» If it please the court

Blogs are hopping today it seems with stories about Judge Marvin Arrington Sr in Atlanta, Georgia.

The judge is reported to have ordered everyone in his courtroom who wasn’t black to leave, and then gave the blacks present a “lecture”¹.

For some reason, everyone has decided that the judge (who is black himself) was racist in doing so.

I disagree with them, though.

It’s common knowledge that a judge controls his courtroom, end of story. The judge was totally within his rights to exclude anyone for any reason. In the courtroom, the judge is law, after a fashion.

The question is whether or not he was racist (or reverse racist as some have alleged) with all of this.

Yes, he singled out one group by race, and told everyone else to leave. But he did it for a purpose and for a short time - it’s not like he’s saying “Only blacks may enter my courtroom full stop”.

I agree with his motivations for doing this. He took that group aside in “private”, spoke to them as their peer, and brought up things that would probably have been considered humiliating if he’d raised them in a “mixed” environment.

People who know me know I’m strongly opinionated about reverse racism. It’s simply the end result of history, and a backlash against the past. Understandable, if annoying - especially when those victims of slavery are part of supporting the effective slavery of Native Americans in the 21st Century, can be just as racist as anyone else.

But …

It’s ridiculous to accuse the judge of racism in either direction. He was one of the first black students at Emory Law School, the forefront of racial integration for that establishment. This is a man who knows first hand what racism really is, was part of the fight against it.

By excluding non-blacks from his courtroom, he was able to bring up uncomfortable topics, and not embarass the defendants before others.

Bear in mind, the people he was talking to were all accused of committing crimes. There’s nothing that says how many of them were guilty, but at the end of the day, it’s probably safe to assume many of those he talked to are criminals.

If the non-black defendants want to complain they didn’t get a chance to be lectured on the shame of being criminals and behaving abysmally towards society, I’m sure the judge will oblige them.

This is more a case of knee-jerk political correctness and people trying to cause a stink to their own benefit, to be able to try and appeal claiming bias by the judge, than any real racism. Do they really expect people to believe they’re offended they weren’t able to get lectured in public?

The legal system is broken to a large degree, people don’t respect it any more than they respect society by committing crimes. Judges are having to get creative to try to use the courts for some social good, and they have a vested interest in trying to stop people from committing crimes.

If throwing all the non-blacks out of a courtroom to talk to black defendants as a black man to his fellow blacks helps cut down on crime, gets those defendants to change and be productive members of society, then I say let him continue! It benefits society.

Blacks commit crimes. Whites commit crimes. Asians commit crimes. Unfortunately, the black population in prisons in the US is disproportionately higher than any other racial group. I don’t believe they commit more crimes than anyone else, but they’re more likely to end up behind bars. The judge tried to help that group avoid being another statistic, he deserves support, not condemnation for spurious politically correct causes.

If he decides to do the same to all whites, or all Asians, then I say he should go for that too. His idea might just stop someone from making you the victim.

As for the defendants trying to set this up to appeal based on claims of bias, the answer is simple: Don’t commit crimes to begin with, and stop trying to bring this red herring up to get out of being held responsible for being criminals.

1. Source: wsbtv.com - Judge Orders Whites Out Of Atlanta Court [back]