The debate about affirmative action has been nothing but a thick smoke screen of specious sounds bites and stunning silence that has ignored the truth in order to paint a false picture. Affirmative Action has been the favorite whipping post of many people (especially conservatives) for decades.  It has to be the beauty that continues to be defined as the beast.  Much of the debate around affirmative action has been centered on the red herring of racial preferences.  It is the height of hypocrisy that white America loves to cry about the racial preference card when it comes to college admissions and/or government contracts when resources are directed their way every day based on race and historical advantages.

These advantages based on race occur every day but have roots in yesterday.  The access to a strong network based on family and neighborhood ties that were built over generations where minorities were intentionally excluded from competing in those areas is a preference based on race.  Wealth passed on from generation to generation that was gained in large or small part due to slavery, segregation, and/or discrimination of minorities is a preference based on race.  It does not matter that today that same discrimination is illegal as long as the fruits from the past discrimination are still ripe to help give an advantage.

Affirmative Action is not about reparations to minority groups for past discrimination.  It is not about handing out preferences based on race (although society already does a good job against minorities).  It is about eliminating the racial, gender, and ethnic preferences that are still a big part of our society today.

It is actually about merit.  Merit is not what your momma or what your daddy or your granddaddy did.  It is not how well a silver or bronze or gold or platinum spoon fits into your mouth.  It is about you.  What have you done on your own?  Very few people stand on their own.  Most of “us” stand on the shoulders of the people that came before us so if your father’s or grandfather’s or mother’s or grandmother’s shoulders were bent due to the weight of the inequality of their time then you may not be able to reach as many stars as someone without that disadvantage.  When a child that grew up in a good to elite school system with plenty to eat, little to fear in traveling to and from school and enough resources to pay tutors to prepare for the SAT and/or ACT has good grades and great test scores is it nature or nurture?  The same can be asked about the child that has average grades and scores but grew up in a mediocre school system where failure is not only expected it is embraced and yet this student is able to surpass all expectations.  Is that nature or nurture?  Who is really more impressive?

There is a wealth and opportunity gap in this country and there always will be.  Whereas thewealth gap is real and quantifiable, the opportunity gap may not be completely quantifiable; and the problem is that both gaps are in large part based on racial preferences.  The wealth gap numbers speak for themselves and are a bit shocking.  The opportunity gap may be a lot smaller than it was a hundred years ago but it still exists and it exists in part due to lack of opportunity for minorities that are still a part of our society today.

Those gaps continue for many reasons, the least of which is institutional racism that still exist today. Yet, those gaps based on very  real racial preferences are masked by the lies of omission (we never discuss these truths) and/or the specious excuses given to distract from the tower of inequity built upon an elitist system that is inherently racist.  The driving assumption behind the attack on affirmative action is that undeserving and unqualified minority students are given admission to elite universities solely based on their race, gender, or ethnicity.  The funny thing is no one can seem to define what is “qualified” or who is the most “qualified.”

Who most deserves admission into a highly competitive, highly selective, and highly ranked state university?  Does the student with access to the most money and therefore the best equipped to provide resources to the university deserve to be admitted first?  Should the admission hierarchy be based on the student’s prior achievements, even if those achievements may be as much a function of being born into a family with resources as it is the student’s internal drive?  Should it be based on a student’s demonstrated track record of overcoming obstacles and barriers to his/her success?  Should it be based on the student’s likeliness of success in college?  Should it be based on being able to provide a unique perspective to the mosaic of discourse in the pursuit of higher learning than most of the other student body?  Should it be based on all of the above?

No one seems to be willing to step up and answer those questions.  Instead we are left with the elitist fiction of social Darwinism that only the students that have the numerically best grades, test scores, and activities have earned the right to admission in the small number of “elite” schools that are the only repository of knowledge.  A convenient talking point and definition of who is qualified that will always favor the wealthy and empowered, while also deftly dodging the the reality that a big part of the formula to evaluate who is most “qualified” is flawed and skewed to their advantage.

A big part of the current system of evaluating students for admission to college is flawed.  It is flawed in large part due to the dependence on standardized tests that are not good predictors of likelihood of success in college, but the tests are very good at giving an advantage to children with resources and disadvantaging minorities.  Surprise!  Surprise!  Surprise!

The bottom line is this.  Our community has to stop accepting the lies of the past and start thinking for ourselves.  We have to be clear about our own paths to success.  We have to build, maintain, and reinforce our own networks to build our own wealth and power (which includes funding and attending HBCUs).  We can no longer be slaves to the majority’s definition of what is a relevant school or what constitutes “qualified.”

Texas, Florida, and Michigan love their college football and basketball teams, which are over represented by minorities.  I wonder if the coaches from those schools found as much mistrust and animosity from minority star high school athletes during the recruitment process as affirmative action has faced over the years if all of a sudden the value of diversity in the student body at these universities would start to be discussed?  Crazy idea?  Most first steps towards revolutions are.

The post Affirmative Action: The Truth Behind the Lies appeared first on Madness & Reality.

On the surface, the question before the High Court is whether or not a company can deny contraception coverage to women based on religious beliefs. In other words, the Green family which owns Hobby Lobby says forcing them to provide health insurance to employees with contraceptive riders goes against their religion and they should not be forced to do it.

Further, the Green family says that since Hobby Lobby is their business, their family religious beliefs should prevail for their corporate entity as well.

In other words, “my company/my house, I can do what I damn well please!”

Maybe.

What you do in your house is usually your business. Private.

Your company however, is a different matter. Or used to be until Citizens United four years ago. Citizens United was a very bad Supreme Court decision that granted corporations personhood rights equal to people, meaning corporations have the same rights as people in the public arena.

In the four years of its existence, the Citizens United creation has become a 21^st century Frankenstein monster of SUPCO making.

If successful, the Hobby Lobby lawsuit will give that Frankenstein monster the right to exercise religious beliefs against anyone or anything that dares to darken their corporate door.

Think Arizona Law HB1062 vetoed by the governor a few weeks ago on steroids, and in force nationwide.

It is not just about birth control. This lawsuit is about the right to impose personally held beliefs onto people within the public arena. On any given day, you could walk into an ice cream store and be denied service because the guy behind the counter doesn’t like your haircut/hair color/shoes/ skin color…

Whatever, doesn’t matter, their personally held belief about you prevails, legally.

People who don’t like Black people, or women, or lesbians, or Muslims or Jews wouldn’t have to serve or wait on them or even allow them inside their establishments simply because they can.

This is what the Hobby Lobby lawsuit is all about.

The right for bigots to legally discriminate and get away with it.

There is no way to know how the High Court will handle this lawsuit. They upheld Obamacare which seemingly created the situation, elevating women to equality in healthcare with men, while at the same time, giving us the very opposite leaning Citizens United by a narrow 5-4 decision.

Extended oral arguments will be heard today with a decision expected just prior to the June recess.

The post Hobby Lobby is People! appeared first on Madness & Reality.

To that point, as ridiculously absurd as the reasoning for the decision by Justice John Roberts, I suppose black folks are supposed to trust “certain people” to do the right thing. Which is ironic today when you consider that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) asked President Obama to establish a task force to look at and secure Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act back in 2011. Unfortunately, that request — among others — fell on deaf ears, and was never fulfilled (read here).

This from Think Progress:

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling striking down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, for the moment at least, eliminated the requirement that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination pre-clear election and voting law changes to ensure they do not disenfranchise minority voters. While the remaining provisions will still ban outright racial discrimination, those states and localities previously covered will now be able to implement changes first and victims will have to prove discrimination after the fact.

In the past year, the U.S. Department of Justice denied pre-clearance to four laws it deemed discriminatory — and federal courts upheld three of those four determinations.

Yes, we’re now forced to be post-racial in spite of evidence to the contrary. What matters now in the eyes of some, is that there’s a black man in the White House which signals the end of racism as we know. Never mind recent attempts to suppress the votes of black folk and other minority voters. When the black voter turnout surpassed that of white voters in November 2012’s general election for the first time in history, our fate was sealed. The aforementioned record voter turnout which also saw 72% of Latino voters casting a ballot for President Obama, may have been the nail in the proverbial coffin for freedom, justice, and equality. In my opinion, the results of last year’s elections which secured President Barack Obama a second term in spite of failed attempts of disenfranchisement was the straw that broke the back of whiteness, hence the Supreme Courts decision.

Today, the Supreme Court tossed out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the key 1965 law meant to prevent disenfranchisement of minority voters. Section 4 says states and other jurisdictions that have sufficient histories of voting discrimination have to go through what’s called “preclearance” under Section 5 of the law whenever they redistrict or otherwise update their voting laws. Currently those jurisdictions cover most of the South but also Manhattan, Brooklyn, some counties in California and South Dakota, and towns in Michigan. (source)

Watch the video below to understand:

One potential change could be the unspooling of majority-minority districts, which had led to a significant increase in the number of black and Hispanic lawmakers serving in Congress. In states covered by the VRA, line-drawers were required to maintain the number of majority-minority districts or run afoul of pre-clearance. With Section 5 not currently enforceable, states might consider undoing some of those districts — moving reliably Democratic black and Hispanic voters into other more Republican-leaning seats and in some states making it less likely that those seats would elect Democrats. (source)

I tell you one thing, folks: Given this week’s Supreme Court decision to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act, don’t ever tell me anything about the Republican Party being anti-slavery, pro-freedom, and the party of Martin Luther King Jr. and all that jazz. Sorry, I’m not buying that crap after this week.

The post Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So the Supreme Court didn’t announce any rulings related to “the gays” or “blah people” today. While many of us on the left side of the political side of things anxiously await rulings on DOMA, Prop 8, Affirmative Action as well as the Voting Rights Act. U suppose not announcing any rulings related to the aforementioned today was a good thing. At least for me, I’m so not in the mood for a Negro-Gay riot… or is it a Gay-Negro riot? Either way, as much as I like tearing shit up, I’m not in the mood today for any news of regression in American society. Nope, holla at me next Monday when I’m far removed from my Father’s Day hangover. Until then, let’s bask in the afterglow of post-racialness while we can. Capiche?

Okay, so lets talk about some good news:

In an opinion by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, a 7-2 Supreme Court held this morning that an Arizona law requiring voting officials to reject voter registration forms that are “not accompanied by concrete evidence of citizenship” conflicts with a federal law requiring states to use a uniform voter registration form for federal elections. Scalia once justified an anti-immigrant opinion with a reference to laws excluding “freed blacks” from southern states, and he called the Voting Rights Act a “perpetuation of racial entitlement. So his authorship of this opinion is both unexpected and a sign of the weakness of Arizona’s legal position in defending this law.

Looks like another racism T-K-O for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer thanks to Justice Antionin Scalia and company

The Court’s opinion in this case, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, also establishes an important doctrinal rule regarding the power of Congress to push back against state election laws. The Constitution permits duly enacted federal laws to trump state law, a process known as “preemption.” Normally, however, courts should apply a presumption against preemption and assume that Congress did not intend to invalidate state law if the matter is uncertain. Scalia’s opinion holds that this presumption does not apply with respect to federal laws regulating federal elections, a holding which suggests Congress’ power to sweep away state election laws is quite sweeping.

As the Court points out, this broad view of the federal role in governing elections is consistent with the Constitution’s text, which provides that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” So a future Congress more supportive of voting rights has the power to sweep away voter ID laws and other methods of voter suppression that have recently popped up mostly in conservative states. By contrast, a future Congress more keen to voter suppression may have significant authority to impose its will on the nation, although this power would be checked by constitutionalsafeguards against many forms of voter suppression.

Scalia’s opinion is not, however, a total victory over Arizona’s attempt to make voter registration more difficult. Rather, the final section of his opinion suggests that Arizona could renew a request to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to incorporate the state’s proof-of-citizenship requirement into the voter registration form, and that they could challenge any denial of this request in court. For the meantime, however, Arizona’s requirement is invalid. (Source: Think Progress)

Okay, so I’m no attorney, and I’m not too good with legal speak (this cat is). But, from the little English that I did learn in college, it sounds like a low-key-racist Antonin Scalia said that what Arizona attempted to do was racist. Alright, so he didn’t explicitly ay this. But we all know that Arizona’s law had its roots in the anti-immigrant wing of the Republican party who sought to keep the brown man down (see SB1070). This is a major victory for any advocate for freedom, justice, and equality and a slap in the face of those hell-bent on taking “their country” back since the black guy showed up.

After all, progress benefits us all, yes?

The post Justice Scalia Strikes Down Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Voting Law appeared first on Madness & Reality.

60% of people recently polled by ABC news say same sex marriage is okay in America. That same poll found that 80% of those under 30 support the idea. Those numbers should make it a done deal, right? Majority rules, right?

Well, not exactly. In the Land of the free, home of the brave, very few decisions are made by majority rule.

Proposition 8 and DOMA are before the United States Supreme Court today and despite the garbage rhetoric coming from FOX News, the Supreme Court is not a liberal court by any stretch of the imagination. If it was we wouldn’t be stuck with last year’s Citizens United ruling making corporations people.

For those of you who don’t know, Prop 8 is the measure in California that revoked same sex marriage. DOMA stands for defense of marriage act. It was passed on the federal level back in 1996 and signed into law by a now repentant Bill Clinton. It says that marriage is only for men and women who marry each other. No boy-boy, or girl on girl unless its pornography for lesbian-loving straight men.

DOMA is like all those old sodomy laws that used to be on the books, outlawing oral or anal sex, but only gays and lesbians were charged and prosecuted. Straight couples doing exactly the same doggie style were never criminalized and cited, ever.

So today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to overturn both laws. Actually one will be argued today and the other tomorrow. Regardless, it will make for an exciting week at the nation’s highest court. Tickets to get inside were at a premium.

However, one ticket was scarfed up by a cousin of Chief Justice Roberts. Seems cuz is a lesbian and wants her big cousin to act like Ohio Senator Rob Portman and support his family. She says she wants to get married legally in the near future.

Of course, no one has any idea what Chief Roberts is thinking, nor any of the other Associate Justices for that matter. Insiders will start guessing when they start asking questions during arguments.

Have to admit, I’m curious about how Justice Thomas will vote, especially since his own marriage to a white woman used to be illegal. Wonder if he will throw off his chains of servitude and vote like a proud Black man for a change.

The intellectual machinations of all the possible rulings in these two cases is mind boggling, so I’m just gonna pop some corn and wait for the outcome. I will say this, I don’t see how the Court can frame this so narrowly that it won’t take into account just how mobile our society is. In other words how can you make law that applies to one state but not another. I mean, if a couple islegally married in Omaha, they should also be legally married in Ohio, right?

It was like that in the interracial marriage ban, Loving vs Virginia. Once that law was struck down, it was made to apply to the whole country, not just Virginia. The same thing should logically happen with Prop 8 and DOMA.

I honestly see it falling this way, Alito, Scalia and possibly Thomas will do what they always do. So will Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayer. I see Kennedy and Roberts as swing votes.

The post DOMA, Marriage Equality, & the Supreme Court appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Aside from that, I don’t remember being opposed to gay marriage listed as a requirement to get into heaven. Not that I’m a Biblical scholar or nuthin’, but I’m just sayin’. Oh, and neither is Bill O’Reilly, but even he sees the writing on the wall.

Seriously folks, there’s really no good argument against marriage equality same-sex marriage, or whatever “the gheys” call it short of one admitting his or her bigotry. And admitting to being a bigot isn’t a bad thing. In fact, the very Constitution which serves as the guiding principle when it comes to governance protects your right to be a bigot. Yeah, isn’t that beautiful?

Uh huh, even the Constitution allows you to believe that “God” wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman for the sole reason of procreation. Which of course is pretty silly to me because if that were true, I suppose it can also be said that “God” is opposed to heterosexual post-menopausal women being able to become newlyweds. Yes, shouldn’t we discriminate against older women tpo?

Yeah, I suppose “God” is opposed to high mileage wombs much in the same way he is gay marriage. Which is really gay if you ask me. But hey, that’s just me being un-homophobic.

Listen, the fight for marriage equality has nothing to do with infringing upon your right to be a bigot. Instead, it is about allowing a minority of people in this country the access to the very benefits of marriage afforded to a vast majority of people in this country per the Constitution and the valuable guarantee of equal protection under the law. Hell, if a homosexual can openly serve in the military and die protecting your freedom to be a bigot; the least they should be able to do is marry whom they love and get tax credits just like everybody else. But I suppose doing so would be too much like being fair; and, too much like promoting the very freedom and democracy so many in history have died to protect and promote.

The post Marriage Equality Will Not Infringe on Your Right to Be a Bigot appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Let’s talk a bit about Mia Love. Yes, that Mia Love, the lovely New York-born daughter of Haitian immigrants currently running for Congress from the state of Utah. The same Mia Love who gave such an incredibly naïve speech at the Republican National Convention. Much of her speech made sense; at least the parts where she talked about how her parents came from Haiti and built a life without government assistance, pulling themselves up, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would say, “by their own bootstraps”. Never mind that Thomas benefited from the very same government programs, such as affirmative action, that he more-or-less regularly excoriates.

Of course, Ms. Long didn’t offer any evidence beyond her word, but that’s neither here nor there at this stage of the game. The fact of the matter is that she is the only one of her generation in her family born and raised in these United States. As such, she doesn’t have a personal historical background as do the many black people living here descended from the slaves set free (on paper at least) by Abraham Lincolns’ Emancipation Proclamation a hundred and fifty years ago.

She has no inherent or inbred comprehension of why the rules, regulations and laws put into effect after the supposed end of legal slavery are still necessary today. And thus she, too, has jumped on the Republican bandwagon of less regulation and rolling back the very rules, regulations and laws that allow her to openly speak and act as she does. Remember, the Constitution originally counted “negroes” as 3/5ths of a person under the control of their “owners” and therefore ineligible to vote or to benefit from most of the other benefits of the new nation.

However, even if she should win her seat, it still opens a door to the future. Consider this. She may be considered the “top token negro” in the Republican Party at the present time, displacing such luminaries as Colin Powell for example. But it’s clear that she was given her spot at the convention as a means of detracting from the clear racism endemic to the Republican Party as a whole, which is evident from the tone of that party ever since Barack Obama won the election, and even before, while he was still running.

Yet and still, it opens the door, just a tiny bit, for more black Americans to be come out as Republicans, to be suckered into supporting policies that don’t benefit them or any other working American but only those in the highest income brackets. And by opening that door even a fraction of an inch, if a sufficient number of black Americans decide to join her, bring with them their own historical perspective having been raised up in this country for many generations and endured what has gone on regarding them since before its’ founding, then the Republican Party will be forced to change.

It will be changed, returning to a more moderate platform similar to what it embraced before the Nixon era. Why and how? Simply because it would be unable to keep the gains it makes in terms of minority membership if the far-right radical bigots maintain their stranglehold on the party. And that being so, those radicals will be forever consigned to the fringes from whence they came. I’m not suggesting th at this will happen in this upcoming election, or even in the next Presidential election four years from now. But it will happen nonetheless, because if it doesn’t, then the Republican Party will sooner or later be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The post The Questionable Racial and Ideological Authenticity of Mia Love appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but it’s gotten so bad now that the Supreme Court has upheld ‘Obamacare’, that some of them are threatening to move to Canada. Can you believe that shit? OK, lemme repeat that: Republicans are so disgusted with yesterday’s decision on “socialized health care”, that they’re willing to move to another country that offers, er, um, socialized health care (?). But of course you may say that this is just the typical idiocy exhibited by those afflicted with the mental disorder that is conservatism. I say it takes a lot to make a man compromise on his ideology; and in this case, I say this is sure-fire proof that they’re just downright racist. How racist? Racist enough to leave the country because of a certain black guy — to hell with grabbing guns.

So what’s this ridiculousness about? Of course I’ve already told you; but the real irony is that they’re cloaking it with the “massive tax hike” meme. Which i absolutely false, by the way; because very few people will pay the penalty for not having coverage. But let them tell it as all the talking heads have: ‘Obamacare’ will in effect create an increase on taxes for all. Of course this is very far from the truth. And as a recent report shows, the recently upheld law by the Supreme Court, will actually be a tax cut for millions of Americans, according to Families USA. How many? Oh, about 28.6 million of them — mostly in the middle class — will once entering health care exchanges and receiving affordability credits from the government, But nooo, this is all about more liberal taxes and spending:

We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion. The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines).

But hey, as entertaining as it is to watch my right-wing friends freak out — one of them even told me that George W. Bush was a closet liberal for appointing Chief Justice Roberts — It’s important that we counter this silly talk with nothing but the truth. Moving forward, it is up to us lefties to continue selling the benefits of the health care law, even more than the White House has to. Because you know the old saying: when you repeat a lie enough, it magically takes on the look of truth. And of course we know that our friends, are very good at that sort of thing, right? But hey, don’t be surprised when the talk of redistribution of wealth via health care, or it being reparations for black people resurfaces in weeks to come. Like I said before: they’ll do anything to stop the black guy.

Look, I’m not suggesting that everyone opposed to the health care law is racist; however, I am in no uncertain terms saying, that to be opposed to the law makes one an idiot. And I say that because I have yet to hear one congruent argument, as to why expanding an access to a more affordable health care model is purportedly a bad idea; and, not in the best interest of consumers across the nation; consumers who will need health care services at some point in their lives. If you can convince me, I would love to hear it.

The post The GOP ‘Obamacare’ Hate Level is Red-Lining: Look Out Canada, Here Comes the Crazies appeared first on Madness & Reality.

But don’t tell that to my Republican friends who are chock full of misinformation — you know, like the one that says the IRS will come for you if you don’t get health insurance like Marco Rubio says? — see this law as the death star that hangs ominously over the heads of citizens across the country. Let them tell it, the Supremes and Chief Justice John Roberts of all people, have gotten it wrong on this one — damn those activist judges! But hey, Republicans are idiots about the Affordable Care Act (read here). Let them tell it, the law is supposed to be a major job killer that negatively impacts small businesses, which are the engine of our economy. Wanna hear some truth? Per the law, businesses with less than 50 employees are not required to offer insurance coverage to employees. Wanna hear some more truth? About 96% of small businesses in the U.S. have less than 50 employees; which means, only a very small percentage of said small businesses will be required to provide coverage; and, for the ones that do — you know, the ones with at least 50 employees? — they’ll be given tax subsidies or tax credits as incentive for hiring which offsets cost.

But hey, facts don’t matter:

The post Supreme Court Rules Health Care Law Constitutional, Obama Wins, & Republicans are Idiots appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Nelson Mandela once said “It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.” I guess with 1% percent of our population currently incarcerated one could say that all is well in our nation. After all, it’s only 1% – a very small number. Sure, who cares that our jails and prison population just happens to lead that of any country in the free world – uh-huh, that’s right, pun intended.

Yeah I know, you really don’t care because, well, as long as they’re locked away your world seems a bit safer, right? Yep, as long as you or your kids are safe is all that matters, right? Well if I tell you that currently there’s an estimated 2,570 juveniles serving life without parole in America today, how would that make you feel? Would that number also seem small and insignificant so as to not warrant any concern?

OK, screw the numbers, let’s put a face to this:

So how did it get this way? Well, somewhere in the mid 90s when our first Black president Bill Clinton was in office, state and federal legislators created policy irrationally motivated by fear – which in turn was federally signed by Clinton – to address a perceived new wave of crime. Crimes that were committed by what political scientist John DiIulio  (a Neo-Conservative Bush-ite) termed “super-predators”. Yep, Clinton had Black people happy alright. Not only did he give them jobs, legislation he signed helped to throw a bunch of them in prison.

The only juveniles we hear about doing crazy sh*t are white kids!

I realize that’s the perception, but just like the obvious reality that is the racial disparities with  incarcerations in America. One wouldn’t be off target suggesting that the same is true when it comes to juvenile offenders and life sentences. As a matter of fact, according to a 2005 report from Human Rights Watch, black youth receive life without parole at a rate about 10 times greater than the rate of white youth. Hmm, imagine that; yeah, things don’t look too good for those kids in Chicago that killed Derrion Albert. As a matter of fact, the kids involved in the Jonesboro Arkansas school shooting from 1998 are out of prison after serving time as we speak; one of them was just released last month. If only those kids in Chi-town would be so privileged.

The way I see it RiPPa these kids are monsters and should pay!

Yeah, I realize that’s often the attitude when it comes to crime and punishment. Yep, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time is what they always say, right? Heck, there are people among us who believe in the age old biblical idea of an eye for an eye. That said, why don’t we just go right ahead and kill these little monsters. Surely that would save tax payers a lot of money doing so, right? Uh-huh why waste time with any attempts at rehabilitation; these kids are beyond repair. I mean that was the idea pushed by conservative policy makers back in the 90s, right?

Well it’s a good thing we have the Supreme Court presiding above all other courts in the land. I say that because back in 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of juveniles in America is unconstitutional. Back then, Justice Anthony Kennedy served the decisive swing vote, and was heavily persuaded by research that showed that teenage brains are less capable than adult brians of evaluating decisions. Research also suggested that adolescents’ “characters” are not “fully formed.”

OK, so that said, why even house them for the rest of their natural lives? Surely not because it serves the need for rehabilitation, no? I mean how will we ever know if they’re successfully “rehabilitated” if they’re never released? How exactly can we then come to a conclusion that they eventually come to a point where they become capable of evaluating decisions as adults should, or do? Something tells me that rehabilitation is not the primary interest when it comes to these juvenile defendants. Neither is the idea of helping their brains becoming fully formed either. There is no scientific method that gives us the ability to predict which 13-year-olds will become high-rate offenders over the rest of their lives as is the assumption.

The example of Kruzan in the above video which involves a brutal killing committed by an abused and frightened child who is now a remorseful adult, suggest an equally obvious conclusion: that juveniles who commit heinous crimes are capable of being rehabilitated. If it’s unconstitutional to execute a juvenile defendant, should the same be true when it comes to giving them life sentences?

Currently the Supreme Court is hearing arguments to come to a determination in the cases of two Black men – Terrance Graham & Joe Sullivan (both pictured directly above) – sitting in Florida prisons, both serving life sentences for serious crimes which never resulted in homicides that they committed before they were both 18yrs old.

Considering that the United States and Somalia are the only two countries in the world who have failed to sign the United Nations convention on Rights of the Child, which explicitly forbids “life imprisonment without possibility of release” for “offenses committed by persons below 18 years of age.” One has to wonder just how civilized a society we really are here in the U.S. – from the looks of it, we’re in great company, don’t you think? The irony of that, is that there is a teenage captured Somali national currently sitting in a U.S. prison currently awaiting trial and a possible life sentence for an act of piracy on the high seas earlier this year.

Nelson Mandela was right when he shared that opening quote I used in the beginning of this piece. Equally as profound was when he said this: “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”  With that said, I hope the Supreme Court thinks long and hard on this one, because in my view, it just doesn’t seem right.

SUGGESTED READING: The Myth of the Super-Predator


QUESTION: Where do you stand on juveniles receiving life sentences, and why?

The post Super-Predators: Should juvenile offenders be sentenced to life in prison? Supreme Court to decide appeared first on Madness & Reality.