« Texas completes its third execution of 2023 | Main | Noting the notable challenge of defining "veteran" for various purposes connected to criminal justice systems »
February 9, 2023
For those concerned about over-criminalization, the "Case for Legalizing Jaywalking"
I was not aware of the history of the term jaywalking or of the laws criminalizing this behavior. Thus, I found interesting this new Mother Jones piece fully headlined "The Case for Legalizing Jaywalking: Bans hurt poor people and people of color. Cities and states are catching on." I recommend the full piece, but here is a snippet (with links from the original):
If you regularly walk in any American city, you, too, probably have crossed a street against the signal or outside of a designated crosswalk. Sure, one could argue that crosswalks were created as a way to protect pedestrians from potentially dangerous automobiles. But why would transgressing those limits become a petty crime? Thanks to a century-old automobile industry campaign to push pedestrians out of the streets, jaywalking is now, in most places, punishable by a hefty ticket ranging from $68 in Seattle to as much as $250 in New York City.
This could be consigned to the realm of being merely annoying, but in fact, there’s a serious injustice embedded in the process. According to research in several cities, policing pedestrian behavior disproportionately affects low-income people and people of color. Plus, making jaywalking an offense doesn’t keep people safe. Now, a growing number of cities and states are striking these antiquated statutes from their books....
[D]ata from cities across the country show that Black people are routinely cited for jaywalking at higher rates than white people, making their simple act of crossing the street grounds for potentially dangerous police interactions. In 2017, a sweeping investigation by ProPublica and the Florida Times-Union (republished with permission on Mother Jones) found that Black people received 55 percent of pedestrian tickets in Jacksonville, despite comprising just 29 percent of the city’s population. Those tickets were also overwhelmingly focused on residents of poor neighborhoods.
The Jacksonville sheriff’s office admitted that enforcement of rules against crossing on a yellow light, crossing outside the crosswalk, or “failing to cross a street at a right angle” were often an excuse to “stop suspicious people and question them for guns and or drugs.” Critics of jaywalking laws say that that’s part of the problem.
Though not mentioned in this piece, I could not help but keep thinking of the emerging debate in Second Amendment jurisprudence related to government claims that "nonlawabiding" people are to be excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment. I doubt many folks would really think the "crime" of jaywalking should lead to losing some protections of the Bill of Rights, but even that possibility is why concerns regarding over-criminalization can often connect to other kinds of concerns about state power and individual rights.
February 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM | Permalink
Comments
Yeah--ever live in a big city where you have jerks walking against the light and not even trying to get across quicker?
Posted by: federalist | Feb 9, 2023 12:04:01 PM
Do you ever see these folks get tickets, federalist?
Do you think the 50 annual citations in KC make any impact on the problem you cite or just impact the lives of the unlucky few who get nabbed?
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 9, 2023 1:27:03 PM
Race huckstering goes from tragedy to farce.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 9, 2023 1:35:11 PM
Bill, what makes this "race huckstering"? Does any focus or concern about apparent disparities in enforcement amount to "huckstering"?
Funny that in another thread, federlist asked: "how much racism is ok?"
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 9, 2023 1:53:50 PM
"policing pedestrian behavior disproportionately affects low-income people and people of color"
What if those people are disproportionately committing pedestrian offenses? See e.g. the traffic cameras in Chicago showing who disproportionately commits certain traffic offenses:
https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most
Posted by: B | Feb 9, 2023 2:17:48 PM
Doug--it's a rule of civilized behavior. If you're going to jaywalk--don't impede traffic. If you do, you're an anti-social jerk that needs to learn the rules by paying a fine.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 9, 2023 2:20:36 PM
Doug --
What makes this race huckstering?
Let me tell you the old joke: New York Times headline: "World to end tomorrow, women and minorities to be most affected."
All race all the time. Enough. If you don't want to get a ticket for jaywalking, cross at the corner. Really easy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 9, 2023 2:21:45 PM
Went to college in NYC. Jaywalking in NYC is an offense committed by 95% of the population and traffic signals are merely a suggestion
Have lived in enough other urban areas to know that NYC is just the most extreme example of jaywalking as a way of life. I can guarantee you that 50 tickets for jaywalking in KC equals about 0.01% of the violations. When something is so rarely enforced and so commonly committed, it opens the door to allegations that it is being misused by the police to target certain communities and is almost certainly being used as an excuse to stop somebody in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a more serious offense. In short, it doesn't have much impact on public safety, and makes it harder for the police by being one more thing that sows mistrust with the police among the very populations that need effective law enforcement.
Posted by: tmm | Feb 9, 2023 2:28:34 PM
federalist: if I had a solid basis to believe that only the anti-social jerks that impede traffic were the ones (or really the 0.0001%) getting the jaywalking tickets, I would not be concerned. But did you click through to see some of the data? One data point was that 79 out of 80 getting jaywalking tickets over 3 months in NYC were non-white.
Maybe these data are not accurate or maybe you have great confidence from your experiences that it is only the anti-social jerks that impede traffic who get the tickets. But, based on my experiences, I do not sense, in NYC or in any other city I have been in, that people of color are jaywalking 10 or 20 or 79 times more than white folks.
In light of your prior question, federalist ("how much racism is ok?"), are you suggesting that you are confident there is no racism operating here or are you suggesting that this type of possible racism is ok?
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 9, 2023 2:51:24 PM
Bill,
“Race huckstering” is the perfect term.
Douglas,
I don’t get the 2A argument. Isn’t jaywalking just a non-criminal violation like speeding?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 9, 2023 3:07:11 PM
Well, in NYC, given the reprehensible comments of Mayor Bloomberg--comments which, of course, did not stop Dems from taking his money or his appointment to a Pentagon position, one could say that there was an issue--but the answer isn't that anti-social jaywalking rules shouldn't be enforced. You impede traffic; you get a ticket should be the rule.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 9, 2023 3:15:31 PM
Doug, have you ever been in a car and some asshat is crossing against light, and he doesn't even walk fast? Infuriating. Numerous times. Heck, if I am crossing with the light, but someone is waiting to make a right turn, I move quickly.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 9, 2023 3:18:56 PM
tmm--I agree--I grew up in NYC--but here's the thing--there's jaywalking, and then there's anti-social traffic impedance. The rule is that if you are going to jaywalk, get your ass across the street!!
Posted by: federalist | Feb 9, 2023 3:26:47 PM
federalist: it sound like you essentially agree that we should legalize jaywalking, while also criminalizing and enforcing much more robustly and consistently the crime of "anti-social traffic impedance." That sounds reasonable to me, though really another reason to take a hard look at who now gets subject to jaywalking sanctions.
Tarls: federal prosecutors are arguing, in all the post-Bruen cases challenging federal gun control laws, that SCOTUS dicta in Heller means that the Second Amendment only protects "possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens." A number of court have been, rightly in my view, skeptical of the notion that the Second Amendment protects only "law-abiding citizens" because this phrase could arguably cut out jaywalkers. Here is a passage from the recent Fifth Circuit panel opinion in Rahini to this point:
"Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people — however expediently defined — from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the Second Amendment’s protections."
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 9, 2023 3:53:18 PM
True story: 1965, when I was but 16 yrs of age, I was ticketed for jaywalking while running across the street on the way to school. Being 16, I paid it no attention and never paid the fine. Two years later, now at age 18, a cop stops me and runs wants/warrants and bingo, there's the warrant. The bail is $10 which I did not have at the moment. This is in L.A., on a Friday night. I'm eventually transported downtown to the main jail. Put into a holding cell with about 50 others, the vast majority from South Central, all older than me, and for a variety of street crimes. You can imagine. "What ya in for kid?", I was asked. "Jaywalking, sir". It got a good round of laughter. Fortunately, I was released the next day. And fortunately, I was physically a 'big kid' (football player, in good shape) and no one messed with me. But it could have turned out a lot worse if I was physically of more delicate dimensions. The entire experience was fraught with danger and served no real purpose and no, I did not learn any important life lessons (other than to pay the idiotic ticket for jaywalking).
Posted by: SG | Feb 9, 2023 8:38:28 PM
SG --
"...and no, I did not learn any important life lessons (other than to pay the idiotic ticket...).
Actually, paying your debts is an extremely important life lesson. Most people learn it without having to become scofflaws. You had the same opportunity and blew it off.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 9, 2023 9:53:37 PM
No Doug--seems like overkill
Posted by: federalist | Feb 10, 2023 9:37:02 AM
What seems like overkill, federalist? Changing the law to make it more properly and narrowly tailored to truly problematic behavior or then enforcing such a law?
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 10, 2023 10:09:28 AM
We don't even know whether there is a problem with the data. But maybe in NYC, given the legacy of the Dems' prez candidate and political appointee.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 10, 2023 10:56:11 AM
The data linked in the post shows significant racial disparities in multiple cities, federalist. As you asked, "how much racism is ok?" Even if you are unsure about the data, you seem to be of the reasonable view that "jaywalking" is not the real concern, but "anti-social traffic impedance" is. So shouldn't we seek to improve the law to focus on the real concern, namely "anti-social traffic impedance" rather than jaywalking?
How is this "overkill" rather than an appropriate way to address overcriminalization that existing data suggest produces racial disparities in enforcement?
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 10, 2023 11:10:44 AM
Apparently this is a timely topic. https://armchairmayor.ca/2023/01/09/johnson-jaywalking-europe-versus-north-america/
Across the pond recently, some of our European allies have taken a more laissez-faire attitude towards jaywalking by literally making it totally legal.
They just call it … walking.
For example, there are no laws against jaywalking in Scandinavia, Switzerland or Italy. The same goes for the U.K., meaning that The Beatles didn’t need to use the crosswalk for their famous “Abbey Road” album cover.
In fact, some European countries have never had Jaywalking laws, and some countries have rules that stipulate that within certain distances between you and a crosswalk (50 to 100 meters) you must move down the street to the crosswalk … but if you’re beyond that distance it’s go ahead and cross wherever you like.
Posted by: beth curtis | Feb 10, 2023 2:48:52 PM
The most sensible comment on this thread is the one by "B" at Feb 9, 2023 2:17:48 PM. Simply because minorities get more jaywalking tickets doesn't tell us beans until we know whether and to what extent they actually do more jaywalking.
Get off the race huckstering ideology and do some research.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 10, 2023 3:14:56 PM
Doug, the difference is that the white/Black thing is obvious racism--it's in your face--whether racism stems from the jaywalking tickets (maybe a high enforcement area)? No one knows. What if it turns out that POC do more jaywalking (in a manner that catches police eyes, you know there's jaywalking and then there's jaywalking.)
Posted by: federalist | Feb 10, 2023 3:32:33 PM
Doug, maybe you ought to spend some time focusing on this:
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/02/10/fighting-irish-dean-fighting-mad-when-architecture-department-dei-hire-dissed-n529644
No wonder tuition is through the roof. What a joke.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 10, 2023 6:17:26 PM
Bill: there is research linked in the article that shows dramatic racial disparities in jaywalking enforcement in a dozen cities. Do you have any research to suggest that in NYC or in any other city in which data show dramatic enforcement disparity that people of color are jaywalking 5 or 25 or 50 times more than white folks? To express concern about research and data that show dramatic racial disparities is not "race huckstering ideology," but quickly dismissing research and data without even looking at the research and data does show how ideology can preclude thoughtful consideration of research and data.
federalist: as you should know, I am quite concerned about misguided accusations of racism and sexism based on people expressing opinions (particularly in this space). And, as I recall, you asked for censorship here based on a claim of racism and Bill has all but said he makes unfounded claims of racism and sexism here because he thinks other do elsewhere.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 11, 2023 12:58:29 PM
Doug --
"Bill: there is research linked in the article that shows dramatic racial disparities in jaywalking enforcement in a dozen cities. Do you have any research to suggest that in NYC or in any other city in which data show dramatic enforcement disparity that people of color are jaywalking 5 or 25 or 50 times more than white folks?"
I have no research on jaywalking at all because taking up my time with it is nonsense. I'm more interested in serious stuff, like the Left's gushing embrace of child murder a la' Rolling Stone coverboy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- still not executed TEN YEARS after the massacre, even though no one doubts he did it and the crime was grotesque.
Instead of dealing seriously with Tsarnaev, we're researching jaywalking.
"To express concern about research and data that show dramatic racial disparities is not "race huckstering ideology," but quickly dismissing research and data without even looking at the research and data does show how ideology can preclude thoughtful consideration of research and data."
Instead of thinking that obsessively repeating the phrase "research and data" will win all arguments, just cross at the corner and you won't have to think about jaywalking at all. I decline to believe it's the government's problem to fix for people what they can easily fix for themselves. But then I'm not a big government guy like you.
There was a time when whining about jaywalking, of all things, would have been recognized as self-parody, but regrettably that time is gone.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 11, 2023 3:19:16 PM
Bill, you first said in response to disconcerting data (which you ignored) that folks should "do some research." I then highlighted the research, which leads you pivot by saying, in essence, that you do not care about the research here. In so doing, you show your pro-government ideology and that your prior call to "do some research" was just a different kind of huckstering.
And, speaking of pro-government ideology, you seemingly do not care if state power is used in a racially disparate ways. Because I want less government in our lives, I am especially troubled when government power is used in seemingly arbitrary and racially disparate ways. You, in contrast, first pretend to care with an uniformed call to "do some research," after which you do your best (which is not very good) to distract from the fact that your own huckstering ideology makes research and data of no matter to you.
That's fine, Bill, since your pro-government ideology has long been on display here and elsewhere. But don't waste time with fatuous cries of "do some research" when your ideology leads you to not care what that research shows.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 11, 2023 4:56:39 PM
Doug --
Well my goodness are we in a snit??!! Look, it's not my fault CJ Stroud is entering the draft.
Still: It's all true! I have no or next to no interest in jaywalking. I have LESS than no interest in "studies" and "research" with a prefab, leftwing conclusion that white people stink, with respect to jaywalking tickets or anything else. And I think it's unhealthy, and somewhat weird, to be so obsessed with race.
I repeat: I decline to believe it's the government's problem to fix for people what they can easily fix for themselves. Cross the street at the corner. Real easy. If you don't want to do that, fine, it's your problem not a law enforcement problem.
Instead of going on and on and on about jaywalking, of all things, I mentioned the scandalous ten year delay in executing bloodythirsty child killer and defense bar hero Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- and your response to that is..................zzzzzzzzzzz.
Like I say, there was a time when having a big fight about how the Klan is in charge of jaywalking tickets -- that's JAYWALKING TICKETS -- would have been recognized as self-parody, but regrettably that time is gone.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 11, 2023 8:02:57 PM
I am a victim of Over-criminalization, student of Restorative Justice, and an advocate for Justice reform.
Posted by: Kenneth Kubinski | Feb 12, 2023 8:54:50 AM
Not in a snit, Bill, just eager to highlight that cries of "do some research" is fatuous when you plan to ignore any research that does not suit your ideology.
Meanwhile, I would be eager to explore the failure of federal judges and federal prosecutors to get through Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's various appeals. Notably, the Obama Justice Department was able to get Tsarnaev sentenced to death within about 2 years (same timeline for Dylann Roof), whereas the Trump Justice Department could not get Sayfullo Saipov sentenced to death over 3+ years even though he killed more people than Tsarnaev. Was there a unique problem during the Trump years?
Of course, the Trump administration clearly had an interest in getting the federal capital punishment operational again as evidence by the executions they helped push forward. But they did not get the Tsarnaev case to the finish line during its four years in power. Why do you think this is? More broadly, why are federal prosecutors so slow and seemingly ineffectual in this setting?
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 12, 2023 11:25:46 AM
This seems a lot more important than jaywalking: https://reason.com/2023/02/13/joshua-diemert-seattle-racist-training-diversity-equity-white/
Posted by: federalist | Feb 13, 2023 12:48:22 PM
Doug --
1. That Joe is to the left of Barack Obama on the DP tells us a good deal about how much he's been captured by the extreme elements of his party.
2. As to Trump's alleged delay's -- when did I get to be a big Trump fan? https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/trump-is-a-jackass-and-its-time-to
I was a Trump NOMINEE, yes. So were Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr. Think they're big Trump fans??
3. The primary culprits for DP delay are (1) existing law, which obsesses over process to an absurd degree, and (2) the courts, that create and indulge this stuff. In third place a defense lawyers, who manufacture one abstruse claim after the next. The AEDPA needs strengthening. Think Chuck Schumer can help out with that?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 13, 2023 3:09:31 PM
Your pal Kent tried to speed capital cases in Californi, and that has not worked out so well. So I suggest you do not trust Senator Schumer with the AEDPA keys.
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 14, 2023 12:48:41 AM
There is nothing special about jaywalking. This is a pervasive problem with traffic law in general. We have a social contract: the government strictly regulates traffic, to appease a vocal minority, but does not enforce the regulations, to keep the majority happy. Police can give anybody a ticket but they can't give everybody a ticket, and they should avoid ticketing people with political power if they know what's good for them.
There is a movement among urban progressives which says stricter traffic laws are needed in the name of equity to protect dark-skinned people from drivers. In reality stricter traffic laws lead to more tickets for driving while black.
Posted by: John F. Carr | Feb 16, 2023 3:42:48 PM
