Monday, December 07, 2009
Tonight!
Bored, and fascinated by federal sentencing policy? Well, tonight I'm giving a free public lecture at 7:30 in Room 127 of Baylor Law School. The topic is "Crackheads, Senators, Money, and Power: A Social and Legal History of Crack Cocaine," and it is co-sponsored by the Law School's Federalist Society and Baylor University's chapter of the NAACP. You can read more about it here.
Comments:
<< Home
Great lecture!!! I have seen you speak on many occasions--and I have heard this particular story in part several times--but last night was a cut above. I am glad your dad was there. It was a tour de force.
As I listened, three questions sprang to my mind.
One I asked in public, why wasn't this program of arresting crack street sellers (who, evidently, stood to gain little from their labors) more effective as a deterrent.
Two, which I asked afterward privately, why did crack use never catch on in the white community?
Three, which is more complicated, I have been stewing over for a while now.
My thoughts actually began to crystallize, at least in part, early on in the lecture when you noted the irony of the US Attorney in Chicago who made no effort to intervene as a criminal gang kept crack off the streets through murder and intimidation of potential crack posses. As a result of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by one criminal gang on other potential rivals, perversely, the streets of Chicago were safer. By doing the wrong thing (ignoring law breakers), the USA might have done the right thing for more people. As you noted, this is utilitarianism, which most of us are uncomfortable embracing as a guiding philosophy.
On the other hand, the obvious advantages of no crack in Chicago seem myriad. Life is complicated.
In that vein, I wonder about Bull Shepherd. Individually, within the scope of American justice and the Rights of Englishmen, we have come to the conclusion that 10 years in federal prison for a very small amount of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm is unjust. In hindsight, for many of us, the incarceration of the young Bull Shepherd was something of a travesty.
Here are my nagging questions. What kind of person was Bull Shepherd? Was he, in fact, a dangerous criminal? Or was he just a poor unfortunate person with the wrong color skin on the wrong side of town?
An Aside: a possible answer here might well be "yes." The either/or formulation is often a logical fallacy. He could have been both.
If Bull Shepherd was, indeed, a bad and dangerous man, what was the impact of having Bull Shepherd off the streets for ten years? Were lives saved? Were the lives of decent people whom Bull Shepherd could not intimidate and corrupt made better? Were there people, in other words, who benefited greatly from having a criminal in jail and out of their lives?
These are tough questions for me. Having said that, thank you for doing what you do. I believe in a system where all parties have dedicated advocates. And, like many of my heroes, I do think we all drink justice from a communal source. Injustice for anybody poisons the well for us all.
Post a Comment
As I listened, three questions sprang to my mind.
One I asked in public, why wasn't this program of arresting crack street sellers (who, evidently, stood to gain little from their labors) more effective as a deterrent.
Two, which I asked afterward privately, why did crack use never catch on in the white community?
Three, which is more complicated, I have been stewing over for a while now.
My thoughts actually began to crystallize, at least in part, early on in the lecture when you noted the irony of the US Attorney in Chicago who made no effort to intervene as a criminal gang kept crack off the streets through murder and intimidation of potential crack posses. As a result of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by one criminal gang on other potential rivals, perversely, the streets of Chicago were safer. By doing the wrong thing (ignoring law breakers), the USA might have done the right thing for more people. As you noted, this is utilitarianism, which most of us are uncomfortable embracing as a guiding philosophy.
On the other hand, the obvious advantages of no crack in Chicago seem myriad. Life is complicated.
In that vein, I wonder about Bull Shepherd. Individually, within the scope of American justice and the Rights of Englishmen, we have come to the conclusion that 10 years in federal prison for a very small amount of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm is unjust. In hindsight, for many of us, the incarceration of the young Bull Shepherd was something of a travesty.
Here are my nagging questions. What kind of person was Bull Shepherd? Was he, in fact, a dangerous criminal? Or was he just a poor unfortunate person with the wrong color skin on the wrong side of town?
An Aside: a possible answer here might well be "yes." The either/or formulation is often a logical fallacy. He could have been both.
If Bull Shepherd was, indeed, a bad and dangerous man, what was the impact of having Bull Shepherd off the streets for ten years? Were lives saved? Were the lives of decent people whom Bull Shepherd could not intimidate and corrupt made better? Were there people, in other words, who benefited greatly from having a criminal in jail and out of their lives?
These are tough questions for me. Having said that, thank you for doing what you do. I believe in a system where all parties have dedicated advocates. And, like many of my heroes, I do think we all drink justice from a communal source. Injustice for anybody poisons the well for us all.
<< Home
