Organizations hold vigil and demonstration in protest of prison expansion

Pro-immigration organizers gathered at the U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facility in Adelanto on Thursday July 9 to show support for detained immigrants and demonstrate opposition against further expansion of the prison.

The prayer vigil saw organizers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU), the Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Southern California (JFIC), Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC), and other affiliated organizations gather outside of the faciltiy to display solidarity with detainees through prayer and song.

On July 1, the GEO group–the multinational corporation that operates the prison–announced a 640 bed expansion and began further intake of immigrant detainees, some of which are now women and transgender women. Currently it detains 1,300 men.

“We are very pleased with the successful activation and the start of the intake process at our three company-owned facilities in Oklahoma, Michigan, and California,” said CEO George Zoley. “These important activations are indicative of the continued need for correctional and detention bed space across the United States as well as our company’s ability to provide tailored real estate, management, and programmatic solutions to our diversified customer base.”

Photo/Anthony Victoria
Patricia Suarez of Alhambra has a son who is being detained by ICE officials at the Adelanto Detention Center. “It has been an inferno for me,” Suarez said about her son’s detainment.

According to ACLU community engagement and policy advocate Luis Nolasco, the facility has a notorious history of dreadful conditions. There have been two deaths at the prison since its opening in 2011. In April, Salvadoran immigrant Raul Ernesto Morales-Ramos, 44, died after being transferred from Adelanto Detention Center to a hospital in Palmdale, according to a statement from ICE. He had been in custody since 2010.

“The facility has a history of horrible medical care and abusive practices,” explained Nolasco. “Quite frankly we are terrified as to what may happen when there are populations that are very vulnerable detained in there.”

Nolasco said his organization and partners are frustrated at what they perceive as a continual conflict against undocumented immigrants.

“We cannot take it anymore,” he said. “We’re tired of seeing our communities being criminalized and detained.”

Patricia Suarez of Alhambra, whose son has been detained inside Adelanto since February 6 for felony charges, said she will continue to fight for justice for her son and other immigrants looking to live the “American Dream.”

“It has been an inferno for me,” Suarez said about her son’s detainment. “Sitting through court, sitting through the pain. It’s a trauma for all of us who come to the U.S. to work hard. Us mothers, we no longer cry. We are fighting for the rights of our sons and human beings who came here to be big and dream big. I just never imagined living through something so awful.”

Via: http://iecn.com/organizations-hold-vigil-and-demonstration-in-protest-of-prison-expansion/

Federal Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional in California

A federal judge in Orange County on Wednesday declared the death penalty "unconstitutional" in the State of California.

In the first ruling of its kind, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney in Orange County made the ruling, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Attorney General Kamala Harris said she is "reviewing the ruling." And a spokesperson for the Claifornia Department of Corrections did not immediately respond for comment.

ACLU of Northern California Associate Director Natasha Minsker, who is not directly involved in the case but following it closely, tweeted as she read the ruling, citing the judge who said the current system is plagued by delay and violates the Eighth Amendment, among other problems.

In her opinion, Minsker said the judge made this unprecedented ruling because he felt that "enough was enough."

Cormac was appointed to the federal bench by then Republican President George W. Bush in 2003.

The case stems from a 1995 case of Ernest Dewayne Jones who sued Kevin Chappell, the warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin.

According to a court document, Jones was condemned to death by the State of California on April 7, 1995. He remains on death row today, awaiting execution, but without any certainty as to when, or whether it will actually come, Carney wrote.

"Mr. Jones is not alone," Craney wrote.

Of the 900 people sentenced to death for their crimes since 1978, when the current death penalty system was adopted by California voters, only 13 have been executed so far.

Calling the system's administration "dysfunctional," Carney wrote that it will continue to result in an unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution.

For the random few for whom execution becomes a reality, they will go on to languish for so long on Death Row that "their execution will serve no retributive or deterrant purpose and will be arbitrary."

In his 29-page ruling on the Jones vs. Chappell case, Carney wrote that when an individual is condemned to death in California, the sentence carries with it the promise that it will actually be carried out.

That promise is made to citizens, jurors, victims and their loved ones and to the hundreds of individuals on death row, he wrote.

However, Carney argues, “for too long now, the promise has been an empty one.”

“Inordinate and unpredictable delay has resulted in a death penalty system in which very few of the hundreds of individuals sentenced to death have been, or even will be, executed by the State,” he wrote.

The delays have resulted in a system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determines whether an individual will actually be executed, Carney wrote,

In his closing paragraph, Carney says that the current system serves no “penological purpose.” 

via: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Federal-Judge-Rules-Death-Penalty-Unconstitutional-in-California-267380871.html

White Privilege in the Age of the New Majority

From the outside, it may seem as though people of color are going through a renaissance. We are currently in the second term of our first-ever black president, and with the most recent appointment of an African-American female, Susan Rice, as National Security Advisor, it may appear as though black and brown faces are taking over the entire governmental apparatus.  While most would agree that the face of government continues to be white and male, the face of the average American is rapidly changing to reflect communities of color.  Data from the 2010 US Census revealed that for the first time ever, the majority of new births are to minority women, with non-Hispanic whites experiencing a 10 percent birth decline from July 2010 to July 2011.

As a Los Angeles native, I saw this trend play out across the city way before it was splashed across national headlines. While I feel a sense of excitement to live during a time of rapid demographic change, it’s plain to see that the old status quo is alive and well in cities and towns across America.

The tendency of schools to adhere to a zero tolerance policy has given birth to the school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionally affects children of color.  According to the ACLU, there is no evidence to suggest that minority children act out at higher rates than their white counterparts, but figures show that minority children are often punished more severely for less severe infractions.  Once in the system, kids find it extremely difficult to re-enter the traditional school system, and having an arrest record could have a number of ramifications as children transition into adulthood.

In direct correlation with the school-to-prison pipeline is the overwhelming number of men of color who currently reside in the most populous prison system in the world.  Black men are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white men, even though the two groups have very similar rates of usage.

Incarceration is not only a strain on an individual, the effects reverberate to families of those incarcerated who no longer have a viable member of the family to provide financial a.nd emotional support. A majority of U.S states still disenfranchise ex-felons after their release from prison, disproportionally excluding men of color from the democratic process.

So what is the point of all of these facts?  I would like to make a case that even in the age of the New Majority, white privilege still reigns supreme, even though the leader of the free world is black.  It may be difficult for some in the mainstream to accept, but there are still two different Americas: one for people of color and one for whites. So when I heard of the White Student Union at Towsen University in Baltimore, Maryland my ears perked up.  This is not the first time that someone has established a white student union, but their founder and current leader Matthew Heimbach was recently profiled on Vice in a 21-minute documentary profiling the unofficial student group.

The video is eye-opening and in my opinion, exposes an attitude and belief system that will only grow stronger as the long-standing majority is reduced to a minority status. In 2011, researchers from  Tufts University’s School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School found that a higher number of whites are perceiving, what they believe to be an anti-white bias as we move toward a higher levels of equality.  I believe in the White Student Union’s right to exist and espouse any set of beliefs its members wish. However, it is troubling to see that people as young as Heimbach and his club members still operate within a system that seeks to maintain the status quo even in the face of blaring inequality.

The future is hurtling us toward a new majority status whether we like or not.  Let’s work towards creating a society where no one is relegated to the back of the bus.  This way, it will be a smoother ride for us all.
The post White Privilege in the Age of the New Majority appeared first on The Greenlining Institute

California Senate Approves Common Sense Drug Sentencing Reform Bill

S.B. 649 Would Help End California’s Overincarceration Crisis by Reducing Needless and Costly Incarceration for Low Level Drug Possession and Freeing Up Money for Programs Proven to Reduce Recidivism

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 2, 2013

CONTACT: 


Will Matthews, ACLU of California, (415) 293-6309; wmatthews@aclunc.org

Ali Bay, press secretary, Office of Senator Mark Leno, (916) 651-4011; ali.bay@sen.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO – The California state Senate today approved a bill that would reform California’s drug sentencing laws for simple possession, significantly reduce incarceration costs for counties and help the state end its ongoing incarceration crisis.

S.B. 649, the Local Control in Sentencing Act, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was approved by the Senate in a 23-14 vote, and moves now to the state Assembly for consideration.

“We commend the Senate for approving this bill at a time when lasting, sustainable and common sense solutions to California’s ongoing incarceration crisis are so needed,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, senior criminal justice and drug policy advocate for the ACLU of California. “This bill will help counties break the state’s addiction to incarceration by enabling them to invest their limited resources in the community-based treatment, rehabilitation and education programs proven to reduce recidivism, prevent crime and increase public safety.”

The bill, sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the Drug Policy Alliance and others, gives prosecutors the flexibility to charge low-level drug possession for personal use as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The bill also gives judges discretion to deem a low-level drug possession offense to be either a misdemeanor or felony after consideration of the offense and the defendant’s record. S.B. 649, which does not apply to anyone involved in selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for sale, will give counties the flexibility to safely alleviate overcrowding in county jails, ease pressure on California’s court system and result in more than $100 million in annual savings for the state and local governments.

“One of the best ways to promote lower crime rates is to provide low-level offenders with the rehabilitation they need to successfully reenter their communities,” said Leno. “However, our current laws do just the opposite. We give non-violent drug offenders long terms, offer them no treatment while they’re incarcerated and then release them back into the community with few job prospects or opportunities to receive an education. SB 649 gives local governments the flexibility to choose reduced penalties so that they can reinvest in proven alternatives that benefit minor offenders and reserve limited jail space for serious criminals.”

S.B. 649 will allow counties to reduce jail spending and dedicate resources to probation, drug treatment and mental health services that have proven most effective in reducing crime. It will also help law enforcement rededicate resources to more serious offenders. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates reducing penalties for drug possession could save the state and counties about $159 million annually.

Across the country, 13 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government treat drug possession as a misdemeanor. Drug crime is not higher in those states. A statewide poll of Californians conducted by Tulchin Research late last year showed that an overwhelming majority of Californians support this type of drug sentencing reform, with 75 percent of state voters favoring investment in prevention and alternatives to jail for non-violent offenders. In addition, 62 percent of Californians agree that the penalty for possessing a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

Along with the ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance, the bill is sponsored by the California NAACP, the California Public Defenders Association, the William C. Velasquez Institute, Californians for Safety and Justice and the Friends Committee on Legislation.

California voted ‘yes’ on Prop 35; experts, police and sex workers disagree on impact

On November 6, Californians passed Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, which will increase the penalties for convicted human traffickers, mandate law enforcement training in identifying and handling trafficking victims, and require convicted traffickers to disclose their Internet service providers, screen names and email addresses to law enforcement. Proposition 35 also changed California’s evidence code, which regulates evidence that can be used in court, to prevent a trafficking victim’s sexual history from being discussed in a courtroom when he or she sues their traffickers.

Backers argued that Proposition 35 would protect women and children who are being forced into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation and allow victims—especially children—to confront their abusers in court. “When I drafted this, I wanted to do two things: I wanted to recognize the severity of the crime and I also wanted to recognize the victims as victims, not as criminals,” said Daphne Phung, the initiative’s author and the founder of California Against Slavery, a nonprofit group that was a major proponent of the Yes on 35 campaign.

But now that voters have passed Proposition 35 by a whopping 81 percent, there is little agreement among law enforcement agencies, legal experts and sex workers about how the initiative will affect adults who voluntarily choose to work in the sex industry, especially with regard to the owners of indoor places of work, like brothels, escort services and massage parlors.

During the campaign, sex workers, as well as some anti-trafficking organizations and civil rights groups, opposed Proposition 35, citing concerns like the mandatory disclosure of Internet habits and identities for convicted traffickers. The day after it passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the Internet disclosure provision.

Read the rest of the story from Titania Kumeh and Samantha Masunaga at Oakland North.Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

via SFGATE