The problem with special interest groups

I originally started this post to comment on the protests taking place of the dragging death of a young man in Paris, Texas. Two of his friends were originally charged with the death. However, a truck driver later came along and admitted he could have ran over the young man, and it appears that is probably what happened. The prosecutor finally dismissed the case; normally that would be the end of the story. The problem in this case was that the two young men were white, and the victim was black. Never ones to let facts stand in their way, the special interest groups claimed racial prejudice. The end result was the protests, which of course brought ought the Klan and their like.

No sooner was the ink dry on that story than news broke of the arrest of Professor Gates at his home. Since he was black and the officer was white the claims of prejudice were sure to follow - never mind that at least one of the officers was also black. I'm not going to enter the discussion on that issue; others are taking care of that. I think it's clear that both Prof. Gates and Off. Crowley could have better decisions.

I'm the first to admit racial prejudice still exists in America; it's most apparent in the criminal justice system, and I've seen hundreds of examples. However, just because it exists doesn't mean every decision is racially motivated. Most specail interest groups have a knee jerk reaction, and never attempt to find out the true facts. Unfortunately, I think they hurt the very cause they are trying to advance.

People have almost become immune from such attacks - and expect them. The result is that when there is a legitimate complaint it is often ignored - remember the boy who cried wolf? There's also an unintended consequence; people (i.e. prosecutors) are especially cautious when there is the possbility of such claims. The result is often a type of reverse discrimination. I'm guessing the prosecutor in the Paris case knew the repurcussions when he made the decision to dismiss; which means he probably had no doubts.

We've come along on racial issues in my lifetime. We still have a ways to go. My fear is that as long as groups on either side arbitrarily react to every possible we will never get there.

Why are conservatives always "tough on crime"

One you can always count on: if you want to pass a law to lock up more people or for a longer period of time most conservatives are for it. Before I get too far, I don't fit the mold of many crminal defense lawyers. I would classify myself as conservative on a number of issues - most those dealing with moral issues. When it comes to social justice issues I come on the liberal side. Actually, you  can pretty well predict my opinion by checking the official position of the Catholic Church; but that's another issue.

Most conservatives are against big government, and favor individual freedom. What's the largest expansion of the government in the past 50 years - no doubt its the prison system. Especially in Texas, the prison system has continued ot expand. Until the last two sessions, legislators didn't meet without adding a few new prisons. The result is that we now incarcerate a substantial portion of our population; especially younger minorities.

Prisons cost money. No matter how much you cut costs, you still have to pay guards, utilities, and food. It costs a lot of money to run prisons; money that many states no longer have. We are seeing the aftermath of this expansion across the country; in California they were talking about closing down some of the prisons.

What's the alternative to locking people up? How about keeping people out, and making sure once they are out they stay out. It costs a lot less to rehabilitate someone than lock them up for years. It took a recession, but many legislators are finally recognizing this. Tha includes conservatives.

Maybe we are finally at the crossroads, and we are about to embark on a new course. Professor Berman has commented on this frequently. Most recently, he noted the comments of Attorney General Holder, which suggests a new approach to criminal justice issues. We can only hope that catches on among the politicians and the general public.

Those involved in the system know the tremendous costs imposed by incarceration; costs that are not just financial. The biggest cost may be to the families of those incarcerated. Think of all the positive benefits that would result from giving someone the skills they need to survive instead of locking them up. I'm not naive enough to believe we may no longer need prisons. There are people who can't, or refuse to live within the law, and there is no choice but to lock them up. However, that is a small percentage of those currently incarcerated.

My hope is that we start looking at the total costs of incarceration. When you do, the conservatives should the first in line to champion reform.