Jun 12, 2008
Lurking around every corner is a city council member with an agenda
Cam Gordon wants to repeal the lurking law on the basis that it is unfairly applied to minorities and doesn’t produce a high conviction rate. What is your real agenda here Cam, or are you just that crazy? The law is being applied to those that are breaking it no matter what race they are. Why repeal a law based on higher rate being committed by one type of person or another? Maybe we should repeal all shoplifting laws if we found that most of the arrests were of women. Let us repeal all of the speeding laws because we find that a great deal of them are dealt down to lesser charges (like unlawful acceleration). Stop wasting time Cam and get back down to the real business of the council. Maybe the real problem is that not enough of these cases get convictions, ever think of that? I would hate to see someone arrested for lurking who doesn’t get convicted and then attacks someone. Maybe, Cam, you don’t care about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your assertion that the Lurking ordinance "is being applied to those that are breaking it no matter what race they are" is unproven. Why? Because only 19 of the 136 adults arrested for Lurking in '07 (or 14%) were convicted of committing the crime. That's the legal standard that defines "breaking the law" in this society: being convicted. Not being arrested.
This is the problem with crimes which rely on police and prosecutors to determine and prove "intent" to commit a crime. Other livability crimes have concrete, visible, provable behaviors: someone tagged a wall, urinated in public, had an open alcoholic beverage in public, etc. That's why the vast majority of these arrests result in convictions.
This is why your metaphors don't work. Shoplifting is a provable behavior: someone took something and tried to leave without paying for it. Perhaps you believe we should criminalize "intending" to shoplift, and allowing police officers to arrest people based on their subjective assessment of that "intent." CM Gordon does not.
In a racist society - and yes, any serious study of racial disparity in poverty, unemployment, arrest and incarceration makes clear that our society is still deeply racist - those on the receiving end of racism will look more "suspicious" than others. Their behavior will more likely be taken as indicative of "intent to commit a crime" than exactly the same behavior on the part of a member of the majority population.
This is why the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia is looking into whether the Lurking ordinance violates the International Covenant on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (to which the US is a signatory and which obligates all units of government to eliminate racially discriminatory laws).
You ask about CM Gordon's agenda, and it is simply this: to spend our precious public safety resources effectively and constructively, and to make our city a more just place for all. And I'll have to respectfully disagree with you: this IS the business of the Council.
Post a Comment