Racial discrimination by law enforcement has been a long standing issue in the United States. However, in the last couple of years, beginning with the dire situation in Ferguson, Missouri and the mirror images in Maryland, Illinois, New York, and a number of other locations across the country, the public at large has become increasingly aware of the systemic abuse against minorities.

A small piece of victory was served for individuals experiencing systemic abuses by law enforcement as Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer, was sentenced to 263 years in prison on January 22, 2015. His trial commenced on November 2, 2015 and was highly criticized for having an all white jury. However, approximately one month before being sentenced, Holtzclaw was convicted by that jury for 18 out of the 36 counts for which he was charged. The sentence, which is to be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently, seeks to rectify the wrongs done to Holtzclaw’s 13 victims (ranging from a 17-year-old teenager to a 57-year-old grandmother), including four counts of first-degree rape and four counts of forced oral sodomy.

The frightening part–Holtzclaw had a strategy to his clearly calculated rapes and sexual assaults. He targeted black women in one of Oklahoma City’s poorest neighborhoods who he knew had criminal histories, predominantly drug and prostitution records, which he could leverage against them should they threaten to approach authorities for his abusive behavior. Which worked…until it didn’t.

Jannie Ligons, a 57-year-old grandmother of 12, was stopped at approximately 2 AM on June 18, 2015 driving through the poor neighborhood in which many of his other victims had been confronted. Holtzclaw made a huge mistake in assuming that Ligons was a resident of the neighborhood, had a low social status, and had reasons to fear the authorities. Quite the costly “mistake” if you ask me. Her testimony recounted the graphic and horrifying details following Holtzclaw’s stop. I do have to issue a warning, as it is graphic.

Returning home from a game of dominoes with a friend, Ligons was stopped by Holtzclaw who was ending his shift. Due to a broken driver-side window, Ligons was directed to the rear passenger side seat of the vehicle and was asked if she had been drinking or if there was anything in her vehicle that she was hiding. She denied possessing anything illegal or to have been drinking. Holtzclaw did not believe her. He demanded that she get out of her vehicle so that he could check her. Holtzclaw demanded that she lift her shirt, which she did, to reveal her stomach. After telling her that was not good enough as something could be hiding in her bra, he forced her to lift her shirt and bra and shone a light on her exposed breasts.

As she noticed Holtzclaw playing with his penis at this time, she heard him instruct her to stand up and pull her pants down. Leaving her underwear on, Holtzclaw shone the light in her private area and demanded she sit back down. She obliged, distressed, only to look up and see his penis in her face. “Please don’t do this…you’re not supposed to do this,” she begged as he forced himself into her mouth. Ligons thought he was going to kill her. He threatened to follow her home, but as she pulled into a driveway to do a U-turn, Holtzclaw took off unexpectedly.

Ligons called the police when she got home. When no one at the police station answered, she and her daughter drove to the station to file the assault. Ligons was taken to the hospital with Kim Davis, an officer of the Oklahoma City Police Sex Crimes Unit, and underwent a sexual assault medical forensic exam. The report filed by Ligons led the Sex Crimes Unit to an unsolved report, and ultimately, to the discovery of a number of victims subjected to Holtzclaw’s sexual abuses, assaults, and rapes.

Other women have recollected their experiences with Holtzclaw, depicting the clear fear for their lives while in his custody. A woman identified as “T.M.,” a known drug user and prostitute, was forced to perform oral sex in order to avoid jail and ended up screaming for her life when Holtzclaw drove her to an open park area, fearing rape and potentially, death. The GPS recorder on Holtzclaw’s police car matched T.M’s testimony.

Further, Holtzclaw violated police protocol for searches of females and even went so far as to touch the bare breasts of victims while conducting searches, stating that they needed to “just play by my rules,” in order to avoid further charges or jail time. Holtzclaw even proceeded to go to the home of one of the victims and harass her at home, while with her family, which ultimately led to the stalking charges against him. Several other victims reported that Holtzclaw entered their homes and raped them while inside. He even raped 24-year-old Sade Hill in her hospital bed as she was detoxing from a spout of intoxication.

As if the killing of innocent and unarmed young black men has not been a frightening and infuriating display of racial discrimination by police, the case against Holtzclaw uncovers an even more troubling layer of abuse–vulnerable black women of low socioeconomic status unable to defend themselves, particularly due to their criminal histories and fear of authorities. Minorities of low socioeconomic status appear to be dispensable scapegoats to law enforcement at this day in age and frankly, it is an unacceptable and outrageous display of power by those trained to protect and serve. While the citizens of the United States continue to protest, demand change, and incite much needed action, a little solace can be taken in the fact that individuals like Holtzclaw and those who abuse their authority and prey on people incapable of fighting sometimes get the cosmic dose of karma their actions deserve.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Daniel Holtzclaw Sentenced to 263 Years in Prison appeared first on Law Street.

The Social Security program was enacted in 1935 to provide post-retirement income security for workers and their families. Since then, it has grown to become the world’s largest government program with a total expenditure of $768 billion in fiscal year 2012. Americans are seriously concerned about the sustainability of Social Security, which has led to questions about whether privatizing the system could be wise. Read on to learn about Social Security privatization efforts, and the arguments for and against such a move.

The Current Status of Social Security

Social Security isn’t in great shape right now. Various reports have estimated different dates at which the entitlement program may have difficulty paying out full benefits to those who should receive them, but the current most cited year is 2033. One of the big reasons for why Social Security is in big trouble is because of our changing demographics and health statistics. When Social Security was first introduced pre-World War II, people did not live nearly as long as they do today. In addition, the post-World War II Baby Boom led to a glut in our population size. Social Security’s forecasting methods weren’t able to accurately predict the situation we’re in now, where there are many healthy people retiring who will live longer than ever before. To put this into context, in 1960, there were about 5.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree; now the ratio has shifted to under 3:1.

What does “privatizing” Social Security mean?

Given Social Security’s current state, there have been solutions suggested to try to fix it. One of the most popular is privatizing the system. That would most likely mean creating individual private accounts for the workers. Those private accounts will be subject to more control by those who are paying in, and would be able to interact with the private market. The funds could be invested in things like private stocks, which advocates point out would boost workers’ rate of return.

The proposition of its privatization came into the limelight when George W. Bush proposed the Growing Real Ownership of Workers Act of 2005. The bill aimed at replacing the mandatory payouts from workers’ checks with voluntary personal retirement accounts. In 2010, Paul Ryan, a major supporter of privatization, attempted unsuccessfully to reignite interest in the idea in his Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan.

What are the arguments for privatization?

Proponents of privatization argue that the current program significantly burdens fiscal debt and will lead to increased debt and taxes for future generations. They claim that privatizing it will keep the program from collapsing in the future. It would actually lead to higher post-retirement earnings for workers or, at the very least, keep earnings at a relatively stable rate. Additionally, it would empower workers to be responsible for their own future.

Advocates for privatizing social security also point out that in the past, funds in Social Security have been diverted to pay for other things the government has needed to pay for, and then replaced in time. If Social Security was privatized into individual accounts, the government wouldn’t be able to take such actions. According those who want to privatize Social Security, doing so would also help minimize the bureaucracy involved in the process.

Case Study: Chile

Chile’s post-privatization success is used as an example that the United States can learn from. Chile transferred to a new program in which  workers put 10-20 percent of their incomes into private pension funds. When the worker retires, an insurance company gets involved to help with the dispensation of money, but even at that step the Chilean worker has a lot of choice and flexibility. Although long term effects of the plan have yet to be discovered, the short term effects are positive.

What’s the argument against privatizing the Social Security system?

Opponents worry that privatizing social security will lead to risk and instability in post-retirement earnings and cause significant reductions in the same. They argue that privatization can also potentially place minorities at a disadvantage, as well as anyone who doesn’t have the time, knowledge, or desire to effectively manage their account. Many also claim that the media has exaggerated the program’s financial demise and that its balance is currently in surplus with most Baby Boomers currently in the workforce.

Those who argue against Social Security privatization have also expressed concern about the financial and logistical resources that would be needed to start a privatized Social Security program. They also believe that a move toward privatization would create more, not less bureaucracy, because of the complexity of private markets. Several groups and individuals, such as the Center for American Progress and economist Robert Barro oppose the idea.

Conclusion

It’s no secret that Social Security is currently struggling, and if something is not done, it will continue only get worse. There’s no easy answer, but privatization is one frequently suggested option in the public debate. Exactly how privatization would occur, what its benefits and downsides would be, and its overall effectiveness are still up for debate, but for now it’s definitely an idea that we can expect to see on the list of possible solutions for the foreseeable future.

Resources

Primary 

Social Security Administration: A Program and Policy History

Social Security Administration: The Social Security Act of 1935

Social Security Administration: Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2012

Social Security Administration: The 2013 Annual Report of the Broad of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Social Security Association: Privatizing Social Security: The Chilean Experience

Additional 

Daily Signal: Social Security’s Unfunded Obligation Rises by $1 Trillion

CATO: Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Safe Haven: Privatize Social Security Before I Spend Your Pension

Sun Sentinal: Privatization Would Help But Liberals Resist Changes

Independent: Privatizing Social Security the Right Way

Freedom Works: Chilean Model of Social Security

NCPSSM: The Truth About Privatization and Social Security

Economic Policy Institute Report: Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up

Fortune: Privatizing Social Security: Still a Dumb Idea

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: What the 2013 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

CATO: Speaking the Truth About Social Security Reform

AARP: In Brief: Social Security Privatization Around the World

National Bureau of Economic Research: Social Security Privatization: A Structure for Analysis

NEA: Social Security Privatization: A Bad Deal for Women

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Social Security Privatization Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.