Author Archives: Dan Malo

About Dan Malo

Dan graduated from the University of Connecticut (Storrs, CT), where he obtained a B.A. in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. He completed a Planning & Development Internship with the Connecticut General Assembly in 2010 and in 2013, he was elected to his Town of Canterbury’s Planning & Zoning Commission, after sitting four years on appointment. He blogs for #TheGrid about local planning matters in New England and Eastern Connecticut's ‘Quiet Corner.’

Relationships Hold Power Over You

1 Reply

social-media-relationships

& The Power They Hold In Your Life

Every relationship or encounter involves a balance of power of one individual over another.  Sometimes it can be benign and to the extreme, malicious; regardless, there are a near infinite amount of intentions that can be displayed (or masked) that represent one persons control over the other.  “Types” of power are more narrowly defined, and are the result of our roles in a relationship, relative to the other person.  Sometimes we may have more power with certain individuals, and other times, we are powerless.  This is the result of our standing in a relationship and what level of control, be it from expertise, reverence, reward capability, coercive skill, or legitimacy of position.  I will discuss three experiences in my life someone clearly held power over me, their possible intent, and how that power affected the situation.

The Genius

Very often we come across someone whose knowledge is superior to ours, and because of this, they hold some power over us (at the very least, at the conversational level).  As the less informed individual in the relationship, we grant that person more power because we trust in their skill or expertise.  This was the case for me in a discussion I had with a physicist.  Because that field is beyond my ability to grasp and well beyond what I have learned in school, I had to trust this person that I was getting an objective (and presupposed) expert analysis of the Electron Particle Collider.  It was my fear when they turned it on, a black hole would form and destroy the Earth.  Through explanation, the physicist did little to quell my fears because the subject was still beyond my grasp, but, in trusting his confidence about the subject, I was able to sleep that night.  The fact that the world is still here, six months later, continues to justify my faith in what he had to say.

The Interviewer

Sometimes, one person has the power to reward us with what we want or need.  In my recent hunt for a job, I can’t help but notice the peculiar dynamic of a job interview that I was subjected to.  In my instance, the interviewer was less educated than me, yet the key to my employment rested on his shoulders.  The situation, for me, was humbling; for him, likely empowering. I submitted to the fact that if I were to get a job with this company, it would be in part, based on his decision.  So instead of rolling my eyes, I tried to conduct myself as I had originally planned, and put on a good interview.  I start in my new position Saturday.

A Man with a Gun

Finally, there are some situations we face in which we have very little choice in our actions; our actions are ordered to us by a person holding a gun.  Sometimes, it is a person with a legitimate reason, like a National Guardsman or Police Officer, in my experiences during Hurricane Katrina.  They were there to keep civility, and by my compliance, I was protected.  Other times, a different level control where life and death are your options, is displayed.  On a bad street in New Orleans, when approached by a man with demands for my wallet, granting his request was my safest option.  Compliance and trust that the decision I make satisfies the other party was all I was afforded. Fortunately, the outcome was agreeable, considering.  The particular nature of that situation provided the robber with opportunity, and I was nearly powerless.  I likely would have not given him my wallet if it was daylight, or if I was on a crowded block.   This level of power displayed, like every other, was dependent on time, place, situation, and the relationship.

Image and quality social media tips found here:
http://www.brandignity.com/2013/05/building-relationships-and-getting-social-5-tips-to-engage-your-followers/

REVIEW: “Endangered Minds”

Leave a reply

Children Need Boredom

In the days before telev518RCp0rs0L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ision, video games, and standardized testing, children were “bored”. Schools and media are always trying new ways to keep kids “engaged”.

Each new way eventually fails, like new fads; technology “one-ups” itself and creates a higher standard for instant gratification from the young learner. It is often forgotten, though, that children born in an era before the pervasiveness of internet and video games read more, played more, socialized more, appreciated more and actually really learned more.

In attempting to keep children happy and busy, parents and educators may forget development of the imagination and free curiosity which naturally comes with it is enabled by unstructured time away from the quick fix and “carrot” used to “motivate” children. “Free” time allows the mind to think, analyze and contemplate. Boredom itself, teaches.

Who children become is a result of what they learn and the behaviors they see by the people closest to them. A parent that makes smart decisions based upon sound logic provide a good model for the developing child. Justification using specific examples and reasoning gives structure, helping build cognitive ability, providing a reliable “life-solving” methodology to follow. The study of critical reasoning provides the platform in which to teach it. Understanding the “who”, “what”, ”when”, ”where”, “why’s”, and “how’s” of something, combining variables helps to make a claim and draw a conclusion. The context determines the logic used to present arguments; relating all concepts and providing a recognizable pattern. Willingham, in his essay Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard To Teach?, posits that “scientific thinking must be taught hand in hand with scientific content.”, and that upon analysis of teaching methods, believes “that effective approaches were those that focused on building complex, integrated knowledge bases as part of problem solving,” whereas,  “Ineffective approaches focused exclusively on the strategies be used in problem solving while ignoring the knowledge necessary for the solution.” (Willingham, 26)

People have come to have this habit of imagining the brain as a computer. It is assumed it can be programmed much like its technological counterpart. Modern learning methods capitalize on this idea, and have presented new ways to “program” the child using technology. But in all this, educators lose sight of the purpose of education. There is a difference between teaching someone and training someone. Greek philosopher Socrates believed in the concept that “the role of a teacher was draw out of a pupil the awareness, insight, and knowledge that would dispel ignorance and lead to clarity of thought”. In their book, The Child and The Machine, Armstrong and Casement expound on that philosophy adding “..education entails the development of a certain frame of mind, one that includes the idea of meditative thinking based upon self-knowledge and careful observation of the world… It is not simply a matter of programming a machine, but teaching a child how to think.” (Armstrong/Casement, 37-38)

With all the promise of electronic educational material, it should be that children “these days” are smarter. While IQ scores remain comparable to previous times, teacher, Jane M. Healy, author of Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and What We Can Do About It, questions what kind of knowledge is really shown through that test, finding students that although “likable, fun to be with, intuitive and often amazingly self-aware” seemed “nonetheless, harder  to teach and less attuned to verbal material”, struggling with written assignments and admittedly “not reading much –  sometimes even the required homework.” Interviewing her colleagues she comes across comments such as:

“..every year I seem to “water down” the material even more.”

“Lectures can’t exceed fifteen minutes. I use more audiovisuals.”

“I used to be able to teach Scarlet Letter  to my juniors; now that         amount of reading is a real chore for them and they have more trouble following the plot.”

“I’ve modified my teaching methods because of their lack of attention span and their impatience.”

“Kids’ abilities are certainly different – I use with gifted sixth graders a lot of what I did with average fifth graders in ’65-’66.  They complain of the workload.”(Healy, 2)

She finds these modifications in the teaching process as connective of an underlying issue apparent in the interview that states “some of my seniors will graduate from high school reading on a lower level than the students who graduated from junior high in 1970.” Another teacher finds with a book like Tale Of Two Cities, once used in some eighth grade classes is lost in  its meaning among current high schoolers. “The syntax is just like a foreign language to them.” While documenting her colleague’s frustrations in teaching this generation of students, she questions the modern, fast paced learning procedures, lamenting “To read well, minds must be trained to use language, to reflect, and to persist in solving problems. Students may learn to sound out the words, but unless they possess the internal sense of responsibility for extracting the meaning, they are engaging in a hollow and unsatisfying exercise. With major efforts, we have succeeded in teaching students in early grades to “read the words.” Test scores jump off a cliff, however, when students must begin to plug the words into language meaning and grapple with the more advanced grammar, vocabulary, and the sustained intellectual demands of a real text.”  New learning software has taken the educational process out of the hands of teachers and parents, and placed it onto computer and television screens interrupting traditional methods of instruction that have been counted upon for decades. (Healy, 11)

As an externality of an increased standard of living, children spend fewer hours with the family.  The television, once a shared activity centered upon the household set in the living room, has become a solo act, relegated to the bedroom.  More fortunate children, when the thrill of television programming has been quelled, now have personal computers, and gaming systems at their immediate disposal, without having the need to change rooms.  Cellular phones and this new “age of the text message” keep people; especially children, more adept at assimilating the changing winds of technology, “connected”, more so than at any time in the history of human civilization.  Before the I-Pod and wireless connectivity, man, woman, and child were resigned to being within earshot of a radio or television.  Phones were sought out, if one needed to place a call from outside of the home.  Knowledge was learned from the pages of books or from parenting and educational instruction.  This learning method forced absorption, with no flash drives to enable a bookmarked link following quick scan of a Wikipedia entry at any random Wi-Fi hotspot.  Computers were connected to walls, and its only use for the young student was as an easier alternative to the typewriter.  Before these technological innovations, many hours of the day were spent on other activities; playing, reading, studying, and even doing chores.  A walk at one point in time was only just a walk, without an accompanying soundtrack.

These new items occupy the “down time” in most peoples’ lives; an area once reserved for conscious thought and introspection, curiosity and imagination.  While they sometimes serve to benefit intellectual interests, more often than not, they commandeer this time; decreasing attention spans and swallowing one up in a consumer lifestyle that demands new and exciting toys to replace the predecessors that have fallen out of style and appeal. These, possibly, fundamental flaws in modern educational techniques have essentially been committed with the best of intentions.  “Higher standards” in American education have generated “lower expectations” from parents, teachers, and schools; no longer trusting in children to keep themselves active in thought, spoiling them with whatever they wish in an effort to satisfy them. As much as technology can teach, over use limits time honored, traditional methods of learning. Adults may forget that the best lessons ever learned are the ones they learned themselves; reading a book, walking in the park, or spending time with friends. Lessons that are never learned if just glued to a chair in front of a television or computer monitor.

Work Cited

Armstrong, Alison, and Casement, Charles.  The Child and the Machine: How Computers Put   Our Children’s Education at Risk. Robbins Lane Press, 2008

Healy, Jane M. Ph. D “Endangered Minds:  Why Children Don’t Think and What We Can Do About It” 1990. 2008.          <http://www.enotalone.com/article/5607.html>

Willingham, Daniel T. “Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard To Teach? American Educator Vol. 109 # 4  March/April 2008

<http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf>

Professor Sibicky – Comp 101

November 24, 2008

African Society Is Older Than Slavery

Leave a reply
1818 Pinkerton Map

1818 Pinkerton Map

It is has been expressed that Africa, in effect, had “no history” prior to western colonialism. On the contrary, curiosity attracted me to continent, wherein I easily found much.  I read books as a child which described the ‘mythical city’ of Timbuktu; I learned of the vast resources of the Congo, (as Zaire), merely by watching contemporary television coverage. Early on, I was led to a picture book of the Great Zimbabwe society, and fascinated by the stone structures that seemingly stretched across much of the southern third of the continent; as well as the ancient gold mines nearby.

When Oxford University History Professor Trevor Roper to claim in 1964 that “there is only the history of Europeans in Africa,” there could be no statement further from the truth.  With that type of instruction, taught to a nation’s most brightest students, it is no wonder that recent statistics show students to disbelieve in Timbuktu, as pure myth, akin to an African ‘El Dorado’. It is known, though apparently not taught well enough, that the city actually exists, and was THE center of Islamic learning (and by extension, world learning) during from the middle ages until the rise of European powers. Roper would say I’m “seduced…by the changing breath of journalistic fashion,” in hoping that the ‘common knowledge’ become commonly known. Granted, modern technology has put libraries at my fingertips, where I can explore the continent, virtually, at whim. However, this history has always been there to find, and an Oxford Professor of 50 years past, had just as much resource, if not more in terms of primary sources and artifacts.

Africa is a story about the loss of human capital, extracted like a resource from their people of origin. Why is the memory short on Africa? Is it that “Darkness is not a subject for history,” as Oxford University Professor of History, Trevor Roper, expresses? He charges that students should be taught about black African history, that unless it is, history will only be known from the European perspective… and that perspective, much like the history of pre-European, pre-Columbian America, it “is largely darkness.”

In order to fully grasp the state of current affairs, one should look to the past to see how things were before they became the way they are. It puts into context and grounds one to the material, in that that the learner may realize the changes that have occurred between two times in history. In our schools we are taught about the “Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade,” but what is taught is merely cursory, and oftentimes simplified to less than a page, to where all ‘history’ is merely the modern era, and everything before: ‘ancient’. One can only begin to make sense of the mad reality and come to terms towards a peace and reconciliation by a deeper, more historical understanding of the issue, and moving beyond the Euro-centric conception of the African continent. Well-travelled 14th century explorer Ibn Battuta described the African people he encountered in Mali as “seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people.” He described the peace and security maintained by the people and noted that “neither traveler nor inhabitant has anything to fear.”[1]

This greatly contrasts the European vision presented hundreds of years later, in 1831 by German philosopher George Wilhelm Hegel, who declared the African “completely wild and untamed,” and “unhistorical.” Justifying his lack of wont to guess a timeline for African self-governance, Governor of Kenya Sir Philip E. Mitchell urged that “it is necessary to realize that history began for these African people about 1890.” Which the Governor said in 1947, making one wonder: when is the start year for African history? It’s obvious to many, including L.S.B. Leaky, that Africa, rather than being without history, “was the birthplace of man himself, and that for many hundreds of centuries thereafter, Africa was in the forefront of all world progress.” And that many people “should know better.”[2]

Even still, history occurs in real time, and it is just as much a contemporary study, then as it is now. Did Roper not understand French (or implications) when it was uttered “Ou es Carlucci?” following the Western ‘intervention’ and deposing of Lumumba.  Roper pines: “Undergraduates… demand that they should be taught the history of black Africa,” as if he didn’t want to teach it. Rather than curiosity, he clings to academic self-preservation, but not before using subtle innuendo to describe his vision of African history as “largely darkness” and that “darkness is not a subject for history.” Whether a product of his times, with racism still in the collective ethos, or an intellectual bully with his steadfast, biased vision of history, regardless of the evidence; there is something to explore.

[1] Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1334

[2] The Progress and Evolution of Man in Africa (OUP. 1961:1)

Occupation: Claim Your African Cake

Leave a reply
Berlin Conference

Berlin Conference

In their scramble for Africa, the dominant European powers of the late 1800’s took claim to the continent for a number of reasons, foremost, out of necessity to compete with their neighbors who were doing the same. This was for resources and trade to existing and new markets borne “from the demand for raw materials unavailable in Europe, especially copper, cotton, rubber, tea, and tin, to which European consumers had grown accustomed and upon which European industry had grown dependent.”[1] Sub-Saharan Africa, in turn, was a new market for surplus European goods, and not participating in the Berlin Conference would have put them at a loss to their competitors. As well, instability in the Suez and the Barbary region necessitated an alternative thru-route into Africa and points east. Part of their effort to solve the Suez and Barbary pirate matters encouraged the plan for powers to protect their trade ability by occupation and control of Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia (for example).

Although slavery had been essentially outlawed by all the European powers, much of the proposal was billed “The diplomats put on a humanitarian façade by condemning the slave trade, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain regions, and by expressing concern for missionary activities.” In the worst case, the King Leopold’s land acquisitions—‘trinket’ treaties negotiated by Henry Morton Stanley wherein the signee would have no concept of what they were participating in—were organized into a front-agency “International Congo Society” and proclaimed the “Congo Free State” at the conference under the personal control of Leopold. Very soon, the exploitation and harsh treatment of labor for rubber would soon have the ‘Free’ ‘State’ ignoring its advertised precepts, and original ‘scientific’ beginnings “as an entirely disinterested humanitarian body” which sought to “administer the Congo for the good of all, handing over power to the locals as soon as they were ready for that grave responsibility.”[1]

The terms for keeping the European claims under the conference mandated “effective occupation”—European powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they actually possessed them: “if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order.” As well, the dispossessed white Voortrekkers (slaveholding), were moving into the interior of southern Africa, establishing independent Boer states, contrary to the aims of the United Kingdom, and were not included as parties to the partitioning. In fact, the Boers were to become detainees in modern history’s first concentration camps for in their attempt to assert their independence.

[1] http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2007/africa_scramble.html

Cannabis Decrim & Cost Savings

Leave a reply

Originally posted March, 2010. Cannabis was decriminalized in 2011 in Connecticut on a bill which I sought sponsorship for. SB1014 passed the Assembly, and was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in a Senate tie-breaking vote.  This was the first Decrim-by-Legislature since Alaska, in the 1970s. It was a historic, albeit shitty bill.

decrim

There have been numerous attempts in the State of Connecticut to remove the criminal penalties attached to cannabis possession. The majority of these proposed bills are focused mostly on the legalization of medical cannabis. While the efforts of medical cannabis legalization have faced similar gains and setbacks, it is the intention of this report to focus solely on decriminalization efforts put forth by the State Legislature.  In 1995, Proposed Bill 815 was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly.  This bill sought to decrease the penalty for possession of less than one ounce of cannabis by labeling it an infraction.  Individuals found in possession of cannabis would be “guilty of a violation and be fined fifty dollars.”[1] Two years later, a more comprehensive Raised Bill 6991 would come out of the Judiciary Committee.  Among many proposed substitutions and deletions revising State drug policy, this bill sought to decrease penalties for cannabis possession. The objectives of the bill were, first, to determine “substance use, abuse and dependency in the state, client and patient demographics and crime and criminal justice efforts.”

This bill started a new effort in gathering data for the purpose of policy reform.  Prior to this bill, the issue of cannabis was largely considered a moral political battle.  Raised Bill 6991 looked at the reality of the situation, acknowledging it as a health and judicial “problem.”  The bill also examined the use of prevention, treatment, intervention and education services as alternatives to incarceration and the use of criminal justice resources to address substance use and abuse. Also in the bill was language which questioned the appropriateness, quality and cost effectiveness of substance abuse services (including incarceration) administered by the Judicial Department.[2]  In 2003, legislation was proposed which looked to reduce penalties for simple cannabis possession. Proposed Bill 356 suggested that the penalty for possession of less than four ounces be an infraction, rather than a misdemeanor offense.[3] Another proposed bill that year, 5260, would have made possession punishable by a fine of $150 for a first offense and an additional $100 for each subsequent violation. Neither bill would be raised.[4] Attempts at decriminalization would be made in 2009 and 2010 with SB 349 and SB 476, both times on estimates that “doing so could save the state more than $11 million in law enforcement costs annually because far fewer people would be sent to state Superior Court to be overseen by prosecutors and probation officials…If marijuana users were issued a ticket that could be paid by mail, they would no longer need to go to court.”[5] Again like the others before it, these bills would die in committee.

Judging the cost savings benefit of the decriminalization of cannabis in Connecticut has faced one particular challenge. Any estimates would have to rely on accurate data to determine what the costs of criminalized cannabis are.  One could first look at the number of arrests for cannabis offenses to first realize a potential cost savings.  There is a hindrance, however, in that the Judicial Branch tracks offenses by statute number—and subsections in these statutes that deal with arrests for cannabis possession also include other illegal narcotics. According to an Office of Legislative Research (OLR) report in 2006, “to distinguish cases involving a particular drug, (researchers) would have to manually sort through every case on record.”[6] Examination of 2005 statistics, behind the three particular statutes that criminalize cannabis, provide a useful estimate of the volume of arrests and convictions, as well as potentiality in cost savings:

CGS § 21a-278(b) makes it illegal for a non-drug dependent person to possess with intent to sell any narcotic substance, hallucinogenic substance, amphetamine-type substance, or one kilogram or more of marijuana  According to the Judicial Branch, there were 1,885 arrests under this statute in 2005.

CGS § 21a-279(b) makes it illegal to possess or control a dangerous hallucinogen or more than four ounces of marijuana.  According to the Judicial Branch, there were 499 arrests under this statute in 2005.

CGS § 21a-279(c) makes it illegal to possess or control “any quantity of any controlled substance other than a narcotic substance” or “a hallucinogenic substance other than marijuana,” or less than four ounces of marijuana.  According to the Judicial Branch, there were about 9,724 arrests under this statute in 2005.

Recent numbers gathered by the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) showed that there were 9,928 marijuana arrests in Connecticut in 2007, representing 7.0% of total arrests statewide.  The OFA concluded that approximately 33% of those arrests were for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.  In their findings, OFA saw an estimated 2.3% of total law enforcement resources statewide currently allocated to crimes of cannabis possession. The agency posited a “theoretical savings to state and local law enforcement agencies…estimated to be $9.4 million, resulting from savings associated with police officers no longer having to process arrests for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.” That number is quite large, but it is a potential savings.  More likely, this will free up resources for other police actions according to OFA, which concluded that a “savings in this amount may not be realized by state and local law enforcement budgets due to the fact that resources would most likely be reallocated, rather than eliminated.”[7] Besides the potential cost savings, decriminalization would have a positive public safety impact in that it diverts resources from the enforcement of a non-violent crime to other crimes of more pressing importance.

Criminalized cannabis poses a cost burden on the courts as well.  Data given in 2009 by OFA estimates a smaller number of Judicial cases under CGS 21a‑279(c).  They approximate 3,200 prosecutions (suspiciously down from the 9,700 in the 2005 data).  With these numbers, OFA assumes “that possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana accounts for ¼ of these cases, then the annual cost to process them is estimated to be $400,000, including the salaries of 1 Public Defender, 2 State’s Attorneys, a portion of 1 Judge and support staff, expenses and fringe benefits.”  If using their 2005 statistics, the savings potentially exceeds $1,000,000.

Obviously, along with cost burdens of cannabis criminalization on enforcement agency and courts, there is a large fiscal impact on the State prison system.  The 2009 OFA data finds that there are currently 57 inmates serving a sentence where the controlling charge is CGS 21a-279(c) (possession of less than four ounces of marijuana).  At the time of the data collection, an additional 17 offenders were being held pretrial.  The OFA assumes that “possession of less than one ounce of marijuana accounts for ¼ of these individuals, and assuming an average cost of $44,895 per year per inmate (including employee fringe benefit costs) the resulting savings would be $831,000 per year.”[8] These figures average $121 per day, having risen since 2003 when estimates by the Department of Corrections and the Office of Fiscal Analysis concluded $76 and $96, respectively.[9]  These numbers will theoretically rise higher over time with inflation, further increasing costs to the State and taxpayer.

Savings could also be realized in the 1,300 probationers under supervision in the community who were convicted of possession of less than 4 ounces of marijuana as their primary charge.  In particular, the estimate assumes no trials on charges of marijuana possession and no prison terms due to marijuana possession.  The estimate presented here takes as given that current rules regarding parole and probation would remain in effect under decriminalization.  Under current rules, Harvard University Professor Jeffrey Miron notes, “regarding parole and probation, a positive urine test for drugs can send a parolee or probationer to prison, regardless of the original offense…these rules might change under legalization, implying additional reductions in government expenditure.”[10]  Miron also believes that “it is plausible these rules would be relaxed under decriminalization. This would keep non-trivial numbers of parolees and probationers out of prison, with substantial savings for the government budget.[11] The OFA again assumes that “possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana accounts for ¼ of these individuals” and “the estimated, annual cost to supervise these offenders in the community is $424,000, including probation officer salaries, fringe benefits, expenses and contracted services.  Again, these are conservative estimates, and the potential savings rises greatly, depending on the data used and the interpretation thereof.

A 2009 report from the State Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) examining SB 349 and the budgetary impact of cannabis decriminalization concluded that “reclassifying these offenses as infractions would greatly increase the frequency with which fines are imposed and result in a net revenue gain to the General Fund.”  Through estimation of the number of current offenses, OFA reclassification of cannabis could yield “up to $320,000 in additional General Fund revenue each year.”  According to their report, the OFA felt that “potential savings…would continue into the future subject to inflation; the annualized revenue from fines would remain constant into the future since fine amounts are set by statute.” [12]

The true savings or revenue gain is ultimately impossible to determine at this point.  Harvard University Professor Jeffrey Miron believes that “estimated savings in criminal justice resources is likely the minimum savings that would occur under decriminalization”  He believes that “since most of the assumptions underlying this estimate err on the low side,”[13] there is a potentially large, unknown upside.  While the State might not “win the lottery” in decriminalizing cannabis, all indications point to both cost savings and increased revenue.  To best gauge the possible fiscal impact of decriminalized cannabis in Connecticut, it is helpful to look at the effects of other decriminalization efforts around the United States.

Decriminalization is hardly a new issue—During the 1970’s there was an effort in many states to decriminalize cannabis possession by imposing a civil fine rather than a criminal penalty. During that time, eleven states dropped criminal penalties. Recently, Nevada and Massachusetts decriminalized simple possession. As well, a number of municipalities have taken steps to decriminalize or “deprioritize” marijuana arrests.  Some states, such as Alaska, have “rolled back” their policies, criminalizing cannabis by referendum after a long period of legalization.  Currently, nine states have decriminalized possession of small amounts[14], and bills of similar nature are proposed in nearly every state in the country.

Professor Miron has researched the “Prop. 2” decriminalization measure in Massachusetts and his research is likely the most reliable, in terms of coverage of fiscal impact. Miron used methodology and data sets similar to that of OFA, and concluded that decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts would produce an annual savings in law enforcement resources of approximately $ 29. 5 million based on 2006 data.  Miron found that judges and lawyers generally estimated stand-alone arrests at 40% of marijuana possession arrests in Massachusetts. He also found, like OFA, that 33% was a reasonable estimate of the marijuana arrests that would no longer occur due to decriminalization. He also found that 5. 8% of all arrests in Massachusetts were for marijuana possession. He multiplied this by 33% to get 1.9% as the fraction of all arrests that would not occur and result in a savings of criminal justice resources under decriminalization.[15]

According to a 2010 OFA report reviewing Miron’s work, savings in criminal justice resources had three components: “a reduction in police resources because of the reduced number of arrests; a reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources because of the reduced number of criminal applications, pre-trial hearings, and trials; and a reduction in correctional resources because of the reduced number of prisoners.” OFA notes that Miron found that only the first category was likely to be substantially affected by decriminalization due to the low numbers of people incarcerated solely for marijuana possession, which amounted to about 1.9% of the Massachusetts’ budget for police protection.  It is on that figure that Miron determined the $29.5 million figure. He concludes that this estimate may be low for several reasons, including the earlier mentioned assumption that parole and probation rules will stay the same.[16]

The City of Seattle adopted ballot initiative “I-75” in 2003. The initiative mandated that “the police department and city attorney’s office make the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of marijuana offenders the city’s lowest enforcement priority when the marijuana is intended for adult personal use.” Studied by University of Washington Professors, Beckett and Herbert, the two recently crafted a report which discusses the consequences and costs of marijuana prohibition. Their report concludes that “there were reductions in the number of referrals of marijuana-related incidents from the police department to the city attorney and also a reduction in people charged with marijuana possession by the city attorney, after I-75’s adoption.”[17]

The California decriminalization effort is discussed in a 1988 study published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. Prior to the enactment of the Moscone Act in 1976, ¼ of the felony arrests in California were for marijuana, costing the state $100 million annually to process marijuana offenders. The act reduced possession of small amounts of marijuana from a felony to a new type of misdemeanor. The study’s authors, Aldrich and Mikuriya, concluded that California saved at least $ 1 billion between 1976 and 1986 as a result of this change. However, this study discusses the savings associated with “de-felonization” rather than outright decriminalization of cannabis.” [18]

Thus far, nearly every state has, at the very least, broached the subject of cannabis decriminalization in the committees of their legislatures.  Decriminalization—even legalization—are popular subjects that get mentioned both by word of mouth, and in the media. According to drug experts, cannabis is the most popular illegal drug, with nearly 42% of the population experimenting with the drug in their lifetime.  Proponents argue that decriminalization and eventual legalization are measures that have become necessary to “right the wrong” caused by prohibition.[19] In today’s budget crisis, regardless of one’s opinion of the drug itself, decriminalization of cannabis is perhaps the simplest legislation with the quickest turn around in cost savings and potential revenue.

 

[1] State of Connecticut, Proposed Bill 815, An Act Concerning Marijuana and Cannabis Type Substances (1995).

[2] State of Connecticut, Raised Bill 6991, An Act Concerning Drug Policy (1997).

[3] State of Connecticut, Proposed Bill 356, An Act Concerning the Penalty for Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana (2003).

[4] Norman-Eady, Sandra, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Resarch. “2004-R-0264  Decriminalization of Marijuana.  February 25, 2004

[5] Keating, Christopher.  Hartford Courant “Judiciary Committee Votes To Decriminalize Marijuana.” March 31, 2009  http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/03/decriminalize-marijuana.html (Accessed April 23, 2010)

[6] Wolkoff, Adam, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Research.  “2006-R-0113  Marijuana Statistics.” February 6, 2006.

[7] Murphy, Michael, Alan Calandro, Christopher Wetzel.  State of Connecticut, Office of Fiscal Analysis. “OFA-1575, Fiscal Impact of reducing the penalty for possession of a small amount of marijuana.” March 23, 2009.

[8] Murphy, Michael, Alan Calandro, Christopher Wetzel.  State of Connecticut, Office of Fiscal Analysis. “OFA-1575, Fiscal Impact of reducing the penalty for possession of a small amount of marijuana.” March 23, 2009.

[9] Wolkoff, Adam, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Research.  “2006-R-0113  Marijuana Statistics.” February 6, 2006.

[10] Miron, Jeffrey.  Harvard University. “The Budgetary Implications of Prohibition.”(December, 2008)

[11] Miron, Jeffrey.  Harvard University. “The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments” (October, 2008).  http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/decrim_update_2007.pdf  (Accessed April 23, 2010)

[12] Murphy, Michael, Alan Calandro, Christopher Wetzel.  State of Connecticut, Office of Fiscal Analysis. “OFA-1575, Fiscal Impact of reducing the penalty for possession of a small amount of marijuana.” March 23, 2009.

[13] Miron, Jeffrey.  Harvard University. “The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments” (October, 2008).

[14] Norman-Eady, Sandra, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Resarch. “94-R-1089  Legalization of Illicit Drugs”  December 22, 1994.

 

[15] Norman-Eady, Sandra, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Resarch. “94-R-1089  Legalization of Illicit Drugs”  December 22, 1994.

[16] Soncia Coleman, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Research. “Criminal Justice Cost Savings Associated with Marijuana Decriminalization.” February 17, 2010.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[18] Norman-Eady, Sandra, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Resarch. “94-R-1089  Legalization of Illicit Drugs”  December 22, 1994. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0052.htm (Accessed April 22, 2010)

[19] Norman-Eady, Sandra, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Resarch. “94-R-1089  Legalization of Illicit Drugs”  December 22, 1994.

AFRICA: Reactions To Colonialism

Leave a reply
Ashanti War

Ashanti War

Europeans made headway into Africa by making associations with disaffected ethnic groups—who hoped that the newcomers would provide leverage over territorial disputes with other groups.  Some initially welcomed the Europeans, but eventually all would resist European occupation. In the west, the coastal Fante Confederation, weak from raids of the nearby Asante, would side with the British; in the east, the Buganda province would align with against the dominant Bunyoro.[1] European powers capitalized on regional conflict to at first gain footing on the continent, and then secondly, to undermine the native ruling structures of the interior. The Europeans conducted long wars against holdout groups, which fought with both conventional and guerrilla tactics, such as the Islamic empire of Samory Touré, which held a resistance for nearly 20 years against French rule in West Africa at the end of the 19th century.[2]

Defeat for Africans meant a new means of tribute. The European model of taxation for the purpose of capitalizing work projects was introduced to the continent, as a means of self-sufficiency for the European colonies. Hut taxes, Head taxes, and a host of other taxes were introduced upon the Africans who never had to pay such things.[3] Failure to pay taxes, would force conscription into a forced labor gang to build improvements desired by the European nations, which mainly consisted of roads and railways to coastal ports, but nary a road between neighboring groups. Africans were also pressed into mine work, and other dangerous duties by the local chief, who was only crafting the work detail out of a European demand from higher up.

Avoidance of taxation and forced labor could lead to imprisonment; another system foreign to the continent.[4] Prior to physical incarceration, punishments were closer to moral judgments and self-reflection. The true leaders of the people were often jailed, for instigating rebellion, or on the fear they might, and it is from this practice that Africa, again, was forced into chains and captivity, and suffered the loss their human capital. Though the slave trade purportedly ceased, a new model of slavery replaced it, one of economic and political servitude. All the while, Africans were being dispossessed of their lands, and forced into meager reservations of poor soil, which would sew “the incipient seeds of future African nationalism.”

Where once the Europeans were welcomed by certain parties, when the demands that were placed upon their enemies were eventually then put upon them, they too, were forced to rebellion in their own self-interest. In what is described as the Secondary Reaction to European colonialism, the ethnic groups that initially welcomed the Europeans would rebel against them, when taxation, forced labor, imprisonment and land alienation began to be imposed on them, in addition to their enemies. The opportunity for alliance was too late, and these rebellions were suppressed, forcing Africa into compliance with the European colonial objectives.

[1] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 26th, 2013.

[4] Ibid.

Direct/Indirect Colonial Management

Leave a reply
Foncha Ahidjo, West Cameroon (1960)

Foncha Ahidjo, West Cameroon (1960)

The European powers each managed their holdings differently, but the most utilized strategies were Indirect Rule and Assimilation, by the British and French colonies. Employed by the British, Indirect rule sought to dictate from London, and rule through local (loyal) “chiefs.” The French sought to assimilate Africa into their empire, and disseminate the French culture to Africans. The Portuguese, in contrast, made no effort at a teaching Africans to read, and literacy rates generations later reflect that—in 1945, less than 1 person in 100 in the Portuguese colonies could read.[1] The continent would be subject to European rule, save for countries of Liberia and Ethiopia which maintained their independence and self-governance.

The method of ‘Indirect rule’ was favored by the British, whereby the native group is left to administer locally. Chiefs were appointed, usually men loyal to the Empire, as Africa’s indigenous leaders were prone to capture and imprisonment. These chiefs were subjects to the Empire, installed by British Administrators to collect taxes and conscript labor for road and rail building projects, in addition to maintaining local order. In their role as agents of the empire, the chiefs would bear the brunt of local criticism for policies and mandates crafted in the colonial capital or elsewhere and acted as a buffer against anti-colonial sentiment; the chiefs were seen as transgressors, locally, for British crimes mandated upon them.[2] Africans were seen as a lesser species, and though Britain had ended its role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, their managers ruled with racism in mind. The British though that the ‘inferior’ African people, could never attain the level of culture and sophistication of a European nation, and preferred their arrangement with Africans to be one of master and servant.

The French chose to adopt the attitude of ‘assimilation’ in their colonial holdings. They incorporated their African colonies into their Empire, and sought to share the French culture, which they viewed as enlightened. [3] They allowed for any African to become a French citizen, by virtue of adopting French ways and customs. The French established schools to aid in literacy, and allowed for travel to France and education in universities. Exhibiting none of the racism of the United Kingdom’s colonial endeavors, the French also allowed representation in their national assembly. In Senegal, communes were established in Gorée, Dakar, Rufisque, and Saint-Louis[4] which exemplified their attempt at integrating the French culture into Africa, although most Africans living outside the communes had no access to schools. Davidson notes that by 1926, fewer than 50,000 out a regional population of 13 million acquired the status of French citizen.[5]  Many Africans, retained their native customs, and carried on their traditional way of life. However the culture was pervasive enough that the Franc survives as the currency and French as a predominant language, more than fifty years after Senegalese nationhood.[6]

The most devastating method of management from this time period employed by all European powers was the development of the cash-crop, or monoculture. These crops, exclusively for export, were grown to the exclusion of the regions basic food needs, and are responsible for famine to this day. In his book, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” Walter Rodney illustrates how “in Gambia rice farming was popular before the colonial era, but so much of the best land was transferred to groundnuts that rice had to be imported on a large scale to try and counter the fact that famine was becoming endemic.”[7] This was a practice repeated all throughout Africa, and left Africans vulnerable not only to famine, but the ravages of crop failure and international price fluctuations.[8] According to Rodney, these land use practices are responsible for rendering the continent “helpless in the face of capitalist manoeuvres.”[9]

[1] Basil Davidson, “Modern Africa, 3rd Edition” 1994.

[2] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Maelenn-Kégni Touré “Black Past – Four Communes of Senegal (1887-1960)” accessed October 7, 2013: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/four-communes-senegal-1887-1960

[5] Basil Davidson, “Modern Africa, 3rd Edition” 1994, page 38.

[6] The CIA World Factbook, Entry “Senegal” accessed October 7, 2013:  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sg.html

[7] Rodney, Walter, and Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu. 1974. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press.

[8] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[9] Rodney, Walter, and Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu. 1974. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press.

Africa As Cake: Berlin Conference

2 Replies

berlinconference

The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 was the ‘international’ agreement to settle the territorial Scramble for Africa, led largely by France and Britain. It set the ground rules for taking of African land and resources between European powers, in order to avoid war and international conflict. African historian Basil Davidson notes in “The Magnificent African Cake” that by the 1880’s, industrialized Europe saw in Africa “new sources of raw materials for its factories, new markets for its manufactures, and new positions of advantage against its rivals.”[1] Represented in Berlin were fourteen different countries; of these, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the primary stakeholders, holding the largest share of Africa at the time.

At the time of the conference, most colonial holdings were limited to coastal areas of Africa. The conference, among its range of purposes, was foremost convened to decide the interior boundaries between the European powers in order to avoid conflict between Europeans. Africans were not represented at the conference, nor were African leaders consulted on boundary exchanges.[2] However, its outcomes are responsible for the aggression of Europeans and the visiting of conflict upon the African people. The African people would effectively be rendered non-persons, suppressed further from the Atlantic Slave Trade of prior centuries; an act which set precedent for the theft of Africa’s resources and incarceration or murder of its human capital. The outcome of the Slave Trade, and that of the Berlin Conference, created a long-term chaos in African society which forms the root of the continent’s contemporary issues.

As is the modern rhetoric when one country intervenes upon another, the notion of Humanitarian concern was visited as a motive for Africa’s partitioning. Africans were viewed, paradoxically, as “lazy” or “savages” that required conversions to Christ, and taxation schemes to develop a western work ethic, under the instruction European empire.  Whether the phrase “humanitarian reasons” would be conveyed sincerely or euphemistically,  a conference of that nature—stealing and sharing an inhabited continent—would not be allowed by the collective morality, were it not for racism and the predominate view of Africans as sub-human. The land itself was seen as empty, and for the taking. Davidson describes how Belgian King Leopold “Spoke for them all when he said, “I am determined to get my share of this magnificent African cake.””[3] Africa was not seen by the European powers as belonging to someone else.

The land and Africa’s other natural resources, were sought for a number of reasons, from which they are largely the result of the “dynamic growth of industrial capitalism.”[4]  The British needed new markets, The French had a desire for land largesse, and needed to nurture the cultural ego, while their European territory was contracting[5]. The Portuguese concerned themselves with the perpetuation of their coastal trade outposts, which were among the earliest modern European settlements on the continent; the earliest, European settlements, Sub-Saharan, that history can establish. The Dutch, much like the Germans, sought fertile land and homesteads and religious freedom. Each saw Africa as a means to their survival against competing powers; Resources, to sustain industrialization and capitalism; Redemption and espousal of cultural identity; continuation of naval trade dominance, and land for the political or religious refugee. Religion would also settle Africa; missionaries of a certain nationality in a particular area would be used to justify a land claim[6], and the scramble saw waves of missionaries make their trek into the interior; a practice that still occurs to this day.

The primary stipulation to any land claim was the principle of ‘effective occupation. “Any power that could occupy African soil could, effectively, claim it,” as Basil Davidson describes.  In addition to settler colonies and forts on the frontier, claims by the European nations were bolstered by the presence of missionaries and explorers within a desired territory. Commercial companies, like the Imperial British East African Company, were the foundation for British claims in the East, while the entrepreneurial efforts of Cecil Rhodes were responsible for British claims in Southern Africa. Davidson likens the strategy to a “great game” which purpose “was to get hold of places and positions of advantage over rivals, no matter what irrational frontiers might result.”[7]

In The words of British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, European nations were “engaged in drawing lines on map where no man’s foot has ever trod. We’ve been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we never knew exactly where we were.”[8] Wherein the Berlin Conference signatories were to inform other signatories and Western nations of their land claims[9], they were not required to inform the people of Africa, which who were more or less captured, coerced, or strong-armed into ‘agreement’.

[1] Basil Davidson, “The Magnificent African Cake,” Documentary film, 1986.

[2] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 24th, 2013.

[3] Basil Davidson, “The Magnificent African Cake,” Documentary film, 1986.

[4] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 26th, 2013.

[5] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 19th, 2013.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Basil Davidson, “The Magnificent African Cake,” Documentary film, 1986.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Amii Omara-Otunu, Lecture, University of Connecticut, September 19th, 2013.

Hopes for Zimbabwe from 2008

Leave a reply

zimbabwe-s-president-robert-mugabe-has-held-power-33-years-photodpa-

By now, the issues facing Zimbabwe are daily news.  The country is faced with a cholera epidemic, food shortage, rampant inflation, and tyrannical dictator.  Robert Mugabe’s land reform and domestic policy have bankrupted a once prosperous nation. Zimbabwe, once the bread basket of half a continent, is facing acute food shortages and currently experiencing a drought. Agriculture has collapsed since the embarked on “land reforms” involving the expropriation of thousands of white-owned farms, which critics say he has handed over to his associates. Short-term, the economic situation looks grim, with the inflation rate in the hundred-million percents. Mugabe clings to his power in old age, having recently celebrated his 85th birthday; a year after losing a hotly contested election with embattled Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai. Mr. Mugabe blames his country’s crisis on sanctions imposed by the US and the EU.

The country’s hope is through these sanctions, media coverage, and international indignation.  Douglas Alexander, UK International Development Secretary, called Mugabe’s presence at a UN Food Summit meeting “obscene,” saying “I’m outraged by his attendance.”  He calls labels Mugabe’s “profound misrule” as the key factor responsible for the crisis, adding “I’ll neither shake hands with Robert Mugabe nor meet Robert Mugabe … This is not a man with any credibility or any contribution to a discussion on international food.” Currently, Mugabe is banned from European travel; his status as a respected African “leader” by Western leaders is more than twenty years in the past.  Every day he sits in power, his painfully short-sighted, incredulous policies and irreverent ramblings deprive the country of the real leader it needs. Instead of constructively addressing the issues at hand, he wastes his words placing blame, saying “Some people are contriving ways and means of making us collapse.”

The short term must play itself out; this crisis will likely continue indefinitely. Mugabe will eventually die, and even if another dictator steps up and takes his place, in the long term, Zimbabwe has the resources and infrastructure (albeit, crumbling).  A report from the Harvard University Africa Policy Journal states that “the southern African country is in a perilous state of decline and could face a transition at any time. Waiting until the day after the fall of [president] Robert Mugabe could be too late.” The report predicts that “In political democracies, prolonged economic decline almost always sparks political change, through the ballot box or more radical confrontation on the streets.”  Dictators can’t live forever, and there is hope for Zimbabwe in the passage of time.

http://itn.co.uk/news/6e15d65226db0781488f195849ebccdc.html

http://www.afrol.com/articles/19468

CHRO & AAAC Anti-Discrimination Police/Community Forum

Leave a reply

Community Party 

Analysis of the CHRO & AAAC Anti-Discrimination Police/Community Forum

24 June, 2010    3:00-5:00pm   Legislative Office Building

~~~

First they said it wasn’t a problem

Then they flipped it—it’s the people that lack respect

Next they say we have laws (unenforced)

Now they admit it happens

And they are “working on it”

Then they switch topic—in true diversion

And finally back to criticism on the community

Racial Profiling – Daniel Malo, 24 June, 2010

In short order, made for show; with requisite back-patting and blame shift.  The forum opened with words from the director of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).  Mr. Robert Brothers began by telling an anecdote from his police officer days.  It was a routine about rookie cops and cups of coffee. The reaction from the audience—a feigned laughter, the perfunctory kind.  Perhaps an irrelevant joke was not the best way to begin conversation on such a serious issue.

Mr. Glenn Cassis, Executive Director of the African-American Affairs Committee (AAAC), gave a brief statement about the age of the organization and the availability of reading material for the audience.  The focus then turned to the conversation at hand.  From the onset, it was boasted that Connecticut was one of the least racist states, and that very few allegations of racial profiling are received by the state agency tasked to handle them (CHRO).

The CHRO backed up their assertions with a you tube clip, showing the recent immigrant marchers facing harassment from bigots bused in from out of state.  Obviously, the racist behavior in the video was appalling.  But we’re talking about police profiling here.  The recent case of the 17 year old black girl in Seattle being punched in the face by a white officer was brought up.  They declined to show that YouTube clip, however.

The three legislators and four current and former law enforcement officers on the panel went on to say that the community has lost respect for police officers and that in “their day” they would have cooperated fully, without ever questioning officer integrity.  It is the fault of those being arrested—the simply lack respect.  “We need to reach the kids” well, yes obviously, but the issue here is racial profiling.  The issue is not just about “the children!”  What about the kind older lady, Mrs. Sharp, who’s been pulled over on multiple occasions for “driving while black?”

Well, “we have laws against it.”  Agencies report their arrest data, and “this hardly occurs.”  “The media” is partly to blame, for sure, for twisting stories.  Like the members of the panel admit, “cops are human, too.” They even “have feelings.” Yes, I don’t deny that.  I’ve known plenty of law enforcement professionals, and while they are generally dry folks, I’m sure they possess feelings.  For a brief movement, we are reminded of the purpose of the forum: the Penn Act gets a mention, but is summarily dropped.  They are “working on racial profiling.”

It’s about “keeping the kids busy.”  And oh by-the-way—there is a great swimming program—bring the children.  The eloquent speaking gentleman behind me spoke of Conyers and the Civil Rights movement, and then touted the merits of his mentorship organization.  A legislator suggested more cops in school.  The audience suggested the cop actually teaching, rather than just waiting there for a student to arrest.  Respect goes both ways.

Finally, the forum moves to Q & A, which is dominated by agency members, businessmen, and law enforcement professionals.  The community is called out, again, and while I agree that “we are all family” and should treat each other as such, nothing is accomplished here in terms of a discussion about racial profiling.  Amid the intra-agency back-patting and pleasantries, there was just a brief allusion to the fix, once and for all, regarding this issue.  And it’s already in place.

The Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act (PA 03-160), a public act—LAW—in the State of Connecticut IS the fix.  Or anyway, it is supposed to be.  The State’s 110 police departments submit traffic stop data to the AAAC, which analyzes it and reports on findings of racial profiling.  Oddly, for it being a state law, only 27 departments are compliant—and Hartford isn’t one of them.  Again on compliance, the AAAC has been unable to review this data because they “lack the funding.”

I had my hand raised to ask the panel some questions about the Penn Act, but of course, we ran out of time, and I was left hanging.  Raising their hands before me to echo their colleagues on the panel were CHRO agency members and a police officer, who won the ire of the crowd by informing everyone that “there is no law to arrest people for driving while black.”  Your audience is smart enough to know that. Without a doubt, it is read between the lines, an underlying issue ignored due to inadequate examination of the issue.

I wanted to say that the Penn Act needs teeth—otherwise it is just a database of arrest/stop data.  I am of the belief that if you are gonna take personal data, it should be used to an appropriate end.  To what end has the data collected been used?  Why have we played this charade if the answer is already out there—let’s talk about implementation.  Some of the questions I had in mind would answer ‘why, this lazy approach?’, as well as address the reason why only 25% of the States police departments follow the law.

In order:

Assistant Hartford Police Chief Neal Drieff:  Why is the City of Hartford—the State Capitol—not in compliance with this mandate?

Elected officials on the Panel; Reps. Robles and Lawlor, Senator Coleman:  Why is the Penn data not being put to its intended use?

AAAC Executive Director Cassis:  Funding?  To write a report?  College students do it for free… Can’t this be as simple as a Scantron?