There is a dangerous movement afoot that goes all the way to the very top of the American justice system. I know that seems a somewhat redundant statement, as the American justice system is itself dangerously ineffective and un-serious about preventing and punishing criminality. But even within the milquetoast ranks of criminal coddlers, something especially nasty is starting to come to life.
New ‘Jim Crow’ Discriminates Against People With a Criminal Record
Minnesota’s New Victim Class
Quote: “The latest cause célèbre for prominent lawyers and judges in Minneapolis is the rights of a new, disenfranchised class of victims who, we’re told, can’t vote, serve on juries, or — in some cases — live in public housing.
“Who’s this new victim class? Murderers, robbers, rapists, and dealers and users of illegal drugs — in short, convicted felons.”
“In February, the [Hennepin County Bar Association] urged all its members to read a book entitled “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” by law Prof. Michelle Alexander (and Cornel West). In March, it conducted a Continuing Legal Education Seminar on the book’s thesis, led by [black] Judge Pam Alexander (recently reappointed to the bench by Gov. Mark Dayton). Now the HCBA is promoting April discussion groups on the topic for its members.
“Michelle Alexander’s book claims that America’s justice system has imposed a new racial caste system. Overt discrimination has become socially unacceptable, she writes, so white voters and officials are recreating a racial hierarchy by labeling people of color “criminals” and discriminating against them “in nearly all the ways it was once legal to discriminate against African-Americans.”
So what, right? Minnesota is a state full of naive, liberal pussies with no clue about the worst black behavior, the state being only 5% black. Right up there next to equally pussified Wisconsin. Of course they feel this way. Right? No big deal.
Now, read this:
U.S. Attorney General: Blacks’ Sentences Are Too Long
Quote: “Too many people go to too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement reason,” Mr. Holder said, in remarks to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in New York, Politico reported. “It is time to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about our criminal justice system. … It is time to examine our systems and determine what truly works.”
““I am concerned by a troubling report … which indicates that — in recent years — black male offenders have received sentences that are nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes,” he said, Politico reported.”
I think the implications are pretty clear. There are people–very powerful (mostly black) people–who have begun a movement to lessen the legal and social consequences of criminality on blacks, the very people most likely to commit crimes. If this takes hold as a movement or new intellectual meme in law schools and it begins to get acted upon legislatively, America’s streets will become even more dangerous.
And, apparently, it is growing. To wit:
All of these papers and bibliographies, written within the last five to ten years, argue statistically that black men are given longer sentences for the same crimes. What most of them fail to address is whether the criminals at the time of sentencing had prior convictions, for what types of crimes or how many.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has done work on this. Check out the report “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994
.” (There is a new one for prisoners released in 2005 in the works, but it isn’t out yet).
Quote from page 7 the 1994 report:
“Race–Blacks were more likely than whites to be —rearrested (72.9% versus 62.7%)
–reconvicted (51.1% versus 43.3%)
–returned to prison with a new prison sentence (28.5% versus 22.6%)
–returned to prison with or without a new prison sentence (54.2% versus 49.9%).“
And, once again, keep in mind that the BJS has long had a bad habit of lumping Hispanics in as “Whites” when reporting on offenders (but, strangely, not when reporting on victims
). So the difference is probably much larger in reality.
But no matter. The powers of Progressivism want votes and they know the black felons, at election time, will believe that Yes, They Can, Too.
A lot of this seems somewhat experimental, too. Just a couple of months ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began a low rumble hinting that, unbelievably, employers may be discouraged from screening candidates for felony convictions because of “disparate impact” on Blacks and Hispanics. There even seems to be some flirtation with protecting felons under Title VII.
Are you a Cajun? Not protected. You’re fired, Coonass. Convicted felon? Protected. This is what they want. And by “they” I mean the Minority Caucuses of the Democratic Party seeking assured votes.
So…need to hire an accountant? Black candidate went to prison for embezzling? RACISM! Hire him. I’m not making this up.
“The purpose of the EEOC’s criminal-background-check guidance is to discourage businesses from refusing to hire ex-offenders. However laudable and necessary it may be to reduce unemployment among this cohort, ex-offenders are not a protected class under Title VII, so the EEOC doesn’t have express statutory authority to investigate and charge businesses for discriminating against ex-offenders. The EEOC gets around this impediment by invoking disparate-impact theory. The reasoning is as follows: Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be incarcerated than whites. Therefore, even a facially neutral policy against hiring ex-offenders will screen out more blacks and Hispanics than whites. Consequently, the agency argues, this may constitute evidence of unlawful racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, giving the EEOC the authority to investigate and sue offending employers.”
All of this adds up to yet more forced normalization of the dangerous, the sick and the perverted leading eventually to America being One Big Detroit, complete with Federal backup and enforcement.
Someday, mom, the principal at little Brittany’s school may have an arrest and investigation in his past for child rape. And, because he was black, the DA was waved off from indicting. Then he got out and the school district wasn’t allowed to consider the arrest. He was a victim of racism, after all. And now he oversees your child’s school.
But we wouldn’t want to perpetuate injustice now, would we?