- Last year, Governor Evers
appointed Judge Joseph Donald
to the state Court of Appeals.
At that time, Donald was only
the second African-American to
serve at that level.
This week, he joined liberals
on the state Supreme Court and
other Wisconsin appeals court
judges in calling for making
the bench more diverse and
acknowledging racial bias
within the legal system.
We asked Judge Donald to join
us earlier this week.
And we thank you very much for
being here judge.
- I am delighted
to be here.
And thank you for having me.
- So the open letter that you
signed on to says, "We
need to recognize the ongoing
injustices in our legal system
and the barriers that stand
in the way of justice."
What are the ongoing
injustices?
- Well, first, let me say this.
With respect to the other
cosigners of that letter,
I am just delighted and very
proud of their willingness
to step forward
and to recognize
that we do have a problem in
our justice system.
The main issue is to ensure
that we treat people with
fairness and equality.
And anyone that has
spent any time in the system
understands that there are
areas that really need
improvement.
It's my belief
that we have way too many
people locked up
and locked up for way too long.
But we have to try and figure
out what are those
sort of systemic
barriers and processes
that are creating this
inequity.
- So what are some examples
of the barriers?
- Well, I would say that the
biggest barrier, if
I had to put them in sort of
broad terms: ignorance
is a barrier, denial
and silence.
You know, I think there is
a need for for
those who work or who
are leaders within the criminal
justice system and justice
system to speak out.
And I think that this letter
goes a long way to at least
engage and start the
conversation.
There was a time when judges
typically sort of just laid
back in the background and
never really asserted
themselves into the public
discourse.
But I think that we are now in
a new environment, particularly
given all of the
the anger and grief
and frustration that
the people feel.
And so I think there is a need
for judges to step forward
and to speak to these issues.
- You talk about ignorance
and denial. On whose
part?
- Well, those who just say
that there isn't a problem.
You know, oftentimes people
will take the position, well,
I didn't create this problem.
I don't go out and arrest
people and bring them into
court.
That, you know, they're brought
to my court.
But to say
that you're not part
of the system and to not ask
questions as to how
someone comes into the system,
why they come into the system.
You know, I have to say that as
as a-- when I was a trial court
judge, I would sit there and
routinely see,
you know, black defendant after
black defendant.
And the question
ultimately comes,
why are we doing this
and what is going to be done
about it?
It isn't enough to just say,
wow, you know, if people just
stop committing crimes,
they wouldn't end up in the
criminal justice system.
But if you look at sort of what
are the root causes: trauma,
mental health,
economic.
You know, so those
are the things that sort of
bring people-- the root causes
that bring people into the
system.
I recognize that as a
trial court judge, when I
created the drug treatment
court to try and figure
out ways to divert people
from the criminal justice
system. It isn't all about
retribution and punishment.
And so I think that there is
there's-- we are in a new
environment now.
And I think people are
demanding that we take
a more active role
in ensuring that there is
fairness.
- On a on a micro level,
almost apart
from the root causes
of which you speak,
did you see as a trial
court judge or even now as an
appeals court judge decisions
made in
the system that
looked like bias
or prejudice?
- Well, so
as I often say
that as an appellate court
judge, I deal in a world
of sort of nuance and
context. And
that it is not
unusual to see
circumstances that suggest
bias or suggest
prejudice.
And so what I have to do is
ferret out how
that has impacted the decision
that was made and whether or
not that was an error that
should be reversed.
Oftentimes,
you know, the the-- one of the
sort of rule of thumbs
in terms of a judicial error
is, well, you know,
whether or not it had an impact
on the outcome of the case.
And so, you know,
it it's very contextual,
very nuanced, but it requires
at least when we're having
those discussions that we
understand sort of what
is the reality and what is
going on in the community
and out on the street.
- We need to leave it there.
There's so much more to talk
about and we appreciate
you joining us on this Judge
Donald. Thanks.
Well, thank you, Frederica.
I'm delighted to be on and I
look forward to continuing the
conversation.
- Thank you.