Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Labels Stick: Treat All Fairly in Justice System and Beyond

Labels Stick: Treat All Fairly in Justice System and Beyond
Jan. 6, 2021: Brought to you by conflict profiteers
Brent Stirton/Getty Images

The recent four-year anniversary of the attack on the Capitol also called the insurrection, has many referring to it as an attack on democracy, an overturning of the Constitution, or a scheme by President-elect Donald Trump to take the White House. However, it’s not spoken of as a terrorist attack.

Trump has also pronounced that after his inauguration on January 20, he will begin pardons of every person sentenced due to their actions that day on January 6, 2021.


I recently read a social media meme stating: “Black Crime = Gang Violence,” “Arab Crime=Terrorism,” and “Hispanic Crime=Illegal Immigrants,” but “White Crime=Self Defense.” Apparently, this applies to those involved in the Capitol attack.

Although it was numerous different groups involved in the January 6th attack, including the Proud Boys, SkinHeads, Baked Alaska, The Nationalist Social Club, Qanon and Kekistan Flag, however, they were never referred to as a gang.

Even though they conspired to carry out criminal acts that led to people dying and being the victims of aggravated assault, none of the group leaders got sentenced to life in prison.

According to the Department of Justice, 1,572 people were charged with crimes that day, and 1,251 were convicted, including 996 who pleaded guilty. Of those receiving sentences, 645 were sentenced to various periods of incarceration, with 145 sentenced to home detention. Close to 260 people still have cases yet to be reviewed.

None were charged under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,” or RICO, “which allows authorities to punish offenders engaging in criminal activities” under directions from bosses or higher-ups.

There are individuals in U.S. prisons now who have served more than 50 years, some serving six life sentences for crimes that many would weigh lesser than what so many of us witnessed on January 6 four years ago.

As a veteran, I felt anger to see what U.S. soldiers fought for get desecrated. I felt so vulnerable as a Black man that day because if those involved in the violence that day do this to the institution that is the United States of America, they likely disregard the U.S. Constitution.

Many saw on live television a group of people telling the world they don’t care that others think they are white supremacists. They were out to show the world how supreme they were.

The recent New Year’s Day tragedy in New Orleans, orchestrated by a Black U.S. veteran and self-proclaimed member of ISIS, killed 14 and injured 13 more. The FBI calls it a terrorist event of someone acting alone with pre-meditations.

Although it was many groups involved in the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol who communicated with one another or conspired and committed a criminal act when people died, it has yet to be called gang-related. Nor has anyone faced RICO charges. And no one involved with January 6 has been called a terrorist.

How persons charged with crimes are labeled and treated in the justice system matters. Fair sentencing and deserved clemency matter. Pardons must go to those who deserve it.

Fredrick Womack oversees administrative and organizational operations as Executive Servant for Operation Good Foundation in Jackson, MS. He is a Public Voices Fellow on Transformative Justice through The OpEd Project.

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less