WHAT ARE THE ODDS YOU’LL GO TO PRISON?

WHAT ARE THE ODDS YOU’LL GO TO PRISON?

Let’s have a discussion…Shall we? What is your take on the current way the criminal justice system, systematically target Blacks. Is it just by “chance” an alarming number of White Officers are gunning down young Black boys in the streets? Or is it just my imagination…Running away with me?

NUMBERS DON’T LIE!

I felt compelled to post the two YouTube videos on the topic of race playing a major role in the disproportionate statistics as they relate to the number of white males incarcerated opposed to black males.  In the interest of peace and communication, I preempted  this topic with the supporting facts and figures for us to rely on.  In general most people tend to argue about topics they know very little about.  For example, I have been in situations where I wasted my time arguing with a colleague about the theory of (2 + 2) not equaling four.   I would sit there; patiently, relying solely on reasoning to console me. But after about an hour the premise of their argument would to reduce to absurdity. I was often disturbed  by their vein attempt to rationalize their proposition. The same argument could be presented; “Is the glass half empty or is it half full?” Finally I realized after studying the Philosophical Logic of Arguments that we can sometimes get caught up in the Rhetorical dynamics of a subject. Simply put  a valid argument doesn’t have to be sound, but sound arguments have to be valid.

So who’s up for the discussion?

 

 

WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A GRAND JURY?

1. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A GRAND JURY?

   It’s easy for me to sit here in the comfort of my home and weigh in on the situation unfolding in Ferguson. First and foremost we want to take this moment to send a shot out to the parents of Reginald Brown. It is a tragedy when we are still plagued with ignorance and racism at this day and age. What we plan to do is touch on a few topics which are in dire need of explanations. Lets look closely at what goes into a GRAND JURY and what its function is. We also are going to define what “DEADLY FORCE” AND WHY WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRACKING LANGUAGE OF IT’S MEANING RATHER THAN THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY BIAS POLICE OFFICERS.

   

   Justice or Just Us?

   GRAND JURY

   The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and no judge is present.

             –  ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY

   The grand jury has a long and honorable tradition. It was recognized in the Magna Carta, the first English constitutional document, which King John granted in 1215 at the demand of his subjects. The first English grand jury consisted of twelve men selected from the knights or other freemen, who were summoned to inquire into crimes alleged to have been committed in their local community. Thus, grand jurors originally functioned as accusers or witnesses, rather than as judges.

   Over the years, the hallmarks of our modern grand jury developed in England. For example, grand jury proceedings became secret, and the grand jury became independent of the Crown. As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person. This independence from the will of the government was achieved only after a long hard fight. It can best be illustrated by the celebrated English case involving the Earl of  Shaftasbury, who, in 1681, fell under the suspicion of the Crown. Displeased with him, the Crown presented to the grand jury a proposed bill of indictment for high treason and recommended that it be voted and returned. After hearing the witnesses, the grand jury voted against the bill of indictment and returned it to the King,
   holding that it was not true.

               –  A GRAND JURY’S TASK

   The Grand Jury’s Tasks As stated above, the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether a person shall be tried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits. Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways:

             (1) by the United States Attorney or an Assistant United States Attorney;
   (2) by the court that impaneled it; and
   (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a          member’s personal attention. In all these cases, the grand jury must hear evidence before taking action.

   

   What Is The Function Of A Grand Jury?

   After it has received evidence against a person, the grand jury must decide whether the evidence presented justifies an indictment, or “true bill,” which is the formal criminal charge returned by the grand jury. Upon the indictment’s being filed in court, the person accused must either plead guilty or nolo contendere or stand trial.
   If the evidence does not persuade the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe the person committed a
   crime, the grand jury will vote a “no bill,” or “not a true bill.” When this occurs, the person is not required to
   plead to a criminal charge, and no trial is required.

   DEADLY FORCE

   An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

   Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in SELF DEFENSE. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.

   During the twelfth century, the COMMON LAW allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today’s world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.

   In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.

   The Supreme Court has defined the “objective reasonableness” standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The FOURTH AMENDMENT protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a SEARCH AND SEIZURE is reasonable if it is based on PROBABLE CAUSE and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer’s intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.

   For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time.Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The MODEL PENAL CODE, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

   Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the  to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler,211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a WRONGFUL DEATH lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.

   I don’t know how many times we have to revisit this situation and think for one moment it’s going to change itself. The laws in this country are written in a way that it always protects the hierarchy. It’s difficult to bring a civil action against individual operating behind the corporate veil, let alone mount a defense against an over zealous cop once he has set his mind a subject is a “threat”.  The laws in this country are too ambiguous and typically affect the poorest in society. It’s a damn shame a persons liberty rest in his or her ability to afford an attorney to represent them once the government has brought up charges against them. I realize the constitution of the United States guarantees each citizens an attorney in criminal cases. But when has it been customary for an employee to fight against the hand that feeds them? This is Maestro man…Amplify the Mumble!

THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION VOTED TO LET 46,290 FEDERAL PRISONS APPLY TO GET OUT OF PRISON SOONER!

The United States Sentencing Commission just voted to let 46,290 federal prisoners apply to get out of prison sooner. The vote applied the Sentencing Commission’s latest reductions in federal sentencing guidelines, APPROVED IN APRIL, to people currently serving sentences in federal prison for drug crimes.

Prisoners will begin to be released on November 1, 2015.

Prisoners will have to apply to get their sentences reduced, and each application will be reviewed, individually, by a federal judge. (One of the reasons that the Sentencing Commission decided not to start releasing prisoners until November 2015 was to give federal judges more time to work through the applications they’re going to receive.) The judge is responsible for deciding whether or not releasing the applicant would be dangerous for public safety, and whether the applicant deserves to have his or her sentence reduced.

If you have loved ones currently incarcerated on drug charges contact us at : streetjustice13@gmail.com to discuss what needs to be done to see if the new law will affect their sentence.

Maestr0

DMX vs. ZIMMERMAN CANCELLED?

 

Being shot for wearing a hoddie just doesn’t make any sense but I guess it might when the shooter uses the “Stand Your Ground Defense”. The untimely death of a minor should never be based on a wantta be’s resolve or when the actions of a racist is hinged on a judgment call. Riots are the offspring of injustice administered by the law and no matter what someone captures on tape, a jury’s perception can be flawed. 

          There is a pain in my heart as a result of the lies we invent. So I’ll attempt to put this into perspective in light of how the verdict went. What value can be placed on a young man’s life? Now I’m not talking about the case a few years ago involving the pit bull fight. Michael Vick did time on the strength of what his cousin said, now Zimmerman  is promoting a fight. I wonder what’s going through Trayvon’s father head? I think its time for us to re-evaluate some of the laws in place before one of our son’s end up on their back–with a gun in their face.

Written by Maestro February 20, 2014

CRACK COCAINE

One in every 20 federal prisoners could be eligible for early release under a potential sentencing change to be voted on Thursday for inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses.

Congress passed a law last year substantially lowering recommended sentences for people convicted of crack cocaine crimes, ranging from possession to trafficking. The idea was to fix a longstanding disparity in punishments for crack and powder cocaine crimes, but the new, lower recommended sentences for crack offenders didn’t automatically apply to people already in prison. Now the six-member U.S. Sentencing Commission must decide whether offenders locked up for crack offenses before the new law took effect should benefit and get out earlier.

Up to 12,000 of the roughly 200,000 people incarcerated in federal prisons nationwide could be affected. A report by the commission estimates that the average sentence reduction would be approximately three years, though a judge would still have to approve any reduction.

“There is a tremendous amount of hope out there,” said Mary Price, vice president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group for prisoners and their relatives. “There is a potential that people could see their sentences reduced, for some quite dramatically.”

At a meeting in early June, commissioners suggested they wanted to apply the lower recommended sentences to at least some past offenders, but it is unclear how many. Advocacy groups have asked for the widest possible application. But a group of 15 Republican lawmakers from the House and Senate wrote the commission saying the Fair Sentencing Act passed by Congress last year was not intended to benefit any past offenders.

At the June hearing, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took the middle road. He expressed support for making the new, lower guideline sentences retroactive but suggested limits on who should be eligible. Holder said prisoners who used weapons when committing crimes or who have significant criminal histories should not be eligible. If the commission adopts that view it could cut in half the number of prisoners who would stand to benefit from 12,000 to approximately 6,000.

Any decision about who should be eligible for a reduced sentence will have to be approved by four of the commission’s six members, who include judges and former prosecutors. Once the commission votes, Congress has until the end of October to reject or modify the guidelines, though that is considered unlikely.

If the commission does decide to lower recommended sentences, the reductions would not be automatic. A lawyer, the overwhelming majority of them public defenders, would file paperwork in court for the prisoner seeing a reduction, and the reduction would have to be approved by a judge. Prisoners would not necessarily have to appear in court, but prosecutors would also weigh in. The earliest prisoners could start petitioning to have their sentence reduced would be November, assuming Congress does not act.

The measure the commission will consider making retroactive changed a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and the drug was involved in a wave of violent crime, under which a person convicted of crack cocaine possession got the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The legislation reduced that ratio to about 18-1. The disparity disproportionately affects minorities — some 80 percent of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are black.

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, applying the change to those currently serving prison sentences for crack offenses could lead to major savings for taxpayers.

The group says the current annual per-person cost of incarceration is more than $28,000, and that retroactivity would allow for an average sentence reduction of 37 months. If all 12,040 people who would potentially be affected received the average sentence reduction, it would save taxpayers more than $1 billion over the next 30 years.