WHEN IOWA LEGISLATORS considered stepped-up penalties for those attempting to flee cops in 2010, they had fair warning.
“This bill will increase the number of minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics, sent to prison,” read a document provided by the Iowa Legislative Services Agency. “They will remain in prison for a longer period compared to current law. For those sentenced to probation, they will serve a longer sentence…”
In Iowa, long a poster child for racial disparity, that sort of frank insight is potentially vital. African Americans make up 3 percent of the state, but accounted for more than 25 percent of its prison population in 2011.
Oregon’s no hero, either. Black people make up about 2 percent of citizens, but 9.3 percent of the prison population here. According to the Urban League of Portland, black Oregonians are six times more likely to be imprisoned than whites. Hispanics are also overrepresented.
But while Iowa lawmakers have been able to count on that kind of report for years when making public safety decisions, Oregon lawmakers still cannot. Until, that is, right now.
On Tuesday, June 25, the Oregon Senate sent Governor John Kitzhaber a bill that lets legislators request the same type of “racial impact statements” Iowans have had access to since 2009.
“It will allow the legislature to go in eyes wide open,” said State Senator Chip Shields, D-Portland, a chief sponsor who first introduced similar legislation in 2007 and has tried to win passage repeatedly since. “If we agree that minority overrepresentation is something to be concerned about, the first thing we should do is not make it worse.”
Under Senate Bill 463, legislators can ask the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) to study how new laws might affect the make-up of Oregon’s prison population, as well as who needs certain human services. The documents can apply to proposed legislation or state ballot measures.
The idea has seen widespread support over the years. In 2009, the Oregonian called racial impact statements “a relatively simple, straightforward policy that could help.” This year the Urban League of Portland, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, and Portland-based Center for Intercultural Organizing spoke up in favor.
And the legislation has shed opponents, as well. That’s because it now requires the CJC to analyze how new laws might affect the make-up of crime victims also. Previously, the state’s district attorneys had opposed racial impact statements. This year, they remained neutral.
“If you’re going to study the ethnicity of one side of the equation, you should also look at the victims’ side,” says Doug Harcleroad, executive director of the Oregon District Attorneys Association.
Racial impact statements are the brainchild of Marc Mauer, executive director of Washington, DC-based advocacy group the Sentencing Project. In 2007, Mauer published a report that led Iowa to enact legislation the next year. Connecticut has also passed a bill, and Minnesota adopted the impact statements as part of an internal policy. Arkansas has floated the idea.
“We know from far too many examples it’s very easy to pass some harsh sentencing legislation without looking at its possible racial effects,” says Mauer. “Then 20 years down the road we have this conversation of ‘isn’t it unfortunate it produced these outcomes?'”
Supporters are quick to admit impact statements aren’t a panacea. They don’t alter existing laws, and so won’t reverse the trends that got Oregon into its current predicament. It’s a start, says Shields, but there’s a long way to go.
“If you look at some of the mandatory sentencing that we have in this state, it absolutely disproportionately affects people of color,” he says. “We need to look back on what we’ve already done.”
It would be better if we looked into why there is a disparity. (make up of the population vs the make up of the prison population) The disparity has nothing to do with anything inherent in black people . (for example) Black people are not born with some trait that will lead them to a path of crime. We need to understand the root cause and deal with the problem there not adjust laws so the prison population gets adjusted. If a particular group happens to be committing a particular crime more than other groups perhaps we need to understand why. For example, if a particular group commits murder more than their percentage of the population we should not make murder legal; we should investigate why they are committing these crimes. What can we do to decrease that crime (less people murdered) not just arrest fewer or make murder legal.
“liberal” Oregon, my birth state, has a deep history of racism(which you’d expect from a state whose anthem includes the lines “Land of the Empire builders, land of the golden West/conquered and held by free men, FAIREST and the best”).
A few lowlights:
1859: the birth of statehood. A voter amendment to the state constitution outlawing slavery is passed-but another provision barring black people from living in the new state passes by a much LARGER margin.
1920: a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan is elected governor.
1940’s: A sign at the Salem Greyhound depot reads:
“welcome to Salem, population 25,000. 99.25% white”
late 1940’s: Paul Robeson, the great singer and socialist activist, plays a concert in Salem, after which NO HOTEL in the whole town will rent him a room for the night(the young Mark Hatfield, future Oregon U.S. senator, ends up driving him all the way to Portland just to get a place to sleep).
So, no, Oregon’s problems with race are nothing new.
We don’t need to understand anything but the FACT that “if a person, irrespective of color, commits a felony, they belong in JAIL. Who gives a shit if there are more people of color currently in prison than whites, IF they are committing felonies at a higher rate, then the numbers will naturally reflect that. The premise of the argument is preposterous, what do you think, that the cops are just looking for a black person to lock up, In Oregon???…That dog won’t hunt, not here, not now, no way!!! In the criminal justice system, it is hard enough to get a conviction, even with the facts on your side, lets not tie the hands of law enforcement any more than they all ready are tied in an attempt to “feel good about ourselves”, unless you want the felons to move in next door to you…
I read the article and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out the pro’s or con’s or even if a historically racist State wanted to go more racist and unjust. Blacks and now more-so Hispanics has always been targeted and imprisoned more than Whites or other groups of people. Now, if Oregon is talking about “even-up” the number of minorities and People of Color with the percentages of Whites incarcerated, that is preposterous and more unjust, particular when speaking per capita! There has always been within our justice System unjust and racist representation and trials under Color of Law versus under the Letter Law!
If Asians would just commit more crimes then could all just be a little more balanced out…
The paradigm case for this sort of thing is the notorious crack vs powder cocaine sentencing disparity.
@downsyndrome: What do your FACTS says about whether the possession of crack warrants a much longer jail sentence than powder cocaine? Never mind, these are questions for citizens, and you just want to shout about JAIL like an ignorant peasant. And yes, sometimes cops do just want to lock somebody up (to maintain the appearance of order and their own effectiveness), and find it’s easiest to get a black guy. Time to crawl out from under your rock.
@alaskan: I don’t like the way you fail to note that racism and anti-slavery were profoundly intertwined in the North. When the anthem puts “fairest” next to “free men” (as opposed to slaves) that should tell you something. Common Northerners fought so they wouldn’t have to compete against slave labor. We should remember this history, it makes us less stupid.