Aside of the obvious disadvatanges of being of a low socio-economic class in this country, we know that there are also more subtle, indirect disadvantages. Several months ago, this was illustrated this to me through a real-world example in traffic court.
I have not been known to be the best driver in the world. When I was 17 (it was a very good year), I was infamously noted as saying "Well, the speed limit is really just a guide. You don't HAVE to follow it" and probably believing it at the time. Over the years I've had a series of fender-benders, mishaps, traffic violations, 15-day license suspensions, etc... but always managed to stay on the good side of any serious consequences. Just some money lost, refiltered back through various local judicial systems of our great state, and a couple in other states.
But, Walt, you are a generally law-abiding person, right?. Why have you had so many traffic accidents? I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm ADHD, and that is responsible for my inordinate number of traffic incidents. As recently as last night, when Walt Clyde took his dad (George Carlin) to the Sixers - Spurs game, I drove to Walt Clyde Senior's nervousness, where we almost ran out of gas on the way back, and W.C. Sr had to steer for a minute while I was taking something out of my pocket on the highway back from Philadelphia.
By the way, our seats at the game kicked ass. Here's a pic I took from my seat. It was a treat to see Duncan play, who I've always admired, but Sammy Dalembert did a great job defensively on him. Andre Miller went for 32 points in a great game for him, and the Spurs got outplayed by the Sixers.But I digress. So I've been to traffic court several times in my life, in various municipalities. Several months ago, I got a ticket coming from Teaneck to my home in South Jersey, at about 7:30 on a Sunday morning on the Turnpike (78 mph, nobody else around - plus driving in the left lane without the intent of passing is apparently illegal - and I so got a ticket for "Disregarding a Turnpike Sign" - apparently officers can give these generic 2-pt violation tickets) and went to traffic court. I won't say the name of the town I got pulled over in, but I'll just say that it was near exit 5 and sounds something like "Shmurlington City".
Most of us probably have heard that if you get issued a ticket that carries motor vehicle points, it is worthwhile to go to traffic court to try to plea down to a violation that carries no points. The whole thing is basically a ploy to get money from you. The state has made it legal to plea down to a no-point ticket called "unsafe driving" which you can do twice in a 5-year span and get out of 2 or even 4 points, but you must pay a surcharge to the state of a couple hundred bucks. So, it's like: you can plea guilty, pay less in traffic court, but pay the insurance companies a couple of hundred dollars in surchages; or, pay more in traffic court and not have your insurance go up. It's not hard to see why the state wants you to plea down to this no-point thing. However, having to pay money at all does serve the deterrent effect, as I have not broken any traffic laws since.
But I digress again. So I went to traffic court, having researched the ticket I got, having called my insurance company and finding out the consequences, and therefore having a limit set on the amount of money I was willing to accept in ticket / fine money, so that I was equipped to deal with the prosecutor when we had our pre-conference prior to court starting.
There were approximately 100 people in municipal court that day. Of those, the majority of the people there were minorities (black and Hispanic), and most appeared to be of a lower socio-economic class. Shmurlington City is not the most affluent of areas. There were a handful of middle-class white guys there, most of them in for similar offenses to mine.
During the plea period, and when called up in front of the court, the white guys all did something similar to me - pled down out of points, took a surcharge, and paid their tickets and left. However, the majority of the non-white people there, regardless of offense - traffic or otherwise - did not strike any kind of deals. They just pled either guilty or not guilty to whatever they were charged with. In most cases, they were pleading guilty to traffic offenses that they did not even bother to discuss or plead down to. I'd overheard them talking to the prosecutors, and the weary prosecutors did not seem to fully explain or talk to some of the more ghetto people there. I believed this was because, overall, they generally were more defensive, argumentative, and not willing to discuss things as much as John Q. White Guys. Some of the Hispanic guys did not seem to really understand the procedure. Now, was any of this blatantly discriminatory or classist? Clearly not. But did the result of our court dealings turn out differently? Probably. While not denying anybody of rights, the judge, police, and prosecutors certainly weren't going out of their way to illustrate to people what all of their options were - kind of like the general difference between lying and not telling the truth.
And speaking of Hispanic guys not understanding stuff... every time the judge enters or leaves the courtroom, everybody follows the archaic procedure of "All rise as the judge enters/leaves!" and stand until he says, "You may be seated." The back row of the court contained a Hispanic guy who I'll call Javier. Javier probably doesn't know how to say "Si" in English. He was slow on the uptake of standing and seating at the appropriate times, and he was the only one. This old, bald, testosterone-filled cop made it a point to yell at the guy in front of the entire room, making a note of his name, saying that for his impending dealings with the court, this would be remembered. He demonstratively and determinedly broadcast Clancy Wiggum-like copisms such as, "This guy don't think he's got to get up with everybody else? That's ok, we'll get him." I left after my case and don't know what happened to Javier. All I know is that it seemed not only obvious that Javier was not being intentionally disrespectful, but also that he could not have been the only guy who didn't get up or sit in a timely manner - didn't this cop understand that? As if Javier was going to risk being punished just so he can stick a needle in the court by not standing and sitting at the right time. Was he just doing this "for show" to, for whatever reason, scare the rest of the court lest they had visions of being disrespectful to the judge later? So I don't know if anything came of it - but it was very insensitive. During the break, the cop could have handled it differently. And if Javier's treatment was any harsher from this incident, I don't see how it could be described as anything other than unfair and discriminatory.
And this is one small picture of what I believe happens to lower class people that make them feel like the system is against them. Less informed than middle class people, they don't seem to catch the breaks that we do.
(And I've been driving more safely for the past few months. I will keep it up... I will keep it up... I will keep it up...)
Skechers are great shoes. I'm a guy that doesn't like to spend a lot of time worrying about my outfits for work or casual wear - specifically, if clothes are too fancy, too casual, if they match, etc... Skechers shoes solve all these problems. They're formal enough for shirt-and-tie jobs like mine, yet casual enough to wear with jeans and a sweater to go out to eat. They're comfortable and durable. And they match with almost everything. The Skechers I buy are usually some mix of browns, blacks and greens, and those are versatile. I also wear a 13 or 14, depending on the brand, and Skechers come in my size. They're fashionable enough yet not too "young" for those of us over 30.
