 |
Monday, May 12, 2008
While it would be nice to believe that we have arrived at a color-blind society, this is obviously not the case, particularly as it pertains to the criminal justice system. Two examples from last week, via the NYT.
No. 1:
More than two decades after President Ronald Reagan escalated the war on drugs, arrests for drug sales or, more often, drug possession are still rising. And despite public debate and limited efforts to reduce them, large disparities persist in the rate at which blacks and whites are arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, even though the two races use illegal drugs at roughly equal rates.
Two new reports, issued Monday by the Sentencing Project in Washington and by Human Rights Watch in New York, both say the racial disparities reflect, in large part, an overwhelming focus of law enforcement on drug use in low-income urban areas, with arrests and incarceration the main weapon.
No. 2:
WASHINGTON — Secret Service supervisors shared crude sexual jokes and engaged in racially derogatory banter about blacks, and passed around an anecdote about a possible assassination of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, according to internal e-mail disclosed in a federal court filing on Friday by lawyers for black Secret Service agents.
The filing includes 10 e-mail messages that were among documents the agency recently turned over to lawyers for the black agents as part of an increasingly bitter discrimination lawsuit. The messages were written mainly from 2003 through 2005, and were sent to and from e-mail accounts of at least 20 Secret Service supervisors.
On a related note, Ariel has a piece in the current Phoenix about Justice or Just Us?, a festival that offers a critical look this week at criminal justice in America:
“Justice or Just Us?,” which Reilly describes as a “series of events designed to make us question the state of justice in our society” marks the realization of many of [Bruce Reilly's] dreams. Taking place from May 12 to 18 at Perishable Theatre and AS220 (95 and 115 Empire St., Providence), the festival offers 26 events, ranging from music, comedy, and slam poetry to film, theater, and a free discussion series sponsored by the RI Coun-cil for the Humanities.
Over the past several years, a complex debate on criminal-justice reform has been pushed to the surface by community-based organizations (the Family Life Center and Direct Action for Rights & Equality); legisla-tors (Providence Democratic Representatives David Segal and Joseph Almeida, and Senator Harold Metts), and activists such as Reilly. “Justice or Just Us?” offers an opportunity for Rhode Islanders to take part in advancing this dialogue.
The featured activists and speakers will include former prisoner and current Drug Policy Alliance fellow Tony Papa; former narcotics officer John Tommasi of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP); Brown University Professor Glenn Loury, Department of Corrections Director A.T. Wall; Segal, Almeida, and Metts; and filmmakers Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe, who will present their film Loose Change: Final Cut, a critique of the official narrative of the War on Terror.
Poets Jimmy Baca (Albuquerque) and Lemon (Def Poetry, NYC) will perform, as will the sketch comics of In House Freestyle. On the mic will be local artists Who Dem?, Fedd Hill, Chachi, the Low Anthem, and the What Cheer? Brigade, as well as the nationally celebrated Saigon (as seen on HBO’s hit show Entourage) and Immortal Technique. Theret will also be performances of the off-Broadway sensation The Exonerated, directed by Reilly and 1000 lbs Guerilla.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Ariel Werner, familiar to readers of the Daily Dose, makes her Phoenix debut this week with a short report on debt-related incarceration in Rhode Island:
Every day, an average of 18 people are incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) due to their inability to pay court fines, according to a new report issued by the Rhode Island Family Life Center (FLC), a Providence-based nonprofit that provides reentry planning for and policy advocacy on behalf of ex-offenders.
Prior to the 19th century, debtor’s prisons — facilities for the incarceration of those unable to pay debts — were common in both the United Kingdom and United States. The UK abolished imprison-ment for debt with the Debtors Act of 1869, and the US eliminated the practice of imprisoning debtors at the federal level in 1833. Though many states followed suit, it remains possible for state govern-ments to incarcerate for debts relating to fraud, child-support, and alimony, fines levied as part of a sentence, restitution, and court costs.
The US Supreme Court, in Bearden v. Georgia (1983), Tate v. Short (1971), and Payne v. Mississippi (1984), has ruled that individuals cannot be summarily jailed for debts when unable to pay and mandates the consideration of alternative measures before incarceration for debt.
Yet the FLC report, “Court Debt and Related Incarceration in Rhode Island from 2005 through 2007,” explains how our criminal justice system has propagated the practice of incarcerating debtors and the effect of this practice on the state’s already overcrowded prison.
Meanwhile, as the NYT reported yesterday, the US has a remarkably high rate of incarceration, even compared with more populous and authoritarian China:
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.
Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London.
China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China’s extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
We remember how Keven McKenna unsuccessfully challenged the role of Frank J. Williams, chief justice of the RI Supreme Court, in serving on a federal appeals panel concerning US terror detainees. Now, as Eric Tucker of the Providence AP recently reported, Williams is still waiting for his first case in that arena:
The U.S. Court of Military Commission Review was created last year to hear appeals from detainees convicted of war crimes and to review other decisions made by military tribunals.
It has heard only one case so far, but Williams wasn't on the three-judge panel that decided it. The first of the full-fledged trials is at least a few months away, and the only person yet convicted in military court proceedings, Australian David Hicks, gave up his right to an appeal after pleading guilty last year.
Williams, a former Army captain who earned a Bronze Star in the Vietnam War and still peppers his speech with military analogies, said he became motivated to serve the country again after Sept. 11. He sent a resume and cover letter to the Defense Department general counsel, offering help as the government was setting up military courts to prosecute fighters captured overseas.
"I can't get into a uniform again and go to Iraq or Afghanistan," he said. "I do what I think I can do best, which is judge."
Williams and three other judges were appointed to a forerunner appeals court that was disbanded when the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 ruled that the military commission structure was unconstitutional. Congress passed a new law, the Military Commissions Act, and a new court of civilian and military judges was constituted last year to handle appeals.
Williams became chief judge in November.
In a law review article last year, Williams described the Sept. 11 hijackers as "nihilistic barbarians." He argued the military commission system affords detainees ample legal protections and is a justifiable and historically established way to deal with suspected terrorists.
That view troubled detainee lawyers who view the tribunal process as inherently unfair and designed to produce and affirm convictions.
David Glazier, a military commission expert at Loyola Law School, said Williams appears to have adopted the Bush administration's "unconstrained definition of a global 'war on terror.'" He said detainee lawyers would be wise to ask him to recuse himself if they appear before his court, and that Williams seems to have already prejudged the fairness of the system.
"These are issues that call for an unbiased assessment by the trial and appellate judges on a case-by-case basis, and any individual who has already formed blanket conclusions is clearly unsuited for these roles," Glazier wrote in an e-mail message.
Williams rejects the criticism, and lawyers who have appeared before him describe him as unbiased. He said he was merely trying to frame the debate over military tribunals from a historical perspective, drawing on his expertise in Lincoln and the Civil War.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Arizona's an interesting place. It's got beautiful cacti, a big city (Phoenix) with absolutely no sense of history or place, a small city (Tucson) with a lot of character, and since it's perched on the Mexican border, it's a hotbed of immigration politics.
An editorial in today's Times takes a look at what can happen when these two things intersect, with a local sheriff making energetic efforts in the name of homeland security.
For months now, Sheriff Joe [Arpaio] has been sending squads of officers through Latino neighborhoods, pulling cars over for broken taillights or turn-signal violations, checking drivers’ and passengers’ papers and arresting illegal immigrants by the dozen.
Because he sends out press releases beforehand, the sweeps are accompanied by TV crews and protesters — deport-’em-all hard-liners facing off against immigrant advocates. Being Arizona, many of those shouting and jeering are also packing guns. Sheriff Joe, seemingly addicted to the buzz, has been filmed marching down the street shaking hands with adoring Minutemen.
If this doesn’t look to you like a carefully regulated, federally supervised effort to catch dangerous criminals, that’s because it isn’t. It is a series of stunts focused mostly on day laborers, as Sheriff Joe bulldozes his way toward re-election.
The sheriff says he is keeping the peace, but it seems as if he is doing just the opposite — a useless, reckless churning of fear and unrest. Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix has denounced him, saying the raids are interfering with undercover city police officers and federal agents. The mayor of Guadalupe implored him to leave her community alone. State and county officials have pointed out that Sheriff Joe has ignored tens of thousands of outstanding criminal warrants while chasing day laborers and headlines. They say he has grossly violated the terms of his 287(g) agreement — which calls for federal oversight of local police — and have called on Washington to rein him in.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Another coup for the Bristol-based law program:
BRISTOL, R.I., April 4, 2008 – On Monday, April 7, Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court will spend a day at the Roger Williams University School of Law, meeting with student leaders, faculty and alumni, as well as members of the state bar and judiciary, participating in a question-and-answer session with students—even teaching a full Constitutional Law class.
Justice Scalia’s visit marks the latest highlight in an extraordinary “Supreme Semester” of Court-related events at the School of Law, offering students no fewer than three rare opportunities to interact with justices of the high Court (including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in February, and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., later this month, in addition to Justice Scalia).
As part of his visit, Justice Scalia will host a Q&A session with approximately 175 law students who earned entry to the event via a lottery system. Members of the media are encouraged to attend this portion of his visit only—scheduled from 2 to 3 p.m.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Frank J. Williams, chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, who wields enormous power and has a lifetime appointment, maintains that sufficient measures are in place to hold him accountable. He made the statement during a taping this morning of WPRI/WNAC-TV's Newsmakers.
I noted that electing judges, as is the case in some other states, seems like a flawed process, but that two of the most powerful men in state government -- House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph Montalbano -- face election in their districts every two years. So is there a sufficient counterpoint to his authority, I wondered.
Williams responded by agreeing that electing judges is a bad concept, since it injects fundraising into the process. He said the current setup, such as the opportunity for complaints to be examined by the Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline, is adequate and that he is held accountable.
Of course, it was adverse publicity that led Williams a few years ago to scrap his personal Web site, which had promoted his availability for speaking engagements and listed a court employee as his point of contact.
Asked about the controversial and costly bird sounds at the Kent County Courthouse, the chief justice said he would have preferred to seen the money spent on technology or security. In calling the courts a small part of the state budget, he defended plans for an eventual $71 million Blackstone Valley courthouse and the opposition of judges to pension cuts.
Williams said he would like to see more court interpreters, rather than fewer. While newcomers to the US should learn English, democracy is diminished, he said, when the access to the courts of recent immigrants is hindered by a lack of interpreters.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
At a time when a local merchant remains in the news for demanding to see the Social Security card of two Spanish-speaking patrons, the RI chapter of the ACLU has gotten the DMV to end its practice of demanding an SS card whenever someone renews their driver's license:
In settlement of a suit filed last month by the Rhode Island ACLU against the Division of Motor Vehicles, the DMV has agreed to halt implementation of a policy requiring all people renewing their driver’s licenses to present their Social Security card. The lawsuit, filed in R.I. Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney James Kelleher, had argued that the DMV had no statutory authority to implement the policy and that it violated the due process rights of licensees.
Under a consent judgment filed in the case today, the DMV has agreed:
• To “immediately cease and desist … mandating the production of an official social security card to individuals seeking to renew their licenses or state identification cards”;
• To allow people whose renewal applications were denied between August 1, 2007 and March 13, 2008 solely for failing to provide a social security card to be renewed without penalty so long as they fulfill all other legal requirements;
• To immediately institute rule-making proceedings to amend its regulations and repeal the rule that was the subject of the lawsuit, thus formally eliminating the social security card requirement for people applying for and renewing their driver’s licenses or identification cards; and
• To pay $250 in court costs.
The consent judgment notes that the DMV retains the right to “collect Social Security numbers from individuals seeking license or identification renewal in the event the numbers are not already on record” with the DMV.
The suit had been brought on behalf of Providence resident Wendy Becker, who was unable to get her driver’s license renewed because she did not have her Social Security card. Although the DMV initially claimed that the policy was adopted in order to comply with federal law, the lawsuit noted there was no basis for that claim.
ACLU volunteer attorney Kelleher said today: “The goal of this litigation was to gently remind those in power that their authority is limited by law. While pleased that this particular goal has been achieved, it is unfortunate that this unlawful social security card rule has left an unintended residue as evidenced by the disgraceful scene that unfolded earlier this week at a local business. Perhaps this victory will offer some caution to those who would overstep the boundaries of law and decency.”
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Kim has the details on an upcoming conference on this subject:
While other states in the country are passing Constitutional Amendments to ban same sex marriages, civil unions and even as far as contracts between same sex couples - New England has turned into a bastion of equality and rights. From Massachusetts’s landmark decision in Goodridge to Connecticut currently taking up the case if there is a legal difference between civil unions and marriage - why has New England (with the notable exception of Rhode Island) been such a unique place for LGBT equality?
Come learn more at Roger Williams School of Law, in what is bound to be a provocative discussion involving a fantastic panel and keynote:
What: The Culture of Same Sex Marriage Symposium
Where: Roger Williams School of Law (Bristol, RI)
When: Friday, March 28 from Noon - 4:45PM.
Panel 1: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the State of Rhode Island
Panel 2: Civil Unions v. Marriage in New England
Cost: Free! Includes lunch and wine and cheese reception following the panels. However - if you are an attorney and would like to receive the 5 CLE credits available, the cost for that is $25.
Click HERE to register and to read more about the Keynote Address [David Wilson - original plaintiff in Goodridge and Board Member of both HRC and Mass Equality] and each of the panelists!
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
I tend to agree with those who say that English is already the official US language, and that learning it is a requirement for sucess in this country.
A forum at Roger Williams University will take up the topic tonight:
BRISTOL – In a recent projection made by the Pew Research Center, 19 percent of the U.S. population will be foreign-born in the year 2050—that’s nearly one in five Americans. With our foreign-born population on the rise, should the U.S. make English our national language? Or should we broaden our horizons and make foreign language study required in our schools?
Members of the Roger Williams University community will gather to examine these questions on Wednesday, March 5, at the University’s next Socrates Café discussion, titled “Should English be our National Language?” Anthony Hollingsworth, professor of foreign languages and cultures, will moderate the discussion.
The event will begin at 7 p.m. in the Mary Tefft White Cultural Center in the University’s Main Library on the Bristol Campus at One Old Ferry Road. All Socrates Café discussions are free and open to the public as space allows.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
For all the gun fans and phobes, and legal buffs, out there:
Roger Williams University School of Law is hosting a debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment featuring two nationally known experts, Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet and Roger Williams Law Professor Carl Bogus. The debate will be this Wednesday, February 20, 2008, at 12:00 p.m.in Room 262 at the School of Law, Ten Metacom Avenue, Bristol. The event is open to the public.
Professor Mark Tushnet is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He has authored 18 books, most recently Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns, in which he critiques the traditional "individual rights vs. collective rights" debate. Professor Tushnet argues that the Second Amendment reflects our sense of ourselves as a people, and that the answer to the debate will not be found in a "holy writ," but in our values and our vision of the nation. He will sign copies of Out of Range following the debate.
Professor Carl Bogus is a national expert on the meaning and history of the Second Amendment. He is the author of several articles including,
"What Does the Second Amendment Restrict? A Collective Rights Analysis and The Hidden History of the Second Amendment." Bogus is the editor of the book, The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. He argues that historical studies and legal precedent both demonstrate a Second Amendment guarantee of a collective right to bear arms – but only within an established militia.
The debate comes one month before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller in 1939.
This event is being co-sponsored by the Roger Williams University School of Law chapters of the American Constitution Society and the American Civil Liberties Union.
No one likes having their expected salary and benefits cut, yet there's still something of a particularly Rhode Island patina to this story in today's ProJo:
PROVIDENCE — About a third of the state’s judges will retire all at once if the legislature adopts Governor Carcieri’s proposal to slash judicial pensions by the amount of Social Security benefits they’re due to receive, the head of a state judges’ association predicts.
By the end of the current fiscal year, 23 of the state’s 59 judges will be eligible to retire with pensions equal to either 75 percent or 100 percent of full pay, a courts spokesman said.
And the “vast majority, if not all,” of those 23 judges will retire rather than lose annual Social Security payments estimated to be at least $20,000 per year, said District Court Judge Elaine T. Bucci, president of the Rhode Island Trial Judges Association. She said she hasn’t spoken to each judge, but she said, “Why wouldn’t they retire? That’s a big number.”
Bucci warned that such a large exodus would have a devastating effect on the courts. “I think we would have to come to a dead stop — it would be that significant,” she said. “That would affect everyone: litigants, lawyers, defendants and the criminal justice system where people are entitled to speedy trials.”
Bucci said Carcieri’s proposal “doesn’t seem fair” because judges have been paying into the state retirement system and the Social Security system for years. “In essence, they really are taking the Social Security payment benefit away from the judges,” she said.
Also, Bucci emphasized that she expects state government to lose money if budget Article 35 passes because the state would have to make pension payments to new retirees while hiring new judges. “It would not help the budget in any way, shape or form,” she said.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
From MERI:
In celebration of National Freedom to Marry Week, Marriage Equality RI (MERI) is holding a press conference to kick off our 2008 legislative efforts to secure equal rights for same-sex Rhode Island couples. MERI will be introducing a platform of basic rights protections, and introducing individuals who are or will be impacted by this legislation.
What: Press Conference where MERI will be introducing our 2008 legislative platform, and calling on the legislature to help protect and support all Rhode Island families.
When: Wednesday, February 13, 3:30 PM
Where: Rhode Island State House, Bell Room (Located on the far side of the Rotunda on the first floor)
Who: Jenn Steinfeld, Director, Marriage Equality Rhode Island; Susan and Stacey Heroux; Annette Berarducci, a funeral director in Johnston; Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU; Representative David Segal.
Why: Currently, Rhode Island same-sex couples are excluded from marriage within our state borders. This exclusion carries with it insecurity and fear, and many worry about their ability to care for and protect their families in times of illness, infirmity, and death.
In celebration of the 11th annual National Freedom to Marry Week, MERI will be unveiling our 2008 legislative platform. This platform includes the Compassion for All Families Act, an effort to provide families in crisis with some basic protections in these uncertain times. We continue to call on our legislature to ensure that all Rhode Island families have the same opportunities to realize their hopes and dreams, and to provide all committed couples with the same freedom to marry.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Amid the news that the US will seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo detainees facing 9/11 charges, a related protest is planned to coincide with the arrival at US District Court in Providence this morning of John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court.
According to a news release from Mark Stahl of the RI Community Coalition for Peace,
A coalition of RI community, religious, and political groups will hold a rally and procession at the Federal Courthouse on Kennedy Plaza. The purpose of this action is to bring attention to the following critical demands: close the Guantanamo gulag, end all U.S. involvement in torture, end illegal spying, and restore the Bill of Rights.
Although all three branches of the Federal Government have acted to debase the very concept of justice, ordinary citizens will peacefully and solemnly gather to assert their civil liberties and invoke principles to counter the empty, congratulatory posturing behind the Roberts visit. “Since the Chief Justice is a stalwart neocon,” notes Sam Smith of East Bay MoveOn, “we fear that the Supreme Court will legitimize the roll-back of civil liberties wrought by the Bush administration”.
“As a citizen of the U.S. and member of the world community,” adds Kathy Lessuck of the RI Community Coalition for Peace, “I am saddened, sickened, and embarrassed by our practice and promotion of torture, as well as the continued existence of Guantanamo and other secret U.S. prisons throughout the world. ....
Gathering will begin at 10:30 am on Tuesday Feb. 12 at Burnside Park, adjacent to Kennedy Plaza. After a brief rally, citizens will move in procession toward the Federal Building.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Medical marijuana proponents plan to seek General Assembly support this session to create an establishment, known as the Compassion Center, which, as the theory goes, would have state Department of Health backing to grow and distribute medical marijuana to approved patients.
While the outlook for such a measure remains uncertain -- at minimum, it would likely have to overcome a gubernatorial veto -- it would address the glaring shortcoming in Rhode Island's medical marijuana law.
As Te-Ping Chen wrote in the Phoenix last May,
Ironically, in contrast to the initial concerns cited by opponents, the main challenge facing medical marijuana users in Rhode Island is obtaining access to the drug. ....
Once a patient receives their physician’s approval, the Department of Health processes their application — none have been rejected thus far — and issues an ID card verifying their participant status. From there on, patients are on their own: the 2005 law famously did not specify how patients were to obtain the drug. And that, to both the program’s critics and supporters, remains its greatest problem.
As Michael Downs, director of prevention education for AIDS Project Rhode Island, puts it, the law has been a “great resource” for his agency’s clients, but lack of access places them in “something of a quandary.”
Major Steven O’Donnell of the Rhode Island State Police puts the matter more bluntly. “Basically, we’re telling patients to go buy drugs on the street,” O’Donnell says. “Even if the law works on behalf of people with medical need,” he says, “we’re asking them to put themselves in harm’s way.”
Bobby Ebert, who says he was assaulted in downtown Providence one night while trying to obtain marijuana, knows that this risk is no joke. But having dealt with pain for years, it’s something he takes in stride. “After all,” he says, “I’ve got a disease that could kill me tomorrow.”
Jesse Stout, executive director of the RI Patient Advocacy Coalition, sent me an e-mail earlier today, indicating the following:
The patients we represent have been asking us the same question -- 'Now that I can legally possess medical marijuana, where am I supposed to go get it?' Our friends in the House and Senate will soon be introducing legislation that would allow a nonprofit Compassion Center to be licensed by the Department of Health to grow and distribute marijuana to patients. The bill provides specific rules for how this independent Compassion Center will be regulated by the Department. Here at Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition, we think this bill is a good solution for patients who need safe access to this medicine, but don't want to have to go to the criminal black market, and cannot grow it themselves because they are too sick or too poor.
The way in which a small predominantly Catholic state like Rhode Island backed medical marijuana in the first place is counter-intuitive, so it will be interesting to see how supporters fare with the latest effort.
Matt has the details on tomorrow's scheduled visit by John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, and an expected protest:
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is scheduled to visit Rhode Island this Tuesday Feb. 12th to help celebrate the centennial of the federal courthouse in downtown Providence.
BeloJo: The event will mark the first time a sitting Supreme Court chief justice has come to the state since Charles Evan Hughes was here in 1937, said Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya, a Rhode Islander who is the liaison for Roberts’ visit.
Roberts will give the opening remarks at the celebration at 1100am in Courtroom 1 on the third floor. The public is invited to attend. (On a side note, before this public event, over 100 Roger Williams law students, including myself, will be having a "Conversation with the Chief.")
Outside of the courtroom at Burnside Park (in Kennedy Plaza), starting at 1030am, a broad coalition of RI community, religious, and political groups will hold a protest. According to the press release:
The purpose of this action is to bring attention to the following critical demands: close the Guantanamo gulag, end all U.S. involvement in torture, end illegal spying, and restore the Bill of Rights.
Although all three branches of the Federal Government have acted to debase the very concept of justice, ordinary citizens will peacefully and solemnly gather to assert their civil liberties and invoke principles to counter the empty, congratulatory posturing behind the Roberts visit. “Since the Chief Justice is a stalwart neocon,” notes Sam Smith of East Bay MoveOn, “we fear that the Supreme Court will legitimize the roll-back of civil liberties wrought by the Bush administration”. “As a citizen of the U.S. and member of the world community,” adds Kathy Lessuck of the RI Community Coalition for Peace, “I am saddened, sickened, and embarrassed by our practice and promotion of torture, as well as the continued existence of Guantanamo and other secret U.S. prisons throughout the world.”
Friday, February 08, 2008
UPDATE: More from Segal.
Linking to this post, the representative has cross-posted at RI's Future and Dose a longer response to PPRIAN.
---
It's no surprise that the Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island Action Network would applaud Representative Art Handy and Senator Josh Miller for backing legislation to implement a "buffer safety zone" around reproductive health clinics. What is unusual is how the group is harshing out on Representative David Segal, a liberal champion, for not immediately signing onto the measure.
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is incredibly disappointed that our very own State Representative, David Segal, is not listening to his constituents and refuses to support this essential legislation.
Instead, Representative Segal has decided to play politics with women’s reproductive health.
As an elected official who has pledged to support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation and harassment directed at reproductive health providers, their patients and their families, Representative Segal’s hesitation to lend his support to this bill is contradictory and harmful to women’s reproductive rights.
Now is the time to tell and encourage David Segal to listen to you.
Tell David Segal how the graphic, distorted anti-choice images make YOU feel.
Tell David Segal how the thought of a woman being too intimated or harassed to visit her own health clinic makes YOU feel. ...
These kinds of buffer zones are controversial, not uncommonly dividing liberals, because of how they pose a conflict between free speech and reproductive rights. Ana Cabrera wrote about this subject in the Phoenix about eight years ago, but the story doesn't seem to be online is here. Although later proved a dubious source, a certain lawmaker made an interesting point:
State Senator John Celona, (D-North Providence), a pro-life advocate, also thinks the Massachusetts bill is unconstitutional. He believes passage of the bill would lead to similar bills, which would restrict a host of other First Amendment rights. "What would stop anyone from setting up buffer zones around any other building, such as the State House?" he asks. "We could have a hot bill here in the General Assembly, and would that mean everyone has to stand back 25 feet?"
Celona wonders how such a measure would have fared during the height of the state banking crisis. "Just think back to what that was like around here, with people marching up here in droves," he says. "Can you imagine what would have ensued if those people were told to stand back from this building?"
Anyway, the criticism of Segal is over the top, particularly considering his general support for the rights of women and other groups subject to discrimination, and the rep himself is taken aback. As he writes to me, via e-mail:
As a donor to PPRI, somebody who's met with them regularly, and who's sponsored bills increasing access to family planning, I'd say that this demonstrates bad faith on the part of PPRI's staffer. To call conferring with the ACLU and other people who are typically PPRI allies 'playing politics' is obscene.
Also, I think indicating that the bill has changed (35 feet to 100) and that the ACLU and other allies have refused to sponsor are salient.
But the key point is still this -- I haven't 'refused' to do it. All I said is I was gonna talk to the ACLU and other allies who are against the bill, and confer with PPRI on monday.
Frankly, this is crazy.
David Segal and Matt Jerzyk yesterday used a ProJo op-ed to outline a progressive vision for Rhode Island.
They focused on three important needs: efficiency through regionalization, and creating a predictable funding formula; building the Green economy; and delivering criminal-justice reform.
THERE’S LITTLE disagreement that Rhode Island’s budget needs savings, that our property taxes are too high, or that our economy could use a boost. Sadly, the conventional political wisdom offers only untenable answers: Cut taxes, precisely for those who are already doing best; slash public-school funding and block cities from raising these funds on their own; use tax breaks to swipe business from other states; de-fund social services, and so on.
Further, Governor Carcieri has chosen the “you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality that has governed policy-making in the Bush administration. In his world, Democrats, labor unions, immigrants, single mothers and the poor are enemies to be chastised through press releases and on talk radio.
Alternatively, we’d suggest that our problems can be solved by bringing people together and thinking broadly in ways that rely on our state’s strengths, maintain fairness and fill real needs. We write to offer a progressive vision for this legislative year.
The three focal points emphasized by the authors make a lot of sense. And while Governor Carcieri has been more vocal in citing a desire to turn Rhode Island into a leader in alternative-energy sources, the governor and the legislature, together, seem to have done little to advance the ball on the other two fronts.
On the contrary, given the potential to save money through criminal-justice reform, the state wastefully back-tracked last year with the misguided try-juveniles-as-adults-to-save-money thing.
As some others have suggested, the bright spot in the state's current budget crisis -- if we're lucky -- could be a sufficient degree of motivation to reinvent government in Rhode Island.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
From Bruno Uno:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Social activist and educator Angela Davis will deliver the 12th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture at Brown University on Thursday, Feb. 7, 2008, at 4 p.m. in the Salomon Center for Teaching, Room 101. Her talk, titled “Recognizing Racism in the Era of Neo-Liberalism,” is free and open to the public.
Through her activism and her scholarship in recent decades, Davis is known for her deep involvement in our nation’s quest for social justice. Her work as an educator – both at the university level and in the larger public sphere – emphasizes the importance of building communities of struggle for economic, racial and gender equality.
Davis has spent the last 15 years at the University of California–Santa Cruz, where she is professor of history of consciousness, an interdisciplinary Ph.D. program, and professor of feminist studies. Her teaching career has also included positions at San Francisco State University, Mills College, UC–Berkeley, UCLA, Vassar, the Claremont Colleges, and Stanford University.
Davis is the author of eight books and has lectured throughout the United States and around the world. In recent years a persistent theme of her work has been the range of social problems associated with incarceration and the generalized criminalization of those communities that are most affected by poverty and racial discrimination. She draws upon her own experiences in the early 1970s as a person who spent 18 months in jail and on trial after being placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List.” She has also conducted extensive research on numerous issues related to race, gender and imprisonment. Her most recent books are Abolition Democracy and Are Prisons Obsolete? She is now completing a book on Prisons and American History.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Boston Globe today scoops the ProJo with the news of a potential settlement, in a case against WPRI-TV, stemming from the February 2003 Station fire disaster (disclosure: I am an unpaid weekly panelist on WPRI's Newsmakers).
The Rhode Island television news outlet whose cameraman was filming inside The Station nightclub when a fire killed 100 people has reached a tentative $30 million settlement with families and survivors, the biggest civil settlement stemming from the 2003 tragedy so far, according to two sources familiar with the case.
The images recorded by cameraman Brian Butler provided haunting evidence of the fire's ignition by a pyrotechnics display during a performance of the band Great White and the ensuing panic. His footage has also been used extensively by criminal investigators and civil litigants to build cases.
Butler was, ironically, filming a segment about nightclub safety for station WPRI-TV, whose reporter, Jeffrey Derderian, was a co-owner of The Station nightclub, when the fire broke out. In a federal lawsuit, Butler was accused of blocking an exit while filming, making it difficult for patrons to flee, an allegation that Butler's lawyer has previously and strenuously denied.
The $30 million settlement tentatively reached in mediation last week involves plaintiffs, LIN-TV (the Providence-based owner of the TV station), WPRI-TV, and Butler. According to the two sources, the settlement was propelled as much by a wrinkle in Rhode Island law as it was by any admission of wrongdoing. In Rhode Island, an insurer who rejects a written settlement demand can be forced to pay a judgment handed down by a jury later, even if that judgment is greater than total insurance coverage.
It is the largest settlement so far in the massive civil case pending in US District Court in Providence, which has hundreds of plaintiffs and more than 50 defendants. Last year, several companies settled claims worth a combined $18.5 million. Dozens of defendants remain, including Derderian and his brother, Michael, who co-owned the club; Anheuser-Busch Inc., which sold beer at the concert; and Clear Channel Communications, which owns a Providence radio station which ran advertisements promoting the show.
Among other defendants remaining are the state of Rhode Island, the Town of West Warwick, members of Great White, and various manufacturers of foam insulation that fueled the fire.
The latest settlement was mediated by Paul Finn of Commonwealth Mediation, who decided two years ago how much approximately 550 victims of sexual abuse by priests would receive from the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Butler caused the death of an undetermined number of people by standing in a doorway and filming the chaos.
"Rather than leaving the building, or assisting patrons of The Station to escape," says the suit, "Butler stood within the building, directly in an egress route, and filmed distressed patrons trying to leave the nightclub. Butler's actions directly impeded the exit of patrons and contributed to the slowdown, backup, and additional logjam for those attempting to leave through the main exit."
At last week's session, Butler insisted he did not block anyone's escape and filmed only briefly as he was leaving the club, the two sources said. After Butler first spotted the flames, he kept his camera running as he exited the club. Plaintiffs charge that he paused at the door for 10 to 15 seconds, an allegation that was in dispute, one source said.
Butler's lawyer, Charles "Chip" Babcock, could not be reached for comment. But he insisted when Butler was added to the lawsuit in August 2004 that Butler did nothing wrong, saying that "Brian Butler saved lives that night." He also implied that Butler was sued because his employer had vast resources that could be tapped by the plaintiffs.
The ProJo has done a voluminous amount of reporting about the Station fire and its aftermath, much of it representing a valuable public service. At the same time, this isn't the first time that out-of-towners have set the pace on some of the important stories related to the fallout of the disaster.
Friday, February 01, 2008
In what even Steve Brown might call a man-bites-dog story, the RI chapter of the ACLU, which has been known to criticize Attorney General Patrick Lynch, is coming to the AG's aid in a matter related to the state's blockbuster lead paint case.
Supporting the public’s right to know, the Rhode Island ACLU has today filed a brief urging the R.I. Supreme Court to reverse the imposition of $15,000 in fines against Attorney General Patrick Lynch for public comments he made during the “lead paint public nuisance” case. The brief argues that the fines violated not only Lynch’s First Amendment right to free speech, but also the public’s right to hear the “views of attorneys concerning pending litigation in which the attorneys are involved.”
Lynch was twice fined by a Superior Court judge for allegedly violating the Rules of Professional Court and a “gag rule” the judge had issued against him in the controversial, high-profile case. The comments leading to Lynch being found in contempt of court and fined included a statement decrying what he called the lead paint’s “despicable” tactics in attempting to delay resolution of the case and for referring to the lead-paint makers as “those who would spin and twist the facts.” The 33-page ACLU brief, filed by volunteer attorney Amy R. Tabor, argues that the fines and “gag order” were imposed in clear violation of Lynch’s free speech rights and should be overturned.
Regarding the judge’s “gag order,” the ACLU brief argues that the First Amendment “protects the right to express and hear opinions at a meaningful time, place and manner. This includes the right to communicate about … social and political lawsuits while those lawsuits are taking place. The Trial Court’s broad ban on ‘making any subjective characterizations of the defendants’ violates these rights.”
Thursday, January 24, 2008
While most of the speculation concerning Democrats and the 2010 gubernatorial race has focused thus far on General Treasuer Frank Caprio and Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline, there's a growing view that Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch is running, throwing to the wind the usual concerns about his office is a political minefield. I take up the topic in the Phoenix out today:
Going forward, Lynch will remain at the forefront of some of the state’s most high-profile issues, including efforts to find budget savings through reductions in the state’s prison population and a proposed mega-healthcare merger — of Lifespan and Care New England — that would have profound consequences for Rhode Islanders.
Yet even though Caprio and Cicilline have led the way in the early fundraising race, Lynch could be a potentially strong candidate for the governor’s office in 2010.
Part of this is due to how the AG has taken to various fights — to oppose the expansion of an LNG facility in Providence, to bury power lines running by India Point Park, and most spectacularly, to gain restitution from lead paint companies — which bolster his battling self-description and offset the less flattering news that attaches to his office.
In this respect, Lynch might be considered a local political equivalent of Survivorman, the resourceful Discovery Channel naturalist who ekes out a cheerful existence amid a spare and inhospitable wilderness.
Put another way, it’s no surprise that Lynch professes some admiration for the philosopher who posited that what doesn’t kill you just makes you stronger.
“I didn’t know I was such a fan of Nietzsche until you offered me that quote,” quips the AG, quickly resuming a mantra that makes it sound as if he’s already running, talking of “the challenges we face, and how I’ve stood strong for the people and been a leader, not only in this office, but on a host of different issues in challenging times, and I think that’s what these times call for.”
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
This just in from the US attorney:
United States Attorney Robert Clark Corrente announced today that his office intends to retry the case of U.S. v. Robert Urciuoli and Frances Driscoll, two former hospital officials accused of corruptly employing a state senator to advance the hospital’s agenda. On January 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the convictions over the issue of how broadly to define “official acts” of a state legislator.
U.S. Attorney Corrente released this statement:
We have reviewed carefully the Court of Appeals’ opinion in these cases. The court vacated the convictions because it believed that the instructions to the jury on honest services mail fraud permitted the jury to convict for conduct relating to the issue of rescue runs to Roger Williams Medical Center. Although the court stated it was “fairly debatable,” it held that this conduct did not violate the federal honest services law. At the same time, however, the court held that Mr. Urciuoli could be prosecuted for using former Senator Celona to coerce health insurers into settlements with Roger Williams Medical Center. Moreover, as the court noted, the defendants did not challenge the convictions as they related to using former Senator Celona “to promote or block legislation to favor Roger Williams.”
We believe that the central allegations of the indictment remain essentially unaffected and that they remain well-founded. Accordingly, we will retry the case against both Mr. Urciuoli and Ms. Driscoll. We will consult with the District Court and with counsel about scheduling, and we will be ready to go as soon as the court can accommodate us.
Friday, January 18, 2008
From BeloBlog:
In a major decision announced this afternoon, a federal appeals court has vacated the corruption convictions of two former top Roger Williams Medical Center executives and ordered a new trial.
Robert A. Urciuoli, the former president of the medical center, and Frances Driscoll, former senior vice president, had appealed their convictions for paying former state Sen. John Celona to advance the hospital's agenda at the State House.
The former executives argued to the three judge 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that the jury had gotten faulty instructions from Judge Ernest C. Torres in U.S. District Court in Providence.
In October 2006 verdicts, Urciuoli was found guilty of conspiracy to commit "honest services" mail fraud and 35 counts of "honest services" mail fraud, or aiding and abetting such fraud. Driscoll was convicted of one count of "honest services" mail fraud. Execution of their sentences was stayed pending their appeals.
Read the decision by the appeals court.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
AG Patrick Lynch has some thoughts on the ACLU's recent criticism of him on the telcom immunity issue. Here's what the AG communicated to N4N:
The ACLU statement is flat-out wrong in several key respects. First, the activities that the ACLU is calling "illegal" have not been determined to be illegal by any court. Therefore, this term is an opinion as opposed to a fact. Second, the ACLU's assertions about the legislation preempting state investigations of violations of customers' privacy rights is wrong. The legislation will not automatically dismiss the litigation against the carriers. Instead, the US Attorney General and the courts will evaluate whether the carriers responded, in good faith, to government requests for assistance. Third, the legislation will not, as the ACLU wrongly claims, immunize government officials. Any cases or claims against the government, which is responsible for these programs, will continue. Furthermore, Congress can continue its oversight of the officials running the programs.
In my role as the Attorney General, my highest priority is to ensure the safety and well-being of Rhode Island citizens. So when I decided to support the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance amendments, I had the welfare of our citizens first and foremost in my mind.
In my years as a prosecutor in the Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit, during which time I participated in court-authorized wiretap investigations, and now as the Attorney General, I know from personal experience that the assistance provided by the carriers is absolutely essential to our law enforcement agencies. From kidnapping cases to drug investigations, we have always counted on the carriers' help to do our jobs and protect the people of Rhode Island.
Now, when | |