December, 21 2015, 02:00pm EDT
Study Documents Extreme Racial Disparity in Arrests for Low-Level Offenses
In four test cities, Blacks were 2.6 to 9.6 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for loitering, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and marijuana possession
NEWARK
Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to a study (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state's second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied - Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data.
"The data reveal a clear pattern of communities of color disproportionately bearing the brunt of police practices that target low-level offenses," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Udi Ofer.
"In Black and Latino communities, New Jerseyans are arrested for minor misbehavior at a much greater rate than in White communities. Unlike more serious crime, where there is a victim or some form of property damage, low-level offenses rest primarily on a police officer's discretion to arrest for behavior that poses little or no harm to the community. The discretionary nature of these arrests creates ample opportunity for arbitrary and unfair enforcement of the law."
The origins of this report stem from a 2013 national report by the ACLU that showed Black people in New Jersey were 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than White people, despite similar rates of marijuana use - a clear indicator of selective enforcement.
"New Jersey's shameful racial disparities in arrests for minor offenses mirror what we're seeing across the country," said Ezekiel Edwards, Director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "Just as in Ferguson, Minneapolis, Maryland, and beyond, New Jersey police must end this unequal treatment and the harm caused to communities of color."
The ACLU of NJ, supported by the national ACLU, further examined those findings by taking a closer look at arrest data from four municipalities in New Jersey - Jersey City, Elizabeth, New Brunswick and Millville - that reflected the diversity of the state in population density, demographics and geography.
In the report, the ACLU-NJ examined 10 years of data on the enforcement of four low-level offenses: loitering; marijuana possession of 50 grams or less; defiant trespass; and disorderly conduct. The report chose to examine those arrests because police officers exercise so much discretion in the enforcement of these types of offenses.
The report relied on departmental data for arrests obtained through the Open Public Records Act. The report originally sought to include Asbury Park in the analysis but the Asbury Park Police Department, despite the existence of a data management system and electronic database, was unable to produce records that could be properly analyzed and was dropped from the study.
The report documented widespread and extreme racial disparities in all four locations studied. Among the findings of the report:
- Racial disparities between Black and White arrests exist in every city studied. For the length of each city's study period, the data show Blacks in Millville were 6.2 times more likely to be arrested than Whites for the low-level offenses studied; in Jersey City, they were 4.8 times more likely; in Elizabeth, they were 3.6 times more likely; and in New Brunswick, 3.2 times more likely.
- Individuals charged with low-level offenses are generally not involved in serious crimes. For example, 95% of the low-level arrests in Jersey City did not involve any other offense classified as "serious" by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.
- Some law enforcement agencies do not even track Hispanic/Latino data. For example, the Elizabeth Police Department does not track Hispanic/Latino arrests, despite serving a population that is nearly 60% Hispanic/Latino.
- Police department records are often inaccessible and were kept in a haphazard manner by all four departments. The lack of transparent, reliable records hinders transparency and accountability.
The human cost of all of these low-level arrests can be devastating.
"Even though these are low-level offenses, arrests and convictions can impose heavy burdens on the person involved, including payment of court costs and fines; criminal records that will follow them the rest of their lives; and loss of income, housing, child custody, or immigration status," said Alexander Shalom, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "In extreme cases, a confrontation with police over a low-level offense can escalate into an episode of deadly violence."
The report recommends remedies at the local and state level that include changing the policies and practices of police in enforcing the law; improving recordkeeping; and creating greater accountability by police to the civilian population they serve. Among the specific reforms:
- Local officials, police chiefs, and prosecutors should agree to make enforcement of low-level offenses that do not harm public safety among their lowest priorities.
- State and local government should adopt strong and enforceable anti-racial profiling laws and municipalities should mandate police training for conscious and unconscious bias, which can influence officers' decision-making when dealing with the public
- Police departments should stop using low-level arrests as a performance measure for evaluating officers.
- Cities should institute oversight of police departments, such as a strong and independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to review allegations of individual officers' misconduct and Inspector General (IG) offices to monitor police policies and practices.
- Law enforcement should expand use of police dashboard and body worn cameras with appropriate rules for retention and disclosure to the public.
- New Jersey should legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. The disproportionate number of Black arrests for marijuana possession, despite similar usage rates between Whites and Blacks, illustrates the fundamental unfairness of these laws in practice.
- Local police departments must improve data collection and management, and they should systematically analyze the data for the benefit of the department and the public.
- Police departments should collect data on arrests, searches and stops by requiring officers to fill out reports and publish the results online on a periodic, preferably monthly, basis.
The report also calls on the Attorney General to investigate racial disparities in low-level offenses in municipalities throughout the state.
"This study serves as a glimpse into the racial disparities in low-level arrests for only four law-enforcement agencies. But it's clear: Black and Latino communities bear the disproportionate impact of enforcement in New Jersey," said Ari Rosmarin, Public Policy Director of the ACLU-NJ. "The Attorney General should investigate whether such disparities exist throughout the state, determine the causes of the disparities, and take steps to eliminate them. It's time for action."
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Despite 100% Pentagon Audit Failure Rate, House Passes $883.7 Billion NDAA
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex," said Defense Spending Reduction Caucus co-chairs.
Dec 11, 2024
Despite the Pentagon's repeated failures to pass audits and various alarming policies, 81 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted with 200 Republicans on Wednesday to advance a $883.7 billion annual defense package.
The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unveiled by congressional negotiators this past Saturday, still needs approval from the Senate, which is expected to vote next week. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday that he plans to vote no and spoke out against the military-industrial complex.
The push to pass the NDAA comes as this congressional session winds down and after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced last month that it had failed yet another audit—which several lawmakers highlighted after the Wednesday vote.
Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairs and co-founders of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement, "Time and time again, Congress seems to be able to find the funds necessary to line the pockets of defense contractors while neglecting the problems everyday Americans face here at home."
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex with even more unaccountable funds," they continued. "After a seventh failed audit in a row, it's disappointing that our amendment to hold the Pentagon accountable by penalizing the DOD's budget by 0.5% for each failed audit was stripped out of the final bill. It's time Congress demanded accountability from the Pentagon."
"While we're glad many of the poison pill riders that were included in the House-passed version were ultimately removed from the final bill, the bill does include a ban on access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender children of service members, which will force service members to choose between serving their country and getting their children the care they need," the pair noted. "The final bill also failed to expand coverage for fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for service members regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected."
Several of the 124 House Democrats who voted against the NDAA cited those "culture war" policies, in addition to concerns about how the Pentagon spends massive amounts of money that could go toward improving lives across the country.
"Once again, Congress has passed a massive military authorization bill that prioritizes endless military spending over the critical needs of American families. This year's NDAA designates $900 billion for military spending," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), noting the audit failures. "While I recognize the long-overdue 14.5% raise for our lowest-ranking enlisted personnel is important, this bill remains flawed. The bloated military budget continues to take away crucial funding from programs that could help millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet."
Taking aim at the GOP's push to deny gender-affirming care through TRICARE, the congresswoman said that "I cannot support a bill that continues unnecessary military spending while also attacking the rights and healthcare of transgender youth, and for that reason, I voted NO."
As Omar, a leading critic of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, also pointed out: "The NDAA includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from using data on casualties and deaths from the Gaza Ministry of Health or any sources relying on those statistics. This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence."
Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual armed aid from the United States—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last month issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The NDAA includes over $627 million in provisions for Israel.
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who voted against the NDAA, directed attention to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set to be run by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
"How do we know that DOGE is not a good-faith effort to address wasted funding and unaccountable government? The NDAA passed today," Ramirez said. "Republicans overwhelmingly supported the $883.7 billion authorization bill even though the Pentagon just failed its seventh audit in a row."
"Billions of dollars go to make defense corporations and their investors, including Members of Congress, rich while Americans go hungry, families are crushed by debt, and bombs we fund kill children in Gaza," she added. "No one who voted for this bill can credibly suggest that they care about government waste."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who also opposed the NDAA, wrote in a Tuesday opinion piece for MSNBC that he looks forward to working with DOGE "to reduce waste and fraud at the Pentagon, while strongly opposing any cuts to programs likeSocial Security, Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
"We should make defense contracting more competitive, helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete for Defense Department projects," Khanna argued. "The Defense Department also needs better acquisition oversight. Defense contractors have gotten away with overcharging the Pentagon and ripping off taxpayers for too long."
"Another area where we can work with DOGE is reducing the billions being spent to maintain excess military property and facilities domestically and abroad," he suggested. "Finally, DOGE can also cut the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program."
The congressman, who is expected to run for president in 2028, concluded that "American taxpayers want and deserve the best return on their investment. Let's put politics aside and work with DOGE to reduce wasteful defense spending. And let's invest instead in domestic manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and a modern national security strategy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Another US Security Council Veto, UN General Assembly Votes for Gaza Cease-Fire
The General Assembly also voted 159-9 with 11 abstentions in favor of a resolution supporting UNRWA.
Dec 11, 2024
Following yet another United States veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, members of the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday in favor of an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire" in the Palestinian enclave, where Israeli forces continued relentless attacks that killed dozens more Palestinians, including numerous children.
The veto by the United States, a permanent Security Council member, came during an emergency special session and was the lone dissenting vote on the 15-member body. It was the fourth time since October 2023 that the Biden administration vetoed a Security Council resolution on a Gaza cease-fire.
"At a time when Hamas is feeling isolated due to the cease-fire in Lebanon, the draft resolution on a cease-fire in Gaza risks sending a dangerous message to Hamas that there's no need to negotiate or release the hostages," Robert Wood, the United States' deputy U.N. ambassador, said ahead of Wednesday's vote.
The 193-member U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) subsequently voted 158-9, with 13 abstentions, for a resolution demanding "an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, to be respected by all parties," and calling for the "immediate and unconditional release of all hostages" held by Hamas.
The nine countries that opposed the measure are the United States, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga.
In a separate vote Wednesday, 159 UNGA members voted in favor of a resolution affirming the body's "full support" for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. UNRWA has been the target of diplomatic and financial attacks by Israel and its backers—who have baselessly accused the lifesaving organization of being a terrorist group—and literal attacks by Israeli forces, who have killed more than 250 of the agency's personnel.
Nine UNGA members opposed the measure, while 11 others abstained. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not, and are also not subject to vetoes.
Wednesday's U.N. votes took place amid sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza including a strike on a home sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinians in Deir al-Balah that killed at least 33 people, including children, local medical officials said. This followed earlier Israeli attacks, including the Monday night bombing of the al-Kahlout family home in Beit Hanoun that killed or wounded dozens of Palestinians and reportedly wiped the family from the civil registry.
"We are witnessing a massive loss of life," Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia,
toldThe Associated Press.
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, at least 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's bombardment, invasion, and siege of the coastal enclave, according to officials there. More than 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened by Israel's onslaught.
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of a South Africa-led genocide case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as one Hamas leader, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular