CRJ 202 CBMCC The Case of Kalief Browder Discussion

I’m studying for my Social Science class and need an explanation.

Sound off! Discussion on the Case of Kalief Browder

Material: Watch the video posted in Module 8 on Kalief Browder.

Supplemental material: If you have access to Netflix, you can check out “Time: The Kalief Browder Story.”

Total points you can earn for this assignment: 30

-You can earn up to 15 points for your discussion post

-You can earn up to 15 points for your substantive reply to a peer’s discussion post

Our guiding questions for this assignment –

Your assignment: In one comprehensive paragraph (3-5 full sentences), explain – What went wrong in the case of Kalief Browder?

Your assignment: one comprehensive paragraph (3-5 full sentences), provide a substantive response to a peer’s comment.

A substantive reply meets these criteria:

• Posted a response to the peer by the deadline
• Posting was responsive and substantive, posting comments or questions that enhanced the discussion, or helped move the conversation forward. These may have included follow up questions, additional evidence, examples, or new perspectives.
• Posting provided evidence that the participant had thoughtfully read the peer’s posting
• Posting showed ample evidence of having reviewed, or completed the relevant readings or assignments
• Posting was constructive and differences of opinion expressed in a respectful manner

The Case: Kalief Browder and a friend were returning home from a party in the Belmont section of the Bronx. As they passed East 186th Street, Browder saw a police car driving toward them. More squad cars arrived, and soon Browder and his friend found themselves squinting in the glare of a police spotlight. An officer said that a man had just reported that they had robbed him. “I didn’t rob anybody,” Browder replied. “You can check my pockets.” The officers searched him and his friend but found nothing. As Browder recalls, one of the officers walked back to his car, where the alleged victim was, and returned with a new story: the man said that they had robbed him not that night but two weeks earlier. The police handcuffed the teens and pressed them into the back of a squad car. “What am I being charged for?” Browder asked. “I didn’t do anything!” He remembers an officer telling them, “We’re just going to take you to the precinct. Most likely you can go home.” Browder whispered to his friend, “Are you sure you didn’t do anything?” His friend insisted that he hadn’t.

At 16 years old, Browder was arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack. He was charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault. At his Supreme Court arraignment weeks later, Browder pleaded not guilty, but was remanded without bail to Rikers Island to await trial. Three years of waiting later – much of it spent in solitary confinement – Browder was informed that the District Attorney’s Office had dismissed his case, and he was released. He never faced trial, and none of the charges pressed against him ever went on his criminal record. On paperwork, and in the District Attorney’s Office, it was as though the case had never happened. The teen endured beatings by officers and other inmates. He tried to commit suicide and spent more than 400 days in solitary confinement.

Over the course of the semester, we have highlighted the significant use of discretion in the criminal justice system – remember, it occurs at every decision point from profiling to the death sentence.