Senator Hatch Bails Out Hip Hop Producer

4 Comments

1. 

   scribe on July 9, 2006 at 11:10 am

   But we don’t have an equitable system for punishing the use and distribution of cocaine.

   We sure don’t.  The justice system is not equitable in ANY area. Only those with plenty of money can afford to purchase effective legal assistance.

   “Justice”, like  decent medical care, and almost everything else in this country, is really only available to those who can afford to pay whatever the going rate is. And if you have ENOUGH money, you can pay your way around almost any law.

   But again, I forget. Its not pc to talk about “class”.

   • 

     Man Without A Country on July 9, 2006 at 12:35 pm

     Scribe, when I DO talk about social class, guess what happens?

     Middle class people–regardless of political affiliation–often pour out pent-up frustration at the hypocrisy of America.  Even Republicans (!) (middle-class ones) often agree with the statement, “There’s two sets of rules, one for the rich and one for the rest of us.”

     And people resent it.

     I remember in the 1980s and 1990s when the Republicans would shout down any Democrat who tried to talk about class differences–they accused them of practicing “class warfare”.  

     Eventually, cowed Democrats gave up.

     That was a fatal mistake.

     Class warfare is a reality–the rich are waging class war on the rest of us.  Ordinary folk have got to fight back.

     I live in California, which is becoming more and more like a banana republic every day–the middle class are fleeing the state because they’re unable to afford decent housing, leaving behind a small number of super-wealthy people in McMansions and a larger and larger number of dispossessed “peasants” (and I don’t mean just illegal immigrants).

     It’s not a recipe for democracy, but it is a recipe for huge social unrest.  The recent huge street demonstrations may have been about immigration laws now, but in the future they’ll be about social justice in general.

     Come to think of it, maybe we need some social unrest!  Voting doesn’t seem to be doing too much good…let’s try street protests with 10 million people and see how that works.  

2. 

   Man Without A Country on July 9, 2006 at 12:03 pm

   Hypocritical drug sentencing is part of the American Way.

   Cocaine (used primarily by white folk) gets a relatively light sentence while crack, a derivate of cocaine (used primarily by black folk) gets a much harsher sentence.

   Aw, don’t believe me.  I’m just some anonymous guy on the Internets.  

   Will you believe the Boston Globe?

   The disparity on crack-cocaine sentencing

   By Marc Mauer  |  July 5, 2006

   THE RECENT conclusion of the NBA Finals coincided with a tragic anniversary of particular relevance for basketball fans. Twenty years ago University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died of a drug overdose just hours after being selected second in the NBA draft by the Boston Celtics. His death sparked a national whirlwind of media attention and public scrutiny largely focused on the drug, crack cocaine, that was suspected of killing him.

   By the fall, Congress had adopted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which included harsh new mandatory sentences for low-level crack offenses. Defendants convicted with just 5 grams of crack cocaine, the weight of 5 sugar packets, were subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The same penalty was triggered for powder cocaine only when an offense involved at least 500 grams.

   Twenty years later, the aftermath of these laws is sobering. More than 80 percent of the defendants prosecuted for a crack offense are African-American, despite the fact that more than two-thirds of crack users are white or Hispanic. By and large, these defendants are not the kingpins of the drug trade. Data from the US Sentencing Commission document that 73 percent of crack defendants had only low-level involvement in drug activity, such as street-level dealers, couriers, or lookouts. The commission also has found that crack cocaine sentences are the single most significant factor contributing to racial disparity in federal sentencing.

   The legacy of Len Bias goes beyond just crack-sentencing policies, though, incorporating two decades of declining social and economic prospects for African-American males in particular. As a result of the drug war and a host of harsh sentencing policies such as mandatory minimums and “three strikes” laws, imprisonment has increasingly become almost the norm in many low-income communities. If current trends continue, 1 in 3 black males born today will spend time in a state or federal prison in his lifetime.

   http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/05/the_disparity_on_crack_c
   ocaine_sentencing?mode=PF

   Oh, and I should mention that the Democrats controlled the House when this drug law was passed (yup, it was the sainted Tip O’Neill who helped get us into this fix).  So much for the theory that electing Democrats fixes all our troubles.  The War on Drugs was started in 1971 by President Nixon, but has been carried forth and strengthened by both Democrats and Republicans.

   It’s quite obvious to me that the Drug War is not actually a war waged not on all Americans equally, but on the urban poor, and in particular African Americans, and even more particularly, African American men.

   Oh, and guess what?  Convicted felons–unless they can get a friendly Senator from, oh, let’s say Utah to arrange for a presidential pardon–CAN’T VOTE.  So even after they’ve served their “debt” to society by long years in prison, they are stripped of their most basic right of citizenship for the rest of their lives.

   I wonder if the massive disenfranchisement of African-Americans, and its political effects in many parts of the country, occurred to the upper-class white folk in Congress when they passed all these draconian anti-narcotics laws?  

   No, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.  The politicians couldn’t possibly have intended for the Drug War to have the same effect as the Jim Crow Laws–to prevent huge numbers of African-American citizens from voting!

   For those of you who were wondering why the DEMOCRATS passed this Draconian, racist law, read the excerpt below. For those of you with short attention spans or other things to do, here’s the Cliffs Notes version:

   The Democrats, led by Tip O’Neill, wanted to “outflank” the Republicans prove that they, too, could be “tough” (does this sound familiar to anybody?).  The Democrats hurriedly put together legislation that included mandatory minimum sentencing, something that Nixon and the Democrats who controlled Congress in 1970 had explicitly REJECTED when they passed the first “War on Drugs” legislation in 1970.

   How did it come about that mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses were passed in 1986?

   In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by “getting tough on drugs” after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime. The most important Democratic political leader, House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill, was from Boston, MA. The Boston Celtics had signed Bias. During the July 4 congressional recess, O’Neill’s constituents were so consumed with anger and dismay about Bias’ death, O’Neill realized how powerful an anti-drug campaign would be.

   O’Neill knew that for Democrats to take credit for an anti-drug program in November elections, the bill had to get out of both Houses of Congress by early October. That required action on the House floor by early September, which meant that committees had to finish their work before the August recess. Since the idea was born in early July, the law-writing committees had less than a month to develop the ideas, to write the bills to carry out those ideas, and to get comments from the relevant government agencies and the public at large.

   One idea was considered for the first time by the House Judiciary Committee four days before the recess began. It had tremendous political appeal as “tough on drugs.” This was the creation of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases. It was a type of penalty that had been removed from federal law in 1970 after extensive and careful consideration. But in 1986, no hearings were held on this idea. No experts on the relevant issues, no judges, no one from the Bureau of Prisons, or from any other office in the government, provided advice on the idea before it was rushed through the committee and into law. Only a few comments were received on an informal basis. After bouncing back and forth between the Democratic controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate as each party jockeyed for poitical advantage, The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 finally passed both houses a few weeks before the November elections.

   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/

    

   • 

     Cali Scribe on July 9, 2006 at 1:13 pm

     the individual states whether convicted felons can vote once they’ve served their time? IIRC, Martha Stewart will be able to vote in this year’s Connecticut elections (or New York or wherever she’s calling home).

     I have no problem with felons not voting while they’re serving their time in prison, but how are they supposed to return to society if that basic right is taken from them? Especially since you have confessed felons like “Duke” Cunningham apparently still able to collect a federal pension after he serves his time…