Wednesday 29 September 2010

Kriss Donald and PC Idiot Coppers

I wonder how many investigations these PC pigs have undertaken into racist violence against whites by Muslims, Dual Nationality Pakistani's etc in Scotland ?

I wonder if these PC pigs would have classified the Kriss Donald attack as a race crime and prioritised it when he was attacked ?

How many race crimes against whites are classified as hate crimes from the start in relation to crimes against non-whites by the PC pigs ?

More PC double standards by a racist, corrupt PC pig police force.

Police pledge swifter response to racism and homophobia than 'ordinary' crime
Premium Article !

Published Date: 29 September 2010
By Gareth Rose
POLICE are looking to drive up reporting of hate crime by promising minorities will see a swifter and tougher response to offenders, than other victims.

The new hate-crime guidance manual is aimed at instigating a cultural change in policing and, as a result, throughout Scotland.

Police will stress to officers that victims from minorities suffer more when a crime is motivated by prejudice than a member of the general public would from the same offence.

Assistant Chief Constable Mike McCormick, of Lothian and Borders Police, said: "We wanted to make sure our own staff were aware of the impact hate crime has.

"If you punch me in the nose because you don't like me because of the colour of my skin, race, sexuality or whatever, that has a longer effect because I'm thinking that not only does this person not like me, but lots of other people won't like me either.

"If someone is already struggling with a disability then a hate crime can leave them thinking not only do I have a physical problem, but I also have a social problem because people don't like me.

"It has a much more significant effect on victims and I want people to pick up on that.

"If people say 'I had not meant any harm' it was just a bit of loose language, we're saying think hard before you say something. And we want victims of hate crime to know this is how we feel."

The new manual brings together best practice from the various eight Scottish forces that was put in place following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in 1999.

The inquiry into the murder of the black teenager in 1993 found the Metropolitan Police to be "institutionally racist", a verdict has had repercussions that continue to affect UK policing.

The manual represents a promise to protect, not only ethnic minorities, but anyone who might be prejudiced against because of age, disability, gender including transgender, race including gypsy/travellers, religion or belief, and sexual orientation.

It is backed by new powers in the Offences Aggravated by Prejudice (Scotland) Act, which was passed in Scottish Parliament earlier this year.

Sergeant Martin White, of the diversity unit at Lothian and Borders Police, one of the officers who wrote the manual, said: "(Under the act] if someone is arrested for hate crime, we must look to put them before the courts as soon as possible, if not from custody then bailed to appear as soon as possible.

"In the courts, hate crime has to be recorded and reflected in the sentence. It gives the courts the chance to give an appropriate sentence.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday 28 September 2010

If France Can Do It - why not us ?

France to consider law that would strip naturalised citizens of nationality if they attack police

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 4:03 PM on 28th September 2010

Hardline: A new law proposed by immigration minister Eric Besson could see naturalised French citizens who attack police officers stripped of their nationality

Nicolas Sarkozy's government will present a law that would strip naturalised French citizens of nationality if they threatened police.

The law, put forward by immigration minister Eric Besson, would also see immigrants expelled if they were an 'unreasonable' strain on welfare or guilty of 'aggressive begging'.

Eric Besson will present the law in France's lower house of parliament later today. It is expected to include higher punishments for fake marriages.

Mr Besson said in an interview with Le Parisien that the loss of citizenship for those who attacked police officers 'has a serious symbolic and national meaning'.

Immigrant rights groups have strongly criticised the bill, saying it would create a two-tier system of citizenship and worsen tensions surrounding immigration into France.

It comes after strong criticism from the EU over the policy to deport Roma gypsies to Eastern Europe.

More than 1,000 gypsies have been deported in the last few weeks, mostly to Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr Sarkozy launched a crackdown on 100 illegal, makeshift camps and offered them £250 per person to return to their country of origin - and an extra £2,500 for anyone able to produce a viable business plan.

Worried by poor ratings in the opinion polls, Mr Sarkozy has deliberately linked his campaign on the Roma migrants to a general drive on security.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Threat of Globalisation to the UK

The danger of Globalisation is that it allows goods that are fake to be imported into the UK with utter impunity.

We have had the Foot and Mouth outbreak caused by illegal food imports, pet food that kills dogs, meat filled with illegal growth hormones, timber stolen from the Rainforest, bush meat and even human flesh on sale in markets in London.

Globalism is not just a threat to our economy and workers, it is a physical threat to the safety of our people as well.

Human flesh on sale in London link here ;

Eight people have been arrested in south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region for producing or selling fake rabies vaccinations which caused the death of a child and threatened more than 1,000 others, local drug authorities said Sunday.

"They will be prosecuted for the fake rabies vaccines in Laibin City," Guangxi's regional drug administration said in a statement.

The statement, which did not name the suspects, said authorities discovered 1,263 fake rabies shots in the two-month period from January. Some 1,214 of the shots had already been used.

The fake shots, found in 13 village hospitals and 20 privately-run clinics in Xinbin District, Laibin City, were reportedly produced by an underground workshop and sold for about 330,000 yuan (48,530 U.S. dollars).

Drug authorities have confiscated all the remaining fake shots.

The vaccine scandal was uncovered in December last year, after the death of four-year-old Ye Xiaojian.

Ye died three weeks after he was bitten by a dog in his home village in Xinbin District.

Ye's father Ye Xiangan said the child received six rabies vaccine shots for 700 yuan at the village clinic. "He had a high fever and couldn't eat or drink after the shots," said Ye.

Local authorities said the boy was the only confirmed victim of the fake shots so far, adding that there have been no other reports of the fake shots causing health problems.

By June, health workers in Laibin had found all the patients who had received the fake shots and had given them a free standard shot.

Rabies has emerged as a major public health issue in China.

Last year China was second only to India in the number of human deaths caused by rabies. Around 2,000 people per year in China die from rabies.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Death of the Middle Class

When are people going to learn that you cannot have it all.

You cannot have a Welfare State and NHS with open borders.

You cannot have a middle class and welfare cuts.

You cannot have full employment and mass immigration and cheap consumer goods produced in China.

You cannot have a nation state that puts the interests of its own people first, and be part of the EU and globalised economy.


The Welfare State is being destroyed by the Tory Liberal scum government that support mass immigration, support us being in the EU and support the importation of cheap foreign labour.

The middle class whose jobs depend overwhelmingly on the State, are about to be shafted by the Tory Liberal government.

The Middle Class in Britain are simply a product of the State, in that around 90 % of middle class people are employed by the British state in education, the NHS, the civil service, police, army etc etc

The Middle Class does not exist as a result of the free market, the normal job market or the global economy - it exists almost in totality as an aspect of the British State.

The Middle Class are the primary recipients of State Welfare Benefits, which are simply paid out in the guise of wages.

Their wages are state benefits.

They are as much dependent on the state as the unemployed.

But they have been too stupid and too arrogant to ever understand this reality.

They get a pay cheque from the state each month yet sneer at the unemployed who get their benefits paid by the state.

The Middle Class is a British state construct whose jobs are primarily working for the British State, and as the British state is eroded by welfare cuts, globalisation, offshoring of jobs, inshoring of jobs, EU integration and the importation of cheap foreign labour - then the Middle Class will retract and become redundant.

The Middle Class is about to collapse and die.

When David Cameron talks about 'shrinking the British state' he is talking about shrinking the British Middle Class by sacking them and dumping them into unemployment.

As the British State, the British Welfare State and the state system in general begins to shrink and contracts in response to globalisation and EU integration, the Middle Class will have to be dumped into unemployment and forced to compete in the free market for jobs with foreign labour, immigrants and imported workers.

The Conservative announcement that they are about to cut public spending will impact on three demographics - the Middle Class who will lose their jobs, the working class who will lose their benefits when they become unemployed and the disabled and unemployed who will have their benefits cut.

As the banks start to reward themselves with profits after the biggest welfare benefit bailout in history, the British people will be dumped into poverty and unemployment by a government who relies on the donations of the bankers to keep it in power.

These Middle Class jobs are about to be dumped in their hundreds of thousands.

At the same time a massive property price collapse is going to drive them into negative equity and force them into homelessness and debt for credit is also being restricted by the banks.

Its 'blowback' time.

They voted overwhelmingly for New Labour for a decade and the Tories and Liberals, and politics has been dominated by a middle class agenda since the pollsters realised that just 5 % of the middle class population win elections.

Now they are going to dine on a banquet of consequences.

The middle class daily mail readers, whose shrill condemnation of the unemployed is a symptom of their state funded arrogance, are about to get a taste of reality.

They are going to be made unemployed and forced to experience what real life is like.

The public services cut back will hit the middle class like a tsunami.

The job losses in the state funded middle class will have a massive impact on house prices as well resulting in a further property price crash.

At the same time the middle class liberals, who have supported 'diversity' and politically correct positive discrimination and affirmative action plans to impose an artificial state generated 'ethnic middle class' within our society as a model of stalinist social engineering by the Left and Liberals over the last few decades, will now have to sit back and watch as ethnics and immigrants TAKE THEIR jobs for a change, instead of those jobs being lost by the Working Class (who have real jobs as opposed to fake state jobs) for a change.

Finally the Liberal Middle Class will experience what the White Working Class has experienced, as the White Working Class were dumped into unemployment and poverty by the White Liberal Middle Class in order for the Ethnic Middle Class to be constructed in their place.

Now the Liberals will reap what they have sown.

A radicalised, angry mass of unemployed liberal middle class people who have finally been forced to experience real life and forced to compete for real jobs in the real job market, as opposed to having a job for life in some emanation of the state, will now be waking up.

Only when the White Working Class and the White Middle Class wake up will revolutionary change occur, as the White Working Class and integrated members of the Ethnic Working Class are not able to force radical change on their own.

It takes a radicalised middle class to change the social consensus and create the foundations for revolutionary political change in our society.

An open door to benefit tourists: EU warns Britain it can't stop thousands more migrants claiming welfare handouts

By James Chapman
Last updated at 11:50 PM on 27th September 2010

* Comments (218)
* Add to My Stories

Benefits tourists are set to get the green light to come to Britain and immediately claim handouts totalling £2.5billion a year.

According to documents leaked to the Mail, ministers have been warned that restrictions on claims by immigrants are against the law and must be scrapped.

The European Commission's ruling threatens to open the door to tens of thousands who are currently deterred from coming to Britain.
Bosnian immigrants

Ruling: The decision by the European Commission could open the door to tens of thousands who are currently deterred from coming to Britain

At the moment, a 'habitual residency test' is used to establish whether migrants from the EU are eligible for benefits.

To qualify for jobseeker's allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate that they either have worked or have a good opportunity to get a job.

But after receiving a complaint that the rules infringed the human rights of EU citizens, the Commission began to examine them.

In a letter seen by the Mail, it warns that the restrictions are 'not compatible' with EU law.

It says: 'EU law leaves it to member states to determine the details of their social security schemes and social assistance schemes, including the conditions on awarding benefits.

‘However, when making use of this competence, member states have to comply with the fundamental principles of EU law, such as the right to equal treatment on the basis of nationality. Having examined the “right to reside” test... it is not compatible with different legal provisions of EU law.’

The letter, written to the individual who made the complaint and copied to the British government, is dated last December, but Whitehall sources claim ministers in the outgoing Labour government failed to argue against the proposals.

Britain had toughened up its rules in 2004 when the EU was expanding its borders. The restrictions assess the eligibility of those from the EU and from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

But the Commission has begun legal proceedings against Britain to get restrictions on welfare claims by incomers scrapped.

If successful, the Government would be required to remove its deterrents to benefit tourism, including the right-to-reside test and an additional qualification for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance, that they must have worked for 12 months or more.

Officials warn the bill could be between £1.3billion and £2.5billion a year – hampering plans to rein in welfare spending.

However, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is understood to be determined to fight the move through the courts if necessary.

The Whitehall source warned: ‘This has the potential to open the doors of the benefits system to anyone coming here from the entire European economic area, who may have no intention of working or even looking for work but simply wants to claim benefits.

'We already have enough of a problem managing people who want to come here. But this would open up a whole new wave of benefit tourism.’

Last year, 46,957 non-UK nationals took the habitual residence test. Of those, 24,604 passed and 22,353 failed. For the test, they are interviewed and asked about why they have come to the UK, how long they intend to stay and their employment arrangements.

‘Fundamentally this is designed to ensure people aren’t coming to the UK to be benefit tourists,’ added the source.

The Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘We are in discussions with the Commission as, in our view, the current rules are within the law and are right for the UK, and changing them now would not be in our interest.

Our rules fully support the freedom of workers within the EU, whilst making sure that there are reasonable restrictions on access to social security for those who have never worked in the UK.

‘This prevents unsustainable burdens being placed on our social security system. We will argue our case and work towards a favourable outcome.’

The case is specifically between Britain and the Commission, but other countries which impose restrictions on access to welfare for migrants – Denmark, France and Ireland – are likely to be affected too.

Britain’s test was introduced in 1993, but tightened in 2004 after concerns that residents of new member would move to the previous 15 member states to benefit from their generous social welfare systems.

Former Labour minister Margaret Hodge has argued restrictions should be toughened further to address voters’ concerns.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday 27 September 2010

Richard Barnbrook - stabbed in the back by Griffin

I have just had a phone call from Richard Barnbrook telling me that he has been expelled from the BNP.

Contrary to the BNP constitution and the rules of Natural Justice the news was first announced on the British Democracy Forum.

Richard has asked me to represent him in his tribunal, but first of all I suggest he asks Pat Harrington of the 'independent ' Solidarity Trade Union and a BNP employee whether he will represent a Solidarity member in a disciplinary hearing against his BNP employer Nick Griffin.

I wonder what Pat will say.

Here you see another sign of Griffins megalomania and how he regards long standing, respected and loyal party members who dare go against the interests of his corrupt little cabal of arse kissers and lickspittles as 'disposable patriots' who can be thrown away at a moments notice.

Griffin thinks he is the BNP, when he is just a transient leader whose ego is as twisted as his sense of morality and decency.

Richard has done more for the BNP than virtually all of the corrupt scumbags on the payroll of the party.

Unlike the verminous sock puppets on various sites like the BDF forum, Richard has stood up in public and fought for the BNP.

No doubt the idiot cultists around the Green Maggot will abuse him, but seeing as they are utter nobodies who hide behind a fake name and limit their activism to the internet and being gobshite keyboard warriors, then what else can we expect from such idiots.

No doubt other Griffinite maggots will smear and abuse him from behind their gutless, cowardly and pathetic fake names on the internet.

The BNP is now a sad, pathetic joke.

Those who remain loyal to a man who has no concept of loyalty are total mugs.

Add to Technorati Favorites


The Daily Mail are Tory scum.

Whilst the Tory scum government are destroying the Welfare State to pay for the billions given to the bankers, they are now attacking the unemployed British people who are the primary victims of the last decade of New Labour open borders immigration policy whereby the greedy capitalist scum that fund the tory party chose to employ cheap, illegal foreign scab labour in the Immigrant Economy and the Black Economy rather than employ British people on a decent wage.

When the Tories were out of power the Daily Mail revealed that almost all the new jobs created by the New Labour government went for immigrants and foreign workers, whilst our people were left on the dole.

The Immigrant Economy which employs immigrants and foreigners before British Workers, is the economy of traitors.

Benefits paid to unemployed British citizens are not 'handouts' as we have paid for those benefits with our taxes, national insurance contributions and the work we put into the economy before it was globalised and British jobs given to immigrants.

It is OUR money, not the governments money.

The dole that needs cutting are the billions of our taxes paid to the bankers - the greatest welfare cheques ever paid out in our countries history to undeserving incompetent rich tory donating scum.

Now the Tory Liberal scum are in power, they call our people 'workshy' for not taking jobs that were given to foreigners by the same businesses and companies that donate to the Tory Party.

There are 3.5 million foreigners working in Britain.

Deport them all and give the jobs to our people.

Train our people to do those jobs, not import in cheap foreign labour.

Fuck the Daily Mail and fuck the Tory Liberal capitalist filth government.

British jobs for British Workers !



If they cut the dole, then there will be riots on the streets.

Capitalism must be confronted and taught that we will not stay silent as they import in millions of immigrant labour, throw millions of British workers on the dole, give billions of our taxes to the banks and bankers who profit from globalisation and then destroy OUR Welfare State to pay for it.

Dont expect the scum leftist trades unions to defend British workers from immigration, as they are internationalists who support mass immigration.


Almost 1.75million adults have spent the past five years out of work and relying on benefits, alarming figures reveal.

In a sign of the depth of Britain’s worklessness crisis, 1,749,770 people have been receiving one of the three main out-of-work handouts since 2005.

They have been continuously claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Income Support, in some cases while receiving other benefits.

The figures will fuel fears that Labour has cultivated a ‘Shameless’ generation – after the TV show about a fictional council estate – that is dependent on the state, with joblessness being passed on from parents to children.

Ministers said the figures were shocking evidence of endemic worklessness in many areas of the country, with whole communities suffering from a culture of welfare dependency.

The figures were revealed as Chancellor George Osborne prepares to unveil further deep cuts in welfare spending next month. The Coalition will say in next month’s comprehensive spending review that all those who are capable of work will be obliged to do so.

Labour is accusing the Government of a ‘nasty’ attack on the most vulnerable.

The Work and Pensions Department figures show some 4,870 people have continuously been on the headline unemployment benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, since 2005.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: ‘These are people the last government fast-tracked onto a lifetime of benefit dependency.

‘Thousands of people who with the right help could be making a contribution to the economy, have instead been written off with the taxpayer asked to foot the bill.’

The Government is bringing in its Work Programme next year to offer tailored support to people who have been on Jobseeker’s Allowance or incapacity benefit for many years.

Back-to-work schemes are being opened up to private, public and voluntary sectors to ensure people get the right help at the right time to get off benefits and back into work.

Other recent figures, apparently released to underline the case for welfare reform, have shown that almost 1.5million people in Britain have never done a day’s work in their lives.

Read more:

Labour's betrayal of British workers: Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner

By James Chapman
Last updated at 3:04 PM on 8th April 2010

* Comments (486)
* Add to My Stories

Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign today as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.

Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.
Mr and Mrs Brown speak to members of the public during a phonebank session at the Labour Party headquarters

Mr Brown, seen speaking to members of the public during a phonebank session at the Labour Party headquarters, said he opposes an immigration quota

As Gordon Brown tried to fight on the economy and cleaning up politics, he was confronted in the Commons about how British people of working age have lost out.

Shadow immigration minister Damian Green revealed unpublished figures showing there are almost 730,000 fewer British-born workers in the private sector than in 1997.

Mr Green said the Tories would reduce net migration to tens of thousands a year from the peaks of 200,000 under Labour by enforcing an annual cap.

Mr Brown rejected the idea of an immigration quota, which he said would do 'great damage to British business'.

But Mr Green said the official figures were 'the final proof that Gordon Brown was misleading the public when he promised British jobs for British workers'.

He added: 'Instead he has presided over boom and bust and left British workers in a worse position than when he took office 13 years ago.

'British workers have been betrayed. A Conservative government would introduce a genuine limit which would help us properly control immigration.

'We would reduce net immigration to the levels of the 1980s and 90s - tens of thousands a year, not the hundreds of thousands we have seen under Labour.'
Damian Green

Senior Tory Damian Green

The ONS figures show the total number of people in work in both the private and the public sector has risen from around 25.7million in 1997 to 27.4million at the end of last year, an increase of 1.67million.

But the number of workers born abroad has increased dramatically by 1.64million, from 1.9million to 3.5million.

There were 23.8million British-born workers in employment at the end of last year, just 25,000 more than when Labour came to power. In the private sector, the number of British workers has actually fallen.

The number of posts for people of working age has increased since 1997 by over 500,000, to 20.5million.

But the number of British-born workers in the private sector has slumped by 726,000, from 18.4million to 17.7million.

The figures exclude people working beyond pension age, which critics say the Government includes as 'new jobs' in its assessments.

Last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that, over ten years, only Luxembourg had seen more of its new jobs taken by migrants.

The latest totals do not include the hundreds of thousands of migrants employed in the 'black economy'.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch pressure group, said: 'The government's economic case for mass immigration is finally blown out of the water.'

A Labour Party spokesman said: 'Net inward migration has fallen and Labour has set out how we will use the points-based system to ensure that, as growth returns, our priority is to see rising levels of skills, wages and employment, not rising immigration.

'But we reject a Tory quota which is arbitrary and misleading - not covering most of those who apply to come to Britain - and bad for business and growth.

'Under the points-based system the door is currently closed to unskilled workers from outside the EU, and the rules are being tightened on students working part-time. Skilled jobs must be advertised in Jobcentre Plus before being opened to migrant workers.

'Unemployment is around half a million lower than people anticipated last year, as thousands of British workers benefit from the help and support we offer.

'With more than 480,000 vacancies right now we are making sure no one gets left behind.'
Immigration: What NONE of the parties will tell you

Politicians of all parties have lamentably failed to tell the truth about how immigration has changed this country beyond recognition during Labour's 13 years in power. Here JAMES SLACK explains what is really happening...


Net inward migration to the UK, the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving, is up threefold since Labour came to power.

In 1997, it stood at 48,000. By 2004, fuelled by a surge in new arrivals from Eastern Europe, it reached an all-time record 244,000, and in 2007 it was 237,000.

The following year it did begin to fall, as Britain headed into a deep recession, but the total still stood at 163,000.
Mr Brown

Since Labour came to power, net inward migration to the UK has increased threefold

Mr Brown suggested the as-yet-unpublished figure for 2009 would be 147,000. But this was incomplete data which excluded asylum seekers, visitors who decide to stay long-term and arrivals from Ireland and earned the Premier earned a swift rebuke from Sir Michael Scholar, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority.

The Tories have pledged to reduce the level of net migration to 'tens of thousands' - but have yet to specify a number.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he does not 'lie awake' worrying about Britain's immigration problem

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he does not 'lie awake' worrying about Britain's immigration problem

The Office for National Statistics projects that - based on current levels of migration - the UK's population of 61million, will grow to 70million by 2029.

The figure has become a battleground between the Government and those pushing for stricter immigration controls.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson initially said he did not 'lie awake' worrying about such rapid growth.

He is now insisting the ONS figure is only a projection and that the statisticians have been wrong in the past.

The number of immigrants living in Britain has almost doubled in less than three decades. The total foreign-born population now stands at 6.7million.


Mr Brown's now notorious 'British jobs for British workers' pledge is fatally undermined by employment figures from the ONS.

These show that, in the private sector, there were 288,000 fewer UK-born people working in the third quarter of last year than there were in 1997.

Mr Brown likes to include people working beyond pension age as 'new jobs' - but if you strip them out, there are 637,000 fewer.

Overall, immigration has accounted for more than 1.64million of the 1.67million jobs created since 1997.


For much of the last decade, Britain has been a magnet for illegal immigration and it has never been possible to put a definitive figure on the numbers entering this way.

Migrants mass at the Sangatte refugee camp near Calais, then smuggle themselves into the UK, often hidden in lorries.

The stowaways vanish into a black economy estimated to be worth billions of pounds.
The Tories under David Cameron, who arrived at the House of Commons by bicycle yesterday, could reduce net migration

The Tories under David Cameron, who arrived at the House of Commons by bicycle yesterday, could reduce net migration

Commonly, illegal immigrants work in kitchens, agricultural and construction jobs. Immigration staff, struggling to cope with a backlog of asylum claims, do not have the resources to track them down.

During the 2005 election campaign, Tony Blair repeatedly refused to estimate how many illegals were living here. A month after being re-elected, his Government produced an estimate of 570,000.

The campaign group Migrationwatch says the true total could be as high as 870,000.

Some Labour ministers have flirted with calling an 'amnesty' but it has been rejected as electorally unpopular.


Officials estimated that, following EU enlargement in May 2004, between 5,000 and 13,000 Eastern Europeans would move to Britain.

But by the end of 2009 the number who had signed the Home office's Worker Registration scheme alone was 1,041,315.

This does not include the self-employed or those who did not bother to sign. The unexpected influx - mainly from Poland - placed significant strain on schools, the health service and local councils, who have still not been properly funded for the new arrivals.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was given a student visa

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was given a student visa before his Christmas bombing attempt

Handing out passports to foreign nationals is how the Labour Government changed the make-up of society for ever. In 1997 just 37,010 people were given citizenship.

Last year the Home Office approved an all-time record 203,865 applications, an increase of 58 per cent in a year.

In total, Labour has now created 1.5million new British citizens - all with full voting rights.

Ministers have repeatedly promised to toughen citizenship rules, most recently by insisting migrants must earn a passport by doing voluntary work.


Labour has never recovered from the mayhem which occurred at the start of this century, when a record number of asylum seekers poured into the UK.

Even on conservative estimates, it has left around 285,000 failed claimants living in Britain - but the number being removed is falling.

In 2009, there were 10,815 removals or voluntary departures, down 16 per cent on 2008.

Of those who went, 2,985 benefited from the Assisted Voluntary Return scheme - worth £3,000 each.

The Government's target of concluding 90 per cent of asylum cases within six months by December 2011 has been dismissed as 'unachievable' by Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine.

Only a third of failed asylum seekers - 7,850 out of the 26,832 served with deportation notices - were actually removed in 2008. Inspectors have recently identified a new backlog of 40,000 cases massing in the asylum system.


In 1998, the number of visas handed out to overseas students was 69,607. In 2008/9, this figure had risen to 236,470.

The Government's own figures suggest more than one in ten of the foreign students studying in this country last year was sponsored by a bogus college.

At least 1.5million student visas have been handed out in the past eight years alone.

The beneficiaries included Christmas Day transatlantic flight bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - given permission by the Home Office to study mechanical engineering at University College London between 2005 and 2008.

A string of other terror suspects have used the student visa route into the UK.


Britain's jails have been turned into what the Tories have called a 'United Nations of crime' containing inmates from 160 different countries.

The 11,546 foreign nationals represent one in every seven inmates in our prisons. They range from murderers and rapists to burglars, paedophiles, drug dealers and thieves.

There are only 192 member countries of the United Nations, so all bar 32 are represented in the British prison system.

The vast number of overseas inmates is a major factor behind the overcrowding which has led to the early release of UK criminals.


Arguably, the most damaging charge of them all. New Labour's election manifestos made little or no mention of immigration policy.

But according to a draft report by the Cabinet Office, written in 2000, ministers had a secret plan to 'maximise the contribution' of migrants to the Government's 'social objectives'.

Former Labour advisor Andrew Neather, who worked on the report, said the aim was to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.'

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Fear

This is a poem about religion and the media.

They are the spiders that feed on fear and who transform the infinite human soul into cells of terror afraid of damnation, hell and the latest media induced social panic.

A sinister black spider waits in its web,
Of white silken lies, it spun to entwine,
Its prey in snarls of fear and illusion,
Cocooning each within a cell of terror,
Paralysing them for its cruel pleasure,
Its passion, the slow rape of all reason.

Those fangs dispense a subtle poison,
Into all open eyes, minds and ears,
That seek to see, to think and hear,
Until its victims become new spiders,
And slowly transformed by the toxins,
That each lost soul has ever absorbed.

Then each starts to spin thin threads,
To form fresh webs around themselves,
Where they hang in mental torment,
Suspended from the fragile filaments,
Entombed in a womb of the material,
So far from any hope of redemption,
Each feeding upon their own cold fears,
In a silent black void, wet with tears,
Until at last comes that saviour death,
To eke each soul from its imprisoning flesh.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday 26 September 2010

The real reason for a rebrand.

The real reason for the muted 'rebrand' of the BNP is that the party is about to become insolvent and the party creditors will then own the BNP logo and the BNP name, so therefore Griffin is preparing the saps left in the party for a name change right now so as to enable them to move straight into the 'new bnp' which will be just another vehicle for the idiot to fuck up and ruin as he always does.

Oh and when he becomes bankrupt in a few weeks time, and has to resign as an MEP, most of the remaining BNP payroll staff will be sacked as well.

A 'rebrand' is Griffins sad attempt to keep control of the insolvent BNP, by giving it a new name.

And no doubt the mugs will still believe it is just a 'rebrand'.

Add to Technorati Favorites

BNP Rebrand

An article on the BNP sites says the party is going to try and have a rebrand.

Yet another idiotic attempt by Griffin to try and damp down internal dissent with another facile and asinine political stunt.

The BNP cannot be rebranded as long as Griffin runs the party and Dowson controls the money.

The entire party is toxic because the leadership are toxic.

You cant rebrand political thalidomide.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sick and Disgusting

The picture above of Griffin tells you all you need to know why the BNP will NEVER be anything other than a tiny fringe party in British politics under his 'leadership'.

He looks like a cross between Tweedledum and a badly assembled shop dummy.

The campaign the BNP undertook at the weekend is truly shameful.

No decent political party should try and capitalise economically from the war in Afghanistan.

The literature and forms signed by people at these 'events' are nothing more than disgusting attempts to bolster the BNP money making scams.

A decent leader of a decent political party would never have authorised a campaign and campaign literature that seeks to make new memberships and fund raising an issue in relation to the campaign.

I looked at the pictures of the people at the various table top sales, and frankly I felt sick.

These are good people being used for a disgusting cause which is simply to raise money to keep Dowson rich and Griffin in his position as BNP dictator.

The time, effort and activities of those members are being exploited by Griffin and Dowson for their own greed.

The first thing that a decent leader of a decent political party would have demanded is that not a single leaflet, not a single petition form or any literature of any kind feature anything to do with fundraising and membership contact details.

These signatures collected will not be sent to the government, and even if they were they would be ignored, as they will be used for just one reason - to fill the BNP computer databse with new names, addresses and e mails to send their pathetic begging letters too.

All the signatures will be sent to Jim Dowson and the Belfast Bunker so the information on names, addresses and e mails can be extracted from them.


I bet you that within a fortnight or so the people who signed the petitions will start to receive the first of endless pathetic, badly drafted begging letters written by either Dowson or Golding.

This will be just the first of an avalanche of such e mails they will then get from the Begging Bunker in Belfast.

This campaign is a shameful and disgusting attempt simply to make money out of our war dead and wounded soldiers.

The BNP signatures will achieve nothing to stop the war - they are just being used as an pretext to collect information from the public to raise money for Dowson and Griffin - hence the disclaimer on the forms that allows the BNP to contact those people for fund raising purposes.

I am glad I am no longer a part of the sick cabal of crooks and immoral vultures that infest the senior ranks of the BNP, for Griffin and Dowson are shameful and vile opportunists simply out to make as much money as possible for themselves.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Economic Nationalism

The article below is based on some ideas and text, abridged and reformated, that is published on various internet sites.

Why we need National Producerism.

Producerism, sometimes referred to as "producer radicalism," is a right-wing populist ideology promoting economic nationalism which holds that the productive forces of society — the ordinary worker, the small businessman, and the entrepreneur — are being held back by parasitical elements at the top, middle and bottom of the social structure.

Producerism sees society's strength being "drained from both ends" — from the top by the machinations of globalized financial capital and the large, politically connected corporations that together conspire to restrict free enterprise, avoid taxes and destroy the fortunes of the honest British businessman, and from the bottom by the members of the politically correct servile state, the illegal immigrant underclass and colonists whose reliance on welfare and government benefits drains the strength of the nation.

The National Producerist sees the International Welfare State that we have at the moment as a product of globalism, in that the internationalisation of the British economy and the importation of millions of foreign workers into the UK means that British Workers are then thrown onto the dole, where they are then kept in poverty and paid low benefits.

Unemployment is a product of the globalisation of the British economy and the welfare dependency culture we have in the UK is a product of British workers being thrown onto the dole or into low paid, transient jobs that offer no chance of them buying a home and thereby having a stake in our society.

The International Welfare State provides the unemployed with enough benefits to simply live in poverty, as a way to coerce them to take low paid jobs in the globalised British economy, thereby creating a 'rush to the bottom' whereby British workers are forced to compete with foreign workers for jobs that are low paid and short term rather than high paid and long term.

Consequently, nativist rhetoric is central to modern producerism (Kazin, Berlet & Lyons).

National Producerists want to build a National Welfare State that puts the interests of British workers first, that pays the unemployed and disabled decent benefits that enable them to have a decent standard of living and that assists them back into work rather than forcing them to stay in unemployment whilst millions of foreign workers come into the UK and take British jobs from British workers.

There can be no welfare reform until all foreign workers are removed from the UK, all illegal immigrants removed from the UK and all illegal workers are removed from the UK - only then can welfare reform begin.

Without British Jobs for British Workers and British workers being able to take priority by law for all jobs, then cutting the dole is a crime against humanity - especially as the government that cuts benefits allows those illegal workers to enter the UK, take British jobs, undercut wages and force British workers into unemployment.

Illegal immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a threat to the jobs of the working class, a drain on social services, a threat to the workers rights established by the trades unions as they undercut wages and work in the Black Economy outside the statutory framework that protects workers rights, and are also the vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities and sovereignty.

Some advocates of producerism go further, taking a similar position on legal immigration.

There are now three main classes in our society ;


They produce all the products and services that we use to fulfill our lives. These are the British Workers, the Small Business Community and the Entrepreneur.


These are the agents of the Servile State that take resources from the producers and use those resources to control the producers and the spongers. These are the politicians both left and right that are globalists, that work for the interest of the supra-national institutions like the EU, WTO World Bank etc, those supra-national corporations that operate inside the UK and take wealth and profit from the UK, foreign workers whose wealth is exported out of the UK, they are the agents of The Servile State in the government, civil service, public institutions and International Welfare State who work for and fund with our taxes the politically correct organisations, charities, QUANGO's and NGO's funded by the servile state.


They receive booty from the looters and become victims by becoming dependent. These are the myriad politically correct organisations funded by the state, the state funded legal groups for immigrants and asylum seekers, state funded groups for ethnic and sexual minorities, state funding for multi-culturalism, the foreign welfare claimants living in Britain, foreign Health Tourists who come to the UK, immigrant workers inside the UK who take British jobs and export money outside the UK and who work in the Black Economy, asylum seekers who do not work, foreigners claiming British benefits because of the EU, foreign criminals in British jails and colonists that live in the UK but who do not integrate into our society and whose cultures mean they are economically inactive.

Producerism is sympathetic to the idea that labor is an end in itself, inherently ennobling, and thus should be protected at least to some extent from the chaotic forces of consumer choice and market competition.

Although producerism is primarily economic in emphasis, it also has a perspective on social issues. Namely it upholds the traditional values of the middle class, the self reliant ethos of the Working Class and the small business community as the only true national values. It defends those values against the corruption of decadent inherited wealth, predatory foreign capital and against the dangerous apathy and sloth it sees as being the inevitable consequence of dependency on an Internationalised Welfare State that throws British workers on the dole and pays them low benefits that keep them in poverty and dependency whilst allowing in millions of foreign workers to take their jobs.

Therefore, producerists tend to be patriotic but at the same time intensely distrustful of the Servile State, which they believe to be under the control of supra-national forces hostile to the nation.

The only state that can be tolerated is a British Nationalist System is one that acts solely in the interests of the British people, the British economy and the British Producer Classes to protect them from the globalised forces of finance capitalism and the supra-national institutions that threaten our national community and economy.

The only Welfare State that must be allowed to exist, once the 'Levelling of the Land' has begun and land reform imposed, is a British Welfare State that serves only the British people in times of need - not an International Welfare State that allows anyone from the world to claim its benefits and services just because they enter Britain's borders, legally or illegally.

Producerists support skilled-craft trade unions, as organizations of "ordinary men" creating goods beneficial to society, but oppose internationalist left-wing, revolutionary unions or those that claim to speak for the lower ranks of society in general including illegal workers and foreign workers.

National, industrial corporations, that is, those that produce tangible goods in domestic facilities, are viewed favorably, while international, globalized companies that engage in outsourcing, "sending jobs abroad" or those that earn their profits from the abstract financial world are treated with hostility in producerist circles.

This disposition is sometimes referred to as "business nationalism." High tariffs and protectionist policies are regarded as not only beneficial to workers, but essential to the long-term survival of the domestic economy to counter the predatory practices of currency manipulation and illegal trade practices.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Halal - RESIST NOW !

Boycott the meat from these stores until they stop peddling Halal meat to the public - shop in local butchers that use locally produced meat.

Britain's biggest supermarket chains are selling halal lamb and chicken without telling unsuspecting shoppers.

Those stocking meat slaughtered according to Islamic law include Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Somerfield and the Co-op.

And a Mail on Sunday investigation has found that fast-food chains including Domino’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, ­Nando’s and Subway are also using halal meat without ­telling customers.

But the UK’s second-biggest supermarket, Asda, has refused to confirm or deny whether it sells halal meat.

The Mail on Sunday contacted Asda on Tuesday, but by yesterday it had failed to answer any of our questions.

Initially, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and Tesco were reluctant to admit they sold halal meat. But later they confessed to selling Islamically slaughtered lamb. Tesco also admitted selling some halal chicken without labelling it as such.

Most lamb imported from New Zealand by British supermarkets has been slaughtered according to Muslim law, but this is not mentioned on packaging. Some lamb from British abattoirs is also halal.

Last night, Agriculture Minister Jim Paice said: ‘People should know what they’re buying in the shops or when they’re eating out and I will be discussing with the food industry the role labelling can play in giving consumers a choice.’

The supermarkets and fast-food outlets said they did not feel the need to tell customers that meat is halal because the slaughter conformed to Western standards, with animals stunned before being killed.

But the RSPCA has raised concerns about the way chicken is killed in Islamic abattoirs because the birds are stunned with a weaker electric current, which does not guarantee unconsciousness during slaughter.

Our enquiries have found that ­Subway uses some Islamically slaughtered chicken that has not been stunned.

Non-Muslim religious leaders say that Christians, Hindus or Sikhs may find it offensive to eat meat slaughtered according to Islamic ritual. Jews are unlikely to be exposed to such meat because they eat kosher, or animals slaughtered according to Jewish law.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed how halal food was being served to unsuspecting people in hospitals, schools and pubs across the UK.

The country’s biggest hotel and restaurant group, Whitbread– which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains – was also selling halal food, as were well-known sporting venues such as Ascot, Twicken­ham and Wembley.

Under Islamic law, an animal must be slaughtered by having its throat cut while it is conscious.

All its blood must drain out, otherwise Muslims regard it as impure. The person carrying out the killing has to recite an Arabic verse at the time.brings the practice in line with Western methods.

All Islamically slaughtered lamb and chicken sold in British supermarkets is stunned before being killed, but is not labelled as halal. Moderate Islamic groups allow animals to be stunned before slaughter, which brings the practice in line with Western methods.

Inayat Bunglawala, the chair of Muslims4UK, said: ‘Supermarkets should not be afraid of labelling their products as halal. Halal meat tastes just the same as non-halal meat.’

But Mike Judge, from the campaign group the Christian Institute, said: ‘The idea of having Islamic ritual said over meat would be objectionable to some Christians. I would find it objectionable, so it should be labelled as halal.’

Initially, Tesco and Waitrose were reluctant to admit they sold any halal meat. Tesco said in a statement: ‘It is not the case that all the meat we sell is halal or that our suppliers only offer halal meat.’

But when quizzed further, a spokesman said: ‘All our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered, as is 35 per cent of our UK lamb. Less than five per cent of our chicken is halal.’

A Waitrose spokeswoman said in her first statement: ‘I can confirm that Waitrose does not sell any halal meat.’

But a day later, another spokes­woman said: ‘You mentioned the [Islamic] prayer said at the point of slaughter. This applies to all our lamb but not to beef or poultry.’

M&S said in its first statement: ‘No meat sourced by M&S from the UK is halal.’ When asked about lamb, a spokeswoman said: ‘Our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered but pre-stunned.’

A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: ‘The abattoirs that supply us with lamb are licensed by the Muslim authorities and a prayer is said when the ­animals are killed.’

Sandwich chain Subway admitted that up to five per cent of its chicken is Islam­ically slaughtered without being stunned.

Subway said in a statement: ‘By mid-November there will be no halal meat in our non-halal stores. The meat served in halal Subway stores is not stunned before slaughter.’

Domino’s Pizza said it had served Islamically slaughtered chicken in most of its 580 outlets for ten years.
I kill 45 chickes a minute and all get an Islamic prayer

The Muslim slaughterman murmurs the Islamic verse as thousands of chickens whir towards him on a conveyor belt hung from the ceiling.

Masood Akhtar grabs hold of one chicken’s head with his left hand and, with his right, draws his knife across its neck.

The slaughterman barely has time to say ‘Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar’ (meaning ‘In the name of Allah, who is the greatest’) before the next bird is upon him.

It appears a long way from the ritualised slaughter that many would imagine produces halal chicken. Mr Akhtar is not dressed in robes but in a hair-net and a yellow blood-spattered jacket.

And far from a spiritual ceremony, the process is clinical and robotic – Mr Akhtar claims to kill 45 birds every minute and 40,000 in a week.

The procedure appears to follow Sharia law, which states that the bird must be killed alive by a Muslim man who recites the set verse as he cuts its throat.

At the Paul Flatman Ltd poultry processing plant outside Colchester in Essex where Mr Akhtar works, the chickens are stunned by dipping them in electrified water before they are killed.

‘The charge stuns the birds for around two minutes – it’s like a general anaesthetic,’ explained factory manager Tim Lane.

‘It’s crucial not to kill the bird because then, it wouldn’t be halal, so we adjust the charge depending on the chicken’s size. We are very careful to get the balance right.

‘Some of the other bigger poultry factories who are supplying the supermarkets claim the chicken they produce is halal – but it’s not really.

‘Instead of using a Muslim man as the killer, they use an automatic circular saw and a tape recorder to play the prayer.

‘They can’t do it properly because of the sheer volume of chickens they have to kill to meet demand. Some of the factories are doing one million birds a week.’

Mr Akhtar, 29, became a slaughterman at the age of 18 after a few months’ training.

‘When I arrived I wanted to be a killer,’ he recalled. ‘On my first day in training, three out of ten birds I killed were not cut properly through both neck arteries – this meant they were not halal.

‘But after three months
of practice I was perfect – every bird was killed in true halal style.’

The Paul Flatman plant opened in 1961 slaughtering chickens in the normal way, but in 1977, as demand from halal wholesalers increased, Mr Flatman switched his entire production to halal.

He says he has never found it hard to recruit Muslim slaughtermen. ‘It’s usually just through word of mouth in the Muslim community – it’s not hard to find volunteers.’

I am a qualified meat inspector and have lost count of the days and weeks I’ve spent in slaughterhouses. I’ve never liked the ritual way of killing – I don’t believe it is humane.

I don’t know any slaughterman who likes it either. But we accept it because it is the law – even though the law has been fudged because the issue is too sensitive for the Government and the EU (which now makes the rules) to take on.

A spokeswoman said: ‘The majority of our chicken is halal slaughtered, but it is all stunned prior to slaughter.’

Pizza Hut and KFC, through their PR firm Freud Com­munications, said: ‘We use a number of international suppliers, some of whom provide halal chicken as standard practice.

‘Importantly, all of the chicken we source, halal or otherwise, is stunned before slaughter.’

Nando’s said: ‘All of our chickens are stunned first. A small proportion of all the chicken sold in our restaurants is halal.’
They HAVE to tell us what we're buying

Analysis by Richard North

Even though I’ve seen it done thousands of times, you never really get used to watching animals being killed. But as long as we eat meat, it has to be done. And it is our duty as a society to ensure that the procedure is carried out humanely and with as much dignity as possible.

Society also has to respect religious freedom and rituals, and I don’t have a problem with that. I am, however, uneasy that the laws that require humane killing of animals for meat – particularly that they must be rendered insensible before being slaughtered – do not apply to Jews for their kosher meat and Muslims for halal foods.

It is a fudge we have all lived with, however uneasily, for years, feeling safe in the knowledge that this is very much a niche market. Only last week the Office for National Statistics reported that just four per cent of the British population was Muslim.

Surely, if you want halal or kosher meat, you go to a specialist butcher and everybody else can be confident their meat is produced to more humane standards?

Well, actually, no. That choice has been scandalously taken away from us. Not only are we deliberately not informed if our meat is produced according to religious ritual, many retailers do not even know.

And there is only one real reason: profit. The reality of modern meat production, both here and abroad, is that most animals are killed in vast, modern slaughterhouses.

Once there were small, specialist kosher and halal producers, but now the trade has been taken over by industrial concerns. To cover the increasing demand for halal meat, these corporate slaughterhouses have either had to introduce halal methods or buy in halal meat from specialist butchers.

The choice is either to introduce a separate production line or to take the cost-cutting option of having just one production line. But in this one-size-fits-all world, it’s not the most humane and dignified method of slaughter – the one enshrined in British and EU law – that wins out.

No, the ‘one-size’ is the less humane method of killing tailored to the religious demands of just four per cent of the population. Since it is not illegal to palm off halal meat on non-Muslims, that is being done on a massive scale. And there is nothing the Government or the EU can or will do about it.

The UK has draconian regulation, far more rigorous than in the rest of Europe. But this was supported by the large slaughterhouses which thought that closing down smaller competition would increase their market share and profit margins. In this country, the combined pressure of regulation and the greed of commercial producers have ensured local butchers are now rare, and local slaughterhouses even rarer. And it is the massive factory abattoir, hidden from sight, that perpetrate these practices.

Thus, commercial greed has found a way of circumventing a law that we, in our ignorance, expect to be obeyed and that we have a right to see obeyed.

We do not expect commercial interests to prevail, on a technicality, over something that many campaigned for – the humane slaughter of our animals.

This is not only commercially wrong, morally it is a disgrace.

* Author and journalist Dr Richard North is a qualified meat inspector and former technical adviser to the Small Abattoirs Association.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday 25 September 2010

The Pink Mafia

The British people are getting sick and tired of the undue attention given to the demands and views of homosexuals and lesbians when they represent just over 1 % of the population.

If one reads the media it appears that the heterosexual majority are the minority in our society, not the homosexuals and lesbians whose demands dominate every debate.

Yet the media peddle their every demand and statements as though they are somehow more important than the views of the majority and should reflect the social consensus, from the simply vulgar whores like Lady Gaga to apologists for paedophilia like Peter Tatchell.

We are getting sick of the Pink Mafia dominating our society.

The fact that the homosexuals and lesbians in the media, and their straight politically correct accomplices, seek to turn every issue into an excuse for some homosexual or other to pontificate to the majority are transforming tolerant people into angry people.

The fact is that the media are not breaking down barriers, they are erecting new ones.

We want our society to reflect the interests of the heterosexual majority, not for it to be under the domination of the endless demands of the homosexual and lesbian minority.

The Pink Mafia must have real contempt for the majority in our society as evidenced by their constant attacks on us.

No democratic society remains a democracy unless it reflects the interests of the majority, it becomes The Tyranny of the Minority when the interests of minority groups take precedence over the majority.

We must restore society back the majority and wrest control of our democracy from the minorities that seek to impose their will on us.

There will come a time very soon when the majority will no longer allow themselves to be manipulated by the media and the minorities, and they will rise up against them and demand their rights and interests are promoted.

The more the Pink Mafia and the media seek to impose their liberal fascist regime upon us, the more harsh the response will be.

There comes a time when a people say 'enough' and demand their country is returned to them.

That time is fast approaching as we are sick and tired of living under this sick, degenerate politically correct liberal fascist regime.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?

No: the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not bigotry.

The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination. At a presidential primary debate this Martin Luther King Day, for instance, Senator Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . . . for the same crime.” Not to be outdone, Senator Hillary Clinton promptly denounced the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites.”

If a listener didn’t know anything about crime, such charges of disparate treatment might seem plausible. After all, in 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13 percent of the national population. About one in 33 black men was in prison in 2006, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men. Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail. The dramatic rise in the prison and jail population over the last three decades—to 2.3 million people at the end of 2007 (see box)—has only amplified the racial accusations against the criminal-justice system.

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

Racial activists usually remain assiduously silent about that problem. But in 2005, the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed over 52 percent of all murders in America. In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population. Blacks constituted 39.3 percent of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3 percent of all robbery and 34.5 percent of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4 percent of all property-crime arrests.

The advocates acknowledge such crime data only indirectly: by charging bias on the part of the system’s decision makers. As Obama suggested in the Martin Luther King debate, police, prosecutors, and judges treat blacks and whites differently “for the same crime.”

Let’s start with the idea that cops over-arrest blacks and ignore white criminals. In fact, the race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data. As long ago as 1978, a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes. No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.

Moving up the enforcement chain, the campaign against the criminal-justice system next claims that prosecutors overcharge and judges oversentence blacks. Obama describes this alleged postarrest treatment as “Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others.” Jena, Louisiana, of course, was where a D.A. initially lodged attempted second-degree murder charges against black students who, in December 2006, slammed a white student’s head against a concrete beam, knocking him unconscious, and then stomped and kicked him in the head while he was down. As Charlotte Allen has brilliantly chronicled in The Weekly Standard, a local civil rights activist crafted a narrative linking the attack to an unrelated incident months earlier, in which three white students hung two nooses from a schoolyard tree—a display that may or may not have been intended as a racial provocation. This entrepreneur then embellished the tale with other alleged instances of redneck racism—above all, the initial attempted-murder charges. An enthusiastic national press responded to the bait exactly as intended, transforming the “Jena Six” into victims rather than perpetrators. In the seven months of ensuing headlines and protests, Jena became a symbol of systemic racial unfairness in America’s court system. If blacks were disproportionately in prison, the refrain went, it was because they faced biased prosecutors—like the one in Jena—as well as biased juries and judges.

Backing up this bias claim has been the holy grail of criminology for decades—and the prize remains as elusive as ever. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms. A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases found that slight racial disparities in sentence length resulted from blacks’ prior records and other legally relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.

Another criminologist—easily as liberal as Sampson—reached the same conclusion in 1995: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Michael Tonry wrote in Malign Neglect. (Tonry did go on to impute malign racial motives to drug enforcement, however.) The media’s favorite criminologist, Alfred Blumstein, found in 1993 that blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in arrest.

This consensus hasn’t made the slightest dent in the ongoing search for systemic racism. An entire industry in the law schools now dedicates itself to flushing out prosecutorial and judicial bias, using ever more complicated statistical artillery. The net result? A few new studies show tiny, unexplained racial disparities in sentencing, while other analyses continue to find none. Any differences that do show up are trivially small compared with the exponentially greater rates of criminal offending among blacks. No criminologist would claim, moreover, to have controlled for every legal factor that affects criminal-justice outcomes, says Patrick Langan, former senior statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prosecutors and judges observe the heinousness of a defendant’s conduct, for example, but a number-crunching researcher has no easy way to discover and quantify that variable.

Some criminologists replace statistics with High Theory in their search for racism. The criminal-justice system does treat individual suspects and criminals equally, they concede. But the problem is how society defines crime and criminals. Crime is a social construction designed to marginalize minorities, these theorists argue. A liberal use of scare quotes is virtually mandatory in such discussions, to signal one’s distance from primitive notions like “law-abiding” and “dangerous.” Arguably, vice crimes are partly definitional (though even there, the law enforcement system focuses on them to the extent that they harm communities). But the social constructivists are talking about all crime, and it’s hard to see how one could “socially reconstruct” assault or robbery so as to convince victims that they haven’t been injured.

Unfair drug policies are an equally popular explanation for black incarceration rates. Legions of pundits, activists, and academics charge that the war on drugs is a war on minorities—a de facto war at best, an intentional one at worst.

Playing a starring role in this conceit are federal crack penalties, the source of the greatest amount of misinformation in the race and incarceration debate. Crack is a smokeable and highly addictive cocaine concentrate, created by cooking powder cocaine until it hardens into pellets called “rocks.” Crack produces a faster—and more potent—high than powder cocaine, and it’s easier to use, since smoking avoids the unpleasantness of needles and is more efficient than snorting. Under the 1986 federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, getting caught with five grams of crack carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence in federal court; to trigger the same five-year minimum, powder-cocaine traffickers would have to get caught with 500 grams. On average, federal crack sentences are three to six times longer than powder sentences for equivalent amounts.

The media love to target the federal crack penalties because crack defendants are likely to be black. In 2006, 81 percent of federal crack defendants were black, while only 27 percent of federal powder-cocaine defendants were. Since federal crack rules are more severe than those for powder, and crack offenders are disproportionately black, those rules must explain why so many blacks are in prison, the conventional wisdom holds.

But consider the actual number of crack sellers sentenced in federal court each year. In 2006, 5,619 were tried federally, 4,495 of them black. From 1996 to 2000, the federal courts sentenced more powder traffickers (23,743) than crack traffickers (23,121). It’s going to take a lot more than 5,000 or so crack defendants a year to account for the 562,000 black prisoners in state and federal facilities at the end of 2006—or the 858,000 black prisoners in custody overall, if one includes the population of county and city jails. Nor do crack/powder disparities at the state level explain black incarceration rates: only 13 states distinguish between crack and powder sentences, and they employ much smaller sentence differentials.

The press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack: five grams of meth net you a mandatory minimum five-year sentence. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants (nearly as many as the crack defendants) were 54 percent white, 39 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent black. But no one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.

Nevertheless, the federal crack penalties dominate discussions on race and incarceration because they seem to provide a concrete example of egregious racial disparity. This leads to a commonly expressed syllogism: crack penalties have a disparate impact on blacks; disparate impact is racist; therefore, crack penalties are racist. This syllogism has been particularly prominent recently, thanks to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2007 decision to lighten federal crack penalties retroactively in the name of racial equity.

The press has covered this development voraciously, serving up a massive dose of crack revisionism aimed at proving the racist origins of the war on crack. Crack was never a big deal, the revisionist story line goes. But when Boston Celtics draft pick Len Bias died of a crack overdose in 1986, the media went into overdrive covering the crack phenomenon. “Images—or perhaps anecdotes—about the evils of crack, and the street crime it was presumed to stoke” circulated, as the New York Times archly put it in a December 2007 article. A “moral panic” (Michael Tonry’s term) ensued about an imaginary threat from a powerless minority group. Whites feared that addicted blacks would invade their neighborhoods. Sensational stories about “crack babies” surfaced. All this hysteria resulted in the unnecessary federal crack penalties.

Since the 1980s, the revisionist narrative continues, experts have determined that powder and crack show more pharmacological “similarities than differences,” in the Times’s words, and that crack is no more damaging to fetuses than alcohol. The belief that crack was an inner-city scourge was thus a racist illusion, and the sentencing structure to quell it a racist assault. Or, as U.S. District Judge Clyde Cahill put it, in what one hopes is not a representative sample of the federal judicial temperament: “Legislators’ unconscious racial aversion towards blacks, sparked by unsubstantiated reports of the effects of crack, reactionary media prodding, and an agitated constituency, motivated the legislators . . . to produce a dual system of punishment.”

Leave aside the irony of the press’s now declaring smugly that the press exaggerated the ravages of crack. (The same New York Times that now sneers at “images—or perhaps anecdotes—about the evils of crack” ran searing photos of crack addicts in 1993 that included a woman kneeling before a crack dealer, unzipping his fly, a baby clinging to her back; such degraded prostitutes, known as “strawberries,” were pervasive casualties of the epidemic.) The biggest problem with the revisionist narrative is its unreality. The assertion that concern about crack resulted from “unconscious racial aversion towards blacks” ignores a key fact: black leaders were the first to sound the alarm about the drug, as Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy documents in Race, Crime, and the Law. Harlem congressman Charles Rangel initiated the federal response to the epidemic, warning the House of Representatives in March 1986 that crack had made cocaine “frightening[ly]” accessible to youth. A few months later, Brooklyn congressman Major Owens explicitly rejected what is now received wisdom about media hype. “None of the press accounts really have exaggerated what is actually going on,” Owens said; the crack epidemic was “as bad as any articles have stated.” Queens congressman Alton Waldon then called on his colleagues to act: “For those of us who are black this self-inflicted pain is the worst oppression we have known since slavery. . . . Let us . . . pledge to crack down on crack.” The bill that eventually passed, containing the crack/powder distinction, won majority support among black congressmen, none of whom, as Kennedy points out, objected to it as racist.

These politicians were reacting to a devastating outbreak of inner-city violence and addiction unleashed by the new form of cocaine. Because crack came in small, easily digestible amounts, it democratized what had been a rarefied drug, making an intense high available to people with very little money. The crack market differed radically from the discreet phone transactions and private deliveries that characterized powder-cocaine distribution: volatile young dealers sold crack on street corners, using guns to establish their turf. Crack, homicides, and assaults went hand in hand; certain areas of New York became “like a war zone,” retired DEA special agent Robert Stutman told PBS’s Frontline in 2000. The large national spike in violence in the mid-1980s was largely due to the crack trade, and its victims were overwhelmingly black inner-city residents.

Though the elites are furiously rewriting crack history, many people who lived through it are not. In April 2007, Los Angeles prosecutor Robert Grace won the conviction of a crack dealer who had raped and strangled to death ten strawberries between 1987 and 1998. The “crack epidemic was one of the worst things that happened to the black and brown community,” Grace asserts. Matthew Kennedy managed an infamous public housing project in Watts during the crack epidemic. “Some of us remember how bad it was,” he says. When children avoid school for fear of getting shot by drug gangs, “you’ve just lost that generation.” Lawrence Tolliver has witnessed his share of shootings outside his South Central barbershop. “Sometimes it was so bad you had to scout the horizon like a gazelle at a watering hole in Africa,” he recalls.

It takes shameless sleight of hand to turn an effort to protect blacks into a conspiracy against them. If Congress had ignored black legislators’ calls to increase cocaine-trafficking penalties, the outcry among the groups now crying racism would have been deafening. Yes, a legislative bidding war drove federal crack penalties ultimately to an arbitrary and excessive point; the reduction of those penalties is appropriate. But what led to the crack-sentencing scheme wasn’t racism but legal logic. Prosecutors rely on heavy statutory penalties to induce defendants to spill the beans on their criminal colleagues. “An amazing public spirit is engendered when you tell someone he is facing 150 years to life but has the possibility of getting out after eight if he tells you who committed a string of homicides,” says Walter Arsenault, who headed the Manhattan district attorney’s homicide-investigation unit in the 1980s and 1990s.

Race activists endlessly promote the claim that the draconian federal crack laws are sweeping up mere sad sacks with a little extra crack to spare. But anyone who fits that description is exempt from the federal sentencing scheme. Traffickers with only a modest criminal history who didn’t injure others or have a gun when arrested can escape the mandatory federal sentences if they don’t lie to the government about their offense (there is no requirement to rat out others). In 2006, only 15.4 percent of crack-cocaine defendants qualified for this safety-valve provision, compared with 48.4 percent of powder-cocaine offenders; in 2000, even fewer crack defendants qualified—12.6 percent. Crack sellers seldom merit the escape clause because their criminal histories tend to be much more severe than powder sellers’ and because they’re more likely to have or use weapons. The congressional distinction between crack and powder sellers, it turns out, had a firm grounding.

Equally misleading is the criticism that few crack “kingpins” can be found in federal prison. This is not surprising, because “kingpins” in the traditional sense—heads of major drug-importing rings—don’t exist in the crack world. Crack is not imported but cooked up locally. Its supply and distribution scheme is more horizontal than vertical, unlike that of powder cocaine and heroin. Federal crack enforcement wasn’t about stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the country; it was about stopping urban violence. And that violence was coming from street dealers.

Critics follow up their charges about crack with several empirical claims about drugs and imprisonment. None is true. The first is that drug enforcement has been the most important cause of the overall rising incarceration rate since the 1980s. Yet even during the most rapid period of population growth in prisons—from 1980 to 1990—36 percent of the growth in state prisons (where 88 percent of the nation’s prisoners are housed) came from violent crimes, compared with 33 percent from drug crimes. Since then, drug offenders have played an even smaller role in state prison expansion. From 1990 to 2000, violent offenders accounted for 53 percent of the census increase—and all of the increase from 1999 to 2004.

Next, critics blame drug enforcement for rising racial disparities in prison. Again, the facts say otherwise. In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference. (No criminologist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever performed this exercise.)

The rise of drug cases in the criminal-justice system has been dramatic, it’s important to acknowledge. In 1979, drug offenders were 6.4 percent of the state prison population; in 2004, they were 20 percent. Even so, violent and property offenders continue to dominate the ranks: in 2004, 52 percent of state prisoners were serving time for violence and 21 percent for property crimes, for a combined total over three and a half times that of state drug offenders. In federal prisons, drug offenders went from 25 percent of all federal inmates in 1980 to 47.6 percent of all federal inmates in 2006. Drug-war opponents focus almost exclusively on federal, as opposed to state, prisons because the proportion of drug offenders is highest there. But the federal system held just 12.3 percent of the nation’s prisoners in 2006.

So much for the claim that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned because of the war on drugs. But a final, even more audacious, argument maintains that incarceration itself, not criminals, causes crime in black neighborhoods. Because blacks have the highest prison rate, this argument holds, incarceration constitutes an unjust and disproportionate burden on them. This idea has gained wide currency in the academic world and in anti-incarceration think tanks. Columbia University law professor Jeffrey Fagan offered a representative version of the theory in a 2003 law review article co­authored with two public health researchers. Sending black males to prison “weakens the general social control of children and especially adolescents,” Fagan writes. Incarceration increases the number of single-parent households. With adult males missing from their neighborhoods, boys will be more likely to get involved in crime, since they lack proper supervision. The net result: “Incarceration begets more incarceration [in] a vicious cycle.”

A few questions present themselves. How many convicts were living in a stable relationship with the mother (or one of the mothers) of their children before being sent upstate? (Forget even asking about their marriage rate.) What kind of positive guidance do men who are committing enough crimes to end up in prison, rather than on probation (an exceedingly high threshold), provide to young people? Further, if Fagan is right that keeping criminals out of prison and on the streets preserves a community’s social capital, inner cities should have thrived during the 1960s and early 1970s, when prison resources contracted sharply. In fact, New York’s poorest neighborhoods—the subject of Fagan’s analysis—turned around only in the 1990s, when the prison population reached its zenith.

Fagan, like many other criminologists, conflates the effects of prison and crime. Neighborhoods with high incarceration rates suffer disproportionate burdens, he claims. Firms are reluctant to locate in such areas, decreasing job opportunities. Police pay closer attention to these high-incarceration zones, increasing the chance that any given criminal within them will wind up arrested. Thus, incarceration “provides a steady supply of offenders for more incarceration.” But if business owners think twice about certain communities, it’s because they fear crime, not a high concentration of ex-convicts per se. It’s unlikely that prospective employers even know the population of ex-cons in a neighborhood; what they are aware of is its crime rates. And an employer who hesitates to hire an ex-con is almost certainly reacting to his criminal record, even if he has been given community probation instead of prison. Likewise, if the police give extra scrutiny to neighborhoods with many ex-convicts, it’s because those convicts commit a lot of crime. Finally, putting more criminals on probation, rather than sending them to prison—as Fagan and others advocate—would only increase law enforcement surveillance of high-crime neighborhoods.

This popular “social ecological” analysis of incarceration, as Fagan and other criminologists call it, treats prison like an outbreak of infectious disease that takes over certain communities, felling people on a seemingly random basis. “As the risks of going to jail or prison grow over time for persons living in those areas, their prospects for marriage or earning a living and family-sustaining wage diminish as the incarceration rates around them rise,” Fagan says. This analysis elides the role of individual will. Fagan and others assume that once one lives in a high-incarceration—that is, high-crime—area, one can do little to avoid prison. But even in the most frayed urban communities, plenty of people choose to avoid the “Life.” Far from facing diminished marriage prospects, an upstanding, reliable young man in the inner city would be regarded as a valuable catch.

No one doubts that having a criminal record—whether it results in community probation or prison—is a serious handicap. People convicted of crimes compete for jobs at a clear disadvantage with those who have stayed crime-free. But for all the popularity of the view that the system is to blame, it’s not hard to find dissenters who believe that individuals are responsible for the decision to break the law. “My position is not hard,” says public housing manager Matthew Kennedy. “You don’t have to do that crime.” Kennedy supported President Bill Clinton’s controversial 1996 “one-strike” rule for public housing, which allowed housing authorities to evict drug dealers and other lawbreaking tenants on their first offense. “I’m trying to protect the good people in my community,” Kennedy explains. “A criminal record is preventable. It’s all on you.” Kennedy has no truck with the argument that it is unfair to send ex-offenders back to prison for violations of their parole conditions, such as staying away from their gang associates and hangouts. “Where do they take responsibility for their own actions?” he wonders. “You’ve been told, ΩDon’t come back to this community.≈ Why would you come back here? You’ve got to change your ways, change the habits that got you in there in the first place.”

Though you’d never know it from reading the academic literature, some people in minority communities even see prison as potentially positive for individuals as well as for communities. “I don’t buy the idea that there’s no sense to prison,” says Clyde Fulford, a 54-year-old lifelong resident of the William Mead Homes, a downtown Los Angeles housing project. Having raised his children to be hardworking, law-abiding citizens, Fulford is a real role model for his neighborhood, not the specious drug-dealing kind posited by the “social ecological” theory of incarceration. “I know a lot of people who went to prison,” Fulford says. “A lot changed they life for the better. Prison was they wake-up call.” Is prison unavoidable and thus unfair? “They knew they was going to pay. It’s up to that person.” What if the prisoners hadn’t been locked up? “Many would be six feet under.”

Robert Grace, the Los Angeles prosecutor, is acutely aware of the fragility and preciousness of the rule of law. “As a civilized society, we can’t allow what’s happening in Latin America to take over here,” he says. “Venezuela and Mexico are awash in appalling violence because they don’t respect the law.” Thus, when prominent figures like Barack Obama make sweeping claims about racial unfairness in the criminal-justice system, they play with fire. “For any political candidate to make such claims out of expediency is wrong,” Grace says. “If they have statistics that back up the claim, I’d like to see them. But to create phony perceptions of injustice is as wrong as not doing anything about the real thing.”

The evidence is clear: black prison rates result from crime, not racism. America’s comparatively high rates of incarceration are nothing to celebrate, of course, but the alternative is far worse. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear. Commerce and street life have revived in those urban neighborhoods where crime has fallen most.

The pressure to divert even more offenders from prison, however, will undoubtedly grow. If a probation system can finally be crafted that provides as much public safety as prison, we should welcome it. But the continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school—and out of trouble.

Punishment and Crime

Those who tar the criminal-justice system as racist often make a broader claim: incarceration doesn’t even lower crime, making the nation’s skyrocketing prison rolls a particularly senseless injustice.

Incarceration foes are right about one thing: the U.S. prison population has swollen dramatically over the last three decades. The per-capita rate of imprisonment increased three times from 1973 to 2000; the number of state and federal prisoners grew fivefold between 1977 and 2007, from 300,000 to 1.59 million. When inmates in jails are included, the total number in correctional facilities at the end of 2007 was 2.3 million, according to the Pew Center on the States. One in 100 adults is in custody.

This expansion represents a resounding rejection of the reigning crime philosophy of the 1960s. The 1967 report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, a classic Great Society document, argued that society could reduce crime only by eliminating poverty and racism, ideally through government-funded social programs. Consistent with this theory, prison capacity began dropping during the sixties and only stopped falling during the late 1970s, when crime reached intolerable levels. Thereafter, the states started adding prison beds and passing laws to keep offenders locked up longer and to reduce judicial discretion to issue very lenient sentences.

Few subjects have proved more contested in criminology than whether this prison buildup lowered crime—and, if so, by how much. Anyone entering the thickets of incarceration studies should abandon all commonsense assumptions, such as that locking away, say, a burglar, would reduce burglary rates. Not so, say the criminologists, and at first glance, the crime data from the late-twentieth-century prison expansion seem to support them. Only after 1991 was the rise in incarceration consistently accompanied by decreasing crime rates; in the 1980s, crime went up and down, even as the prison population steadily grew. And now that crime is falling, the criminology world finds itself even more puzzled by why the prison population keeps increasing.

Two of the most common theories as to why prison doesn’t lower crime are logically weak and empirically ungrounded. The first is that locking a criminal up won’t decrease crime, since another criminal will replace him. Yet while crimes meeting an illicit consumer demand may operate within a supply-and-demand framework, opportunities for violence and property crimes hit no natural ceiling. There are plenty of potential victims of violence and theft to go around; a potential robber need not wait for a competitor to go to jail before he can begin his own crime spree.

The second theory to explain why prison doesn’t work applies the law of diminishing returns to incarceration. As we lock up ever more people, we start scraping the bottom of the criminal barrel, the critics say. The prisoners we incarcerate become more innocuous than those picked up initially, so we get a diminishing bang for the buck for every new prisoner sent away.

However impeccable the economic reasoning behind this claim, there is no empirical evidence for it. The diminishing-returns argument assumes that the universe of unapprehended and unincarcerated criminals is shrinking. It is not. The chances of getting caught and sent to prison remain extraordinarily low. The JFA Institute, an anti-incarceration advocacy group, estimated in 2007 that in only 3 percent of violent victimizations and property crimes does the offender end up in prison. In 2004, only 1.6 percent of burglars were in prison, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The people in prison today, says statistician Patrick Langan, are “not very different from prisoners in the past, in terms of their prior records.”

In the overwhelming majority of cases, whatever the race of the convicted, prison remains what it has always been: a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. Absent recidivism or a violent crime, the criminal-justice system will do everything it can to keep you out of the state or federal slammer. It can be disconcerting for the average law-abiding citizen to hear a prosecutor’s typology of the crime universe: most thefts, for example, are considered “nonserious crimes” that do not merit prison sentences, unless they concern a huge amount of money or took place in the victim’s presence. Steal an unoccupied car or burgle an unoccupied home and you’ll probably get probation; hijack a car from a driver or stick up a pedestrian, however, and you’ll probably go to prison.

Columbia University law professor Dan Richman had a chance to test the “harmless offenders in prison” claim as chair of New York City’s Local Conditional Release Commission. Richman studied the criminal profile of Rikers jail inmates in late 2004. Jails are supposed to be where the most “innocuous” lawbreakers end up—those with misdemeanor convictions or sentences of less than a year. “It struck me how serious the offenders were,” he says. “I’d come from the academy, where there’s persuasive writing about over-incarceration. I had assumed there would be mostly first-time offenders in jail, but it wasn’t true.” About 40 percent of the inmates had prior felony convictions, Richman discovered, and the inmates’ most recent offenses, which had put them in jail this time around, were usually serious. People in for assault would have pleaded down from attempted manslaughter; possession pleaded down from distribution. “These weren’t people who were there by accident,” says Richman.

One can also test the theory that locking away offenders doesn’t lower crime by seeing what prisoners do when they get out. The Bureau of Justice Statistics studied the postprison careers of over 272,000 state prisoners released in 1994. Within three years, 67.5 percent of the group had been rearrested for 744,000 new felonies and serious misdemeanors. How many additional crimes they committed during those three years before getting arrested is unknown; estimates of the number of crimes that a typical unapprehended criminal commits per year range from zero to several hundred. And the ex-cons’ post-release crime spree seems not to have resulted from the negative effects of prison itself, since convicts who spent the longest time behind bars had significantly lower rearrest rates than others.

Not all criminologists and law professors dispute that prison lowers crime. University of Chicago economist Steve Levitt hypothesized in 1996 that had incarceration rates not risen sharply from 1971 to 1993, violent crime would have been 70 percent higher and property crime almost 50 percent higher. More typical estimates attribute 10 to 25 percent of the 1990s crime drop to incarceration. And Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring rejected the diminishing-returns argument against incarceration in his 2007 book The Great American Crime Decline. The fact that crime started dropping consistently only at the end of the decades-long prison buildup makes perfect sense, he argued, since that’s when the greatest number of criminals were off the streets.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her latest book, coauthored with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga, is The Immigration Solution.

Add to Technorati Favorites