Hoping to Reform Justice System, Groups Eye Sunset Review — Texas Department of Criminal Justice | The Texas Tribune
"With the Texas Legislature set to begin the state review process for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the Board of Pardons and Paroles in January, advocacy groups have already begun lobbying the Sunset Advisory Commission, which will conduct the review.
"As a human rights organization, our perspective is that these conditions are cruel and unusual, they violate the Constitution, and that it's illegal to house prisoners in these conditions," said Scott Medlock of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
The group has already sent a letter to the Sunset Advisory Commission noting what it considers inadequate health care for prisoners.
But Medlock knows arguing for prisoners' rights doesn't always get far in tough-on-crime Texas. So he's also proposing measures he says could improve prisoner conditions while cutting costs for the state, like reviewing sentencing policies that keep geriatric inmates behind bars, where they disproportionately use up the prison system’s limited health care dollars.
"So that results in old and frail prisoners who have already served an extremely long time in prison that then become very expensive to care for as they reach their later years," Medlock said.
Mark Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, agrees that sentencing and the prison population should be reviewed. He said the state must prioritize its prison space to keep threats to society behind bars but should steer lower-level offenders, like individuals convicted of minor drug possession, out of jail."
Friday, December 2, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
FFWD - Calgary News & Views - News - Crime bill
FFWD - Calgary News & Views - News - Crime bill
"The clock is ticking on the Harper government’s promise to pass its omnibus crime bill within 100 parliamentary days (expected to come around mid-March). Bill C-10, known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, is opposed by other levels of government, lawyers, criminologists, advocacy groups and virtually every stakeholder. One voice that has remained noticeably mute is the Alberta government’s.
The bill is a 150-page bundle of seven previously introduced measures, which were not passed, created for the Conservatives’ “tough on crime” agenda. If passed, it will, among other things: allow the victims of terrorism to sue terrorists; extend the time period required before criminal pardons are granted; discontinue house arrest for violent criminals; introduce safeguards against human trafficking; and usher in minimum sentences for sexual offences against children, drug-related offences and repeat young offenders.
The Alberta government has relatively little to say about the omnibus crime bill, but it is supportive. Alberta Justice Minister Verlyn Olson, speaking recently in the legislature, said that Alberta backed the legislation when it was introduced last spring and continues to do so now. Alberta Justice spokesperson Josh Stewart reiterates Olson’s position.
“We were supportive of them (the seven bills) in the past and we’re supportive of them still,” Stewart says. “We were involved in quite a bit of the work behind C-10; a lot of the legislative changes at the federal level we’ve been pushing for over the years.” Stewart points to mandatory sentencing and added prohibitions against the sexual predation of children as two of the areas the Alberta government had a hand in.
“I think Albertans definitely are pro for a stance of being tough on crime. I don’t think there’s a question on that,” he adds.
Not every province shares that view. Ontario and Quebec’s governments are perhaps the most vocally opposed. Both provinces are fighting the omnibus bill’s hardline stance on crime and refusing to pay for the anticipated expansion of the corrections system.
Stewart and the solicitor general’s spokesperson, Jason Maloney, dismiss concerns over increased costs as premature.
“There are going to be costs, but it does take money to fight crime,” says Stewart. “It’s really too early to speculate on what the costs might be or against how those costs might be split.”
While the provincial government appears confident Albertans support the proposed changes, those in the province who are familiar with crime and punishment seem unanimously opposed."
"The clock is ticking on the Harper government’s promise to pass its omnibus crime bill within 100 parliamentary days (expected to come around mid-March). Bill C-10, known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, is opposed by other levels of government, lawyers, criminologists, advocacy groups and virtually every stakeholder. One voice that has remained noticeably mute is the Alberta government’s.
The bill is a 150-page bundle of seven previously introduced measures, which were not passed, created for the Conservatives’ “tough on crime” agenda. If passed, it will, among other things: allow the victims of terrorism to sue terrorists; extend the time period required before criminal pardons are granted; discontinue house arrest for violent criminals; introduce safeguards against human trafficking; and usher in minimum sentences for sexual offences against children, drug-related offences and repeat young offenders.
The Alberta government has relatively little to say about the omnibus crime bill, but it is supportive. Alberta Justice Minister Verlyn Olson, speaking recently in the legislature, said that Alberta backed the legislation when it was introduced last spring and continues to do so now. Alberta Justice spokesperson Josh Stewart reiterates Olson’s position.
“We were supportive of them (the seven bills) in the past and we’re supportive of them still,” Stewart says. “We were involved in quite a bit of the work behind C-10; a lot of the legislative changes at the federal level we’ve been pushing for over the years.” Stewart points to mandatory sentencing and added prohibitions against the sexual predation of children as two of the areas the Alberta government had a hand in.
“I think Albertans definitely are pro for a stance of being tough on crime. I don’t think there’s a question on that,” he adds.
Not every province shares that view. Ontario and Quebec’s governments are perhaps the most vocally opposed. Both provinces are fighting the omnibus bill’s hardline stance on crime and refusing to pay for the anticipated expansion of the corrections system.
Stewart and the solicitor general’s spokesperson, Jason Maloney, dismiss concerns over increased costs as premature.
“There are going to be costs, but it does take money to fight crime,” says Stewart. “It’s really too early to speculate on what the costs might be or against how those costs might be split.”
While the provincial government appears confident Albertans support the proposed changes, those in the province who are familiar with crime and punishment seem unanimously opposed."
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Obama: Drug Addiction is a Disease, Not a Crime
Obama: Drug Addiction is a Disease, Not a Crime
"The Office of National Drug Control Policy hosted a media briefing on Nov. 20, to highlight the Obama Administration’s unprecedented approaches to addressing drug addiction.
Ben Tucker, deputy director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs set the tone by giving stats about how costly criminalizing drug use has been.
“The Department of Justice released new data showing that drug use cost our society about $193 billion a year. Fifty six billion of those dollars can be traced directly back to costs associated solely with the criminal justice system,” said Tucker.
The deputy pointed out that contributing to this immense cost are the more than seven million people in the United States who are under the supervision of the criminal justice system with more than two million behind bars.
For states and localities across the country, the costs of managing these populations have grown significantly. Between 1988 and 2009, state corrections spending increased from $12 billion to more than $50 billion per year.
“African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately incarcerated for drug offenses. These two groups have consistently higher proportions of inmates in state prison who are drug offenders compared to Whites - about 50 percent higher among these minorities compared to Whites,” said Tucker.
“As our nation works to recover from the greatest recession we’ve had, we must do everything we can to lessen the harm that drug offenses and drug use have on the health, safety, and economic potential of our nation and our fellow citizens.”
Gil Kerlikowske, director of National Drug Control Policy outlined unprecedented actions being undertaken by the Obama Administration to address this challenge by breaking the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration and re-arrest.
The Obama Administration’s approach to criminal justice drug policy is guided by three facts; that addiction is a disease that can be treated; people can recover and new interventions are needed to appropriately address substance abuse and drug-related crime.
“We cannot arrest our way out of our nation’s drug problem and while new strategies are being implemented there is more to do,” said Kerlikowske.
This last fiscal year, the Obama Administration spent $10.4 billion on drug prevention and treatment programs compared to $9.2 billion on domestic drug enforcement."
"The Office of National Drug Control Policy hosted a media briefing on Nov. 20, to highlight the Obama Administration’s unprecedented approaches to addressing drug addiction.
Ben Tucker, deputy director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs set the tone by giving stats about how costly criminalizing drug use has been.
“The Department of Justice released new data showing that drug use cost our society about $193 billion a year. Fifty six billion of those dollars can be traced directly back to costs associated solely with the criminal justice system,” said Tucker.
The deputy pointed out that contributing to this immense cost are the more than seven million people in the United States who are under the supervision of the criminal justice system with more than two million behind bars.
For states and localities across the country, the costs of managing these populations have grown significantly. Between 1988 and 2009, state corrections spending increased from $12 billion to more than $50 billion per year.
“African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately incarcerated for drug offenses. These two groups have consistently higher proportions of inmates in state prison who are drug offenders compared to Whites - about 50 percent higher among these minorities compared to Whites,” said Tucker.
“As our nation works to recover from the greatest recession we’ve had, we must do everything we can to lessen the harm that drug offenses and drug use have on the health, safety, and economic potential of our nation and our fellow citizens.”
Gil Kerlikowske, director of National Drug Control Policy outlined unprecedented actions being undertaken by the Obama Administration to address this challenge by breaking the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration and re-arrest.
The Obama Administration’s approach to criminal justice drug policy is guided by three facts; that addiction is a disease that can be treated; people can recover and new interventions are needed to appropriately address substance abuse and drug-related crime.
“We cannot arrest our way out of our nation’s drug problem and while new strategies are being implemented there is more to do,” said Kerlikowske.
This last fiscal year, the Obama Administration spent $10.4 billion on drug prevention and treatment programs compared to $9.2 billion on domestic drug enforcement."
Monday, November 28, 2011
Beyond Fighting Crime, FBI Reaches Out To Victims : NPR
Beyond Fighting Crime, FBI Reaches Out To Victims : NPR
"When FBI agents arrive at the scene of a shooting or a terrorist attack, there's often someone else standing in the background. It's a representative from the FBI's Office for Victim Assistance, there to help people suffering in the aftermath of a disaster.
The planning for those unfortunate days starts here, in a windowless conference room in the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building, where seven serious-looking people are sitting around a table.
They're talking about how to pick volunteers to serve on five elite teams of victim specialists they deploy when something really bad happens: what they call a mass casualty event. That means a bombing, a massacre or a terrorist attack.
Dr. Steve Porter is a clinical neuropsychologist who used to work with special forces in the military.
"It's a very demanding process," Porter says of the victim-assistance rapid-deployment teams. "These people who volunteer to be on this have to be able to leave in a moment's notice, almost. ... They have to be on call 24/7. They never know when they're going to get called."
They need to be able to help with basic needs, Porter says, such as safety, food, shelter and clothing.
In cases they know about in advance, such as raids on brothels where young women are trafficked, FBI social workers say they plan ahead: buying T-shirts, sweat pants and flip-flops for women inside who might need them.
"There are so many things we can't do for them — we can't alleviate their loss — but we do try to provide for those practical needs and a lot of that starts with information," says Kathryn Turman, who created the victim-assistance office at the FBI 10 years ago this December.
Sometimes that means a little something more. In the early days, not long after Turman started the unit at the FBI, she reached out to a woman whose husband had been killed in a bombing in Iraq.
"I said, 'I wanted to say how sorry we are about your husband's murder,'" Turman says. "And she said, 'You're the first person who's used that word.' And that's what it was: It was a murder."
Turman and the FBI office she leads represent a pioneering philosophy, says Mai Fernandez, who directs the National Center for Victims of Crime, a nonprofit advocacy group."
"When FBI agents arrive at the scene of a shooting or a terrorist attack, there's often someone else standing in the background. It's a representative from the FBI's Office for Victim Assistance, there to help people suffering in the aftermath of a disaster.
The planning for those unfortunate days starts here, in a windowless conference room in the J. Edgar Hoover FBI building, where seven serious-looking people are sitting around a table.
They're talking about how to pick volunteers to serve on five elite teams of victim specialists they deploy when something really bad happens: what they call a mass casualty event. That means a bombing, a massacre or a terrorist attack.
Dr. Steve Porter is a clinical neuropsychologist who used to work with special forces in the military.
"It's a very demanding process," Porter says of the victim-assistance rapid-deployment teams. "These people who volunteer to be on this have to be able to leave in a moment's notice, almost. ... They have to be on call 24/7. They never know when they're going to get called."
They need to be able to help with basic needs, Porter says, such as safety, food, shelter and clothing.
In cases they know about in advance, such as raids on brothels where young women are trafficked, FBI social workers say they plan ahead: buying T-shirts, sweat pants and flip-flops for women inside who might need them.
"There are so many things we can't do for them — we can't alleviate their loss — but we do try to provide for those practical needs and a lot of that starts with information," says Kathryn Turman, who created the victim-assistance office at the FBI 10 years ago this December.
Sometimes that means a little something more. In the early days, not long after Turman started the unit at the FBI, she reached out to a woman whose husband had been killed in a bombing in Iraq.
"I said, 'I wanted to say how sorry we are about your husband's murder,'" Turman says. "And she said, 'You're the first person who's used that word.' And that's what it was: It was a murder."
Turman and the FBI office she leads represent a pioneering philosophy, says Mai Fernandez, who directs the National Center for Victims of Crime, a nonprofit advocacy group."
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Charlotte Post - Challenge to Racial Justice Act
The Charlotte Post - Challenge to Racial Justice Act
"Two years after it became law, the Racial Justice Act is under attack by N.C. district attorneys who fear it could wreak havoc on public safety and want it repealed.
“No district attorney supports race as a factor in either death penalty cases or in the criminal justice system in general,” Susan Doyle, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, said in a statement. “While the name of the act sounds well-intentioned, the actual application is a threat to justice, truth and public safety.”
Supporters of the RJA, which prohibits seeking or imposing the death penalty on the basis of race, say that it is not a get of jail pass. For those who prove racial discrimination, their sentence will be commuted to a life without parole.
“It doesn’t let anybody get out of jail,” said Rep. Larry Womble, D-Forsyth, a primary sponsor of the act. “You have to spend the rest of your life in jail.”
But Doyle said that argument is misleading because prior to October 1, 1994, life without parole wasn’t an option under the Fair Sentencing Act, which governed sentencing during the 1980s and early 1990s. Anyone who committed a crime under that law would be eligible for parole after 20 years, which would include time served.
“The most concerning thing is that the law as it’s currently written could allow anywhere from 73 to 90 people who are currently death row inmates to be immediately considered for parole if their death sentences were vacated and life imposed,” she said.
A letter addressed to N.C. Sen. Phil Berger (D-Guilford), president pro tempore, on Nov. 14 on behalf of all 44 district attorneys, calls for an amendment the RJA. All but two of the DAs are white, and only one attorney didn’t sign the resolution. Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who didn’t sign it, declined comment.
The letter came just days after prosecutors failed in their attempt to stop Gregory Weeks, an African-American superior court judge, from presiding over the state’s first RJA case.
The N.C. RJA allows for relevant evidence to be used including statistical evidence to establish that race was a significant factor in seeking or imposing the death penalty."
"Two years after it became law, the Racial Justice Act is under attack by N.C. district attorneys who fear it could wreak havoc on public safety and want it repealed.
“No district attorney supports race as a factor in either death penalty cases or in the criminal justice system in general,” Susan Doyle, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, said in a statement. “While the name of the act sounds well-intentioned, the actual application is a threat to justice, truth and public safety.”
Supporters of the RJA, which prohibits seeking or imposing the death penalty on the basis of race, say that it is not a get of jail pass. For those who prove racial discrimination, their sentence will be commuted to a life without parole.
“It doesn’t let anybody get out of jail,” said Rep. Larry Womble, D-Forsyth, a primary sponsor of the act. “You have to spend the rest of your life in jail.”
But Doyle said that argument is misleading because prior to October 1, 1994, life without parole wasn’t an option under the Fair Sentencing Act, which governed sentencing during the 1980s and early 1990s. Anyone who committed a crime under that law would be eligible for parole after 20 years, which would include time served.
“The most concerning thing is that the law as it’s currently written could allow anywhere from 73 to 90 people who are currently death row inmates to be immediately considered for parole if their death sentences were vacated and life imposed,” she said.
A letter addressed to N.C. Sen. Phil Berger (D-Guilford), president pro tempore, on Nov. 14 on behalf of all 44 district attorneys, calls for an amendment the RJA. All but two of the DAs are white, and only one attorney didn’t sign the resolution. Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who didn’t sign it, declined comment.
The letter came just days after prosecutors failed in their attempt to stop Gregory Weeks, an African-American superior court judge, from presiding over the state’s first RJA case.
The N.C. RJA allows for relevant evidence to be used including statistical evidence to establish that race was a significant factor in seeking or imposing the death penalty."
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
NCAI: Congress deals setback to tribal justice
NCAI: Congress deals setback to tribal justice
"According to studies, Indian reservations nationwide face violent crime rates more than 2.5 times the national rate, and some reservations face more than 20 times the national rate of violence.
WASHINGTON – Leaders of the National Congress of American Indians said the U.S. Congress has leveled a major setback to Indian tribes in need of critical resources to combat the highest crime rates in the country.
Congress’s decision to cut more than $90 million from proposed funding for Department of Justice measures in Indian Country leaves tribal law enforcement and federal personnel with far too few resources to fight crime on tribal lands, NCAI officials said.
Signed into law in 2010 with bipartisan support, the Tribal Law & Order Act sets out to reduce crime in Indian Country by making improvements to the way criminal justice is administered on tribal lands and reauthorizing critical tribal justice programs.
On Nov. 14, Congress released the fiscal year 2012 Appropriations Conference Report for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. The report shows funding cuts for tribal justice programs across the board and did not include a proposed 7 percent tribal set-aside for all discretionary Office of Justice Programs.
The report also proposes $15 million cuts to both the COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program and the Tribal Youth Program. Funding for tribal assistance within OJP was also cut, receiving only $38 million – $62 million short of the approximate $100 million initially proposed in President Barack Obama’s FY 2012 budget request.
NCAI officials said the funding cut is a failure of significant proportions and will make the act’s intended goals difficult to attain."
"According to studies, Indian reservations nationwide face violent crime rates more than 2.5 times the national rate, and some reservations face more than 20 times the national rate of violence.
WASHINGTON – Leaders of the National Congress of American Indians said the U.S. Congress has leveled a major setback to Indian tribes in need of critical resources to combat the highest crime rates in the country.
Congress’s decision to cut more than $90 million from proposed funding for Department of Justice measures in Indian Country leaves tribal law enforcement and federal personnel with far too few resources to fight crime on tribal lands, NCAI officials said.
Signed into law in 2010 with bipartisan support, the Tribal Law & Order Act sets out to reduce crime in Indian Country by making improvements to the way criminal justice is administered on tribal lands and reauthorizing critical tribal justice programs.
On Nov. 14, Congress released the fiscal year 2012 Appropriations Conference Report for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. The report shows funding cuts for tribal justice programs across the board and did not include a proposed 7 percent tribal set-aside for all discretionary Office of Justice Programs.
The report also proposes $15 million cuts to both the COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program and the Tribal Youth Program. Funding for tribal assistance within OJP was also cut, receiving only $38 million – $62 million short of the approximate $100 million initially proposed in President Barack Obama’s FY 2012 budget request.
NCAI officials said the funding cut is a failure of significant proportions and will make the act’s intended goals difficult to attain."
Monday, November 21, 2011
Oddly, Texas can teach the UK a thing or two on criminal justice | Ian Birrell | Comment is free | The Guardian
Oddly, Texas can teach the UK a thing or two on criminal justice | Ian Birrell | Comment is free | The Guardian
"Hang 'em high Texas is not the first place you might look for lessons in criminal justice. The lone star state prides itself on
its toughness, with more executions and fewer bleeding hearts than
elsewhere in America, the most hardline state in a nation that locks
up more miscreants than anywhere else in the world. But it is the unlikely centre of a revolution in prison reform sweeping the US, overthrowing decades of failed polices and sterile debate driven by politicians scared of being seen as soft. The state has cut crime, costs and the numbers in jail to such an extent it has just shut a high-security prison for the first time in history.
What makes this prison revolt even more unexpected is that it is led by some of the most conservative figures in politics. They have decided – correctly – that an expensive prison system repeatedly locking up the same people is a sign of failure. As a result, they have endorsed policies traditionally seen as liberal to keep people out of jail.
The right in Britain should take note as our prison population hits record highs. Just as in this country, politicians in Texas were desperate to be seen as being tough on crime. There was reckless rhetoric and endless headline-grabbing legislation, including the ludicrous three-strikes law that led to life sentences for a third offence – even when that was stealing a slice of pizza.
Inevitably, prison populations and spending soared. The costs of incarceration rose fourfold in two decades. America now accounts for a quarter of all prisoners on the planet – and two-thirds of new inmates are recidivists.
Then Texas decided enough was enough. Four years ago, it was told to spend another $2bn on 17,332 new prison places. Instead, the state opted to invest in halfway houses to help those leaving prison and schemes to aid addicted and mentally ill offenders. Since then, taxpayers have saved a billion dollars, violent crime has fallen to its lowest level for three decades, and the right has seen the light on criminal justice. More than a dozen states have made similar moves, with some of the most doughty bastions of conservatism softening sentencing policies and shifting emphasis to treatment, training, early release and community-based punishments. A campaign called Right On Crime has been launched to promote the idea, supported by conservative standard-bearers such as Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich.
The driving force was financial. But it makes perfect sense for the right. As the group's website says, turning law-breakers into law-abiding citizens should be a conservative priority because it advances public safety and the rule of law. The cause unites libertarians wanting to scale back the state, fiscal conservatives seeking to reduce spending, social conservatives concerned by family breakdown, and a religious right that believes in redemption.
Is it too much to hope for a similar outbreak of common sense in Britain? Among the biggest disappointments of the Blair and Brown governments was their pandering to the right on crime, with 28 criminal justice bills. The coalition has tried to adopt a more evidence-based approach, with an emphasis on rehabilitation and payment by results, but is wobbling in the face of fury on the backbenches and in the media."
"Hang 'em high Texas is not the first place you might look for lessons in criminal justice. The lone star state prides itself on
its toughness, with more executions and fewer bleeding hearts than
elsewhere in America, the most hardline state in a nation that locks
up more miscreants than anywhere else in the world. But it is the unlikely centre of a revolution in prison reform sweeping the US, overthrowing decades of failed polices and sterile debate driven by politicians scared of being seen as soft. The state has cut crime, costs and the numbers in jail to such an extent it has just shut a high-security prison for the first time in history.
What makes this prison revolt even more unexpected is that it is led by some of the most conservative figures in politics. They have decided – correctly – that an expensive prison system repeatedly locking up the same people is a sign of failure. As a result, they have endorsed policies traditionally seen as liberal to keep people out of jail.
The right in Britain should take note as our prison population hits record highs. Just as in this country, politicians in Texas were desperate to be seen as being tough on crime. There was reckless rhetoric and endless headline-grabbing legislation, including the ludicrous three-strikes law that led to life sentences for a third offence – even when that was stealing a slice of pizza.
Inevitably, prison populations and spending soared. The costs of incarceration rose fourfold in two decades. America now accounts for a quarter of all prisoners on the planet – and two-thirds of new inmates are recidivists.
Then Texas decided enough was enough. Four years ago, it was told to spend another $2bn on 17,332 new prison places. Instead, the state opted to invest in halfway houses to help those leaving prison and schemes to aid addicted and mentally ill offenders. Since then, taxpayers have saved a billion dollars, violent crime has fallen to its lowest level for three decades, and the right has seen the light on criminal justice. More than a dozen states have made similar moves, with some of the most doughty bastions of conservatism softening sentencing policies and shifting emphasis to treatment, training, early release and community-based punishments. A campaign called Right On Crime has been launched to promote the idea, supported by conservative standard-bearers such as Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich.
The driving force was financial. But it makes perfect sense for the right. As the group's website says, turning law-breakers into law-abiding citizens should be a conservative priority because it advances public safety and the rule of law. The cause unites libertarians wanting to scale back the state, fiscal conservatives seeking to reduce spending, social conservatives concerned by family breakdown, and a religious right that believes in redemption.
Is it too much to hope for a similar outbreak of common sense in Britain? Among the biggest disappointments of the Blair and Brown governments was their pandering to the right on crime, with 28 criminal justice bills. The coalition has tried to adopt a more evidence-based approach, with an emphasis on rehabilitation and payment by results, but is wobbling in the face of fury on the backbenches and in the media."
Friday, November 18, 2011
Youngstown News, Mental health courts: A good idea then and even better now
Youngstown News, Mental health courts: A good idea then and even better now
"Ohio Supreme Court Justice Eve- lyn Lundberg Stratton and Attorney General Mike DeWine are once again collaborating in the important work of breaking a pattern that too often ends with mentally ill people facing criminal charges and ending up in jail or prison.
Nearly a decade ago, Justice Stratton was working her way around the state touting federal legislation that had been authored by then-U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-6th, that encouraged development of mental health courts. At the time, we urged Mahoning County to pursue establishment of one, and it did so.
Today, Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Maureen A. Sweeney presides over the court, which is one of 37 in the state. The court works with mental health agencies in the county to provide a better, cheaper and more just alternative than jail for nonviolent offenders who are battling mental health issues.
The movement toward recognizing the need for intervention and an alternative to incarceration followed the deinstitutionalization movement and the closing of state mental health facilities decades ago. The motives of that movement may have been pure and even necessary in an age when too many people were too easily confined to institutions. But the effect was also to put many people on the streets who still had mental health issues and who were, for a variety of reasons, not receiving treatment or medication.
And in that environment, those people ended up arrested, in court and, often, in prison. Back in 2000, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said it was housing 6,393 mentally ill inmates, 3,051 of whom were classified as severely mentally disabled. Five years later, mentally ill inmates were still an enormous burden on the Department of Corrections, with $64 million spent in 2006 on mental health care for inmates — more than was spent on food for all inmates."
"Ohio Supreme Court Justice Eve- lyn Lundberg Stratton and Attorney General Mike DeWine are once again collaborating in the important work of breaking a pattern that too often ends with mentally ill people facing criminal charges and ending up in jail or prison.
Nearly a decade ago, Justice Stratton was working her way around the state touting federal legislation that had been authored by then-U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-6th, that encouraged development of mental health courts. At the time, we urged Mahoning County to pursue establishment of one, and it did so.
Today, Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Maureen A. Sweeney presides over the court, which is one of 37 in the state. The court works with mental health agencies in the county to provide a better, cheaper and more just alternative than jail for nonviolent offenders who are battling mental health issues.
The movement toward recognizing the need for intervention and an alternative to incarceration followed the deinstitutionalization movement and the closing of state mental health facilities decades ago. The motives of that movement may have been pure and even necessary in an age when too many people were too easily confined to institutions. But the effect was also to put many people on the streets who still had mental health issues and who were, for a variety of reasons, not receiving treatment or medication.
And in that environment, those people ended up arrested, in court and, often, in prison. Back in 2000, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said it was housing 6,393 mentally ill inmates, 3,051 of whom were classified as severely mentally disabled. Five years later, mentally ill inmates were still an enormous burden on the Department of Corrections, with $64 million spent in 2006 on mental health care for inmates — more than was spent on food for all inmates."
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Quebec Justice minister challenges senator over anti-crime bill
Quebec Justice minister challenges senator over anti-crime bill
"QUEBEC — Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier issued a challenge Wednesday to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, after the Conservative senator said Quebec is “soft on crime,” to come up with scientific evidence that Ottawa’s proposal for stiffer sentences will work better.
“Give us one document,” Fournier told reporters, calling Boisvenu’s position “demagogic.”
“I can give you until Friday,” the minister added.
“If they are right, they will not be afraid to have a debate with scientific studies in the name of victims in Quebec and across Canada.”
Fournier is incensed that the Harper government is ignoring his advice and pushing ahead with C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, an omnibus bill calling for mandatory and longer sentences, with sweeping amendments to the Criminal Code and related laws.
“Stop the C-10 express and give us time to do things properly,” Fournier told reporters.
Boisvenu said at an Ottawa news conference that Fournier’s assessment of C-10 is wrong.
Boisvenu’s daughter Julie was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 2002 by a 27-year-old man out of prison on parole after being convicted of a sexual offence.
The Quebec minister objects that changes in C-10 to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to treat some young offenders as adults, would undo Quebec’s practice of counselling and rehabilitating minors who commit crimes so they do not become repeat offenders.
Boisvenu said only three per cent of young offenders would be effected by C-10, those committing violent crimes, such as murder or aggravated sexual assault."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+Justice+minister+challenges+senator+over+anti+crime+bill/5722274/story.html#ixzz1dyqf1Tzj
"QUEBEC — Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier issued a challenge Wednesday to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, after the Conservative senator said Quebec is “soft on crime,” to come up with scientific evidence that Ottawa’s proposal for stiffer sentences will work better.
“Give us one document,” Fournier told reporters, calling Boisvenu’s position “demagogic.”
“I can give you until Friday,” the minister added.
“If they are right, they will not be afraid to have a debate with scientific studies in the name of victims in Quebec and across Canada.”
Fournier is incensed that the Harper government is ignoring his advice and pushing ahead with C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, an omnibus bill calling for mandatory and longer sentences, with sweeping amendments to the Criminal Code and related laws.
“Stop the C-10 express and give us time to do things properly,” Fournier told reporters.
Boisvenu said at an Ottawa news conference that Fournier’s assessment of C-10 is wrong.
Boisvenu’s daughter Julie was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 2002 by a 27-year-old man out of prison on parole after being convicted of a sexual offence.
The Quebec minister objects that changes in C-10 to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to treat some young offenders as adults, would undo Quebec’s practice of counselling and rehabilitating minors who commit crimes so they do not become repeat offenders.
Boisvenu said only three per cent of young offenders would be effected by C-10, those committing violent crimes, such as murder or aggravated sexual assault."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+Justice+minister+challenges+senator+over+anti+crime+bill/5722274/story.html#ixzz1dyqf1Tzj
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime
Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime
"The US Department of Justice wants to make it a federal crime to violate the “terms of service” of any website, reports Declan McCullagh at CNet. According to this interpretation, breaching the terms of service of websites — which can be done by simply using a fake name on Facebook, lying about your weight on a dating site, or using Google if you’re under the age of 18 — could make you a criminal.
According to a leaked statement that Richard Downing, the DoJ’s deputy computer crime chief, will reportedly deliver to Congress on Wednesday, the DoJ will argue that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) — an amendment to the Counterfeit Access Device and Abuse Act generally used to prosecute hacking and other serious cyber-crimes, and which went into effect way back in 1986 — must give prosecutors the ability to charge people “based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider.”
According to Downing, the expansion of this law is necessary for law enforcement to prosecute individuals for identity theft, privacy invasion or the misuse of government databases, among other infractions. Limiting “prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service… would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution,” Downing is expected to say.
Just to reiterate, in case you didn’t catch that sly turn of legalese, the DoJ is saying that not allowing them to prosecute people for violating websites’ terms of service would make it “more difficult or impossible” to scare people with the threat of prosecution. Yay, America!
Of course, if the DoJ is permitted to act upon the CFAA in the way they want, a vast number of Internet users would be in violation of federal law, especially because almost nobody even reads terms of service, let alone follows them to the letter. Fortunately, some very smart and authoritative people will be present to argue this very fact.
Orin S. Kerr, professor of George Washington University Law School, will testify against the Department of Justice, arguing that the DoJ’s interpretation of the CFAA is “extraordinarily broad.”
For example, Kerr explains that Google’s terms of service stipulate that if ““you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google,” you are forbidden from using any of its sites or services. Seeing as the legal age of contract in most states is 18, “a 17-year-old who conducts a Google search in the course of researching a term paper has likely violated Google’s Terms of Service. According to the Justice Department’s interpretation of the statute, he or she is a criminal,” writes Kerr."
"The US Department of Justice wants to make it a federal crime to violate the “terms of service” of any website, reports Declan McCullagh at CNet. According to this interpretation, breaching the terms of service of websites — which can be done by simply using a fake name on Facebook, lying about your weight on a dating site, or using Google if you’re under the age of 18 — could make you a criminal.
According to a leaked statement that Richard Downing, the DoJ’s deputy computer crime chief, will reportedly deliver to Congress on Wednesday, the DoJ will argue that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) — an amendment to the Counterfeit Access Device and Abuse Act generally used to prosecute hacking and other serious cyber-crimes, and which went into effect way back in 1986 — must give prosecutors the ability to charge people “based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider.”
According to Downing, the expansion of this law is necessary for law enforcement to prosecute individuals for identity theft, privacy invasion or the misuse of government databases, among other infractions. Limiting “prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service… would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution,” Downing is expected to say.
Just to reiterate, in case you didn’t catch that sly turn of legalese, the DoJ is saying that not allowing them to prosecute people for violating websites’ terms of service would make it “more difficult or impossible” to scare people with the threat of prosecution. Yay, America!
Of course, if the DoJ is permitted to act upon the CFAA in the way they want, a vast number of Internet users would be in violation of federal law, especially because almost nobody even reads terms of service, let alone follows them to the letter. Fortunately, some very smart and authoritative people will be present to argue this very fact.
Orin S. Kerr, professor of George Washington University Law School, will testify against the Department of Justice, arguing that the DoJ’s interpretation of the CFAA is “extraordinarily broad.”
For example, Kerr explains that Google’s terms of service stipulate that if ““you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google,” you are forbidden from using any of its sites or services. Seeing as the legal age of contract in most states is 18, “a 17-year-old who conducts a Google search in the course of researching a term paper has likely violated Google’s Terms of Service. According to the Justice Department’s interpretation of the statute, he or she is a criminal,” writes Kerr."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)