U.S. criminal justice system can be merciful: case of Cornealious Anderson

A lot has been said and written about racism and discrimination in the U.S. criminal justice system, and how African Americans and so-called people of color are disproportionately -- and are more likely to be -- convicted than white accused persons. While discrimination does exist, the justice system can be merciful sometimes.

Cornealious "Mike" Anderson was arrested in 1999 and convicted in 2000 for participating in a robbery. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was released on bail pending the outcome of his appeal. He lost the appeal, but due to a "clerical error" the state of Missouri "forgot" about him and he was never asked to report to prison to serve his sentence. From 1999 to 2013 -- while waiting to be summoned to prison -- he never tried to flee or change his identity. He build a career, led a law-abiding life, paid taxes and started a family in Missouri.

In July 2013 -- thirteen years after the conviction -- the State of Missouri realized the error. Anderson was arrested and asked to serve 13 years in prison. He was reportedly moved to a permanent prison (Southeast Correctional Centre in Charleston, Missouri) in November 2013 to serve his sentence -- thirteen years after the fact. A legal battle ensued.

But on Monday 5 May 2014 a judge reportedly lauded Cornealious "Mike" Anderson's "exemplary" behavior during his thirteen years out of prison and ruled that keeping him in prison would serve no purpose. The judge ordered his release.

In my view, Judge Terry Lynn Brown did the right thing. Ordering Anderson to serve thirteen years in prison more than a decade after he was convicted and sentenced would have been a violation of due process. Although Anderson was physically a free man for thirteen years, I believe he was mentally not free - with the threat and possibility of imprisonment hanging over his head -- for thirteen years. The fact that he stayed out of trouble with the law for thirteen years, started a career, never tried to escape or change his name, paid taxes, got married and had four kids -- in Missouri -- shows that he is a changed man, which is anyway the desired effect of prison sentences. Sending him to prison, thirteen years after he was sentenced, would have been, in my view, unnecessary and unjust to him, his wife and four innocent kids. It wasn't his fault that the State of Missouri "forgot" to enforce his sentence.

By tampering justice with mercy, judge Brown showed that despite reports of racism in the U.S legal system, the system can be merciful sometimes - even to African Americans.

A petition on change.org calling for the release of Cornealious Anderson gathered 35,000 signatures. Thumbs up to all change agents who signed the petition and to attorney Patrick Michael Megaro who represented Anderson.

Share

Tweet

NBA crackdown on racism is worth emulating

The National Basketball Association (NBA) sent a loud, resounding message to people involved in the league and to the world at large that racist, ignorant views have no place in professional basketball in North America. The decision by NBA to ban the owner of Los Angeles Clippers for life is worth emulating by other sport associations worldwide.

On Friday 25 April 2014 a celebrity news website, TMZ, published an audio recording in which Donald Sterling, owner of Los Angeles Clippers, criticizes his [alleged] girlfriend for associating with "black people" and posting photographs of herself with black friends on Instagram. He urged his girlfriend not to bring her black friends to his basketball games.

The audio recording, which sparked widespread outrage and condemnation, culminated in a no-nonsense response by NBA commissioner Adam Silver. Four days after the audio recording surfaced, the NBA banned Donald Sterling from the basketball association for life. The impressive sanction didn't stop there. The NBA also fined Donald Sterling $2.5 million, which according to the BBC is the maximum fine allowed by the league.

Personally, I wholeheartedly welcome the decision of the NBA. By banning Donald Sterling for life and slapping him with the maximum fine allowed in the league -- the NBA showed that it does not tolerate racism. A lifetime ban means Sterling is barred from participating in team business, as well as attending NBA practices and games.

Donald Sterling's rant - as revealed by the audio recording - is blatantly racist, narrow-minded and should have no place in any civilized sport.

In my opinion, the NBA showed zero-tolerance against racism in this case. Other sport associations including the international federation of football associations (FIFA) -- which has a long recurrent history of racism -- as well as national sports associations should learn from the NBA. Racism is a canker-worm that destroys the fabric of society. Those who -- like Donald Sterling -- espouse and perpetrate racism should be named, shamed and isolated.

According to TMZ, Donald Sterling has "a documented history of alleged racist behavior". It's a shame, in my view, that someone with such preposterous, 19th century views owns a franchise like Los Angeles Clippers. Perhaps ownership should change hands --  in the interest of the team. You can't have black people playing (working) for a white man who openly despises them. Sounds like slavery to me.

Share

Tweet

Who wants to join Russia anyway?

It is incomprehensible why some people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation and people in other parts of Ukraine would like to follow suit. Perhaps they are uninformed about the state of human rights in Russia and how the Kremlin deals with [political] dissent.

Over 95.5% of voters in Crimea reportedly voted in a hastily organized referendum -- with the backing of masked, armed Russian gunmen -- to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. For many people in Crimea, the referendum - which has been described as a sham display of democracy was a "dream come true". Meanwhile in other parts of Ukraine there are violent attempts by pro-Russian provocateurs to break away from Ukraine and join "the motherland" (Russia).

Russia has a horrendous human rights record, which is worth considering before making a momentous decision to join the Federation. Basic rights like freedom of expression and association are stifled by repugnant laws like the "foreign agent law" that forced the closure of a prominent human rights non-governmental organization (NGO). Anti-gay laws fuel violence against Russia's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. In 2013, a disturbing video surfaced showing Russian neo-Nazis torturing and humiliating gay teens in Russia by allegedly using a social networking site to lure them. Ethnic minorities also face violations. According to The New York Times a gruesome video was circulated online in Russia showing the brutal killing of two men - apparently carried out by a Russian neo-Nazi group in 2007.

Activists and those who dare to criticize the Kremlin do so at their own risk. Members of the Pussy Riot punk band for instance were arrested, imprisoned and persecuted for protesting in 2012. In 2013 two members of the band were reportedly attacked while eating at McDonald's in a Russian city. The country, like North Korea and China, has its share of political prisoners. In 2011 two Russian businessmen were declared political prisoners by Amnesty International.

According to Amnesty International, street protests may soon become a crime in Russia. A draft law has been tabled in the State Duma (Russian parliament) that will further stifle freedom of assembly and expression.

In my view, as part of Russia the people of Crimea will not have the liberty to protest freely - thoughtless of breaking away - as they did under Ukraine. The people will someday realize - after voting to join Russia, adopting the Russian rouble as their currency and moving to Moscow time - that human rights are limited in the Federation they so desperately opted to join. From a human rights perspective it is a bad idea for people in Ukraine or elsewhere to take steps to join the Russian Federation. Reports show that the authorities in Moscow have little regard for human rights -- hence will sooner or later fail to protect or violate the basic rights of the same people whose land they grabbed under the pretext of protecting them from neo-Nazis in Kiev.

The Kremlin claims it reserves the right to intervene in Ukraine to "protect ethnic Russians" from neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In my view, the claim does not make sense - since Russia does not protect people, including ethnic and sexual minorities in Russia from Russian neo-Nazis. Intervention in Ukraine is not about protecting people -- it is about satisfying the Kremlin's need to maintain its grasp on Ukraine and intimidate former soviet states, including Moldova, Estonia and Georgia. Russia's quest to occupy and annex parts of Ukraine is geopolitical. Ethnic Russians in the region are simply pawns in Moscow's geopolitical game.

Share

Tweet