JoshuaJSlone said:
Hell, it only managed to sneak into a thread on a video game message board on the Internet by way of parentheses.
Yeah, but it's an issue that's gaining some steam now, with the NYCLU recently submitting a brief seeking to enfranchise felons while they're still incarcerated. I read an article and an editorial about it in the local paper last week and was shocked that
anyone would take up such a cause (on
any grounds, including civil rights); I still am.
The angle they took was that since discrepancies exist within our judicial system with regard to how people of various races are treated, disenfranchising felons disproportionately affects minorities, and as such is inherently racist. Now, I could just as easily say that if more minorities commit crimes than whites, then those are the consequences. However, even if I were to delve deeper and entertain their dubious argument, I would say that the claim that there are disparities in judicial outcomes might hold water, but then using that to try to extend the franchise to felons-- rather than simply, oh I dunno,
addressing judicial disparities-- is a chain of logic so tortured that I don't care to consider it.
In other words, if you have grievance "A", then
address grievance "A"-- don't try to implement solution "B" to a problem "B" that doesn't exist, or is only
believed to exist. The burden of proof for such claims is incredibly high, and I'm unaware of any legitimate studies on race and judicial outcomes (in terms of conviction rates and severity of sentencing) that have controlled for the following factors: race,
socioeconomic status, venue, prosecutorial style, and prior criminal/behavioral history. In other words, any one of these could be influencing both conviction rates as well as the length of sentences being meted out; I can just as easily posit that the quality of public defenders (who are paid a pittance compared to private attorneys), whose services indigent defendants will more often avail themselves of, is terribly lacking as compared to their privately retained counterparts, and this results in a difference in outcomes. Seeing as how, statistically, more minorities live in poverty than whites do, and given the general correlation between poverty and crime (which is statistically significant for
all races), it stands to reason that minorities might be more adversely affected by such conditions.
Is this, in fact, the case? I have
absolutely no idea-- but neither does anyone else, and that's the point. Several studies from decidedly partisan organizations have focused strictly on outcomes, and I feel that that's disingenuous in a sense, and may overlook certain systemic and cultural factors at play. Point being, there is a
tremendous burden of proof on those making assertions of institutional racism within our judicial system if they are to then use that supposition as a basis to introduce sweeping reform. The proper "logical procedure" when making such a claim would be to:
1) Verify the claim by way of detailed, controlled (i.e., for these possibly confounding variables), peer-reviewed studies in legal journals.
2) Attempt to address, insofar as possible, the
root causes of such disparities in outcomes as determined by said studies.
3) Assuming that you cannot ameliorate the situation for whatever reasons, yet you are convinced that such differences exist based on your investigations, present your findings to Congress and petition for an extension of the franchise to felons while they're incarcerated (this is because I don't feel that this is a civil rights issue at all, and as such should not be decided in the courts; the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't cover freely chosen actions, particularly criminal ones-- in fact, section 2 of the 14th Amendment
explicitly states that criminals may be denied suffrage).
Still, even if one can quibble with this last point, the bulk of the work must be done in keeping with the first two points; so far, it has not been-- not by a longshot. All we get are rhapsodic appeals to our intrinsic notions of fairness and unsubstantiated entreaties submitted to the courts. This doesn't hold water imo, especially not as the basis for important reform. Not only are they trying to skip from "1" to "3", but they didn't even go about substantiating "1" properly.
Finally, do
not take this as a statement of good faith in our judicial system, as if I believe that no racial disparities exist. They might very well exist, and, looking at it superficially as a layperson, I'd be inclined to believe that they do; there
certainly are differences in outcomes. However, the cause might very well not be systemic, but cultural (i.e., blame may lie with juries rather than with prosecutorial discretion, the adequacy of one's defense, or sentencing guidelines), in which case I'm not even sure
what the remedy might look like. It would undoubtedly be much broader in scope than mere legal reform, however.
This is how I see it.
