|
June 27, 2010
The New Jim Crow
It all started (in modern times) with Richard Nixon "You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks.Thus begins the Fort Worth Star Telegram review of Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. They go on to look at how she came to write the book. Michelle Alexander was an ACLU attorney in Oakland, preparing a racial profiling lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol. The ACLU had put out a request for anyone who had been profiled to get in touch. One day, in walked this black man.They go on to look at some of what she found. Others have written of the racial bias of the criminal injustice system. In "The New Jim Crow," Alexander goes a provocative step further. She contends that the mass incarceration of black men for nonviolent drug offenses, combined with sentencing disparities and laws making it legal to discriminate against felons in housing, employment, education and voting, constitute nothing less than a new racial caste system. A new segregation.The answer is pretty simple. If the laws were equally enforced the Drug War would be over in a few months. White people wouldn't stand for it. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 06.27.10 at 01:12 PM
Comments
Consider, however, that a very large number of drug crime prosecutions are resolved by guilty pleas. Protesting innocense after being convicted and locked up on a plea of guilty doesn't sound like a winning strategy. On the other hand, if every drug arrest resulted in a contested trial, we'd find the cops mostly sitting in the halls of the courthouse under subpoena to testify. And considering all the guilty pleas, what's the chances that there is really a lot of drug crime out there, after all, and it isn't all only a mere pretext for persecution of racial unworthies, as suggested? Walt · June 27, 2010 01:34 PM Consider, however, that a very large number of drug crime prosecutions are resolved by guilty pleas. Protesting innocense after being convicted and locked up on a plea of guilty doesn't sound like a winning strategy. On the other hand, if every drug arrest resulted in a contested trial, we'd find the cops mostly sitting in the halls of the courthouse under subpoena to testify. And considering all the guilty pleas, what's the chances that there is really a lot of drug crime out there, after all, and it isn't all only a mere pretext for persecution of racial unworthies, as suggested? Walt · June 27, 2010 01:34 PM Sorry about double mouse clicking. walt · June 27, 2010 01:37 PM Walt, Prisoners dilemma. Do you want to take your 5 or 10 or go to trial and get 30? M. Simon · June 27, 2010 01:45 PM Point of order: the Startlegram is in Fort Worth, not Dallas. Phelps · June 27, 2010 02:31 PM ANY involuntary adversarial involvement in the US legal system means you have already lost. It is not about right and wrong, or legal or illegal. Like all Gov employment, it is make-work for Democrat voters. Take the plea, avoid the can, save the atty fees. Let them have a finger, save your arm. dr kill · June 27, 2010 02:40 PM Phelps, Thanks! Fixed it. M. Simon · June 27, 2010 04:07 PM I don't know, guys. Surely some people take the plea to a lesser charge so as to avoid the risk of conviction on a greater charge. But I gotta say that in my experience, (admittedly a few years back) a goodly number of defendants want to "own up" to the charges. Drug convictions don't get 30 years. It takes repeat offenses or serious violence to get 30 years. That's the ones who bargain to give up a finger to save their arm. Walt · June 27, 2010 07:28 PM Odd. But I see prison records on a daily basis now, because of my job. There are almost no black people in Idaho. And yet, we have a lot of white people in prison for possession of a controlled substance (usually meth), usually because the offender has been unable to handle any non-prison strategies. Whites are, in much of the country, the primary target of enforcement for drug crimes because there are no blacks there. And yet the drug laws are still enforced--against white people, and for the same reason that they are enforced in inner cities against black people. There are severe problems associated with intoxicant abuse, and most Americans believe that the evils associated with this are worse than the evils associated with prohibition. You believe differently, but most Americans are not persuaded--and it is not like the intoxicant problem and the prohibition problem are something that takes place far away, with which we have no contact. Clayton E. Cramer · June 28, 2010 12:12 AM Clayton, Not persuaded "yet" is a better characterization. The numbers are moving in my direction. And Calif may very well legalize pot this Nov. I have a retired LEO friend who says that the Drug War will be over 5 years after the first state legalizes. M. Simon · June 28, 2010 04:33 AM Clayton, May I add that you have not explained the disparity. All you have said is that where the police have no other targets they go after whites. But not in enough numbers to alter the ratios much. I think if your police put more of their time and your money (a lot more offices would be good too) into policing the Drug War you might be able to move the ratio some. And have a Drug Free Idaho in the bargain. Except for prescription drugs. You are the "Baptist" that gives the bootleggers the political support they need to maintain profitability. May I suggest a very good video on baptist/bootleggers here: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/06/sinners_and_sco.html M. Simon · June 28, 2010 04:43 AM Let me add that (government) guns are the last refuge of the kind of people who believes you can solve many problems with guns. I'm more of the opinion that there are rather few social problems that can be solved by force. "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." -- Clay Shirky M. Simon · June 28, 2010 04:49 AM I think you need to look at violence in the context of the drug trade. Ignore the drugs themselves, who is doing the murders, rapes, and robberies that surround the drug trade? Urban blacks. I'll believe this is all motivated by racism when blacks get their house in order and stop doing violence at several times the rate of whites and asians. In the mean time, it's sound policing policy to ignore non-violent drug offenders while there are violent drug offenders to be caught. Bob Smith · June 28, 2010 08:46 AM Bob, I think what you propose is called legalization. You then avoid the induced murders (ever hear of alcohol prohibition?) and the police have no ability to go after drug crime. Which is really prohibition crime. You also eliminate most of the 2,000 a year killed in the crossfire. M. Simon · June 28, 2010 12:00 PM Tyranny, thy name is the WOD. Randy · June 28, 2010 12:24 PM Hmmmm. "And Calif may very well legalize pot this Nov. I have a retired LEO friend who says that the Drug War will be over 5 years after the first state legalizes. " You think heavily armed criminals with a taste for an expensive life and without the minimum skills necessary to get a job flipping burgers are going to do ... what? Oh hey pot is legal now, guess everyone is going to buy a suit, go to college and become an actuary. Don't tell me. The Crips and The Bloods will get together, sing Kumbaya and form an accounting firm promoting specialized services for IT startups? My problem with legalization isn't the legalization itself. It's the starry-eyed retards who think legalization will suddenly solve every problem ... and won't create a tidal wave of new ones. If you get what you want and drugs are legalized ... then no bitching about the unintended consequences. memomachine · July 1, 2010 01:12 AM memo, Of course not. We will have the same bad hangover we had after alcohol prohibition. But you know. Don't you think we ought to stop drinking the drug war kool aid before it kills us? I suppose that is one way to avoid a hangover. Drink yourself to death. Why should I bitch about what I already expect? But I do see your point. We are now so bad off that we HAVE to subsidize criminals else they turn on regular folk. M. Simon · July 1, 2010 01:35 AM |
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Where's my Shindley Sherhan Show?
Promoting a health hazard more deadly than third hand smoke! Al Gore's Hockey Stick Suffer The Little Children Moral priorities from a distant mirror endless arguments about the "etc." Brain Surgery Surely A Charade "cry poverty while lavishing money on the beautiful people" Videophobia. Brain disease? Or rational fear?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Excellent post. There should be little doubt that selective enforcement (and selective sentencing)perpetuate the status quo of modern prohibition.
That the current state of such things also keeps the 'lines' clearly drawn so that the entrenched politicians (of both flavors) can continue to capitalize upon them with little risk needs to be mentioned. Sticking to a successful script being the most reliable way to retain one's elected office.