In this court case, on April 6, 2017 in San Francisco (850 Bryant St), the defendant was Jenny Ching; a 34 year old women who has been convicted of a crime before, is being convicted for committing a robber in San Bruno on December 22, 2016. She was allegedly said to be at home with family and friends the night of the crime, however footage from the liquor store security cameras shows her face exiting the building with a bag of products and what appeared to be money.
The liquor store owner claimed that Ching, and other suspects that could not be named in the court room, were acting as if they were going to purchase some alcohol. When Ching’s Friend took a gun out and demand the clerk to give them all of the money in the register, the clerk did so and the cops showed up shortly after. Ching and other suspects jumped into a black Honda Civic and fled the scene before the police could get there.
The store clerk had said that Ching was demanding and looked like see abused alcohol or some sort of drug and knew he should have his guard up when they walked through the store. When Ching fled the scene see made her sentence much longer. Looking around the court room I noticed that the room was nearly full, the crowd was mainly filled with minorities from Asians to Latinos to Whites. Then I looked again at the front of the court room Ching’s lawyer looked flustered and wasn’t prepared to defend Ching in the court room; he had about 13 other files on him and looked like Ching wasn’t his main focus.
Then when the judge began to converse with the plaintiff and the defend I realized that he was a public defender Ching was a minority and lived in poverty and couldn’t afford to get her own lawyer, because she couldn’t do that she couldn’t get the best help to better her case and her testimony. Income did play a major role into this case if she was better off I’m sure she wouldn’t have robbed a clerk. She wouldn’t be in this situation due to the fact that she fell into a bracket of poverty and in poverty many times they fall into crime because they feel that their is no other way to move up on the ladder of the social classes.
Crime rates rise a lot when money may times cant save you, as seen in Ching’s case she wasn’t privileged with money. Race did have a role in this courtroom because she was Chinese, a minority and under privileged, the judge didn’t say anything towards her race, but you could tell his remarks he would say towards her reactions and her testimony. James A. Robertson II, was the judge of the case, he was a privileged Caucasian man with knowledge of educational background and money.
Of course if he have the privileges in your background he thinks of himself highly, and all he see are these minorities committing crimes and constantly pleading guilty and seeing them be defended by a public defender he’s going to think less of them. Don’t get me wrong they aren’t the purest people in the nation, however they shouldn’t be seen as less than others, because they are the bottom feeders of the social class pyramid and can’t buy their way out of these things.
Chinese decent’s are seen as immigrants and lower class even though thats about 45 percent of the San Francisco population, and not all Chinese are “poor” some are very rich in knowledge and money. Furthermore, when the plaintiff (store clerk) testified he stated that she looked like she was on “drugs” or abusing alcohol, this has to do with her income and were she grew up at, in less rural areas tend to carry out more drug users and alcoholics because she wasn’t granted privileges as others on the higher end of the social class.
Jenny Ching was a women and many times women are seen as delicate, fragile, and or taken advantage of because they are seen as a social minority as well. Being a women in a “mans world” is difficult to be seen as strong and independent in this day and age. The judge, and or plaintiff (being males) can easily take advantage of her because she’s a minority a women and has little to no money with also a male lawyer.
She was in a courtroom full of men and she was the only woman at the court hearing and she could have felt the racial pressure coming down on her she wasn’t this big lady she was about 5’2 and 130 pounds and looked like she’s had a pretty though life. These factors need to be notice because they call the judgement of the defends sentence of being not guilty or guilty and if they are guilty how long there sentence should be. The judge did show a lot of his power in the courtroom, which I believe he has authorized to because he did work hard to get were he is today with a lot of hard work and knowledge along with many years of practice.
However he has to manifest his power to show that his work was all done well to bring social justice in the courtroom to the people; regardless of what race, sex, or income you come from, because it should not matter. Knowledge is power (not money) because many times money will talk for a lot of people in the courtroom it’ll talk for the defendant it’ll talk for the plaintiff and even the judge. Money is at the hand of the wealthy that interfere with the law of the superior court because it gives those who have it “privileges” over those who don’t.
Due to the quality of the service with lawyers, those who are paid more will do anything to lighten your sentence and or get rid of it because thats what you paid them for and thats just what they’ll do, where as those who are free to the public really don’t give a crap about you. During this trial I did notice that the law and order was evidentially being enforced as it should be always in courtrooms because thats their jobs as a judge and thats the powers granted to them by the government.
The authority of Law, Order, and Justice was taken in this case however Ching didn’t quit know of her rights or was aware of the laws being enforced. Again Ching is a minority and education didn’t play a major role in her life as her lawyer stated to the judge, so she did not quit understand what was happening in the court room she only knew that she was being charge for armed burglary. Therefore the power of the law wasn’t enforced very well further more the justice to her was order to her crime, but was a bit harsh to my understanding.
The plaintiff did have strong evidence on Ching because she did show up on the surveillance cameras and you could see her face if you played the video on at a slow pace; therefore the verdict was reached and she was charged armed burglary with a 15 year sentence to the women’s prison. However 15 years for someone who didn’t harm anyone truly didn’t have an assault weapon found on her only the cash and product stolen it shouldn’t have been as high as 15 years.
The major issues with this court case were that minorities are not properly defended in the courtroom, nor can they be unless money is spent that they do not have. Gender should not decide whether a person can be treated less than because they seem to appear delicate or fragile, because this is the 21 century and men and women are treat somewhat more equal then before. Race isn’t just how you appear its also your background mean that we should all be treated equally no matter what the color of our skin is, because the 6th amendment allows us all to a fair speedy trial.
The power of the court should always be used for good and not evil and should be known when its been abused in the courtrooms. Law, Order, and Justice are used appropriately in the court of law in San Francisco the law is enforced in the courtroom the order is being held to and the justice is being brought to the people. In the end Jenny Ching was sentenced 15 years to women’s state prison with a chance of parol and the plaintiff was brought justice for the crime that was committed.
