book. Seriously. I don’t expect much has changed in the court system since it was written.
July 22, 2018
Pretty good discussion of bad judges, bad prosecutors, and bad defense lawyers.
October 27, 2020
Truly frightening how easily justice can go wrong and injustice can happen.
September 27, 2024
“exemplary legal writing”
February 4, 2025
Very interesting view of the inter-workings of all the major parts of our court system. Along with some true stories of how corrupt our legal system is.
September 2, 2025
A bit slow to start but overall good and interesting stories. My primary critique is that it lacked hope and the call to action felt unrealistic for the general reader.
February 8, 2020
Thoroughly researched.
July 1, 2013
With Ordinary Injustice, author Amy Bach shines a spotlight on the various ways that America's court system is failing the public, victims and defendants alike in courtrooms around the country. In each of the first three chapters, Ms. Bach focuses on a single court system and examines that system's failure to meet the legal needs of the public (public defenders in Georgia, prosecutor in Mississippi, a city court judge in New York). In the final chapter, she discusses a former prosecutor's conversion to the defense bar by focusing on a particular case in which he was the prosecutor and two young men served more than 27 years in prison before DNA eventually exonerated them. A fascinating view into the actual workings of courts in America, Ordinary Injustice effectively shows how theory, like any battle plan, seldom survives first contact with the enemy, which in this case include ever-expanding dockets, ever-shrinking budgets, and a combination of win-at-all-costs mentality with the legal profession's all too common desire to maintain collegiality between counsel and court personnel. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interest in the law, especially it's systemic flaws.
December 5, 2014
I read this book for my Criminal Law class this week and honestly, so glad I did. This book is fantastic.
It presents a lot of inner workings and corruption about the justice system that most of us would never know about otherwise. We have this very basic assumption that everything goes the way it should and as expected when really, so so so much injustice happens in the day to day. Injustice we can never know about. It really opened my eyes and made me think, hence the 5 star rating. The icing on this thought provoking cake is that the way the stories are told is very easy to read and accessible, especially for a challenging subject. I never felt confused and it was really engaging, truly telling a rich story.
The other thing I loved about this was it was just so damn interesting. I was reading this in a time crunch for a class, so my intention going in was to mostly skim it. However, as I read, I couldn't help but slow down and actually read the words and take them all in. Everything is just so interesting and insightful.
Really loved this book, think it's a great read!
It presents a lot of inner workings and corruption about the justice system that most of us would never know about otherwise. We have this very basic assumption that everything goes the way it should and as expected when really, so so so much injustice happens in the day to day. Injustice we can never know about. It really opened my eyes and made me think, hence the 5 star rating. The icing on this thought provoking cake is that the way the stories are told is very easy to read and accessible, especially for a challenging subject. I never felt confused and it was really engaging, truly telling a rich story.
The other thing I loved about this was it was just so damn interesting. I was reading this in a time crunch for a class, so my intention going in was to mostly skim it. However, as I read, I couldn't help but slow down and actually read the words and take them all in. Everything is just so interesting and insightful.
Really loved this book, think it's a great read!
December 9, 2013
A great read of what actually happens in many courtrooms. I wouldn't have minded if she had gone further with it because it was such an excellent survey of issues that have damaged our justice system. I wish aside from the issues with a poor defense system, which is doing enough damage, she also would have explored the damaging effects of too much plea bargaining. Too many repeat offenders already know they will only face minimal sentences no matter how many or how bad their crimes are. I think the innocent are overwhelmed by a system that neglects their interests, and the guilty have developed a casual outlook to their crimes knowing they will plead their guilt away. She is a fine writer that really opened the doors to a lot questions, I hope she does more.
October 26, 2009
This is a great book, although probably 25% longer than it needs to be. Bach focuses on four examples of miscarried justice, and her research on each is remarkably deep and thorough. The key to this book is that while the cases read like crime fiction and revolve around a cast of characters, Bach doesn't focus on the key players' individual mistakes. Instead, she roots out the unseen structural and collective problems that led to a bad outcome at the level of a particular judge, prosecutor, or public defender. This book is startling and depressing - highly recommended for anyone with a healthy curiosity about criminal justice.
June 30, 2010
Decent book, but given positive reviews I'd first read, I expected better. Instead, this came across as an expanded (and rather average) law review article - four sections describing different real-life examples of "ordinary injustice", followed by a very short conclusion of how to improve matters (primarily via the increased use of metrics). Somewhat sad and depressing, but not terribly insightful or revolutionary. I'd hoped for something more - compare Gideon's Trumpet, or Summer for the Gods (re the Scopes monkey trial).
May 27, 2013
Great book that shows the little and great injustices of our system. Lots has been written about capital cases and the bad stuff that goes on there. This book shows how the "little injustices" affect so many. It tells the story of how bad things happen even with good people at work: others assume that others will catch mistakes, assumes that those charged are guilty of what they are charged with and that even the best people cannot work in a broken system. All public defenders and court-appointed private counsel should read this.
September 3, 2009
Brilliant storytelling intertwined with incisive legal analysis. This book will be a staple of reading lists about the law not as it is mythologized on television but as practiced in criminal trial courts across the US. Bach is at once compassionate and relentless as she explores the way the rule of law breaks down in the face of professional ties.
April 10, 2010
An interesting look at the day to day workings of courts in the U.S. Bach focuses mainly on the lower courts, not the well publicized trials that people think of as representing the legal system. Even though the focus of the book was the court system the observations she makes about complicity and lack of initiative to make changes are applicable to many other organizations.
February 16, 2015
While this book is not very well-written or organized, it is still essential reading. The appalling conditions described in these books reach from coast to coast, north to south. If you've never been involved in the courts, you need to read this book. If you have been involved and can't get anyone to listen to your complaints, read this book. You are not alone.
March 13, 2016
Excellent and depressing. The author does a good job examining the criminal justice system from a number of angles and explains clearly why it is so messed up. Some of these stories will stay with me for a long time--people who are obviously being screwed over because they are poor and unconnected. Argh.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews