Except From “The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States” – Sophia Kerby, March 13, 2012 from Americanprogress.org
1. While people of color make up about30 percentof the United States’ population, they account for60 percentof those imprisoned. 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.
2. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,one in three black mencan expect to go to prison in their lifetime.. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximatelythree times more likely to be searchedduring a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almostfour times as likelyto experience the use of force during encounters with the police.
3. Students of color face harsher punishments in school than their white peers, leading to a higher number of youth of color incarcerated.Black and Hispanic students represent more than70 percentof those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement. Currently, African Americans make uptwo-fifthsand Hispanicsone-fifthof confined youth today.
6. As the number of women incarcerated has increased by800 percentover the last three decades,women of color have been disproportionately represented. While the number of women incarcerated is relatively low, the racial and ethnic disparities are startling. African American women arethree times more likelythan white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated.
7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses.According to theHuman Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise14 percentof regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses.
8. Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences compared to white offenders.The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offendersreceive sentences that are 10 percentlonger than white offenders for the same crimes.
9. Voter laws that prohibit people with felony convictions to vote disproportionately impact men of color.An estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote based on a past felony conviction….ultimately denying13 percentof African American men the right to vote. Felony-disenfranchisement policies have led to 11 states denying the right to vote to more than10 percentof their African American population.
“Affluenza” DUI Case: What Happened the Night of the Accident that Left 4 People Dead – By CailaKlass -December 31, 2015 from CNN.com
The so-called "affluenza" case of a Texas teenager who caused a fatal car accident that killed four people and severely wounded another made national headlines in 2013 when then-16-year-old Ethan Couch's defense team used an unusual argument.
During Couch's sentencing, a psychologist hired by the defense testified that the teen was a product of "affluenza" -- a term he used to describe Couch's irresponsible lifestyle associated with his affluent upbringing -- and that irresponsible parenting had "strongly enabled" the accident, despite the fact that Couch had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit on the night of the crash.
The Moment of the Fatal Accident
As Pastor Jennings, Hollie and Shelby Boyles and Mitchell were waiting on the side of the road, Ethan Couch pulled out of his driveway. A highly-intoxicated Couch sped down the narrow two-lane country road, reportedly travelling at nearly 70 miles per hour and even playing chicken with oncoming cars, according to Tarrant County Assistant Criminal District Attorney Richard Alpert.
Couch's reckless driving set off a chain reaction that resulted in a horrific and fatal scene. Assistant Criminal District Attorney Richard Alpert explained to "20/20" that swerving back over caused Couch to go off the road and hit the disabled SUV and all four people standing around the car. Couch's truck then hit Brian Jennings' vehicle and knocked it
What Happened After Ethan Couch Admitted Guilt
Following the crash that rattled the tiny town of Burleson, prosecutors charged Ethan Couch with four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault. Couch admitted guilt, and the sentencing hearing that followed garnered international attention and sparked outrage.
At the December 2013 hearing, Couch's powerhouse legal team called prominent psychologist Dr. G. Dick Miller to the stand to testify on Couch's behalf. Miller claimed that Couch's wealthy upbringing and a lack of consequences for his actions caused him to suffer from "affluenza."
During his deposition, Miller said he had "strongly" recommended in the criminal sentencing that Couch needed to be separated from his parents and that their parenting "strongly enabled" the deadly accident.
Assistant Criminal District Attorney Richard Alpert said Miller "got up there and he talked about the fact that the reason for this crime was he was a child of privilege and his parents didn't say no to him. It was ridiculous."
But while the prosecution advocated for 20 years behind bars, the judge sentenced Ethan Couch to 10 years of probation and time in a rehab facility.
Think Religiously Motivated Discrimination Can’t Affect You? Guess Again – James Esseks -October 4, 2017 from the ACLU
Aimee Stephens knows first-hand how religiously-motivated discrimination can wreck your life. Aimee worked as a funeral director for a Michigan funeral home for six years. Aimee is a woman who is transgender, but for six years she went to work presenting as a man, while she struggled to be able to live her life as a woman. When she could hide no longer, she came out to her boss. Two weeks later, he fired her, saying “this is not going to work out.”
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Aimee’s behalf, seeking a remedy for the funeral home’s blatant sex discrimination. The funeral home didn’t deny that it fired Aimee because she was going to present as a woman. Instead it said that federal law allows it to fire her because of the funeral home owner’s religious belief that it’s a sin to transition from one gender to another.
A federal judge in Detroit agreed with the funeral home and dismissed the EEOC’s suit. The judge ruled that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permitted the funeral home to useto justify discrimination against transgender employees.That court’s view, if allowed to stand, would carve out an exception to federal civil rights laws for any employer with religious beliefs that support discrimination. And it could authorize not just anti-transgender discrimination, but discrimination based on race, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation – in short, all civil rights protections that are basic guarantees of equality in America.
The ACLU,representing Aimee, is before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today challenging the trial court ruling. While the freedom of religion is a core American value that’s protected by the Constitution, religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate.
Aimee Stephens’s case is just one example of how those opposed to LGBT rights are seeking to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. Later this fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in another religious exemptions case,Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that case, a bakery outside Denver refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig citing the bakery’s religious objections to gay people getting married. The Supreme Court is set to decide whetherthe bakery has a constitutional right to discriminate based on its religious beliefs and its artistic freedom.
Anti-LGBT advocates are also trying to use religion to deny people health care. In a Texas case, health care providers have challenged federal rules that bar discrimination inaccess to health care. They argue that such rules violate their religious freedom in requiring them to provide health care to transgender people. And in California, aCatholic hospitalrefused to perform a hysterectomy on a transgender man, arguing that its religious beliefs justify turning the patient away.
In the past, courts have largely rejected attempts to use religion to discriminate. But our opponents haven’t given up. We need to fight back, for Aimee Stephens and for LGBT people all across the country.
Trump officials roll back birth control mandate – By Jessie Hellmann – October 6, 2017 From TheHill.com
The Trump administration on Friday rolled back an ObamaCare requirement that employers include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.
Under highly anticipated rules published Friday, any for-profit or non-profit employer or insurer canstopfollowing the birth control mandate on moral and religious grounds.
The changes also let publicly traded companies obtain a religious exemption but not a moral one.
The rules take effect immediately.
ObamaCaremandated that employers offer health insurance that covers birth control without a co-pay, with exemptions forhouses of worship and some companies.
According to senior HHS officials on a press call Friday,employerswill not have to file anything with the government to stop offering the birth control coverage;instead, they simply have tonotify their employees of the decision.
The move could potentially impact millions ofAmericans who now receive birth control with no co-payments.
The changes follow an executive order President Trump signed in April that instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to address "conscience-based objections" to the mandate, which has faced strong opposition from religious schools, charitable organizations and priests and nuns.
Shortly after Trump’s executive order, former HHS SecretaryTom Pricevowed he would take “action in short order to follow the president’s instruction to safeguard the deeply held religious beliefs of Americans who provide health insurance to their employees.”
The decision is a big win for social conservatives,a voting blocthat strongly supported Trump in the presidential election.
Senior HHS officials who declined to be named said the intent of the rule is to provide "relief" to groups that have been engaged in legal battles over the mandate since its inception in 2012.
"We should have space for organizations to live out their religious ideas and not face discrimination because of their religious ideas. That was the case beforehand, and that ends today," said one HHS official.
The officials argued that 99.9 percent of women won't beaffected by the rule, a conclusion they reached by considering the 200 entities that have participated in lawsuits against the federal government over the mandate.
An earlier study commissioned by the Obama administration showed that more than 55 million women have access to birth control without co-payments because of the mandate.
When the mandate was implemented, it required all health insurance offered by the vast majority of employers to cover at least one of 18 forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Women’s Law Centersaid Friday they wouldchallenge Trump administration'schanges in court.
“Today’s outrageous rules by the Trump Administration show callous disregard for women’s rights, health, and autonomy. By taking away women’s access to no-cost birth control coverage, the rules give employers a license to discriminate against women," said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the NWLC.
"This will leave countless women without the critical birth control coverage they need to protect their health and economic security. We will take immediate legal steps to block these unfair and discriminatory rules.”
"This onerous mandate is a burden on employers, individuals, and religious organizations who, because of their beliefs concerning the protection of unborn human life, are faced with the decision to violate sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, pay steep fines, or forgo offering or obtaining health insurance entirely," said Melanie Israel, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation.
Religious hate crimes are on the rise – By Evan Wilt – May 2, 2017 From world.wng.org
WASHINGTON—Hate crimes against minority faiths spiked 86 percent in the last 12 months—even as analysts believe many incidents continue to go unreported.
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee sought answers from civil rights leaders and the Trump administration about the lack of reporting and why religious minorities—particularly Jewish and Muslim Americans—are a growing target.
“Religious hate crimes against Muslims are the fastest growing category,” said committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “Fear for practicing one’s religion should never happen in this country. This problem has been growing for some time, and is not new.”
FBI data indicates hate crimes against Muslims rose 67 percent between 2014 and 2015. But Jewish Americans continue to be the most targeted for hate crimes. In the first quarter of 2017, statistics show 541 reported anti-Semitic incidents—including 161 bomb threats, an increase of 127 percent from this time last year.
Hate crimes make up 4 percent of all violent crime in the United States. Race-related crimes are most common, followed by religiously motivated incidents. But the FBI also recognizes as hate crimes targeted threats or attacks against individuals based on their nationality, gender, age, or sexual orientation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said hate crimes are particularly concerning in her home state, which saw a 78 percent increase in crimes against Muslims last year. She said the FBI reported about 5,000 hate crimes within the United States in 2016, but due to inaccurate data, Feinstein said that number could be as high as 300,000.
Last year, the Justice Department provided training to more than 1,400 law enforcement agencies across the country on how to recognize and report hate crimes. Treene said accurate reporting is important to allocate the correct number of resources, but the agency already recognizes a religious hate crime problem and is deploying staff and resources to counter it.
“What we’ve found is those who hate aren’t terribly discriminative of their victims,” Treene said. “If someone is angry at Muslims they will attack Sikhs, Middle-Easterners—people who look different.”