CPD IN THE NEWS

Prosecutors are supposed to hold people accountable when they hurt other people—that’s part of the job. Yet for years prosecutors across the country have opted out of that responsibility when the perpetrator is a police officer.

 Last year, police killed African Americans at a rate more than twice that of white people, according to the Guardian’s database, and African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34 at a rate five times that of white men in that age range. Our morgues were busy due to killings by police in 2015 -- 1,145 deaths among all races, according to the database.But our district attorneys’ offices were not nearly as busy: in 2015, they initiated just 18 prosecutions of police officers who killed civilians.

If local prosecutors won’t act, the federal government should find out why.

Chicago prosecutor Anita Alvarez waited almost a year before indicting the officer who killed Laquan McDonald, a young African-American man. She faced relentless pressure from organizers and communities in Chicago and brought charges only after a judge ordered the city to release the videotape of the killing that directly contradicted the officers’ versions of the shooting.

And the Chicago officer who killed Reika Boyd was acquitted after a botched prosecution by one of Alvarez’s attorneys who kept his job.

In Cleveland, Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African-American youth, was shot and killed within two seconds of officers arriving on the scene. Prosecutor Tim McGinty oversaw a grand jury “investigation” that involved leaked “expert” reports justifying the shooting, presentation of evidence that Tamir kept a toy gun longer than he should have, and accusations that Tamir’s family protested the killing of their son because of money.

In the Bronx, New York City paid $3.9 million to the family of Ramarley Graham who was shot and killed by police while in his own home, but criminal charges against the officer were dismissed, and the officer is still on the job — with a raise.

The behavior of these prosecutors led many to believe that race bias played a role in their actions. Alvarez and McGinty were voted out of office, reflecting the community reaction against two elected prosecutors; but this does not resolve issues of potential race bias by prosecutors remaining in those offices or in offices of other local prosecutors around the country.

Judges, prosecutors, and former presidential advisors have acknowledged that race bias, deliberate or unintentional, has played a role in the incarceration of African Americans in unfairly disproportionate numbers. We know prosecutors can be drivers of racialized mass incarceration because they hold so much power in our current system of plea bargain justice.

The reality that African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white people is at least in part a result of the discretionary decisions of prosecutors.

Under the circumstances, shouldn’t we ask if any kind of race bias led local prosecutors to defend police who kill instead of objectively investigating them? Given the other evidence of race bias in the system, doesn’t the miniscule number of prosecutions in killings that disproportionately affect the African-American community suggests a disturbing answer?

Until now, prosecutors have been exempt from virtually any scrutiny. It is time for that exemption to expire, and the Department of Justice has the authority and responsibility to act. The Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 authorize the attorney general to conduct investigations and file civil litigation to eliminate “a pattern or practice of discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, in connection with any law enforcement agency that receives financial assistance from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.”

Law enforcement is defined as “all activities pertaining to crime prevention or reduction and enforcement of the criminal law.” Prosecutors, like police departments, receive millions of dollars in federal funding through Justice Assistance Grants and should be subject to the same scrutiny as the police.

Looking for the influence of race bias is not an accusation of racism. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigated the possible role of race bias in its own work without any intervention by the Justice Department. District Attorney Cyrus Vance was not accusing his staff of racism. He was willing to look for any impact race bias might have on carrying out justice. The Vera Institute examined the office’s work, from charging decisions to plea offers, and discovered evidence of racial bias that could not be explained by other factors.

Does this show that Manhattan DAs are racist? No, it points to an equally serious problem — racial bias exists systemically in ways prosecutors have not or will not recognize.

The impact of unconscious bias can be reduced and even eliminated by training to recognize it and using best practices to eliminate its influence. But if you don’t look for it, you won’t find it. And we need to remember that for those injured, killed, or incarcerated—and for their families, who are forced to bear the financial and emotional costs of incarceration—the difference between conscious and unconscious bias means nothing.

The killing of Michael Brown brought no indictment, but investigating the Ferguson police revealed some of the ugliest racist attitudes in America, leading to a Department of Justice lawsuit against the department.

How did it get that bad in Ferguson? For one thing, police knew the DAs wouldn’t hold them accountable for their behavior. We need prosecutors to do their jobs when police officers are the defendants. If they are reluctant to do it, a visit from the feds may help change their thinking.

The Department of Justice must step in and use its authority and power to ensure justice.

By Marbre Stahly-Butts and Jeffery Robinson

Source

The answer should clearly be "no." The preponderance of economic data indicates that the predictable costs of premature tightening — slower job and wage growth — far outweigh the risk of accelerating inflation.

Six years into a lackluster U.S. expansion, price growth for personal consumption expenditures — excluding food and energy — has averaged less than 1.5% annually in the recovery, well below the Fed's unofficial 2% inflation target. It slowed to 1.3% so far in 2015.

Global economic forces are poised to drive inflation still lower. Last week, oil prices fell to $42, a low not seen since February 2009. Europe's growth remains anemic and is likely to remain so: The IMF forecast for 2015 is just 1.5%. And while it is difficult to piece together a precise picture of what is happening in China, most experts see growth slowing markedly, with effects in other emerging markets.

With a weaker euro and yuan, our exports will decrease and our imports increase. Together, this will put pressure on domestic businesses and the job market, which is hardly robust.

Despite a headline unemployment rate of 5.3%, the true labor market situation faced by working families in the United States remains dire. Millions remain trapped in disguised unemployment and part-time employment. As of July, the nation faced a jobs gap of 3.3 million — the number needed to reach pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who entered the potential labor force. The true unemployment rate, including those working part time involuntarily and marginally attached, is more than 10.4%.

Poor labor market conditions are also reflected in wages and incomes. So far this year, wages for production non-supervisory workers, which tracks closely to the median wage, fell by 0.5%. Median household income — a better indicator of how well the economy is doing as seen by the typical American than GDP — at last measure was lower than it was a quarter-century ago.

It is hard to see why the Fed would choose slower job and wage growth for most Americans just to protect against the theoretical risk of moderately higher inflation. But, then again, it's often hard to understand the Fed's policy choices, which tend to contribute to widening inequality in the United States.

Too often, after the end of one recession, the Fed, fearing inflation, has used monetary policy to dampen the economic expansion. Its maneuvers keep inflation low but unemployment higher than it otherwise would be, negatively affecting all workers, not just those out of a job. Workers in jobs face greater stresses, downward pressure on wages and diminished opportunities for upward career mobility. The costs of higher unemployment are borne disproportionately by people in lower-income jobs, who also tend to be disproportionately people of color and women.

After the 2008 crisis, the Fed tried to stimulate the economy by buying bank debt, mortgage-backed securities and Treasury assets directly from the market — so-called quantitative easing — which disproportionately benefited the rich. Data on wealth ownership show clearly that the portfolios of the rich are weighed more toward equity, and one of the main channels through which quantitative easing helped the economy was to increase equity prices.

So quantitative easing was yet another instance of failed trickle-down economics — by giving more to the rich, the Fed hoped that everyone would benefit. But so far, these policies have enriched the few without returning the economy to full employment or broadly shared income growth.

The Fed has been forthright in pointing out the limits of monetary policy to help the economy. Fiscal policy could lead to stronger and more equitable growth, but the Republican-led Congress has demanded austerity.

Still, there is more the Fed could do. It could do more to curb excessive debit card fees and the anti-competitive charges that credit and debit cards impose on merchants. These fees lead to higher prices and lower real incomes of workers. It could also do more to encourage lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

Easiest of all, it could choose not to raise interest rates. All policy is made under uncertainty. In this case, however, the risks are one-sided: Ordinary Americans in particular will be hurt by a premature rate rise, as the economy slows, unemployment increases and there is even more downward pressure on wages.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.

Source: The Los Angeles Times

About 30 immigration activists made 5 pm dinner reservations on Wednesday for the restaurant on the first floor of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.

They entered dressed in suits, wearing ties and khakis. They snuck two bullhorns and 30 noisemakers in briefcases, as well as dozens of pamphlets and a banner reading, “Immigrants are #HereToStay.”

Read the full article here.

Moments after pivotal Sen. Jeff Flake announced he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the Arizona Republican was confronted with the consequences.

Read the article and watch the video here.