Stopping Frisks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/24/1196149/-Stop-and-frisk-on-trial

Courtesy of the Center for Constitutional Rights

In this news story from the left-wing Daily Kos, the recent revelations that have shed light on racial profiling in NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk policy are examined and myths surrounding the case are debunked. The policy itself is picked apart piece by piece, painting it as ineffective and a harassment that predominately targets young black and Latino men in the City. The Kos doesn't limit the problem to NYC however, also point out that cities such as my own hometown of Philadelphia have tried to keep stop-and-frisk policies by propagandizing the virtues of such a program. While Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD defend the program and attribute the sharp drop in crime to the policy, the public who's civil liberties stand to be violated seem to be remarkably supportive of the practice. It is a practice that should not stand in a country such as ours, a public humiliation of sorts that stands to keep racial wounds open in urban environments.

Stop-and-Frisk disproportionally effects minorities and perpetuates a sense of inequality and institutionalized racism in the police force. It is a violation of the civil liberties of those stopped for behaving "suspiciously," a presumption of guilt based off a moments observance that goes against the entire system of justice in place. It keeps the jails full and gives policemen another quota they can fill. It's a bad policy that widens a divide between what the police department is supposed to represent and the perception of the force by minorities, and its potential unconstitutionality makes this an unacceptable use of taxpayer money by cities across the country. A police force is meant to serve and protect, but it seems like instead they're doing a disservice to themselves and the people of the Untied States of America.

Elephants Ride to War

The Grand Ol' Party is currently being savagely fought from the inside. As is detailed in this piece by the New York Times, the Club for Growth, a 501(c)4 organization with powerful political ties and aims, is championing a new future for an ailing republican party. But rather than taking the tact of pushing its members to any form of moderation, instead they make the claim that it is better for republicans to embrace sharp ideological differences with democrats and is taking aim at any republican up for election soon that may not be adhering to conservative ways. The willingness of the club to pursue its goals--even to the detriment of the party it has the most in common with--has gained it some negative press from within the party from people like Rich Galen and inspiring a delightful quotation from the spokeswoman for Representative Adam Kinzinger. But the clout that PACs now have within the political area--enough clout to begin challenging people for not conforming to that PACs expectations enough--is disheartening and a little troublesome to many.

Fear not, citizens of Earth.

In the case presented here, I think lies one of the best arguments for keeping political action committees around. In this article, the Club for Growth is presented in no partisan light, but rather a glowing light that shows PACs and extra-political organizations can merge with the existing system with little or no detriment! The party system is a great example, where money flows in and money flows out, but there is a general lack of corruption caused by such simple divisions. The main fear with PACs and interest groups is a lack of transparency, which many feel may engender such conditions of corruption and greed. My argument is this; the people behind these political action committees and interest groups are clearly moneyed, clever, and active within the political sphere. What would they have to gain from PACs; more money? As for influencing politics with money--i.e. buying an election--I think that its unrealistic to imagine a future where one party has all the money and creates a solidly single-party government, because I believe that no matter how apathetic or disinterested or disheartened the American people may be about the current state of discourse, they all agree bad discourse is better than none at all.

Media Bias Goes to Washington

In a new piece from the Washington Post, attention is drawn to the effects of the tech revolution on modern justice. In it, the effects of widely available media on the decisions and dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS are drawn into question. The transgressions of the justices are laid out in detail, as the court justices increasingly find support for their arguments outside of information presented within the case itself; justices on both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty. While there aren't rules for how statements must be researched, the ramifications of finding sources that may be wrong or improperly researched in supreme court decisions are indeed worrisome. The Post quotes Allison Orr Larson, a William & Mary Law School Professor in saying “If the justices want more empirical support for a factual dimension of their argument, they can find it easily and without the help of anyone outside of the Supreme Court building[.]”

It's a conundrum of sorts. In merging the ability to use super advanced technology built around quick algorithmic sorting of news and info-sites with a group of elderly law scholars in robes, we create legal decisions as plugged into the times as your average smart phone. I fear however, that this may cause our justices to get their information (and potentially decisions) from sources that may be biased or too far in line with that justices views. If a rift in the justices along partisan lines is allowed to deepen or entrench itself, the court will lose its flexibility that is key to the functions of the court. Furthermore, by basing case decisions off of evidence that wasn't presented within the given case, perhaps the core issue at hand could get lost in the shuffle of clerical data-crunching and the personal desires of the justice. One of America's greatest virtues is the system of justice we maintain and ensure all of our citizens; I hope it can remain enured to the bias-catering of the media.