Selective Prosecution and Enforcement, part II

As if right on cue, my Google Reader leads me to Pandagon, who brings home the issue of understanding structural violence and instututional bias right here in L.A.:

Uh huh. Here’s yet another reason why there is distrust out there about law enforcement “protecting and serving” everyone equally.

Los Angeles Police Department officials announced Tuesday that they investigated more than 300 complaints of racial profiling against officers last year and found that none had merit — a conclusion that left members of the department’s oversight commission incredulous.

It is at least the sixth consecutive year that all allegations of racial profiling against LAPD officers have been dismissed, according to department documents reviewed by The Times. I’m sure the vast majority are claims that cannot be proven since you have to prove the officer’s intent to say, pull over a black driver more often than a white one. But the LAPD has a sorry history, and that makes it difficult for some to believe the outcome of the report.

In February, the inspector general released a report that concluded investigators frequently failed to fully investigate citizen complaints against allegedly abusive officers, often omitting or altering crucial information.

The report, and extensive media attention, sparked calls by commissioners for a review of the complaint investigation process. The issue of racial profiling reaches back into one of the department’s darkest periods. Since 2000, the department has been working to implement scores of reforms included in a federal consent decree that stems from the Rampart corruption scandal. As part of the decree, the department is required to gather and analyze racial data involving vehicle and pedestrian stops.

But conclusive figures that might indicate whether systemic racial profiling is a problem in the LAPD have remained elusive. Department and city officials early on acknowledged that the raw data collected by officers when they make a stop are unhelpful because they do not include factors such as the race of the officer, the predominant race of the neighborhood in which the stop was made, and whether the stop resulted in an arrest and conviction.

Of course it’s hard to prove, but none of the cases had any merit? Come on, let’s be real. The problem here is that the profiling is less about race in some instances, but a focus on a particular demographic (dressed in hip-hop wear, in the “wrong” neighborhood, etc.), and in that case, you will end up with young minority youth getting pulled over or searched more often. When does a law enforcement officer’s “hunch” cross the line into straight-out bias — remember, as Francis Holland pointed out in an earlier post, you can be a black police officer and be color-aroused. Check out the comments in the LAT article’s thread — they run the gamut.

The question here is about the effort to curtail the bias. Collecting all the data about the officer and the suspect/victim doesn’t

Selective Prosecution and Enforcement

Whittier College is consistently ranked as the most diverse liberal arts college in the U.S. Teaching topics such as globalization and first-year seminar here, I frequently encounter one of the challenges/strengths of having a diverse student body. For example: while Whittier students are definitely engaged, entrepreneurial, and have a very good sense of social justice, many of them, like me, come from upper-middle class backgrounds and are not exposed to structural or institutional violence such as police repression, severely underfunded schools or selective prosecution of crimes. Therefore, helping people to see through other lenses and to look at their society in novel ways has become a veritable leitmotif of my teaching, regardless of the context (global studies, language courses, first-year seminar, theater, etc.).

Well, here's a case even the most privileged can understand. The RIAA has been sending out thousands and thousands of letters to universities and colleges around the country. Somehow, Harvard has been exempt. Something tells me that it's not because Harvard freshmen are significantly more honest than the average person, so there must be something else afoot. Read to the end of the Wired posting for their take, which I tend to agree with.

It must be the water at Harvard University.

Illegal online trading of digital music files is running rampant in universities across the nation, but not at Harvard, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.

The RIAA, the legal lobbying group for the music industry, has sent out hundreds if not thousands of letters to universities asking them to "remove or disable access" to infringing materials the RIAA has detected on IP addresses linked to schools ranging from MIT, Stanford, University of Chicago to UC Berkeley and dozens more.

THREAT LEVEL reported Wednesday that there is a sudden surge in these so-called take-down notices, which often are the precursors to legal action by the RIAA seeking the student's identity behind the IP address who is oftentimes then sued.

Harvard, however, seems immune from the RIAA's file-sharing campaign that commenced last year against universities. Perhaps it's something in the water system at the Cambridge, MA.-based university that is hindering Harvard students from doing what their fellow students area doing at other universities.

"Harvard hasn't gotten prelitigation letters or subpoenas asking for identification of an IP address," said Wendy Selzter, a Berkman Center for Internet & Society fellow. (A prelitigtion letter is one in which the RIAA sends to the school, and asks the school to forward to its students asking them to settle for thousands of dollars or face court action.)

Whether it’s the water, the RIAA says Harvard students are exercising file-sharing restraint.

"While we have detected incidences of theft on the Harvard network, the levels are not sufficient enough to warrant legal action. Of course, this could always change, depending on what we find," RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth tells THREAT LEVEL.

Duckworth said no school was "immune," not even Harvard.

"We try to manage our program in the most efficient and effective way possible with the resources that we have," Duckworth said. "When we detect certain levels of piracy on school networks we reserve the right to bring legal action."

Seltzer had her own theory about the RIAA's tactics. "It might be that somebody doesn’t want to go against the Harvard legal team or endowment or law faculty or brand," she said.

Perhaps the RIAA doesn't wish to make waves with the next-generation of the rich and powerful. Also, Charles Nesson, of the Berkman Center at Harvard, has told the RIAA in an open letter "to take a hike." [my emphasis]

Nesson, as part of his evidence class, also requires students to draft motions quashing a subpoena from the RIAA demanding the identity behind a university IP address.

Home at last

I spent a lot of the day in the car. Had a great conversation along the way.

As you've probably noticed looking at my "conference blogging" posts, I felt really energized by the topics and the people. There's a lot of ideas I hope to explore in the coming weeks and I'll try to review them here as I go, "thinking out loud" right here on blogger. I'll save that for later in the week. For now, just a few last words...

As the conference ended, protests were cranking up out in Union Square against China. I snapped a few pictures (which I'll keep small here to protect folks), of course, and I won't pass up the chance to comment.

First of all, I salute all the members of the Chinese and Tibetan community for coming out to show their protest. Given the serious consequences their appearance might have for loved ones back home, their actions are more than just righteous, they are courageous.

I don't have time to dwell on this right now--grading and preparation are calling--but the moment yesterday in Union Square got me thinking about Margaret Thatcher and the Olympics. As I was reminded by a BBC reporter last Monday or Tuesday, Margaret Thatcher's opinion was that athletes could boycott games if they like, but Business should not.* That is a typically chilling statement by the former British PM, the same one who said that "There is no such thing as society," that "There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first" (Source).

Spreading the idea that the individual acts out of mere selfishness has long been a part of the project of folks like Thatcher, Reagan, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and their ilk. Yet here we see folks risking their lives for others, for places where they no longer have a home. Right here (on the internet) we see a commons maintained and thriving thanks to a spirit of community. Yes, individualism, entrepreneurship, profit are part of almost all our identities, but so are community, belonging and selflessness. What's more: these folks are protesting some of the neoliberal policy put into action by Deng Xiao Ping concurrent with Thatcher and Reagan (See David Harvey). Just one look at China and it is readily apparent that a free market does not need political freedom to operate. Of course, Chileans know this first hand, and, I suppose, so do many folks right here in the U.S.

Ok, I'm too tired and too busy to blog more or to be more succint. I just wanted to share that.

*I may be thinking of her views on South Africa. Sorry for my tired brain.

Another Indictment of our (in)justice system

Today at Tompaine.com:

“First, the Supreme Court denied the appeal of Weldon Angelos for a first-time drug offense. Angelos was a 24-year-old Utah music producer with no prior convictions when he was convicted of three sales of marijuana in 2004. During these sales he possessed a gun, though there were no allegations that he ever used or threatened to use it. Under federal mandatory sentencing laws, the judge was required to sentence Angelos to five years on the first offense and 25 years each for the two subsequent offenses, for a total of 55 years in prison. In imposing sentence, Judge Paul Cassell, a leading conservative jurist, decried the sentencing policy as “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.”

The Angelos decision came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics report finding that there are now a record 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails. These figures represent the continuation of a “race to incarcerate” that has been raging since 1972. With a 500 percent increase in the number of people in prison since then, the United States has now become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, locking up its citizens at 5-8 times the rate of other industrialized nations. The strict punishment meted out in the Angelos case and thousands of others explain much of the rapid increase in the prison population.

The composition of the prison population reflects the socioeconomic inequalities in society. Sixty percent of the prison population is African American and Latino, and if current trends continue, one of every three black males and one of every six Latino males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in his lifetime. The overall rates for women are lower, but the racial and ethnic disparities are similar and the growth rate of women’s incarceration is nearly double that of men over the past two decades.” ( http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/11/incarceration_nation.php)

Crime and Punishment (of the innocent)

With all the outsourcing to China, I'm glad to see we're forging ahead in the prison-industrial complex. I mean, if we can't do "shake 'n' bake" democracy in the Middle East, at least we know how to incarcerate people:

According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US, and 1,330,000 more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. The American incarceration rate is seven times higher than that of European countries. Either America is the land of criminals, or something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice (sic) system in "the land of the free."

In the US the wrongful conviction rate is extremely high. One reason is that hardly any of the convicted have had a jury trial. No peers have heard the evidence against them and found them guilty. In the US criminal justice (sic) system, more than 95% of all felony cases are settled with a plea bargain. (Counterpunch)

Ah, ain't freedom grand? Ok, sorry to be snarky. This is tragic.