Are You Surprised BY The Latest Scandal About The Rich?

(Photo above, from CNN,  is of William Singer -- the mastermind of the college scandal.)

There is a new scandal. This one is about how rich people are paying someone to falsify college entrance exams (by changing answers or having someone take the test for someone else) or faking the supposed high school accomplishments of prospective students. These people want their kid to enter a highly-regarded college, but their kid is either not bright enough, too lazy, or has partied too much during their high school years to earn admission on their merits.

Buying a student's way into college is not new. But in the past it involved a parents donating huge sums to a school to pave the wave. This new scandal is worse, because it involves the rich trying to do this on the cheap by cheating.

About 30 to 50 people have been arrested for doing this, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The mastermind of the cheating scandal, William Singer, says he has helped upwards of 750 people cheat to get their child in a college.

This scandal is a bit more tawdry than usual, but I can't say I'm surprised by it. And if you are surprised, then you just haven't been paying attention to what's happening in this country.

We are a country that, under the guise of capitalism, have been bought and paid for by the rich. The richest 1% own over 40% of all the wealth in the country, and the richest 10% own over 70% of the wealth. It should come as no surprise that while working and middle class people struggle for opportunity and a decent life, the rich just buy it.

The rich control our educational system, our justice system, our economic system, and our government. We like to think that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in this country, but that has never been true -- and it is more untrue now than it was in the past. While most Americans must work hard to get what little opportunity they can achieve, the rich just buy it (and often buy the opportunity than a smarter and harder-working person should have).

It doesn't have to be this way. Their are people (mostly Democrats) who want to change things and give everyone a better shot at success. But the Republicans only favor policies that help the rich to maintain their superior position in our society. Nothing will change until the Republicans are voted out of power.

Privatization Increases Inequality In Our Justice System

(This image is from the website PRWatch.)

There is a trend that has been going on for quite a while now -- and it bothers me a great deal. It is the privatization of our criminal justice system. This is happening in many ways -- from creating private for-profit prisons, to the services provided to the system by many different companies (like electronic monitoring, food services, etc.).

The idea is to cover (or at least reduce) the costs of administering criminal justice, and if possible, even turn it into a profitable venture for government. This may sound good, but it is a very bad idea. Taking the cost to the taxpayer out of administering criminal justice means the taxpayer (i.e., the ordinary citizen) will care less about what happens in that system. If citizens are going to arrest, convict, and incarcerate people, then the state (the taxpayer) should be the one paying for that -- because then they will keep an eye on that system and attempt to make it work right.

Privatization does the opposite. By turning criminal justice into a profit-making business, we lessen oversight of citizens and increase the possibility of abuse (especially if that abuse results in more profit). And it increases the inequality in our system of justice. When justice is "for sale", the poor are left out, and don't get the same quality of justice that the rich can afford. Don't we already have enough of an equality problem already, without creating more so someone can make a profit (off a system that should never be used for profit, but for justice)?

The following post (written by Josie Duffy for Daily Kos) illustrates one way this privatization is creating an unfair system of justice (but there are many more). I would ask -- is this the kind of justice we want? Does fairness no longer matter?

Rampant privatization is leading to collateral consequences. In almost every possible part of the criminal justice process, privatization results in a system that disproportionately punishes the indigent. Now the International Business Times reports there is a new way that for-profit justice is ruining the lives of the poor: GPS tracking.

In South Carolina, a traffic violation resulted in the arrest and $2,100 bail of Antonio Green, a father of five. One of the conditions of his bail was being forced to wear an electronic monitoring device. And not only did have to wear it—he had to pay for it. According to the article, "In Richland County, South Carolina, any person ordered to wear the ankle monitor as a condition of their bail must lease the bracelet from a private, for-profit company called Offender Management Services (OMS)."

Green was living on $900 a month, but was charged a $179.50 set-up fee, plus $9.25 a day to wear the device. In other words, the device ended up costing him half his monthly income that first month, and a third of his income every month after.

He didn't have much of a choice. After all, those that can't pay go back to jail.

Green paid a total of about $2,500 for the device over nine months, during which he "had gone broke, racked up debt from overdraft fees, and spiraled into anxiety over his finances." And it looked like he'd have to wait another year before trial, which would have cost another $3,600 at least.

He couldn't afford that money. Slowly, it became an untenable burden on him and his family. So last month, he turned himself in.

When Green got to the courthouse, he found out some interesting news: His case had actually been thrown out two months earlier.

No one had thought to let him know. Surprising, as they knew where he was every moment and were still managing to collect his money.

This is not an isolated incident. Counties and states across the nation are not only tracking individuals but forcing them to pay for it. For someone like Antonio Green, a traffic violation turned into an unbearable financial burden.

What's more, the actual monitoring of defendants, especially those who have not committed serious crimes, is in itself terrifying. People are paying significant money for the complete loss of their privacy.

For more on this story, see the International Business Times article here.

Americans Are Divided By Race, Age, And Politics

In the past few days, it has become apparent that this is very much a divided country. After the no-bill decision by the St. Louis County Grand Jury (thanks to a one-sided view presented to them by a biased prosecutor), we now know that the police officer who shot an unarmed black teenager while he was trying to surrender will not be punished at all. Many in this country think that's just fine, while many others (including me) consider it a miscarriage of justice. What cannot be denied is the broad split that exists in the United States.

The charts above show this split. They were made from a YouGov Poll done between November 14th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults (with a margin of error of about 4 points). While the survey was taken a few days before the Grand Jury decision was announced, it shows clearly the divide that exists in America.

Whites, older citizens, and Republicans are convinced that the shooting was justified -- and that it was just an isolated incident. Minorities, younger citizens, and Democrats tend to believe the officer should be punished -- and that this incident is indicative of a broader pattern of police abuse of minorities (especially black citizens).

I have heard a lot of talk about how this country needs to come together, but I see little chance of that happening. Blacks cannot move toward the white attitude, because that would be a denial of the unfair treatment they receive daily in this country from the police (and the courts). And whites won't move closer to the black attitude, because most of them don't suffer the same kind of justice system inequities that blacks do (and tend to believe everyone is treated as they are).

Until whites (and older people and Republicans) can see beyond their own limited experience with the police and courts, and recognize that blacks are treated differently (because of their race), nothing will be done to solve the serious racial problems that permeate our society. And sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

The "Rule Of Law" Requires Equal Application To All

On Monday night, President Obama spoke to the nation after it was learned that no charges would be filed in the murder of Michael Brown (an unarmed black teenager). I give the president credit for trying to calm the raw tensions about this affair, not only in Ferguson, but across the nation. But I wish he had been a little clearer and gone a little further regarding the injustices that occur far too often in this country. The president said:

"We are a nation built on the rule of law, and so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make."

That is true, but it is not the whole truth. We are a nation of laws (laws that are based on our Constitution), and this decision was the Grand Jury's to make. But it is not enough just to have the "rule of law". The Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution requires that the rule of law must be applied equally to all citizens -- and that just doesn't happen in the United States (at least not right now).

As much as people (especially those on the right) may want to deny or ignore it, the fact is that all American citizens are not treated equally in our system of justice. Not all, but far too many, police officers treat minorities differently than they treat whites. Blacks (and other minorities) are stopped more often, searched more often, arrested more often, mistreated more often, and even killed more often than whites are. It's not right, and it's unconstitutional, but it happens all across this country -- and that is a fact that only a fool or a liar can deny.

And our courts are not much better. Thanks to lingering racism, and flaws in our court system (the main one being those who can afford a great lawyer and payment for their own tests get more justice than those who can't), our courts do not dispense equal justice to all. Whites are treated fairer than minorities, and the rich are treated fairer than the poor. Those are just undeniable facts.

Ferguson is not a lot different than many other cities. It is just the place where these inequalities were exposed for all to see. While it was the Grand Jury's decision on whether to indict the policeman who killed an unarmed teenager or not, it was incumbent on the prosecutor presenting the case to them to treat both the victim and the defendant just as he would in any other case -- but he did not do that.

While in other cases he presented only the information favoring the prosecution, in this case he presented information favoring the defense and put a defense spin on available evidence. In the proceedings, he acted like a defense attorney instead of a prosecutor -- and his later justification for getting the decision he wanted sounded more like a defense attorney's summation than a fair presentation of the facts. In short, Michael Brown was treated differently than other victims are treated -- and that is the problem. Different treatment means unequal treatment. I don't know if it's because he's a racist or just a police apologist, but the prosecutor failed to do his job in a fair and equal manner in this case.

A country based on a secular Constitution establishing a rule of law is a great idea -- but it is not enough. That rule of law must be applied equally to all citizens. If it isn't, then it starts to crumble -- and it can actually become an instrument of discrimination and tyranny. Our justice system is seriously flawed, from the police through the courts, and it must be fixed. If it isn't, then the rule of law just becomes a sick joke.

Good & Bad News On The Death Penalty

These charts were made with information contained in the latest Gallup Poll regarding the death penalty. Gallup has been surveying Americans on this issue since 1937 (when support for the death penalty was about 59%). The lowest support was in 1966, when only 42% of the general public was in favor of it. After that, the support for punishing those who kill by killing them began to climb. It reached a peak in 1994, with 80% support.

The good news is that since 1994 the support for punishing criminals by killing them has been dropping. And this year that support dropped to 60% -- the lowest level of support since 1972 (more than 40 years). In my opinion that's still far too high, but at least it's moving in the right direction (toward less support rather than more).

The bad news is, of course, that 60% (or six out of every ten Americans) still support the death penalty. But the bottom chart shows something even more troubling. Only 52% of the general public thinks the death penalty is administered fairly in our society, but 60% are in favor of giving and carrying out the death penalty. That leaves 8% (probably those who were not sure whether it was administered fairly to not) who are in favor of killing even though they are not sure it is done fairly.

I have to admit that I just can't understand such an attitude. How can anyone be in favor of taking a human life without being absolutely sure that it is done in a fair and just way?

The most unsurprising thing about the poll was in which political groups support the death penalty. Support is the least among Democrats, as less than half of them support it (47%). Independents support the death penalty at the same rate the general public does (60%). The most bloodthirsty group of all are the Republicans, with 81% (or four out of five) supporting the death penalty as a punishment.

The Double Standard Of American Justice

There are two kinds of justice in the United States. There is the soft justice for the rich and powerful, and the harsh justice for the rest of us.

A good example of this was shown to us a few days ago, when Scooter Libby was given 30 months in prison, and then allowed to go home while the judge decided whether to let him remain free while his appeals are being heard. No poor or working-class person would have been afforded this opportunity.

Today, we saw another example of this soft justice for the rich and famous. A California judge (What was he thinking?) had finally sent Paris Hilton to jail after she blew several opportunities at serving probation. But yesterday, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department stepped up and made sure she wouldn't really have to serve that sentence.

They released her from jail after serving less than 5 days of her sentence for "medical" reasons, and sent her to do the remaining time under house...uh, make that mansion arrest. It seems she's been crying uncontrollably and refusing to eat the jail food. Sounds more like a rich person throwing a tantrum than a medical problem.

You can bet a poor person would not be released on such flimsy medical grounds. Frankly, it's hard to talk about the fairness of our justice system while such inequities exist.

Dallas Morning News Opposes Death Penalty

Opponents of the death penalty have just gained a powerful new ally. Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News changed its editorial opinion and came out against the death penalty. This is important because the Morning News is not only one of the largest newspapers in the state, its editorial board is generally regarded as one of the most conservative.

This new and important voice against the death penalty does not come from the liberal end of the political spectrum (where there are many death penalty opponents). No one could accuse the Dallas Morning News of having any liberal tendencies. In the past, the Morning News has been one of the staunchest supporters of the death penalty.

Why did they change their position? It has to do with the imperfection of our system of justice. While we may have one of the better systems of justice in this country, it is far from perfect.

We have always known that innocent men (and women) are sometimes convicted and sent to prison. But with the advent of DNA evidence, we are finding that it is far more common than we once believed. It is no longer an unusual occurrence to hear about an innocent man being released from prison.

The DMN points out that at least 13 innocent people have been released from Texas prisons in the recent past. They also point to the case of Carlos De Luna, who was executed even though the evidence now shows he was probably innocent.

The DMN believes (as I do) that the state has the obligation to protect its citizens from violent offenders - especially those who may re-offend in a violent way. But since the passage of "life without parole", we now have an option other than the death penalty.

The DMN points out that the death penalty is not reversible once it has been carried out. They also point out that any system of justice run by human beings is going to be imperfect, because humans are imperfect. That means there will always be instances of innocent people being convicted. Because of these two facts, they have come out in opposition of the death penalty.

I agree with them, but I would also point out that it is not just the imperfection in humans that is at fault - it is also the glaring imperfection of our society in general. Like it or not, the following facts are true and have an effect on our system of justice:

Rich people and poor people are treated differently.

White people and minorities are treated differently.

Men and women are treated differently.

Straights and Gays are treated differently.

Natural-born and naturalized citizens are treated differently.

As long as the above facts are evident in our society, we have no business executing people. Our justice system is not only imperfect, it is inherently unfair. The Dallas Morning News editorial is right - it is time for Texas to stop using the death penalty.