RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The Wrath of Netanyahu Print
Friday, 05 June 2015 11:58

Cole writes: "Stephane Richard, the CEO of the French telecommunications company Orange embroiled himself in an international incident on Wednesday during a visit to Cairo, when he said that his company would withdraw its logo from the Israeli market 'tomorrow' if he could."

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Getty)
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Getty)


The Wrath of Netanyahu

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

05 June 15

 

tephane Richard, the CEO of the French telecommunnications company Orange embroiled himself in an international incident on Wednesday during a visit to Cairo, when he said that his company would withdraw its logo from the Israeli market “tomorrow” if he could. The reason is that the Israeli firm Partner, to which Orange licensed its brand name, has built 100 telecommunication antennas on confiscated Palestinian land. Partner telecom has about 28% of the Israeli market. Richard did also say that he understood that the investment in the settlements was also an issue in the Arab world, into which Orange wants to expand further.

The issue is not boycotting Israel proper. Richard would have had no problem with doing business with a Tel Aviv firm that had no West Bank presence. The issue is profiting from a vast project of illegal theft of an occupied people’s property. But the controversy signals something I predicted: As mainstream Israeli companies become more and more intertwined with West Bank settler investments and partners, all Israeli businesses risk getting caught up in BDS (the campaign to boycott, sanction and divest from Israeli firms implicated in the settlements). A similar dilemma hurt the Sodastream company, which suffered economic reversals after it advertised at this year’s Superbowl, drawing attention to itself. Many American consumers were disturbed to discover that one of the company’s factories was in the West Bank (it has since been closed), and they launched a boycott campaign against it.

Since the French foreign ministry (like those of the UK, the Netherlands and other European countries) has advised the country’s corporations not to partner with Israeli firms doing business in Israeli squatter settlements on the Palestinian West Bank, critics had argued that Orange is contravening French policy.

The reason for the foreign ministry warning is that European firms making money from the illegal Israeli squatter settlements on the Palestinian West Bank could theoretically be sued in European courts under the Rome Statute and under a 2004 finding of the International Criminal Court that the squatter settlements contravene international law. Orange’s Richard is eager to avoid such a lawsuit now that Partner has dragged the company’s brand into the settlement controversy.

Richard’s comment was vehemently denounced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

In 1998, when Orange was owned by the Chinese corporation Hutchison, it did a deal to lend its brand to the Israeli firm “Partner,” a cell phone company. Two years later, Orange was acquired by France Telecom, which is partially government-owned. Orange doesn’t actually have any operations of its own in Israel and owns nothing there, it just allows Partner to display its brand. Presumably Israeli cell phone subscribers are more impressed by a global brand like Orange than they would be by “Support,” which actually provides their communications. A controlling interest in Partner telecom was bought by billionaire Haim Saban last December.

Richard is therefore between Scylla and Charybdis. If he broke the brand licensing agreement with Partner before it ran out, he could be sued for breach of contract. But if he continues to make money from Partner as it expands into the settlements, he could be sued in Europe for profiting from illegal squatting and expropriation. He said, according to The Guardian, “If you take those amounts on one side and on the other side the time that we spend to explain this, to try to find a solution and the consequences that we have to manage here but also in France, believe me it’s a very bad deal. . .”

In short, Richard’s comment has nothing to do with “boycotting the Israeli state,” contrary to what Netanyahu maintained. It is about the squatter settlements and their illegality. It is about profiting from an epochal crime.

I wrote last winter regarding the Sodastream controversy:

“The European Union has decided to use its economic clout to push back against the clear Israeli determination to annex the whole West Bank while keeping its indigenous Palestinian population stateless and without the rights of citizenship.

The European Union has insisted that Israeli institutions and companies based in the Palestinian West Bank be excluded from any Israeli participation in a program of the European Union. (The EU treats Israel like a member, offering it many perquisites, opportunities for technology interchange, and access to EU markets; Brussels is saying, however, that none of that largesse can go to Israelis in the Occupied Weat Bank.)

About a third of Israel’s trade is with Europe (the US and China are its biggest trading partners, and Turkey comes after the EU). The EU imports $300 million a year from the settlements, but is clearly moving toward cutting that trade off.

Norway’s enormous sovereign wealth investment fund has just blacklisted Israeli firms with settlement ties.

This follows on a Netherlands’ investment fund divesting from five Israeli banks that fund squatter settlements on Palestinian territory.

European governments are increasingly warning their companies not to invest in or do business with Israeli firms in the Palestinian West Bank, since they might well be sued in Europe by the Palestinians so harmed. The recognition by the UN General Assembly of Palestine as a non-member observer state (on the same footing at the UN as the Vatican) has given Palestine more standing, even in national courts. Palestine is increasingly being upgraded diplomatically in Europe. The issue is also affected by European Union human rights law and a halo effect from the enactment of the Rome Statute in 2002 and the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Here’s the problem for Jews in Europe and the United States who, like Ms. Johansson, do business with Israeli companies: It is increasingly difficult to distinguish between West Bank firms and Israeli ones. As the Israeli annexation of the West Bank accelerates, the hundreds of thousands of Israelis there bring along with them banks, factories and other economic activities from the metropole. Sodastream isn’t primarily a West Bank company, but it has a West Bank factory and so is embroiled in controversy.

That is, the growing international movement to divest, boycott and sanction the squatter institutions on the Palestinian West Bank is unlikely only to affect the latter over time. There is increasing danger of Israel proper being subjected to boycott because it is so tightly intertwined with the settlers.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The World Says No to Surveillance Print
Friday, 05 June 2015 10:42

Snowden writes: "Two years ago today, three journalists and I worked nervously in a Hong Kong hotel room, waiting to see how the world would react to the revelation that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States. In the days that followed, those journalists and others published documents revealing that democratic governments had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong."

Edward Snowden.  (photo: Frederick Florin/Agence France-Presse/Getty)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Frederick Florin/Agence France-Presse/Getty)


The World Says No to Surveillance

By Edward Snowden, The New York Times

05 June 15

 

WO years ago today, three journalists and I worked nervously in a Hong Kong hotel room, waiting to see how the world would react to the revelation that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States. In the days that followed, those journalists and others published documents revealing that democratic governments had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong.

Within days, the United States government responded by bringing charges against me under World War I-era espionage laws. The journalists were advised by lawyers that they risked arrest or subpoena if they returned to the United States. Politicians raced to condemn our efforts as un-American, even treasonous.

Privately, there were moments when I worried that we might have put our privileged lives at risk for nothing — that the public would react with indifference, or practiced cynicism, to the revelations.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
There Would Be No USA Freedom Act Without Edward Snowden Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 05 June 2015 08:53

Pierce writes: "Now that the president has signed the admittedly lukewarmish NSA reform bill, there are certain people who deserve to crow a little."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Getty)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Getty)


There Would Be No USA Freedom Act Without Edward Snowden

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

05 June 15

 

In which we try to remember where real change comes from.

ow that the president has signed the admittedly lukewarmish NSA reform bill, there are certain people who deserve to crow a little.

The passage of the USA Freedom Act paves the way for telecom companies to assume responsibility of the controversial phone records collection program, while also bringing to a close a short lapse in the broad NSA and FBI domestic spying authorities. Those powers expired with key provisions of the Patriot Act at 12.01 am on Monday amid a showdown between defense hawks and civil liberties advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the passage of the USA Freedom Act as "a milestone" but pointed out that there were many more "intrusive and overbroad" surveillance powers yet untouched.

The ambivalence about Edward Snowden, International Man Of Luggage, all clears away at one simple point -- without him, none of this happens. Without what he did, nobody looks closely enough at the NSA and its surveillance programs even to think of reforming them even in the mildest way, which is pretty much what this is. Without what he did, the conversation not only doesn't change, it doesn't even occur.

Oregon senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the intelligence committee who has railed against NSA surveillance for years, praised the breakthrough but said the work is far from complete. "This is the only beginning. There is a lot more to do," Wyden told reporters after the vote. "We're going to have very vigorous debate about the flawed idea of the FBI director to require companies to build weaknesses into their products. We're going to try to close the backdoor search loophole – this is part of the Fisa Act and is going to be increasingly important, because Americans are going to have their emails swept up increasingly as global communications systems begin to merge."

Without what Edward Snowden did, even these first tremors of a rollback from the politics of fear that have encrusted the country in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 would not have been felt in Washington this week.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Turn Left on Main Street Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18165"><span class="small">Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Thursday, 04 June 2015 13:04

Excerpt: "A trade agreement that favors multinational corporations over working people? Cutting 'entitlement programs' such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, worker's compensation? Letting Wall Street off the hook for crashing the economy and costing millions of Americans their jobs and homes? These are Republican policies, bought and paid for by plutocrats."

A recent Bernie Sanders rally in Minneapolis, MN, held on May 31, 2015. (photo: Sanders for President Campaign)
A recent Bernie Sanders rally in Minneapolis, MN, held on May 31, 2015. (photo: Sanders for President Campaign)


Turn Left on Main Street

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Moyers & Company

04 June 15

 

Congressman John K. Delaney, what the hell are you talking about?

n a recent Washington Post op-ed piece, headlined, “The last thing America needs? A left-wing version of the Tea Party,” the Democratic congressman from Maryland scolds progressives and expresses his worry “about where some of the loudest voices in the room could take the Democratic Party.”

He writes, “Rejecting a trade agreement with Asia, expanding entitlement programs that crowd out other priorities and a desire to relitigate the financial crisis are becoming dominant positions among Democrats. Although these subjects may make for good partisan talking points, they do not provide the building blocks for a positive and bold agenda to create jobs and improve the lives of Americans.”

Rep. Delaney even implies that a freewheeling, open discussion of “these subjects” could lead to the election of a Republican president.

Good grief, John. A trade agreement that favors multinational corporations over working people? Cutting “entitlement programs” such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, worker’s compensation? Letting Wall Street off the hook for crashing the economy and costing millions of Americans their jobs and homes? These are Republican policies, bought and paid for by plutocrats. If Democrats simply mimic them, there would be no need to bother with voting for a Republican president; we could cancel the election and put the billions saved in campaign contributions straight into the Clinton Foundation.

The progressive agenda isn’t “left wing.” (Can anyone using the term even define what “left wing” means anymore?) The progressive agenda is America’s story — from ending slavery to ending segregation to establishing a woman’s right to vote to Social Security, the right to organize, and the fight for fair pay and against income inequality. Strip those from our history and you might as well contract America out to the US Chamber of Commerce the National Association of Manufacturers, and Karl Rove, Inc.

At their core, the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs were aimed at assuring every child of a decent education, every worker a decent wage, and every senior a decent retirement; if that’s extreme, so are the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.

But such is the level of what passes for discourse inside the Beltway these days. The cushioned political and media elites who eat, drink, and make merry with each other at the annual White House Correspondents & Celebrity Ball are so cozy up there in the stratosphere that they dismiss as the lunatic fringe any voice from below that challenges the status quo.

And by the way, John, the “loudest voices in the room” aren’t populists or progressives; they belong to the auctioneers selling our government to the highest bidders.

Can you believe this? Rep. Delaney even thinks that progressives are too engaged “in time-consuming rhetoric attacking banks that has little chance of producing more financial reform and distracts from far more consequential areas of economic risk…” Yet his words come on the heels of another round of billions in fines against the big banks for perpetrating fraud, an ongoing attempt by Republican Senator Richard Shelby and his Wall Street-funded colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to eviscerate the reforms of Dodd-Frank, and an updated report from the University of Notre Dame and law firm Labaton Sucharow that says, “Nearly seven years after the global financial crisis rocked investors’ confidence in the markets and financial services in general, our survey clearly shows that a culture of integrity has failed to take hold. Numerous individuals continue to believe that engaging in illegal or unethical activity is part and parcel of succeeding in this highly competitive field.” (And why not, when the chances of going to prison for your blatant misdeeds are virtually nil?)

But Rep. Delaney seems to think any objection to these behaviors and other misdeeds just jams the works and keeps the grownups from taking care of business. So does former Mitt (“47 percent”) Romney advisor and George W. Bush (slash taxes on the One Percent!) speechwriter Peter Wehner, who recently warned in The New York Times that many Democrats “are placing a very risky bet that there are virtually no limits to how far left they can go.”

How about far enough left to reach Main Street?

Just take a look at the initial press reaction to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacy. As Steve Hendricks observed in the Columbia Journalism Review, “For not going with the flow, and for challenging Hillary Clinton, the big fish many elites have tagged as their own, Sanders’s entry into the race was greeted with story after story whose message — stated or understated, depending on the decorum of the messenger — was ‘This crank can’t win.’”

Hillary Clinton’s “corporatism,” Hendricks writes, “wed to her social liberalism and her imperial hawkishness appeals to those in the moneyed Second and journalistic Fourth Estates who would embrace Republicanism but for its misogynistic, homophobic, racist, science-denying core.” And so Sanders was tarred at the outset as a doomed crackpot candidate,  followed then by article after article that fixated not on ideas and policies but on various idiosyncrasies, Sanders’ age and hippie past, the ideology of democratic socialism, and for heaven’s sake, his flyaway hair.

But if Senator Sanders is a crackpot, so are the majority of Americans. The ideas and policies he espouses have far more public support than the journalist habitués of Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue would have you believe.

Juan Cole of the blog Informed Comment pulled together some of the figures:

Some 63 percent of Americans agree that the current distribution of wealth is unfair. And in a Gallup poll done earlier this month, a majority, 52 percent, think that government taxation on the rich should be used to reduce the wealth gap… A majority of Americans oppose the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, one of a number of such rulings that have increased the ability of the super-wealthy to influence politics. A good half of Americans support federally financed political campaigns so as to level the playing field… Some 79 percent of Americans believe that education beyond high school is not affordable for everyone. And some 57 percent of people under 30 believe student debt is a problem for youth… According to a very recent Yale/Gallup poll, some 71 percent of Americans believe global warming is occurring, and 57 percent are sure that human activity (emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide) is causing it…

There you have it: Far from being an outsider, Sanders is paddling his way along the mainstream of American public opinion. Look at the crowds that are gathering to hear him speak: More than 3,000 in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Sunday, standing room only in Ames, Davenport and Iowa City, Iowa. Reporters can’t help but take notice now. “At campaign stops in early states and elsewhere, the firebrand from Vermont is drawing enthusiastic crowds that are several times larger than those that gather for [fellow presidential aspirant Martin] O’Malley,” notes The Washington Post. And The New York Times: “The crowds at Mr. Sanders’s Iowa events appeared to be different from the state’s famously finicky tire-kickers. Many said they had already made up their mind to support Mr. Sanders. They applauded his calls for higher taxes on the rich to pay for 13 million public works jobs, for decisive action on climate change and for free tuition at public colleges.”

Oh, how the mighty tremble when they hear such things!  The murmuring crowd is their worst nightmare. So plutocratic Republican apologists like Peter Wehner, the corporate Democrats of Clinton, Inc., and killjoys like Congressman Delaney will double down against Bernie Sanders,  just as they have against all those in politics before them who champion bottom-up democracy. If that means turning “left,” so be it. For Democrats, it’s the way home. They would do well to remember that apocryphal saying, usually attributed to Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: 40 Reasons Our Jails and Prisons Are Full of Black, Brown, and Poor People Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31402"><span class="small">Bill Quigley, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 04 June 2015 11:14

Quigley writes: "We are far and away the world leader in putting our own people in jail. Most of the people inside are poor and black. Here are 40 reasons why."

What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted? (photo: Murdo Macleod/Guardian UK)
What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted? (photo: Murdo Macleod/Guardian UK)


40 Reasons Our Jails and Prisons Are Full of Black, Brown, and Poor People

By Bill Quigley, Reader Supported News

04 June 15

 

he US Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that 2.2 million people are in our nation’s jails and prisons and another 4.5 million people are on probation or parole in the US, totaling 6.8 million people, one in every 35 adults. We are far and away the world leader in putting our own people in jail. Most of the people inside are poor and black. Here are 40 reasons why. 

One. It is not just about crime. Our jails and prisons have grown from holding about 500,000 people in 1980 to 2.2 million today. The fact is that crime rates have risen and fallen independently of our growing incarceration rates.

Two. Police discriminate. The first step in putting people in jail is the interaction between citizens and police. For decades, police departments have engaged in campaigns of stopping and frisking people who are walking, mostly poor people and people of color, without cause. Recently, New York City lost a federal civil rights challenge by the Center for Constitutional Rights regarding their stop-and-frisk practices, in which police stopped over 500,000 people annually without any indication that they had been involved in any crime at all. About 80 percent of those stops were of blacks and Latinos, who comprise 25 and 28 percent respectively of NYC’s total population. Chicago police do the same thing, stopping even more people, also in a racially discriminatory way, with blacks at 72 percent even though the city is only 32 percent black.

Three. Police traffic stops also racially target people. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely and Hispanic drivers are 23 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. In April 2015, Connecticut reported on 620,000 traffic stops that revealed widespread racial profiling, particularly during daylight hours when the race of driver was more visible. 

Four. Once stopped, black and Hispanic motorists are more likely to be given tickets than white drivers stopped for the same offenses.

Five. Once stopped, blacks and Latinos are also more likely to be searched. The DOJ reports that black drivers at traffic stops were searched by police three times more often and Hispanic drivers two times more often than white drivers. A large research study in Kansas City found that when police made investigatory stops, in which officers look into the car’s interior, ask probing questions, and even conduct searches, the race of the driver was a clear indicator of would be stopped: 28 percent of young black males twenty-five or younger were stopped in a year’s time, versus 12 percent of white men and only 7 percent of white women. In fact, not until black men reach the age of 50 does their rate of police stops dip below that of drivers who are white men twenty-five and under. 

Six. Traffic tickets are big business. And even if most people do not go directly to jail for traffic tickets, poor people are hit the worst by these ticket systems. As we saw with Ferguson, some of the towns in Missouri receive 40 percent or more of their city revenues from traffic tickets. Tickets are money-makers for towns. 

Seven. The consequences of traffic tickets are much more severe for poor people. People with means will just pay the fines. But for poor and working people, fines are a real hardship. For example, over four million people in California do not have valid driver’s licenses because they have unpaid fines and fees for traffic tickets. And we know unpaid tickets can lead to jail.

Eight. In schools, African American kids are much more likely to be referred to the police than other kids. African American students are 16 percent of those enrolled in schools but 27 percent of those referred to the police. Kids with disabilities are discriminated against at about the same rate: they are 14 percent of those enrolled in school and 26 of those referred to the police.

Nine. Though black people make up about 12 percent of the US population, black children account for 28 percent of juvenile arrests. The DOJ reports that there are over 57,000 people under the age of 21 in juvenile detention. The US even has 10,000 children in adult jails and prisons on any given day.

Ten. The War on Drugs targets black people. Drug arrests are a big source of bodies and business for the criminal legal system. Half of the arrests these days are for drugs, with half of those are for marijuana. Despite the fact that black and white people use marijuana at the same rates, a black person is 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than a white person. The ACLU found that in some states black people were six times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites. For all US drug arrests between 1980 and 2000, the black drug arrest rate rose dramatically from 6.5 to 29.1 per 1,000 persons; during the same period, the white drug arrest rate barely increased from 3.5 to 4.6 per 1,000 persons. 

Eleven. Many people are in jail and prison because the US has much tougher drug laws and much longer sentences for drug offenses than most other countries. Drug offenders receive an average sentence of 7 months in France, twelve months in England, and 23 months in the US. 

Twelve. The bail system penalizes poor people. Every day there are about 500,000 people in jails who are still presumed innocent and awaiting trial, just because they are too poor to pay money to get out on bail. Not too long ago, judges allowed most people, even poor people, to be free while they were awaiting trial – but no more. In a 2013 study of New York City courts, over 50% of the people held in jail awaiting trial for misdemeanor or felony charges were unable to pay bail amounts of $2500 or less. 

Thirteen. This system creates a lot of jobs. Jails and prisons provide jobs to local, state, and federal officials. To understand how this system works, it is good to know the difference between jails and prisons. Jails are local, usually for people recently arrested or awaiting trial. Prisons are state and federal, and are for people who have already been convicted. There are more than 3000 local jails across the US, according to the Vera Institute, and together they usually hold about 500,000 people awaiting trial and an additional 200,000 or so convicted on minor charges. Over the course of a year, these local jails process over 11.7 million people. Prisons are state and federal lockups which usually hold about twice the number of people as local jails, or just over 1.5 million prisoners.

Fourteen. The people in local jails are not there because they are a threat to the rest of us. Nearly 75 percent of the hundreds of thousands of people in local jails are there for nonviolent offenses such as traffic, property, drug, or public order offenses. 

Fifteen. Criminal bonds are big business. Nationwide, over 60 percent of people arrested are forced to post a financial bond to be released pending trial, usually by posting cash or a house or paying a bond company. There are about 15,000 bail bond agents working in the bail bond industry, which takes in about $14 billion every year. 

Sixteen. A very high percentage of people in local jails are people with diagnosed mental illnesses. The rate of mental illness inside jails is four to six times higher than on the outside. In a study of over 1000 prisoners, over 14 percent of the men and over 30 percent of the women entering jails and prisons were found to have serious mental illness. A recent study in New York City’s Rikers Island jail found that 4,000 prisoners, 40 percent of their inmates, were suffering from mental illness. In many of our cities, the local jail is the primary place where people with severe mental problems end up. Yet treatment for mental illness in jails is nearly non-existent

Seventeen. Lots of people in jail need treatment. Nearly 70 percent of people in prison meet the medical criteria for drug abuse or dependence, yet only 7 to 17 percent ever receive drug abuse treatment.

Eighteen. Those who are too poor, too mentally ill, or too chemically dependent, though still presumed innocent, are kept in cages until their trial dates. No wonder it is fair to say, as The New York Times reported, that our jails “have become vast warehouses made up primarily of people too poor to post bail or too ill with mental health or drug problems to adequately care for themselves.”

Nineteen. Poor people have to rely on public defenders. Though anyone threatened with even a day in jail is entitled to a lawyer, the reality is much different. Many poor people facing misdemeanor charges never see a lawyer at all. For example, in Delaware more than 75 percent of the people in its Court of Common Pleas never speak to a lawyer. A study of Jackson County, Michigan, found 95 percent of people facing misdemeanors waived their right to an attorney and pleaded guilty rather than pay a $240 charge for a public defender. Thirteen states have no state structure at all to make sure people have access to public defenders in misdemeanor courts.

Twenty. When poor people face felony charges, they often find the public defenders overworked and underfunded and thus not fully available to provide adequate help in their case. In recent years public defenders in Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania were so overwhelmed with cases that they refused to represent any new clients. Most other states also have public defender offices that have been crushed by overwork and inadequate finances and do not measure up to the basic principles for public defenders outlined by the American Bar Association. It is not uncommon for public defenders to have more than 100 cases going at the same time, sometimes several hundred. Famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence, who never lost a criminal case because of his extensive preparation for each one, said that if he had been a public defender and represented a hundred clients he would never have won a case.

Twenty-one. Lots of poor people plead guilty. Lack of adequate public defense leads many people in prison to plead guilty. The American Bar Association reviewed the US public defender system and concluded it lacked fundamental fairness and put poor people at constant risk of wrongful conviction. “All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring.... The fundamental right to a lawyer that America assumes applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the US.”

Twenty-two. Many are forced to plead guilty. Consider all the exonerations of people who were forced by police to confess even when they did not commit the crime who were later proven innocent: some criminologists estimate 2 to 8 percent of the people in prison are innocent but pleaded guilty. One longtime federal judge estimates that there is so much pressure on people to plead guilty that there may easily be 20,000 people in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Twenty-three. Very few people in prison ever had a trial. Trials are rare in the criminal injustice system. Over 95 percent of criminal cases are finished by plea bargains. In 1980, nearly 20 percent of criminal cases were tried, but that number has gone down to less than 3 percent, because sentences are now so much higher for those who lose trials, there are more punishing drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences, and more power has been given to prosecutors.

Twenty-four. Poor people get jail, and jail makes people worse off. The poorest people, those who have had to remain in jail since their arrest, are four times more likely to receive a prison sentence than those who got out on bail. There are tens of thousands of rapes inside jails and prisons each year. The DOJ reports over 4,000 inmates are murdered each year while incarcerated. As US Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy told Congress recently, “This idea of total incarceration just isn’t working. And it’s not humane. We [society and Congress and the legal profession] have no interest in corrections, nobody looks at it.” 

Twenty-five. Average prison sentences are much longer than they used to be, especially for people of color. Since 1990, the average time for property crimes has gone up 24 percent and time for drug crimes has gone up 36 percent. In the US federal system, nearly 75 percent of the people sent to prison for drug offenses are black or Latino.

Twenty-six. There is about a 70 percent chance that an African American man without a high school diploma will be imprisoned by the time he reaches his mid-thirties; the rate for white males without a high school diploma is 53 percent lower. In the 1980s, there was only an 8 percent difference. In New York City, for example, blacks are jailed at nearly 12 times the rate of whites and Latinos at more than five times the rate of whites.

Twenty-seven. Almost 1 of 12 black men ages 25 to 54 are in jail or prison, compared to 1 in 60 non-black men. That is 600,000 African American men, an imprisonment rate five times that of white men.

Twenty-eight. Prison has become a very big private business. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) owns and runs 67 for-profit jails in 20 states with over 90,000 beds. Along with GEO (formerly Wackenhut), these two private prison companies have donated more than $10 million to candidates and spent another $25 million lobbying, according to The Washington Post. They lobby all over the country, and over the past ten years have doubled the number of prisoners they hold.

Twenty-nine. The Sentencing Project reports that over 159,000 people are serving life sentences in the US. Nearly half are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. The number of people serving life in prison has gone up by more than 400% since 1984. Nearly 250,000 prisoners in the US are over age 50.

Thirty. Inside prisons, the poorest people are taken advantage of again, as most items such as telephone calls to families are priced exorbitantly high, some as high as $12.95 for a 15-minute call, further separating families.

Thirty-one. The DOJ reports another 3.9 million people are on probation. Probation is when a court puts a person under supervision instead of sending him to prison. Probation is also becoming a big business for private companies, which get governments to contract with them to collect outstanding debts and supervise people on probation. Human Rights Watch reported in 2014 that over a thousand courts assign hundreds of thousands of people to be under the supervision of private companies. The companies then collect fines, fees, and costs for the supervision, or else the parolees go to jail. For example, one man in Georgia who was fined $200 for stealing a can of beer from a convenience store was ultimately jailed after the private probation company ran up over a thousand dollars in fees.

Thirty-two. The DOJ reports that an additional 850,000 people are on parole. Parole is when a person who has been in prison is released to serve the rest of his or her sentence under supervision.

Thirty-three. The DOJ reported in 2012 that as many as 100 million people have a criminal record, and over 94 million of those records are online.

Thirty-four. Anyone can find out if someone has a record. Because it is so easy to access arrest and court records, people who have been arrested and convicted face very serious problems renting an apartment, or getting a job, public assistance, or an education. Eighty-seven percent of employers conduct background checks. Employment losses for people with criminal records have been estimated at as much as $65 billion every year. 

Thirty-five. Race is a multiplier of disadvantage in unemployment for people who get out of prison. A study by Professor Devah Pager demonstrated that employers who were unlikely to even check on the criminal history of white male applicants, seriously discriminated against all black applicants and even more so against black applicants with criminal records. 

Thirty-six. Families are hurt by this. The Sentencing Project reports that 180,000 women are subject to lifetime bans from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families because of felony drug convictions.

Thirty-seven. Convicted people cannot get jobs after they get out. More than 60 percent of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed one year after being released. Is it a surprise that within three years of release from prison, about two-thirds of the state prisoners were rearrested?

Thirty-eight. The US spends $80 billion on this big business of corrections every year. As a retired criminal court judge I know says, “The high costs of this system would be worth it if the system was actually working and making us safer, but we are not safer, the system is not working, so the actual dollars we are spending are another indication of our failure.” The cost of being number one in incarceration is four times higher than it was in 1982. Anyone feeling four times safer than they used to?

Thirty-nine. Putting more people in jail creates more poverty. The overall poverty rate in our country is undoubtedly higher because of the dramatic increase in incarceration over the past 35 years. One research project estimates that poverty would have decreased by 20 percent if we had not put all these extra people in prison. This makes sense given the fact that most of the people brought into the system are poor to begin with. It is much harder for them to find a job because of the barriers to employment and good jobs erected by a criminal record, the increased number of one-parent families because of a parent being in jail, and the bans on receiving food stamps and housing assistance.

Forty. Put all these problems together and you can see why the Center for American Progress rightly concludes, “Today, a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of poverty.”

What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted and incarcerates them with the mentally ill and chemically dependent? The current criminal system has dozens of moving parts, from the legislators who create the laws, to the police who enforce them, to the courts that apply them, to the jails and prisons that house the people caught up in the system, to the public and business community who decide whom to hire, to all of us who either do something or turn our heads away. These are our brothers and sisters and cousins and friends of our coworkers. There are lots of proposed solutions. To learn more about the problems and the solutions, go to places like The Sentencing Project, the Vera Institute, or the Center for American Progress. Because it’s the right thing to do, and because about 95 percent of the people we send to prison are coming back into our communities. 



Bill Quigley teaches law at Loyola University New Orleans and can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next > End >>

Page 2444 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN