Ask Judge Mathis

More often than not, the media tells us that youth gun related deaths are a big city problem. The truth is, young people in rural areas are just as likely to die by the gun as their urban counterparts. A recent study conducted by Dr. Michael Nance, director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s trauma program, shows that, while gun deaths among young people age 19 and under living in large cities are more likely to be homicides, firearm deaths among youth in the same age group living in rural areas are more likely to be suicidal or accidental.

The study looked at gun deaths among individuals 19 and younger from 1999 through 2006. In all, there were about 15,000 homicides, 7,000 suicides and 1,400 accidental shootings. The death rates in urban and rural areas were about the same rate: around four deaths per every 100,000 children. To some, the numbers may not seem too alarming. But when we think of the young lives that were lost unnecessarily, we all have a duty to do something to address this issue.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. has more gun related deaths than any other industrialized nation. While government imposed gun bans has worked to somewhat reduce firearm deaths, they haven’t eliminated them completely. The solution to making sure fewer people die by gunfire is unclear; depending on whom you ask the answer range from outright bans to classes on how to use guns properly.

Reducing gun deaths should be bigger priority for this country. Making progress on the issue is difficult as gun rights is a hotly debated issue, one led by the National Rifle Association. While ensuring the 2nd amendment rights of citizens are not infringed upon is important, so too is the need to protect our citizens. The NRA and other gun proponents must balance their fight for 2nd amendment rights with the need to keep our urban and rural streets safe.

No matter where you stand on control issues and regardless of the situation surrounding a gun death – murder, suicide – Americans, and especially our young people, continuously fall victim to firearms. As a society, we need to realize that this is a universal problem and we should work together to solve it.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which has in recent years been overwhelming conservative in its decisions, showed signs of humanity when it ruled that juvenile offenders under 17 could no longer be sentenced to life without parole for crimes that didn’t result in a death.
Calling such sentences cruel and unusual punishment, and in violation of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, the Justices ruled 6-3 in favor of putting an end to judicial punishments that give offenders no hope of a life after prison. Even Chief Justice John Roberts, a notorious conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled on the side of what’s fair and decent.
At the heart of the decision was the case of Terrance Graham who, at 17, was already on parole when he broke into a home and robbed the owners by gunpoint. To be fair, it seems that Graham, now in his early 20s, didn’t learn from his first crime and stint in jail. However, a life sentence without the possibility of parole for someone so young in a case where no one was killed seems especially harsh.
Currently, 37 states and DC support a life sentence without parole for juveniles in crimes that don’t involve a death. Now, as a result of the Court’s decision, those local practices must change. There are currently 129 juvenile offenders sentenced under such laws in the U.S.; more than half of them are in Florida, a state known for its tough sentencing laws. At their core, judges across the country must have realized that handing down such a punishment in these types of cases was unjust and, though it was legally acceptable, decided to go another route.
With their ruling, the Court does not excuse the Graham’s of the world. Rather, it asks that judges act fairly – and humanely – when handing down sentences. This decision is a step toward fair sentencing practices that could give offenders, with the aid of rehabilitation, hope of a life after prison. Since America incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, this is a step our country needed to take.

On Monday May 3, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin was succeeded by Mitch Landrieu. New Orleans’ mayors are, by city law, only allowed to serve two terms and Nagin has done that; much of his tenure was spent dealing with the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Nagin left office with a mix legacy – many criticized his ability to handle the evacuation, recovery and subsequent rebuilding efforts in the city. He’s fired back at his critics and calls out FEMA for the lag in redevelopment efforts. Where the blame lies is open to debate but one thing is clear: progress has been made but things are moving far too slowly.

Data shows that just seven percent of the city’s 283 public buildings, including police and fire stations, that were slated to be rebuilt have been completed. Neighboring parishes haven’t had the same delays. For example, nearly 90 percent of St. Bernard Parish’s government buildings are either under construction or open for business while more than 50 percent of Plaquemines Parish’s government buildings have been rebuilt or are close to being finished.

Immediately after Katrina, the city of New Orleans was, understandably, concerned with clean up efforts and restoring basic services to residents. However, as time went on, the city had trouble prioritizing its next move. It was important to get residents back home, to be sure, but they needed housing and jobs. Making things happen was difficult, considering the widespread damage and the amount of governmental red tap city officials had to deal with. Because the plan for redevelopment was so scattered, many efforts have moved along at a snail’s pace.

To be fair, New Orleans is a different city than it was in the months after Katrina hit. About 80 percent of the city’s residents are back and newcomers have made the city their home; life in New Orleans almost seems ‘normal’. But a quick drive through many of the city’s neighborhoods reveals that life is anything but normal: abandoned buildings stand as a reminder to the storm that killed thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages.

Landrieu is taking office at an interesting – and important – time. The five year anniversary of Katrina is approaching. He should take that opportunity to reveal his plan for taking rebuilding efforts to the next level. And he needs much more than a plan: he needs action items, deadlines and ways to measure success. Without these, any plan suggested by him or the city council is nothing more than a stack of paper and a bunch of promises that could be too easily broken.

Now is the time for the new mayor, and his supporters, to reveal a clear plan of action, one that would not only rebuild the city but work to eliminate racial and economic disparities that plagued the city long before Katrina’s winds rages through. City officials must work to give New Orleanians reasons to be proud of their home, reasons that go beyond a Super Bowl championship.