FBI Director Defends "Mass Incarceration"

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

YankeeFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
55,078
From his speech this week in Chicago:

When I worked in Richmond, Virginia, in the 1990s, that city, like so much of America, was experiencing horrific levels of violence. But to describe it just that way obscures an important truth. For the most part white people weren’t dying, black people were dying.

Most white people could drive around the problems of Richmond and so many other cities in America. If you were white in Richmond, and not involved in the drug trade, as either a buyer or a seller, you could escape the violence, you could avoid the problem. But if you were black and poor, it didn’t matter whether you were a player in the trade or not, because violent crime dominated your life, your neighborhood, your world.


Like so many in law enforcement in the 1980s and ‘90s, we worked hard to save lives in those neighborhoods in Richmond, by rooting out drug dealers, and gangbangers, and predators, and killers. And of course we also worked up the chains to the foreign sources of the drugs that were poisoning Richmond. But we felt a tremendous urgency to try to save the good people of those poor neighborhoods in Richmond. We worked in part through a program called “Weed and Seed” that some of you may remember. We worked hard to weed those neighborhoods by removing those who were strangling it. But we did that so that seeds could be planted to grow something that would be good and that would fill the space and prevent further weeds. The dream was that someday maybe kids could play in the parks and old folks could sit on the porch and watch those kids play.

And I remember doing that work and being asked at the time, “Why are you doing so much prosecuting in black neighborhoods? And locking up so many black men?” “After all,” folks would say, “Richmond is surrounded by large suburban counties with large white populations and surely there are drug dealers in those suburbs?” And my answer was simple: “We are there in those neighborhoods because that’s where people are dying. These are the people we lock up because they are the predators, choking off the life of a community that deserves better.”

We did this work because we cared deeply about the people trying to make a life in these neighborhoods. But here’s the thing, the people asking me these questions were not the black ministers and community leaders in the poorest neighborhoods. Those good people in those bad neighborhoods already knew why we were there, locking up felons with guns and drug dealers and drug dealers with guns. They supported it because they shared the dream of a neighborhood with freedom and life. Those people, those ministers, those leaders—they were the seeders working like crazy to grow something healthy in the space that we created. And how far we have come thanks to their work.

Over the last two decades in most places in America, what was only a dream 25 years ago has come true. Kids of all colors went to school in 2014 in an America with historically low crime. Just that term historically low doesn’t quite capture it. To illustrate what I’m talking about, I was born in 1960 into a more violent America than those children enjoyed last year.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/k...ed-perspectives-information-and-understanding
 
Last edited:
WH was not happy with him:

Mr. Comey did not tell the Justice Department or the White House what he was planning to say in the speech, but the reaction to it was immediate. Justice Department officials were puzzled, as they did not recall Mr. Comey’s ever raising such issues during their deliberations. The deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, pressed Mr. Comey to explain his views. And, Mr. Comey was criticized by civil rights groups and the head of one of the largest police unions in the country.

White House officials were irritated as they saw it as an effort to undermine their criminal justice reform efforts. They later said publicly that there was no evidence to back up Mr. Comey’s claim about the rise in violence. On Thursday, the president met with Mr. Comey in the Oval Office to discuss his views. The White House declined to describe the conversation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/u...brutality-brings-less-police-enforcement.html
 
I guess if they never rousted or arrested any black people who weren't committing serious crimes, it's all good.
 
When I worked in Richmond, Virginia, in the 1990s, that city, like so much of America, was experiencing horrific levels of violence. But to describe it just that way obscures an important truth. For the most part white people weren’t dying, black people were dying.

Most white people could drive around the problems of Richmond and so many other cities in America. If you were white in Richmond, and not involved in the drug trade, as either a buyer or a seller, you could escape the violence, you could avoid the problem. But if you were black and poor, it didn’t matter whether you were a player in the trade or not, because violent crime dominated your life, your neighborhood, your world.
From his speech this week in Chicago:

You got a 66.4 readability score ...

Readability-Score.com - Free Online Readability Calculator - Flesch Kincaid, Gunning Fog and more ...

... whereas the the FBI director got a 72.

Like so many in law enforcement in the 1980s and ‘90s, we worked hard to save lives in those neighborhoods in Richmond, by rooting out drug dealers, and gangbangers, and predators, and killers. And of course we also worked up the chains to the foreign sources of the drugs that were poisoning Richmond. But we felt a tremendous urgency to try to save the good people of those poor neighborhoods in Richmond. We worked in part through a program called “Weed and Seed” that some of you may remember. We worked hard to weed those neighborhoods by removing those who were strangling it. But we did that so that seeds could be planted to grow something that would be good and that would fill the space and prevent further weeds. The dream was that someday maybe kids could play in the parks and old folks could sit on the porch and watch those kids play.

And I remember doing that work and being asked at the time, “Why are you doing so much prosecuting in black neighborhoods? And locking up so many black men?” “After all,” folks would say, “Richmond is surrounded by large suburban counties with large white populations and surely there are drug dealers in those suburbs?” And my answer was simple: “We are there in those neighborhoods because that’s where people are dying. These are the people we lock up because they are the predators, choking off the life of a community that deserves better.”

We did this work because we cared deeply about the people trying to make a life in these neighborhoods. But here’s the thing, the people asking me these questions were not the black ministers and community leaders in the poorest neighborhoods. Those good people in those bad neighborhoods already knew why we were there, locking up felons with guns and drug dealers and drug dealers with guns. They supported it because they shared the dream of a neighborhood with freedom and life. Those people, those ministers, those leaders—they were the seeders working like crazy to grow something healthy in the space that we created. And how far we have come thanks to their work.

Over the last two decades in most places in America, what was only a dream 25 years ago has come true. Kids of all colors went to school in 2014 in an America with historically low crime. Just that term historically low doesn’t quite capture it. To illustrate what I’m talking about, I was born in 1960 into a more violent America than those children enjoyed last year.
 
Whitlock got a 65.5 on his rap-is-porn piece.

Anyway, I only did that for fun. WaPo put one of Trump's speeches into the Flesch-Kincaid machine and it said he speaks -- in that case, at least -- at a 4th-grade level.
 
Whitlock got a 65.5 on his rap-is-porn piece.

Anyway, I only did that for fun. WaPo put one of Trump's speeches into the Flesch-Kincaid machine and it said he speaks -- in that case, at least -- at a 4th-grade level.

What can we say? At least he knows his audience.
 
For what it's worth, the Gettysburg Address gets a 65.4 readability score and an average grade level of 10.9.
 
For what it's worth, the Gettysburg Address gets a 65.4 readability score and an average grade level of 10.9.

Yeah, I've long been skeptical of those metrics. I published a paper once in a very, very top-tier journal, and it was rated at something like a 10th-ranked level. And I even used some big words/phrases. Hell, I even went to the sina qua non well!
 
Yeah, I've long been skeptical of those metrics. I published a paper once in a very, very top-tier journal, and it was rated at something like a 10th-ranked level. And I even used some big words/phrases. Hell, I even went to the sina qua non well!

This post was 82.5! But points off as it's just 5th-grade level.
 
I wonder how my posts rate. Hmm. Do the metrics give credit for sex, perversion and creepiness?
 
Is the Ferguson Effect real:

President Obama and his FBI director are sparring over whether the so-called “Ferguson Effect” is real, complicating the president’s push to loosen the nation’s sentencing laws.

The dispute could threaten the growing bipartisan momentum behind a criminal justice reform effort that Obama sees as a top second-term priority.

The question of whether police are reluctant to enforce the law because they are afraid of being videotaped has become the subject of fierce debate, as experts struggle to explain an uptick in violent crime in some U.S. cities.

FBI Director James Comey, a Republican, amplified the argument twice over the past week, suggesting anti-police sentiment fueled by the killings of unarmed black men in places such as Ferguson, Mo., has resulted in a crime spike.

“Some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior,” Comey said in an October 23 speech at the University of Chicago Law School.

Obama pushed back against that idea, arguing the existence of a violent crime wave is not supported by statistics, even while acknowledging rates are up in some major cities.

“We do have to stick with the facts,” Obama told the International Association of Chiefs of Police last Tuesday in Chicago. “What we can't do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas.”


Obama, FBI director spar over the 'Ferguson Effect' on police
 
So people who wouldn't otherwise have committed violent crimes are now committing them because police who otherwise would be stopping them are standing down, presumably as the crimes are being committed in their presence? Because how else would their inaction matter? The logic of the overarching point does not withstand even the most cursory of inspections. I'm sure Ferguson has had a dramatic psychological effect on both the law enforcement communities and the communities they serve, but if officers are reacting to Ferguson by saying, "Well, **** it, I'm not going out of my way to police those ungrateful bastards," that's on them. It's understandable, from a human psyche standpoint, but it's still on them, and it is a dereliction of their sworn duty. And I'm still not sure what connection it has to violent crime: pretty sure the guys who make up the drug, gang and major crimes task forces responsible for combating much of the crime in question are not the kinds of guys likely to allow the threat of a cellphone camera to interrupt their SOP. I have no doubt that Ferguson has eroded some respect for authority -- I know it has for me, personally -- but the suggestion that this pushes people into committing violent crimes that they wouldn't otherwise commit again does not really withstand any degree of critical thought.

On the other hand, Comey's comments about his experiences in Richmond are thought-provoking, and, if they are an accurate representation of the reality of those times, they should certainly be represented in the nationwide conversation we will hopefully be having about making our justice system more fair and effective. That being said, front-line types aren't always the best at seeing the broader picture that exists outside their narrow scope. Reducing crime is an important end, but the process matters. If Comey's Richmond team started arresting everybody they found on the streets after 9 p.m., it would certainly reduce crime and make communities safer. And I'm sure many of the community members who did not end up in jail would appreciate the program. But what if it meant that 10 percent of those arrested and jailed were fast food workers heading home from their closing shifts? Frankly, Comey's logic when extended to the extreme is the kind that ends up being used by those justifying ethnic cleansing programs. The mass incarceration "problem" lies in the nonviolent offenders who never would have gone on to become part of the violent crime epidemic who happened to get swept up along with the real menaces to society (and, in many cases, end up turning into just such menaces in jail). It's a fascinating and complex problem that is not nearly as simple as those that make for good speeches.
 
The nation's top drug enforcement official said Wednesday that FBI Director James Comey was "spot on'' when he recently offered the controversial assessment that violent crime surges in some cities may be linked to police officers' reluctance to engage suspects.

"I think there is something to it,'' Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Rosenberg told reporters, referring to the so-called "Ferguson-effect'' in which police have been reportedly hesitant to act for fear of prompting the kind of civil unrest that engulfed Ferguson, Mo., last year. "I think (Comey) was spot on.''

Comey's remarks during appearances last month in Chicago put the FBI director at odds with some in law enforcement and the White House, which indicated that existing evidence did not support such a claim.

"I will say that the available evidence at this point does not support the notion that law enforcement officers around the country are shying away from fulfilling their responsibilities,'' White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last week. "On the contrary, I think you’ve seen a lot of local law enforcement leaders indicate that police officers and sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials are actually dedicated public servants who on a daily basis are putting their lives on the line to serve and protect the communities that they’re assigned to.''


DEA chief: Comey 'spot on' linking Ferguson impact to crime surge
 
Police should never be afraid to enforce the law because they are afraid of being videotaped. If they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide, right?

Hypothetical: Say a video shows cops doing their job exactly by the book. But an op-ed claims they were profiling. Then, despite clear evidence they did nothing wrong, a bunch of dip****s on the Internet support the idea that the cops did, in fact, do something wrong.
 
Hypothetical: Say a video shows cops doing their job exactly by the book. But an op-ed claims they were profiling. Then, despite clear evidence they did nothing wrong, a bunch of dip****s on the Internet support the idea that the cops did, in fact, do something wrong.

In your hypothetical, dip****s on the Internet are still dip****s on the Internet and their opinions have no bearing on what is or isn't factually accurate. Having a louder voice, or a Twitter handle, doesn't automatically mean one is worth listening to.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top