Campaign News

Critics say the close connections between prosecutors and local police leads to unjust decisions not to prosecute officers following officer-involved shootings.

The absence of indictments of police officers in shooting deaths – especially in high-profile cases like the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Tamir Rice in Cleveland – is raising questions about the fairness of using local prosecutors to investigate police officers with whom they may have close ties.

Critics say the close working relationships between local prosecutors and law enforcement injects a bias into investigations of shootings and other deaths at the hands of police. A solution, some suggest, would be to use independent prosecutors to investigate charges of wrong-doing by police officers.

The investigation into the death of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., offers one example of the closeness often seen between prosecutors and police departments. East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore recused himself from the investigation, as he had worked closely with both police-officer parents of one of the officers involved in the shooting. 

When a police officer is involved in a shooting, often the officer's own police department opens an internal investigation into the incident. In some cases, says Walter Katz, an independent police auditor of the city of San Jose, Calif., who has studied investigations of police use of lethal force, there is evidence that suggests the investigator's close relationship to the officer can lead to a lack of objectivity.

"That can be amplified when also the local prosecuting agency is the agency that reviews to decide whether or not to file criminal charges against a police officer," Mr. Katz tells The Christian Science Monitor. "In smaller jurisdictions ... they're going to have a close working relationship, so it creates the potential impression that it's not an arm's length review of the use of force."

The scarcity of indictments in a variety of high-profile shootings has increased scrutiny of officer prosecutions by local authorities. The prosecutors in both the Tamir Rice case in Cleveland and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson said they believed the officers involved had acted legally. Both were accused of not presenting a fair review of possible charges to the grand juries, as Ari Melber, MSNBC’s chief legal correspondent, explained in The Washington Post.

The problem of officer-involved shootings of blacks wouldn't be solved with independent prosecutors, Marbre Stahly-Butts, the deputy director of racial justice for the Center for Popular Democracy, a progressive advocacy organization, tells the Monitor. But "certainly accountability is an essential step that needs to happen," she says.

"We have the common sense that asking prosecutors who work everyday with police and depend on police for their cases, to then be objective in prosecuting them, is just not reasonable," Ms. Stahly-Butts says.

Local advocates are working to address these issues, Stahly-Butts says, especially in St. Louis and New York, where it has contributed to the passage of an executive order ensuring independent prosecutors.

On the federal level, Congressman Steve Cohen (D) of Tennessee is sponsoring a bill that would withhold federal funding from law enforcement unless the use of independent prosecutors to address instances of deadly force by police is instituted.

"There's no good reason not to have independent prosecutors," he tells the Monitor. "If you have the prosecutors who work with the law enforcement agency, which they do hand-in-glove to investigate cases and present cases, there is... an appearance of, if not outright, impropriety."

This can limit the citizenry's faith in the justice system, especially if no charges are brought against the officers, Representative Cohen says. On the flip side, when local prosecutors do bring charges, police can react negatively. After Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby brought charges against officers in the death of Freddie Gray, some believe there was a work slowdown among Baltimore Police, which police officials denied, the Baltimore Sun reported. This hurts the entire community, Cohen says.

The bill, introduced in October 2015, has 80 co-sponsors as of Wednesday morning. Several states have made moves to implement independent prosecutors, including Connecticut and New York. Cohen says it is important to set a nation-wide standard, but House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia has not yet scheduled a hearing.

The bill is opposed by the National Association of Police Organizations, a law enforcement advocacy group. The organization's executive director, William Johnson, wrote a letter to Cohen expressing fears that officers would face "a great deal of pressure" if investigated by independent prosecutors, The Hill reported. 

"There is a risk that decisions to prosecute would be made based on politics, not on the law and admissible evidence," Johnson wrote. "NAPO is concerned that an officer would be indicted, even if he/she did nothing wrong."

Johnson did not respond to requests for comment from the Monitor.

Cohen says local law enforcement may oppose his bill because they benefit from the current system and may be "getting home cooking".

"That's not what justice is about," he says. "All games should be on neutral courts."

By AIDAN QUIGLEY 

Source

As a general principle, the Fed should not react to short-term movements in the financial markets. For one thing, the labor market is much more important to the lives of most Americans, and it is more relevant to the Fed’s mandate of securing maximum employment with inflation stability.

Then consider this: More than 80% of stock wealth in the U.S. is owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans, and more than half of Americans own no stocks at all (either directly or through retirement or other accounts). In short, movements in the stock markets do not have much effect on the spending power of most U.S. households. That means that movements in the stock markets–especially short-term volatility that is likely to largely dissipate–provides little information about the overall state of economic health.

On the other hand, the labor market provides the vast majority of income to the vast majority of Americans. The middle fifth of households, for example, gets more than 80% of household income directly from the labor market (either cash wages or employer-provided benefits). Further, many additional sources of income such as pensions, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, or the Earned Income Tax Credit hinge on participation in the labor market. That’s why trends in the labor market are crucial to assessing the overall state of the economy–which is far from fully recovered from the Great Recession.

The clearest remaining weakness is wages. The current pace of hourly wage growth is roughly 2% to 2.5%. A healthy labor market that met the Fed’s overall price inflation target should be churning out wage increases of at least 3.5%. Further, a period of wage growth well above this is necessary for workers’ pay to reclaim some of the ground lost to corporate profits earlier in this recovery. Until wage growth starts moving durably toward the healthy 3.5% target, it’s too early for the Fed to begin raising rates.

This labor-market-based reasoning for keeping rates low should weigh much more heavily on Fed calculations about interest rates than recent stock activity. The only caveat: if one of the root causes of recent stock market declines–the slowdown in the Chinese economy–provides a new potential headwind to U.S. growth going forward.

But the case for keeping rates unchanged in September was dispositive last week, even before large declines in the stock markets. And any strong stock rally in the coming month shouldn’t  make Fed officials feel fine about raising rates.

Source: Wall Street Journal

New York State charter schools have made more than $28 million in questionable expenditures since 2002, according to a new review of previous audits of the publicly funded, privately run schools.

The Center for Popular Democracy’s analysis charter school audits found investigators uncovered probable financial mismanagement in 95% of the schools they examined.

Kyle Serrette, education director for the progressive group, said the review of previously published audits showed the schools need greater oversight.

“We can’t afford to have a system that fails to cull the fraudulent charter operators from the honest ones,” said Serrette, whose group compiled the report with the non-profit Alliance for Quality Education. “Establishing a charter school oversight system that prevents fraud, waste and mismanagement will attack the root cause of the problem.”

The state controller’s office and state Education Department have audited 62 of New York’s 248 charter schools, according to Serrette’s report. All told, Serrette’s group estimates wasteful spending at charters could cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year.

Eighteen audits targeted charters in New York City, representing about 9% of the 197 charters in the five boroughs. Each audit found issues.

The city spends more than $1.29 billion on charters annually.

State Education Department officials and a spokesman for the state controller’s office declined to comment on Serrette’s report.

Northeast Charter School Network CEO Kyle Rosenkrans said the schools already get plenty of oversight because they are subject to audits and must have their charters renewed at least every five years.

“Charter schools are the most accountable public schools there are,” the charter advocate said. “If we don’t perform or we mismanage our finances, we get shut down.

Source: New York Daily News

If you’re a huge fan of shopping at Zara, the Spanish fast-fashion franchise, you may want to start spending your money elsewhere.

The fashion brand has been outed for its deeply engrained racist hiring and customer service practices in arecent survey conducted by the Center for Popular Democracy, a racial, economic and labor justice group. A random sample of two hundred-fifty one out of Zara’s 1,500 Manhattan employees participated in the survey and confided that Black customers are profiled as potential thieves seven times more frequently than white shoppers.

The study, entitled “Stitched with Prejudice: Zara USA’s Corporate Culture of Favoritism” and written by Chaya Crowder, also revealed that Black customers were also more frequently denied exchanges and returns than Whites. Customers weren’t the only people that were racially discriminated in Zara’s stores. Black employees claimed that they were given dissatisfactory hour assignments and stricter surveillance from managers.

“It’s kind of weird to me how they can make millions of dollars but are not able to pay people properly for their time, let alone give people the amount of time that they need in order to support their family, in order to keep a roof over their head, in order to, you know, just feed themselves.” One employee said:

The study had also found that darker-skinned employees were also less likely to promoted to managing roles and were often given less-prestigious roles. Sixty-eight percent of employees that were assigned roles in the back of the store and away from the public had darker complexions. Managers were generally White, and generally gave preferential treatment or were less lenient to subordinates of the same races and ethnic groups. The extent to which Black employees were profiled in their own work environment were sometimes highly disturbing, as portrayed in this incident:

“[O]ne Black employee even detailed an instance in which he had come in a hooded jacket to pick up his check. A sales associate not only identified him as a special order, but he was physically stopped as he was walking into the back office, where checks are kept.”

The study’s findings are not particularly surprising, given Zara’s history of being infamous for racial bias in the brand’s various operations. Just earlier this month, the franchised was served with a $40 million lawsuit from a former worker  citing discrimination, unlawful discharge, retaliation and a hostile work environment. The brand also received bad press last year for racist images on its merchandise: pajamas featuring swastikas, a necklace with blackface designs, shirts with gold stars resembling those worn by the Jewish people once held in concentration camps in the Holocaust and a shirt with the words printed saying, “White is the New Black.”

According to Forbes, Zara featured the following statement:

“Zara USA vehemently refutes the findings of the Center for Popular Democracy report which was published without any attempt to contact the company. The baseless report was prepared with ulterior motives and not because of any actual discrimination or mistreatment. It makes assertions that cannot be supported and do not reflect Zara’s diverse workforce.

“Zara USA believes that the report is completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,500 Zara employees in New York City. We are an equal opportunity employer, and if there are individuals who are not satisfied with any aspect of their employment, we have multiple avenues for them to raise issues that we would immediately investigate and address.

“Approximately half of all Zara USA employees are Hispanic or African American. In the most recent round of internal promotions at Zara USA, approximately half were Hispanic or African American employees. In addition, approximately half of all hours are regularly allocated to Hispanic or African American employees. These facts clearly demonstrate that diversity and equal opportunity are two of the company’s core values. We are a global multicultural company serving valued customers across 88 countries, and do not tolerate discrimination of any form.”

Welp. I know Zara won’t be seeing my money again anytime soon. It’s a shame, their pencil skirts fit me in all the right places…

Source: New Pittsburgh Courier