GBOC Lightning Round, Take Three

Over the last few weeks I've compiled a list of stories I've been meaning to share, but I haven't quite found the time to write about each one. So, rather than let these stories go unblogged (gasp!), let's commence another GBOC Lightning Round! (See previous rounds here and here.)

Item 1: Criminology, Genocide, & Darfur
The other day I received in the mail an advertisement for the forthcoming book Darfur and the Crime of Genocide by John Hagan and Wenona Rymond-Richmond. I am really looking forward to reading this book. Recently I have been part of an effort to boost the level of activism in one of the feminist organizations to which I belong, partly in response to the brutalization of women and children happening in Darfur and in the Congo. I share the sentiments of Robert Sampson, who wrote in his endorsement:

"Why has the field of criminology ignored genocide for so long? The answer to this question has important implications for theories of crime and international policy alike. The terrible tragedy in Darfur serves as the motivation for Hagan and Rymond-Richmond to trace the intellectual history of competing approaches to genocide, from the pioneering work of Sheldon Glueck on Nazi war crimes to controversies over official reaction to atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and now Africa. A call to action, Darfur and the Crime of Genocide is disturbing but necessary reading for all those concerned with international justice and a more general criminological conception of collective responses to crime around the world." --Robert J. Sampson, Harvard University, Henry Ford II Professor of Sociology

Item 2: "In the Basement of the Ivory Tower"
A colleague forwarded to me this Atlantic essay about the challenges of teaching students who by most estimations should not be in college. Writing anonymously, the author discusses the cultural shift in recent decades that has made college attendance compulsory for many students -- even those poorly suited to higher education -- and the ramifications of that shift for the faculty members who must evaluate the academic performance of these students. In particular, the author discusses the challenges of grading papers written by students with remedial writing skills. An excerpt:

America, ever-idealistic, seems wary of the vocational-education track. We are not comfortable limiting anyone’s options. Telling someone that college is not for him seems harsh and classist and British, as though we were sentencing him to a life in the coal mines. I sympathize with this stance; I subscribe to the American ideal. Unfortunately, it is with me and my red pen that that ideal crashes and burns.

Sending everyone under the sun to college is a noble initiative. Academia is all for it, naturally. Industry is all for it; some companies even help with tuition costs. Government is all for it; the truly needy have lots of opportunities for financial aid. The media applauds it—try to imagine someone speaking out against the idea. To oppose such a scheme of inclusion would be positively churlish. But one piece of the puzzle hasn’t been figured into the equation, to use the sort of phrase I encounter in the papers submitted by my English 101 students. The zeitgeist of academic possibility is a great inverted pyramid, and its rather sharp point is poking, uncomfortably, a spot just about midway between my shoulder blades.

For I, who teach these low-level, must-pass, no-multiple-choice-test classes, am the one who ultimately delivers the news to those unfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate; that they are so bereft of schemata, so dispossessed of contexts in which to place newly acquired knowledge, that every bit of information simply raises more questions. They are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college.

My guess is that most of us would recognize more than a few of our students in this essay...

Item 3: Kids Count Data & Juvenile Justice Reform
A few weeks ago the Annie E. Casey Foundation released its 2008 Kids Count report, an annual state-by-state survey that evaluates the well-being of children using a variety of indicators: employment, education, health, poverty, and so on. Criminologists may be particularly interested in the juvenile incarceration data. For example, according to a Detroit Free Press article:

Among the most alarming trends: Michigan continues to incarcerate kids at a much higher rate than the national average and often for nonviolent crimes.

There are 137 children per 100,000 in some sort of state facility or detention in Michigan, compared with the national average of 125 per 100,000. That puts Michigan 33rd in that category.

This report might be a useful teaching tool, as the website allows users to generate profiles by state, so that you can see how children in your particular state (or, if you live in a large enough metro area, your city) are faring. Finally, accompanying the report is a thoughtful essay, "A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform", that also includes a state-by-state summary of child well-being indicators.

Item 4: Supreme Court Bombshells!
As Velma noted earlier today, this week the U.S. Supreme Court rendered two opinions particularly relevant for criminologists:

(1) In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court banned capital punishment for child rape, stating that such punishment is disproportionate to the crime and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment.

(2) In District of Columba v. Heller, the Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handgun ownership, ruling that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms extends to individuals.

I will leave the commentary about the Heller decision to the gun experts (and enthusiasts?) on the blog, and instead will share my thoughts about the Court's death penalty decision. Though I've disclosed my secret retributionist stance toward child rapists, I agree with the Court's decision. (I'm sure that Justice Kennedy and the four justices who joined him in the majority are relieved to know that I approve of their reasoning.) As several analysts have noted, because most child rapes are committed by someone the victim knows (often a relative or close family friend), asking a child to testify against the assailant with the knowledge that a conviction could lead to that person's execution understandably would cause undue emotional distress for the victim. Much as my maternal instincts might favor stringing these guys up on the courthouse lawn, the rational part of me knows that it would be utterly inhumane to put child sexual assault victims in a position where telling the truth could get their father, uncle, or other loved one killed, no matter how much we might think that person deserves it.

That's all for now. As always, I look forward to reader comments!

Big News from the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. Read More.

This is really big. I will post more when I see the full opinion. As many of you know, they also ruled that expanding the death penalty to child rapists would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Just for the record - Obama does not support the death penalty decision (see here), nor does McCain (see here). The Obama link also has good video of Dukakis and his discussion of the death penalty. We all know how that turned out for him.

I really wish I was teaching right now, so I could present all these cool developments to my class.

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 11

"Justice Department favored applicants of a Republican bent, audit says"

What?!?!!!! [*clutches chest, keels over*]

Ahem. From the article:

WASHINGTON — A new audit concludes that rookie attorneys with Republican roots got interviewed for plum Justice Department jobs while their liberal-leaning counterparts got passed over...

Improper use of the screening program peaked in 2006, when politics and ideology disqualified what the audit called a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking jobs.

The long-awaited report confirms widespread criticism last year that the once fiercely independent Justice Department was victim to political meddling by the Bush administration. The scandal led to the resignation last September of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

While I'm on the subject, check out this fascinating Daily Show interview with David Iglesias, one of the U.S. Attorneys fired by the Bush administration:

P.S. The NY Times has a similar article about this report here.

"Huh?!?" CJ Story of the Day

It is not often that I hear a cable news anchor offer an astute criminological analysis (or, really, an astute analysis of any type). And yet, I couldn't agree more with CNN's Mike Galanos about the absurdity -- and potentially devastating consequences -- of this decision:

"A man is jailed because his daughter failed the GED several times"

Honestly, isn't this the most ridiculous thing you've heard in a long time?

Friday CJ Funnies: Lawyer Joke

It's no secret that us GBOCers love a good, dumb joke....especially Patch. (All together now: "you know!") In that spirit, today's Friday CJ Funny comes from a website devoted entirely to compiling lawyer jokes:

Q: What is a criminal lawyer?
A: Redundant.

[insert groan here]

Drug Cocktail Used for the Dealth Penalty Not Cruel and Unusual

I am sure that most of you saw the Supreme Court decision on the 3-drug cocktail used for lethal injection in Kentucky.

The case involved concerns in the effectiveness and pain involved in using a 3 drug cocktail. The case was not necessarily brought on to stop the death penalty, but to gain further insight into the relative 'pain-free' nature of the method of execution.

The prisoners had contended that the three-drug procedure used on death row — one drug each to sedate, paralyze and end life — was unconstitutional, and that in any event there were strong indications that Kentucky had bungled some executions, creating unnecessary pain for the condemned. Through their lawyers, they maintained that problems could be largely solved by administering a single overwhelming dose of a barbiturate, as opposed to the three-drug procedure.

The decision itself is very interesting. Here are some of my favorite
elements from the NYT article.

Perhaps most interestingly, Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment of the court, but by no means embracing capital punishment. Indeed, he asserted that recent decisions by state legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court itself to preserve the death penalty “are the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process that weighs the costs and risks” of the ultimate punishment.

This is such a poignant comment and is consistent with much of or criminal justice, institutional management. As suggested by Feeley and Simon, we have moved toward risk only models and 'waste management'. I am not arguing, per se, that the death penalty doesn't have a role in corrections. It is widely supported. At the same time, simply sweeping the death penalty and concerns over a humane treatment under the rug has large implications for how we treat inmates overall.

Contrary to the comment of the court that "Judged under that standard (the 8th Amendment), this is an easy case.” There are no easy cases in terms of the death penalty, and I truly believe that how we classify and speak of our most violent offenders has strong implications for lower-level criminals and the citizenry in general. Silly me - I had become optimistic after Roper v. Simmons.

"Not The Enemy"

The current (April 14th) issue of Newsweek features a really fascinating "My Turn" essay. For those who aren't regular readers, each issue of Newsweek contains a first-person essay intended to share one person's experiences with a particular topic, ranging from the universal (aging, caring for an ill or dying loved one, parenthood, etc.) to the unusual (being a passionate penny collector, for example). The "My Turn" essays are one of my favorite parts of the magazine because you never know what subject the author will address. (Yes, I am a huge dork.)

Anyway, this week's essay is called, "I Am Not the Enemy" by Felicia J. Nu'Man, who is a Black woman and a prosecutor in Louisville, KY and who writes in the teaser to her essay that she "put[s] people in jail because they break the law, not because I'm a puppet of a racist judicial system."

This essay caught my attention for obvious reasons, and I thought it was worth sharing. I especially like what she had to say about the duty she feels to stand up for the rights of Black crime victims, even when that means prosecuting Black offenders:

My question to these black people who believe me to be a traitor is, when will you connect the dots?...There is a disconnect in the minds of many black people. My great-grandfather was murdered in Kentucky back in the 1940s. There was no investigation. There was no prosecution of the people involved. There was only a funeral, a widow and fatherless children. This would never happen today...We have the most perfect imperfect system on earth."

Will the Death Penalty Be Put to Death?

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the method of execution used in most states -- a lethal combination of three drugs, administered in succession via IV -- violates the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically at issue is the execution protocol in Kentucky, which also is used in 35 of the other 36 states that have the death penalty.

The first drug, sodium thiopental, is used to render the condemned prisoner unconscious. The second drug, pancuronium bromide, is a paralytic designed to restrict involuntary muscle convulsions, thereby rendering the prisoner's death more "dignified". The third drug, potassium chloride, stops the prisoner's heart.

The argument against this 3-drug cocktail -- which, incidentally, was long ago abandoned by veterinarians for euthanizing pets in favor of a single-drug barbituate overdose -- is that the third drug causes excruciating pain in conscious individuals. If the first drug is unsuccessful at rendering the prisoner unconscious, the second drug would prevent the prisoner from expressing pain, leaving tremendous ambiguity about whether or not the lethal injection caused undue suffering to the prisoner:

If the first chemical works, there is no dispute that the process is quick and painless. If it does not, there is no dispute that the inmate will suffer intense and terrifying pain. But because the inmate is paralyzed, it may not be possible to tell whether the first drug worked.

What is more, in Kentucky the trained medical professionals responsible for administering the lethal injection exit the "death chamber" once the IV has been inserted, leaving only the warden and deputy warden present -- both of whom are wholly unqualified to determine whether the first drug worked.

As usual, NPR offered the most comprehensive and straightforward summary of the case before the Supreme Court. An abbreviated print article as well as the full audio report by legal correspondent Nina Totenberg can be found here.

Two other articles offer more critical analyses of the complicated American relationship with capital punishment. The first (the New York Times article linked above), describes how individual states are reluctant to lead the way of execution reform. It seems that nobody wants to "go first" in terms of altering the methods of lethal injection, for fear of the political fallout:

The answer, experts say, seems to be that no state wants to make the first move. Having proceeded in lock step to adopt the current method, which was chosen in part because it differed from the one used on animals and masked the involuntary movements associated with death, state governments would prefer that someone else, possibly the courts, change the formula first.

One final interesting point: Experts quoted in the article commented that adoption of the veterinary (single-drug) protocol for capital punishment may lead critics to argue that human beings are being treated like animals. However, opponents of the existing 3-drug method make the exact opposite argument: that condemned prisoners ought to be treated at least as humanely as our pets.

The second article from TIME magazine contextualizes the death penalty in the U.S., describing it as being "expressive of some of our society's deeply held values". This article provides a good analysis of the complicated moral and political relationship Americans have with the death penalty. Particularly instructive is the following passage:

Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice. This is also a nation of widely dispersed power--many states, cities and jurisdictions. Out of this diversity has emerged the staggering intricacy of death-penalty law, as thousands of judges and legislators from coast to coast struggle to breathe real-life meaning into such abstract issues as what constitutes effective counsel, what is the proper balance of authority between judge and jury, what makes a murder "especially heinous," what qualities and defects in a prisoner compel mercy, and so on.

Finally, while I do not necessarily oppose the death penalty on strictly moral grounds, there is no denying that the system as it currently exists in this country is hopelessly, inherently, and, in my view, irreparably broken. With any luck, the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to truly question whether capital punishment has a continued place in contemporary American society. The system is indeed "a wreck," and uncertainty about the constitutionality of lethal injections is only a small part of the problem.

According to NPR, a decision in this case is expected sometime this summer. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will decide to sentence capital punishment -- at least via lethal injection -- to death. We can only hope.

Clarence Thomas Book...Again

I really hope folks try to read the Clarance Thomas book as I recommended before. Velma asked for some important themes that emerged, so here are a few. First, I am very hesitant to even try to do this because I am sure I will over simplify some of these issues.

One of Thomas' main themes is that he was so vehemently hated and attacked by the liberals (OK, not trying to have political discussion here) because he was not the "right kind of black." Meaning, there is tremendous pressure for any person of color (probably implications for women via the women's movement also I would guess) to agree with liberal politics relating to race. To be Black means one must agree with policies like welfare, affirmative action, etc. To disagree makes one an "Uncle Tom" and a sellout - versus someone who has well-conceptualized disagreements. In many ways, we hear some of these ideas leveled against Condi Rice and Colon Powell - some of the attacks against Rice have been some of the most mean-spirited and out-and-out racist things I have ever heard. When one understands that Thomas was a rather radicalized college student, his "evolution" to the right is an interesting story. Thomas argues very passionately that the left (especially many middle and upper-middle class whites) have reduced race down to something where all "blacks must be alike." And, importantly, think alike. Unlike other successful persons of color, Thomas comes from absolute abject poverty - among the poorest of the poor in Savannah, GA....eventually moving in with his grandparents who largely "saved" him and his brother. He gets so personally offended by those who suggest he has sold out - people who have never walked in his shoes and experienced what he has experienced.

Another important issue raised is his, well, disdain for Affirmative Action policies that in any way establish anything other than a level playing field -- policies that show favoritism for persons of color beyond breaking down walls. This is a guy who excelled academically, -eventually getting accepted to Yale after graduating top of his class from Holy Cross (Massachusetts). Almost immediately he felt that people perceived him to be "less qualified" because he was apparently shown some preference based on race, although he didn't realize it at the time. (He was also accepted to Harvard but thought it too conservative to attend, although it was his life dream to attend Harvard.) Thus, his personal experience with AA-like policies was such that his successes, in a way, were cheapened by the sense that he didn't earn it but that it was given to him because he is Black. Again, I am oversimplifying this but this is the gist of the idea.

In many ways, to understand the importance of the book one should first seriously consider the criticisms of Clarence Thomas, because some of his ideas become even more important. I'd like to highlight two important quotes from the review of Chris' book (these, to my knowledge, are not statements made by Chris and his co-author, but by the individual reviewing the book - link is below).

1. "Even more important, Thomas was part of the tiny pool of politically conservative blacks acceptable to the GOP's core constituency." -- Thomas would find this argument very interesting. Instead of thinking of his acceptability, if you will, as the only black who was "acceptable" - he was a person of color, very accomplished - running the EEOC for a decade. I would guess this was part of the calculation -- philosophical ideas that were consistent with Bush #1.

2. The author also states: "Although an obvious beneficiary of the civil rights movement and affirmative action, he had vehemently attacked the movement, its leaders, and the legislation it spawned." -- Again, the idea that he OBVIOUSLY benefited from AA - read between the lines, as if he didn't earn his accomplishments - gives a cheapened sense of accomplishment.

3. In regards to Anita Hill, he really doesn't get into this too much (you really have to read it), but one of the major ideas he talks about is this: Is it surprising that when attacking a Black man, it is done based on SEXUAL issues? Sex, he argues, is the typical way we attack Black men. (He passionately refers to it as a "high tech lynching"). This idea is very consistent with some of the other themes others have talked about in prior posts. Black men bought down based on our fear of their hyper-sexuality. Certainly seems to fit the bill here.

For what its worth, I really didn't have an opinion on the Anita Hill situation as I barely recall it and didn't really care too much at the time. When you think of his life story, when you think of his accomplishments, when you think of his personality, and you hear about the type and level of involvement he had with her....it just doesn't seem to fit the bill. I may be wrong on this as I have a very selective view of the situation, but that is my gut sense.

Again, if you have the time and inclination, this is a really good read. Most of the posters here hate his policies but its important to know how he got there.

Alleviating Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Today came news of two efforts -- one at the federal level and one at the state level -- aimed at alleviating racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system.

First, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously yesterday to retroactively apply a recently-passed amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines reducing sentences for crack cocaine offenses. The goal of this amendment is to help bring some measure of parity to the federal sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses.

The Commission’s actions today, as well as promulgation of the original amendment for crack cocaine offenses, are only a partial step in mitigating the unwarranted sentencing disparity that exists between Federal powder and crack cocaine defendants. The Commission has continued to call on Congress to address the issue of the 100-to-1 statutory ratio that drives Federal cocaine sentencing policy. Only Congress can provide a comprehensive solution to a fundamental unfairness in Federal sentencing policy. The Commission has consistently expressed its readiness and willingness to work with Congress and others in the criminal justice community to address this very important issue.

While not addressed specifically in the Sentencing Commission's statement, a key element of the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine laws -- aside from the 100-to-1 ratio -- is racial disparities, with Blacks receiving a disproportionate number of the harsher crack sentences.

Talk of the Nation had a terrific discussion of this decision today. It's somewhat lengthy (30 minutes), but if you have time it's worth a listen. I was disappointed that race was not discussed more explicitly (the commissioner of the Sentencing Commission skirted the issue, in my opinion), but at the very least it was included in the broader conversation.

Second, the Michigan House of Representatives reviewed a proposal today to broaden the pool from which potential jurors are drawn, in an effort to increase the representation of racial/ethnic minorities (as well as people living in poor communities) on juries:

The bills could potentially add the names of taxpayers, registered voters and the recipients of government assistance to the pool of potential jurors; currently, jury pools are formed from lists of driver's license and state identification card holders.

One measure also calls for jury pools to be required to maintain proportional representation by ZIP code, to address what backers said was low participation by the poor concentrated in urban areas...

Wayne County Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas told the committee a 2006 study of the county’s jury selection system found the names of more than one million residents had been removed from consideration for jury duty because they had failed to respond to a jury questionnaire. Thomas also urged the committee to consider restoring the rights of convicted felons to serve on juries after they have finished their sentences and parole or probation.

In addition to jury composition, this proposal also addresses felony disenfranchisement, another criminal justice policy that disproportionately disadvantages people of color, particularly Black men. (According to the Sentencing Project, Black men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times the national average.)

I was pleased to read about both of these efforts, and curious to see what (if any) real-life changes occur because of them.

Clarence Thomas Bio

On a serious note...I don't know if any of you have read Clarence Thomas' bio "My Grandfather's Son" - I really recommend it. Now, suffice it is to say that many associated with this blog likely puke at the thought of Clarence Thomas, but let me tell you, this has got to be one of the most interesting life stories going. I haven't finished it yet, but what an intriguing guy. I particularly suggest reading it to those of you who really think he is off base with his stance on issues like affirmative action. His life story may shed some light on how he got there, regardless of your thoughts on his position. What an incredible story about a *true* American hero.