Justice Denied: Most States Have Not Obeyed Court Ruling on Juveniles Sentenced to Life by Frederick H. Lowe

June 29, 2014

Justice Denied: Most States Have Not Obeyed Court Ruling on Juveniles Sentenced to Life
Overwhelming majority of juvenile lifers are African American; Some States Exceed 80 percent

By Frederick H. Lowe

A prison cell is home for life for many Black men who were convicted of murder as
teenagers.

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from TheNorthStarNews.com

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 28 states cannot automatically sentence juveniles to life in prison for murder without the chance of parole, a decision that affected mostly imprisoned black boys, only 13 states have changed their laws to comply with the ruling, but 15 states have not passed any statutory reforms, according to a study by The Sentencing Project, which works for a fair and effective U.S. criminal justice system.

The justices' decision and some states' response to it is a clear indication that states will respond quickly to some of the court rulings but not to others.

For example, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, some state legislatures quickly moved to erect barriers to voting by African Americans. Fifteen states have passed laws making it more difficult to vote in the November midterm elections and in six states, groups are challenging the laws.

Following the case of Miller v Alabama, some states' governors and legislatures increased the minimum time that a person who was sentenced to prison as a juvenile must serve before being considered for parole.

A juvenile who was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he committed before his 18th birthday must serve 25 years in Washington and North Carolina and 40 years in Nebraska. The reluctance or the refusal of states to enact laws to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision also underscores how difficult it is to enact and pass certain laws.

"A majority of the states have ignored the court 's ruling and relief has not been granted as advocacy groups expected," said Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., senior research analyst for The Sentencing Project and author of the report "Slow To Act: State Responses to 2012 Supreme Court Mandate On Life Without Parole." The Sentencing Project is based in Washington, D.C.

On June 25, 2012, in the case titled Miller v Alabama the U.S. Supreme Court banned the use of mandatory life sentences without parole for teenagers who committed murder. In their decision, the justices noted that juveniles have a proclivity for risk and impulsivity and the relative inability to assess consequences, all factors that should mitigate the punishment received by juvenile defendants."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, however, that states could impose life without parole but only after a judge considered each individual case’s circumstances.

At the time of the court's ruling, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico and the District of Columbia had banned life without parole for juveniles.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have made legislative changes, according to The Sentencing Project, have banned life without parole sentencing for juvenile offenders.

On the other hand, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Virginia have not passed laws that comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.

Others have skirted the law altogether

Following Miller v Alabama ruling, Iowa Gov. Terry Bransted commuted all of the sentences of juveniles serving life without parole to a minimum of 60 years, leaving their status unchanged, according to the Sentencing Project.
"Justice is a balance and these commutations ensure that justice is balanced with punishment for those vicious crimes and taking into account public safety," Bransted said in announcing his order.

States’ response to Miller v Alabama is mixed in other ways. State Supreme Courts in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska and Texas ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court decision is retroactive. Supreme Courts in Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania ruled just the opposite. In May, however, a federal court in Minnesota ruled that Miller v Alabama was retroactive.

The majority of the 2,500 men and women who were sentenced as juveniles to life without parole are African Americans, according to The Sentencing Project.

'Lion of Harlem' Roars to Victory

June 29, 2014

'Lion of Harlem' Roars to Victory

U. S. Rep. Charles Rangel

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Richmond Free Press

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, “theLion of Harlem,” roared again on election night, June 24. In still unofficial results, the 84-year-old congressman overcame a fierce challenger in the Democratic primary to virtually ensure a 23rd term representing New York’s13th Congressional District.

With all precincts counted, the results show Rep. Rangel was ahead by 1,800 votes over state Sen. Adriano Espaillat in this rematch. Overall, Rep. Rangel claimed 47.3 percent of the vote to 44.6 percent for his rival, who also lost two years ago. After Rep. Rangel was declared the winner, the sound system that had played “I Will Survive” earlier in the night at his victory began blaring “Happy” by Pharrell Williams.

The primary win is tantamount to election since the winner is expected to be unopposed in the November general election. Rep. Rangel said that win or lose, this would be his final run for office. He was first elected to the seat in 1970 when he defeated incumbent Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Sen.

Espaillat was seeking to become the first Dominican-born member of Congress.The two men also squared off in 2012, a primary Rep. Rangel won by about 1,000 votes. One of the nation’s most powerful Black elected officials, Rep. Rangel has been the liberal voice for a district that was once heavily African-American but is now majority Hispanic.

Been Through the Fire by Dr. E. Faye Wiliams

June 29, 2014
Been Through the Fire
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

(TriceEdneyWire.Com) – So often in my life I’ve heard people mention the trauma of a fire in their home. Since Sunday, June 15, 2014, I can truly say that I’ve Been Through the Fire! On that day, the basement of my home was totaled by fire, and the rest of the house was engulfed by so much smoke that I’m not sure I’ll ever stop smelling it. Like many, I bought insurance, but never thought I would experience a fire in my home. Inevitably you underestimate the value of your life’s accumulations. I sure did.

Obviously, I’m blessed and grateful that I came through the fire. I had just stepped out of the house for 10 minutes or less when smoke raged rapidly. A neighbor noticed and called the Fire Department. Numerous fire engines, police and ambulances showed up in what seemed like just 2 minutes. Maybe it was a few minutes more, but I know they arrived pretty quickly. At times like that, you are grateful that you have a fire station near you.

If you have never been through a fire while it is engulfing nearly everything you hold valuable and dear, you can’t imagine the feeling when the Fire Department arrives and, in an orchestrated manner, the firemen methodically break your windows and doors, punch holes in your roof and ceilings while you stand by helplessly. You want them to put out the fire and let out the smoke, but when they’ve finished, it seems that nothing you hold dear is left to cherish—except your life. I have learned to be grateful for that.

Maybe this writing can be called cathartic, but I pray that it’s a reminder of the importance of doing all you can to prepare yourself for the possibility that one day, you might be faced with a fire in your home. Make sure you have fire insurance that is kept up to date, with dates of purchase of everything in your home. Record a description of the items in your home and keep the recorded information some place other than in your home. Keep a list of everything you have in your home—preferably by room-by-room. Make copies (or at least keep photographs) of pictures, art work and awards.

I once heard a little tune that said, “If you’re catching hell, don’t hold it; if you’re going through it, don’t stop.” When so many of your precious belongings burn up or are lost to you for any reason, you really feel like you are going through hell—but you can’t allow that to stop you from soldiering on. After looking at all of my losses, I choked up a bit, but soon sucked it up and told myself, “Those were things, and I can get more things.” I tell myself that several times a day, so I’ve had no headaches, no high blood pressure and no depression! I’m carrying on my normal day-to-day activities and looking forward to being in my next home.

Friends have been wonderful. Even people I never thought noticed my work or cared what I do for others have been there for me, and I’m learning to accept their kindness and generosity. When you’re always one who is doing for others, it’s hard to switch gears and be the recipient. Even though I lost a lot in the fire, I know I’m blessed. I know such things can happen to any one of us. My point in describing what happened to me is to remind others of something President Lyndon Johnson once said and of which I constantly remind myself. He said, “How incredible it is that in this fragile existence we should hate and destroy one another.”

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is President/CEO of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc. www.nationalcongressbw.org and www.efayewillilams.com. 202/678-6788

Student Debt: Probably as Bad as We Thought by William Spriggs

June 29, 2014

Student Debt: Probably as Bad as We Thought
By William Spriggs

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The Brookings Institution, looking at data from 2010, has issued a report claiming the student debt issue isn't as bad as people think. Using Federal Reserve data on households headed by 20- to 40-year-olds, they conclude that horror stories of people struggling with student debt are exaggerated. Problem is, more current data suggest student debt is more serious than Brookings suggests.

The Brookings study looks at the debt among households headed by people ages 20 to 40, which means it misses people who have returned to their parents' households, or had incomes below $1,000 and who weren't making payments on their loans. The data used in the study was incomplete and therefore skewed. In 2010, the incidence of adults living in "shared households," that is adults living with other adults (including adult children not in school living with their parents), increased from 27.7 percent in 2007 to 30.1 percent in 2010; including an increase of about 300,000 children 18 to 24 living with their parents. The Brookings data ignores this group. In October 2010, among those 16 to 24 no longer enrolled in school, the unemployment rate for those who had some college or an associate's degree was 15.4 percent for men and 10.6 percent for women; and was 9.9 percent for men and 9.3 percent for women with college degrees. It is likely, those unemployed may have missed Brookings' earning cutoff or struggled and were not making payment on their loans.

What the Brookings study does not cover is the more recent period, in which student loan debt has become a problem for more than just young people as more debt is being held by parents. The New York Federal Reserve Bank reports that overall student debt increased from $363 billion in the first quarter of 2005 to $579 billion in the first quarter of 2008. By 2010, it stood at $758 billion and by the end of 2012 was at $966 billion. The Brookings snapshot of 2010 was at a midpoint in an escalating debt issue. Meanwhile, the average student debt balance grew from $21,867 in 2010 to $24,803 by the end of 2012. The Brookings study excludes this data because educational attainment of the borrowers isn't available. However, the more current data show how big a problem student debt is in the economy.

What the Brookings study tries to suggest is that young college graduates in 2010 who borrowed money for school aren't struggling with student loans more than in the early 1990s. From that perspective, the student "debt crisis" isn't likely to cause new problems for the current generation seeking to buy homes, cars or start retirement savings. As with the housing bubble, we shouldn't worry that overall debt is rising because the value of the underlying asset is rising, too.

Well, there are two problems with that. The earnings of those 20 to 40 is not rising. The median income for households 25 to 34 in 2012 was slightly below the 1988 level. And, the more recent data for newly minted college educated workers' wages is that they are flat for men and down for women since 2000.

Further, the increase in student debt incidence is not limited to young people. Student debt held by those 40 to 49 nearly doubled from the onset of the Great Recession at the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2012, from $87 billion to $167 billion, while the number borrowing increased from 4.2 million to 6 million. The delinquency rate (those more than 90 days late) rose from 11.2 percent to 16.1 percent. This may be hurting young people more, since many home purchases by young couples are aided by parental gifts. And, while these loan volumes and delinquencies do not create the risk to banks that mortgages do, the weakness of the household balance sheet is a risk to the real economy because it shows the potential fragility of demand for other goods and services.

The Brookings study does remind us that the increase in students taking out loans reflects the increasingly diverse college student body and potentially greater intergenerational mobility. This is emphasized by the National Urban League's report on African American college students showing the large number of "independent" adult college students and the relative low income of black students, which means greater needs to borrow. What is disturbing is that the Brookings study overstates the case that loans are affordable, undercutting the need to lower student loan interest and debt service.

Follow Spriggs on Twitter: @WSpriggs. Contact: Amaya Smith-Tune Acting Director, Media Outreach AFL-CIO 202-637-5142

Common Sense Says Go Slow in Iraq by Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

June 29, 2014

Common Sense Says Go Slow in Iraq
By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The furious debate about Iraq is largely a debate about blame, not about solutions. The neo-conservatives who sold the invasion of Iraq on the basis of fables about weapons of mass destruction now want to blame Obama for “losing Iraq.” Unrepentant, they have once more flooded the media — Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, even Paul Bremer, who headed the ruinous post-invasion occupation.

But Gen. Colin Powell, Bush’s secretary of state and former chair of the Joint Chiefs, had it right when he cautioned against the invasion, arguing what was dubbed the Pottery Barn argument that “if you break it, you own it.” The invasion broke up Iraq and shattered stability in the region. Obama inherited the shards of broken glass. Cheney and his claque want to blame him for not putting the pieces together again. Obama at least had the good sense to get American soldiers out of the mess (although their removal, ironically, was agreed to by George Bush and enforced not by Obama but by the government of Iraq that refused to accept a so-called “residual force.”)

Affixing responsibility for the debacle is important because it helps us decide whom to trust going forward. But it doesn’t provide much help in figuring out what to do. The civil war between Shiite and Sunni and Kurd now engulfs Syria and Iraq, with Iran and Saudi Arabia and the emirates involved in supporting various sides. One of the perverse effects of the Bush-Cheney invasion is that it produced a militantly Shiite government in Baghdad, allied with Iran and intent on suppressing the minority Sunnis in Iraq, to the dismay of our allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The Bush debacle is measured in millions displaced, trillions wasted, hundreds of thousands dead, and thousands of U.S. casualties, dead and wounded.

But the scope of the folly is that all that misery and sacrifice produced a government allied with our adversary in the region and aligned against our allies. On solutions, the debate has been virtually devoid of common sense. Many seem to think that precision, limited bombing will have transformative power, leading to peace, negotiations, coalition government, a revival of the moderates.

This is frankly silly. There’s already a lot of violence in this expanding civil war; adding a bit more to it isn’t a remedy. First, we have to understand the limits of our interest. President Obama argues that our interests are deeply engaged — in stability of the region, in the supply of oil, in the security of our friends from Israel to Jordan, and even in the security of our “homeland,” which could be threatened if the vicious ISIS terrorists consolidate a safe haven stretching from Baghdad to Damascus. But this, too, seems exaggerated. Obviously, we have an interest in stability of the region — one reason invasion was so foolish.

But the civil war isn’t really a threat to our security. Iraq’s oil is not essential to the world economy, much less to ours. And the terrorist ISIS forces will be constantly besieged, and hardly a threat to the U.S. In reality, the U.S. has neither the interest nor the resources nor the public support to “resolve” the civil war now raging across the Middle East. We should revive the “coalition of the willing” to offer outside pressure for negotiations and peace. We should be willing to bring our regional allies together with our regional adversaries like Iran to see if a settlement is possible. And we should act economically to limit the damage. But the last thing we should do is commit more lives and more treasure to a limited military intervention that will only add fuel to the fire.