Posts
Civil rights activists point to the fact that, since 1976, about a third of all executions in the US have been of blacks. Given that blacks are only 12% of the US population, this suggests bias against them in the justice system. Recent appeals to the Supreme Court have been made on this basis.
But everybody misses an even worse bias. Of the 1,002 American executions since 1976, only 11 have been women. One percent; though women are more than fifty percent of the population. Ninety-nine percent have been men.
If one were talking about the proportion of doctors, or lawyers, or Ph.D.’s, this would be an instant and surely instantly successful argument for affirmative action. The suggestion that male and female abilities, proclivities, or interests might differ would be ruled out of court as itself intolerable prejudice.
Surely, then, to be consistent, we must insist on affirmative action here?
An absolute moratorium on killing men until enough women had been killed might be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, following the standard procedure for affirmative action, we can set quotas or “targets” for police departments, prosecutors, and judges. They can go out and work more energetically to arrest, charge, prosecute, and convict women at a significantly higher rate than men until this imbalance is corrected. Their performance could be judged on this basis for matters of promotion or job security. Indeed, if they fail, they could be charged personally and corporately with sex discrimination by males who are convicted, and compensation could be required. Perhaps a lower standard of proof should be required for women charged with crimes, or lesser crimes should carry the death sentence when committed by women. All this is already established procedure, and not discriminatory according to the courts, is it not? Indeed, in the interests of being “pro-active,” rules against entrapment could be dropped for female suspects. For doesn’t this parallel the active recruitment of women for positions in industry?
That’s the way these things generally work, isn’t it?
If all of this sounds wrong to you—then so should “affirmative action” programs generally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bravo, Stephen!
Ontario's Liberal government recently banned Pitbull Terriers, after the breed was responsible for a number of vicious attacks on children, adults, and other dogs. Even liberals acknowledge that in the canine world, different breeds have dramatically different characteristics -- from the aggressiveness of rottwielers (sic), German shepherds, and dobermans, to the eternal friendliness of child-loving Collies. Yet they cannot admit that perhaps some human races are more inclined than others to violence; or -- perish the thought -- that some may, on average, be more intelligent than others.
I take a different moral from this than you. I have no doubt there really is discrimination against blacks in the US justice system. And there is no question it discriminates against men. The proof: when “zero tolerance” laws have been introduced for drug offenses, removing judges’ discretion, the female prison population has burgeoned.
But “affirmative action” is no solution. Discrimination never rights an injustice: it just adds a new one.
Post a Comment