A friend of mine notified me of California’s recent decision to “Curtail Racial Segregation” in the prison system. According to the Los Angeles Times article, here, “the state had little choice except to abandon the practice after losing a decision in the U.S. Supreme Court in February”. As I have written about in the past, California’s gangs are completely segregated along racial lines, and so the Supreme Courts decision to change this by forcing the prisons to be integrated is a dangerous ruling, both to the guards, and especially to the inmates. Don’t get me wrong, I like racial integration as much as the next guy, but the California prison system presents a very unique situation, and if you get things wrong, peoples lives could be lost, and because of that, I strongly believe that broader decisions of the proper way to implement this should be left up to those closest to the matter, California, and more so, California’s prison system itself.
I googled the Supreme Court case that brought this about as I was shocked to hear that the court was actually divided, 5-3, on this - what I see to be - common sense case. I thought to myself, who in their right mind could actually believe that forced racial integration in California’s prison system is a good thing, surely the very high risk that many people will die in pursuit of racial integration should outweigh any utopian views these justices may have. But I was mistaken, predictably, the Justices that voted for forced ‘racial integration in California prisons’ are the very social engineering justices themselves:
On February 23, the Opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. True to the spirit of recent decades of social engineering, O’Connor, along with Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens agreed that race should not be used as a factor in inmate housing assignments. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented–rather vigorously.
What is interesting about this case is that it was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal circuit court of appeals in the nation and the one that covers the state of California that ruled in favor of racial segregation in California’s prisons system yet the liberals on the Supreme Court overturned them. In other words, even the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals couldn’t find it in their heart to risk the lives of inmates by demanding racial integration, yet the liberals on the Supreme Court certainly could. I bet it was the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers California, and so they have much more experience with California’s prison system, while the Supreme Court justices, sitting on the other side of the country, ignored all of that and ruled against them anyway.
Contrary to what these justices may have learned in academia, behind walls shielding them from reality, racial integration in California’s prison system is VERY DANGEROUS, and could put so many people’s lives in jeopardy. California gangs are not like the disciples of New York, they are not like the Latin Kings of Chicago, California’s gang are extremely racial, the most of any state.
Also, contrary to what these justices were taught at Harvard, racial integration does not always work. There are prerequisites involved, and a gang life and surrounding culture that indoctrinate you from day one that your gang and its association to your race is primary, is certainly not a healthy prerequisite. If this social experiment goes wrong, it does not result in just some kids getting kicked out of Princeton University and having their father take the Mercedes away, it is people’s lives that will be in jeopardy. Something that these justices will never go through, sitting in their high chairs acting as if they personally stood courageously for racial integration, all the while prison inmates could be risking beatings, rape and in many cases, murder.
This google result captures my point well:
Justice Stevens, in a peculiar “Dissent,” after sermonizing on the evils of segregation, wrote that the Court’s Opinion did not go far enough, since it should declare California’s policy unconstitutional and should strike it down. He spoke of the need for “racial alliances,” and offered a Pollyanna discourse on how “integrated cells encourage inmates to gain valuable cross-racial experiences.”
One can envision these Supreme Social Engineers patting each other on their backs, as they outdo one another in enunciating their refusal to compromise on the sacred principle of integration. Meanwhile, back in the ugly reality of prison life, are the men who face the potential of greater brutality and unnecessary torment beyond that imposed by the loss of their freedom.
My favorite Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas yet again shows himself to be the true defender of minorities and the defenseless when he wrote in his dissent:
There is good reason for such deference in this case. California oversees roughly 160,000 inmates, in prisons that have been a breeding ground for some of the most violent prison gangs in America–all of them organized along racial lines. . . .
The majority is concerned with sparing inmates the indignity and stigma of racial discrimination. California is concerned with their safety and saving their lives.
Thomas goes on to say,
The majority decides this case without addressing the problems that racial violence poses for wardens, guards, and inmates throughout the federal and state prison systems. But that is the core of California’s justification for its policy: It maintains that, if it does not racially separate new cellmates thrown together in close confines during their initial admission or transfer, violence will erupt.
The dangers California seeks to prevent are real. See Brief for National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. as Amicus Curiae 12. Controlling prison gangs is the central challenge facing correctional officers and administrators. . . .
There are at least five major gangs in this country–the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerrilla Family, the Mexican Mafia, La Nuestra Familia, and the Texas Syndicate–all of which originated in California’s prisons. Unsurprisingly, then, California has the largest number of gang-related inmates of any correctional system in the country, including the Federal Government.
On the other hand, there is hope, the Los Angeles Times article also states:
Under the new policy, race may still be used as a factor in separating prisoners — a white supremacist, for example, would probably not be housed with a black inmate — but it will no longer be the primary criterion, state prison officials said.
Instead, prisoners’ gang affiliations and individual histories will be scrutinized to determine how best to place them to minimize fighting, they said.
This seems like code word that the Prisons will comply - much like universities did after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action quotas - in such a fashion that it results in almost the same way as before. If they do this, and maybe just move a few benign prisoners here and there, in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling, than many prisoners lives will certainly be saved.
Of course this is all meaningless to the social engineers on the court, they after all, are the champions of minorities, and if many people have to die to fit their view of reality, so be it, there heads will continue to stand tall.
If people are seperated racially within the prison system, what will stop the return of gangs and violence within the new groups formed? Separating by race may cause racial tensions to dissapate, but the tension will then internalize in the groups of the same race.
Let say that this works in the prison system, let’s say that some get along. What is going to happen when they get out. The thing is that this racial line is not just in the prison system but through out LA. When they get out, there going back to the neighborhoods that planted the racial seed. There going to kick it with the same friends who maybe have not had the chance to integrate with the enemy if you will. There friends have still been out there with the same mentality. And this is if it works. If it doesn’t its going to cause people there lives in prison. Some inmates are going to be easier to get to now that there with a Mexican/Black cell mate. Just my two cents
well,if segregation is allowed in prisons, there is a chance that excuses be made for it in other parts of society. for example, someone can justify segregating chicago public high schools where racial tensions exist and boil over into riots every so often. it could even be argued that black and latino students should be placed on different buses b/c a lot of times the violence continues during the commute home. that would be wrong and a complete band-aid solution to the problem. i also believe its a human tendency to create hierarchies, so i think Rene B has a point when he suggests that other divisions would be created within the same racial groups after the jails are segregated.
But this is more than mere ’segregation’ in California’s prison system, in fact, I think the word conveys the wrong meaning to outsiders. The problem is that in California, unlike in any other state, gangs are ALL segregated along racial lines. So you could have two Mexican gangs on the streets that absolutely hate each other, killing each other all of the time, yet when they hit the prisons, they must and will get along, simply to fight other races.
So with that difference in mind, segregating in the prison system is almost identical to segregating between gangs. You’re from Chicago, what you think would happen if they mixed a Latin King with a Disciple in the same cell? Well, that is what would happen if they mixed a Mexican with a Black in California’s prisons. The difference between prisons and Schools in California is that in prisons, you are dealing with known murderers, so the safety of other inmates is number 1.
Lets say you segregate races, hispanic and black gangs will then fracture into original gang affiliations, as a result you might have more violence because before segregation it was a two sided war, now it is smaller groups battling for as Irsali said hierarchical position within same race. HP you also may have proved my point when you said “yet when they hit the prisons, they must and will get along, simply to fight other races.” when these gangs no longer fight among races they will fight amongst each other. segregation to end racial violence in prison seems like a simple solution to the problems at hand, but it can lead to greater complications and more complexities within various races.
I think we are misunderstanding each other, in case I wasn’t clear earlier, California prisons are already segregated, what the Supreme court is doing is striking that long standing policy down as unconstitutional, and forcing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and through them, California Prison systems to integrate where they have not before.
And no, racial segregation has not resulted in fractured smaller splinter groups, for example, all (with the exception of Maravia) Latino gangs in Southern California get along in prison, and this despite the fact that on the streets many of these Latino gangs hate each other, and are constantly killing each other, yet in prison, they all get along.
I just worry about the correction officers that are just doing their job. Imagine trying to “control” an area when you are outnumbered 100-to-1 by murderers and rapists. Anything that will decrease tensions in a prison is worth doing. These policies should be left up to professionals (wardens, other state officials, criminalogists and other experts), not courts. If you want to have a check and balance system just hired outside consultants.
hp, to the best of my knowledge gangs in chicago are for the most part racially segregated–i think its a phenomenon(sp?) that’s kind of hard to avoid in a city that is this segregated. i also don’t think that its a characteristic that is particularly unique to california or chicago–i bet its the same in other big cities.
i’ve been told its the same at cook county and other area jails. and unfortunately I do know what the difference is between a king and a disciple–i would probably seat them next to each other at a dinner party out of spite. hp, how is it that you know so much about chicago gangs?
and you are right i did misunderstand and didn’t realize that cali jails were already segregated.
“A friend of mine”
What the fuck? Are you worried about your hizzies finding out about me or what? Anyway, I got here too late and this discussion has turned away from what my main point was so I’ll write my own post … eventually. Te felicito for a well written post that was written by … you. Hasta la victoria siempre. Haha.
irasali,
hp, to the best of my knowledge gangs in chicago are for the most part racially segregated–i think its a phenomenon(sp?) that’s kind of hard to avoid in a city that is this segregated.
Chicago is to some degree also segregated, but nothing like California. For example, there are a significant number of Latinos that are disciples, and there are some Blacks that are kings, furthermore, the prisons in Chicago separate inmates along gang lines, not racial lines. They would never, for example, put a Latin King next to a disciple, even though both of them may be Mexican.
Yet in Los Angeles, California, ALL Mexican gangsters are grouped together and are united in prison, this despite the fact that some of them fight each other on the streets like Latin Kings and Disciples do in Chicago.
In other words, when you hit California prisons, there is no longer a separation among gangs, there is only a separation among race. All races, even though they may be mortal enemies on the streets, unite in prison, and fight only other races. It is completely racial in California prisons, completely. To try to mix races in California prisons would be like trying to mix latin kings and disciples in Chicago, it just isn’t going to work.
hp, how is it that you know so much about chicago gangs?
A good friend of mine in college was a known Latin King. He did five years in prison, and grew up in, if I remember correctly, shy town. He would spend a lot of time with some of my more, shall we say, ‘troublesome’ friends in Compton, and would always fill me in on the differences between Chicago gangs and Compton gangs (he was especially surprised on how the gang lifestyle in Compton is much more pronounced, much more integrated in the culture, and in much more use of guns).
oso,
Come on bro, as much as I luv you, I got a reputation to uphold. What do you think would happen to my ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ membership if the word got out that I am close friends with a strong limousine liberal like yourself? j/k, besos.
“…racial integration in California’s prison system is VERY DANGEROUS, and could put so many people’s lives in jeopardy.”
-HP
Then perhaps a “very dangerous” prison could serve as an additional deterrent to budding and seasoned criminals. Of course, the state will have to take reasonable precautions to ensure the physical safety of all inmates.
“If this social experiment goes wrong…people’s lives…will be in jeopardy. Something that these justices will never go through, sitting in their high chairs acting as if they personally stood courageously for racial integration”
-HP
That is providing they do not get convicted of a crime. But, this “social experiment” is in accordance with past law.
BTW, you seem to be criticizing the Justices for not being criminals, and also you seem to be suggesting that they are “out of touch” with society because they are passing down judgment from their “high chairs.” Are you suggesting that judges should become convicts to better adjudicate legal matters? If not, then why make reference to where they choose to sit? In other words, your criticisms are not based on the legalities of the decision, but rather on your BELIEF that they based their decision on a desire to “socially engineer” society. Of course as usual, you have nothing to support that contention.
“Under the new policy, race may still be used as a factor in separating prisoners — a white supremacist, for example, would probably not be housed with a black inmate”
-LA Times
It would seem to me that the deciding factor here is not the “race” of the prisoner, but rather the prisoner’s outlook on races other than his own. In other words, the state does not automatically presume that a “white” “Black” or “Latino” prisoner will be more inclined to commit an act of violence against a fellow inmate of a differing race, rather, it seems, that if a preexisting factor (e.g. membership to an organization that preaches violence against certain races)suggests that there may likely be a predisposition to violence against peoples of differing races than that prisoner can be lawfully segregated from races he or she loathes.
“Of course this is all meaningless to the social engineers on the court, they after all, are the champions of minorities, and if many people have to die to fit their view of reality, so be it, there heads will continue to stand tall.”
-HP
LOL Just some more of your nonsensical political ranting.
The question before the Court, as I understand it, was the constitutionality of state sponsored racial segregation. The Court has ruled that the state cannot lawfully engage in segregation on the basis of race; I see nothing wrong with that. And more to the point, it seems constitutional.
Your inner (conservative) desire to politicizing the judicial branch of government is disconcerting, but not really all that surprising.
Hey O,
BTW, you seem to be criticizing the Justices for not being criminals, and also you seem to be suggesting that they are “out of touch” with society because they are passing down judgment from their “high chairs.”
No, I am not criticizing these judges for not being criminals, but for denying a security factor that puts other people at risk if it turns out that they are wrong, and than, on top of that, acting as if they are the moral crusaders.
In other words, as the previous Los Angeles Times article pointed out,
There were two conflicting principles here, the liberals on the US Supreme Court denied that the second doctrine was the prominent one, yet the conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the California prison system all said the second doctrine was most prominent. In other words, this was a prudence judgement, and the liberals on the US Supreme Court thought that they knew more about the situation than those closest to the matter, hence their being far removed criticism.
hey when you referr to diciple what do you mean…a religious follower or another gangster involved with “game”…
i have a question i really need it answered… i have a boyfriend thats going to prison for the first time.. he has swastikas and race stuff tattoos all over but is not in a gang?? i am worried that if he goes to prison he will have to do work for the tatoos and im scared he will get charges in prison and im scared he will get stabbed… i want to know how many people actually die from stab wounds in california prisons.. and what race usually gets stabbed more if thats possible please someone get back to me im worried about his life>>>hes a good guy he truly is im good people please please let me know
britt u need a new boyfriend hunny Me personally I dont do repeat offenders because when you know better you do better. But seriously Yes your boyfriend has a 99 percent chance of having to belong to a gang for safty and all that jazz just because he is of a certain race which is the point of this article am I wrong? and people die every day from stab wounds depends on the place. Dosent matter what race you are Once you are in violation of a code of conduct your ass is grass weather it be a beating of worse. I wish you and your guy all the best sweetie.