login
Eddie Blue-eyesimeem VIP - Click to find out more Listening to 'Be Your Own'
blog post Defending the Indefensible: The Jena Six
Posted in Essays on Sep 20, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Current Mood: angry

Hola Everybody,
I will put it this way: unless you can show how the Jena Six isn’t a classic case of textbook racism, then I don’t want to hear bullshit about anything else. All that other shit is tangential to the point at hand, which is, institutionalized racism. In essence, a teen -- by all accounts a good kid -- may serve 15 years for beating a white student with was very likely a sneaker. The white student – by all accounts – actually attended a social function the same night of the day of the alleged beating. An all-white jury couldn’t deliberate fast enough to convict this teen.

Update: When a Louisiana judge locked up six black teens in the Jena case an investigative team cried foul. On Sept. 14, an appeals court vacated the remaining conviction for second-degree battery against one of the accused, saying the charges should have been brought in juvenile court.

* * *

Defending the Indefensible

“One of the interesting ways of settling the race problem comes to the fore in this period of unemployment among the poor. In Waterloo, Kentucky, the enterprising chief of police is arresting all unemployed Negroes and putting them in jail, thus securing their labor for the state at the cheapest possible figure. This bright idea did not originate in Kentucky. It is used through the South and strong sermons and editorials are written against ‘lazy’ Negroes. Despite this there are people in this country who wonder at the increase in ‘crime’ among colored people.”
-- W.E.B. Du Bois, unsigned editorial,
“Logic,” The Crisis, Vol. 9 (January, 1915), p. 132


As a nation, we incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation in the world. For the last six years, I have worked in the field of re-entry. Re-entry, for those that don’t know, is the term used to describe the distinctly US phenomenon of 650,000 men and women – mostly black and Latino/ – who are released yearly from prisons and jails. They are for the most part not being
released to communities in Utah or upscale communities such as Scarsdale or Beverly Hills. For the most part, they are released to communities such as East LA, Harlem, Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. Brooklyn has what some criminologists are now calling the “Million Dollar Blocks.” These are blocks in which the state spends more than million dollars a year to incarcerate individuals who come from those blocks. On some of these blocks, stand schools that very likely hold classes in retrofitted closets and bathrooms, have no computers or real libraries.

You do the math…

More than anything else, the Jena Six tragedy is about injustice. The irony being that even before the incidents of Jena came to pass a Louisiana legislative investigating team warned that the state's juvenile justice system was horribly mangled.

It found that the state couldn't lock up juveniles fast enough for mostly non-violent crimes. The investigative team noted that the sentences slapped on them were wildly out of proportion to their
crimes, and that the kids had almost no access to counseling, job and skills training, and family support programs that could ensure that they didn't wind up back in the slammer.

Though alternative sentencing programs are far more cost effective than jailing, they are scarce and under-funded, and Louisiana officials have resisted calls to increase funding and resources to boost these programs.

This investigative team also found that black teens were hit with far stiffer sentences than white teens for the same crimes. It made no difference whether the whites had a prior history of criminal or bad behavior and the black teens were altar boys and had a squeaky-clean record. The blacks still got harsher sentences.

Countless studies show that a black teen is six times more likely to be tried and sentenced to prison than a young white, even when the crimes are similar, or even less severe than those committed by white teens.

Nationally, blacks make up 40 percent of youths tried in adult courts and nearly 60 percent of those sentenced to state prisons.

In Jena, the prosecutor, mostly because of a
largely unreported grassroots campaign against the case, reduced charges against two of the youth. But that's an exception. Prosecutors nearly always push for hard time for offenders. This is infuriatingly apparent in Jena. One of the defendants, a star football player, was convicted on a reduced battery charge. Yet, he still could get a 15-year prison sentence.

The investigators implored the legislature to do something to correct the problem. They came up with a series of reform recommendations. They were largely ignored and four years later,
state legislators have shown little inclination to fully enact the juvenile justice reforms.

Louisiana legislators haven't turned a deaf ear to screams for reform solely out of ignorance, apathy, or fear of a public backlash. The legislators read and watch the same relentless stream of newspaper and television reports of drive-by shootings, drug shootouts, and gang wars, most of them involving young blacks. This confirms the terrified feeling that many Americans have that young people - especially young black males - are out of control.

In the 1990s, influential conservative sociologists and news pundits consvinced a largely fearful and racist American public that unwed (and therefore immoral) crack-addicted, black teens were giving birth to litters of irredeemable black babies who grow up to be “super predators.” They were convinced that teen violence has spawned a new class of youthful sociopaths and that the juvenile justice system was far too easy on them.

The idea that juveniles are running wild though, is a myth.

According to the FBI’s most recent crime figures, the rates for murder and assault among teenagers have plummeted since 1993, even among black teens. In fact, today’s youth are less likely to have out-of-wedlock babies, become addicted than previous generations. That’s a fact. However, that fact hasn’t stopped the narcissistic adults from using young people as scapegoats for almost everything that’s wrong with the world.

And politicians have overreacted badly and predictably to the public panic. In the past decade, more than 30 states have loosened, if not eliminated, laws requiring juveniles be tried and
sentenced in juvenile courts.

The criminal justice system's harsh treatment of young blacks, like the Jena teens, fuels the suspicion of many blacks that judges, prosecutors and probation officers bend way over backwards to give young white offenders the benefit of the doubt and are far less willing to label and treat them as dangerous habitual offenders, even when they commit violent crimes.

One study of the attitudes of probation officers toward black and white teen offenders found that they were far more likely to attribute black juvenile crimes to such family or character flaws as chronic disrespect toward authority and to brand them as inherent troublemakers.

They were more likely to blame white bad behavior on conditions outside their control such as hanging out with the wrong crowd, or to troubling family conflicts. Judges and prosecutors read the probation reports and heed their recommendations and if they are favorable, as they are more often than not with young whites, judges are much more inclined to approve alternative sentencing
or treatment programs for them. An unfavorable report is just as likely to result in hard time in juvenile or adult jails.

The public outcry over the Jena case will probably force town prosecutors to back away a little more from the harsh charges against the teens, but only a little. They, like prosecutors everywhere, are convinced that black teens are genetically criminal and that the public demands for them to throw the book at them. And that's exactly what they routinely do in daily courts throughout the country.

The Jena case is about racism and a criminal justice system that unfairly and deliberately targets children of color. And the fact is that too many people are losing the forest for the trees. That’s the tragedy.

Wake the fuck up, people!



blog post Cognitive Dissonance
Posted in Essays on Aug 21, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Current Mood: creative
It’s Science Tuesday s! LOL!


* * *

Cognitive Dissonance

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson,
On Self Reliance

I was once part of a panel addressing a national audience on the negative
consequences of mass incarceration. One of the panelists had just given
a powerful presentation showing that incarceration as a social policy practice actually worked to make communities less safe. In other words, one of the negative effects of mass incarceration is
that it works to make the communities those incarcerated come from less safe. His research was impeccable and he had these maps that were powerful in presenting the issue – they had huge emotional impact, these maps. I was amazed.

However, some audience members, many of whom spent years pursuing mass incarceration practices and had just presented the previous day how effective they were in incarcerating individuals, were furious. There was a lot of arguing and outrage coming from these audience members.

My colleague handled it well, but he seemed flustered. During a break in the presentation, he admitted to me that he was at a loss as to why people would react so strongly against his findings. He was a little frustrated that his facts and reasoning, so obvious to anyone who bothered to look, failed to convert some people.

I knew why those audience members were so angry. They were angry because they had been presented with information – facts – that contradicted their frames of reference. We invest a lot of value in how we perceive reality (our "frames"), and if we’re presented with evidence that contradicts our frames, we will toss out the evidence and keep the frame. We all do this to a degree.

It’s called cognitive dissonance.

Of course, when it came my turn to present to this audience, I tore a new asshole into those that objected. How? I used my colleague’s research as a jumping off point, but I also offered the audience a new frame in addition. I wasn’t that nice about it too because I don’t like
prosecutors who think they know it all, but the rest of the audience “got it” (the research) once I added a frame to the research. You can’t expect people to drop a frame of reference if you don’t give them something they can use as a substitute.

In 1957, social psychologist Leon Festinger published a paper that would be one of the most influential on human behavior. The paper, Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, proposed a simple theory. We all hold a variety of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts, which scientists call cognitions. For the most part, our cognitions are unrelated to one another. For example, a love of rap music has nothing to do with the election of our current dunce of a president.

However, when our thoughts or actions are related to each other, there is a deep-rooted need for them to be consistent. Some evolutionary psychologists attribute this need as an artifact to earlier times where not being consistent meant being ostracized and often being shunned from your tribe (ensuring death). Whatever the case, contradictions result in a state of dissonance that the mind cannot tolerate. The conflicting cognition or behavior must change in order for the individual’s brain to bring back a sense of balance or equilibrium. Since thought are easier to change than behavior, we are more likely to change our mindset.

Festinger used the example of smoking. A woman who smokes experiences cognitive dissonance when she hears about the health risks. So, why don’t people just stop smoking? That’s just one solution, changing the behavior. It’s also the harder one because behavior, especially addictive behavior, is difficult to change. What happens is the smoker will most likely change her beliefs about smoking in order to reduce the stress of cognitive dissonance.

For example, she might choose to focus on the positive health aspects of smoking, such as relief from tension and weight loss. Or, she might think, “If I stop smoking, I’ll gain weight, which is also bad for me.” On the other hand, she might rationalize her smoking by comparing it to other everyday risks, like the risk of getting into a car accident. The smoker might think to herself, “If people get on the road everyday without hesitating, why should I worry about lighting a cigarette?”
Such rationalizations allow people to stay stuck in denial by keeping their behaviors consistent with their beliefs, thereby reducing cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance has practical value, since it’s used by advertisers to make you buy things, for example.

Love,

Eddie




RssFeed

Blogroll