both felon disenfranchisement and the nsa’s domestic surveillance program appear to pit treasured civil rights and liberties against vilified groups that may threaten public safety.

james love has a nice little piece on telephone records of “who calls whom” at huff po today. i have no expert knowledge on any of this, but i’m concerned as a citizen about the selective application of these data against those on any president’s enemies list. here’s how mr. love puts it:

Can you imagine how interesting it would be to have this type of information on one of your enemies? To know exactly whom they call, and who calls them, and exactly when, going back at least five years? Can you imagine how interesting someone might find these same items, about you?

yikes. i’m already paranoid that the little “click” on my phone is really gene hackman listening from a van outside the social science tower. yes, i can certainly imagine such scenarios all too vividly. so, apparently, can my fellow citizens. a new usa today/gallup poll suggests that civil liberties comes out ahead (51% to 43%) on surveillance, just as it does on disenfranchisement. here’s the question:

As you may know, as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism, a federal government agency obtained records from three of the largest U.S. telephone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans. … Based on what you have heard or read about this program to collect phone records, would you say you approve or disapprove of this government program?

Approve – 43%
Disapprove – 51%
No opinion – 6%

this represents a statistically significant difference for a sample of 809 respondents (unfortunately i couldn’t gather response rate or any other methodological details from the story). such views are likely to change rapidly, of course, but at least the phone database question seemed to be worded in a fair manner. in particular, righties would like the lead-in (“as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism”) and lefties would like the detail on the program’s scope (“billions of telephone numbers” and “dialed by Americans”). in my opinion, neither side should be completely happy with the wording on any contentious partisan issue. here are some related items:

[Asked of the approving 43%]: Is that mainly because you do not think the program seriously violates Americans’ civil liberties, (or is it mainly because) you think investigating terrorism is the more important goal, even if it violates some Americans’ civil liberties?

Does not violate civil liberties – 12%
Investigating terrorism is more important, even if it violates civil liberties – 29%
Unsure – 2%

[Asked of the disapproving 51%]: Do you think there would ever be circumstances in which it would be right for the government to create a database of telephone records, or would it not be right for the government to do this under any circumstances?

Yes, there are circumstances in which it would be right – 17%
No, not under any circumstances – 31%
Unsure – 3%

how would you have responded? i’d find myself in the disapproving 51% but probably not in the hardcore libertarian 31% that say “not under any circumstances.” off the top of my head, i’d say that the circumstances would involve demonstration of a compelling and specific need, an independent judicial review, and a long list of data assurances. i can imagine the official response to requests for such safeguards:

“well, gosh, if we had all that, we wouldn’t need a domestic telephone surveillance database.”

or, perhaps:

“data assurances? we ain’t got no data assurances. we don’t need no data assurances. i don’t have to show you any stinking data assurances!”

what would lead three popular teenage boys to trade in bright futures for one brutal crime? from tacoma, washington, the three boys daniel harris, 18, cyril walrond, 17, and jarelle marshall, 16, were each charged with first-degree murder in the beating death of 55-year-old dien kien huynh. the three boys allegedly went on a crime spree that night, robbing a couple earlier in the evening, and then robbing huynh in his own front yard and beating him with a hammer. huynh died two days later.

all three of the boys were athletes, members of the football and track teams at mt. tahoma high school. walrond and harris had both earned college scholarships from the washington state achievers program, a scholarship fund set up by bill and melinda gates to reward “talented, low-income students who have overcome difficult circumstances and who are motivated to attend college.”

the tacoma news tribune reports:

Ten days after Huynh was attacked, Walrond served on a panel of high school students at a Tacoma summit on raising the standardized test scores of minority students. He told participants at the University of Puget Sound that he plans to study pre-med and psychology at the University of Washington this fall.

“In the community I live in, not many people will make it,” said Walrond, whose father, Greg, serves as a youth track team coach in Tacoma. “I take it upon myself to be the light in the darkness.”

if these boys are convicted, they will each face at least 20 years in prison. the light walrond speaks of will have been extinguished in many lives — the victim, the three perpetrators, the families and friends that love them. more than 100 people, including dozens of students from mt. tahoma high school, attended the arraignment. many of them sobbed as the boys appeared before the judge.

as someone who studies delinquency and has spent time with violent juvenile offenders, cases like this are the most difficult for me to understand. for young people with a real investment in and hope for their futures, what makes them choose to risk it all in one impetuous night?

obviously there are other cases where youths of privilege commit terrible crimes — the glen ridge case chronicled in our guys, whatever really happened with the duke lacrosse team — but this one strikes me as particularly unfortunate. as walrond pointed out, he was a success story in his community, a role model for others. now, if convicted, these boys will spend much of their young lives in prison and, if and when they ever get out, the world will be a very different, darker place for each of them.

what would lead three popular teenage boys to trade in bright futures for one brutal crime? from tacoma, washington, the three boys daniel harris, 18, cyril walrond, 17, and jarelle marshall, 16, were each charged with first-degree murder in the beating death of 55-year-old dien kien huynh. the three boys allegedly went on a crime spree that night, robbing a couple earlier in the evening, and then robbing huynh in his own front yard and beating him with a hammer. huynh died two days later.

all three of the boys were athletes, members of the football and track teams at mt. tahoma high school. walrond and harris had both earned college scholarships from the washington state achievers program, a scholarship fund set up by bill and melinda gates to reward “talented, low-income students who have overcome difficult circumstances and who are motivated to attend college.”

the tacoma news tribune reports:

Ten days after Huynh was attacked, Walrond served on a panel of high school students at a Tacoma summit on raising the standardized test scores of minority students. He told participants at the University of Puget Sound that he plans to study pre-med and psychology at the University of Washington this fall.

“In the community I live in, not many people will make it,” said Walrond, whose father, Greg, serves as a youth track team coach in Tacoma. “I take it upon myself to be the light in the darkness.”

if these boys are convicted, they will each face at least 20 years in prison. the light walrond speaks of will have been extinguished in many lives — the victim, the three perpetrators, the families and friends that love them. more than 100 people, including dozens of students from mt. tahoma high school, attended the arraignment. many of them sobbed as the boys appeared before the judge.

as someone who studies delinquency and has spent time with violent juvenile offenders, cases like this are the most difficult for me to understand. for young people with a real investment in and hope for their futures, what makes them choose to risk it all in one impetuous night?

obviously there are other cases where youths of privilege commit terrible crimes — the glen ridge case chronicled in our guys, whatever really happened with the duke lacrosse team — but this one strikes me as particularly unfortunate. as walrond pointed out, he was a success story in his community, a role model for others. now, if convicted, these boys will spend much of their young lives in prison and, if and when they ever get out, the world will be a very different, darker place for each of them.

two more cases challenging felon disenfranchisement, muntaqim v. coombe and hayden v. pataki, were dismissed last week by the second circuit u.s. court of appeals. that’s jazz hayden at left, who filed the latter suit while incarcerated in new york.

the plaintiffs had argued that felon voting restrictions diluted the voting strength of african american and latino communities, in violation of section two of the voting rights act. i’ll need to consult the great legal mind to parse the decisions, but i believe that this is the punch line:

“congress did not intend the voting rights act to cover such provisions” and that applying it in such cases “would alter the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government.”

most judicial challenges to felon disenfranchisement have failed. on the other hand, incremental state-by-state legislative and executive changes have been occurring regularly since the civil rights era. in this connection, catherine weiss of the brennan center has prepared a useful general template titled components of a right to vote bill. her brief summary:

• Restoration of Rights: This provision should clearly identify at what point voting rights are restored to people with criminal convictions – upon discharge from prison? upon completion of parole? upon completion of parole or probation? upon completion of sentence plus a waiting period?
• Notice: This provision should ensure that criminal defendants are informed: (1) before conviction and sentencing, that they will lose their voting rights; and (2) at the point of restoration, that they are again eligible to register and vote.
• Voter Registration: Under this provision, the government agency that has contact with people at the point of restoration (the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Parole or Probation, for example) should take responsibility for assisting them with voluntary voter registration.
• Maintaining the Statewide Voter Registration Database: This provision should ensure that names are removed from and then restored to the state’s computerized list of registered voters by electronic information-sharing between corrections agencies and elections agencies.
• Education: This section should make the state’s chief election official, usually the secretary of state, responsible for educating other government agencies and the public about the legislation.

because public opinion favors voting rights for ex-felons (80%), probationers (68%), and parolees (60%), legislators may be increasingly receptive to reenfranchising these groups. in contrast, only about 33% support voting rights for currently incarcerated prison inmates.

two more cases challenging felon disenfranchisement, muntaqim v. coombe and hayden v. pataki, were dismissed last week by the second circuit u.s. court of appeals. that’s jazz hayden at left, who filed the latter suit while incarcerated in new york.

the plaintiffs had argued that felon voting restrictions diluted the voting strength of african american and latino communities, in violation of section two of the voting rights act. i’ll need to consult the great legal mind to parse the decisions, but i believe that this is the punch line:

“congress did not intend the voting rights act to cover such provisions” and that applying it in such cases “would alter the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government.”

most judicial challenges to felon disenfranchisement have failed. on the other hand, incremental state-by-state legislative and executive changes have been occurring regularly since the civil rights era. in this connection, catherine weiss of the brennan center has prepared a useful general template titled components of a right to vote bill. her brief summary:

• Restoration of Rights: This provision should clearly identify at what point voting rights are restored to people with criminal convictions – upon discharge from prison? upon completion of parole? upon completion of parole or probation? upon completion of sentence plus a waiting period?
• Notice: This provision should ensure that criminal defendants are informed: (1) before conviction and sentencing, that they will lose their voting rights; and (2) at the point of restoration, that they are again eligible to register and vote.
• Voter Registration: Under this provision, the government agency that has contact with people at the point of restoration (the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Parole or Probation, for example) should take responsibility for assisting them with voluntary voter registration.
• Maintaining the Statewide Voter Registration Database: This provision should ensure that names are removed from and then restored to the state’s computerized list of registered voters by electronic information-sharing between corrections agencies and elections agencies.
• Education: This section should make the state’s chief election official, usually the secretary of state, responsible for educating other government agencies and the public about the legislation.

because public opinion favors voting rights for ex-felons (80%), probationers (68%), and parolees (60%), legislators may be increasingly receptive to reenfranchising these groups. in contrast, only about 33% support voting rights for currently incarcerated prison inmates.

we’re doing a little radio tour for locked out this summer, so i got up early today to appear on daybreak usa and cable radio network. the interviews were fun and the hosts were gracious, so we’re off to a decent start. here’s the first leg:

May 6, 9 pm: WBZ Boston (Jeff)
May 7, 10 am: KPFA Berkeley (Jeff)
May 8, 8:35 am: USA network/Daybreak, Scott West (Chris)
May 8, 9:50 am: Cable Radio Network, national (Jack Roberts) (Chris)
May 16, 2:30 pm: American Urban Radio (Jeff)
May 22, 7:36 am: Jacksonville, Ed Furbee show (Chris)
May 25, 10:00 am: Tron in the Morning, Colorado Springs (Chris)

we often get calls and emails after such appearances. sometimes they are friendly, sometimes angry, and sometimes we just don’t know what to make of them. i didn’t hear jeff’s bay area interview this weekend, but it sparked the following email:

In the books you have written, you probably have not addressed the initial “con”: the courts’ use of devious language and legal fictions, which are first responsible for the accused natural person (the “Defendant”), to unwittingly grant jurisdiction to the de facto “courts”. (I.e.; statutory, non-Article III. courts.) While this material is distinctly not taught in “law” school, it is the observation of those of us who study the perverse manifestations of what purports to be “Justice” in the U.S.A., that several devices are used by the “courts” to entrap the “guilty” (often of victimless “crimes”), as well as the innocent. These (most briefly), are the use of the Fictitious Plaintiff, Fictitious Defendant, STRAMINEUS HOMO (Strawman), IDEM SONANS, and the deceptive question: “Do you understand the charges?” If some or all of these are unknown to you, you have failed in the very first part of your reportage, or mission. And, most greviously, you have failed to warn future victims of the “Just Us” system of any hint whatsoever, of how to avoid prosecution, in the first place!

i never know how to respond to such comments, except to thank the writers for their interest in my work. “dialogue with interested publics” sounds good in the abstract, but in such cases i often find that i have little to say beyond what i just said — in the media or in my research. still, i think such radio tours create a nice opening to do a little public criminology outreach work.

NOTE: speaking of radio, the pic and post title are taken from the electric 6 cover of radio gaga. the band has a knack for combining the tasteless with the funny. depending on your perspective, the results are either “tasty” or “funless.” the video doesn’t quite match the six’s classic (pg-13 rated) danger! high voltage!, but a line like “fire in the taco bell” doesn’t come along every day.

we’re doing a little radio tour for locked out this summer, so i got up early today to appear on daybreak usa and cable radio network. the interviews were fun and the hosts were gracious, so we’re off to a decent start. here’s the first leg:

May 6, 9 pm: WBZ Boston (Jeff)
May 7, 10 am: KPFA Berkeley (Jeff)
May 8, 8:35 am: USA network/Daybreak, Scott West (Chris)
May 8, 9:50 am: Cable Radio Network, national (Jack Roberts) (Chris)
May 16, 2:30 pm: American Urban Radio (Jeff)
May 22, 7:36 am: Jacksonville, Ed Furbee show (Chris)
May 25, 10:00 am: Tron in the Morning, Colorado Springs (Chris)

we often get calls and emails after such appearances. sometimes they are friendly, sometimes angry, and sometimes we just don’t know what to make of them. i didn’t hear jeff’s bay area interview this weekend, but it sparked the following email:

In the books you have written, you probably have not addressed the initial “con”: the courts’ use of devious language and legal fictions, which are first responsible for the accused natural person (the “Defendant”), to unwittingly grant jurisdiction to the de facto “courts”. (I.e.; statutory, non-Article III. courts.) While this material is distinctly not taught in “law” school, it is the observation of those of us who study the perverse manifestations of what purports to be “Justice” in the U.S.A., that several devices are used by the “courts” to entrap the “guilty” (often of victimless “crimes”), as well as the innocent. These (most briefly), are the use of the Fictitious Plaintiff, Fictitious Defendant, STRAMINEUS HOMO (Strawman), IDEM SONANS, and the deceptive question: “Do you understand the charges?” If some or all of these are unknown to you, you have failed in the very first part of your reportage, or mission. And, most greviously, you have failed to warn future victims of the “Just Us” system of any hint whatsoever, of how to avoid prosecution, in the first place!

i never know how to respond to such comments, except to thank the writers for their interest in my work. “dialogue with interested publics” sounds good in the abstract, but in such cases i often find that i have little to say beyond what i just said — in the media or in my research. still, i think such radio tours create a nice opening to do a little public criminology outreach work.

NOTE: speaking of radio, the pic and post title are taken from the electric 6 cover of radio gaga. the band has a knack for combining the tasteless with the funny. depending on your perspective, the results are either “tasty” or “funless.” the video doesn’t quite match the six’s classic (pg-13 rated) danger! high voltage!, but a line like “fire in the taco bell” doesn’t come along every day.

every political candidate must say something about crime, but the level of discourse — from both the democrat and republican side of the aisle — seems to have slipped a bit in recent years.

candidate a: i’ll make sure that all sex offenders serve at least fifty years, plus a lifetime term of double-secret probation.

candidate b: my opponents advocate coddling the worst of the worst! i propose sentences of at least fifty hundred years.

candidate c: under such a proposal, a cryogenically frozen offender could get off scot-free in five short milennia! fifty hundred years is fine and good, but we need to ensure that the pee-wee hermans of the world never see the light of day. i’ve introduced a bill that would mandate life without parole, plus fifty gazillion years.

in contrast, state representative keith ellison is one politician who talks more sensibly and pragmatically about crime and punishment. representing minneapolis’ north side, mr. ellison has been outspoken on contentious crime issues. he is responsive to his district’s demand for better public safety and cognizant of the consequences of punishment for individuals and communities. in particular, he has championed the issue of reenfranchisement and reintegration, as well as sentencing alternatives for drug offenders. i was especially moved by his remarks on the right to vote at a recent conference.

i am not blogging to endorse a particular candidate or party, but i am genuinely excited when i meet a politician who seems responsive to social science knowledge in my area of expertise. when i heard that representative ellison was one of many dems seeking to succeed martin sabo in the u.s. house, i asked my political science buddies whether he had a chance. they uniformly praised his oratory and intelligence but doubted his ability to leapfrog others in the distinguished field. well, mr. ellison just won the democratic party’s endorsement for the 5th congressional district this weekend. if he takes the september 12 primary, he would surely be a heavy favorite in the overwhelmingly-democratic district this november.

i don’t reside in his district and i’ve only really discussed crime with mr. ellison, but i came away impressed with his vision and his guts. many politicians are so terrified of being portrayed as soft on crime that they seem to suspend their own basic principles, good judgment, and reasoned analysis. if elected, part of me thinks that representative ellison could help articulate a clear alternative vision of crime, punishment, and public safety. of course, another part of me worries that he’ll either have to dilute the vision or risk getting tarred with the “soft on crime” brush.

every political candidate must say something about crime, but the level of discourse — from both the democrat and republican side of the aisle — seems to have slipped a bit in recent years.

candidate a: i’ll make sure that all sex offenders serve at least fifty years, plus a lifetime term of double-secret probation.

candidate b: my opponents advocate coddling the worst of the worst! i propose sentences of at least fifty hundred years.

candidate c: under such a proposal, a cryogenically frozen offender could get off scot-free in five short milennia! fifty hundred years is fine and good, but we need to ensure that the pee-wee hermans of the world never see the light of day. i’ve introduced a bill that would mandate life without parole, plus fifty gazillion years.

in contrast, state representative keith ellison is one politician who talks more sensibly and pragmatically about crime and punishment. representing minneapolis’ north side, mr. ellison has been outspoken on contentious crime issues. he is responsive to his district’s demand for better public safety and cognizant of the consequences of punishment for individuals and communities. in particular, he has championed the issue of reenfranchisement and reintegration, as well as sentencing alternatives for drug offenders. i was especially moved by his remarks on the right to vote at a recent conference.

i am not blogging to endorse a particular candidate or party, but i am genuinely excited when i meet a politician who seems responsive to social science knowledge in my area of expertise. when i heard that representative ellison was one of many dems seeking to succeed martin sabo in the u.s. house, i asked my political science buddies whether he had a chance. they uniformly praised his oratory and intelligence but doubted his ability to leapfrog others in the distinguished field. well, mr. ellison just won the democratic party’s endorsement for the 5th congressional district this weekend. if he takes the september 12 primary, he would surely be a heavy favorite in the overwhelmingly-democratic district this november.

i don’t reside in his district and i’ve only really discussed crime with mr. ellison, but i came away impressed with his vision and his guts. many politicians are so terrified of being portrayed as soft on crime that they seem to suspend their own basic principles, good judgment, and reasoned analysis. if elected, part of me thinks that representative ellison could help articulate a clear alternative vision of crime, punishment, and public safety. of course, another part of me worries that he’ll either have to dilute the vision or risk getting tarred with the “soft on crime” brush.

i’m in washington today, enjoying an ncovr workshop on desistance from crime. after writing a dissertation on the topic in the nineties, it is nice to catch up.

i’m learning much, but one presentation was particularly intriguing for someone studying collateral sanctions such as voting and occupational restrictions. shawn bushway, megan kurlychek, and bobby brame ask the following question: when does a criminal’s risk of a new offense decline to the point that it is indistinguishable from those with no record of past offending.

cool question, right? the authors apply event history analysis and life table demography to birth cohort data from philadelphia and racine, plotting the hazard rate of new offenses for young arrestees versus non-arrestees. at the risk of oversimplifying, the basic story is that the rate of a new arrest is approximately equivalent for the offender and non-offender groups after about 7 years. if such findings can be replicated across space and time, it could provide evidence against imposing lifetime bans on former criminal offenders. i believe that papers are forthcoming in criminology & public policy, crime & delinquency, and ampersand & ampersand.

i’ve got to prep my own talk, so i can only offer a few other notes on the workshop. first, i learned about reference groups and relative deprivation today. on my way to the exercise room, floridian alex piquero took note of my blindingly white legs. in minnesota, of course, i’m considered quite bronzed.

second, the best probably-shouldn’ t-blog-about-this stories came from shadd maruna tonight. here’s one i can share: aside from my committee and maybe a few select family members, shadd was virtually the only person interested in my early desistance writings. i’ll never forget him writing to me (on actual letters, involving stationery and stamps) back when he was doing diss work as a grad student and i was struggling mightily as an assistant professor.

when shadd’s letters arrived — likely with a fresh batch of journal rejections — his interest was greatly appreciated but a little problematic. at a time when i felt hopelessly and irredeemably lost, along comes a smart dissertator to ask for directions. i wanted to scrawl “go back! go back to etiology!” after reading making good, of course, i’m glad i didn’t. somehow we’ve both managed to publish our work and, after at least seven years, we’ve yet to desist from desistance.