Ungovernment.
That title seems to be a good description for the DoJ on Civil Rights. Sen. Leahy was making a really scathing description of career lawyers appointed by different administrations being forbidden by the present administration's political appointees to enter their statement into DoJ presentations in Civil Rights administration. He also recalled that the signing into law of re-enacting Civil Rights legislation recently was pushed on the White House which then claimed credit for it.
From a Trac Report , Syracuse University, I found quite a good report, with graphs.
'CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT BY
BUSH ADMINISTRATION LAGS
Key data from the Justice Department and the federal courts show that the government's enforcement of civil rights cases -- an extremely rare event under all recent presidents -- sharply declined during the Bush years.
In FY 1999, federal prosecutors all over the United States filed charges against 159 defendants whom they said were involved in criminal violations of the nation's civil rights laws, according to data obtained from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys under the Freedom of Information Act. Since that year, the annual counts have gone mostly down, 127 defendants prosecuted in FY 2000, 148 in FY 2001, 122 in FY 2002 and only 84 in FY 2003. See Table 1.
Figures independently recorded by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show the same pronounced decline in the government's criminal enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws. The latest figures are available through December of 2003 -- a calendar year, rather than fiscal year, basis. Counting cases filed rather than the number of defendants prosecuted (for each case there may be one or many defendants) there were: 85 cases in 1999, 80 cases in 2002, 72 cases in 2001, 59 cases in 2002 and 49 cases in 2003. See graph.
*************
When assistant U.S. attorneys decline a matter they are required to explain why, selecting from a number of different pre-coded reasons. Since FY 2000, for example, the prosecutors said they had decided not to act on 61% of all referrals because government investigators had presented "weak or insufficient admissible evidence" or there was "no evidence of criminal intent" or that "no federal offense was evident." Roughly 20% of the referrals were declined as a result of "instructions from DOJ" or, curiously, at the request of the investigative agencies. See Table 5. The explanations leave more questions than answers. Why are so many found inadequate? Are the investigators working civil rights cases less competent than those involved in drug cases? Or are the prosecutors more cautious about prosecuting the alleged civil rights violators because at least some of them are an integral part of the community?
*******************
African-Americans have long asserted their right to equal treatment under the law. But with the historic bus boycott in Montgomery, the lynchings in Mississippi, Bull Connnor's violent reaction to peaceful demonstrators and other such events -- often recorded by unblinking television cameras -- the federal government initiated a ground-breaking effort to enforce these rights. This important but modest effort continued under most presidents after John F. Kennedy. But in the last three years, Justice Department data suggest that the campaign is faltering.
Of course, a party that returns to Sen. Lott as a revered leader can hardly pretend it respects diversity, or the many other races it courts when it needs votes. But the record isn't matching the rhetoric.
A bit of oversight is going to make a lot of difference in the enforcement of laws. Even Sen Specter is beating up on the witnesses for DoJ for not getting their statements in, as I watch this "oversight" hearing, and for ignoring the laws they should be familiar with. While he still has the spotlight, I guess Sen. Specter will be very responsive to the public's disgust in the lack of government we've been seeing in high places.
From a Trac Report , Syracuse University, I found quite a good report, with graphs.
'CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT BY
BUSH ADMINISTRATION LAGS
Key data from the Justice Department and the federal courts show that the government's enforcement of civil rights cases -- an extremely rare event under all recent presidents -- sharply declined during the Bush years.
In FY 1999, federal prosecutors all over the United States filed charges against 159 defendants whom they said were involved in criminal violations of the nation's civil rights laws, according to data obtained from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys under the Freedom of Information Act. Since that year, the annual counts have gone mostly down, 127 defendants prosecuted in FY 2000, 148 in FY 2001, 122 in FY 2002 and only 84 in FY 2003. See Table 1.
Figures independently recorded by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show the same pronounced decline in the government's criminal enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws. The latest figures are available through December of 2003 -- a calendar year, rather than fiscal year, basis. Counting cases filed rather than the number of defendants prosecuted (for each case there may be one or many defendants) there were: 85 cases in 1999, 80 cases in 2002, 72 cases in 2001, 59 cases in 2002 and 49 cases in 2003. See graph.
*************
When assistant U.S. attorneys decline a matter they are required to explain why, selecting from a number of different pre-coded reasons. Since FY 2000, for example, the prosecutors said they had decided not to act on 61% of all referrals because government investigators had presented "weak or insufficient admissible evidence" or there was "no evidence of criminal intent" or that "no federal offense was evident." Roughly 20% of the referrals were declined as a result of "instructions from DOJ" or, curiously, at the request of the investigative agencies. See Table 5. The explanations leave more questions than answers. Why are so many found inadequate? Are the investigators working civil rights cases less competent than those involved in drug cases? Or are the prosecutors more cautious about prosecuting the alleged civil rights violators because at least some of them are an integral part of the community?
*******************
African-Americans have long asserted their right to equal treatment under the law. But with the historic bus boycott in Montgomery, the lynchings in Mississippi, Bull Connnor's violent reaction to peaceful demonstrators and other such events -- often recorded by unblinking television cameras -- the federal government initiated a ground-breaking effort to enforce these rights. This important but modest effort continued under most presidents after John F. Kennedy. But in the last three years, Justice Department data suggest that the campaign is faltering.
Of course, a party that returns to Sen. Lott as a revered leader can hardly pretend it respects diversity, or the many other races it courts when it needs votes. But the record isn't matching the rhetoric.
A bit of oversight is going to make a lot of difference in the enforcement of laws. Even Sen Specter is beating up on the witnesses for DoJ for not getting their statements in, as I watch this "oversight" hearing, and for ignoring the laws they should be familiar with. While he still has the spotlight, I guess Sen. Specter will be very responsive to the public's disgust in the lack of government we've been seeing in high places.
posted by Ruth at 1:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home