The book “Ordinary Injustice” was assigned by one of my professors. As a disclaimer, the author is a lawyer, but only practiced for a short time. She then spent eight years researching, and ultimately wrote this book. She focuses on several specific locations, but the themes that she emphasizes are derived from problems the criminal justice system as a whole suffers from. These include under funding, over and under criminalization, and corrupt or biased judges, to name a few. The overall message of the book, however, made evident through the situations she focused on, is this: many of the problems the criminal justice system faces often go unnoticed because they are so common place.

In her introduction, Amy Bach sets forth several conceptions of “ordinary injustice.” First, “Ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (p.3). Second, “Ordinary injustice seems to occur in a blind spot” (p.4). Third, “ordinary injustice flourishes in the shadows where these deals are cut and decisions are made” (p.7). Fourth, “Ordinary injustice is virtually always rooted in an incomplete story” (p.8). Fifth, “ordinary injustice cannot be explained away by any one variable” (p.9).

It is no secret that the criminal justice system does have its fair share of problems. For instance, scholars who study the system constantly point to the lack of indigent defense as one of the main problems within the system. Some scholars analogize that the criminal justice system is a triangle in nature- that is, the judge rules over both the defense attorney and prosecutor. If this balance/hierarchy is not maintained, and the three separate roles of these parties lose their distinctive shape, the system begins to collapse.

For instance, in one chapter of “Ordinary Injustice” Bach focused on one severe instance of judicial misconduct. There, the judge set exorbitantly high bail amounts, would not always assign a lawyer to defendants, and in many instances would enter pleas for defendants who were not present in the courtroom. However, in this situation, the prosecutor and defense attorneys were complacent with the judge’s actions. While there is a whole separate argument to be made whether attorneys legitimately have the option to report instances of misconduct (despite their professional obligations to do so), the point is the judge’s misconduct continued for years without anyone questioning whether he was following the law.

The overall point is from an outsider’s perspective the system may appear to function and be fair. Few tend to question the system and how it operates. Complacency seems to plague the system to a high degree. Those who want to change the system face high levels of resistance. Change in this area does occur, but at a painfully slow rate.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Injustice-America-Holds-Court/dp/0805092277