Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Abusive disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians by the judiciary and the criminal justice system? Rebuttal to a report by the Hawaiian grievance industry released September 28, 2010.


by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. , October 4, 2010 and updated June 2012

On September 28, 2010 the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs issued a press release about a new report it created entitled "The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System." The Honolulu newspaper published an article about it the following day.

There are important scholarly/statistical issues raised by the report, and equally important political issues. It's clear that the OHA report is an exercise in political propaganda rather than a serious scholarly analysis or civil rights inquiry. The present essay is an effort to counteract the propaganda in the report and to identify serious scientific issues that need further study. The summary and conclusions of the present essay will be stated first, without footnotes or in-depth analysis. Following the summary and conclusions there are additional sections providing extensive documentation and analysis of seven main topics. Published news reports and commentaries are added at the end.

The OHA report is part of a long-term political strategy attacking the very existence of the State of Hawaii by undermining our confidence in equality under the law and our unity as a multiracial society under the sovereignty of the United States. That long-term strategy will not be further discussed in the present rebuttal, but readers who want to understand it should read the book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." Twenty-seven copies are available in the Hawaii Public Library system. Portions are free on the internet, with a link to the publisher's website where the print-on-demand book can be ordered; see
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS BOTH SCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL

The OHA report alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians by the judiciary and criminal justice system appears to describe a rigorous scientific analysis of data. But in fact the data were collected and analyzed by a small group of project insiders who worked in secret, in a locked room at the University of Hawaii, always under direct supervision by their OHA sponsors, and who later destroyed their collected data to protect the privacy rights of the criminals. Real scientific studies are peer-reviewed before publication to make sure the data are reliable, the analysis is done in accord with generally accepted scientific standards, and the conclusions are valid. But in this case the data were collected and interpreted in secret, and then destroyed. The report was rushed into publication without peer review in a splashy format designed for propaganda value. Publication was timed to coincide with the political effort to pass the Akaka bill whose purpose is to create a government for ethnic Hawaiians including jurisdiction over their own criminal justice system. We simply do not know whether the "research" team collected all the data for all the criminals or only the most damning items from the most egregious cases. We don't know whether they created a Procrustean bed, choosing data categories friendly to their predetermined conclusions and chopping off the feet or stretching the torsos of the data to fit their categories. Thus there was not, nor can there ever be, a peer review of the report's reliability or validity. OHA and the group who produced this "study" should be embarrassed if their methods are compared with legitimate work done by scientists developing new drugs or reporting experiments in physics, biology, etc. (see the extended topic #1 below).

One major concern for analyzing a claim of disparate outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians is the fact that their median age is only 25, which is 14 years younger than the median age of 39 for the rest of the population. Of course people who are younger have lower incomes, and are more likely to engage in drug abuse which is a crime in itself and also leads to more crime. Young men's higher testosterone levels are likely to make their crimes not only more frequent but far more violent than the older criminal population. Women's young ages make them more likely to be unwed mothers, while the teenage children spawned by unwed mothers and living in unstable families are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Ethnic Hawaiians have the highest rate of illegitimacy, perhaps because they have racial partisans calling upon them to make babies as fast as possible to accelerate acquisition of majority status (there is a published news report on this point, made available in extended topic #3). Ethnic Hawaiian girls might also feel encouraged to make illegitimate babies more than other racial groups do on account of numerous government health programs and welfare handouts that are racially exclusive to ethnic Hawaiians.

The OHA report does take account of age in limited ways in a few data sets, but for the most part there is no effort to compare outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians against outcomes for other racial groups at each corresponding age level. It appears that when age has been included in the analysis and confirms disparate outcomes, the fact that age was analyzed is mentioned in the report; but when comparable ages have comparable outcomes the report then chooses to lump together the data for all age levels within each race, thereby making it appear there are disparities of outcome overall between racial groups and concealing that those disparities are due to the disparity of age. Without a peer review it's impossible to know whether the alleged disparate outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians are entirely, primarily, partly, or not at all attributable to the disparate age distribution among the criminals.

A major difficulty in analyzing claims of racially disparate outcomes is to correctly identify a person's race in the data when he has two or more racial heritages. Nearly all ethnic Hawaiians are of mixed race. Many have three or more races. Perhaps 3/4 of all so-called "Native Hawaiians" have more than 3/4 of their ancestry being other than Hawaiian -- nobody knows because nobody wants to collect such data. Yet anyone with one drop of native blood is labeled "Native Hawaiian" not only in this new OHA report but also in hundreds of racial disparity victimhood "studies" (i.e., data-mining analyses of reports from the Census Bureau, National Institutes of Health, etc.) done by Kamehameha Schools over a period of many years and widely publicized in the media to solicit public sympathy and political support. Classifying anyone with one drop of native blood as "Native Hawaiian" is clearly a very bad way to analyze data when studying alleged racial disparity. This report made absolutely no effort to identify the percentage of native blood quantum for each criminal; and of course there was also no desire to allocate only a fraction of a tally mark to "Native Hawaiian" corresponding to each criminal's fraction of native blood.

The report appears to champion civil rights for a racial minority and for incarcerated criminals. But in fact the report is politically motivated for the purpose of justifying proposed legislation that would violate the civil rights of all Hawaii's people. The report tries to portray a racial group as a victim of injustice in order to spur public support for creating a full-blown government for that racial group through the Akaka bill soon to be taken up in a crucial lame-duck session of Congress. It's wonderful for a group to be portrayed as a victim group when it is seeking public sympathy or race-specific government handouts. The worse the victimhood, the more public sympathy and the greater the handouts from government and philanthropic institutions. In Summer 2005 it was announced that a 450-page book celebrating hundreds of victimhood claims for ethnic Hawaiians would soon be published; and a glossy, artistically beautiful 20-page executive summary of it was rushed into print immediately before an anticipated crucial vote on the Akaka bill. This latest report is timed in the same way and has a similarly glossy, artistically beautiful 20-page executive summary.

The specific nature of the victimhood alleged in this new report concerns the criminal justice system. The reason for selecting the criminal justice system rather than heart disease, diabetes, or poverty as the focus of grievance at this particular time is to undercut a demand to amend the Akaka bill in order to deny to the Akaka tribe the immediate full-blown sovereignty OHA wants it to have without any need for negotiations with the State. The issue of who should control the criminal justice system, and whether the control should come immediately or only after negotiation, has been widely discussed in Hawaii's media for almost a year since a radical version of the Akaka bill was kept secret without notifying Governor Lingle until the last moment before trying to ram it through its committees in the House and Senate. Jurisdiction by the Akaka tribe over the criminal justice system was the main focus of Governor Lingle's objections to the most radical bill and was the focus of an amendment promised by Hawaii's two senators in order to secure her support. Thus this new OHA report comes at a convenient time to undercut public sympathy for Lingle's amendment and might also serve to pressure Lingle to acquiesce in a secretive legislative process during a crowded lame duck session where things would go much more smoothly if Lingle's pesky amendment could simply be set aside with no last-minute outcry from her to her fellow Republicans in Congress.

The report says that $181,440 in taxpayer dollars appropriated by the Legislature was spent to create this report. Perhaps additional money could be attributed to staff time for regular employees of OHA, some university professors, etc. Money and political backing are readily available to create victimhood "studies" like the OHA report alleging racial disparities in the criminal justice system and hundreds of previous studies alleging racial disparities in heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, etc.; but there is neither money nor glory for debunking them. Tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry get government or philanthropic grants to pay staffers to collect data and write reports; the reports are then used to justify requests for more money to do more studies etc. But in the end there is no explanation for the disparate outcomes and no success in reducing the disparities.

Ordinary citizens do not have the money, time, or training to thoroughly investigate the credibility of such massive projects. So how can the public and our political leaders make a good decision whether to believe what's in the report?

There is hope. Ordinary citizens serve on juries. Some of the civil and criminal cases decided by juries include crucial testimony about complex scientific or technical matters; yet jurors somehow are able to reach unanimous decisions, even "beyond a reasonable doubt." How do they do it?

Judges instruct jurors that one way to decide whether to believe a witness is to consider the motives of that witness as shown through evidence or testimony.

As discussed above, OHA has clear motives to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims of injustice, not only to get sympathy for them in general, but also to get sympathy for immediate granting of full sovereignty over criminal justice for the anticipated Akaka tribe.

A further attribution of motive to the creation of this report comes from checking the background of the Washington D.C. think-tank that gave a veneer of respectability to the report by allowing its name to be used as co-author. The Justice Policy Institute is not a politically neutral academic or research group. JPI's own website makes clear that its main purpose is to urge the dismantling of America's punishment-focused prison system in favor of awarding custody of criminals to their own ethnic groups in the local community who can use the principles of "restorative justice" and communal responsibility to rehabilitate them. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement in general, and OHA in particular, like this concept because it would empower ethnic Hawaiian political leaders and community organizers to "re-educate" (i.e., brainwash) their fellow ethnic Hawaiians to live according to a set of "Hawaiian values" and be liberated from the value system imposed upon them by their colonial oppressors (i.e., the American government and the Christian missionaries). Thus the political agenda of JPI is aligned with the political agenda of OHA to immediately empower a newly created Akaka tribe with the jurisdictional authority to manage its own criminal justice system.

Judges also instruct jurors that it is appropriate to assess the credibility of a witness on one topic according to his credibility on other topics. If a witness has lied about one thing, then jurors are allowed to take that into account to discredit his testimony on other points. That principle can be applied to this report. It might be difficult for ordinary people to decide the believability of what's in this report because they are not trained in scientific methodology and statistical analysis. But there are statements in this report about Hawaiian history that are clearly false, and interpretations that are clearly twisted. Thus it is reasonable for ordinary people to conclude that the scientific content of this report is similarly false or twisted.

Some cautionary "big picture" questions should be raised. Are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in health, economics, and the criminal justice system found only in Hawaii? If so then there must be something about Hawaii's plethora of benefits racially exclusive to ethnic Hawaiians that is destroying Hawaiians both physically and socially. Or are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians also found on the mainland? Do the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry then claim that the bad outcomes are determined by genetics? Or are the bad outcomes caused by culture and lifestyle? In either case, what should be done? Is the "Hawaiian gene" so poisonous that anyone with even a small percentage of Hawaiian native blood faces a nasty future for himself and might be a danger to others? Would quarantine then be the best solution? Should there be genetic engineering of the Hawaiian gene to cure it of its badness? Or should Hawaii's physical and social environment be radically changed to put things back the way they were 250 years ago when Hawaiians had a physical and social environment to which they were well adapted through centuries of inbreeding and natural selection? The topics raised in this paragraph are politically incorrect. Yet they are the inevitable result of taking seriously the hundreds of victimhood claims made by tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry.

Here's an outline of topics mentioned above to be explored in greater detail. Scroll down to find the discussion of each one.

LIST OF TOPICS

1. What the OHA report said, and how the underlying study was conducted. Data collected and analyzed in secret was then destroyed, making peer review impossible. OHA and the group who produced this "study" should be embarrassed if their methods are compared with legitimate work done by scientists developing new drugs or reporting experiments in physics, biology, etc.

2. Slick, artistically composed pages show that the purpose of the report is political propaganda rather than scientific scrutiny. Emotional appeals are made to a creation legend from the ancient Hawaiian religion, and the report is filled with emotionally rousing artistic photos of taro patches (because taro plays a key role in that creation legend). Unverifiable claims are made that ethnic Hawaiians suffer more trauma than other races when sent to prisons outside Hawaii, because their spiritual link to the land is broken. Emotional appeals are made by quoting the inspirational words of Kamehameha The Great on his deathbed, and by quoting the words of a song written by ex-queen Lili'uokalani when she was "unjustly imprisoned" (just like ethnic Hawaiians today!!). [By the way, her imprisonment was entirely justified, and was a very mild punishment for the crimes she committed. See section 6 below. Her activities after release showed she was never rehabilitated! But she did stop participating in violent activities.].

3. Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians (allegedly) have higher rates of arrest and incarceration, and longer jail sentences and probation, than criminals of other races. In the last decennial census the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39. Criminal behaviors -- especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences -- are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age.

4. Percentage of native blood quantum must be taken into account in analyzing data alleging racial disparity. Someone who is only 1/8 Hawaiian should clearly not be counted as Hawaiian. An incarcerated criminal who is 1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Filipino, 1/8 Irish, and 1/8 Hawaiian would properly be counted as Chinese if outcomes are to be attributed to only one racial group. The best method would be to allocate fractional tally marks when attributing outcomes to racial groups. But nobody at OHA or any other racial-partisan institution bothers to collect or analyze racial data that way because the results would undoubtedly torpedo most of their racial grievance claims.

5. If the author of a so-called scientific report has a motive to tell falsehoods or skew the results, then the facts alleged in the report, and the conclusions, can be set aside as lacking credibility. In the case of OHA's report alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, OHA has strong motives to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims of unequal or unfair treatment in order to spur political support for the Akaka bill now pending in Congress. OHA has especially strong motive to undermine an agreement between Governor Lingle and Hawaii's two Senators to amend the Akaka bill in such a way to deny the Akaka tribe immediate sovereign jurisdiction over the criminal justice system. Also, the Justice Policy Institute in Washington D.C., which helped write this report, has its own political motives which include dismantling America's punishment-oriented prison system.

6. If a witness in court -- even an expert witness -- says something false about one topic, then it is reasonable to doubt his credibility on other topics. This OHA report makes false and misleading statements about Hawaii's history, which ordinary people can verify are wrong. Also, the historical content is presented in a chaotic narrative which scrambles the chronology. Therefore even people lacking expertise in scientific knowledge and statistical methodology are justified in doubting what OHA's report says about technical issues, and we can wonder whether the gathering and analysis of data was as chaotic as the chronology in the history section. Some wrong statements about Hawaii's history contained in this report will be described, and proof will be provided that they are wrong.

7. Are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in health, economics, and the criminal justice system found only in Hawaii? A recent study shows that ethnic Hawaiians living in California are doing better than the average of all Californians. Why are Hawaiians thriving in California but not in Hawaii, despite the fact (or is it because of the fact?) that Hawaii provides a plethora of racial entitlement programs not available to them in California?

News articles and commentaries about the OHA report will be posted at the bottom of this webpage as events unfold.

Here's a "crime and punishment" metaphor to sum it up. A crime has been committed, and this essay will prove the means, motive, and opportunity. The crime is an assault upon the people of the State of Hawaii and the sovereignty of our government. The means is a newly released report by OHA alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians by the judiciary and the criminal justice system. The motive is to weaken the confidence of Hawaii's people in our expectation of equal justice under the law, and thereby to promote establishment of a new race-based government exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians; and eventually to rip the 50th star off the flag. The opportunity was a major grant of tax dollars from the state Legislature to OHA to provide funding for the study. Why would the state government provide funding for a project to undermine its own authority? Why should the legislature appropriate tax dollars for OHA even though OHA already has hundreds of millions of dollars hoarded over the years and invested out of state, plus an assured flow of more millions every year? In this case, the state gave the money with benevolent intentions to make sure it provides equal justice under the law. There have been complaints alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians, so the government wants to know whether the complaints are true and if so how to fix the problem. Ethnic Hawaiians are the state's favorite racial group, so we want to make sure they are treated well. But as usual, racial partisans have grabbed the money and used it for an evil purpose. No good deed goes unpunished.

=================

1. What the OHA report said, and how the underlying study was conducted. Data collected and analyzed in secret was then destroyed, making peer review impossible. OHA and the group who produced this "study" should be embarrassed if their methods are compared with legitimate work done by scientists developing new drugs or reporting experiments in physics, biology, etc.

What did the OHA report say? All items are on the OHA website at
http://oha.org/
Shortened URLs have been created for use in the present essay.
The press release is at
http://tinyurl.com/28qa793
A 20-page executive summary filled with beautiful photos of taro is at
http://tinyurl.com/27cj3j3
The complete report, filled with many more beautiful photos of taro, is at
http://tinyurl.com/2aweono
And there's also a "fact sheet" consisting of 5 pages of talking points accompanied by one bar graph, one circle graph, and one photo of a single offshoot stalk of taro (which, conveniently, is known as an "oha"). See
http://tinyurl.com/2cmz6en

Quote from Appendix A regarding methodology:

"Through a strict confidentiality agreement between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its contractors, the HCJDC provided complete records from its database for all cases that were found in the State of Hawai'i criminal justice system between 2000 through 2009. Because the data contain sensitive information on individuals, the researchers secured a restricted, locked office space at the University of Hawai'i Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP) to conduct all analyses. Only representatives of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and its contracted researchers were allowed into the room, and the computer on which the data were analyzed was used solely for the purposes of the project. At the conclusion of the research, the original data files were returned by hand on disc to the HCJDC. All HCJDC data files, including those derived from the raw data, on the computer used during the processing were deleted and expunged at the conclusion of the project."

Here's a quote from the bottom of page 19 of the full report, repeated at the end of page 84 in Appendix A. It is one of the most detailed descriptions of how the team analyzed the data; yet it is basically devoid of any way to judge whether the analysis was done correctly, and whether all the data were included in the analysis. The absence of any peer review, and the impossibility of ever doing one, renders the results and conclusions basically meaningless.

"Where the dependent variables of interest were metric -- or the analytic question was how much greater the degree of impact -- researchers used ordinary least squares (linear) regression analysis. An example of such a question is "how much longer is the average Native Hawaiian probation sentence than all other ethnic groups', controlling for other explanatory factors?" Many descriptive and multivariate models were developed as part of the research project, and only those results most directly related to the question of whether Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system in Hawai'i are presented."

With a Masters degree in Mathematics I have only the vaguest idea what that paragraph is saying. "Many descriptive and multivariate models were developed" -- like what, for example? Did they create unique analytical models or unique statistical techniques specifically designed for the purpose of producing the results they wanted? "...only those results ... are presented." So what happened to the other results? How can we know whether they should have been included, since there's no way to review them?

Two analogies might be useful for assessing the credibility of hundreds of "studies" produced by the Hawaiian grievance industry alleging disparities in heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, poverty, housing, education, etc. and also this "study" alleging disparities in the criminal justice system.

Consider how a pharmaceutical company studies the safety and effectiveness of a newly developed drug before seeking government approval and putting it into the marketplace. The company tests the new drug using a control group (patients who are given a placebo) and an experimental group (patients who get the new drug) to find out whether the drug actually makes a significant difference, and to ensure the patients do not suffer harm from it. Usually the study is "double blind" meaning that the patients and their doctors do not know who is getting the drug and who is getting the placebo; and also the researchers gathering data about patient outcomes do not know. Often the study is subjected to peer review whereby outsiders who did not participate in designing or carrying out the study, and have no relationship with the pharmaceutical company, are hired to assess whether the research was done correctly and whether the conclusions are statistically correct. A very important consideration that makes most drug companies do their research studies honestly is their knowledge that if they put a bad drug into the marketplace their company will be sued for enormous amounts of money by people who have been injured, possibly resulting in bankruptcy for the company. The new OHA "study" had no control or experimental group, neither a blind nor double-blind analysis, no peer review, and no risk of being sued for damages if their report is bogus.

Consider how a physicist or biologist does a scientific study. First he has a hypothesis, narrowly stated so that there's no ambiguity about what it means. Next he designs an experiment to gather data that will either disprove or corroborate the hypothesis. He then asks permission from his academic dean, or his company boss, to seek a grant and to use laboratory facilities. The dean or boss reviews the proposal. The granting agency reviews the proposal. The permissions and money are awarded and the experiment is done. A report is written and a scholarly essay is sent to a scientific journal. The scientist's name and institutional affiliation are removed from the essay, which is then sent to a committee of several experts in the field to review it for experimental design, reliability of the experiment, accuracy of reporting the results, etc. Finally the paper gets published. The new OHA "study" had only a vague hypothesis. A grant was given by a political body (the State legislature) instead of by an outside scientific agency. Data were gathered and analyzed by the same people who created the hypothesis. No outside observers were present at any stage of project design, data gathering, statistical analysis, or report writing. There was no peer review prior to publication, and no peer review will ever be possible because the data and preliminary analyses were destroyed.

================

2. Slick, artistically composed pages show that the purpose of the report is political propaganda rather than scientific scrutiny. Emotional appeals are made to a creation legend from the ancient Hawaiian religion, and the report is filled with emotionally rousing artistic photos of taro patches (because taro plays a key role in that creation legend). Unverifiable claims are made that ethnic Hawaiians suffer more trauma than other races when sent to prisons outside Hawaii, because their spiritual link to the land is broken. Emotional appeals are made by quoting the inspirational words of Kamehameha The Great on his deathbed, and by quoting the words of a song written by ex-queen Lili'uokalani when she was "unjustly imprisoned" (just like ethnic Hawaiians today!!). [By the way, her imprisonment was entirely justified, and was a very mild punishment for the crimes she committed. See section 6 below. Her activities after release showed she was never rehabilitated! But she did stop participating in violent activities.].

The report has several entire pages devoted to artistic photos of taro patches, with additional photos of taro on numerous other pages, all for the purpose of making an emotional appeal to a creation legend portraying ethnic Hawaiians as children of the gods and younger siblings of the taro plant.

Here's a quote taken from an un-numbered page near the beginning of the full report. Note also the use of Hawaiian words which few people know, interspersed for emotional effect and immediately translated.

"Conceptual Theme for Report
"Sky father, Wakea mated with Ho'ohokukalani, his daughter with Papahanaumoku. Their first child is born 'alu'alu (still born) and is buried ma ka hikina (east side) of their kauhale (house). Soon thereafter, a new plant with a long stalk and a soft, fluttering leaf sprouts from the earth where there child is buried. They name him Haloanakalaukapalili, for the long-stemmed plant with its trembling leaves. This is believed to be the first kalo (taro) plant.
"Wakea and Ho'ohokukalani soon have a second child, a son, born live. This keiki survives and is nourished by the kalo plant, his kaikua'ana, elder brother. He is named Haloa in memorial to his elder brother. Haloa is said to be the first Hawaiian person and progenitor of our Hawaiian race. Thus, the close relationship between the kalo and Hawaiian people stems from this bond of Haloanakalaukapalili and Haloa. It is believed that when we take care of the 'aina (maternal progenitor or land) and the kalo, our older sibling, he will always provide our sustenance."

Quote from page 24 of the full report:
"For many indigenous people, including Native Hawaiians, the land is central to culture and well-being. Noa Emmett Aluli and Davianna Pomaika'i McGregor, respected activists and preservationists of Hawaiian culture, write that Native Hawaiian people relate to the land as they would "an ancestor or dear friend." The land is not possessed or owned and neither are resources that come from it, but Native Hawaiians are stewards with a great deal of respect for the land. It is not simply the physical removal from the land that is traumatic, but it is the spiritual loss of the land that is damaging. ... Arguably, however, one of the most offensive and traumatic ways of alienating a Native Hawaiian person from the land is physically removing them from it and placing them behind bars, especially if those bars are on the continental United States. Prison prevents Native Hawaiians from practicing traditional Hawaiian religion and is a spiritual severance from an important part of everyday life, thus perpetuating a cycle of cultural trauma."

Thus we see that the creation legend is used to explain why ethnic Hawaiians have a special relationship to the lands of Hawaii which other races do not have, and therefore ethnic Hawaiians suffer worse emotional trauma than other races when they are transported to the mainland to serve their prison sentences. This so-called trauma is allegedly unique to ethnic Hawaiians for spiritual reasons going beyond the trauma of people of other races born and raised in Hawaii who are sent to prison on the mainland. This so-called trauma is described in the report as being in itself a disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians by the criminal justice system -- disparate because only ethnic Hawaiians have this spiritual bond with the islands. This disparate treatment allegedly explains why ethnic Hawaiians commit more crimes than other races after returning from mainland imprisonment.

This claim of spiritual trauma seems to lay a basis for a possible civil rights claim in the future, that it violates the rights of ethnic Hawaiians to practice their religion when they are sent to prisons outside Hawaii; and that sending them away is therefore a disparate treatment which disparately traumatizes them and leads to disparate levels of criminal behavior later on.

However, it should be noted that, according to Census 2000, 40% of all ethnic Hawaiians live outside Hawaii; many of whom were born and raised in Hawaii but moved away to pursue education, careers, etc. They seem to be doing quite well, unaffected by the alleged spiritual trauma of being outside the islands. Indeed, some of these untraumatized and successful ethnic Hawaiians who have chosen to live on the mainland are living in places near to the prisons where ethnic Hawaiians are allegedly suffering spiritual trauma. Furthermore, there's no evidence to show what percentage of ethnic Hawaiians who have been imprisoned in Hawaii have the alleged spiritual feelings before being sent to the mainland, or whether they are in fact traumatized by that in ways different from prisoners born and raised in Hawaii but lacking Hawaiian blood.

Instead of looking at the speculative spiritual trauma experienced by ethnic Hawaiian prisoners on the mainland, perhaps we should focus on the provable trauma visited upon the ethnic Hawaiian imprisoned in Hawaii where the same family and hoodlum friends who led him astray continue to exercise a bad influence by visiting him in prison and then welcome him back to live in that same poisonous social environment after he is released.

As a semi-humorous side comment we might take note of the fact that the creation legend as described in this OHA report clearly says that the ancestral father of all ethnic Hawaiians (Sky Father Wakea) had sex with his own daughter (Ho'ohokukalani) and got her pregnant on at least two occasions, thus setting a bad example for today's ethnic Hawaiians. Perhaps that creation legend explains why incest and family instability, leading to crime and incarceration, might be claimed to be genetically programmed into ethnic Hawaiians -- after all, the primordial ancestor of all ethnic Hawaiians was born from one of those incestuous pregnancies. What has just been said in this paragraph is politically incorrect and scurrilous, but it is put here because it makes the same kind of (non)sense as the claim that ethnic Hawaiians suffer disparate trauma from being incarcerated on the mainland compared to the trauma felt by prisoners of other races who are similarly uprooted from the Hawaii where they were born and raised, and that the disparate trauma arises on account of Hawaiians' unique genealogical connection to the islands and to the taro plant.

A powerful emotional appeal is made in the OHA report to words spoken by Kamehameha The Great on his deathbed. The entire contents of a full-page spread early in the complete report are devoted to photos of a taro patch where young plants are just starting to grow, and the following are placed as as the only words on the two pages (and repeated again near the end of the report):

"E HO'OKANAKA.
"BE A PERSON OF WORTH.
"These were the very last words of Kamehameha, the unifier of the Hawaiian islands, upon his deathbed. To his beloved attendants, the King uttered the famous, "E 'oni wale no 'oukou i ku'u pono ('a'ole i pau)." With these words, he instructed his attendants, "Continue to do what I have done." Then, turning to his grieving young son Liholiho, the dying King spoke these words, "E ho'okanaka." These words continue to be spoken today as an encouragement to be brave and courageous as well as to assert one's Hawaiian identity. E ho'okanaka. Be a person of worth."

A powerful emotional appeal is made in the OHA report by quoting from a song composed by Lili'uokalani when she was a prisoner. The report has a lengthy section filled with historical falsehoods, including portraying the ex-queen as someone who was unjustly imprisoned (like today's ethnic Hawaiians!) even though she did indeed commit the crime of conspiracy in treason and was an accessory before the fact to anti-government violence in which men were killed. The historical falsehoods will be dealt with in section 6, later.

The following content is superimposed above another photo of young taro. Note the tear-jerking reminder that Queen Lili'uokalani was held prisoner [just like the prisoners who are the focus of this OHA report]

"Ko'u noho mihi 'ana, a pa'ahao 'ia,
'o 'oe ku'u lama, "kou nani ko'u ko'o.
"Whilst humbly meditating, within these walls imprisoned,
"thou art my light, my haven, thy glory my support.
"Ke Aloha O Ka Haku composed by Queen Lili'uokalani,
"March 22, 1895"

The report then says:

"OHA would like to acknowledge and honor Queen Lili'uokalani through the above song and verse of the Queen's classic composition entitled, Ke Aloha O Ka Haku which she composed during her imprisonment."

OHA forgot to tell us when we can stop weeping.

================

3. Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians (allegedly) have higher rates of arrest and incarceration, and longer jail sentences and probation, than criminals of other races. In the last decennial census the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39. Criminal behaviors -- especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences -- are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age.

** Note: The following information is based on Census 2000, the most recent decennial census whose data were available at the time this content was written. The OHA report says according to more recent data ethnic Hawaiians are now 24% of the state's population instead of only 20%. So it would appear that the "population bomb" urged by Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa in a published article a few years ago has actually gone off! If the 24% figure is correct, then the age disparity between ethnic Hawaiians and everyone else will be significantly larger than what is described below, making the explanation for disparate rates of crime and incarceration even more compelling.

The shocking fact is that the average age of ethnic Hawaiians is 11 years younger than the average age for the state. But that 11 year age difference is actually 14 years when the 20% who are ethnic Hawaiians are compared against the 80% who are not ethnic Hawaiians. Ethnic Hawaiians' average age is only 25. The general population (including ethnic Hawaiians) has an average age of 36. Assuming that ethnic Hawaiians are about 20% of the population of Hawai'i, then here's the arithmetic: Average age of general population is 36, and that's 100% of the population. 36 x 100 = 3600. Average age of Hawaiians is 25, and they are 20% of the population. 25 x 20 = 500. Removing the Hawaiians, 3600 - 500 = 3100. That 3100 represents 80% of the population. 3100 divided by 80 = 38.8 which rounds off to 39 as the average age of the non-Hawaiian population.

So OF COURSE ethnic Hawaiians have lower average income -- they're just kids -- just getting started in their jobs or professions; while at age 39, the typical non-ethnic-Hawaiian (and ethnic Hawaiian too!) is in middle management, or watching his company or medical practice start to boom. Of course people with average age of 25 have high unemployment and incarceration and drug abuse etc. compared to people with average age of 39. The sins of youth. Isn't that a no-brainer?

This means that many "Native Hawaiian" victimhood claims are not really about "Native Hawaiians" at all -- they are about age.

Furthermore, while it is true that the average income of "Native Hawaiians" is somewhat lower than the state average, the difference is only about 9%, which seems entirely reasonable in view of the fact that "Native Hawaiians" have an average age of only 25, compared with 36 for the state as a whole. In Census 2000, the median household income for "Native Hawaiians" was $45,381, and their median age was 25.3. In Census 2000, the median household income for the population of Hawai'i as a whole was $49,820, and the median age was 36.2.

Also in Census 2000, 12% of all "Native Hawaiians" had household income ABOVE $100,000 (and that was back when a hundred grand was real money!). Surely those wealthy people should not be eligible for government handouts based on the racial profiling of "Native Hawaiians" as poor and downtrodden.

Here are the sources to back up the facts about average age and average income.

For "Native Hawaiians" separately (race alone[i.e., "pure"], or in combination with one or more other races -- i.e., the "one drop" definition as used in the Akaka bill) all the statistics are on:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census2k/sf4profiles/xnhstate.pdf

"Native Hawaiian" median household income $45,381 on page 5 at 3/4 way down; median age 25.3, middle of page 1, median household income above $100,000 is 11.9% (add up the bottom 3 rows of income table on page 5).

OVERALL STATE OF HAWAII, ALL FROM CENSUS 2000 (including ethnic Hawaiians along with everyone else):

Average age 36.2 from middle of page 1 of
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census2k/h90_00_state.pdf

Median household income is $49,820 from middle of table at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US15&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-redoLog=false

A related issue was addressed by another Kamehameha PASE report publicized in another Gordon Pang Advertiser article on September 27, 2005. "Native Hawaiian" population is projected to more than double by year 2050, with the average age becoming even younger. Thus we might reasonably conclude that the poor statistics for income, drug abuse, criminality, etc. can be expected to worsen. A frequent spokesperson for ethnic Hawaiians, Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, actually urges "her people" to try to double their population in only 20 years rather than 50 -- make lots of babies as fast as possible -- in order to become a majority of the state's total population as soon as possible and thereby gain political power. But of course that advice would make the bad statistics even worse. Furthermore, the rate of birth to young unmarried mothers is far higher among ethnic Hawaiians than among other ethnic groups; and we all know that children raised in fatherless homes or homes with stepfathers have far higher rates of criminal behavior than children raised in traditional families where both biological parents are present. To read the essay by Kame'eleihiwa and associated items, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/NatHawnPopulationBomb.html

The OHA report takes age into account only on a few topics; and then does so in a way that is not satisfactory. For example, from pages 28-29: "By examining the median age of first arrest, it is possible to see whether the range of ages at which people are arrested are skewed one way or another. The median age of first arrest for Native Hawaiian women is three years younger than the median age of first arrest for White women and for Native Hawaiian men, five years younger than White men. The difference is more pronounced compared to the median age of arrest of Chinese men and women: the median age of first arrest for Native Hawaiian men is eight years younger and for women, it is 12 years younger. Contact with the criminal justice system at a younger age, even if the difference is only a few years, may increase the chances that a person is likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system again in the future."

[Comment: But of course the median age for first arrest is younger for ethnic Hawaiian women than for women of other races, due to the fact that the median age of ethnic Hawaiians is 14 years less than the median age for other races!]

From page 66: "For any number of reasons that are beyond the scope of this report, Native Hawaiian families have the lowest mean income of all ethnic groups in the state. Additionally, Native Hawaiians in Hawai'i had the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line in 2000. Specifically, Native Hawaiians have a poverty rate of 12.2 percent, while non-Natives have a poverty rate of 8.6 percent in Hawai'i. Native Hawaiians are less likely than all other people in Hawai'i to be employed in management or professional positions, which tend to be higher paid. Native Hawaiians are more likely to have service-oriented jobs, which pay less than managerial positions."

[Comment: Note that there is zero discussion of age, but only data for a race as a whole. Read every sentence in that quote again, keeping in mind that the median age of ethnic Hawaiians is only 25 while the median age for everyone else is 39. Of course ethnic Hawaiians have lower median income, greater rate of poverty, and are less likely to be employed in managerial positions and more likely to be employed in service-oriented jobs (how about summer jobs at supermarkets or department stores in between attending community college part time while caring for two illegitimate babies?)]

===================

4. Percentage of native blood quantum must be taken into account in analyzing data alleging racial disparity. Someone who is only 1/8 Hawaiian should clearly not be counted as Hawaiian. An incarcerated criminal who is 1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Filipino, 1/8 Irish, and 1/8 Hawaiian would properly be counted as Chinese if outcomes are to be attributed to only one racial group. The best method would be to allocate fractional tally marks when attributing outcomes to racial groups. But nobody at OHA or any other racial-partisan institution bothers to collect or analyze racial data that way because the results would undoubtedly torpedo most of their racial grievance claims.

Perhaps 75% of all "Native Hawaiians" have more than 75% of their ancestry from Asia, Europe, and America. The actual percentages are probably not known, and might not be knowable. The number of Hawaiians with 50% or more native blood quantum SHOULD be knowable, because every such person is eligible to be placed on the waiting list for a Hawaiian Homestead lease under terms of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. The State of Hawai'i Department of Hawaiian Homelands maintains the list of those who have signed up, but has no way of knowing how many additional people who qualify simply do not know about the program or chose not to sign up.

When someone with 1/16 Hawaiian native blood quantum is accused of a crime, convicted, or incarcerated, the Hawaiian grievance industry chalks up one full tally mark. That's clearly wrong.

Any honest statistical analysis that claims to assign specific outcomes to specific racial groups should either assign those outcomes to the racial group with the highest percentage of blood quantum in that individual's ancestry, or else (much better!) allocate a fractional tally mark to each race equal to that person's fraction of blood quantum.

Such fractional allocation would also make it possible to show whether people with higher native blood quantum also have higher rates of criminality and incarceration than people with lower native blood quantum, thus providing evidence that being "Native Hawaiian" is highly correlated with (and might be a genetic cause of) such problems. Just imagine how many millions of dollars OHA could get from the federal and state governments, or philanthropic sources, to gather the data and perform the statistical analysis! What a wonderful guarantee of job security in the institutional bureaucracy!

Allocating tally marks in the way the Hawaiian grievance industry currently does it, by counting any smidgen of native blood quantum as a full tally mark for ethnic Hawaiians, and following that same policy for every racial group, we might find out (totally fictitious numbers, as an illustration to make a point) that 40% of incarcerated criminals are ethnic Hawaiian, 60% are ethnic Chinese (many Hawaiians are also Chinese; or is it the other way around?), 70% are ethnic Filipino (they are more recent immigrants and therefore less assimilated and more rowdy), 50% are ethnic Japanese, and 40% are ethnic Caucasian. And that 260% doesn't yet include the Koreans, Vietnamese, Tongan, Samoan, African, etc. The percentages total far more than 100% because so many people in Hawaii have so many races mixed in their ancestries.

Allocating one tally mark per person according to the single race that is the highest percentage in an individual's makeup would produce much tamer results, adding up to 100%.

Allocating fractional tally marks according to fractional blood quantum percentages would also add up to 100%, and would clearly be the most accurate way to attribute outcomes to racial groups.

Fractional allocation of outcomes is not only appropriate for race -- it should also be applied to cultural outcomes and cultural causes. It would be extremely difficult and politically controversial to develop a taxonomy of cultural behaviors. But such a taxonomy is necessary if any statistical analysis is desired to find correlations between race and culture (having the Hawaiian gene is correlated with or causes desire for poi or thievery), or between cultural upbringing and physical victimhood (working in the taro patch or eating poi causes or is correlated to addition to crystal methamphetamine).

If the claim is that being culturally Hawaiian (different from being racially Hawaiian) causes biological or social victimhood, then there must be a fractional allocation of tally marks to the various cultural groups based on which behaviors are to be counted as culturally Hawaiian (or Filipino etc.) and also based on what percentage of an individual's overall behavior is culturally Hawaiian (or Irish etc.).

====================

5. If the author of a so-called scientific report has a motive to tell falsehoods or skew the results, then the facts alleged in the report, and the conclusions, can be set aside as lacking credibility. In the case of OHA's report alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, OHA has strong motives to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims of unequal or unfair treatment in order to rouse political support for the Akaka bill now pending in Congress. OHA has especially strong motive to undermine an agreement between Governor Lingle and Hawaii's two Senators to amend the Akaka bill in such a way to deny the Akaka tribe immediate sovereign jurisdiction over the criminal justice system. Also, the Justice Policy Institute in Washington D.C., which helped write this report, has its own political motives which include dismantling America's punishment-oriented prison system.

In case anyone in Hawaii has been asleep throughout 2009 and 2010, here's a webpage providing summaries and full text of all significant news reports and commentaries regarding the Akaka bill during this period. Readers can see exactly when and how various versions of the bill were proposed, and what political skullduggery took place.
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaHist111thCong.html

The following paragraph from the Executive Summary of the OHA report clearly shows that a primary motive for producing this report is to support the Akaka bill, and to demand control of the criminal justice system, and to lay the basis for changing the way criminals are handled in "a new nation."

"As the U.S. Congress considers a bill which provides a process for Native Hawaiian self determination, there is an opportunity to create a new vision for the state of Hawai'i that takes into consideration current social challenges for Native Hawaiians. One such consideration is the enormous increase of incarceration in Hawai'i. This report includes ground-breaking, current, research and analysis, including the voices of Native Hawaiians, about the criminal justice system and the effect it has on their lives. It is with hope that decision makers will use the information to inform and develop policy and practice that will influence in building a new nation."

Note also the beautiful photos of taro throughout the executive summary and full report, and the use of the creation legend to assert a special spiritual relationship between ethnic Hawaiians and the lands of Hawaii which is not shared by other races (see topic #2 above).

At the end of his introductory remarks, OHA's CEO Clyde Namu'o reaffirms the importance of this report in relation to the idea that OHA is building a nation through the Akaka bill: "Native Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i, whether you are Native Hawaiian or non-Hawaiian, moving beyond Native political status, race or ethnicity, Hawai'i needs to implement effective and purposeful policies to address incarceration at its root core to building a vibrant, healthy nation."

The new criminal justice report is one more in a very long series of "studies" portraying ethnic Hawaiians as poor, downtrodden victims in need of massive race-based handouts from government and charities. During the past ten years the largest, most powerful of these studies and reports have been issued at times that were carefully chosen to coincide with crucial moments on the political calendar -- for example, when Congress is expected to take up the Akaka bill to create a phony Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians; or when the Hawaii Legislature is considering OHA's annual package of bills.

The current report on alleged abuse of ethnic Hawaiians by the criminal justice system comes at the beginning of Congress's October recess leading up to the November elections, after which the lame duck session is universally acknowledged as the last, best hope for passing the Akaka bill. No doubt this new report is being sent to members of the U.S. Senate to influence their opinions. In the (unlikely) event the Akaka bill actually comes to the floor for debate (instead of being handled through a rider or earmark or inclusion "by reference" in an appropriations bill), the report will probably be mentioned as proof of the need to give ethnic Hawaiians jurisdictional authority to have their own criminal justice system.

The question whether the Akaka bill should immediately confer full sovereignty and jurisdictional authority upon the Akaka tribe was a major controversy causing Governor Lingle to withdraw her support for the version of the bill which passed the House. To win back her support, OHA and Hawaii's two Senators agreed to offer an amended version of the bill that would make sovereignty and criminal jurisdiction subject to negotiation with the State. But now that Lingle has sent a letter to the Senate announcing her renewed support for (the anticipated amended version of) the bill, it seems quite possible that OHA and the Hawaii Senators would like to renege on their agreement and avoid the need to send an amended version back to the House or to a conference committee during a very crowded lame duck session. The newly issued report alleging abuses of ethnic Hawaiians by the criminal justice system is perfectly timed to make it seem reasonable for the Senate to ignore the agreement to amend the bill, and simply go ahead and pass the radical version that already passed the House.

For further analysis of what might happen during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress, including the possibility that the Lingle amendment will get lost in the shuffle, see: "Akaka bill maneuvers coming up from September through December 2010" at
http://tinyurl.com/2avo9kq

The previous last, best hope for passing the Akaka bill occurred from July through September 2005, when a few Republican leaders in the Senate who had been blocking the Akaka bill made an agreement to stop blocking it in return for Democrats stopping their blockage of some bills favored by the Republicans. A cloture motion on the Akaka bill (to stop the filibuster) was filed just before the August recess and was scheduled to be the first item of business when the Senate resumed in September. However, Hurricane Katrina blew it away until the following year, when the Republican leaders fulfilled their pledge to support cloture but cloture nevertheless failed and the bill died.

It was during that time in the Summer of 2005 when a 20-page extremely slick and glossy executive summary was issued in a press release calling attention to a promised 450-page book listing, describing, and basically celebrating the existence of hundreds of victimhood studies done over the years by the tycoons of the Native Hawaiian grievance industry. The 20-page executive summary was so slick -- and filled with photos of beautiful flowers with victimhood sentences written on the petals, beautiful men and women paddling canoes or dancing hula, etc. -- that its pdf file had a size of more than 11 megabytes and required about a half hour to download through the dialup internet service I had at that time. But it sure was pretty! The printed 20-page booklet was probably sent to all 100 U.S. Senators.

Unfortunately the 2005 executive summary is no longer available. Kamehameha Schools / Bishop Estate, whose "policy analysis" division had produced the booklet and had done many of the "studies" cited in the anticipated 450-page report, frequently changes its style of maintaining internet archives and hence the URLs for archived documents become "dead links." Any document on the KSBE or OHA websites is likely to be no longer available after a couple of years, or extremely hard to find. It seems that once the initial excitement and big political splash have subsided, they really don't want anyone to thoroughly investigate their findings or the data behind them. People wishing to investigate the current report on the criminal justice system should download the documents to their computers before they vanish from the OHA website. To see how things vanish at KSBE, try to find the slick 20-page executive summary of the 450-page celebration of victimhood studies (or even try to find the 450-page book!). Go to
http://www.ksbe.edu/pase/KaHuakai.php
Then click on the links offered for executive summary and/or PASE website. They no longer exist! Even the huge PASE division at KSBE no longer exists because it has gone to the witness protection program (changed its name!). But the bureaucrats still live there and keep churning out victimhood reports. I'll be happy to send the 11.2 megabyte 20-page pdf by e-mail attachment to anyone who writes me to request it, as long as you include in your request a waiver of liability for damaging your e-mail inbox. The actual 450-page book had not yet been published at the time the executive summary was pushed to the politicians; and I regret that I do not have a copy of it to send. But my impression is that it was not filled with 450 pages of data; rather it was probably filled with 450 pages of executive summaries of hundreds of previous "studies" of Native Hawaiian victimhood -- studies created by doing data-mining to selectively report whatever statistics could be found to bolster claims of Native Hawaiian suffering and victimhood, taken from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Institutes of Health, etc.

OHA's new report on alleged racial disparities in Hawaii's criminal justice system makes it clear repeatedly that OHA envisions an ethnic Hawaiian "nation" where "Hawaiian values" and "Hawaiian culture" will be the basis for the legal system in general and the criminal justice system in particular. OHA's vision is a Hawaiianized version of an entire theory of restorative justice and communal, collectivist, ethnic-based re-education and rehabilitation. OHA's partner in this new report, the Justice Policy Institute, endorses those concepts as its main approach to dismantling America's punishment-focused criminal justice system.

First let's look at the restorative justice concepts in OHA's new report; then we'll look at the titles of similar reports recently produced or co-authored by the Justice Policy Institute.

From page 73 of OHA's full report:

"1. Honoring the Sacred, Forgiveness, and Successful Entry Back "Making Native Hawaiian culture central to the reentry process is important to Native Hawaiians coming out of prison. Building on cultural pride and positive identity construction could help Native Hawaiians return to communities. Research by A. Aukahi Austin regarding ethnic pride and resiliency as related to substance use and violent behavior shows that ethnic pride serves as a protective or even preventative factor against violence and encourages resiliency after a violent experience.217 One participant explains that valuing and holding sacred Native Hawaiian culture could help Native Hawaiians stay out of the criminal justice system.

"Sacredness is the root of a lot of my beliefs to rehabilitation approaches, the sacredness that comes through our culture. Through teaching about cultural practices, we introduce an understanding of the sacredness that automatically brings out a level of respect. The more sacredness we give pa'ahao through culture, the more we are teaching them to be pono [morale, ethical, righteous].

"(Community Advocate/Volunteer)
"Another participant explains that the principle of the pu'uhonua, a city of refuge or sanctuary, could be applied to the criminal justice system. When a person emerges from the system, they are forgiven and they can return to the community without the continued burden of the criminal justice system. This idea is particularly important as it pertains to the restrictions placed on formerly incarcerated people regarding jobs, education, and housing."

From page 74:

"2. Kuleana (Responsibility within the context of the collective)
"Kuleana, or responsibility to the greater good, is another cultural strength that is central to the process of helping Native Hawaiians either stay out of the criminal justice system or return to communities after prison. According to survey research from Kamehameha Schools and a Hawai'i Community Survey, Native Hawaiians have strong ties to their communities and are involved in community service. Fifty-one percent of Native Hawaiians participate in community organizations, with 48.7 percent taking leadership roles when they are involved in the community.218 Participants in this project confirmed the importance of kuleana, as well.

"3. Pili, Close Relations, and Feeding with Learning
"Native Hawaiian culture draws strength from community and family building, as well as communication. For example, the process of ho'oponopono, which is a ritualized process of "setting to right; to make right; to restore and maintain good relationships among family and family-and-supernatural powers," was once practiced daily. Ho'oponopono involved prayer with family and a discussion of problems and resolutions. The values associated with ho'oponopono are love and affection (aloha); unity, agreement, and harmony (lökahi); and family and community ('ohana).219 It is a sacred, culturally valuable process that draws on family and community for support and healing. Participants in this project talked about meeting people where they are in their lives and learning together to resolve problems.

OHA's partner in this report, the Justice Policy Institute, has its webpage at
http://www.justicepolicy.org/

On that webpage it can be seen that JPI produced a very similar report in July of 2010: "A Capitol Concern: The disproportionate impact of the justice system on low-Income communities in D.C." That report has a style closely similar to OHA's report, including the use of photos which are irrelevant to the subject matter (but not nearly as many as in the OHA report).

Another similar report by JPI on June 8, 2010: "Baltimore Behind Bars: How to Reduce the Jail Population, Save Money and Improve Public Safety."

And on June 2, 2010 JPI published "For Immediate Release: How to Safely Reduce Prison Populations and Support People Returning to Their Communities"

JPI is clearly on a roll, raking in money for producing similar reports, all of which are hostile to prisons and to punishment of criminals. That attitude is displayed in the title of its report on February 17, 2010: "Fact Sheet on The Obama Administration's 2011 Budget: More Policing, Prisons, and Punitive Policies."

===============

6. If a witness in court -- even an expert witness -- says something false about one topic, then it is reasonable to doubt his credibility on other topics. This OHA report makes false and misleading statements about Hawaii's history, which ordinary people can verify are wrong. Also, the historical content is presented in a chaotic narrative which scrambles the chronology. Therefore even people lacking expertise in scientific knowledge and statistical methodology are justified in doubting what OHA's report says about technical issues, and we can wonder whether the gathering and analysis of data was as chaotic as the chronology in the history section. Some wrong statements about Hawaii's history contained in this report will be described, and proof will be provided that they are wrong.

Below are some of the most egregious false or twisted statements about Hawaii's history found in the OHA report. There is a lot of very inaccurate history in this report. But the statements below are singled out because they are especially inciting to racial hatred and hatred of America, and many of them are provably false. It must also be emphasized that neither this report nor any other "study" has proved that events from more than a century ago are actual causes of any currently alleged disparate outcomes for health or criminal justice. This litany of historical grievances simply has no place in a report that claims to be scientifically rigorous. The fact that these statements are in the report shows that the report has the purpose of inflaming passions and spurring political activism rather than analyzing scientifically verifiable claims. And the fact that these statements are false justifies the reader in dismissing other allegations in the report as likely to be false, in the same way as a juror is instructed that he has the right to disregard the entire testimony of a witness who has been proved to have told lies in portions of it.

All these statements are found on page 23 of the full report, and they are listed and rebutted in the same order that they appear on that page. It's surprising how disjointed the narrative is, with dates jumping back and forth so that readers are led to believe that certain things things are caused by other things when in fact they are not.

OHA: "The imprisonment of Queen Lili'uokalani in January 1895, marked the culmination of a hundred years of western imposition in Hawai'i."

Conklin: It was not imposition. In 1778 Captain Cook was welcomed as a god. In 1820 the first missionaries brought with them 4 natives, including the crown prince of Kaua'i, in response to being invited by a group of natives who were studying Christianity at Yale divinity school. In the 1840s King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, of his own free will, appointed missionary advisors to high government offices and proclaimed a Constitution saying that all people are of one blood.

OHA: "The Queen's wrongful imprisonment is one manifestation of a long genealogy of adverse affects of Western law on Native Hawaiians."

Conklin: Ex-queen Lili'uokalani's imprisonment was entirely justified, and was very mild punishment for her crime. She had conspired in the Wilcox attempted counterrevolution of January 1895, in which men were killed. She was an accomplice before the fact, allowing guns and bombs to be stashed in the flower bed of her personal home (Washington Place). Although she claimed to know nothing about that, the facts show otherwise. When the inside of Washington Place was searched, documents were found bearing her signature in which she appointed the cabinet ministers and department heads for the new government she expected to be created after Wilcox succeeded. People are put to death for treason. Also consider the fates of the Russian Tsar and his family after the Russian revolution, and the French nobility after the French revolution.

OHA: "... the dispossession of land in the 1848 Mahele, ..."

Conklin: The Mahele was proclaimed by the full-blooded native King exercising sovereignty on behalf of his people. He was in charge and he made his decision. Nearly all the land was given to natives. Some sold their land, which was their own decision.

OHA: "and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893."

Conklin: Every revolution is by definition illegal. Some revolutions have outside help, but that does not make them illegal. Was the American revolution illegal because the French provided enormous amounts of help without which the revolution could not have succeeded? In fact the 162 U.S. peacekeepers did not take over any Hawaiian Kingdom buildings, did not patrol the streets, and did not give any assistance to the revolutionary forces. See the report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs from February 1894 containing 808 pages of testimony under oath in open session with strong cross-examination:
http://morganreport.org
Within the first two days after the revolution every local consul of the nations having diplomatic relations with the Kingdom gave de facto recognition to the revolutionary Provisional Government; and in Summer/Fall of 1895 the Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of all those nations personally signed letters giving full-fledged diplomatic recognition de jure to the permanent successor Republic of Hawaii as the rightful government. Those letters can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/4wtwdz

OHA: "Queen Lili'uokalani's first official political act was to promulgate a new constitution to replace the 1887 Bayonet Constitution forced upon her predecessor that removed the power of the sovereign and put it in the legislature."

Conklin: That is totally false. Lili'uokalani's ATTEMPT to proclaim a new Constitution was her LAST political act after more than a year as Queen, it was not her first official act. Her attempt to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution of 1887 which her brother Kalakaua had signed was illegal, and was the direct cause of the revolution which finally put an end to a corrupt and ineffective monarchy.

OHA: "... The transitions of the new laws moved Hawai'i away from the kapu (sacred laws) system towards Christian laws and ideals. The new laws shifted and affected the daily lives of the maka'ainana by punishing common behaviors such as sexual activity, 'awa and hula."

Conklin: The ancient kapu system included human sacrifice and the death penalty for any woman who ate bananas or coconuts. The kapu system was ended by order of native King Liholiho Kamehameha II, native Queen Ka'ahumanu, and native High Priest Hewahewa, in 1819, for their own reasons, the year BEFORE the Christian missionaries arrived. All laws before 1840 were proclaimed unilaterally by full-blooded native Kings. All laws after 1840 were enacted by a legislature where most of the members were natives, and were signed by both the King (who was full-blooded native) and the Kuhina Nui (also full-blooded native). In America until quite recently common sexual behaviors such as homosexuality or adultery were punished; and the eating, drinking, or smoking of certain drugs remain illegal until this day.

OHA: "Beginning around 1850, Hawai'i entered another transition that moved towards a legal system. The transition of the new legal system transferred the power from the Ali'i and the gods to a legislative form of government. The legislature was made up largely by American businessmen who were driven by capitalism and their personal political interests rather than the welfare of the nation."

Conklin: Caucasians, or American businessmen, NEVER were a majority of the Kingdom Legislature. From time to time throughout the Kingdom somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the Legislature, both Nobles and Representatives, were Caucasians either appointed by the King or elected by the people. For lists of the names of Nobles and Representatives at various times throughout the Kingdom, see Professor Jon Osorio's book "Dismembering Lahui."

OHA: [The following quote is placed here to illustrate the disjointedness of this report's history lesson and the conflation of earlier and later events] "The legislative majority staunchly supported sugar industry which; further disempowered the Hawaiian people as their land was used for business and economic gain. In order to establish and support a thriving sugar plantation system, the missionaries placed American laws and legal systems to protect private property, education, religious values and the conceptions of marriage. It was after these transitions that Queen Lili'uokalani was arrested for treason on January 16, 1895, and imprisoned in her palace. A group of Western businessmen, supported by the United States overthrew the Hawai'i government in 1893 and proclaimed a provisional government. Queen Lili'uokalani made several attempts to negotiate with the United States to return Hawai'i's sovereignty. In September of that year, Queen Lili'uokalani was released from imprisonment."

Conklin: WOW!! This whole quote is hopelessly mixed up and filled with falsehoods. The arrest and imprisonment of Lili'uokalani in January 1895 was for treason (see discussion of this point above) and had nothing to do with the sugar plantations or the missionaries -- there had been no missionaries for several decades by that time. It is true that two successive representatives of U.S. President Grover Cleveland had tried to broker a deal to put Lili'uokalani back on the throne if she would agree to grant clemency to the revolutionaries; but her insistence on bloodthirsty revenge caused the U.S. representative to back off and not even make the offer to Provisional Government President Sanford Dole. There were never negotiations whereby the U.S. would return sovereignty to Liliuokalani, because the U.S. did not have sovereignty in Hawaii. The Provisional Government was not a U.S. puppet regime. In December 1893 the U.S. representative wrote a letter to Provisional Government President Sanford Dole ordering Dole to step down and restore the Queen, but he refused and reminded the U.S. representative that the U.S. had no authority to order the President of a sovereign nation to do anything. The closing sentence of the quote is totally out of place chronologically. "In September of that year, Queen Lili'uokalani was released from imprisonment" The year when that happened was 1895, not 1893. Lili'uokalani's imprisonment did not happen until 1895, two full years after the revolution and 21 months after the last U.S. peacekeeper had left Hawaiian soil. For the facts about the very hostile relationship between the U.S. and Hawaii's Provisional Government, see:
Letter of December 19, 1893 from United States to President Dole, Demanding That Lili'uokalani Be Restored to the Throne
http://tinyurl.com/6zlct
Hawai'i President Sanford B. Dole, Letter of December 23, 1893 Refusing United States Demand to Restore Ex-Queen Lili'uokalani to the Throne
http://tinyurl.com/8y6jo
The Rest of The Rest of The Story
http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Rest_of_The_Rest_of_The_Story

==================

7. Are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in health, economics, and the criminal justice system found only in Hawaii? A recent study shows that ethnic Hawaiians living in California are doing better than the average of all Californians. Why are Hawaiians thriving in California but not in Hawaii, despite the fact (or is it because of the fact?) that Hawaii provides a plethora of racial entitlement programs not available to them in California?

Recent Census data from other states show that "Native Hawaiians" in those states are actually doing better than average for the populations of those states. This is stunning news. Why do ethnic Hawaiians outside Hawaii do spectacularly better than ethnic Hawaiians inside Hawaii? It seems clear that no good has resulted from the large number of race-based handouts given over a period of many years by the State of Hawaii -- handouts given only to those ethnic Hawaiians who live in Hawaii. A logical conclusion is that ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii have actually been harmed by the race-based welfare programs. Perhaps the harm is caused because many ethnic Hawaiians get handouts which make it unnecessary for them to struggle for success like everyone else -- they are robbed of motivation, knowing their basic needs will be met by government handouts even if they do nothing to earn a living. Of course there are many ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii who work hard. There are many who earn or inherit great wealth, and can easily pay for the best quality of housing, healthcare, and education. But at the lower end of the scale ethnic Hawaiians can do in Hawaii what they cannot do in other states, and what other ethnic groups cannot do in Hawaii -- kick back; enjoy a heavily subsidized lifestyle with low but acceptable income, healthcare, and housing; and spend their time complaining about historical grievances while agitating for even more handouts.

Following is the complete text of an article published by Jere Krischell in Hawaii Reporter newspaper (online) on January 11, 2007. The article cites U.S. Census data gathered in 2005 for ethnic Hawaiians living in California, the state with the largest population of ethnic Hawaiians (65,000) outside Hawaii (about 250,000).

It's worth wondering whether ethnic Hawaiians in other states -- especially California -- suffer disparate treatment by the judiciary and the criminal justice system. OHA should sponsor a study!

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/census-native-hawaiians-do-better-when-treated-equally
Hawaii Reporter, January 11, 2007

Census: Native Hawaiians Do Better When Treated Equally

By Jere Krischel

The 2005 American Community Survey for California, recently released by the U.S. Census Bureau, confirms Native Hawaiians' ability to prosper without special government programs. The estimated 65,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California, with no Office of Hawaiian Affairs or Hawaiian Homes or other such race-based entitlements, enjoyed higher median household ($55,610) and family ($62,019) incomes, relative to the total California population ($53,629 and $61,476 respectively) despite having smaller median household and family sizes.

California is particularly appropriate for comparing earning power, because California has the greatest Native Hawaiian population outside of Hawaii; and it happens that the median age of Native Hawaiians residing in California (33.7 years) is almost identical to that of the general population of California (33.4 years).

The fact that Native Hawaiians are quite capable of making it on their own was suggested by Census 2000 which showed the then-60,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California enjoyed comparable relative median household and family incomes despite their 5 year younger median age. California a fluke?

Some may argue that the Native Hawaiian statistics in other states represent an out-migration of well-to-do Native Hawaiians. The idea of large swaths of rich Native Hawaiians leaving paradise for the mainland seems counter intuitive, but for argument's sake, let's consider it.

If in fact all the rich Native Hawaiians are leaving the state of Hawaii, let's say because of onerous taxes or the lack of fine avocados, the lower statistics of those Native Hawaiians who have stayed in Hawai'i are simply an artifact of the well-off moving away, and not due to any systemic bias against Native Hawaiians. Removing the rich from our calculations hasn't made anyone poorer, but will obviously lower the group average.

It is much more likely that those Native Hawaiians who have chosen to leave the state did so for economic reasons, and their significant success outside of the state reflects poorly on the race-based programs only implemented in the Islands.

Media Misrepresentation

Oblivious to the respectable earnings of Native Hawaiians, some media in Hawaii have cited the 2005 ACS as showing "Poverty still grips Hawaiians" and "Census survey shows need for assistance to Hawaiians." But the 2005 ACS sample survey for Hawaii shows Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, who average only 24.6 years of age, enjoy median family income of $56,449; and 55% of them occupy homes they own. Hispanics in Hawaii, in comparison, average 24.2 years of age, have a median family income of $54,803 and only 46.2% of them occupy homes they own. If anything, if one were looking for an ethnic group in Hawaii that was needy, the census data might suggest Hispanics. But nobody is anywhere near suggesting race-based programs for Hispanics in Hawaii - that "honor" is reserved for Native Hawaiians alone, and the census data has been carefully selected and misrepresented to fit that political point of view.

Could it Be Age?

The sample chosen in Hawaii for the ACS 2005 survey showed a 14 years difference in the median age for Native Hawaiians living there. Age makes a huge difference in earning power. For example, the Census 2000 data shows Hawaiians 35 to 44 years had over $9 thousand greater household income than Hawaiians ten years younger. This more than erases the difference reported of less than $6-8 thousand between Native Hawaiians and the total population of Hawaii.

The Ulterior Motive Becomes Apparent

Now with this backdrop of improved Native Hawaiian prosperity when treated equally, and a clearer understanding of the effects median age can have on income statistics, imagine how surprised we all are to learn of the shocking information discovered by the Honolulu Advertiser and Jim Dooley, "OHA push for Akaka bill topped $2M". (Adv. 11/27/06.) Well over $2 million of taxpayer money spent to lobby for a bill to break apart the State of Hawaii and give away much, perhaps all, of the state and its governing power & jurisdiction to a brand new sovereign nation of, by and for Native Hawaiians. The Akaka Bill got started when once well-intentioned race-based programs were challenged in Hawaii - programs that have existed for decades, and have apparently done a great disservice to the overall health, wealth and well-being of Native Hawaiians when compared to their counterparts in other states without such race-based entitlements. In addition to the millions for lobbying to break up the State with the Akaka Bill, the bloated (and very powerful) bureaucracies of OHA and HHCA have cost the State of Hawaii over $1 billion just since 1990. Federal entitlements for Native Hawaiians have added over $1 billion more.

By continuing to paint Native Hawaiians as a special victim class, through willful misrepresentation of the data, supporters of race-based entitlements preserve their rationale at the expense of truth.

The Future

There is no doubt that there are people in need in Hawaii - but these people are of all races and backgrounds. We neglect too many of those in need when we target our help only to a certain ethnicity, and do more damage than good to the ethnicity we target. Race is an illusion, compelling yet meaningless - and a closer look at the statistics used to promote that illusion shows us clearly that no Hawaiians, of any race or ethnicity, have a need for the Akaka Bill.

Jere Krischel was born and raised in Hawai'i and now resides in California with his wife and two young children. He also is a member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

** Note by Ken Conklin in October 2010:

The Akaka bill proudly says there are over 150 federally funded programs racially exclusive for ethnic Hawaiians. In addition there's Kamehameha Schools which admits only ethnic Hawaiians, with a valuation of perhaps $8-15 Billion, and the state government Office of Hawaiian Affairs with perhaps $400 Million in the bank.

But there are hundreds of additional racially exclusive handout programs from the state government and private groups. The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has created a webpage listing the programs with their purposes and funding levels.
http://4hawaiiansonly.com/
As of September 10th 753 grants totaling approximately $265,140,393 had been listed. The list can be downloaded by clicking here:
http://4hawaiiansonly.com/Docs/4%20Hawaiians%20Only%20Grant%20List%20v7.xls

==================

NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES ABOUT OHA'S REPORT, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100929_Justice_eludes_Hawaiians_OHA_study_says.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 29, 2010

Justice eludes Hawaiians, OHA study says

By Gordon Y.K. Pang

Native Hawaiians are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system in Hawaii, according to a report released yesterday by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The study featured statistics showing that the percentage of native Hawaiians incarcerated is significantly higher than the percentage of Hawaiians in the general population and that native Hawaiians are more likely to get prison sentences, and longer prison sentences, than other ethnic groups.

OHA officials called the report groundbreaking because it uses numbers to show native Hawaiians are being treated disparately.

OHA Administrator Clyde Namuo said the study found that the justice system's inequity to native Hawaiians "accumulates at each step along the way, from arrest to incarceration, to release on parole."

In 2008 about 25 percent of all arrested in Hawaii were identified as native Hawaiian, which is about the same as the 24 percent of the state's general population that identifies itself as native Hawaiians.

However, Namuo said, citing the study:

» Native Hawaiians make up 39 percent of those incarcerated by the state criminal justice system, significantly more than 24 percent of the state's general population.

» Native Hawaiians also are more likely than all groups, except American Indians, to be incarcerated once found guilty of a crime in Hawaii, the study showed.

» Native Hawaiians receive longer prison sentences than most other racial or ethnic groups.

» Native Hawaiians are sentenced to longer probation terms than most other racial or ethnic groups, except for Hispanics.

The report drew mixed responses.

Marsha Kitagawa, Judiciary spokeswoman, said, "The Judiciary looks forward to reviewing the report and will respond as necessary and appropriate."

Max Otani, administrator for the Hawaii Paroling Authority, said he found the results surprising and does not believe there is discrimination against native Hawaiians or any other group in the paroling process. "It's not like we profile people or target a certain ethnic group," he said.

Attorney Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman, president of the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, said the study brings out what he has seen as a criminal defense attorney for native Hawaiian defendants for 17 years. "It's really about time that we have all this documented so that we can make the substantial improvements that we need to address this disparate treatment of native Hawaiians," he said. "This has got to come to an end."

But attorney H. William Burgess, who has filed lawsuits opposing Hawaiians-only funding for OHA, said he saw no evidence in the study of systematic discrimination against native Hawaiians. "The mere fact that there is a disproportionate representation or a disparate impact on one group or another doesn't indicate that there's racial discrimination," he said.

Ron Becker, a criminal justice professor at Chaminade University and a one-time judge, said socioeconomic factors weigh greatly when deciding sentencing and parole.

"These numbers have more to do with their socioeconomic circumstances than their race, although people of color make up a larger percentage of our lower socioeconomic class of people," he said. "As a judge it's difficult to put on probation someone who has no permanent residence, no permanent employment, no continuing relationships with anyone in the community."

Namuo said OHA will ask the Legislature to establish a task force to address the disparities and reform the justice system.

OHA staff conducted the study. Through a $181,440 legislative appropriation, it received assistance from the University of Hawaii Department of Urban and Regional Planning, the UH Richardson School of Law, the UH School of Social Work and Qualitative Research, the Justice Policy Institute and Georgetown University.

------------------

** Letter to editor submitted by Ken Conklin but rejected

Hawaiian incarceration rate due to youth, not discrimination

Your September 29 article "Justice eludes Hawaiians" actually eludes important facts.

Why do ethnic Hawaiians have higher rates of incarceration, and longer sentences, than other ethnic groups? Not because they're bad people. Not because the judiciary discriminates against them. It's because they're enormously younger than the rest of Hawaii's people.

In the last decennial census, ethnic Hawaiians' median age was only 25, while everyone else's was 39. Younger people make less money, and use more illegal drugs. Younger people commit far more crimes, with much greater violence, than older people. No surprise they go to jail more often, with longer sentences, than older people.

Also, most "Hawaiians" have most of their ancestry being other than Hawaiian. If someone with 1/8 native blood goes to jail, then only 1/8 of a tally mark should be given to Hawaiian incarceration when calculating racial data.

Hawaii's racial entitlements empire needs the Akaka bill for protection. That's why OHA and this newspaper kowtow to the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry portraying poor downtrodden Hawaiians as victims of injustice.

----------------

http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/letters/20101001_Letters_to_the_Editor.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 1, 2010

OHA study not fair to Hawaiians

That any person in the criminal justice system with even a single drop of native Hawaiian blood would be considered a native Hawaiian for study purposes can lead to sought-after, but erroneous, conclusions ("Justice eludes Hawaiians, OHA study says," Star-Advertiser, Sept. 29).

The real story is that native Hawaiians have achieved the highest distinctions the state and country can give. Native Hawaiians have served in the U.S. Senate, the Legislature, the governorship, the state Supreme Court and in top positions in the Army and Navy.

Some of Hawaii's wealthiest citizens and distinguished members of the community are native Hawaiians. To continually dwell on those who would be criminals in any society, including the Kingdom of Hawaii, does a disservice to those who have had great achievements. Imua.

Garry P. Smith
Ewa Beach

-----------------

http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20101002_economics_at_root_of_bias.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 2, 2010

EDITORIAL

Economics at root of 'bias'

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is calling for changes in the state's justice system to assure fair treatment of native Hawaiians, but more can be done outside than within court and prison walls. A three-year study by OHA confirms that Hawaiians fare badly in courts and prisons, but is less than convincing in suggesting removal of "racial disparities" from the justice system.

The report's statistics show that the arrest rate of native Hawaiians is similar to the 24 percent of the general population, but their incarceration rate is close to 40 percent of those imprisoned. The reasons are less than clear, even when made in the report beside numerous anecdotal assertions of unnamed former prisoners and others.

The Hawaii court system's inequity to Hawaiians "accumulates at each step along the way, from arrest to incarceration, to release on parole," said OHA Administrator Clyde Namuo, former deputy administrator of the court system.

The report calls for reducing arrests related to "quality of life offenses" such as homelessness, releasing more defendants prior to trial, shortening probations and using alternatives to incarceration to connect with families, communities, education and other supportive factors.

Most of the reason for the high incarceration rate is economic, a reflection of native Hawaiians' lowest mean income of all ethnicities in the state. The report says defendants who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer are assigned public defenders, who "are overburdened and underresourced with higher caseloads than private attorneys." They are called "public pretenders" by former native Hawaiian prisoners quoted in bold type in the report.

The report attempts to put too much blame on institutional racism, which is overly simplistic. Indeed, socio-economic factors strongly come to bear in who commits crimes, why crimes are perpetuated and in treatment through the court system. But rather than a singular focus on problems within the penal system for native Hawaiians, OHA and others should be looking just as avidly at the roots of the problem: how to improve socio-economic conditions of susceptible families and youth to avoid prison.

The report also says native Hawaiians convicted of crimes have reason to be concerned about the Hawaii Paroling Authority's broad discretion in deciding on minimum prison sentences far beyond the offender's expectations.

"It's the luck of the draw," a former prisoner says in bold type.

The difficulty of dispensing equal justice is painfully evident; even judicial leanings toward leniency might be blocked by economic factors.

"As a judge, it's difficult to put on probation someone who has no permanent residence, no permanent employment, no continuing relationships with anyone in the community," former Judge Ron Becker, a criminal justice professor at Chaminade University, told the Star-Advertiser.

The complexities of incarceration of native Hawaiians, certainly, reach beyond prison walls. Dealing with those factors would be most workable and fruitful in the community, workplace or household prior to the crime.

------------------

http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/letters/20101005_Letters_to_the_Editor.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 5, 2010

Race classifications in study were based on self-reporting

Thank you for your coverage of the study released by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on disproportionate representation of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system. Your article on Wednesday provided a fair assessment of what is known and what is not known.

However, the letter ("OHA study not fair to Hawaiians," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Oct. 1) is based on an erroneous premise. As was explained in the report (of which I was one of the analysts), the analysis made no assumption of "a single drop of Hawaiian blood" criteria. Instead, it relied on self-reports of race and ethnicity of accused perpetrators.

In order to elevate the debate on such sensitive issues, it is important that your readers and the general public take the time to hear opposing views rather than use them as opportunities to voice their preconceptions. In public debate we should aspire to what we hope for within the legal system.

Jim Spencer
Associate professor, urban planning University of Hawaii-Manoa

** Note from Ken Conklin: This letter from Professor Spencer was highlighted in a colored box in the physical newspaper to call reader attention to it.

-------------------

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs publishes a monthly newspaper. The edition for October 2010 finally became available on OHA's website on October 5. Two pages were devoted to a description of the report on racial disparities, including a beautiful glossy cartoon of a faceless man behind multicolored prison bars with data categories and percentages written on each bar. The article also includes photos of some of the people who created the report. The article says OHA will be proposing legislation on the topic in the upcoming session of the 2011 Legislature. The entire October edition of the newspaper can be downloaded at
http://www.oha.org/kwo/2010/10/KWO1010.pdf
The article on the disparities study is on pages 4 and 5, with an introduction on page 3 by OHA CEO Clyde Namu'o.

------------------------

** During the 2011 session of the state Legislature, a bill SB986 was introduced: Establishes a nine-member task force to formulate policies and procedures to eliminate the disproportionate representation of Native Hawaiians in Hawaii's criminal justice system. Requires report to the 2013 legislature. Sunsets task force August 1, 2013. The bill SB986 SD2 HD3 CD1 passed after numerous amendments, and was signed by Governor Abercrombie on June 27, 2011 as Act 170. Full details of the bill's progress through the legislature, including testimony and committee reports, is at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=986&year=2011

** Notable in the testimony was this opposition to the bill from the Prosecutor for the City and County of Honolulu, who disputed the allegation of disparate treatment. He pointed out that the OHA study failed to take into account the history of prior criminal behavior by ethnic Hawaians, especially in the area of drug abuse. He noted that the fact that the is disproportionate representation of ethnic Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, and disproportionate severity of sentencing, does not mean there was disproportionate treatment [because the history of repeated offenses would justify more frequent arrests and harsher sentencing].

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/testimony/SB986_SD1_TESTIMONY_WAM_02-25-11.pdf

** Testimony from the Honolulu prosecutor:

Although the study compiled a wide array of statistics and other information, there was ultimately no basis to conolude that there is disparate treatment of people-from any ethnic background-in Hawaii's criminal justice system. In particular, this study neglected to incorporate two of the most important factors considered for purposes of sentencing within the criminal justice system: criminal history and specific facts of the case. Aside from one (1) national juvenile court analyses discussed on page 68, none of the other analyses discussed in this study controlled for the criminal histories of any of the perpetrators, and none of the analyses-including the national juvenile court analyses reviewed the specific facts or severity of circumstances for each individual crime committed.

Thus, even if we accept the study's findings that there is disproportionate representation of Native Hawaiian people within the criminal justice system, disproportionate representation is not tantamount to disparate treatment.

We feel that a number of other factors may contribute to the disproportionate representation indicated by the study, aside from anything in the criminal justice system. Statistics kept by our Victim Witness Kokua Services Division suggest that Native Hawaiian may also be the second (or first) most prevalent ethnicity among our crime victims, with 22% of all crime victims identifying themselves as Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian. Such disproportionate representation among victims is also of great concern to us. Because the study referenced in S.B. 986, S.D. 1 was unable to draw a clear connection to indicate any disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, the Department strongly believes that it would be very premature, or perhaps even misguided, to formulate a task force to "fix" a system that may not even be "broken" in the manner put forth. In a prior hearing on this bill, there were comments that many people are currently in prison for drug offenses, as these types of convictions often come with mandatory sentencing. Should OHA or any other organization see fit to establish a drug treatment center that caters specifically to Native Hawaiians drug offenders, thereby placing them into treatment and diverting them from the criminal justice system, our Department would certainly be willing to work with that program and dismiss any pending criminal charges as appropriate. For all of these reasons, the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu opposes S.B. 986, S.D. 1. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

** Nevertheless, the bill was passed and signed by the Governor.

Pursuant to that bill, a two-day public hearing was held in the state Legislature's auditorium on Thursday and Friday, June 7 and 8, 2012. Here is the media release from OHA dated June 6 announcing the forum:

------------

MEDIA ADVISORY
JUNE 6, 2012

Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force Summit to be held WHAT: Two-day summit hosted by the 2012 Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force

WHO:

Judge Michael Broderick (retired), Task Force Chair, CEO of YMCA Honolulu
Kamanaʻopono Crabbe, CEO, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Hon. Richard K. Perkins, First Circuit Court Judge
Paul Perrone, Chief of Research & Statistics, Department of Attorney General
Jack Tonaki, Public Defender, State of Hawaiʻi
Tricia Nakamatsu, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City & County of Honolulu
Cheryl Marlow, Administrator, Adult Client Services Branch
Rae Deen Karasuda, Senior Research Associate, Kamehameha Schools
Martha Torney, Deputy Director for Administration, Department of Public Safety

WHEN: Thursday, June 7 & Friday, June 8, 2012 8 am to 4:30 pm.

WHERE: Hawaiʻi State Capitol – Auditorium
415 S. Beretania St., Honolulu, HI. 96813

DETAILS: In direct response to concerns about the disproportionate number of Native Hawaiians who are in prison in Hawai'i and the U.S. mainland, members of a newly-created task force are using their collective reach and access to engage policymakers in the issue, build public awareness and identify and support comprehensive solutions .

###
Media Contact: Harold Nedd Public Relations Specialist Phone: (808)
594-1937
Email: Haroldn@oha.org

-------------

** The following rebuttal news release was sent out by Ken Conklin, also on June 6:

MEDIA ADVISORY
JUNE 6, 2012

RE: ALLEGED RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HAWAII CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

In 2010 OHA issued a report entitled "The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System."

On Wednesday June 6, 2012 OHA announced a forum on that topic scheduled for all day long on Thursday and Friday at the state capitol auditorium.

Your attention is directed to a major webpage providing detailed rebuttal to the points likely to be raised in the forum. News media are welcome to quote from that webpage, or from the SIX SUMMARY POINTS BELOW, attributing the quotes to Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. and citing the webpage URL:
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja

Telephone availability Thursday and Friday, 8-10 AM: 247-7942

1. HUGE AGE DISPARITY EXPLAINS ALLEGED DISPARITY IN NATURE AND SEVERITY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians (allegedly) have higher rates of arrest and incarceration, and longer jail sentences and probation, than criminals of other races. In Census 2000 the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39 (Census 2010 shows a similar age disparity). Criminal behaviors -- especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences -- are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age. It fails to compare outcomes for racial groups within specific 5-year age groups.

2. WHO GETS COUNTED AS NATIVE NAWAIIAN? Nearly everyone who has Hawaiian native blood also has other races in his genealogy. Most so-called "Hawaiians" have most of their ancestry from other races. But this study, and others alleging disparities regarding other matters such as health and income, count anyone with even a small fraction of Hawaiian blood as a full "tally mark" for "Native Hawaiian" in the statistics while failing to record any tally mark for the other racial components (which are usually a much larger percentage) of that person's ancestry. Other racial groups are not counted in this manner; thus the data are badly skewed.

3. SECRET PROCESS WITH NO PEER REVIEW. The data in the OHA study were collected and analyzed in secret, by OHA personnel and OHA hirelings, and then destroyed; making peer review impossible. Such a process is more conducive to propaganda than to scientific analysis.

4. PROPAGANDA VS. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS. Slick, artistically composed pages show that the purpose of the report is political propaganda rather than scientific scrutiny. Emotional appeals are made to a creation legend from the ancient Hawaiian religion. The report is filled with artistic photos of taro patches (because taro plays a key role in that creation legend).

5. PROVABLE FALSEHOODS ON SOME TOPICS IN THE REPORT GIVE GROUNDS FOR DOUBTING THE STATEMENTS MADE ON OTHER TOPICS. Judges instruct juries that if a witness in court -- even an expert witness -- has a motive for lying, or says something false about one topic, then it is reasonable to doubt his credibility on other topics. There are many falsehoods in this report. Furthermore, OHA has the motive to demand public sympathy and reparations for alleged historical grievances, and to create propaganda to support the Act 195 tribe in Hawaii and the Akaka bill in Congress.

6. NATIVE HAWAIIANS LIVING IN CALIFORNIA HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES THAN THE AVERAGE FOR CALIFORNIA. Should we imagine that somehow Hawaiians are treated more poorly in Hawaii, where they are a large minority, than in California where they are a relatively very small minority?

For detailed analysis and evidence on these points (although in a different order), see
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja

###
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744
tel/fax (808) 247-7942
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

-----------

** Perhaps because of the rebuttal media release, only one newspaper or TV station reported on the two-day OHA-sponsored forum:

http://thegardenisland.com/news/state-and-regional/native-hawaiian-justice-task-force-to-meet/article_e56686cb-ebc0-5707-8a39-17aeb7f3b3d8.html
The Garden Island, June 7, 2012

Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force to meet

HONOLULU (AP) — The Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force is gathering information on why Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented among the state's prison population.

The task force hopes to find solutions to the problem, and will put information it gathers into a report for the state Legislature.

The panel will hear from social workers, politicians, lawyers, prosecutors and others at the state Capitol on Thursday and Friday.

The Legislature directed a task force be created after an Office of Hawaiian Affairs report showed Native Hawaiians are sentenced to more days in prison than people of other groups.

Retired Judge and YMCA Honolulu CEO Michael Broderick is the panel's chairman. Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe is a member.

-------------------

http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-for-june/article_7f8f2b7e-b1f3-11e1-9b36-0019bb2963f4.html
The Garden Island (Kaua'i), June 9, 2011

Racial disparities in Hawai‘i’s criminal justice system

Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians allegedly have higher rates of arrest and incarceration and longer jail sentences and probation than criminals of other races. In the 2000 census, the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39 (the 2012 census shows a similar age disparity). Criminal behaviors — especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences — are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age. It fails to compare outcomes for racial groups within specific five-year age groups.

Most so-called “Hawaiians” have most of their ancestry from other races. But the OHA study counts anyone with even a small fraction of Hawaiian blood as a “Native Hawaiian” and fails to count them in the other racial groups to which they also primarily belong. Other racial groups are not counted in this manner; thus the data are badly skewed. It’s like counting Michelle Obama as solely Caucasian because she has 1/32 of her ancestry from a white slave-owner.

Kenneth Conklin, Kane‘ohe

-------------------

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/sections/news/local-news/justice-and-native-hawaiians.html
West Hawaii Today, Sunday July 8, 2012

Justice and Native Hawaiians

By Chelsea Jensen
West Hawaii Today

Providing Native Hawaiians already incarcerated with the tools and skills needed to succeed is just one of many ways to address concerns about the over-representation of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, one resident told a state task force Saturday in Kailua-Kona.

Having men and women spend time incarcerated and not learning skills, whether it be a trade or basic life skills like reading, writing and, even, gardening, is not helping solve the Office of Hawaiian Affairs-documented disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, Gus Costa told members of the 2012 Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force.

Providing education and training is one thing that can be done today to help address the issue, he said, also noting the importance of improving schools, family dynamics and Native Hawaiians’ ability to own property.

“Here’s an opportunity for people with nothing to do that could learn how to read, write, add – whatever,” said Costa, a carpenter by trade. “These kids need something to do so that they come out with a skill and given a job.

“The only reason that I am here today is because I learned skills in jail.”

Costa was just one of about 20 people who took part in a half-day public meeting held by the Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force to gather community input on concerns covered in a 2010 Office of Hawaiian Affairs report titled: “The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System.”

According to the report, which was written at the request of the 2009 state Legislature, Native Hawaiians make up 24 percent of the general population of Hawaii, however, as of 2009, the group made up 39 percent of the incarcerated population. The report also found Native Hawaiians more likely to receive prison sentences, longer terms of incarceration and probation, and parole revocation, among other concerns.

Four representatives of the nine-member task force, which was convened by the 2011 state Legislature to identify and support solutions to address the concerns outlined in the report, were present in Kona.

Others who provided testimony during the meeting touched on education, sovereignty, bringing inmates back to the islands, creating a sanctuary, mandatory sentencing and creating a forgiveness system. Some attendees just listened and some provided personal stories.

Support programs like the Family Support Hawaii-West Hawaii Fatherhood Initiative are also important to addressing some of the issues outlined in the report, said Kauila Ho, one of the program’s father coaches. Funding such support programs, few of which qualify for grants since they are aimed at men only, helps create stable families, which in turn supports getting a life back together, he said.

“A lot of times we forget about the father, but the father is the other half of the formula,” Ho said about the importance of focusing on men, not only women and children, as part of the solution. “If they understand their role as fathers, even when incarcerated, they will come out and support themselves and their families.”

Task force member and OHA Chief Executive Officer Kamanaopono Crabbe said the group will complete a draft report between September and November and a final report by December to submit to the state Legislature and governor. The final report will include input from participants of a two-day June summit in Honolulu, as well as from community meetings planned around the state.

East Hawaii residents can provide input from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday at the state Department of Education Annex located at 450 Waianuenue Ave. in Hilo.

For more information, or to view the OHA report, visit oha.org.


====================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. , October 4, 2010 and updated June 2012 All rights reserved