«

»

Want Help? Ask Conservatives

Everyone know that only Democrats care about minorities. Everyone knows that only Democrats care about the poor. Everyone know that only Democrats care about women. Republicans just like to cruise around in their limos laughing at the plight of those less fortunate than them. Meanwhile, Democrats can’t sleep at night because they are so worried about the oppressed masses. Right? Right?

Let me introduce you to Shaneen Allen:

Last October, Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in Atlantic County, N.J. The officer who pulled her over says she made an unsafe lane change. During the stop, Allen informed the officer that she was a resident of Pennsylvania and had a conceal carry permit in her home state. She also had a handgun in her car. Had she been in Pennsylvania, having the gun in the car would have been perfectly legal. But Allen was pulled over in New Jersey, home to some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States.

Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term.

There is a wide prosecutorial discretion here (more on that in a moment) but it looks like the prosecutor is going to throw the book at her. Allen is the kind of person the Left is supposed to be in a tizzy over — a single working mom doing her best who is about to be crushed by the system. But the liberal Ecosphere has said little, if anything, about her. You know who is taking up her cause? If you said conservatives and libertarians, move to the front of the class. Here is National Review, for example, trying to make her case a national issue. True, this is because conservatives believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But they also believe in justice. And there is a growing awareness of the massive disparities in how gun laws are enforced.

As it turns out, Allen’s case isn’t unusual at all. Although white people occasionally do become the victims of overly broad gun laws (for example, see the outrageous prosecution of Brian Aitken, also in New Jersey), the typical person arrested for gun crimes is more likely to have the complexion of Shaneen Allen than, say, Sarah Palin. Last year, 47.3 percent of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black — a racial disparity larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes. In a 2011 report on mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that blacks were far more likely to be charged and convicted of federal gun crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences. They were also more likely to be hit with “enhancement” penalties that added to their sentences. In fact, the racial discrepancy for mandatory minimums was even higher than the aforementioned disparity for federal gun crimes in general.

This isn’t just a matter of black people committing more crimes. In cases where the prosecution is discretionary — such as the enhancement penalties — this is far more likely to happen to black criminals than white ones. And conservatives like Rand Paul have been making this point more and more forcefully of late.

Oh, speaking of Rand Paul … Just last week, Jon Stewart discovered civil asset forfeiture, the process by which the government can seize your property or money by alleging it has committed a crime (that’s not a typo; they literally charge the property with a crime). It will surprise no one that while asset forfeiture casts a wide net, it also has a tendency to fall heaviest on minorities and on poor people who can’t fight back. Anyone want to guess the party affiliation of the man who has proposed to overhaul asset forfeiture law and give people greater civil service protections?

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.

It’s not perfect. But it’s a huge improvement over the existing regime, where local law enforcement can bypass state regs by turning the seized money over to federal agents, who take a cut and give it directly back the law enforcement agencies.

But there’s still more. Let’s move away from crime and toward poverty itself. Last week, Paul Ryan suggested a new set of policies to try to reduce poverty. He would consolidate numerous programs into block grants to the states, expand the EITC, reduce regulations and push criminal sentencing reform. Even some liberals are admitting these are good ideas. They will reward work and expand opportunity — the two things the poor need a hell of a lot more than slightly larger piles of government cash.

There’s been some controversy over Ryan’s proposal to have chronically poor people meet with councilors who will help them improve their lives. But as Megan McArdle points out, while the chronically poor are a small part of the poor, they consume a huge chunk of the benefits. And it is chronic generational poverty that is the true suffering. Ryan’s plan sounds a bit too paternalistic to me. But it’s got to be better than the absent father method our current system upholds where we just throw money at poor people and hope it will magically make them unpoor.

So in just the last week, we’ve seen conservatives oppose arbitrary ruinous enforcement of gun laws, oppose asset forfeiture and propose a new version of welfare reform (after the last one lifted millions out of poverty). You add this to the ongoing push for school choice and you have a platform that would greatly enhance freedom and opportunity for millions of people, most of who are poorer and darker-skinned than your typical Republican.

And the Democratic Party? Well, their big issue right now is trying to save the corporate welfare that is the Ex-Im bank.

Look, I’m not going to pretend the Republican Party is perfect on these issues or any other issue. And there are plenty of Democrats who support the above policies. What I am going to suggest, however, is that the caricature of the GOP specifically and conservatives in general as uncaring racist sociopaths is absurd.

Update: This isn’t strictly related, but you know how Democrats have been whining about the cost of higher ed and the burden it is imposing on the middle class? Well evil conservative Republican Mitch Daniels is not whining, he’s doing something about it.

5 comments

No ping yet

  1. richtaylor365 says:

    Question, If Lars from Amsterdam decides to visit Indonesia and takes his heroin with him, how stupid would you call him when going through customs he announces that he is in fact carrying heroin in his bag?

    A Penn. CCP don’t mean dick if you are in NJ (says so right on the permit, only good for the state issued) . Officers have more discretion for infractions or misdemeanors, all felonies are a “must arrest” with the implicit understanding that weak cases will not be pursued by the DA’s office. If she would have kept her big mouth shut, after getting her ticket she would be sent on her merry way.

    Re: penalty enhancements, they are not discretionary, at least not in California. Once voted on in the legislature, the enhancement time is tacked on, then is recorded and tabulated for those pointy headed academicians to measure cause and effect for later crime statistics.

    Re: asset forfeiture (like capital punishment, I supported the idea initially but the process has been perverted to the point of losing my assent), cleaning up the process will go a long way to establishing efficacy. The concept is sound, confiscating the ill gotten gains of law breakers, but only after the trial, only after guilt has been determined, and only after an articuable link can be established between the crime and the property seized, seems simple enough.

    Re: Ryan’s new proposals on reducing poverty, naturally he will get blow back from the left, they are purveyors of poverty. Like racism, income inequality, and sexism in wage allocation, it’s very existence is music to their ears, it legitimizes and empowers them, makes them relevant. Without these societal ills, why else would you vote democrat?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Seattle Outcast says:

    I’ve never understood how asset forfeiture passed the constitutional sniff test – I mean, there is no “due process,” it’s just simple theft by police.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Hal_10000 says:

    Good points, Rich but it seems to me that an absence of mens rea should weigh in on this. She wasn’t smuggling weapons or something. Under NJ law, there are exemptions for transporting weapons (for example, if you are going to a firing range and they are unloaded). And there are options beside jail. From the link:

    Discretion is a a big factor in the Allen case, too. According to Nappen, Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain could have put Allen in a diversionary program for first-time offenders of victimless crimes that would have allowed her to avoid jail time. He didn’t. “Let’s remember, Shaneen Allen volunteered to the police officer that she had a gun and a permit,” Nappen says. “This isn’t something she was trying to hide. She didn’t think she’d done anything wrong. This was a victimless crime, and it’s just unconscionable that they’re putting her and her family through all of this. It could all be avoided.” Nappen says McClain has yet to give a reason for refusing to allow Allen into the diversionary program. McClain’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. richtaylor365 says:

    Many crimes do not require the element of mens rea (drunk driving for instance), this is really no different from my heroin example, legal where I live but not where I travel.

    Under NJ law, there are exemptions for transporting weapons (for example, if you are going to a firing range and they are unloaded)

    The same in California, but they must be in plain sight (not concealed) and not loaded. She made a big mistake but where we all agree is that this should have been handled differently. A more seasoned cop would have made the weapon NJ complaint (unloaded it) and sent her on her way. But even with an arrest, 40 days in jail is utter bullshit, have her post bail and kick her.

    I don’t get why the DA is playing hardball, i’m thinking there is more to this story but a diversionary program sure seems appropriate to me.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Ed Kline says:

    “Re: asset forfeiture (like capital punishment, I supported the idea initially but the process has been perverted to the point of losing my assent), ”

    Of course you supported it. I assume you didn’t have either the imagination or the cynicism to see how it would eventually end up being abused. But you’re getting older, and from what I can glean of your postings of late, better.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      

Leave a Reply