Mel Watt & Harvey Gantt Endorse Ken Lewis, Political "Kiss Of Death"

Both Congressman Mel Watt & former Charlotte, NC Mayor Harvey Gantt have endorsed U.S. Senate Democrat Candidate Kenneth Lewis.

Let's see due to not giving a darn about his Lower Income & Middle Class N.C. Minority voters while catering heavily to Wealthy White constituents, Mel Watt is on his way out of Public Office.

Harvey Gantt (now an Architect) who also appears to only care about himself (and Elite friends) while Minority Youth continue to fail academically or are thrown into Mecklenburg county's jail by the thousands, will probably never return to Public Office either.

That said why would anyone want to support a political candidate endorsed by these two Pseudo, Scared, Self-Serving, Token Black "Leaders"?

Don't forget Harvey Gantt endorsed Mayor Anthony Foxx too.

The results:

Charlotte's Minority citizens (except Foxx's Elite friends) are being treated worse than when Charlotte had a Caucasian Mayor for 14 years.

Including ZERO support of Black Businesses!

(Actually I'm referring to Lower Income & Middle Class Minority citizens.)

In addition Charlotte's Crime rate has increased.

Thank God I did not vote for Anthony Foxx so his legalized Slavery type actions towards Charlotte's Black Community are not on my conscious.

So what's my point?

Considering the current negative sentiment from voters against Democrat candidates especially Black Candidates, I'd say whomever Gantt & Watt endorses just received the political "Kiss of Death".

The fact that these two characters support Lewis speaks miles about what kind of U.S. Senator he might be.

It will just be business as usual:

Low Income & Middle Class Minority voters treated like dirt and ignored, while North Carolina's Wealthy White & Black Elite constituents receive creme de' la creme services.

For the record I'm NOT opposed to all Black Political candidates.

Just most of North Carolina's Corrupt, Willie Lynch-minded Black "Public Servants".

By the way have you heard Ken Lewis speak out about North Carolina's Public Schools returning to Re-Segregation?

No and you never will!

Perhaps this explains why the Obama administration would rather back a White Democrat Candidate from North Carolina (Cal Cunningham) than a Black one.

Kenneth Lewis is a prime example of another scared Negro concerned only with fulfilling his Self-Interest, while catering to pre-dominantly White Special Interest groups.

Much like his buddies Harvey Gantt & Mel Gantt.

I'm sure both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are rolling over in their graves right about now.

I strongly urge North Carolina's Minority voters to STOP electing Black Candidates just for the purpose of having Black Representation in City, County, State & Federal politics.

Start requiring them to earn the right to remain in office by representing people (ALL constituents not some) who give them their jobs.

Start requiring them to rejoin the struggle in this country for eliminating Racial Discrimination in the areas of Business Opportunities, Education, Employment, Health Care, Housing and Taxation.

If they refuse to deliver than DON'T elect them!

Check out the articles below on Harvey Gantt & Mel Watt's endorsement of Kenneth Lewis, than reach your own conclusions.





Mel Watt Endorses Lewis For U.S. Senate


Democratic U.S. Rep. Mel Watt has endorsed Ken Lewis for U.S. Senate.

"My friendship with Ken Lewis has afforded me a close up and personal opportunity to observe Ken's intellect, his values, his ability to communicate, the way he thinks and his commitment to things that are important to me, and things that I have found to be important to the people I represent," Watt said in a news release announcing the endorsement.

"Ken Lewis will bring new and diverse ideas and perspectives to public discussions, something that's sorely needed in the public discourse and something that's sorely needed in the United States Senate. The fact that Ken Lewis has not served in political office is, in my view, a benefit and not a shortcoming."

Watt, a Charlotte Democrat, was the former chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus and was campaign manager for Harvey Gantt's 1990 U.S.
Senate campaign. The endorsement is the third for Lewis from major black political figures in the state. Lewis had previously received the endorsements of Democratic U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Henry Frye.

"Mel has been at the forefront of the issues most important to both his district and the state of North Carolina," Lewis said in a news release. "From advocating for affordable housing and responsible lending to opposing the Iraq War, Mel has repeatedly demonstrated his remarkable leadership ability."





Harvey Gantt To Endorse Ken Lewis For U.S. Senate


Former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt will endorse Democratic Senate candidate Ken Lewis Wednesday, joining his neighbor U.S. Rep. Mel Watt in backing the Chapel Hill lawyer.

Gantt, who twice lost U.S. Senate bids to Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, plans to announce the endorsement in his Tryon Street architectural office, reports Jim Morrill of The Charlotte Observer.

The endorsement by one of Charlotte's most prominent African Americans will come three days after Charlotte's Black Political Caucus endorsed one of Lewis' rivals, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall.

Lewis also has won the endorsement of U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield.


View Larger Map


Sources: Facebook, McClatchy Newspapers, Youtube, Google Maps

Charlotte Trumps Newark In Crime, Murder Rate Up

Its Official folks!

Charlotte, N.C. is now the new "Dirty South".

Charlotte city officials are trying to pretend Crime is decreasing, however area residents can't be fooled.

We know that Crime within the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region is actually getting worse!

Now here's some positive news from Urban America:

Thanks to Bold, Outstanding Leadership and a United Community effort (all ethnic & socio-economic groups working together) Newark, NJ's Murder rate is down.

In fact Newark was completely Murder-Free (March 2010) for the first time in 44 years!

Kudos to Mayor Corey Booker!

On the other hand Charlotte, NC’s Crime and Murder rates continues to rise.

Let’s see Newark is located in the heavily Diverse yet densely populated Northeastern United States, while Charlotte rests in the South with a population of less than 1 million people and is much less Diverse.

Could it be Mayor Booker actually knows what he's doing and actually cares about ALL his Constituents not just Wealthy, Caucasian citizens?

Could it be Mayor Booker, his Chief of Police and the County D.A.'s Office all realize it takes more than just locking up all Blacks & Hispanics to help resolve a citywide Crime crisis?

Or....

Could it be due to Mayor Booker investing useful, Academic type resources into the lives of his city's Minority Youth?

For example: After School programs, College Prep programs, Mentors, Summer Camps, Summer Jobs, etc.,

Perhaps all three efforts have contributed to Newark's recent dramatic drop in Crime.

Take a hint Charlotte!

Obviously our local "Leaders" don't know what the heck they are doing or they may need to just dump their Pride and communicate more with Mayors like Corey Booker for advice on how to fix Charlotte-Mecklenburg's growing Crime problem.

Hey I’m just saying, please don't hate the messenger.

Instead of becoming offended (Charlotte's local "leaders") over the contents of this revealing post, why not channel those energies into lowering the Crime rate in a Constructive, Unified manner?

Check out the videos, articles and survey results below than reach your own conclusions about Charlotte's Crime statistics.





Newark, NJ Records First Homicide-Free Month In More Than 40 Years


For the first time in more than 40 years, an entire calendar month has come and gone without a homicide in the state’s largest city.

It's been 32 days since a homicide took place in Newark, marking the first time there has been a slay-free calendar month in the city since 1966.

Police Director Garry McCarthy said he hopes to best a 43-day period from March to April of 2008, the longest span of time without a slaying in the city since 1961. Ten homicides have occurred in Newark since Jan. 1, and none have taken place in the South Ward, long believed to be Newark's most dangerous section.

The first-quarter homicide total is the same as last year's, and the second-lowest in Newark since 1941. There were only eight reported shootings in Newark in March, and aggravated assaults, robberies, carjackings and other major crime rates are all down for the first-quarter of 2010 compared to their 2009 totals.

The statistical quarter, which spans the first thirteen weeks of the year, officially ended on March 28th.





Forbes.com Ranks Charlotte, N.C. 14th Most Dangerous City


(Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C. metropolitan statistical area)

Population: 1,635,133

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 721

To determine our list, we used violent crime statistics from the FBI's latest uniform crime report, issued in 2008.

The violent crime category is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

We evaluated U.S. Metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for use by Federal agencies in collecting, tabulating and publishing federal statistics--with more than 500,000 residents.






Survey Reveals Charlotte's Crime Problem Is Not Improving


Respondents to a survey organized by a Charlotte community organization disagree with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police statistics showing a dropping crime rate in the city.

About 80 percent of the approximately 500 people who participated in the survey said the crime problem in Charlotte is either unchanged or has gotten worse over the past two years.

The study was conducted in recent weeks by Neighbors For A Safer Charlotte, a grassroots organization founded in April 2008.

Their study results contrast with a steady stream of monthly crime statistics from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police, showing -- for the most part -- that the crime rate has been dropping over the past 12 to 18 months. Earlier this week, CMPD statistics through March showed the overall crime rate is down 15 percent since the same time a year ago.

The survey results show that if CMPD statistics are correct, the perception among residents is that crime remains a big problem.

Respondents did not fall into the "lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key" category, as most of them said they support more mental health and substance abuse programs -- and said they believe only violent offenders should be put in jail.

Here are results from some of the organization's questions:

How much of a problem do you feel crime is in the Charlotte area?

75% rated it "serious" or "very serious"

In the past two years, has crime in Charlotte increased, stayed the same, or decreased?

42% said it is worse. Another 38% said it has remained the same.

Do you own a gun for protection?

31% said they owned a gun. Another 18 percent said they are considering buying one.

Which factors tend to increase the crime problem locally?

91% said gang and drug activity.

83% said the absence of a responsible parent or role model tends to increase crime activity among juveniles.

75% said lenient sentencing equals more crime.

50% said racial tensions were not likely to contribute to crime.

Not rated as significant factors were unemployment and poverty, and the lack of a police presence.

Have the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County done enough to deal with the crime problem?

79% said more needs to be done.

Are the courts too lenient or too tough?

78% said they are too lenient.

Do you plan to vote in the District Attorney race in November?

91% said they plan to vote in that contest.

What would help solve the crime problem?

96% said tougher sentencing.

88% said more programs for juveniles outside regular school hours.

85% said more mental health and substance abuse programs.

70% said only violent offenders should be incarcerated.


View Larger Map


Sources: Charmeck.org, Forbes.com, Fox News, McClatchy Newspapers, Neighbors For a Safer Charlotte, NJ.com, Rachel Maddow Show, The Grio, USA Today, WCNC, Facebook, Youtube, Google Maps

High Court Examines Life Imprisonment For Juveniles Who Commit Non-Homocidal Crimes

(Part 1 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing the seriousness of the new federal mandatory sentencing guidelines. This video is targeted towards urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in Boston by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace, Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)



(Part 2 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing The seriousness of the new Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)











High court looks at life in prison for juveniles


A seemingly divided Supreme Court wrestled Monday with whether teenagers can be locked away forever for their crimes. The question arose in two cases involving Florida men who are serving life prison terms with no chance of parole for crimes they committed as teenagers. Their lawyers argue that the sentences for people so young are cruel and unusual, in violation of the Constitution, because young people have greater capacity to change.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Supreme Court opinion four years ago that ruled out the death penalty for people under 18, judging them less responsible than adults. So most eyes were on him Monday as the court considered whether to extend that rationale to life without parole sentences.

But Kennedy offered little hint of his position, at one point suggesting it might be difficult to distinguish between juveniles and adults in cases that do not involve the death penalty.

"Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not?" he asked.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided a possible answer, wondering whether teenagers can be accurately evaluated at the time they are sentenced. It may be possible that only after some years have passed that the state can determine, "Has this person overcome those youthful disabilities?" she said.

A second chance?

On the other side of the issue, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether every last juvenile offender had to be given a second chance. "Some of the actual cases in which this sentence has been imposed in Florida involve factual situations that are so horrible that I couldn't have imagined them if I hadn't actually seen them," Alito said, recounting two that involved the rape of children.

In the two cases before the court, Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman when he was 13 and Terrance Graham was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17.

Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 34, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.

The justices could distinguish between the two based on the difference in their ages at the time of the crimes: It could rule that someone as young as Sullivan was must eventually be considered for parole without granting Graham any relief from his sentence.

Sullivan's lawyer, Bryan Stevenson, stated his basic argument simply: "To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel." Sullivan would be resentenced to 40 years in prison if he were to win his case at the high court, he said.

Kennedy's opinion in 2005 was rooted in two principles — that death is different from other punishments and that children are less culpable than adults.

Following that ruling, Stevenson noted that juveniles on death row in Florida — all convicted of murder — "got a better sentence than Joe Sullivan," life prison terms with the possibility of parole.






US Supreme Court Justices will scrutinize life sentences for youths

"He is beyond help," Judge Nicholas Geeker said of Joe Harris Sullivan. "I'm going to try to send him away for as long as I can."

And then Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the time, Sullivan was 13 years old.

Now, 20 years after that sentencing in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla., the Supreme Court will consider whether Sullivan's prison term -- and what his supporters say is an only-in-America phenomenon of extreme sentences for juveniles -- violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The case -- which has drawn widespread notice and briefs from former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and others describing their own youthful crimes -- is likely to be a cardinal criminal justice decision for the court this term.

It is a natural outgrowth of the court's bitterly divided ruling in 2005 that juveniles cannot be executed for murders they commit.

Those challenging sentences of life without parole for teenagers base their optimism on words in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion in that case: "The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. . . . It would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."

Sullivan is represented by Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama, who said his client's sentence is no different from the punishment the court found unconstitutional.

"They are both effectively death sentences," Stevenson said in an interview. "One is death by execution, and the other is death by incarceration, but they are both terminal sentences."

Only two 13-year-olds in the country have been sentenced to life without parole for crimes that were not homicides, Stevenson said, and both of them are held in Florida.

Florida officials would not discuss Sullivan's case before the November arguments, but their brief to the court said states are within their rights to lock up forever those thought to pose a perpetual threat to society.

"There is no consensus against life sentences for juveniles, particularly for heinous crimes such as sexual battery," Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar wrote.

Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report; 77 of them are locked up in Florida, for crimes including armed robbery and carjacking. The state took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.

That brief came in the case of Terrance Jamar Graham, a second petition the court accepted. Graham, of Jacksonville, received a life sentence after being part of a group that robbed a barbecue restaurant when he was 16; while on probation a year later, he was part of an armed burglary. Again, a judge doubted Graham's ability to ever change his ways; his accomplices served short sentences.

A range of issues

In accepting both cases and deciding to hear them separately, the court gives itself a wide range of issues to ponder. The justices may rule that such sentences are acceptable for 17-year-olds, for instance, but not 13-year-olds. They could look at the relative seriousness of the crimes, or differentiate the non-homicides in both cases with crimes in which someone is killed.

Sullivan, who his lawyer said had been living on the streets since he was 10, had a troubled history with the law. He had 17 offenses before the crime at issue. In 1989, he and two friends burglarized the home of a 72-year-old woman one day while she was away, then returned later. The woman was raped by one of the juveniles; she never saw his face, identifying him only as a "dark, colored boy." But she remembered that he said something like, "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you."

At the one-day trial, Sullivan was made to say the words over and over. The victim listened and said: "It's been six months. It's hard, but it does sound similar."

The other boys singled out Sullivan as committing the rape.

"The conviction itself was very questionable," Stevenson said. "We do think he's innocent."

But that is not at issue in the case before the Supreme Court. Stevenson only seeks to have Sullivan, now 33, resentenced so that at some point he becomes eligible for release.

Stevenson contends that Florida made no conscious policy decision that 13-year-olds should be eligible for life without parole for a non-homicide. No state that has debated the question has set the age that low. Instead, he said, Sullivan and others were caught up in a legislative reaction to escalating crime.

"What happened is we lowered the minimum age for trying kids as adults and brought them into the adult system, and we expanded the range of very harsh sentences for an adult, and these two things have collided," he said.

Besides the two Floridians serving life sentences for non-homicides committed at 13, seven others have received that sentence for crimes resulting in a death, Stevenson said.

An Index of Mercy

But the state of Florida and its supporters said that is evidence that the sentences are carefully applied to the worst of the worst.

"It is a rare and agonizing decision to sentence a juvenile to life-without-parole," said a brief filed by Louisiana and 18 other states. "But rare does not mean unconstitutional. Rather, rarity is an index of mercy -- of reluctance to take this severe step."

The National District Attorneys Association, supporting Florida, said that while life without parole for juveniles might be unusual, "permanent incarceration for the most violent, hardened juvenile offenders is by no means 'cruel.' "

Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking.

A group of educators and social scientists told the court that such research was crucial to the 2005 decision that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. "The principal purposes of sentencing -- punishing the culpable and deterring the rational -- are not furthered by denying the possibility of parole to adolescents," the group said.

Graham and Sullivan are also supported in an unusual friend-of-the-court brief by former juvenile offenders such as Simpson, director and actor Charles Dutton, and a poet, a software executive and a former assistant U.S. attorney.

"At some point, you have to look at them again and ask, 'What have you done with your life?' " said Simpson, who said that as a youth he burned down an abandoned federal building, destroyed property and fought with a police officer. "Maybe 90 percent of them you throw back in, but what about the other 10 percent?"



View Larger Map

Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, US Probation Department, 4Peace, Stop Handgun Violence Inc., Google Maps

Life Sentences For Youth Violates Constitutional Rights...US Supreme Court To Decide

(Part 1 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing the seriousness of the new federal mandatory sentencing guidelines. This video is targeted towards urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in Boston by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace, Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)



(Part 2 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing The seriousness of the new Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)





US Supreme Court Justices will scrutinize life sentences for youths

"He is beyond help," Judge Nicholas Geeker said of Joe Harris Sullivan. "I'm going to try to send him away for as long as I can."

And then Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the time, Sullivan was 13 years old.

Now, 20 years after that sentencing in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla., the Supreme Court will consider whether Sullivan's prison term -- and what his supporters say is an only-in-America phenomenon of extreme sentences for juveniles -- violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The case -- which has drawn widespread notice and briefs from former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and others describing their own youthful crimes -- is likely to be a cardinal criminal justice decision for the court this term.

It is a natural outgrowth of the court's bitterly divided ruling in 2005 that juveniles cannot be executed for murders they commit.

Those challenging sentences of life without parole for teenagers base their optimism on words in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion in that case: "The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. . . . It would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."

Sullivan is represented by Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama, who said his client's sentence is no different from the punishment the court found unconstitutional.

"They are both effectively death sentences," Stevenson said in an interview. "One is death by execution, and the other is death by incarceration, but they are both terminal sentences."

Only two 13-year-olds in the country have been sentenced to life without parole for crimes that were not homicides, Stevenson said, and both of them are held in Florida.

Florida officials would not discuss Sullivan's case before the November arguments, but their brief to the court said states are within their rights to lock up forever those thought to pose a perpetual threat to society.

"There is no consensus against life sentences for juveniles, particularly for heinous crimes such as sexual battery," Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar wrote.

Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report; 77 of them are locked up in Florida, for crimes including armed robbery and carjacking. The state took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.

That brief came in the case of Terrance Jamar Graham, a second petition the court accepted. Graham, of Jacksonville, received a life sentence after being part of a group that robbed a barbecue restaurant when he was 16; while on probation a year later, he was part of an armed burglary. Again, a judge doubted Graham's ability to ever change his ways; his accomplices served short sentences.

A range of issues

In accepting both cases and deciding to hear them separately, the court gives itself a wide range of issues to ponder. The justices may rule that such sentences are acceptable for 17-year-olds, for instance, but not 13-year-olds. They could look at the relative seriousness of the crimes, or differentiate the non-homicides in both cases with crimes in which someone is killed.

Sullivan, who his lawyer said had been living on the streets since he was 10, had a troubled history with the law. He had 17 offenses before the crime at issue. In 1989, he and two friends burglarized the home of a 72-year-old woman one day while she was away, then returned later. The woman was raped by one of the juveniles; she never saw his face, identifying him only as a "dark, colored boy." But she remembered that he said something like, "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you."

At the one-day trial, Sullivan was made to say the words over and over. The victim listened and said: "It's been six months. It's hard, but it does sound similar."

The other boys singled out Sullivan as committing the rape.

"The conviction itself was very questionable," Stevenson said. "We do think he's innocent."

But that is not at issue in the case before the Supreme Court. Stevenson only seeks to have Sullivan, now 33, resentenced so that at some point he becomes eligible for release.

Stevenson contends that Florida made no conscious policy decision that 13-year-olds should be eligible for life without parole for a non-homicide. No state that has debated the question has set the age that low. Instead, he said, Sullivan and others were caught up in a legislative reaction to escalating crime.

"What happened is we lowered the minimum age for trying kids as adults and brought them into the adult system, and we expanded the range of very harsh sentences for an adult, and these two things have collided," he said.

Besides the two Floridians serving life sentences for non-homicides committed at 13, seven others have received that sentence for crimes resulting in a death, Stevenson said.

An Index of Mercy

But the state of Florida and its supporters said that is evidence that the sentences are carefully applied to the worst of the worst.

"It is a rare and agonizing decision to sentence a juvenile to life-without-parole," said a brief filed by Louisiana and 18 other states. "But rare does not mean unconstitutional. Rather, rarity is an index of mercy -- of reluctance to take this severe step."

The National District Attorneys Association, supporting Florida, said that while life without parole for juveniles might be unusual, "permanent incarceration for the most violent, hardened juvenile offenders is by no means 'cruel.' "

Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking.

A group of educators and social scientists told the court that such research was crucial to the 2005 decision that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. "The principal purposes of sentencing -- punishing the culpable and deterring the rational -- are not furthered by denying the possibility of parole to adolescents," the group said.

Graham and Sullivan are also supported in an unusual friend-of-the-court brief by former juvenile offenders such as Simpson, director and actor Charles Dutton, and a poet, a software executive and a former assistant U.S. attorney.

"At some point, you have to look at them again and ask, 'What have you done with your life?' " said Simpson, who said that as a youth he burned down an abandoned federal building, destroyed property and fought with a police officer. "Maybe 90 percent of them you throw back in, but what about the other 10 percent?"



View Larger Map

Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, US Probation Department, 4Peace, Stop Handgun Violence Inc., Google Maps

Chicago's Fenger High School Students Still Under Seige!...Where's Arne Duncan??

Gang fighting continues at Fenger High School weeks after Honor Roll Student Derrion Albert was beaten to death.

 

Political Swagger's Tonja Styles interviews Cassandra Robinson, the parent of two Fenger High School students, after a fight broke out in the school's lunchroom Thursday afternoon. Five students were arrested, four charged with reckless conduct and one charged with aggravated assault after alledgedly threatening a teacher. Robinson, who is part of a coalition for "Safe Passage" for Fenger students who live in Altgeld Gardens, says things are getting worse.





Here is graphic video footage of Chicago Public School Student Derrion Albert being beaten to death. This is the hard lesson some students at Fenger High School have to deal with after a day of learning. For them it's a hard lesson of reality on the streets.







5 Arrested in Fenger High School Brawl

Thursday five teenage boys were arrested for beating on each other and threatening a teacher at Fenger High School.

Parents at Fenger have been given the option of transferring to Carver Military Academy, but all over the city parents are trying to move their kids out of harms way.

“I'm gonna do anything necessary to save their lives,” Robert Owens said.

Owens' son Marques transferred to Calumet Charter School this year to escape violence at a neighborhood school, but he was badly beaten Tuesday.

His nose was broken after one kid sucker punched him and more piled on.

10 calumet students were arrested and charged with aggravated battery.

Traci Wallace said she transferred her kids to Calumet Charter School because she wanted something better.

Recent numbers show about one out of every five Chicago students change schools during a given year. Some of them because the family moved, others because they were granted what CPS calls a “Safety Transfer.”

But how practical is transferring a student?

“You have to weigh that decision very carefully,” said Chicago Public Schools spokesperson, Monique Bond. “You really want to make sure you don't disrupt a student's education process.”

But that leaves a lot of good students feeling like they've got to keep moving to stay ahead of the violence.

Eric Walton was one of those students. He was beaten up at Bogan High School.

CPS granted Walton a safety transfer to Hancock.

Walton transferred to Bogan on Monday.

How are things going?

“I feel safe now” added Walton.



Police arrest 5 in rash of Fenger fights

Police responded Thursday morning to a disturbance at Fenger High School -- one of at least 12 fights at the school Thursday, 10 of them in the lunchroom alone.

There were no reports of injuries, but police said they charged four students with reckless conduct and one with aggravated assault.

Officers were called to the school, 11220 S. Wallace Ave., about 11:25 a.m. to respond to a disturbance in the lunchroom, police said.

A witness said there were at least 10 fights in the cafeteria, and at least two others in other parts of the school.

There were four fights during the sophomore students' lunch period and three during the juniors' lunch period, the witness said. Juniors were held at their lunch period for at least double their usual time because of a fight in another part of the school, according to the witness.

Chicago Public Schools officials had no comment.



View Larger Map


Sources: Chicago Tribune, My Fox Chicago, MSNBC, CBS News, Flickr, Youtube, Google Maps