Why should voters take something like this into account when they know that the legislature will just reject their will anyway like on Measure 57?

Sure.

In 2005, there was a bill to add a sentencing enhancement if the perpetrator was a member of a "criminal street gang." The bill I believe was introduced with good intentions, but in my view it would have clearly exacerbated minority overrepresentation. The fiscal cost was significent. Having a racial impact statement would have simply given the legislature additional information to consider. We could move forward with the bill, or we could consider other options to get to the end goal of improving public safety, like investing in a law enforcement gang task force in East Multnomah County.

The Oregon District Attorneys Association were okay with the bill. They suggested providing similar information on the racial makeup of victims. We thought this made sense since minorities are also disproportionately victimized.

That is, the Oregon District Attorneys Association was okay with the racial impact statement bill.

Seems like common sense to me. Legislatures often have fiscal or environmental impact statements prepared before engaging in complicated policy discussions. Why not make sure lawmakers enter discussions about criminal justice policy with their eyes wide open as well?

How about the disparity in victims? Chip wouldn't know about this because he's rich and wants to divert attention from the absolute train wreck of the early release program he authored that is creating new victims in the minority community as you read this.

What kind of racist system would he propose? That judges says "You're African-American...I am sentencing you to half the sentence because too many young African Americans are in prison for armed robbery?" This bill didn't pass because Chip couldn't convince members of his caucus to support this hare brained and fundamentally racist proposal.

Keep this up and the GOP really will recapture the legislature.

Interesting that this idea comes to us from Iowa. Until a few weeks ago I always figured Iowa to be an all white farming environment, but apparently the non-union meat packing industry has attracted huge numbers of workers from Mexico and SE Asia such that many communities in Iowa are having trouble adapting to very significant non-white populations.

I see no reason why the legislature should not have information regarding the full direct and impact of proposed legislation. I do wonder how this would work - will there be a demographic target for prisons? If a proposed statute increases the number of non-whites in prison, will the legislature be required to simultaneously increase the penalties for Meth or Oxycontin (two very white crimes) in order to raise the white prison population and keep the demographic target intact? Sort of a "cap and trade" system for convicts!

Iowa pioneered a common sense approach to reducing minority overrepresentation in the criminal-justice system.

“Overrepresentation”?! You make it sound like people are elected to prison.

Try using your energies to solve the root causes of high minority incarceration: drug use, weak family structure, gangs, a street culture that glorifies violence while denigrating education. I’m sure you can think of others.

If a law is viewed as unjust repeal it or modify it for that reason, not as part of some quest to be the most politically correct politician in the house.

This is nothing but classic goverment mission creep mascarading as addressing a problem with a remedy. Some left wing notion of unfairness and the push for equality and fairness driving policymaking and busy work for bureaucrats.

Marvelous. And where will the money be diverted from to pay for this?

You want to know how to "Eliminate Disproportionate Minority Contact in Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems and reduce minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system"?

Get rid of the OEA and the parasite control of the public school system which traps minorities for decades in schools (Jefferson)teachers would never send their own kids to.

The death grip of the failed status on our public school system which many of you contribute is shameless. And all for your politics over kids.

"Opponents [progressives] of school choice are running out of excuses as evidence continues to roll in about the positive impact of charter schools."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499592392782438.html

You want to help?

Stop obstructing real progress.

Richard,

OEA has squat to do with determining where kids go to school or whether they can be transferred or not. That is district policy, decided by the School Boards and administration of the districts (ie---the non-OEA members in the equation). The OEA is responsible for representing their members at the bargaining table (with the Board and admin on the other side) and for upholding the agreed upon contract so that it's members rights aren't violated. Go read some of the OEA contracts--they mention NOTHING about how kids are assigned to schools or when/how they can be transferred.

I realize that blaming the OEA for every problem in the state is a knee-jerk reaction on the part of some folks, but this it's totally off-base in this instance. OEA doesn't set district policy. If you feel that district politicies regarding school assignments and transfers are the problem, you need to address the school board and/or superintendent for that district. OEA members simply do their best to teach/serve the students who are assigned to them by the district.

And for the record, I don't think the schools are to blame for the disproportionate number of minorities who are convicted of crimes anyway. But that's another discussion.

"Chip, interesting post. Before the lunatics and trolls show up, I wonder if you could address the obvious question:

Why should we be studying the impact of various sentencing proposals on demographic groups? A crime is a crime is a crime, right?

Can you share an example where this sort of study might make a difference in the policy outcome?"

At the risk of being considered a lunatic and/or a troll, let me suggest why people should study crime and punishment. This might lead them to understand why people become criminals. Aristotle recognized one factor, and two and a half millennia of history have proved him right. Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. There are other factors that come into play, but Aristotle's maxim is fundamental. Bring an end to poverty and you'll reduce (not eliminate) crime. One of the reasons there are so many minorities in prison is racial bigotry that put many of them in impoverished ghettos and saw to it they received harsher sentences than whites for similar or lesser crimes. A number of studies have shown, for example, that minorities caught with crack cocaine get heavier sentences than whites with the pure stuff.

How about the white collar crimes committed by whites ripping off millions of dollars from thousands of people leaving some of them destitute and only getting a few years in prison while some poor black in the South gets more time for being caught with a few ounces of marijuana.

... with liberty and justice for all. Yeah, right!!

Benny Goodman led one of the great bands in the swing era of the previous century. He was once asked why some of the neighbors that he grew up with in Chicago went into crime and he didn't. His response was that they were given guns and he was given a clarinet. Besides poverty, culture is another factor in crime.

It isn't as simple as "A crime is a crime is a crime, right?"

How crazy are we going to get finagling the bottom line rather than have an equitable society in the first place? If every demographic group has an equal stake in preserving civility, they will. I have no interest in this "how can we keep a class down, deal with resulting 'crime', but not have to see ugly statistics, like 1:4 black men is on custodial supervision". Glad it disturbs you. Now really do something about it. You get a chance all the time. Take the Urban Growth Boundary. This problem starts with White Flight. Stay and fix your neighborhoods. And I'm not talking gentrification.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 16, 2009 9:41:39 PM

Chip, interesting post. Before the lunatics and trolls show up, I wonder if you could address the obvious question:

Hate to be off topic, but since you've already dismissed my comment and what you said is soooo interesting, I won't resist.

So, you are saying the point is valid. You also realize that there's a particular kind of poster that would ask it. Preemptive logic. That can only work if you have a priori decided that a style makes someone a troll. It's the motivation that makes someone a troll. If you say it's the style, then you are admitting that a troll is someone who says something, which may be valid, but you don't like how they said it.

"Stupak voted..." kept trying to get across the idea of fact-based logic versus social relationship based logic, and this is a shining example of that difference. I've said that I think one can make a very strong case that a troll is someone that trolls the blogosphere, looking for a place to post statements which will cause a reaction, without engaging in bona fide debate. You thought the word came from the fact that trolls are ugly little people, right? See, content vs social.

But, of course, that wasn't responded to when I said it, because the way I said it made me a troll.

Oh, but Kari does so tempt with that wonderful new journalistic device. "I would never ask this, but, since I'm so much more suave than those trolls, I'll deign to put it out there".

So, I'll ask the logical question before those who don't have any social graces butt in, "are criminals the cause of crime or are ghettos"?

Oh, make sure you subtract out "all the lunatics and trolls" hit count before you take ad. dollars for those hits. Meanwhile, on another thread, "Richard" is hitting copy/paste, off topic, on Kari's posting, and nothing is said.

You should definitely have Mandate Media bid on DOD statements about the situation in Iraq. "Just ignore the trolls. They'll go away". Since then they are 5x greater. "No change in policy, it's actually working". And Obama is pulling us out of combat. How Dem.

Ms Mel Harmon,

If I just rode in on a load of peaches your little elementary sermon might be informative.

The OEA, PTA and their democrat politicans have everything to do with where and how children are educated. They are to blame for Jefferson and every other disservice to minorities.

OEA has a lot to do with determining where kids go to school, especially when it comes to offering them oportunities to escape the prison of the democrat lousy school system through alterntives such as charter schools.

This could be Jefferson. http://reason.tv/video/show/unlocked

There isn't a policy the teacher's union does not have pull with.

I doubt anyone here, least of all me, needs any run down on how district policy is established and school boards function. Neither do I need any lecture on what the OEA or Portlnd Teachers assoc does. However it looks like you do. Every seen a teacher contract yourself and the shackles it puts on management? It's insane. No it doesn't state where students go to school or when/how they can be transferred.

That certainly wasn't what I said.

The union is resposnible for the entire structural problems which fills that contract with foolish and extreme agreements as well as underlying controls whihc perpetuate the Jefferson model for decades.

I blame you to, figuratively speaking, as you represent how the status quo is sustained and why so many kids are harmed by it. The OEA can be blamed for many problems in the state. That isn't a knee-jerk reaction but a reconition of a track recrod, pattern and realities our system faces.

The teacher's union does set policy by demanding what should not be granted. For instance when the PTA was made to contribute 6% to their own retirement the district was cooerced into compensating them more than the 6%. The district couldn't afford it and this has hurt the education of many children.

There are lots of approaches whihc could be used to lesson the acheivement gap and other beneifts which the union blocks. It is you who needs to address the school board and/or superintendents and politicans. As for the member teachers, I have known many and have a thorough grasp of their special talents and fine work they do. More so than you it appears. The union is entirely different.

Will you ever figure it out?

I don't think the schools are to blame for the disproportionate number of minorities who are convicted of crimes either. The disproportiate rate comes from who is committing crime, period.

That can be addressed through a superior education system which the unions prohibit. That's this discussion.

Re: the expansion of the urban growth boundaries (UGBs). This is a device primarily for the benefit of developers, but there is no question it has facilitated the development of gated communities throughout Oregon. We certainly have our share in Central Oregon.

"This is a device primarily for the benefit of developers"

What a whopper.

Lestadelc: You might want to reconsider your comment in light of it being in agreement with Richard.

In many communities there would not have been room for gated communities or it would have been difficult to create them. Expansion of UGBs in such cases facilitated their development. This is not to say that expansion of the UGBs was the primary factor in creating gated communities. It just made it easier to create them.

Let me put this in simpler terms. Let's say a city is fully built up and some developer comes with plans to create a gated community but he can't find a parcel large enough to accommodate his plans. So he goes to the city council and gets them to expand the UGB. They do and - presto - the expansion of the UGB has facilitated creation of a gated community. Expansion of the UGB didn't create the gated community. It just made it possible. No doubt there are cities where gated communities have been created without expansion of the UGB, but that doesn't invalidate my point.

In any event, thank you for maintaining a civil and courteous tone in the debate despite taking exception to some of the points.

Bill B said "understand why people become criminals" and "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime".

As much as I agree with some of what was said, it seems that the rush to a causal relationship between poverty and crime is ill-conceived. Pure statistical data indicates a relationship between poverty and crime, but the idea that poverty causes crime (“is the parent of…crime”) is quite a stretch.

I think that the number one cause of crime is a lack of ethical standards that stand against crime. Not religious standards, although they are certainly in place. But the social and relationship standards that tell us what is right and wrong based upon how we wish to be treated ourselves. We can come down on either side of our own responsibility for poverty. But the question remains as to how much responsibility one has for oneself. If someone chooses crime, then they made a bad choice. And the life lived previous to the crime is certainly a part of that choice. But choices are choices. And if we stop holding people responsible for their choices, where are we?

I think that often, crime causes poverty as well. How many jobs are available for those convicted of crime? Fewer than if the applicant had not been convicted? Of course! Any employer can choose to not hire a convicted criminal. And the higher paying the job, the higher the likelihood that there is a background check performed in the hiring process. So criminals don’t have access to higher paying jobs. I don’t see this as a problem.

Interestingly, in several countries recognized as desperately poor, the crime rates don't bear out this relationship. Perhaps because there isn't as clear a connection as you propose?

Richard,

So you're a fan of charter schools and OEA opposes same. Okay, that's a bridge we can't build. And you clearly are not a fan of PERS (big suprise since you are so clearly anti-union). That's another bridge that we can't build. And I won't even try.

But I am curious about your other claim in which you stated: "Get rid of the OEA and the parasite control of the public school system which traps minorities for decades in schools (Jefferson)teachers would never send their own kids to."

Show me the language in a current OEA contract that leads to this situation.

And by the way, I know many teachers and support professionals and respect and admire their work. These education professionals ARE the union. The OEA Board is made up entirely of OEA members as are the President and VP. If you speak ill of the OEA, you speak ill of it's members.

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and not the OEA.

""Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime".

As much as I agree with some of what was said, it seems that the rush to a causal relationship between poverty and crime is ill-conceived."

Poverty creates an environment that is conducive to crime. It doesn't create crime. Countless people have been raised in poverty and become solid, sometimes superlative, citizens because other factors were involved.

Poverty is not confined to people without or with minimal money. Poverty of character can also be a factor in contributing to crime. Where financial poverty prevails conditions make it more difficult to build character given how human nature works in some people.

If a single parent has to work two jobs and her/his child is a latch-key kid, then that kid is in a precarious position with a shortage of parental guidance and so many temptations to do what is wrong.

It's an interesting idea, provided that victim information is provided as well. Honestly, I have yet to see a single debate on a law and order issue on BlueOregon that appropriately considers victims in criminal justice reform policies.

The larger issue is really the profound, but invisible, impacts that many decisions in Salem have. The legislature is full of well meaning intelligent people, but a salary in the mid-$20s doesn't exactly give a huge opportunity to explore the issues.

Ms Mel Harmon,

Of course the OEA dirty work, such as attacking charter schools, is not in the teacher contracts. Although many clauses in the contracts they coerce are insidious, counter productive for education and hurts kids.

Yes I am a fan of charter schools, just like President Obama. And they are very progressive yet the OEA attacks them. Yes "attacks" through conniving means with ODE, COSA, OSBA and their puppet legislators they got elected.

You just ignore that bridge as if it doesn't matter?

That's out of line.

No I am not a fan of PERS. It's excessive, unfunded, robs coffers for education, and a very good partial reason to be anti-union.

Of course you don't want a bridge built there either.

Again you don't care what it does or costs students.

Are you pretending you don't know chapter and verse how the OEA and PTA operate and control our public school system?

Yes get rid of the OEA and the parasite status quo control of the public school system.

We didn't have them before 1974 and the outcome has been current batch being the least educated generation since.

Despicable.

But here you are suggesting if it isn't spelled out in an OEA contract it's not happening?

How OEA of you.

I too know many teachers and support professionals and respect and admire their work. These education professionals would be so without the totalitarian union and it's insidious politicizing of our public school system.

I guarantee you many of your own members speak ill of the union.

When they speak ill of the union they are speaking ill of the union and it's hierarchy.

DID YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO?

This could EASILY be Jefferson. http://reason.tv/video/show/unlocked

Exactly how this video shows they tried to in Watts, the teacher's unions sentence children to failing schools all over the US.

Shame yourself. Watch the video and defend the union.

Richard,

I'm not willing to build bridges with you on Charter Schools and PERS because such a debate would be useless. Our positions are polar opposite therefore I see no point in wasting time debating those issues with you...besides which they weren't the subject of this post.

As for my original question to you, since you are unable or unwilling to provide one example of concrete proof to back up your ridiculous claim, I see no point in further debate with you. If/when you explain how OEA "traps minorities" we can resume discussion. Until then, I'm writing you off as yet another anti-union right-winger having a knee-jerk reaction, making statements that are illogical and can't be substantiated. And my time is too short to waste on people who don't actually want to have a discussion and back up their statements. See ya.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 17, 2009 12:07:08 PM

Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 17, 2009 10:48:55 AM

Again with your delusional nonsense the UGB is racist policy.

Other way around. Not having one is racist policy.

Your further comments on the subject lead me to believe that we are in agreement on that one. I agree 100% about "have you looked around were they don't have such things". Might I suggest that the doubters take a trip to Houston?

Rick, I agree that the correlation is loose. I think the error term in the data is inflated by painting poverty with too broad brush strokes. There is voluntary, involuntary and punitive poverty. When I say that poverty causes crime, I'm saying being systematically disenfranchised from participation in civil society is a cause of crime. That can happen with or without poverty, but there's a strong relationship.

Agreed about ethics. Why would someone start a non-profit promoting amateur cricket with the tag line, "Cricket is religion"? That prob definitely isn't limited to the poor, as Wall Street so often reminds us. Call me extremely old fashioned and stodgy, but I blame the lion's share on Hollywood. Washington declined being a monarch because he grew up reading about Cincinnatus. Those that were in charge at Abu Graib grew up watching Rambo. Blame Hollywood for 90% of failed marriages and peoples' unrealistic and irrelevant expectations. It's just as wild as our uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere. Most societies control the images and narratives youth hear. Our free expression is a wonderful thing, but letting commercial interests portray anything as real for a shorterm buck is a real roll of the dice. I would also cite it as the main reason that Americans are so reality testing challenged. That leads to unsustainable behavior and people demanding things that can't work.

Don't have a clue what to do about that one. I think it's rather like a dramatization of the idea that BBC radio had in it's sitcom "Old Harry's Game", where Satan has an overcrowding problem in hell, and infiltrates various media boardrooms, to try and have TV set better examples with its programming (like "Perfectly Satisfied Housewives", and a scene in East Enders where a guy is getting roughed up for not paying the mob back and the guy tells them that they're not getting their money, he sent it to a village in Uganda). It doesn't change people and it just makes for crappy programming.

"If/when you explain how OEA "traps minorities" we can resume discussion. "

If you don't think the teachers union leads the blockade stopping school choice then you're living in a cave. That's why I gave you the reason.tv video link. To see the teachers union in action.

That is common place and the same MO here in Oregon. Watch it and defend the union.
You and yours have trappped students in Jefferson-like schools for decades.

Of course you run and hide from it. If you genuinely remain unaware of the aggression the teacher's union uses then you are very weak.

Richard,

You seem confused. Perhaps you didn't get geography in the charter school you attended. The video is not from Oregon. I have no idea what takes place in teacher unions in other states and it's not my concern. You state the OREGON Education Association does this and when called on to prove it, show a video from an entirely different state and say "well, see, OEA COULD do the same thing!". Stop insulting my intelligence. PROVE your statement, that OEA does this. You know, never mind. You can't or you would have already. I'd say your "argument" is weak, but it's actually non-existent. I'm done with this thread.

"Stop insulting my intelligence. "

If you try to debate Richard with any hope of a successful outcome I will question your intelligence.

Yeah sure Bill.

Ms Mel. Gee a different state?

Try and pay attention and don use your words in place of mine.

The video is a dramatic and very real demonstration of the way teacher unions obstruct progress in our public school systems.

I never said "well, see, OEA COULD do the same thing!".

That's your silly confusion and obfuscation at work.

The OEA is an aggressive amchine working full time to attack any forward progress which they see as threatening their domination. Yes the OEA does this. However the idea that I would have to prove it here for you to accept it is laughable. Anyone familliar with K-12 knows full well the extent and methods the OEA represents.
IMO you already know their MO and are playing games to defend and cover for them.

Your lofty union opposes all charter school, opposed any real reform through Chalkboard and made completely uselsss PPS's "Strategic Plan" which after 700 people spent countless man hours was never adopted.

Our public school system would be far better off without them and the Democrat policitcal machine they are.

If you call your obfuscation intelligence then I see why you're insulted.

"Bill, this is a gross distortion, etc."

Dan: You have a point to some extent. I almost wrote "billions" instead of "millions" but thought better of it because there are pikers who rip-off "only" millions and I wanted them included. If I had used only "billions" some people might have ignored the lesser evils. I should have used both. Similar with crooks who only get a few years and those who get away with it. I should have added the latter. Both categories apply.

Well played. At least you got Richard to stop saying, "whopper", Ms. Mel!

If you ignore what he was trying to say, through the mangled grammar, and take the last sentence literally, it's an apology.

If you call your obfuscation intelligence then I see why you're insulted.

you can't legitimately throw some video from another state into the mix, even if it came from the Libertarian Gods at reason.

Nope. Not ours.

<hr/>