Friday, January 02, 2009

Senator Webb on Prison Reform

Via Ross, a Washington Post article on Jim Webb looking to reform . . . something having to do with prisons. In between assertions about how mavericky Webb is for taking on this issue, we read:

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals.

[snip]

In speeches and in a book that devotes a chapter to prison issues, Webb describes a U.S. prison system that is deeply flawed in how it targets, punishes and releases those identified as criminals.

[snip]

A disproportionate number of those who are incarcerated are black, Webb notes. African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, but they comprise more than half of all prison inmates, compared with one-third two decades ago. Today, Webb says, a black man without a high school diploma has a 60 percent chance of going to prison.

Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.

Nothing here about protecting white prisoners from rape and assault by black prisoners. Instead, he's concerned about (I gather) ex-cons' "citizenship rights". What rights would those be, Senator? The right to keep and bear arms? Somehow I doubt that makes his list. Indeed, I would bet you that the only "right" that concerns him is their right to vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrat candidates.

Meanwhile, the problem of ex-con employment is real enough. But what "policy" of the government "hinders" their ability to find work on release? The policy of massive immigration that makes a relatively crime-free Mexican a better bet for an employer than a black with a sheet? Somehow I doubt that makes his list either. In fact, the only government "policy" I can think of are those that make criminal background checks easy for employers to make; the employers thereby reserve job offers for those who haven't been in trouble with the law. What, exactly, is Webb proposing here? That ex-cons become a protected class? That discrimination against them in hiring be illegal? This isn't as far fetched as it sounds: all it would take would be to find that such discrimination has a "disparate impact" on minorities.

To its credit, the Washington Post prints the push-back:

Tom Riley, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Policy Initiatives, said it has become an "urban myth" that the nation imprisons vast numbers of low-level drug offenders.

People are often surprised to learn that less than one-half of 1 percent of all inmates are in for marijuana possession, he said. And those offenders were caught holding, on average, 100 pounds.

"That's a pretty different picture than I think most people have," Riley said. "It's true, we have way too many people in prison. But it's not because the laws are unjust, but because there are too many people who are causing havoc and misery in the community."

I've read before that simple drug possession charges are almost exclusively reserved for the very gang members that Webb says he wants to target but for whom it is very difficult to make any other case. But I doubt Webb will care. This is his SWPL play to attack law enforcement for not arresting more whites.

Senator Webb has gradually pissed away everything about himself that made him such an interesting candidate in the first place. He's now just a garden variety liberal with fawning press coverage.

2 comments:

trumwill said...

This is your forum and I'm going to try not to get too heated here. I apologize in advance if I do.

Instead, he's concerned about (I gather) ex-cons' "citizenship rights". What rights would those be, Senator? The right to keep and bear arms? Somehow I doubt that makes his list.

I thought Webb was pro-Second Amendment? Didn't he get in trouble for breaking gun laws?

Indeed, I would bet you that the only "right" that concerns him is their right to vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrat candidates.

I have to confess that I believe that ex-cons should be allowed to vote. That being said, I wouldn't expect ex-cons to vote overwhelmingly for anyone because they're not exactly the civic-minded kind.

This is his SWPL play to attack law enforcement for not arresting more whites.

Errr... so when he says we should be going after criminals that perpetuate violence such as gang members, you think he's talking about white people?

And the system's method of dealing with parolees is completely non-productive and in need of reform of some sort. I never thought much about it until I lived among them for about a year and a half. It's in need of repair but nobody wants to touch it for fear of being considered soft on crime (or having to budget for further incarceration in lieu of parole).

I don't know if that's what Webb has in mind, but I do think it's a good thing that he's drawing attention to it. Despite the fact that he comes from a conservative state where such initiatives are not popular. It's not like he's doing this from a lofty Senate seat in Vermont. He's really not doing himself any favors by pursuing this.

Burke said...

Trumwill: Thanks for commenting. Don't worry about being heated; your writing and commenting have always been temperate.

It seems pretty clear from the Post article, and especially the quoted sections, that the overrepresentation of blacks among the clientele of the criminal justice system is what exercises Webb.

If the police devote insufficient resources to the supression of gang activity, then this should be addressed; however, (a) I'm not sure how local law enforcement priorities are a federal concern, and (2) it's not clear that this assertion is true anyway.

Without knowing the specifics, I'll grant that Webb is pro-2nd Amendment in general. But nobody, from Webb to the NRA, is going to come out in favor of allowing convicted felons to buy guns. So I ask again: to what other "citizenship rights" is Webb referring? Indeed, what other legal disabilities do convicts face that could possibly be on the table?

I'm not sure what the voting rate is among convicts in those jurisdictions that allow it; I am sure that it is overwhelmingly Democrat, if for no other reason than it is overwhelmingly black. So without taking a position on whether felons should be allowed to vote, it is not hard for me to discern the naked political calculation motivating Democrat attention.

As for parolee servicing, I'm prepared to believe that it needs reform (as do most government operations), and I would appreciate your, and Webb's, specific recommendations in this regard. But to the extent that the system puts a priority on protecting us from criminals, I'm predisposed to favor it.