FORUM
B4 MARCH 22-28, 2023
The inspired Black child (TriceEdneyWire.com) - The truth is always revealed despite the lies and misinformation sometimes communicated by those in and running for office. Ignorance represents a lack of knowledge or information; therefore, ignorance is the opposite of knowledge. It is surprising how much the ignorance of voters will play a role when it comes to the GOP waging its culture war in America. A motivating factor behind many ambitious politicians resorting to lies and misinformation is the ignorance of those who will choose to accept and embrace the twisted truth. While access to the truth is always available, the facts will remain ignored and disregarded. The facts become irrelevant if the lie and misinformation feed an individual’s prejudices and/or political beliefs. A shrewd politician will recognize when they have a receptive audience with deliberate ignorance in which their lack of knowledge is by their choosing. The culture war is not just a fight between conservatives and liberal ideologies. How this culture war is conducted shows it to be a fight between ignorance versus knowledge. The perfect example is the “birther” movement. Then-President Obama and the Dept. of Health in Hawaii approved the public release of Obama’s birth certificate to finally put the questions surrounding his nationality to rest. Once the birth certificate was made public, Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, questioned if the document was authentic. His MAGA supporters continued to believe the lie despite the facts. After years of stirring up controversy, misinformation, and racial division, Trump eventually acknowledged what he knew all along, that Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen. The “birther” movement was an effective means for Trump to politically prey on the deliberate ignorance of his MAGA supporters and exploit their willingness to reject the truth. When the “birther” movement was inserted into Trump’s culture war strategy, it perfectly fit as a “dog whistle” tactic when connecting the culture war with his quest for elected office. While the “birther” movement galvanized support among MAGA voters, it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, a means of disrespecting Obama and Black voters. It helped propel Trump to the White House. Now, “wokeness”
David W. Marshall
Commentary has become the latest “dog whistle” and means of twisting the truth to satisfy and appeal to conservative voters. Many GOP primary voters are passionate about wanting their presidential candidates to embrace and defend culture war issues. Therefore, it was no surprise that former South Carolina Governor and US Ambassador Nikki Haley declared war on “wokeness” while giving her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “I am running for president to renew an America that’s proud and strong, not weak and woke,” she said. “Wokeness” is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic, hands down.” The Republican presidential candidate was not done. During the same speech, Haley spoke about “election integrity” and the fact that as governor, she enacted a voter ID law. While hitting all the talking points that typically resonate with Republican voters, many within the CPAC audience still may be unable to state the true meaning of CRT. The same is now true about the definition of the term “woke.” Most of the CPAC audience will unlikely support her candidacy for president, but most will embrace her misinformation regarding the threat of being “woke.” Why is the term, which began to gain popularity at the start of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014, rejected by many within the Republican Party? To be “woke” politically in the Black community means that someone is informed, educated, and conscious of social injustice and racial inequality, Merriam-Webster Dictionary states. To be “woke” means a person chooses knowledge over ignorance. It means the same individual accepts what can often be painful facts and, with empathy and compassion, chooses to dismantle the injustices impacting Black and brown communities. Haley made it clear this version of “wokeness” is more dangerous than the pandemic and its million deaths. The war against “wokeness” is to marginalize people and racial ideas that don’t align with their own. Since this is their rallying cry out of CPAC, what is the response from knowledgeable people? The CPAC speech is a rallying cry on both sides. A big part of being “woke” means we are to be motivated to ensure Black children remain inspired. An inspired child is less likely to steal, kill, and destroy. An inspired child is more likely to embrace the ideas and examples of Black empowerment from our Black history. Where states such as Florida, Tennessee, and Texas have passed so-called “anti-critical race theory” bills that limit how race is taught, this becomes a rallying cry to protect the interests of Black students everywhere. Jessica Kibblewhite is a sixth-grade social science teacher in Chicago. Sixth graders are at a vulnerable age. As a White teacher who works with Black students, Kibblewhite said it’s important for students to see themselves in history books. “Students don’t learn anything unless they’re deeply engaged,” said Kibblewhite. “If students don’t see themselves in characters in text or [instead] historical figures that look different from them, they’ll be less likely to be engaged.” A less engaged child is a less inspired child.
(David W. Marshall is the founder of the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and author of the book God Bless Our Divided America. He can be reached at www.davidwmarshallauthor.com.)
NEW PITTSBURGH COURIER
Felony murder and frontal lobe studies The latest studies in neuroscience suggest that the frontal lobe of the human brain doesn’t fully develop until the age of 25. However, in 2022, Kate Mills, a neuroscientist, said, “We’re still not there with the research to say the brain is mature at 25 because we don’t have a good indication of what maturity even looks like.” Neuroscientists define maturity as the point when changes in the brain level off. That means neuromaturation is different from maturation in emotional, social, and moral development. So far, there is little empirical evidence that links neurodevelopment and adolescent real-world behavior. The legal system is struggling with the implications of these frontal lobe studies. Since law is not science, lawyers and policymakers use frontal lobe studies for their persuasive power, not for their scientific precision. For example, a juvenile can be charged as an adult based on the severity of the crime. Lawyers representing juveniles charged as adults use frontal lobe studies as evidence as to why punishing a child as if he or she is an adult is tantamount to child abuse. When trying to convince the legal system not to charge a child as an adult, the frontal lobe studies are persuasive despite their lack of precision. But there are other times when frontal lobe studies don’t apply. Recently, a group of Democratic Delegates in Maryland proposed House Bill 1180—the Youth Accountability and Safety Act. This bill will prohibit anyone under the age of 25 from being charged with felony murder. The supporters of the bill insist that the brain is not fully developed until 25 years old and “those that commit
J. Pharoah Doss
Check It Out heinous crimes like felony murder may not have intended to do so.” At first glance, House Bill 1180 sounds like radical soft on crime legislation until closer attention is paid to what the Democratic delegates are trying to prevent. According to the legal database Justia, the felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. For instance, a getaway driver’s partner fires a warning shot to scare the cashier during a robbery, but the bullet strikes and kills a customer that was hiding in the aisle. The shooting wasn’t premeditated, nor did the shooter intend to kill anyone, but under the felony murder rule, the getaway driver and the robber are charged with first-degree murder. The Democratic supporters of House Bill 1180 are opposed to the fact that the felony murder rule makes an exception to the normal rules of murder. Justia states, “Normally, a defendant can be convicted of murder only if a prosecutor shows that the defendant acted with the intent to kill or with a reckless indifference to human life. Under the felony murder rule, however, a defendant can be convicted of murder even if the defendant
did not act with intent or with reckless indifference. The prosecution must show only that the defendant participated in a felony where fatalities occurred.” This exception was designed to be a deterrent. Justia explains, “Certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. Thus, when a person participates in an inherently dangerous crime, he or she may be held responsible for the fatal consequences of that crime, even if someone else caused the actual death.” The Democratic supporters of House Bill 1180 are not being soft on crime by making every effort to point out that felony murder’s exception to the normal rules of murder doesn’t deter felony crimes. Nor is it being soft on crime to suggest that those responsible for killing someone while committing a felony can still be charged with murder, just not in the first degree. The problem is that frontal lobe studies don’t explain why 18- to 24-year-olds shouldn’t be held responsible if charged with felony murder. The age of criminal responsibility varies state by state but can be rounded to 10 years old. (Many experts believe 10 is too young and the age should be raised to 12.) The legal system set this age based on long-standing psychological studies showing that children develop a moral sense around age 7 and understand the difference between right and wrong following puberty. In this matter of felony murder, when it comes to individuals 18 to 24 years old, the frontal lobe studies aren’t persuasive enough to spare them as if they were still juveniles.
Why Allegheny County needs a new District Attorney by Frank Walker and Rob Perkins Soon, voters will decide whether to re-elect District Attorney Steve Zappala to a seventh term as Allegheny County’s chief local prosecutor. Several incidents in Zappala’s current term show why we need a new DA. Let’s start with Zappala’s attack on defense attorney Milton Raiford. Raiford angered Zappala when he raised concerns about systemic racism in the justice system. In retaliation, Zappala issued this order to his employees: “Effective immediately, in all matters involving Attorney Milton Raiford, no plea offers are to be made.” To place Zappala’s vindictive order in context, it’s helpful to understand how the prosecution process works. 97 percent of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains. The prosecutor holds the power to set the terms of plea bargains. During the plea-bargaining process, the prosecutor often agrees to a reduced sentence, such as probation instead of jail time. This means that the practical effect of Zappala’s order was this: Raiford’s clients, based solely on their choice of attorney, would be more likely to be ripped away from their families and sent to prison. A courageous Zappala employee leaked the unethical order to a reporter. Following a media firestorm, Zappala revoked the order – though he never admitted wrongdoing or apologized. Here’s why this story should matter to voters. First, Zappala plainly abused the power of the prosecutor’s office. That, in itself, should disqualify him from serving another term. And if a Zappala employee hadn’t leaked the discriminatory policy, the public may never have known about it – which begs the question, what other unethical policies did Zappala implement that never came to light?
Secondly, as a result of Zappala’s retaliatory tactics, people who work inside the legal system are afraid to speak freely out of fear of retribution. These tactics, in turn, silence the voices of those most likely to see injustice within that system. Zappala’s response after the Raiford story broke was especially revealing. In a letter to his employees, Zappala claimed that Raiford’s “allegation of systemic racism in this Office was the first that I ever heard of.” Notably, the concept of systemic racism refers to a system of laws and policies that impacts communities of color unequally. If Zappala truly did not know that the justice system impacts Black people unequally, then he has no grasp of what goes on in our criminal courts on a day-to-day basis - because the statistics show striking racial inequalities. In Allegheny County, a White defendant convicted of the same charge as a Black defendant is 41 percent less likely to be sentenced to jail. Black girls are 13 times more likely than white girls to be arrested. As a final example (there are countless others), Black people account for 90 percent of marijuana possession arrests in the City of Pittsburgh – despite similar usage rates to White people and making up just 23 percent of the overall population. A separate troubling incident involved the Judge Tranquilli scandal, and Zappala’s failed response to it. This episode reflects a broader failure of transparency and accountability in Zappala’s office. As background, Mark Tranquilli was a local criminal court judge who resigned on the eve of his own ethics trial. Tranquilli is closely connected to Zappala because, before Tranquilli became a judge, he worked in Zappala’s DA office for 15 years, heading Zappala’s homicide unit for 8 of them. Tranquilli’s misconduct included the following: he was upset after a jury returned a not-guilty verdict in his courtroom because he wanted a guilty verdict. He directed the case prosecutor
and defense attorney to meet him in his judicial chambers. In the tirade that followed, Tranquilli – who, as judge, was supposed to serve without bias – used racial epithets when referring to a Black woman who served on the jury. Tranquilli insultingly added that the juror probably had a “baby daddy” who “sling[s] heroin.” Tranquilli even scolded the prosecutor for allowing the Black woman to serve on the jury. A core principle in our justice system is that potential jurors cannot be excluded based on race. This helps to ensure fairness in our American system of trial by jury. Tranquilli’s conduct violated that principle. The incident becomes more disturbing when one considers that, over the course of his career, Tranquilli prosecuted or judged thousands of cases involving Black victims or defendants. Imagine how they felt when they heard about Tranquilli’s racist rant in the news. Here’s why this story should also matter to voters. Common sense tells us that the Judge Tranquilli who embraced harmful racial stereotypes, and believed it was okay to racially discriminate against jurors, likely held those same beliefs when he led Zappala’s DA office for a decade. In response to the Tranquilli scandal, Zappala should have committed to an independent investigation that probed whether racial bias infected Tranquilli’s prosecutions, and publicly shared the investigation’s results. Zappala failed to take those simple steps. We cannot achieve equal justice under law without advancing racial justice. Zappala has proven that, under his direction, the DA’s office is unwilling to confront racial inequities. This election season, we should hold Zappala accountable by voting him out of office. Frank Walker and Rob Perkins (The authors are criminal law attorneys with extensive experience working in Allegheny County’s court system.)
Threats to marriage rights If you’ve been watching what’s going on in state legislatures lately, you know that red-state lawmakers are all-in on attacking three things: abortion, voting rights and LGBTQ rights. And in Tennessee, a real alarm bell just rang. The state House passed a bill that would effectively end marriage equality in the state, by allowing county clerks to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In fact, the law would allow clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses for any couple if they disagreed with the union. That could mean same-sex couples, interracial couples, or interfaith couples. We don’t know how far this bill will go in the state Senate. But a sufficient number of Tennessee House members voted for it, and that’s disturbing enough. Especially since President Biden just signed the Respect for Marriage Act to protect marriage equality at the federal level. It turns out this bill takes advantage of a loophole in the federal legislation, because the federal law does not say states have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. We may or may not be in same-sex marriages ourselves, or know people who are. But those of us who disagree with this inhumanity being inflicted on other Americans have to speak out. I’m proud to say my mom, who is my hero in many ways, set this example for me. Mom played the piano in our church for two decades. There came a time when the question of same-sex marriage came up, and individual churches within our
Svante Myrick
Commentary denomination were allowed to make their own decisions about whether to perform them. Sadly, our church decided not to. And Mom resigned there and then. She did that even though nobody in our family or immediate circle was in a same-sex relationship. She did it because she had the courage to stand up for other people even when she had no skin in the game herself. Later, when I became mayor of Ithaca, I had the honor to perform the first same-sex wedding in our city. Mom taught me that we need to stand up for the full spectrum of civil and human rights, whether a particular right affects us personally or not. It is the moral thing to do. And that’s enough. But for those who need more convincing, it’s wellknown that if someone is coming after a right that doesn’t affect you today, chances are they will come for rights that do affect you tomorrow. Authoritarians have a pattern of chipping away at rights until they win the big prize. A classic example of this is the long road to undermining Roe and the right to choose. For years, people were called
alarmists for warning that Roe could be overturned. And guess what; the alarmists were right. Not only that, but when the Supreme Court did away with Roe last year, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the words that everyone feared: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including?Griswold,?Lawrence, and?Obergefell.” That means “reconsidering” the right to use birth control (Griswold), the right to same-sex intimate relationships (Lawrence), and the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell). The prospect is chilling – and where does this end? What about Loving v. Virginia, the case that affirmed the right to interracial marriage? Many of us would have said it’s alarmist to think that right could be lost. But again, the alarmists were right when it came to Roe. And the bill in Tennessee’s House appears to open a door to this possibility. I’m deeply concerned about what is happening in Tennessee and the red flag raised by Justice Thomas. More than 40 years ago another Supreme Court justice, the late Thurgood Marshall, spoke words that are as apt today as they were then. Justice Marshall said, “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.” Our rights depend on it. (Svante Myrick is President of People For the American Way.)