(no subject)

[xiphias]

There's a saying I've heard -- it's mainly used by right-wingers -- it's some variation of "our freedoms rest on four boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, the soapbox, and, when all else fails, the cartridge box."

Even if we ignore the debacle in the last Presidential election, there's an apparent effort to disenfranchise minorities: 41% of young black men have served time in prison, many of them for non-violent drug crimes. The incarceration rate of blacks and Latinos for drug crimes is much, much higher than for whites, even though the rates of use and selling are about the same in the white and the minority populations. Add that to the movement in many states to disenfranchise people who've served time in prison, and you've got, effectively, a way to remove the vote from minorities. Then look at what's going on which computerized voting systems, where governments are asking companies to not maintain any paper trail or record of how people voted, for fear that they might notice if the machine records their vote incorrectly -- they want to REMOVE the ability to audit the record, for fear that someone might CORRECT a mistake. That worries me.

The jury box? In a country which has started trying civilians in secret tribunal courts with no juries, secret evidence, and no transparency, effective oversight, or accountability? I mean, yeah, this has been being eroded for decades, with courts trying to prevent people from knowing about jury nullification, but this goes way beyond what's happened before. The existence of the FISA court system reduces the ability of the jury box to preserve freedom.

The soapbox still exists. But it's useless unless people's voices can be heard. And the removal of restrictions on media ownership diminishes people's ability to get messages out. Fewer owners means fewer voices -- and those voices are louder and can drown out everyone else. The soapbox can't be counted on to preserve freedom, not anymore.

The cartridge box?

Comments

"non-violent drug crimes"...

[(Anonymous)]

...always makes me laugh. The fact that no obvious violence was involved with the offense in question doesn't mean that it's no less a crime. It's still against the law. Violent or pacifist, those people -- regardless of their racial classification -- have still committed what our legislators have defined as crimes.

Tax evasion is a non-violent crime, and it's still punishable by jail time -- which means that those incarcerated would also lose their right to vote. I have no empirical data to back this up, but my gut feeling is that the primary offenders in tax-related crimes are rich white males. There's no marked effort to deny rich white men the vote by jailing them for tax crimes; they're jailed when they're caught because they've commited a crime.

If minorities -- or anyone -- wants to retain the priviliges of being members of our society, including voting, perhaps they shouldn't commit crimes?

Re: "non-violent drug crimes"...

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I have no empirical data to back this up

I really suggest you check out the empirical data on this one. You might start off by checking out the comparative chances of being audited if you make over $100,000 per year in income vs. if you're poor enough to qualify for and claim the earned income tax credit.

You might also check out the comparative rates of conviction and punishment for people for the same crimes depending on how rich they are or what color their skin is.

As Bill Cosby used to warn, "If you're not careful, you might learn something before its done."

Re: "non-violent drug crimes"...

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

If minorities -- or anyone -- wants to retain the priviliges of being members of our society, including voting, perhaps they shouldn't commit crimes?

This would be a lovely notion but for a few difficulties. Many things that don't affect other people (e.g., sodomy--which is any penetration which is not p-i-v) are crimes. Crime is not universal--there are state laws and federal laws, and laws get overturned. And crime is not punished evenly.

If a crime is more often punished when the perpetrator is black or Latino, does that not imply some problem in the justice system?

Re: "non-violent drug crimes"...

[cheshyre]

1) May I strongly recommend you read Peter McWilliams book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do? Don't worry about cost, the entire text of the book is available free online.

2) Continuing from the above, a more accurate term, instead of nonviolent crime, would be consensual crime -- something that doesn't hurt anybody who didn't consent. Shoplifting may be nonviolent, but hurts the owners of the store which then either goes out of business or has to raise prices to compensate (hurting everybody). On the other hand, if a teenager safe at home (not driving) has an alcoholic drink, it won't hurt anybody but that teen (until the law gets involved and penalizes the parents for allowing such a thing).

3) How many of the rich white men jailed for tax crimes are felons, as opposed to pleading guilty to misdemeanors? There are also serious sentencing disparities in crimes that are committed predominantly by whites compared to those by blacks. Look at cocaine, for example:

For powder cocaine, a conviction of possession with intent to distribute carries a five year sentence for quantities of 500 grams or more. But for crack, a conviction of possession with intent to distribute carries a five year sentence for only 5 grams. This is a 100:1 quantity ratio. Under this format, a dealer charged with trafficking 400 grams of powder, worth approximately $40,000, could receive a shorter sentence than a user he supplied with crack valued at $500. Crack is also the only drug that carries a mandatory prison sentence for first offense possession. A person convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack automatically receives a 5 year prison term. A person convicted of possessing 5 grams of powder cocaine will probably receive a probation sentence. The maximum sentence for simple possession of any other drug, including powder cocaine, is 1 year in jail.
...
Approximately 2/3 of crack users are white or Hispanic, yet the vast majority of persons convicted of possession in federal courts in 1994 were African American, according to the USSC. Defendants convicted of crack possession in 1994 were 84.5% black, 10.3% white, and 5.2% Hispanic. Trafficking offenders were 4.1% white, 88.3% black, and 7.1% Hispanic. Powder cocaine offenders were more racially mixed. Defendants convicted of simple possession of cocaine powder were 58% white, 26.7% black, and 15% Hispanic. The powder trafficking offenders were 32% white, 27.4% black, and 39.3% Hispanic. The result of the combined difference in sentencing laws and racial disparity is that black men and women are serving longer prison sentences than white men and women.

Similarly, look up information on "racial profiling" and driving while black. And there's a case before the Supreme Court right now about sodomy laws that only criminalize homosexual acts, but not those of heterosexuals.

If laws are disproportionately applied to minority groups, then minority groups are disproportionately disenfranchised.

Re: "non-violent drug crimes"...

[cheshyre]

Since xiphias and I were talking about this in the car, what about cases like Tulia, TX?

From the Houston Chronicle:

Dozens of Tulia residents, most of them black, were arrested in a raid after an investigation by undercover agent Tom Coleman, who was indicted in April on three counts of aggravated perjury for allegedly lying during evidentiary hearings involving the case.

Coleman's 18-month undercover operation led to the arrest of 46 people. Coleman did not use audio or video surveillance in the undercover operation. Civil rights advocates have claimed the busts were racially motivated.

Coleman's uncorroborated testimony resulted in prison terms for many of the 38 people who were prosecuted. Some of the cases went to trial, while some of the defendants took plea agreements after seeing the lengthy sentences given in early trials.

The Texas Attorney General's Office and the U.S. Justice Department have been investigating the case. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles also has the cases under review.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals still must rule on the Tulia defendants' case, which could take up to two years. Prosecutors have asked that the case be sent back to the local court so that it can be dismissed.

So Coleman lied on the stand and now 30-40 people have been disenfranchised (maybe too long a word for you: that means barred from voting) until their names are cleared, which may not happen for another several years. And if they're mearly paroled, they may still be considered ex-felons and unable to vote.

Arianna Huffington says the arrested were "roughly 15 percent of the town's African Americans". How will that affect local elections???