I guess it’s not about numbers.

It’s more about percentages. The percentages reveal more about the problem.

The percentages are more damning.

And here, you can see the percentages — glaring in how deeply they reveal the structural racism of the criminal justice system — in animated form.

Animated to best allow for comprehension, because the depth–the scale–of the criminal justice system’s racism is truly incomprehensible.

The percentages are damning because 95 percent of elected prosecutors across the country are white.

Only one percent of the 2,400 elected prosecutors in the United States are women of color.

And most prosecutors — especially considering the extremely racist impacts of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system — wield even more power than judges or cops.

(Which is terrifying. Because cops in the United States kill U.S. citizens at 70 times the rate that cops kill citizens in other economically dominant countries.)

The animation — a project by the Reflective Democracy Campaign on Who Prosecutes America — illustrates in no uncertain terms the fact that almost 80 percent of prosecutors across the country are white men. Only 31 percent of the population of the United States is white men.

(The amount of power they have? Who wouldn’t be shocked by that?)

These white male prosecutors have almost complete impunity to run the system as they will. Their decisions are “almost entirely outside of public scrutiny.”

And these decisions? These decisions that they make? These decisions include altering the jury pool so that more Black people will be killed by the state, as such:

Federal prosecutors often seek the death penalty in federal court in cases that otherwise would be tried in state jurisdictions with substantial minority populations.  Because the federal districts are much larger – they are made up of many counties – they are predominately white. Crimes that are usually prosecuted in state courts can be prosecuted in federal courts based on any “federal interest” such as a carjacking. Federal prosecutors have repeatedly sought the death penalty in New Orleans, Richmond, St. Louis and Prince Georges County, Maryland, where African Americans make up the majority of the population in the county and the jury pools. The decision to prosecute federally in these jurisdictions alters the racial makeup of the jury pools from predominantly black to predominantly white. Those same federal prosecutors seldom seek the death penalty for crimes that occur in counties with largely white populations.

These decisions include seeking life sentences for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Life. Sentences.

That means that these decisions include sending mostly people of color to die in prison because they carried pot in their pockets, something that white people like me do daily without fear.

This animation is important. This animation is key.

Because this animation demonstrates why and how so many people of color are sentenced to death, daily, by white men.

And it’s completely legal.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Christian Senger via Flickr]

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Many Prosecutors Do YOU Think Are White? appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

In 2006, the criminal justice system helped Josh Duggar’s family expunge his record of abuse and protected him from being exposed in media reports as someone who had “forcibly fondled” younger girls (a.k.a. molested children).

Every day–then, now–the criminal justice system targets people of color–especially women and trans people of color–for abuse and shootings (a.k.a. public executions for walking while Black or Latina).

And yet.

And yet we continue to use pictures of him in suits instead of finding pictures that try to reflect him negatively (see featured photo), like the mainstream media insists on doing with young people of color slaughtered by cops.

When Black young men are murdered by cops, they are cast as “thugs.” When a young white man is accused of child abuse, he retains his status as ‘poor cult victim.’

This serves both racist and misogynist ends: white perpetrators remain victims, and his misogyny is cast as an exception (caused by his cultish family).

The mainstream media likes to speculate on the “scandalous” aspects of how the family helped cover up the abuse; how the family, in fact, abused him through their extremism and his isolation from “mainstream culture”; but we don’t like to speculate on how Josh Duggar is not, in fact, an exception. Josh Duggar is the rule.

Duggar is an embodiment of rich white cis male non-dis/abled privilege, and while the control his family exerts over him is indeed frightening, their misogyny is not an exception.

The Duggars may be particularly explicit in the ways they preach and practice misogyny, but what pieces focusing on the cultish aspects of the Duggars that facilitated the abuse miss is that every person in this country–every. single. person.–is raised to hate women. The Duggars may be more explicit than most, but they are not alone: Josh Duggar’s apparent belief that women and girls exist for male pleasure is the same belief that we are all raised with.

It’s called rape culture, and it’s everywhere.

The fact that the Duggars isolated their children so much that they didn’t have a TV misses the point: all of us with TV, too, receive the same message–in a heteropatriarchal society like this one, women are disposable.

Because rape culture is not isolated to “cults.” It is everywhere.

Because women–especially women of color–are disproportionately targeted by the same criminal justice system that protected Duggar when the first police report was issued against him.

Because living in a heteropatriarchal society makes us much more vulnerable to debilitating mental health issues.

Because “strong women” in the mainstream media is still the only trope we’re allowed to hope for.

Because the kind of misogyny that the media ascribes to the cult of the Duggars is the same kind of misogyny that we are exposed to every single time we turn on the television, interact with men in the street, or are educated in a public school system that still focuses on “great” [read: genocidal] white men and does not teach consent as the golden rule in health classes (a.k.a. teach rape culture to all students).

Because we can condemn–or pity–Josh Duggar as much as we’d like.

But ultimately, we must recognize that his privileged positions and entitled, abusive actions are the rule, not the exception.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Josh Duggar is Not an Exception: On Rape Culture in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and the controversy over the way in which the police department has dealt with the backlash, accusations of officials on a ‘power trip’ are incredibly poignant. According to Ferguson residents interviewed by CNN, “there’s been friction for years with the overwhelmingly white police department.” This statement is made by both African-American and white members of the community.

Courtesy of Light Brigading via Flickr

In the predominantly African-American town, these individuals are highly over-represented in crime statistics. ‘They accounted for 93 percent of arrests after traffic stops, 92 percent of searches and 86 percent of traffic stops.’ Although it is frankly impossible to hide from the racially discriminatory acts that are taking place, I ask why it has taken such a tragic event to acknowledge such wrongdoing? This idea that power can influence the way people act is not uncommon. Social experiments like the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the soldiers involved in the leaking of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the recent controversies surrounding the invisible war of sexual assault in the military, are just some examples of how power has an effect on producing and allowing crime to occur.

It is time we stop allowing justifications and rationalizations as reasons why individuals feel they can abuse their power. We blame the police officers for abusing their power with excessive force, but what about those in the riots who took advantage of a tragic situation by looting businesses? What about the thousands of individuals who took to Twitter to verbally abuse and criticize individuals because of their race, or because of their involvement in the incident? To say the issue is the hypocrisy of a country built upon equality and democracy is treating the problem, but ignoring those actions that make us revert back to the Civil Rights era, and back to an age when segregation was mandatory, which is the cause.

In the 21st century we have produced a generation so involved in the use of social media to express their opinions, and so involved in the right to voice our opinions, that we are in a sense our own worst enemies. Instead of working alongside law enforcement to protect our country, we are rebelling; instead of fighting the war against racial discrimination, we are fueling it; instead of maintaining the right to have privacy, we are highlighting more reasons to invade it. One of the first pictures of the fatally shot Michael Brown was posted to Twitter by a bystander before any official evidence was given to the police.

In the aftermath of Ferguson, it was announced that “police departments and their equipment suppliers are outfitting their officers with on-body cameras that promise to eliminate the photographic void we saw in Ferguson.” These cameras will be worn by officers during their shifts and will record all of their encounters with any member of the public they interact with. These videos at the end of each shift are then placed in a vault online, where they will only be examined during legal proceedings.

I don’t know about you, but I interact with police officers daily during my lunch break. I am 90 percent sure it is to do with my British accent and their boredom, but I still don’t know how comfortable I would feel knowing they may have a camera turned on recording me buying my lunch. What about those days that I decide it’s a good idea to buy bars of chocolate and bags of chips, if anything they are uncovering my unhealthy habits!

Courtesy of Mark Kirchner via Flickr

As expected with any new regulation, there are no national regulations on how the cameras will be used, or when they will be turned on and off. This is precisely one of the main problems with treating the problem and ignoring the cause. How to you trust an officer is going to keep the camera on for the duration of his shift? How do you rely on technology to take away the ‘power trip’ mentality? The answer: you cannot.

What makes this whole argument over the abuse of power even more valid is the corruption of relationships within the police force. There needs to be some kind of a change to monitor the performance of corrupt officials to ensure that the public can trust in those who are meant to protect them. The backlash from the community in Ferguson has come about from years of distrust in their law enforcement as protectors, and adding video cameras to police officers’ chests is not going to change that.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Katzenberger via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime of Power: Treating the Problem in Ferguson and Ignoring the Cause appeared first on Law Street.

You’d think that $68 billion would go a long way. According to the Justice Policy Institute, that is how much the United States spends on its criminal justice system every year – and we get what we pay for. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it claims 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. This staggering number is among the reasons that bipartisanship may make a comeback in U.S. politics. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have partnered up to cosponsor the REDEEM Act in an effort to tackle the confused American criminal justice system.

What Does Criminal Justice Reform Look Like?

Booker and Paul’s REDEEM Act – short for the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2014 – is meant to restructure sentencing and incarceration in the United States. The bill’s name alludes to the sealing and expungement of criminal records, which are often obstacles in finding employment for ex-convicts.

The bill would allow nonviolent, adult offenders to “to petition a court and make their case” for sealing their criminal records, and for the automatic sealing and expungement of certain juvenile records. The legislation would also introduce additional reforms to the juvenile justice system and the food stamps program.

Why is the U.S. criminal justice system in such disarray? University of Michigan Professor Salomon Orellana claims that our two-party system is partly to blame. In a guest article in the Washington Post, Orellana says that “when both parties (in a two-party system) emphasize toughness it sends a message to the public that toughness is the only legitimate response to crime.” The Republican-Democratic split favors quick-fixes, and their “tough on crime” attitude is the quick-fix America that has been failing with for the past few decades.

Orellana references New Zealand’s shift from a two-party system to one with multiple political parties. He notes that media discussion of tough policies in response to crime were less prominent in the new system. He says, “Under the multiparty system, minor parties received much more attention and consequently a wider variety of positions emerged.” In the case of New Zealand, the debate was changed for the better.

Bipartisanship is, in a way, America’s own third party. Its efforts are rarely popular on the national level but gets a lot of media attention when it happens. However, it’s possible that the REDEEM Act, and criminal justice reform in general, will provide a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work together. The bill’s aisle-crossing authors make such partnerships seem promising, and not just because they are of opposite parties.

Booker and Paul are both extremely popular. Senator Booker gained state-wide celebrity status and makes an effort to work with members of the GOP when possible. Senator Paul has the name recognition of his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, and made noise himself with a unique Republican stance and a legendary filibuster. Both are revered by young people and boast enormous twitter fanbases. As rising stars within their party their actions have received a lot of attention lately, particularly when they attempt to reach across the aisle.

What Should Criminal Justice Reform Sound Like?

Despite its bipartisan co-sponsorship, the REDEEM Act has not broken the “tough on crime” barrier just yet. In an interview with Politico, Booker and Paul sat together to discuss their partnership. Booker remarked that, “it’s no longer this juxtaposition between tough on crime and public safety… You can be tough on crime and lower recidivism rates by doing common sense things.” While Booker’s statement is relatively bold, he still holds onto what should be antiquated rhetoric.

Perpetuating the same discussion that fostered American mass incarceration is a mistake. It would be healthier to foster a political discussion that rejects “tough on crime” as a legitimate response to issues that handcuff our criminal justice system. Because such rhetoric antagonizes those without opportunity, a complete attitudinal shift is necessary.

Professor Michelle Alexander details the history of “tough on crime” policies and the state of mass incarceration in her book The New Jim Crow. Alexander argues that since Nixon, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have employed hard-line crime policies to incarcerate and marginalize blacks in America. If Booker and Paul are serious about reform, and if they truly consider it a civil rights issue, they will abandon the tough stance that perpetuates many of the issues in our criminal justice system.

Nevertheless, punitive measures do not need to be phased out. Nor would they be. As Orellana writes about multiparty New Zealand, “there were still calls for punishment and enforcement, but there were also calls for alternative solutions.” Rather than promoting “tough on crime” policies working with public safety initiatives, the conversation should demand a balance between fair incarceration and effective rehabilitation.

While the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction, the legislation and the discussion surrounding it both fall short. But if we consider the hostility with which our Congress “operates”, the passage of this bill would be a milestone for its authors and the U.S. criminal justice system.

Latest updates on the REDEEM Act:

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia and JD Lasica via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Bipartisan Faces of Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Should a sexually abused minor be considered a criminal? This question is recently coming to the attention of the American justice system. Courts are now conscious of a new demographic within the legal system and are attempting to reform their ways to accommodate those members in need, particularly girls. Girls courts are being implemented around many counties within California, to the preexisting juvenile justice system. The courts are tailoring to the needs of at risk young women, specifically those recruited as child prostitutes, by providing not only judicial guidance but treatment facilities as well.

Statistics revolving around girls involved in criminal actions have recently been skyrocketing in certain counties such as San Mateo, Alameda, and Orange, causing a need for a change in the court system. One specific example of this recognition of at risk population and attempt to reform those involved, is the Alameda County in California. Between the years 1998 and 2007, there was a 45 percent increase in juvenile girls entering the justice system as well as a 49 percent increase for young girls committing non violent offenses. With such an increase in statistics, it was determined that a change was necessary and the Alameda County Girls Court was created.

The specific programs applied by girls courts are meant to aid victims of sexual assault, in combining the justice system with social services. Their focus and activities offered vary between specific courts. For example, the Alameda County Girls Court, provides a group of adults to gain the trust of young girls as well as offers Saturday sessions to discuss topics ranging from the legal system to body image. While this program is centered around young girls involved in sex trafficking, the Girls Courts of Orange County focus specifically on girls who have spent their lives in foster care.

While the Alameda Girls Courts are still relatively new to be measuring the effects of the system, girls courts in other areas have been making promising progress with their juvenile group members. Other girls courts within California have recently proven that they are making a difference, as the Girls of the Orange County program have presented an enhancement in the grades of the girls. Hopefully, the Alameda Courts will follow in close pursuit of this already established program. 

The previous judicial system resulted in a cycle of punishment rather than rehabilitation and treatment for the girls. In California, girl prostitutes were continuously adding to their criminal records, although in many areas an exchange of money for underage sex is a form of sex trafficking. Thus, the emergence of the girls court. This specific court became a pivotal aspect to the campaign to end sex trafficking. The main goal of this campaign is to label underage prostitutes as victims rather than criminals, and to offer these young girls treatment. The campaign is looking to make a change in the current judicial system, rather than convicting underage girls who have been abused.

Many of the young girls moving through the legal system have been sexually abused their whole lives and are unaware of the wrongdoings against them. By convicting these girls over and over the courts are not providing justice, but rather allowing them to continue on a downtrodden path. The introduction of girls courts is not an isolated case but has become key to a larger picture for many states, in changing laws involving sex trafficking and minors. In New York State, a system of 11 Human Trafficking Intervention Courts has spread across the state, for minors ages 16 and up. These courts remain similar to those labeled girls courts because they provide services to minors involved in the sex trade as well. However, the New York System has become a statewide campaign. Recently accompanying this new treatment of minors and sex trafficking, is an array of new Safe Harbor Laws enacted in states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois and several more. These laws are defined as preventing victims of sex trafficking from being prosecuted due to prostitution as well as protecting young children involved in sex trafficking by offering specialized services.

The beginning of girls courts is a representation of the change in how the justice system views minors involved in sex trafficking. This can reach back to the Supreme Court ruling, in Texas B.W. (2010) which ruled that children under the age of 13 could not be considered a criminal because of prostitution. Furthermore, children could not be guilty of an action that involved their own sexual exploitation. It can be seen that this ruling has come full circle, as court systems as well as the Safe Harbor Laws are attempting to aid those in need rather than convict them.

It is refreshing to see a change in the view of those involved in sex trafficking as well as an attempt to reform minors in need of help. Sex trafficking is an awful reality that is common throughout the United States, as over 300,000 children are involved in prostitution each year. Pimps specifically target children in need such as the homeless or abused. The Girls Courts, Safe Harbor Laws, and Human Trafficking Intervention Courts have taken the American justice system to a new level, in providing not only a court ruling but a service to push minors in the right direction. It is time that these efforts to end sex trafficking spread across the country to all states, rather than being isolated mainly to New York and California. The justice system needs to view these minors involved in sex trafficking as victims rather than criminals and to offer them the services they require.

 [National Center for Youth Law] [The New York Times] [Polaris Project]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Blemished Paradise via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Efforts to Reform Sex Trafficking Moving in the Right Direction With Specialized Courts appeared first on Law Street.

This Wednesday, October 11, will be the 25^th Annual National Coming Out Day. Yay! A day devoted to all of us queers coming out of the closet and running around with reckless, rainbow abandon is super awesome, right?

I remember the first time I was actually out on National Coming Out Day. I was 17, and it was my senior year in high school. I had been coming out, bit by bit, for the last three years, and I was finally at a point in my life where literally everyone who knew me, knew that I was gay. I was also the president of my high school’s Gay Straight Alliance, which made it pretty much impossible to deny that I wasn’t a huge lezzer. So there was that.

Anyway! To honor the special occasion, me and all of my lovely, wonderful fellow GSA members wore purple that day—a sign of queer solidarity—and organized a bake sale. All of the proceeds went to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Now, there are tons of LGBT nonprofits we could have donated to. But we chose this particular one because, in October of 1998, Matthew Shepard was brutally attacked in Laramie, Wyoming. He died just in time for National Coming Out Day, making his organization an especially fitting one to benefit from our bake sale that year.

But what exactly is Matthew Shepard’s story, and how has he affected the LGBT community today? That’s a pretty complicated subject, so let’s settle into our rainbow-pride Snuggies and dive right in, mmkay?

In case you don’t already know the story, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old college student in Laramie, Wyoming. One night in October, two men abducted him from a local bar and drove him out into the rural, Wyoming night. They beat, robbed, and tortured him, leaving him tied to a fence to die. The next morning, a cyclist rode by, initially mistaking him for a scarecrow. Matthew was rushed to the hospital, but his injuries were too severe and he never woke up. He died on October 12, 1998.

The Matthew Shepard Foundation, which does lots of great work, was a direct result of Matt’s death. His mom, Judy Shepard, founded it with the goal of making the world a better and more accepting place, where people like Matthew won’t be harmed.

On that front, Matt’s legacy has affected us queers in a good way. He’s given us an organization that travels the country, spreading the noble message that it’s OK to be gay. He’s given us a poster child—unequivocal proof that it’s hard, and sometimes dangerous, to be queer. Perhaps most importantly, he’s given this country a vocabulary to talk about sexuality and violence. Those are all great things.

But. There have also been some not-so-great ramifications.

In 2009, the federal government passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It was meant to expand upon already existent hate-crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It was (and still is) a pretty big deal. Judy Shepard campaigned fiercely for its passage.

Now, at first glance, this little piece of legislation sounds awesome. It means that members of the LGBT community deserve to be valued and protected under the law. It sends a message to homophobic douchebags who want to hurt us—you won’t get off easy.

But, that’s just at first glance. Looking beneath the surface, the Shepard Byrd Act does more than just make prison sentences lengthier for gay bashers. It also funnels a whole lot more money towards state and local law enforcement agencies, and expands the policing power of the federal government.

In short, it makes the U.S.’ police state more powerful.

And you know who gets hurt the most by the U.S. police state? Queer people of color.

Since the 1980s, surveillance and policing in the U.S. have grown exponentially, with incarceration becoming the preferred method of dealing with economically and socially marginalized communities. Over these last 30 years, the U.S.’s federal prison population has risen by 790 percent, while crime rates have remained relatively stable. No other country in the world incarcerates more of its citizens than the U.S., and a disproportionate amount of those inmates are poor, queer, and/or of color.

But how can that happen? Surely, heterosexism, racism, and transphobia can’t possibly be an institutional part of our justice system. This is AMURRICA, the land of the free!

If only. While we’re prancing about in our rainbow, edible underwear for National Coming Out Day, let’s take a second to reflect on the origins of the annual Gay Pride Parade.

Gay Pride wasn’t a thing until 1969, when police raided New York’s Stonewall Inn. Back then, cross dressing was illegal, and if anyone was caught wearing fewer than three pieces of gender-conforming clothing, he or she (or ze!) would get arrested. That meant a ton of trouble for butch lezzies–identifiable by their dapper menswear–trans folks, and drag queens. And what happened if you got arrested for your gender-non-conforming attire? Likely, you’d get beaten and raped. Just ask Leslie Feinberg. This shit used to happen ALL THE TIME. (And it actually still does.)

Then, in 2003, Lambda Legal won the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality. That’s right, folks. It was ILLEGAL to be gay (or at least, to have super hot gay sex between two consenting adults) up until 2003.

I kid you not.

So basically, up until a measly 10 years ago, the cops were trained to arrest us. They were taught to see queer folks as criminals. They were encouraged to treat us with violence and contempt, because we were nothing but perverted delinquents. Historically, queers have had a really terrible relationship with law enforcement as a whole.

Nowadays, even though it’s no longer explicitly illegal to be queer, we’re still targeted. After all, old habits die hard, am I right? Cops routinely troll cruising spots, targeting gay men, they still raid our bars, beat and humiliate us, and they still rape us, all the goddamn time. And that’s just what happens to gay people. Imagine adding all of that targeted bias to issues of race and criminalization, or poverty, or gender variance. It gets so much worse.

Trans women of color know better than any of us what happens when you take all of that intersectional oppression into account–they’re routinely stopped by cops and arrested for solicitation or prostitution, based solely on racist, sexist, transphobic assumptions of criminality. Have you ever been accused of solicitation while you’re walking your dog? Probably not. This is a case of literal fashion police, except there’s no Joan Rivers and it’s not funny at all.

Not to mention, racism, sexism, and transphobia aren’t exclusive to the cops. Lots of people have less than warm and fuzzy feelings towards queers, and that makes it exponentially harder for us to get jobs. I’ve written about how difficult it can be for butch women to score employment, and that goes quadruple for trans people of color. With little or no opportunities for traditional employment, queers are often left with no other options besides sex work to support themselves. And of course, sex work is illegal.

So, to recap, poor queers of color are funneled into the prison industrial complex in two key ways: they’re unfairly targeted for arrest, and they’re forced into criminalized activities because of a lack of other viable options. Both of these realities are a result of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

So you can see how it’s problematic that a piece of legislation, which is supposed to protect queer folks, actually strengthens an institution that specifically targets and harms us.

Because, ultimately, the cops aren’t using all that new money to find and punish white supremacists or gay bashers. More likely, they’re using it to harass, criminalize, and incarcerate poor people, queer people, and people of color.

Now, that’s not to say that all cops are bad, racist, homophobic pigs. Absolutely not. I’ve got an old friend whose father serves as a local Chief of Police, and I respect the hell out of him.

It is to say, however, that statistically, poor people, queer people, and people of color are targeted and harmed by the criminal justice system. As a result of that reality, funneling more money into that system is not a great strategy for protecting us.

But these facts often get ignored when we talk about Matthew Shepard. As a middle-class, gender-conforming, white man, his chances for having a run-in with the police were relatively small. No one would have stopped him while he was walking down the street and accused him of solicitation. Incarceration was not something Judy Shepard feared for her son.

And it’s no coincidence that Matthew became the gay hate-crime poster child. Many, many queer people have been violently murdered in the years before and after his death, and the majority of them were transgender women of color. Ever heard of Gwen Araujo? Probably not. And there’s a reason for that.

Reifying a white, cis-gender, middle-class gay man as the face of the LGBT community allows us to ignore the complex issue of intersectional, multifaceted oppression—where race, gender, sexuality, and class status are all inextricably linked.

So this National Coming Out Day, remember Matthew Shepard, but question the piece of hate crime legislation with his name attached to it. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Ludovic Bertron via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Come Out, Come Out — and Go to Jail? appeared first on Law Street.