LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I read the newspaper to see the result of the first day of the federal trial over Memphis police surveillance; in particular, on how a cyber-person of color, known as “Bob Smith”, was used by the Memphis Police Department. As I read the article, I wondered how the MPD’s Office of Homeland Security evolved into something it was never meant to be. My partner John Scott Vanzandt and I were the originators of that office, which began in the winter of 2005, and Domestic-Tracking was not a standard for that office. It was a Specialized Unit, but was not an Investigative Unit, but time and new personnel can bring changes...

This situation reminds me of years gone by when the MPD had a specialized unit called “Domestic Intelligence” until the mid-1970’s. When the Memphis NAACP president learned that the Domestic Intelligence Unit had compiled information on local politicians and ministers (including the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr), Mayor Wyatt Chandler disbanded the unit. That being said; how did “Bob Smith” evolve?

Vernell Stepter, III, MPD Lieutenant Colonel (retired)

Prosecutors need more discretion

In his Aug. 10 guest column, U.S. Attorney Michael Dunavant passionately advocates for the congressional amendment and reinstatement of the Armed Career Criminal Act, citing it as a key prosecutorial tool in keeping dangerous career criminals off the streets. I would argue, however, that the ACCA is not so much a tool as it is a handcuff for prosecutors and judges.

The ACCA, which mandated a minimum 15-year federal prison sentence for those thrice convicted of “violent” crimes such as burglary or robbery and who are subsequently arrested for firearms possession, is a one-size-fits-all broadsword applied in the worst possible context – individual criminal sentencing. Each crime has its own unique set of circumstances; every criminal defendant has a different background. Indiscriminately applying a 15-year prison sentence as a baseline for every threetime offender forces prosecutors and judges to engage in unnecessary legal and logical gymnastics, and to perhaps make creative charging decisions, to achieve justice, if not maximum sentencing, under certain circumstances. Scrupulous and flexible prosecutors may have to pursue a less readily provable offense just to ensure that the minimum punishment does not vastly outweigh the offense.

Say, for instance, you have a defendant who was a raucous youth and committed a string of crimes during a finite stretch early in his life, went to prison, truly reformed, and lived the remainder of his life a lawful citizen without so much as a traffic ticket for 30 following his release. Then he gets pulled over for a busted taillight and an officer arrests him for having a single round of ammunition in the car’s ashtray.

Or a grandmother who committed a string of burglaries early in life to support a drug habit, but never physically harmed anyone, has long since recovered and lived a clean and otherwise lawful life, but is found with a gun in her house because she herself has recently been a victim of a string of burglaries and fears for her life, as well as perhaps the lives of her grandchildren.

Has each of these individuals committed an offense against the United States punishable by imprisonment? Technically, most likely. Does each deserve to go to jail? Maybe. Should each start out with 15 years of federal imprisonment as a floor to his or her sentence? Probably not. Moreover, in neither of these circumstances does either individual, having long abandoned lives of crime, have a kingpin or ringleader to barter for leniency, as suggested by Mr. Dunavant.

It is unconscionable to suggest that all repeat offenders are CAREER offenders. There is a stark difference between someone who makes a career of robbing people as part of a criminal enterprise and one who made a string of bad decisions during an abbreviated and perhaps difficult period in his life. And, even assuming that Mr. Dunavant’s assertion that “the likelihood goes up that these repeat-felons will commit more crimes” is true, not all crimes, or criminals, are created equal. Prosecutors and judges must have the discretion to review the crimes and histories of the accused and adjust accordingly to the particular circumstances of that individual and his offense in deciding anything as uniquely consequential as depriving one of her liberty.

Prosecutors do not need more hammers like the ACCA in their toolboxes; federal incarceration rates are quite healthy. What they could use instead are more safety valves that grant them the flexibility to pursue just punishment relative to the offenses charged and histories of the defendants.

Justin Bailey, Memphis

Eco-friendly Parkside good for birds, humans

Developers of Parkside are seeking to monetize Shelby Farms, a public asset that belongs to all of us. In so doing, they are making quite a few park lovers unhappy. I believe the very least that they can do is strive to protect the public values they are mining. This is not only neighborly and good public policy, but also makes common sense financially.

Given that the development has been approved, the main focus now should be on eco-friendly design. This means landscaping with native plants that support pollinators, birds, and other wildlife. Above all, it means the exclusive use of bird-friendly glass and design, particularly in the proposed boutique hotel, which has been rendered by Fleming Architects with an exterior of almost solid glass.

Glass collisions are a huge problem for birds. According to the American Bird Conservancy, up to a billion birds die each year in the U.S. Both common and rare bird species hit windows because they see only reflections of sky and vegetation. Among the most common species affected are White-throated Sparrow, Dark-eyed Junco, Rubythroated Hummingbird, and Wood Thrush – all of which are found in Memphis, and specifically, in Shelby Farms Park.

Thank goodness this is a problem that is easy to fix. Please consult the American Bird Conservancy’s list of bird-smart products for architects and homeowners at abcbirds.org.

By using eco-design principles for Parkside, the entire development will be perceived as more compatible with the eco-friendly example already set by Shelby Farms Park. By not choosing to do so, Parkside developers risk alienating the very clientele they wish to attract: young, urban millennials who in recent years have embraced bird watching in droves. Without bird-friendly design, Parkside risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg — as well as orioles, robins, sparrows, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, and more.

K. G. Elliott, Cordova