Less Time, Less Crime

     Every year, millions of Americans go through the criminal justice system, some for major offenses such as murder and rape, and some for minor crimes, including drug charges. The American justice system is designed to function on a platform of equality and fairness, which is not the case in some trials due to mandatory minimum sentences. These lengthy mandatory sentences, largely regarding drug charges, were implemented in the 1980's, continuing President Nixon's “war on drugs”. Mandatory minimums require that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, not taking into account the explicit information pertaining to each case. The Supreme Court has upheld hefty mandatory terms of imprisonment over the challenge that they violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but it is time for the government to abolish these racially charged laws across the nation and instead shift focus to rehabilitation.

     Prisoners and their loved ones know all too well the harmful consequences of harsh mandatory minimums, but our nation’s one-size-fits-all approach to punishment affects all citizens. Mandatory minimums are a big reason why the prison population has exploded over the past few decades. According to the United States Sentencing Commision, the number of drug offenders in prison has increased 21 times since the laws went into affect. The average cost of incarcerating an American prisoner varies state to state, from $14,000 to $60,000, and nearly half of all federal prisoners are serving time for drugs. As a taxpayer in the U.S., these numbers are very alarming. 

     Beyond the sheer amount of money it costs American citizens, there are plenty of studies showing that mandatory minimums don't actually reduce crime. In the past decade, 17 states have lessened their mandatory sentencing, and all 17 states have cut their prison populations and seen a decrease in crime rates. 

     Controlling for other factors, the United States Sentencing Commission found that between 2007 and 2011, black male defendants received sentences 20% longer than their white counterparts. Starting in 1983, around the start of mandatory minimum sentencing, up to the present day, the number of African-Americans sent to prison for drug offenses is up more than 26-fold, compared to a 7-fold increase for whites, even though the rate of drug use between the races is roughly equal. All of these numbers lead to the conclusion that while African-Americans are about 1% more likely to use drugs, they have an arrest rate 4-5%  higher for drug related crimes. Individual responsibility must always be a primary consideration in deciding sentences, but we must also acknowledge that there is a racial bias in the criminal justice system. The disparity in incarceration rates has bred distrust, alienating communities of color from those who serve valiantly in law enforcement. 

     We are facing in the right direction, however, with politicians on all sides starting to recognize the damaging effects that mandatory minimums have, both fiscally and socially. There have been initiatives introduced into the legislature, such as the Smart on Crime initiative created by ex-Attorney General Eric Holder, that strive to reduce the mandatory minimum sentences for low level drug offenses and encourage more investment in rehabilitation programs to tackle recidivism. Criminal justice reform will benefit everyone, from over-taxed law obeying citizens, to ex-offenders seeking redemption. The time to fix America's broken justice system is now, and it starts with abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing. 

Distraction in The Age of Trump

In his Blog Stage 5 post, my colleague Will analyzes the effect of Hillary Clinton's emails on the current state of our government. He believes that the State Department may be purposely dragging its feet in regards to the release of the documents turned over to them, and therefore is undermining President Trump's power. He cites his sources and creates an effective argument. While I agree that we as a country need to settle and move on from this "scandal", I think that President Trump and others place too much emphasis on this issue. 
Like my colleague points out, Trump has been pushing for the public release and government probing of these documents since the beginning of his campaign. At first, it was a smart move on Trump's part to use Clinton's emails to diminish her credibility. Clinton has been under investigation surrounding this issue for years, and first turned over 30,000 emails to the FBI in early 2015. Since then, there have been lawsuits, more investigations by multiple agencies, and misleading accusations between the political parties. At the beginning of his presidency, Trump continued to push for the indictment of his opponent, and a Federal Judge ordered the State Department to process 500 of her emails a month, which they complied with (CNN). At no point has the State Department, or any government agency for that matter, ignored the rulings and prevented public information from getting out to the people.
On Thursday, November 9th, The Washington Post reported that a Federal Judge had thrown out a lawsuit from two conservative watchdog groups demanding that the government "shake the tree harder...for more emails". The judge contested the claim, saying that the FBI has done everything they could. At this point, and probably earlier, the issue is dead, but President Trump seems to be using it as a way to distract the public from his antics. He continues to beat the controversy because he doesn't want people to really take note of his inability to effectively lead our nation. As I said earlier, I agree with my colleague in that American citizens need to move on, but I don't think we will be able to until our President lets us.

Our No Good, Very Bad Voter Turnout

      Our electoral system is fueled by the participation of the electorate. Unfortunately, we still have many barriers in place that discourage and effectively prevent many eligible voters from participating in our electoral system. Our laws seem to be trending in the opposite direction, with voter ID laws passed in many states that suppress the vote rather than encourage voter participation. These voter ID laws are based on spurious claims of voter fraud that have little or no evidence to justify their implementation. The total turnout for the 2014 elections was only 36.6 percent of the voting age population, according to The United States Elections Project at the University of Florida. This number was only slightly exceeded in the 2016 presidential election, reaffirming the need for change to the system. We need laws that encourage electoral participation, not prevent American citizens from exercising their electoral rights.

      A good first step in this direction would be making Election Day a National Holiday. While state laws vary in allowing time off to vote, making Election Day a holiday would bring some uniformity to these individual statewide laws. This would also increase voter turnout by giving people the time to wait in long poll lines, an all too common occurrence these days, without fear of missing work when they step out to vote on a lunch break. Providing a holiday would also increase participation of lower income workers who would not need to choose between their job and their country.

      Voting is not only a right of every citizen of the United States, it is also a responsibility. We should not be satisfied with a democracy in which more than 60 percent of our people don’t vote. We must do better than that. While making election day a National Holiday wouldn’t be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to creating a more vibrant democracy.

Skirting the Topic

"Florida and my town have done a lot to prepare for and cope with storms. But all of our praiseworthy improvements address symptoms, not causes." Mike Gunter Jr.

Earlier this week I came across an article in USA Today entitled "Confront Climate Change Or Count On Even Crueler Hurricanes and Septembers". Originally I was excited to read it, thinking the name of the article sounded like a call to action; I wanted to learn what I could do to address climate change. I was ultimately disappointed after reading the full article. The title was misleading and the article didn't have much of a backbone to hold up the argument.

The author, Mike Gunter Jr., begins by breaking down why this past September was one of the most disastrous in recent history. He uses a quantitative measurement known as the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index to back up his claim. He then shifts focus specifically to Florida's response to Hurricane Irma. Gunter pulls from his own experience as a Floridian and cites what worked and what didn't in terms of maintenance and response. The latter half of the article compares and contrasts the construction codes between Houston and Florida and blames lax regulation for Houston's collapse during Hurricane Harvey. Only then, within the last couple of sentences, does Gunter first use the phrase "climate change". He attributes the increasingly catastrophic hurricanes to climate change, and gives only one solution - to phase out fossil fuels.

While I completely agree with what Gunter is saying, I think his argument is weak and unconvincing. The title of the article made me believe that the main focus would be on confronting climate change and what we as a nation need to do in order to protect our future and our planet. Instead, the article focuses on the resilience of Florida in the aftermath of Irma. It seems biased due to the fact that Gunter is a proud Floridian. He touches on creating change at the governmental level when he speaks to tightening construction codes - specifically in Texas - but quickly moves on to how Florida does it better. His lack of solutions to the problem is what really bothers me. Acknowledging that climate change is to blame is only the start, and Gunter presenting one obvious solution leaves me wanting so much more. The logic is there but there isn't enough evidence and the claim doesn't seem very well fleshed out.

Mike Gunter Jr. is the chair of the political science department at Rollins College and is very educated in the topic of climate change. His title makes him a very credible author and although this is an opinion piece, I know that he has more to offer. Because USA Today readers are usually white, educated, and older, I think they will be left wanting more as well.

The Decline of Personal Liberty in America

"Trump’s way of governing is not an advance toward liberty but a regression toward slavery."

Sheldon Richman, contributing writer to the liberal blog CounterPunch, hits deep in his article Trump's Americanized Fascism with the comparisons of Trump to Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian Fascism. He uses Trump's recent address to the UN General Assembly as a jumping off point. Richman clearly defines Americanized fascism and helps his readers think beyond the surface. He makes it very obvious what he thinks of our President, and I agree with the majority of his argument. I also think that the relationship between Trumpism and fascism is an important one for the American public to examine in order to form their own opinions about President Trump and educate themselves on possible outcomes of his presidency.

Like Mussolini, Trump rails against intruders (Mexicans) and enemies (Muslims), mocks those perceived as weak, encourages a violent reckoning with those his followers perceive as the enemy within (the roughing up of protesters at his rallies), flouts the rules of civil political discourse (the Megyn Kelly menstruation spat), and promises to restore the nation to its greatness not by a series of policies, but by the force of his own personality (“I will be great for” fill in the blank). All of these actions fit the fascist ideology that liberal democracy is weak and obsolete. Fascist followers push for a one-party system led by a strong leader in order to forge national unity and maintain stability. Richman stresses the obsession by Trump of "America First" and sovereignty of our national government, justifying the suppression of individual liberties. This calls into question the ever evolving idea of American federalism. It seems that the under Trump, the lines between state and nation, individual and collective whole, are being blurred into unforeseen chaos. Where should we, as the American public, draw the line between personal liberty and patriotic duty? 
 

Hi Classmates! Looking forward to reading your blogs this semester.