The following is a discussion, of a letter to the editor, which has been published both in the Delaware State News, and the Wilmington News Journal. The letter is in regards to the upcoming election for the 37th Representative District, between the Republican incumbent, Ruth Briggs-King, and the Democrat challenger, Paulette Rappa.
For full disclosure, the letter was written by the daughter of Ms. Rappa, Abby de Uriarte.
Here is the link, please read and return.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Politics, morality intersecting with 2016 election
The letter attempts to make a case of, one might assume, some form of corruption, and at the very least of an hypocrisy on the part of Rep. Briggs-King in the matter of the legislation commonly known as “Ban The Box”, or HB 167. This was legislation which made it illegal to place a “box”, or question on a job application in regards to the matter of the applicant having ever been incarcerated.
Let me say how well written the letter is, though a bit wordy, not a stone I should throw, I know.
As we can see the author begins at lofty heights of morality in talking about the most “vulnerable” among us. Actually saying this about people incarcerated, “Vulnerable citizens,” though, is a capacious category: it includes those in our state’s prison system. In fact, it is these very people — our state’s incarcerated individuals — whose humanity is most at stake in elections.”
Really? People convicted for crimes against society have “the” most at stake in elections? I’m not sure their victims would agree, but it is one opinion.
The author then goes afield with the story of Massachusetts Bay Colony’s first governor, John Winthrop. She makes the case that today’s “long-term” incarceration is tantamount to banishment, and that allowing employers to ask about criminal background is a death sentence. She actually states, “we shut them out of jobs which prevent them from fully integrating back into society”.
I would argue their own life choices have imposed such penalties upon them. And that HB167 does nothing to rehabilitate, or integrate these people back into society. What it does do, is removes the ability for employers to make individual choices of their own, about who they are interviewing, since once the employer has taken the application, and called the person in for an interview, they are allowed to ask. All HB167 does is delay what might have happened anyway, and adds a cost of time and money to the hiring process, and opens the employer up to civil suits for discrimination.
At this point, let me again remind the readers, Abby de Uriarte, is the daughter of Paulette Rappa, who is pictured in the photo above, with her mother who is running against Ruth Briggs-King for the 37th Rep. District.
This is important to remember, since the real meat of this letter, the real motivation for it, is at the end of the letter. The author is attempting to draw a line between the fact Rep. Briggs-King voted against HB167, and then took advantage of inmate labor. The author states the purpose of this letter in this paragraph.
“What is crying out for explanation here is not the misguidedness of the vote. After all, many lawmakers are on the wrong side of history every now and then. But rather, it is the hypocrisy of voting against H.B. 167, as Rep. Ruth Briggs King did on Jan. 28, 2014, but then, a mere six months later, hiring inmates to print her campaign materials before a re-election bid — as Briggs King did on Sept. 6, 2014. What is unclear here is if Briggs King realized the moral error of her vote on Jan. 28 and tried to rectify the mistake by hiring inmates to work on her campaign (for pennies), or if pure economic calculation gave rise to her decision to seek out the cheapest form of labor she could possibly find.”
You see, it would seem as though the Rappa campaign has taken a page from the misguided campaign of primary loser Bob Mitchell, in attempting to portray Rep. Briggs-King’s participation in a legal program as something unethical.
Notice where the author says, “hiring inmates to work on her campaign (for pennies)”. Well unless the author, or her mother the candidate, can show that Rep. Briggs-King received any preferential treatment, such as a lower rate of pay for the inmates, then there is no wrong doing in her hiring them to do the work, and what is wrong with attempting to save money? How is it any different from a private business hiring the inmates at the same rate? Likely the author would then praise the business owner for their open-mindedness of hiring the inmates and giving them a chance to learn a trade.
But the most reprehensible statement, one worthy of Donald Trump, is in the very last paragraph when the author says, “But, given the racial inequality that stalks our criminal justice system, if it is the latter — that is, hiring prisoners because they do not need to be paid a living wage — Briggs King is flirting dangerously close with enacting a style of politics and governance that would be familiar to families in the Old South before the Civil War.”
Really? I find it saddening to see such an obviously intelligent young person resort to such a cheap political tactic, as playing the racist card, with no evidence of racism. Again, unless the author or her mother the candidate, can show us where Rep. Briggs-King had any responsibility for those arrested, tried, and incarcerated, based on their race, or if she requested certain races for the work she hired them for, then to draw a comparison to the inmates work program to slavery, and to liken Rep. Briggs-King to a plantation owner, is a sign of desperation on the part of the Rappa campaign.
And by the way, the inmates do not need to be paid a “living wage”, due to their own life choices, they have found themselves in a situation where they are supplied with food and housing, at no cost to them, other than their freedom, which they forfeited.
I would ask the same question of Paulette Rappa, which I asked of Bob Mitchell, since this is a legal program, open to all, what is the point, of pointing this particular finger? And if all you have as a candidate, is what is wrong with your opponent, and nothing about why you should be elected, then I would say you have fallen short as a candidate.
Frank you missed the point: The use of correctional services designed to prepare incarcerated citizens with job skills when they leave a correctional facility can only be supported if the job market is open to hiring them. If the job market has a systematic obstacle such as indicating if they have been formerly incarcerated, thereby denying them the ability to practice their skills and earn a living, then it just creates a revolving door back into the prison system. What was the motivation then to use the services – cheap labor or an interest to provide them with job skills. If it is the former, then shame on Briggs-King for not utilizing a local business that would promote a more healthy economy. If it is the latter, then there is an inconsistency of intention.
Paulette Rappa, take your trailer and go back to PA, where you belong.
As the resident liberal on this blog, I also have to disagree with Ms. Rappa. (Trust me, everyone here will attest to that)
There is neither inconsistency nor hypocrisy at work here. Ms. Briggs-King apparently hired people whom she knew were convicted criminals, and she opposed a measure that would have required employees not to ask that question.
Now, I support that measure, because I agree with the principle that if one has paid one’s debt to society, then that debt is paid. I disagree with Ms. Briggs-King’s vote on that measure. However, I’m not seeing the inconsistency or the hypocrisy in her hiring known convicts. Your criticism is not logically consistent and it strikes me as somewhat contorted. Her actions are perfectly consistent with her vote. We do not know that she would refuse to hire someone who is not currently a convict on the basis that they had previously been one.
You would have a point if she refused to hire ex-convicts.
To be clear, I agree with your position on the legislation, but I find your personal criticism of Ms. Briggs-King to be as wrong as it is unseemly. It is enough to criticize her vote on the bill, but is your additional criticism reflective of your quality of thought in general?
Paulette, I think I got the point perfectly. I happen to believe that HB167 was bad legislation. It is just another infringement on a business owner’s right to run their business as they see fit. Much like rent control which you were also in favor of.
There was no systemic obstacle, since there was no requirement to have such a “box” on an application. Any employer inclined to ignore a criminal history was likely not to place such a question on an application, by their own choice.
In trying to fit Rep. Briggs-King’s no vote on 167, and her use of inmate labor, well I think you would need a shoe horn to make the two fit together.
It seems as though yours, like Bob Mitchell’s campaign strategy, relies upon convincing the voters there is something unethical about participating in a legal program. I wonder, were you critical of John Atkins when he used inmate labor to clear brush from his father in laws farm?
And tell me, how is working for Rep. Briggs-King any more detrimental to the inmates than working for a business? They earn the same wage, they still have the opportunity to learn skills.
And finally, the real issue I have with the letter is the final paragraph, where your daughter grabs what I am sure your campaign feels is low hanging fruit, the racism card.
I have to say, it is troubling when elected officials and candidates seek to win by division. Unless you or your daughter have real evidence of racism, it is a Trump style tactic of throwing it around to see if it sticks. We should seek to rise above such tactics.
Tell me, if you are so concerned about the “vulnerable citizens” who have committed a crime, are you just as concerned for their victims?
You seek to rebuild the lives of people who have chosen a life of crime. Tell us, what do you propose to do to help the victims to rebuild their lives?
What legislation would you pass to support victims like the daughter of Chad Spicer? Or for women who have been raped? What box would you remove to see that no child was ever molested?
There is nothing in the letter that is positive for your campaign, only negative remarks about the current Representative.
Frank, here’s something i never understand about the things you just said being “conservative” positions.
The US Constitution seems to have an inordinate concern about the impact of GOVENRMENT POWER against citizens.
The 5th Amendment protects criminals against having to testify against themselves.
The 6th Amendment provides criminals with legal counsel and other “free stuff”.
The 8th Amendment protects criminals against being harshly punished.
Can you point me to ONE WORD in the Constituition which protects crime victims against anything or affords them any rights?
Why do you suppose the writers of the Constitution were so inordinately concerned with the rights of criminals?
And it’s not just the Constitution. Look at that criminal-coddler Jesus:
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.
Jesus goes on about visiting prisoners, and says NOTHING about crime victims. I’m not voting for him either.
Fishbites. The Constitution is concerned with how government treats its citizens. HB167 regulates how a business owner runs their business. It has nothing to do with the crime committed, but attempts to regulate an individual’s reaction to another’s behavior. In my opinion that is not government’s role.
The idea that a candidate’s daughter would write a letter like that and not disclose that she is the opponent’s daughter is FAR more unethical than participating in the common practice of using prison services to print materials.
It could be argued that by using prison services, Briggs King is helping teach an inmate a valuable, marketable skill to get a job and reduce recidivism. And the price break isn’t that much. In fact, you can get materials printed cheaper in the private sector, but not locally.
The Ban The Box bill applied only to government work, so Rappa’s comments above about the private
sector is null.
And shame on the News Journal for not vetting this, although their editorial section, run by the sports guy and the racial agitator, is more of a joke than ever.
But rather, it is the hypocrisy of voting against H.B. 167, as Rep. Ruth Briggs King did on Jan. 28, 2014, but then, a mere six months later, hiring inmates to print her campaign materials before a re-election bid — as Briggs King did on Sept. 6, 2014.
Where is the “hypocracy?” She made a decision to hire inmates. Just as many other business owners will do.
Does a daycare center have the right to know that a prospective hire was convicted of child molestation? Does a bank have the right to know that a prospective hire was convicted of credit card fraud? Does a builder have the right to know that a prospective hire was convicted of theft?
Business owners have rights, too. And one of them is knowing the background of prospective employees.
Ruth Briggs-King use of prison labor is consistent with conservatism because conservatism is first and foremost about cheap, powerless and readily disposable labor.
Cheap labor is why “conservatives” fight to maintain slavery, the Taft-Hartley Act, so-called Right-to-Work laws and the H1B visa program and against child labor laws.
Moreover, slavery is still legal as stated in the Thirteenth Amendment, “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,”.
And there is no labor as cheap, powerless and readily disposable than slave/prison labor.
Delacrat, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ms. Rappa, are you as bothered by the fact John Atkins, a Democrat, used inmate labor?
If we stick to the author’s position of this being about humanity and morality, then she has placed herself beside those who would legislate against homosexuality, who also see that as a morality issue.
As I have come to believe in that case, I also hold in this case. You cannot legislate, nor force morality upon people, it is learned and it is voluntary, or else it is not morality.
Frank,
I don’t think anybody should use prison labor.
And what does anyone’s position on homosexuality have to do with the whether prison labor should be used or not? Sounds like your doing your version of a Rick Gish Gallop.
1. …”She actually states, ‘we shut them out of jobs which prevent them from fully integrating back into society’. I would argue their own life choices have imposed such penalties upon them.”
Wired into this statement is the rather flimsy assumption that everyone in prison is actually guilty of the crimes they have been convicted off. This is a flimsy assumption because it runs sharply athwart a great deal of social scientific scholarship that documents the ways in which prosecutors intentionally overcharge people in order to exact guilty pleas in exchange for a reduction of the charges. Mr. Knotts claim here also fails to interrogate the vast socio-economic factors that also give rise to criminality. While it is true that people are ultimately accountable for the decisions they make, it should be noted that many peoples lives are governed by external, (sometimes) impersonal forces outside of their own control. These forces include poverty, parental neglect, and inadequate educational opportunity. This matters. If a person is in prison due in part to circumstances beyond his or her control then they surely deserve a second chance once they are released. HB 167, as the author notes, is not a panacea; but, at the very least it does help pave the way to that “second chance.”
2. Part of Mr. Knotts problems in this response is his clumsiness with basic terms. He deploys the word “legal problem” in an arbitrary fashion throughout his response. Briggs King’s decision to use inmate labor to print her campaign material can hardly be characterized as a “legal problem.” It is a political, strategic decision. The way Mr. Knotts operationalizes the term “legal problem” actually stretches it past its breaking part.
3. …”Notice where the author says, “hiring inmates to work on her campaign (for pennies)”. Well unless the author, or her mother the candidate, can show that Rep. Briggs-King received any preferential treatment, such as a lower rate of pay for the inmates, then there is no wrong doing in her hiring them to do the work.”
Mr. Knotts response here suggests that he might have a reading comprehension issue. The author of the original piece never stated that it is universally wrong to have inmates print campaign materials. Instead, the main thrust behind the piece was about the hypocrisy of voting against ban the box, but later hiring inmates to print campaign materials. This is a hypocritical gesture for the following reason: A vote against ban the box suggests that Briggs King believes formerly incarcerated people should have a hard time finding work once they are released. But while they are in prison, Briggs Kings does want them to work for her. If more state legislators voted the way Briggs King did on HB 167 and the bill did not pass, then the released inmates who worked on her re-election campaign in 2014 would likely not have an effective way to operationalize their newly learned vocational skills due to having to “check the box” on employment applications.
4. On racism in our criminal justice system:
Mr. Knotts accuses the author of “playing the race card.” Institutionalized racism continues to animate American political life. The author clearly understands this. Mr. Knotts does not. Thus, I think the author would respond to Mr. Knott’s charge in the following way: If talking about how race structures our relationship to the world is “playing the race card,” then deal me in!
5. Mr. Knotts repeatedly suggests that the piece is the product of some sort of shared effort on behalf of the Rappa campaign. In doing so, he imputes a great deal of centralized coordination between Ms. Rappa and her daughter, the author of the piece. Where is Mr. Knotts evidence that such coordination did indeed take place? Mr. Knotts fails to consider the possibility that the young woman who wrote the piece is not simply an appendage of another person. By neglecting this possibility, Mr. Knotts has rehearsed one of the more tired sexist tropes: it is one that refuses to countenance the possibility that a young woman can be a fiercely independent thinker and fully capable of planning, writing, and executing an argument herself. In this way, it would appear that Mr. Knotts gendered ideas about the author seem to be borne aloft by the same sexist winds that buoy much of Donald Trump’s rhetoric.
6. Did Mr. Knotts get permission from Ms. Rappa or her daughter to use a picture of of them? If not, I find the use of the photo an invasion of their privacy and borderline creepy.
Regardless of how you feel about using prison labor, there is nothing inconsistent about opposing “ban the box” and still choosing to hire prison inmates.
Opposing ban the box is essentially recognizing that we all should have the right to ask reasonable questions before we enter into a transaction, such as hiring. Ascertaining whether a job applicant has done things in the past which are inconsistent with the job duties (i.e. not wanting a hire a former bank robber to work bank security) seems like a reasonable question.
There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in support the right of employers to ask this type of question, while yourself deciding to hire a prisoner, or ex-convict, if you so desire. In fact, it seems like a perfectly rational decision making process to me.
“Fishbites. The Constitution is concerned with how government treats its citizens. HB167 regulates how a business owner runs their business.”
Frank, that’s simply not true. It only applies to “public employers”. It does not apply to business owners:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis147.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+167/$file/legis.html?open
——-
Section 1. Amend Section 710, Title 19 of the Delaware Code by adding a new subsection (14) as shown by underlining as follows and redesignating current subsections (14) through (18) as (15) through (19) respectively:
(14) “Public employer” means the State of Delaware, its agencies, or political subdivisions.
Section 2. Amend Section 711, Title 19 of the Delaware Code by inserting a new subsection (g) as shown by underlining as follows and redesignating current subsections (g) through (k) as (h) through (l) respectively:
(g)(1) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any public employer to inquire into or consider the criminal record, criminal history, credit history, or credit score of an applicant for employment during the initial application process, up to and including the first interview.
—–
It has nothing to do with private employers.
You never actually read it, did you.
And, I should point out that the rest of the bill goes on to address circumstances where it is appropriate or where there are exceptions.
But neither Frank nor Rick seems to understand to whom the bill applied in the first place.
“it is one that refuses to countenance the possibility that a young woman can be a fiercely independent thinker and fully capable of planning, writing, and executing an argument herself.”
Are you for real? Daughter (who’s listed as the contact for the Delaware Democrats Lewes Campaign Office) writes op-ed excoriating Mom’s current GOP political opponent one month from the election, and you want people to believe she did it out of ‘fierce independence’ and not to impact the election? Did she fiercely and independently choose her mom’s opponent over all of the others who voted against ban the box and then used prison services for printing? I want some of what you’re smoking.
I still believe that the daughter failing to disclose her relationship in the editorial is BY FAR the biggest ethical offense in all of this.
Wired into this statement is the rather flimsy assumption that everyone in prison is actually guilty of the crimes they have been convicted off.
Your response is even more flimsy. Sure, some people in prison might well be innocent; most are not.
Cheap labor is why “conservatives” fight to maintain slavery…
Slavery? Can’t any man apply for any job anywhere? Can’t any man study or learn a skill and try to improve his job prospects?
Under what moral code does one man have the right to claim the fruits of another man’s labor?
Now, if you want to talk about modern-day slavery, let’s talk about how the Socialist-Democrats keep the black underclass in the ghetto. Give them housing, food stamps, a stipend and lousy schools with a corrupt city administration in exchange for votes. Now that’s slavery, minus the field work.
“Remember, black people, vote Socialist-Democrat. Keep us in the Big House and you on the plantation. And no, we won’t interfere with your drugs or guns.”
Delacrat, did you read the letter? The author makes this about morality, that legislation was needed to regain the moral high ground. This is the same position those who opposed gay marriage took, that it was a moral issue, and legislation was needed to protect the moral high ground of traditional marriage.
As I said above, you cannot legislate morality.
Charles Reynolds says, “While it is true that people are ultimately accountable for the decisions they make, it should be noted that many peoples lives are governed by external, (sometimes) impersonal forces outside of their own control. These forces include poverty, parental neglect, and inadequate educational opportunity. This matters. If a person is in prison due in part to circumstances beyond his or her control then they surely deserve a second chance once they are released. ”
Mr. Reynolds, am I to assume that in your view, we are all victims of our environment? Be it our parents, our economic circumstances or our education. And so, due to our victimhood, we are excused for anything we do, even be it criminal.
So if I have not had the same economic success as my neighbor, I am entitled to break into their home and steal at will?
If my mother did not pay me enough attention, poor potting training possibly, I am excused for molesting children?
If I failed to obtain an education, does that excuse all culpability?
I know, your argument is that once the criminal has paid their debt to society, then all is forgiven. I would agree, we all should have the hope of second chances, I personally have used up a couple myself. My problem with HB167 is it is government regulating, if we are to believe the author of the letter, morality, impossible.
I would also argue your premise that being poor, or uneducated, or having neglectful parents leads anyone to crime. For every poor person who turns to crime, how many poor people live their lives according to the laws of our land? The same for people of lower education, and how many children who had challenging childhoods, grew up to be successful?
All of the circumstances you list above, that you label as , “external, (sometimes) impersonal forces outside of their own control.” all still come down in the end, to personal choices to turn to crime, in a world such as ours, rife with social programs, welfare, food stamps, section eight housing, free healthcare, free child care, free education, and any number of societal safety nets, which calls into question why anyone would need to steal. And as for the more violent crimes such as rape and murder, the same can be said, how many people never hurt another person, even though they are poor, uneducated, or otherwise lacking in some manner.
Mr. Reynolds then says, ” Part of Mr. Knotts problems in this response is his clumsiness with basic terms. He deploys the word “legal problem” in an arbitrary fashion throughout his response.”
Mr. Reynolds, the only clumsiness here is your ability to read what was written. I never said “legal problem”, I said that Briggs-King participated in a “LEGAL PROGRAM”, which hiring inmate labor is.
Please slow your roll, and read what is written, not what you expect.
Considering Mr. Reynolds previous mistake in reading comprehension, it is ironic he then said this, “Mr. Knotts response here suggests that he might have a reading comprehension issue. ” I’ll just let this one stand.
Mr. Reynolds then says this, ” A vote against ban the box suggests that Briggs King believes formerly incarcerated people should have a hard time finding work once they are released.”
Well Mr. Reynolds, if you are of a certain political leaning, then yes you could see a no vote that way, yet, from my political perspective, I see it as saying, an employer, even the state of Delaware, the number one employer in the state, has the right to have all information possible in making a hiring choice. And 167 is most likely the nose under the tent, the state first, then impose it upon all private employers. After all, you wouldn’t want to put only state employees at risk.
Mr. Reynolds, notice the photo, it is a photo of mother and daughter, wearing Rappa campaign shirts, obviously the daughter is active in the campaign, not unusual. To think there was no knowledge on the part of Paullette Rappa is childish.
As for using the photo? I am friended on Facebook with Ms. Rappa, and have had many interesting and friendly conversations with her. I assume she is adult enough, and politically intelligent enough to recognize my criticisms of this letter is not personal.
As for your accusation that I am some sort of sexist? This falls squarely in the same category as the final paragraph of the letter, it is a cheap attempt to label opposition as racist, sexist, or otherwise, and is not worthy of a response. Again, I would hope Ms. Rappa has enough respect for me to know otherwise.
But thanks for playing.
Fishbites, actually I did read it, did you? From the synopsis, “The bill also requires contractors with State agencies to employ similar policies where not in conflict with other State or federal requirements.”
“Contractor with the state”, that means trucking companies that haul asphalt for De Dot, companies who stock the vending machines at state buildings, companies who letter the state police cars, and an ever growing circle of “PRIVATE” companies. Now of course you will retort, these companies can simply choose not to contract with the State of Delaware. And how would that negatively affect their families? The economy? But of course the state’s bullying tactic will force them to bend under the will of the state.
And Mike, 14:3,c of the code says the employer is allowed to consider this, ” (C) Does the prospective job provide an opportunity for the commission of a similar offense(s)?;” along with other considerations.
However, the employer must take the application, go through at least one interview to determine if the person is qualified, and then a second interview before they can ask about criminal background, which might disqualify them.
This means an added cost of time and resources, and as I said, open the employer to legal action if they choose not to take the risk.
Let me make a correction, Paulette and her daughter are not wearing campaign shirts in the photo, my apologies.
“Delacrat, did you read the letter? “
Yep, read it and there’s no mention of homosexuality or gay marriage.
Wow, I know you are not stupid. So I guess you are just intellectually vacant. You are the only one unable to see the comparison I am making.
Mmmm, scrapple sandwiches on toast with mustard
The question should be: Does the state have a prison hiring program designed to train job skills for rehabilitation or is it just using prisoners for cheap labor for politically connected people.