... and While We Are Discussing Rochester, Let's Talk Some About Environmental Injustice

I suppose we locals ought to be happy that we don't make the list of US cities with the worst air quality (see the other chart in this article from Mother Jones from which I lifted the graphic above). But we are top five nationally in laying what dirty air we have on racial minorities. Nice!

The Emancipation Proclamation

Well, it hardly is a stylistic masterpiece. And the circumstances under which Lincoln issued it were determined largely by matters of political and military strategy. But the document surely is worth reading. Because despite all my throat clearing, the proclamation did in fact reverse a national disgrace. And, as Patricia Williams writes at The Guardian today, we have national disgraces of our own that call for similar resolve.


The Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863
[A Transcription]

By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:  Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Addressing Injustice: Argentina

I do not believe, as Martin Luther King Jr. suggests, that "the arch of the moral universe," by however circuitous a route, "bends toward justice." But events do sometimes work in ways that mitigate gross injustice. So, here and here are reports on an episode that gives one some hope - Jorge Rafael Videla the head of the murderous Argentinian junta (1976-1983), and several of his minions, have been sentenced to prison for some of their most heinous crimes. The sad part is that Videla will not live long enough to serve his entire sentence.

Politics and Acquiescence

There is a thought provoking Op-Ed in The New York Times today. You can find it here. The specific topic is plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system and what would happen if those accused of crimes refused to take part in the practice and instead insisted on exercising their constitutionally protected rights. Prosecutors in our system of justice have the upper hand. Judges are constrained by mandatory sentencing rules. Politicians pander to public fears. Those accused of crimes typically are made an offer they cannot refuse. And, once convicted of a felony, they are subject to all of the legal repercussions. They avoid the short term risk of draconian punishment in exchange for the long term hardship of never being treated equally again. As the examples in the essay suggest felon disenfranchisement is the tip of the iceberg.

But what would happen if there was a widespread refusal to acquiesce?

The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, “if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos.”

Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial “emergency” fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash — it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid.

Of course, there are massive problems of coordination blocking the way. There are informational and power asymmetries galore. And there is no guarantee whatsoever that, if the many were to withhold their acquiescence, the powerful and well-off would not simply insist on implementing some sort of emergency powers to deal with the ensuing difficulties. Anyone want to give odds?

The criminal justice system, of course, is not the only one that presumes the acquiescence of the population to a stacked deck. The coordinated repression of Occupiers in cities across the nation, is perhaps an indication of what would happen if citizens withheld their acquiescence. You might imagine that has little to do with you - law-abiding citizen that you are. But I recently posted on a novel by José Saramago that raises the same issue in the context of a fictional national election. What would happen if large numbers of Americans cast empty ballots simply because the options on offer were an embarrassment?

Travesty Defined? Or Murder as Planned ...

Bug or feature? That is my question. Is the imminent state-sponsored murder of Troy Davis a travesty of justice, or is it the way our system of justice is intended to work?

Can I say for sure that Davis is innocent? No, I cannot prove a negative. No one can. But the State surely has not met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.

Let's set aside the loathsome judicial and penal officials in Georgia. They are beneath contempt.

I have to say that the comments by the family whose loved one Mr. Davis did not murder are chilling. They run something like this: '"He" stole our future; regardless of whether we or anyone else might prove that. We don't care whether he did it or not, we want closure and peace. And that will come when someone, anyone, else dies.' There is a reason why we disallow people from being judges in their own case. In this instance tragedy has made these people smaller. The justice system is serving as enabler of that psychological withering.

Feature.

Retrospective Justice, the "Arab Spring" & the Prospects for Democracy

Political theorist Shlomo Avineri has published this pointed essay at Ha'aretz, comparing the way "justice" is being applied to Mubarak in Cairo and the way things worked in East Europe following the collapse of communism. Needless to say, the trials in Cairo are much the worse for the comparison. And it is interesting to imagine what might happen to the various Israeli officials who have participated in the various oppressive policies against the Palestinians.