Chiraq

The New York Times did a nice piece of long-form (and interactive) journalism this weekend. Published on the front page of its Sunday paper and the home page of its website. the Times  reported on the 64 people shot in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend, six of whom died. While random shootings occurred, the Times points out that much of the gun violence in Chicago happens in small pockets of the city and among individuals well known to the police. So why is it that Chicago has seen the number of homicides and non-fatal shootings spike? A few pieces of information leapt out at me:

• Of the 64 people shot, the police had previously identified 50 as having a high likelihood of shooting someone or being shot;
• Gun possession only carries a one-year prison term in Illinois; and 
• The clearance rate for murders is about 25 percent.

In short, you have a police force that knows most of the people at the greatest risk of shooting someone or being shot but the penalty for carrying a gun is a slap on the wrist and your chances of being arrested if you do kill someone is only one in four. There is a chicken-or-the-egg quality to some of this - is the low clearance rate due to police indifference or the failure of the community to give up its own? When the community knows murderers are rarely caught, does it encourage street justice and a lack of cooperation with police for fear of retaliation from those turned in by their neighbors? Does the perceived security of carrying a gun outweigh the risk of a year’s time in prison? Are the men and women most at-risk of being involved in gun violence being offered alternatives or do they choose “the lifestyle” freely, knowing the risks. 

Although not mentioned in the article, I suspect some of the other socio-economic metrics in these communities are also woeful - be it the unemployment rate, truancy, or the percent of high school students who graduate (or go to college). In economically depressed areas, if you have little hope or opportunity, are poorly educated, or do not expect to live past 40, how exactly do you make this stop? 

You can read the article here

The Rank Hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham

Irrelevant Republican candidate for President Lindsey Graham may not be able to attract more than 1 percent in national polls, but he can always be assured of fawning coverage from the Beltway media. Earlier this week, Graham delivered a speech to a group called the Republican Jewish Congress, laying into his competition for their hard right positions on immigration and “hateful rhetoric” directed at minority groups in America. 

Graham’s speech occurred on the heels of a quote he gave to the New York Times’s Jonathan Martin, who dutifully transcribed Graham’s comments into a lengthier story on the GOP’s fear of a Trump nomination. According to Graham:

Of course, the DC media *loves* this type of alleged honesty from the political spawn of the original straight talker, John McCain, but a funny thing happened yesterday just hours after Graham’s polemic against wedge politics. The Senate took up a bill via reconciliation, a strategy they bemoaned when they were in the minority as undemocratic, that would defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare, you know, that law that millions of people, many of whom are African American, Hispanic, or Latino, and who Graham claimed - earlier that day - his party needed to bring into their tent. Graham voted in favor of that bill, not only making him a hypocrite of the first degree, but he may have also redefined a term the people at the RJC are very familiar with - chutzpah.

Follow me on Twitter - @scarylawyerguy