tvashtarkatena

Speaking of torture.... "our boys" "Men on the ground" That is soooo, like, 1968, myan. And here I thought the Whitey Tighties were into the whole chicks with guns thing. Oh wait, am I being mean to the pro-torture guy? My bad.

FYI - Tomorrow (thur) at 9pm, KUOW is airing on Speakers Forum a presentation given by Jeff Robinson (the civil rights attorney I mentioned in an earlier post) with state Supreme Court Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud at the UW on use of force and policing in communities of color. Should be very enlightening.

Wow. Good to have you still here on planet earth, Josh.

landmark cases are often anomalies by definition. this is how jurisprudence and civil rights often move forward. comparing different cases is always apples to oranges - the previous circuit cases briefly noted above did not include the compelling evidence of the two studies referenced earlier. even so, individual judges often disagree in their opinions - as they did in Far. v Greg. SCOTUS cases commonly flip flop as they wind their way through the appeals process. nothing unusual here. the takeawy is that Far. v Greg. ruling was so compelling that the state didnt appeal - a testament to the credibility and weight of the evidence presented. this makes the case a particularly powerful precedent. that its so difficult to prove a section 2 violation makes it even more so. .

gun ownership neither justifies nor explains the outlier number of police shootings in the US as compared to other civilized countries.

it might be if we get a request for that topic. all presentations are by invitation.

"In a departure from this majority view, two members of the three judge panel in Farrakhan v. Gregoire held that the discriminatory impact of Washington state’s disenfranchisement law stems from racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system; the resulting denial of the vote is, therefore, a violation of section 2. At the trial court level, the plaintiffs, minority citizens of Washington who lost their right to vote under the state felon disenfranchisement statute, presented reports of expert witnesses on racial disparities in all levels of Washington’s criminal justice system. The reports highlighted studies showing that these disparities could not be explained by legitimate factors such as minorities’ higher levels of criminal activity. Notably, one study found that “substantially more than one half of Washington State’s racial disproportionality cannot be explained by higher levels of criminal involvement” (Farrakhan, 2010, n. 5)." The state of WA did not appeal the case. Well, there's a few data points for you from some professionals in the biz with lots at stake. Real live lawyers and judges and stuff. Assess credibility as required.

You mean why do the conductors on Seattle's light rail look like a SWAT team and travel in pairs? That kind of thing? So somebody doesn't pay their $2.50... "GET ON THE FLOOR! SPREAD YOUR ARMS! DOWN ON THE FUCKING FLOOR!"

I took the time I would have spent circle jerking with a guy I neither know nor care about who's too lazy to do his own analysis of the link I posted and crafted a talk on drone technology, surveillance, and regulation, which I then presented to six high school classes. Then I went for a hike. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your approved time management philosophy. My bad.

It is true. I've known 5 victims of rape (not just attempted) personally - not one reported it. All were assaulted before their teens were over - when they were most vulnerable and least inclined to come forward. A common response to that kind of violence is to distance oneself psychologically from the incident - to bury it, hide it, etc. All kinds of deep emotions are involved, not the least of which is shame. Victims also report fearing further violence from the rapist. Over 80,000 American women report being raped to police every year, but studies indicate this is under reported by as anywhere from 75 to 95%. That translates to more than a million rapes - every year. Attempted rapes? Who knows? It's a huge problem in the US. Part of the solution is to expose and prosecute would be and actual rapists alike, to make examples of them (being a felony sex offender is no picnic) and help ensure they're not free to do it again, but that's easier said than done due to the natural human response to this particular crime.

You go, girl.

says the guy who's fucking around at work on CC. Same same, no? Data driven. I don't know what can't be known. I think a dead, unarmed kid who stole some Cigarillos is an outcome that can probably be improved upon. That's my assessment of the Brown incident. Not the fashion these days, perhaps. I know, I know - my shit makes zero sense.

You're haven't shown to be very data driven as compared to the other scientists I know, Jim, but my data is limited to this idiot box. Perhaps you apply more rigor to your profession. And FW - continue to enjoy your stalking! It's good to have a muse, and everybody needs a hobby. Embrace confusion. It's your constant companion.

On the radio, anyway. It's interesting to hear a so-called scientist proclaim with absolute certainty the hypothetical outcome of an experiment that will never be done, then accuse a person who has claimed nothing more than "that result can never be known" of playing armchair lawyer. I can safely say that every trial lawyer in this country will agree as to the uncertain outcome of any jury trial. Or any court case, for that matter. But hey, who's going to pass up the opportunity to star in one's own cartoon? Innernutz!

Or there's working for real justice, as an increasing number are doing today - galvanized by the events of Ferguson and elsewhere. No emoticons or passive aggression required.

It's like Obama cynically fixing the economy to spite conservatives and keep the democrats in power, probably. The nerve! What is the 'Brown Case', exactly? Is it on some court's docket? Link? Cuz, last I heard, the kid was dead. Habeas Corpus and all that rot. I do know citizens and organizations are banding together to reduce excessive use of force and discrimination in the criminal justice system, etc, but that would require discussing specifics, wouldn't it?

You don't and can't know how Wilson would have fared in a normal jury trial. No one does - it never happened. It's a pointless line of argument on its face.

Zero Tolerance - a train wreck of a policy philosophy popularized during the Reagan Era (when the War on Drugs really took flight - thanks, Gipper!) needs to finally die and be replaced by harm mitigation. What's the best outcome for all stakeholders, given the real (not mythical) nature of the human animal? How can we customize policy application to the granularity of the individual rather than blunt force it with an destructive, one size fits all mega policy? Why have we demonized some drugs while we tolerate and even encourage the use of other's that are orders of magnitude more destructive (Superbowl beer ad, anyone?). Now, I'm all for Superbowl beer ads - just not for criminalizing sooper bowls in the process.

As a public health issue, heroin, coke, and meth don't even register in comparison to prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. This is not to say that the hard drugs aren't a problem. They are. Prescription drugs are legal but regulated. That gives the system a pinch point for reform, and reform is happening. Try to doctor shop for recreational pain meds in this day of electronic data sharing and you'll see what I mean. Still a long way to go - managing pain without opiates remains a largely unexplored area in the professional medical community, for example. Regarding crime - burglary, robbery, and assault are already illegal, and they should remain so. The assumption is that everyone who uses drugs will commit those crimes (false), so use and possession should also be illegal. It's a fundamentally flawed model which had led to astronomical incarceration rates, massive discrimination, violent policing, a substantial erosion of basic civil liberties, a burgeoning for profit prison system, and enormous expenditures with only a more damaged society to show for them. Criminalization is clearly not the answer, however. Going on 43 years of drug war now - the US is still the number one illicit drug using society per capita - drug use hasn't decreased - and drugs are more potent, varied, and cheaper than ever. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Usage rates went down as addicts came forward, no longer fearing arrest, for treatment, enforcement expenditures went (way) down, and public education and treatment expenditures increased. Drug decriminalization in Portugal

Personally, I think WA's MJ tax structure is ridiculously baroque and way too high. No pun...

That is a concern of course, but it's also not a reason to continue to move forward. In fact, the more states that legalize, the harder politically it becomes for the feds - regardless of party, to turn back the tide. I don't know which states will probably legalize in 2016 - I'll check. Legalization is not the only step, of course. Med MJ and decriminalization provide intermediate steps to building down the War on Pot. The majority of state level jurisdictions (including DC and PR) have some from of legalization/decriminalization of pot now. Public sentiment is rapidly changing as voters discover that legalization does not, in fact, result in anarchy, zombie children, or an increased population of long hairs. Think same sex marriage. Between 2004 and 2006, 21 states passed same sex marriage bans. 8 years later, 35 states and 64% of our population enjoy equal marriage rights. Simply put: the GOP lost that one. Well, they're probably going to lose the pot thing (if, in fact, it will be a GOP issue in 2016 - which I doubt). Lot's of tea party support for legalization now. Not because they give a rip about civil liberties, really. It's because it makes money. Think legalized gambling. Money talks.

The public is on board for pot legalization not for the reasons you've mentioned, but because they recognize the negative civil liberties impact of prohibition. We checked with several rounds of voter surveys. Regarding the tax structure of I502 (not 501), That can be amended starting next year. Yes, the tax implications were considered when the bill was written by two of WA's most talented civil rights attorneys - Paul Lawrence and Matt Segal. Matt served on the ACLU WA board with me for 4 years, Paul still does. Smart guys. The state must also estimate the fiscal impact as part of the initiative process. So, a lot of eyes were on it. But I 502 was the first of its kind worldwide, so it's likely some adjustments will be necessary. A wave of other jurisdictions - 3 other states and DC (if congress doesn't screw it) have their own tax structures which WA is watching very closely. The supply problem in WA has nothing to do with the tax structure but everything to do with the licensing structure - 3 levels of licensing became available simultaneously - grow, process, retail - but of course, it takes time to do the first two steps before the third can happen. Short term problem that is predictably settling out on its own nicely. OR's simpler, single level tax structure is one model WA is looking at closely. Simpler is often better.

how do you know what voters will decide in 2016 and 2020 in all 50 states? you call yourself a scientist? where's your data? Here's a data point. Alison Holcomb, arguably the country's leading expert on drug policy reform, stated on saturday that a majority of voters want the drug war to end. that's today. lots of surveys will be done in the next 6 years

Ringworld

The ACLU's preliminary strategy for ending mass incarceration: End the War on Drugs. Legalize marijuana, decriminalize other drugs. Reform our drug treatment and education systems. Eliminate one size fits all policies like minimum sentencing and 3 strikes, so that judges and juries can act on a case by case basis once again. Reduce the severity of non-violent crimes, like California just did. Ban for profit prisons. End the school to prison pipeline. End our debtor's prison system by applying pressure to the worst actors. Reform our mental health system so that the mentally ill don't wind up being warehoused in jails in huge numbers, as they are now. This will be a strategic effort using all the tools available - initiatives, referenda, legislation, litigation, public education. Key swing states and those with the worst criminal justice records will be targeted, as will the low hanging fruit where reform will come more naturally. These successes will then serve as examples for action in other states. Actions will be timed coincide and influence the next two presidential elections - where voter turn out is higher and candidates will be under pressure to address the issue on the national stage. This will take a coalition of national organizations, of course - but many are primed for such a campaign already. It's going to take a while, but that's no reason not to start getting on it in a big way. Voters are already there in sufficient numbers to move things along. This will necessarily have to be a bi-partisan effort, and one that involves law enforcement in a big way.