Midyear 2007 Report of Jail and Prison Inmates

Three or four time each year I review the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Criminal Statistics. There are several reasons for this. First, I am simply research oriented and like to be grounded in facts about issues. Next, these statistics actually tell how the powers that be really define our view of criminality and how the systems is changing, or staying the same, at any given time. Hence, I try not to become too jaded and try always to remain skeptical of government statistics.

For example, our government does not regularly emphasize crimes that are committed by white ethnic groups, but really emphasizes the types of crimes committed by the minority ethnic groups, particularly black Americans. Take for example the crime of arson, which I refer to as “white boys rioting,” does not get emphasized by our government. Arson takes lives and destroys billion of dollars of property every year. Another example is embezzlement, the name we use when whites steal, is not widely reported by our government. Still another example is rape that occurs on college and university campuses. Whites commit a good deal more rapes on college and university campuses per capita than blacks, but you won’t hear very much about these statistics. When I receive the updates on these “white-collar crimes,” I’ll let you know.

At first blush, one might think that it is the violent crimes that society is concerned about and therefore robbery, murder, car jacking, etc., will naturally get reported more than non-violent crimes. Not really. Rape is just about as violent of a crime that one can imagine and so is arson. However, since I am a political scientist and a lawyer, I usually report on violent crime. A sociologist would certainly take a different approach and explain the social nature of crime, how “crime” changes as society develops or changes, whereas a psychologist might explain crime in terms of deviancy. So, you see, there are different ways of looking at (or feeling if you’re blind) the elephant’s parts Now, to the subject matter.
…

Each year our government tells us what we already know: we are paying too much to jail folks and too little to rehabilitate them, especially the vast majority who are sentenced for non-violent crimes. Every year we re-learn that the vast increase in inmates is due to putting folks in jail for non-violent acts. This does not excuse crime; it just recognizes the nature of the beast. President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the danger of the military-industrial complex (which we now have with a vengeance), but few politicians have the guts to warn us of another industrial complex: the prison-industrial complex. Every time the prison population drops below 95% capacity, the prison-industrial complex takes action to protect its interest. I watched this phenomenon for my first three years in the practice of law—criminal law. I did mostly criminal misdemeanor. When the jail population would shrink, you’d see defendants being arrested for spitting on the sidewalk! (Yes, I do mean spitting here. I am not writing poetry, spitting!) I have no evidence of this, except my observation. Strangely, I know of no studies on this phenomenon. Now, I said that I’m no sociologist—so to work!

Jail Inmates at end of Midyear, June 2007.*

Each year we are told just how skewed the criminal statistics are against blacks. As of June 2007, blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and six times more likely than whites to be in jail.

Thirteen million persons were admitted to jails the 12-month period ending June 29, 2007. The number of in custody persons in smaller jails decreased, while the number of in custody in larger jails increased significantly. This tells us that the increase at large facilities is probably “minority laden,” e.g. blacks and Hispanics. About six in ten inmates were racial minorities, blacks and Hispanics, but blacks were by far the most numerous: an estimated 300,000 plus thousand to an estimated 125,000 Hispanics.

It must be emphasized that these statistics are rough, very rough. For example, many “white” Hispanics escape because of color and name misidentification by jailers. Also, many multiracial inmates escape classification. But on the whole, the statistics give an indication of the reality of the jail inmate population. Statistics are a little like stereotypes; they bear some truth just as long as they do not become a religion.

At midyear 2007, our jails were 96% full. On any given day, the land of liberty incarcerates about 800,000 folks. Why do our jail population hover at about 96% full on a daily basis?

Prison Inmates at Midyear, June 2007:*

As of end of June 2007, U.S. held 1, 595,034 prisoners, 87.5% were under state jurisdiction and 12.5% were under federal jurisdiction, not counting inmates in jail, which would bring the total to approximately 2,300,000. There is no overall good news here. From the end of 2000 until 2006, admission to prison grew by 3.1% while releases from prison during this same period was down to 2.8%. The net effect is to increase the in custody population.

Statistics don’t tell the whole story because any given year parole violations and violations, which are violations by persons on supervised release, account for roughly one-third of “admissions.”

California is the largest state by population and had the largest absolute number and percentage increase of “admissions” for parole violations. For example, in 2006, 64.9%

of all “admissions” were for parole violations. (I use “admission” because technically being on parole is merely being in prison, but on a leash).

_______________
*All statistics are from Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2007,” and “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007” For a more detail look at statistics cited herein, you can go to: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
It is obvious what incarceration means to individuals. What does it mean to the three largest ethnic groups in America, whites Americans, black Americans and Hispanics?
First the largest increase in the custody population goes to Hispanic men. Blacks and whites held fairly stable and black women custody declined during this period. Again, statistics can be easily taken out of context. The best way to understand the cost of imprisonment of each of the major ethnic groups is to look at the number per 100,000 of each group that is incarcerated.

If you are a black male in American at the end of June 2007, you were imprisoned at the rate of 4,618 per 100,000, (down from 4,777 midyear 2000) ; if a white male, you were imprisoned at a rate of 773 per 100,000, (up from 683 at midyear 2000).
So, as of the end of June 2007, a black male was 6 times more likely to be in custody than a white male, (down from 7 times more likely at midyear 2000.)

For the black man’s sister, there is little to smile about. As of June 2000, black women were incarcerated at the rate of 380 per 100,000 in comparison to only 63 per 100,000 for white women. Thus black women were incarcerated at a rate of approximately 6 times that of white women as of end of June 2000.

However, it looks like black women are getting a bit wiser because as of June 30, 2007, the rate had dropped to 348 per 100,000 but for white women it rose to 95 per 100,000. This represented an 8.4% decline in incarceration rate for black women and a whopping 51% increase in the rate for white women. There can be no question that white women are becoming much more violent and more inclined to commit crimes. Among other things, this means that white women are becoming more anti-social and less caring about family values. People who commit a lot of crime tend to have less respect or care about others. It should be noticed that, while a 32 per 100,000 decrease in imprisonment is commendable for black women and hopefully that decline will continue, the narrowing of the gap between black and white women was due primarily to the increase in white women criminality. As of midyear 2006, black women were 3.7 times more likely to have been in prison than white women, down from 6 times more likely.

Summary and Conclusion:

Overall, whites and Hispanic jail inmates increased at about the same average during the period from 2000 to 2007. Black jail inmates increased at a slower rate. This does not take into consideration illegals that are detained or arrested when caught in violation of United States Laws, Title 8, Section 1325, that makes it a crime to illegally enter into the country. Also, I have not discussed the known fact that black men’s incarceration takes place overwhelmingly during what should have been their most productive part of life, between ages of 19-34 years of age.


---------------------------------------------------©All Rights Reserved.
By Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He practiced employment law for fourteen years. He is the author of many articles and of a new book: While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: www.zitpub.com, bookstores and at Amazon.com To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Sistercide: The Limits of Feminism

The success of Hillary Clinton may well turn out to be a curse for black-white feminism and the murder of any black-white female solidarity. It all hinges on how far white women want to engage in racial revenge. Yes, racial revenge!

White women have voted for white male presidential candidates from time immemorial in America. The only variation has been which of the lesser evils—democratic or republican candidate. Now, 22% of the ones who voted for Hillary say they would rather vote for McCain rather than for Barack Obama. Why? (I believe the leader in Ohio was one of Thomas Jefferson’s descendents who wanted to drum Thomas Jefferson’s black descendants out of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Organization. What does that tell you about this opposition?)

To be sure, some of the resentment is taken out on Senator Obama because he deflated the hopes of white women, and not a few black women, by defeating Senator Clinton.
Rather than seeing her as a competent competitor who was out strategized by Obama, white women prefer to see Clinton’s defeat as a manifestation of a widespread venomous anti-feminine conspiracy denying Clinton to a nomination which white women felt entitled. It was not.

Had Obama made as many mistakes, missteps, and miscues as Clinton made in her campaign, these women would have been attributing his mistakes to his inexperience and as such dismissed his candidacy as a good run for a novice—and a black. Obama did not make a single significant mistake during the entire primary campaign. His problems were delivered to him from outside of his campaign, principally by his former pastor.

Still, white women are angry. Their anger is a manifestation of two significant problems that plague black people:

1. The propensity for a group discriminated against to see themselves as the victim, e.g. engage in a victim hood philosophy; and,
2. Racism disguised and rationalized; for any of the facile excuses; this is white racism, pure and simple. Blacks are known to have engaged in these two reactions time and time again when the root of the problem had nothing to do with racism.

The cry of victim hood or self-pity is a well-entrenched practice by groups who have oppressed or discriminated against. This cry is all the more voluminous when the group has a little confirming history on it side. Certainly, white women have both history and denial of opportunity on their side. Perhaps they can now better understand the cries of victim hood by black Americans, perhaps. If white women carry through on their threats to vote for McCain instead of Obama, they will commit “sistercide”-- killing off future significant cooperation between white and black women for a generation to come. The sisterhood between black and white women has always been laden with tension and this tension goes back to the abolitionist-suffragettes movement.

If white women voters carry out their threat and vote for McCain, it will mark the end of substantial cooperation between black and white women for decades—even among those black women who supported Clinton. This would generate a movement in the black bloggersphere to denounce any future sistercide by white women as false and as racism, even if the mainstream media tries to ignore it—especially if Barack loses.

This brings me to the racial element.

Blacks know that white women’s reactions are not simply based on disappointment with the defeat of Hillary by Barack. Blacks understand that much of this bitterness by white women is based on racism—pure and simple. White women have from time immemorial voted for white men in the United States. Now, suddenly white women declare that they are going to take out their bitterness on the black guy—a man who has their interests at heart and whose platform is almost identical to Clinton’s. Why would white women take such a harsh stance against their own interest? The answer is they do so because of latent and blatant racism, the sin quo non of irrationality.

We now live in the You Tube generation and in the bloggersphere era and there is no way that black women will forget or forgive white women if they vote against Obama and he loses.

The question is will white women commit sistercide by supporting McCain, a man who opposes a woman’s right to choose, opposes universal health care, opposes health care for children and supports a hundred-year occupation in Iraq?

Freedom means the right to be stupid and vengeful and even to commit suicide. It also means the obligation to accept the rules of the game and live with them. Will the real white women democrats stand up?

###
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------©All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given. Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://zitpub.com, and available in all bookstores July 1, 2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.

Hillary Shows Her True Colors--A Classless Person

At the onset of this political campaign, Hilary Clinton has done everything in her powers to show contempt, not just disrespect, for Senator Obama. Consider her actions and her statements:

#1. He’s too nice to be president;
#2. I am inevitable;
#3. Refusing to congratulate him when he won in Iowa;
#4. Trying to belittle his accomplishments in winning most of the states and particularly his wins of most of the caucuses;
#5. Changing the metrics: Back in October 2007, she clearly stated that the votes in Michigan would not count and everybody knew it;
#6. She “offered” him the Vice-President spot on the ticket when she was behind and losing in the race!
#7. She stated that Senator McCain had experience to be “commander-in-chief” and that she had the requisite experience too, but all “Senator Obama had was a speech.”
#8. When her “metrics” changed, she stated that Senator Obama had “high jacked” her delegates in Michigan;
#9. And tonight, she arranged to hold her speech three floors below ground, with no monitors in the room and out of bounds for cell phones in order to avoid acknowledging that Obama had clinched the democratic nomination!
#10. She refused to congratulate him on his winning the nomination;
#11. All she could do was to muster acknowledging that he had run a good race;
#12. Her campaign let word out that she needed time to come to grips with the situation and she stated that she wasn’t conceding—which is either a bold-face lie or a statement of a chaotic campaign since even a fool could have seen this lost coming since early March;
#13. She refused to concede either the loss in Montana or the nomination to Obama;
#14. Finally, she and Bill have arrogated to themselves the right to be on the ticket as vice-president—thus a slap at Obama’s right to select his own vice-president.

I used to admire Hillary, but I am thoroughly sick of her now. If Obama puts her on the ticket, I would have a real problem voting for them. She has shown herself to be without class.
Does America want or need such a person as our President?

Now, contrast this with Senator Obama’s speech…


To make matters worse, many commentators have gone along time-after-time with this clap trap of the Clintons. If the “shoe were on the other foot,” how many commentators would have been so generous? Oh, excuse me, the press is anti-Clinton…What a crock!

---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. To read his blog, Dr. Aikins Political Commentary, go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.