A Humane way to handle [white] juvenile offenders in Orange County: Written Citations Not Arrests

OrlandoSentinel

A seventh-grader steals a pack of cigarettes, his first offense. A ninth-grader vandalizes a car, also his first offense. Increasingly in Florida, such juvenile offenders are not being arrested.

Instead, they're being given written civil citations.

They still face sanctions such as being forced to do community service and pay restitution, but they come away with no arrest record.

It's a reform championed by Gov. Rick Scott, and Wednesday at 10 a.m. at the Orange County Courthouse, local law enforcement officials, Orange-Osceola State Attorney Jeff Ashton, Public Defender Robert Wesley and officers of the League of Women Voters of Orange County will hold a news conference to give a status report on how Central Florida law enforcement agencies measure up. Orange County is 64% white. [MORE]

According to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, half of the juvenile offenders eligible for civil citations statewide received them instead of facing arrest.

In Orange County, that average was 39 percent in a recent 12-month period.

"Why do civil citations? Because it saves beaucoup money and, for whatever reason, the re-offense rate is dropped, too. Any time you can save money and drop the re-offense or recidivism rate, that's good," Smith said.

The recidivism rate for young offenders who receive civil citations is 5 percent, according to the Department of Juvenile Justice. That's one-third of the recidivism rate for offenders who are placed on probation and supervised by state employees. For the most serious Florida juvenile offenders sent to a residential facility, the recidivism rate is nearly 10 times that or 45 percent, department records show.

Wall Street Is Dreaming Of Megamergers Under Trump -- Including A Verizon-Comcast Super Union

TechDirt

We've been discussing how despite all of the "populist" rhetoric on the Trump campaign trail, the President Elect has nominated several cozy telecom industry insiders to guide his telecom policy and select a new FCC boss. Both Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark Jamison have lobbied and worked for large ISPs, spending most of the last decade vehemently fighting against any and every consumer reform in telecom. Both have made it abundantly clear they not only want to roll back net neutrality and new broadband privacy rules passed under current boss Tom Wheeler, but they want to dismantle the FCC entirely

With every indication that the government will be significantly more friendly to telecom giants in the new year, Wall Street has quickly gotten to work giddily daydreaming about mergers that were previously unthinkable in the space. Most commonly that involves predictions that Sprint will finally merge with T-Mobile (blocked under the current FCC because it would have reduced overall wireless competitors), or that Comcast and Charter will try to buy either Sprint or T-Mobile as part of a broader cable industry attempt to push into wireless. 

Broad Coalition Calls On Obama to Expand Clemency Eligibility

The Sentencing Project 

A broad coalition of criminal justice reform advocates, former judges and prosecutors, and legal scholars urged President Obama today to expand the number of people eligible for clemency by considering commutations for broad categories of non-violent offenders. The coalition, which includes the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, JustLeadershipUSA, the Sentencing Project, #cut50, and the musician and activist John Legend, cited uncertainty surrounding the next administration’s commitment to criminal justice reform in urging President Obama to go beyond his current clemency initiative.

“While your administration continues to review individual petitions, we urge you to also determine that nonviolent offenders in certain extremely low-risk categories either deserve expedited review or should be granted clemency absent an individualized review,” the group wrote in the letter. “With time running short on your time in office, these steps would be a way for you to deliver lasting change for thousands of deserving individuals and their families.”

The group praised the president for his clemency initiative, through which he has commuted the sentences of over 1,000 incarcerated individuals, and urged him to consider several categories of individuals to whom he could grant sweeping commutations.

“With a stroke of your pen, you could change the lives of thousands of individuals and their families and write a legacy that will stand throughout history,” the group wrote. “We do not know whether the next president will support clemency efforts or criminal justice reform. But we do know that until January 20, you alone have the power to deliver both mercy and justice to those who deserve it.” [MORE]

"Law Cropping" - New Orleans Public Defender Turns Away Felony Cases

Daily Beast

Here’s the way it can go down in New Orleans, especially if you’re black, don’t have much money, and find yourself crossways with the law. And this is before Donald Trump becomes president.

James Smith (not his real name, because his case is pending) was attending a community meeting a few months ago at a well-known club in a predominantly black neighborhood of New Orleans. Afterward, an acquaintance asked for a ride home. Smith agreed, and the two men climbed into his truck. A few blocks later, the police pulled them over. The acquaintance leaped from the truck and fled. The police searched Smith’s truck, found a bag of China White and arrested, and charged him with possession of heroin.

Smith insists the drugs weren’t his. Yes, he used and dealt drugs in the past, accumulating a number of felonies along the way and serving years in jail. But two years ago, he “gave his life to God,” he says, and quit all such activities. Nevertheless, his criminal record means that he faces a prison sentence, if convicted, of 20 years to life.

Smith knows a lawyer who might get the charges dismissed—the police, he claims, stopped him without cause and beat him in front of witnesses—but the lawyer costs $3,000 up front, an impossible amount. In theory, Smith is eligible for a government lawyer, free of charge. But that is a dead end these days in New Orleans.

Derwyn Bunton, the chief district defender for Orleans Parish, stunned observers earlier this year by announcing that his office would stop accepting the most serious types of felony cases. Bunton took this step not because he wanted to but because chronic underfunding by the Louisiana legislature had left his staff unable to handle the case load.

Whether James Smith is innocent or guilty, it is cases like his that have made New Orleans “The Incarceration Capital of the World.” The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees effective legal representation to anyone accused of a crime; if the accused is too poor to hire a lawyer, as is true of 85 percent of Louisiana’s defendants, the state must provide one. “That constitutional guarantee is violated every day inside this building,” Bunton told a protest rally outside the Courts of Criminal Justice on Oct. 22.

Engraved on the courthouse façade above Bunton were the words, “The Impartial Administration Of Justice Is The Foundation Of Liberty.” Gathered before him were about 200 people who had marched across town in a “second line” parade, a beloved New Orleans musical ritual that has helped generations of African Americans preserve their cultural identity and sense of community in the face of racial injustices dating back to the days of slavery. “Equal Justice For All” read one of the protest signs that bobbed above the crowd beneath bright blue skies. “Fund Public Defenders Now” urged another.

“We need the state to fund us adequately so we can do our job,” Bunton declared, “which is to defend the Constitution, represent our clients, and hold the powerful accountable for what this system produces.”

The problem, Bunton told The Daily Beast, is that “no politician ever made his career on providing money for poor people.” So Bunton, a 44-year-old African American and New York University Law School graduate, joined with some of the city’s second line clubs to mobilize public pressure. “In my experience, the legislature doesn’t do anything that it’s not made to do,” he added. “Organizing this kind of public outcry, and keeping the pressure on, is when you get results.”

Although second lines have traditionally been predominantly black affairs, the crowd at this parade was overwhelmingly white. And that was just fine, said a number of black marchers. “It’s a beautiful thing to see all these white people out here parading for equal justice,” said a man in a white, thigh-length T-shirt who declined to give his name. “It’s important they be here. The system don’t listen until white people speak out.”

No country in the world imprisons a higher percentage of its people than the United States does—not China, not Russia, not even such pariah states as North Korea or Zimbabwe. And no state in the U.S. imprisons more of its people than Louisiana; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Louisiana incarcerates 816 out of every 100,000 people, nearly twice the prevailing rate in Russia. New Orleans puts more people in jail than any other locality in Louisiana, the vast majority of whom are African American.

Derwyn Bunton brought national attention to the scandal that is Louisiana’s criminal justice system by publishing an opinion article in The New York Times earlier this year. He described how years of severe budget cuts by the state legislature in Baton Rouge had shrunk his staff to the point where lawyers were handling twice as many cases as recommended by the American Bar Association. Under such circumstances, Bunton argued, effective legal representation is impossible.

Not content merely to decry the consequences of inadequate funding, Bunton laid down a provocative gauntlet: Rather than be party to a charade of promising justice that could not be delivered, his office would henceforth refuse to accept any new felony cases involving the most serious kinds of allegations—crimes, such as murder, that carry sentences of life without parole. “We simply don’t have enough lawyers to handle the caseload,” he explained.

Bunton cited one of the biggest mass shootings in modern New Orleans history, when 17 people were wounded in Bunny Friend Park in November 2015. Police, citing eyewitnesses, arrested a 32-year-old man. He proclaimed his innocence but was held on $1.7 million bail. Only because the man’s family was able to hire a private attorney, who traveled to Houston to obtain video evidence proving his client was in Houston the night of the shooting, did an innocent man avoid a potential life sentence. Bunton’s under-funded office never could have mounted such a defense, he concluded.

“People sometimes ask me why I do this work,” Bunton told the rally crowd. “It’s because I look at my clients and I see myself.”

“I look at them and I know they’re wondering if they’re going to get fair treatment, because I’ve been in that situation myself,” he later elaborated to The Daily Beast. “As an African-American man growing up, I was hassled by police. I was pepper sprayed twice. I’ve seen how race and class loom large in the U.S. criminal justice system.”

Bunton emphasized that he abhorred refusing new felony cases, but felt that only such a drastic measure could generate the necessary pressure for reform. The American Civil Liberties Union duly sued his office for shirking its Sixth Amendment responsibilities; that suit is ongoing. Meanwhile, national and local media have published thorough investigations that bear out Bunton’s arguments while demonstrating that New Orleans is hardly alone in short-changing public defenders and exposing poor people of all races to legal jeopardy. In Louisiana’s 16th judicial district last June, 30 separate defendants were herded into court to plead guilty en masse—after spending less than 30 seconds consulting with their state appointed legal counsel.

The next funding skirmish for the New Orleans public defender’s office comes in December, when the New Orleans city government will decide its contribution to the office’s annual budget. Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat who is being termed out as mayor in 2018, has been more generous than his predecessors and most other mayors in Louisiana, Bunton conceded. “We are inching towards fairness, but there are still real disparities,” the chief district defender added. “The budget of the district attorney’s office [which prosecutes the suspects Bunton’s office defends] is six times bigger than ours. The Police Department budget is 163 times bigger than ours.”

The main battle unfolds next April, when the state legislature will pass its annual budget. Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, signed a bill last June that provided no additional funding but did reshuffle how funds can be spent. Under HB1137, 65 percent of the funds allocated for indigent defense must go to local public defenders. Supporters of the bill, including the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, argue that this proportion will ensure that “there would be no restriction of services” in the state. Opponents counter that HB1137 is really a Trojan Horse aimed at deterring public defenders from taking on death penalty cases, which are notoriously complex, long, and expensive to litigate.

The real issue, Bunton insists, is the overall level of funding for indigent defense, which is simply not high enough. How likely, though, is a Republican-dominated legislature to increase funding for public defenders—defenders who represent clients many conservatives regard as mere criminals who deserve whatever punishment they get? Bunton bristles at the question.

“That’s tantamount to a question I get asked a lot,” he said: “‘How do you live with yourself, representing those people?’ But I notice that nobody ever asks that question of the lawyers who represent BP and Halliburton and the other companies responsible for the [2010] Gulf [of Mexico] oil disaster. That disaster killed 11 people on the rig, injured hundreds more on land, and ruined thousands of people’s livelihoods and the ecosystem this region depends on for commerce and recreation. But nobody asks those lawyers how they live with themselves.

“At its core,” Bunton adds, “that question presumes that poor people don’t deserve justice. And I fundamentally disagree with that.”

Mark Hertsgaard is an independent journalist and author. His next book is about the biggest mass shooting in New Orleans history—the Mother’s Day shootings of 2013.

New death penalty protocol proposed to Murder non-whites in Nebraska

Nebraska Journal

The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services has proposed revisions to the state's execution protocol that would keep secret the drugs and method of administration until 60 days before request for a death warrant.

At that time, the inmate would be notified of the drug or drugs, and quantity to be administered, according to a news release from the department.

The proposed changes come just three weeks after voters overwhelmingly did away with the Legislature's repeal of the death penalty. 

 

A required hearing on the proposed changes is scheduled for Dec. 30 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the State Office Building, 301 Centennial Mall, Lower Level Conference Room.

The changes would allow the department to obtain available drugs and use the most current methods to administer them, said spokeswoman Dawn-Renee Smith. They could be directly purchased, obtained through the Department of Pharmacy or any other appropriate source, including a pharmaceutical or chemical compounder.

In accordance with state law, the proposal says, the director may authorize any records or information identifying a person, company or entity supplying the drugs to be confidential.

“Nebraskans were decisive in their choice to maintain the death penalty and it is now our duty as elected officials to carry it out," said Gov. Pete Ricketts in a statement. "These proposed changes in protocol balance appropriate inmate notification with the flexibility to utilize various constitutionally approved drugs, so political maneuvers at the federal level can’t circumvent the will of the people.”

The protocol in effect now provides for a three-drug combination: sodium thiopental to render the inmate unconscious and pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxant, to stop breathing. A third drug, potassium chloride, would stop the heart.

The state has been unable to procure the sodium thiopental and pancuronium bromide in recent years. 

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, who has fought against the death penalty for decades, said execution procedures should never be done under the radar or in a sneaky way to keep the public from knowing about something that ought to be more transparent than anything else the state does.

The proposed protocol was released by the department after 3 p.m. Monday, and most of the people who could comment on it did not know about it or had not had a chance to look at it Monday afternoon.

Lincoln Sen. Colby Coash, who opposes the death penalty, said from what he had been told, he believed the proposal would trigger defense attorneys for death row inmates to file lawsuits on behalf of their clients based on how the new protocol would be carried out.

Ten men are on death row, and two more -- Nikko Jenkins and Anthony Garcia, each convicted of killing four people in Omaha -- could be headed to death row.

The ACLU of Nebraska sent out a statement saying it stands ready to fight any effort to cloak Nebraska’s "broken death penalty" in secrecy. [MORE]

The Crucial Immigration Case About Bail Hearings About to Hit the Supreme Court

Marshall Project

With Trump’s pledge to deport millions, bail hearings become an even bigger issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a case that could determine whether immigrants stuck in long-term detention are guaranteed bail hearings. With President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge for mass deportations, the timing is crucial for immigration advocates who hope to secure this right for noncitizens before more of them end up behind bars while fighting deportation.

At the center of the case is Alejandro Rodriguez, who was a year old when his parents brought him to the U.S. from Mexico, and 9 when he became a legal permanent resident. Later he ran into trouble with the police, for joyriding when he was 19 (for which he was sentenced to two years in prison), and for misdemeanor drug possession at 24. Rodriguez was soon placed in immigration detention and faced deportation. Because of his convictions, he was subject to “mandatory detention” under immigration law. That meant he was denied a chance to stand in front of a judge and ask for release on bond.

Alejandro Rodriguez ACLU

Rodriguez sat in detention for more than three years without a bond hearing. He lost his job as a dental assistant and was separated from his two children. He was released in 2007, when the ACLU moved to turn his personal lawsuit into a class-action case. Ultimately, the court granted him relief from deportation and he was able to remain in the U.S.

Bond hearings are denied not only to immigrants with criminal histories but also to asylum seekers. One Sri Lankan asylum seeker was kept in detention for 4 ½ years while his case was processed; he ultimately became a citizen. The class action Rodriguez complaint also details the cases of two Somali refugees, who fled violence in their country only to end up in a U.S. detention center for months without the chance to argue for their release — a right afforded to defendants in criminal cases.

Long stays in detention disrupt immigrants’ lives in myriad ways: they may lose their jobs, be separated from their children and families, and have an even harder time fighting their deportation. Immigrants in detention are far less likely to obtain a lawyer — 66 percent of non-detained immigrants get legal representation, compared to 14 percent of detainees. Having a lawyer can have a huge effect: immigrants with representation are up to 14 times more likely to remain in the U.S.

Many in detention have simply given up and accepted deportation rather than remain jailed indefinitely, said Rachel Levenson of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law. “Detention is punitive — it’s a way of pushing people to cede their cases,” she said. “They’re placed in conditions where [fighting to stay] doesn’t feel like a real option.”

In 2013 and 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California affirmed a district court’s decision that all detainees should have an automatic bond hearing every six months. In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued that immigration law gives them a clear authority to detain “criminal and terrorist aliens” and “arriving aliens” while their cases are processed, and that the court “greatly overstepped the judicial role” by essentially rewriting the law. (David Jennings, the named plaintiff in the case, is the field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, one of multiple government officials petitioning the court.)

The Rodriguez case is not the only one to address this issue. In October 2015, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals came to a similar conclusion, finding in Lora v. Shanahan that even immigrants with criminal convictions had a right to a bond hearing. Since then, detainees on the West Coast and around New York have received bond hearings as stipulated by the respective appeals courts. The case being heard in the Supreme Court Wednesday would determine whether that practice would apply to immigrant detainees across the United States. If the court splits 4 to 4 in its decision, a significant possibility, then this regional discrepancy would remain.

Immigrant advocates are particularly concerned about this case’s outcome in the wake of Trump’s election. His promise to deport three million “criminal aliens” would mean a vast expansion of immigration detention in the U.S. A large portion of those detainees would be noncitizens held without a bond hearing under the current interpretation of immigration laws. “If we did win this case...we would at least give people access to the court,” Levenson said. “It would be a huge protection.”

37 Civil Rights Groups Seek Investigation Into 'Torture' At Lewisburg Prison

NPR

In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 37 civil rights, human rights and church groups on Monday asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate "harrowing allegations of abuse and torture" of prisoners at the federal prison at Lewisburg, Pa., based on stories last month by NPR and The Marshall Project.

Groups signing the letter included the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, National Alliance on Mental Illness and Southern Poverty Law Center.

"Reported conditions at USP Lewisburg call for swift intervention and accountability," said the Rev. Laura Markle Downton, of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, one of the drafters of the letter.

The letter writers said the stories showed "a facility in crisis that requires greater oversight, transparency and accountability to ensure humane and lawful conditions of confinement."

The investigation by NPR and The Marshall Project found violence between prisoners is six times more likely at Lewisburg, compared with all federal prisons. That violence is more likely because of the practice of putting dangerous men together in one solitary confinement cell — a practice called double celling — for 23 to 24 hours a day, plus a lack of mental health care and the frequent use of restraints for prisoners who refuse to live with a specific cellmate. One man in our investigation, Sebastian Richardson, was put in restraints for 28 days after he refused to cell with a man who had a reputation in the prison for attacking his cellmates.

 Documents obtained by NPR and The Marshall Project showed that inmate-on-inmate attacks are a near daily occurrence and that at least four men have been attacked and killed by their cellmates since 2009. The prison in Lewisburg houses a Special Management Unit for about 1,000 prisoners who are considered disruptive or dangerous and were removed from other federal prisons.

"We believe it took the NPR/Marshall Project reports to show people how terrible the practice of double celling and use of hard restraints really is," said Dave Sprout with the Lewisburg Prison Project, a group that advocates for prisoners there and has been asking for an investigation since 2009.

The groups signing the letter want Lynch to ask Michael Horowitz, the department's inspector general, to investigate. The federal Bureau of Prisons, which manages the prison at Lewisburg, is part of the Justice Department.

A spokesman for the Department Of Justice told NPR "the department takes allegations of mistreatment of inmates seriously and is reviewing the letter."

No Charges for Charlotte Cops Who Shot Keith Scott to Death

The Atlantic

Officer Brentley Vinson will not face any criminal charges in the shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina, in September, a prosecutor announced Wednesday morning.

Mecklenburg County District Attorney Andrew Murray said during a press conference that Vinson, an officer with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, had acted reasonably in firing on Scott, whom Murray said had a handgun and was brandishing it in view of the officers. He said he had met with the Scott family earlier on Wednesday and that relatives had been “gracious.” He said the event was tragic and that no one should have to deal with it.

“It is my opinion that Officer Vinson acted lawfully when he shot Keith Scott,” Murray said. He said that 15 career prosecutors had unanimously agreed on the decision.

The shooting set off several days of protests, some violent, in Charlotte this fall. They laid bare strains in the relationship between the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police and the city’s African-American population, as well as lingering racial and socioecononic tensions in the rapidly growing economic center. Scott’s was one in a string of cases in which police officers shot a black man under debatable circumstances, and protestors suggested that police had been too hasty in firing. [MORE]

A Recount Done by Hand will have to move quickly to Meet December 13th Deadline

From [HERE] and [HERE] Wisconsin will officially re-count its presidential ballots as soon as this week, as Green Party candidate Jill Stein pushes for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan as well.

Hitting a Dec. 13 deadline could be particularly tricky if Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is able to force the recount to be conducted by hand, Wisconsin's top election official said.

Stein and independent presidential candidate Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente separately filed recount requests late Friday, the last day they were able to do so. Stein received about 31,000 votes and De La Fuente about 1,500 out of 3 million cast.

One or both of them will have to pay for the recount because they lost by more than 0.25%. The cost could top $1 million.

Stein’s representatives insist it must be done by hand, and says the campaign is prepared to go to court if the state cannot meet the deadline. “Doing the recount by hand is the only way to ensure we have a reliable recount of the vote,” said a spokesperson for the Stein recount effort.

“We are confident the hand counting can be done by December 13,” Stein campaign manager David Cobb said in a statement provided to The Hill. “If for some reason WI needs more time to count the ballots, we are prepared litigate this question in the courts to ensure a proper and full counting of all the votes.”

Stein is also planning to ask for recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which have deadlines next week. She has raised $5 million for the recounts in recent days — more than she raised during her campaign leading up to the Nov. 8 election.

Republican Donald Trump edged out Democrat Hillary Clinton by some 22,000 votes in Wisconsin, becoming the first GOP presidential candidate to win the state since 1984.

Wisconsin's recount will likely begin late next week, once the state has tallied a cost estimate and received payment from Stein's campaign, said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Recounts will be done by county boards of canvassers, which will likely have to work nights and weekends, Haas said.

Electors will meet on Dec. 19 to cast their votes for the Electoral College.

"You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn't get done by then," Haas told the Sentinel, referring to the Dec. 13 deadline. 

Haas noted that “Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system” in the country.

“The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks,” he said. “State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.” 

An election law expert at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University echoed Haas’s concerns, telling the Sentinel that the Dec. 19 date is “a hard deadline.” 

"That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted," Edward Foley told the newspaper.

Arrests of journalists at Standing Rock test the boundaries of the First Amendment

The Intercept

PAT BOYLE, A Denver-based journalist, was shot in the abdomen last Sunday by a rubber bullet as he reported from North Dakota on a clash between demonstrators and police that would end with 26 protesters sent to hospitals and 300 requiring other medical treatment. One woman was severely injured and underwent emergency surgery on her arm after officers unleashed “less than lethal” weapons, including rubber bullets, icy cold water, and, reportedly, concussion grenades on the crowd. Police were reacting to an attempt by Dakota Access pipeline opponents to tow away burned vehicles that officers had secured in place to act as a highway blockade, preventing access to pipeline construction sites down the road. The rubber bullet that hit Boyle tore right through his press pass, leaving a jagged hole through the words “Unicorn Riot,” his news organization’s name.

This wasn’t Unicorn Riot’s first run-in with police while covering the pipeline conflict, nor was it the media collective’s most serious. Reporters for Unicorn Riot have been arrested three times in North Dakota and twice while covering Dakota Access pipeline protests in Iowa. In North Dakota, at least seven journalists in total have been arrested while covering the clashes, according to a count by the Bismarck Tribune. Others have been stung by tear gas, pepper spray, or rubber bullets.

The arrests of journalists and filmmakers covering the front lines of the Dakota Access pipeline fight highlight the limits of press protections and the central role of police, prosecutor, and court discretion in deciding whether or not members of the press should face legal consequences when covering protests. The arrests and violent crowd suppression tactics also reflect the refusal of police to discriminate between peaceful protesters, aggressive agitators, and journalists.

Unicorn Riot was one of the few media outlets that showed up on April 1, when members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe arrived on horseback to set up a camp called Sacred Stone as a base for prayer and protest against the planned Dakota Access Pipeline, which if completed will transport half a million barrels of oil per day from the Bakken shale region of North Dakota to a hub in Illinois. And the media collective has remained a presence as the standoff reaches into the winter months with few signs of abating.

On Friday, the Army Corps of Engineers issued the Standing Rock Sioux tribe an eviction notice, demanding that thousands of people clear out of a second camp, known as Oceti Sakowin, located on land the Corps controls. “This decision is necessary to protect the general public from the violent confrontations between protesters and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area, and to prevent death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions.” The letter directed inhabitants to a site farther away from the pipeline construction area, dubbed a “free speech zone.” [MORE]

GOP Fraud Claims in North Carolina Governor's Race Reflect a Strategy to Suppress Black Votes

The Intercept

FOR MORE THAN two decades, the Bladen County Improvement Association has campaigned for the interests of the black community in its poor, heavily rural county in southeastern North Carolina. In addition to speaking out for fair housing and against discrimination, the group’s political arm, which leans Democratic, assists and encourages people to vote in an area where access to polls has had a fraught history, according to its political action committee president, Horace Munn.

“A lot of our voters in Bladen County are afraid to go to the polls and a lot of elderly voters can’t get to the polls,” Munn said. “So if they have an absentee ballot we assist with that, or, for early voting, we’ll assist by bringing them to the polls to vote.”

For its entire existence, Munn’s group has worked in almost total obscurity, having rarely received attention outside the state’s sparsely populated southeastern edge. Yet last week that suddenly changed, as Munn’s group found itself the unlikely center of thunderous accusations from the state’s embattled Republican governor.

Falling behind his Democratic rival in a razor-thin margin after the November 8 election, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory took a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook and launched a vigorous campaign to cast doubt on the results of his state’s election by alleging pervasive voter fraud perpetrated by minority-focused voting groups.

In this effort, McCrory made dire — and highly public — accusations against black voting activists in Bladen County, although no formal investigation into the group has been completed. In a statement posted to the governor’s website November 15, McCrory alleged that Munn’s group had orchestrated “a massive voter fraud scheme” so large as to call the entire state election into question.

“The staggering evidence of voter fraud in Bladen County,” an attorney for the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund said in a statement, “and the number of similar PACs that the North Carolina Democratic Party donated to shortly before the start of early vote requires close examination throughout the state.”

In the following days, it was reported that McCrory’s campaign had lodged complaints against 11 other Democratic get-out-the-vote groups in the state mostly focused on outreach among African-American voters. Facing questions about whether Republicans were targeting minority communities, a spokesperson for the governor doubled down on the accusations, asserting that “we didn’t pick the places the Democrats seem to have chosen to commit voter fraud.”

McCrory’s vote protests have since spread to roughly half the state’s counties, and yesterday, he cited pervasive election rigging in demanding a statewide recount. Given the closeness of the race, his charges of fraud carry high stakes.

Liberal observers see McCrory’s invocation of election fraud as an attempt to steal a seat that he’s on the cusp of losing. If the governor succeeds in having the election deemed sufficiently contested, the results could be turned over to the Republican-dominated legislature, which could simply hand the governorship to McCrory, even if he remains behind in the popular vote.

And whether or not McCrory prevails in his quest to retake his governor’s seat, his accusations against voters in black communities could have lasting effects. Having been cast as a criminal enterprise by the state’s most powerful politician, Munn’s group is facing the prospect of a prolonged, Republican-backed voter fraud inquiry into its work.

Read More

Minnesota shooting deaths by cops highest ever recorded

Twin Cities

The fatal shooting of Philando Castile by a St. Anthony police officer brought international attention to Minnesota and comes during a record year for police-involved fatalities in the state.

Police officers have fatally shot 13 people this year, the most since the state began keeping records 38 years ago. The previous high was 12 deaths, in both 2010 and 2015.

Since 1995, officers have killed at least 151 people — almost seven per year, according to Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension records and Pioneer Press research. More than half of those fatalities — 81 — are in the last eight years. Each year since 2009, there have been between seven and 13 fatalities involving police. [MORE]

Racist Suspects Drive Gun sales boom on Black Friday [Fear of Blacks is Closely Related to Gun Ownership]

CNN and [HERE]

The Black Friday weapon sales are not driven by the Christmas spirit since gun laws in many states prohibit buying guns for someone else. The sales are driven by sharp discounts.

Not far from New York City, hundreds of shoppers packed into RTSP, a gun shop and firing range in Randolph, New Jersey, lured by Black Friday discounts of 5% to 10% for guns, ammunition and accessories.

Dr. Joseph Feldman, a surgeon from neighboring Montville, was buying a $500 Sig Sauer scope for his R.E.P.R. semiautomatic rifle from the manufacturer LWRCI, one of four AR-15s that he owns. He was also buying ammunition for the AR-15s and had his eye on a Henry, a vintage-style lever action rifle manufactured in nearby Bayonne.

"I like to have lots of ammo on hand," he said.

Feldman, 56, estimated that purchasing these scope, ammo and the Henry rifle on Black Friday, with his gun range member discounts, would save him about $500.

Related: Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon

The store was crowded with gun owners waiting for a turn at the indoor range, their firearms locked in carrying cases, as required by state law.

This turnout was in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton -- the gun industry's biggest boogieman with her gun control policies -- failed to win the White House.

Rick Friedman, co-owner of RTSP said he'd stocked eight to 12 months' worth of guns and ammo, anticipating a frenzied demand if Clinton had won.

"We were gearing up for a much different result," he said. "[But] if you're in this industry you're obviously very happy about the result."

Friedman figured that he'd take longer to sell off the inventory now that NRA-endorsed Donald Trump is headed for the White House. [MORE]

White-Collar Supremacy

NY Times

Tallahassee, Fla. — Richard B. Spencer is one of the main figures of the alt-right movement, a former doctoral student from Duke whose movement supports the creation of “an ethno-state” for white Europeans and “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” The Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as “a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old, a kind of professional racist in khakis”; a recent Los Angeles Times profile ran with a photo of him in sunglasses and a black shirt, looking more like a hipster academic than a Klansman.

This sort of image makeover is a big part of the alt-right’s game. They want to convince the media that they are a “new form” of white nationalism that we’ve never seen before: clean-cut, intellectual, far removed from the unpolished white supremacists of the past. But the alt-right is not as new as we might think. In fact, efforts to dress up white supremacy in ideas and middle-class respectability have been around since the first organized movements emerged in the late 19th century — and once again, people are falling for it.

Part of the problem is a lack of historical awareness. When white supremacist organizations crop up in tellings of American history, they appear and recede from the story quickly, a footnote about racism to be overlooked, not a central component of the American story. Hence, the alt-right appears novel only if we ignore the continuum of “intellectual” white supremacy from which it emerged: scientific racism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the national Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, and the Citizens Councils of the 1950s and ’60s.

While the first Klan emerged among Confederate Veterans in the post-Reconstruction South, by the end of the 19th century some white supremacists had begun to move into more respectable circles by using science and Darwinism to explain their views. These ideas had proponents across the country, from Southern Bourbons to Boston Brahmins concerned with influxes of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Madison Grant, a lawyer, eugenicist and the author of “The Passing of the Great Race,” wrote that the American “stock” would be jeopardized by these particular European immigrants. Grant established the idea of a superior Nordic race, claiming that immigrants from England, Scotland and the Netherlands founded America, a Nordic nation.

His book became one of the most popular works on scientific racism to originate in the United States; in “The Great Gatsby,” F. Scott Fitzgerald reflected the way the ideas of Grant and other scientific racists worked their way into mainstream thought. “Have you read ‘The Rise of the Colored Empires’ by this man Goddard?” Tom Buchanan asks, in a thinly masked allusion to Grant. “It’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be — will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

The book went through multiple printings and translations into different languages. Adolf Hitler relied on Grant’s ideas about the supremacy of the Nordic race to support sterilization and horrendous medical experiments. He called the book “my bible.”

Middle-class white supremacy had another wave of popularity in the 1920s, when the second Klan, which had a nationwide following, drew on the ideas of Grant and others to sell white supremacy to both the rural and urban middle classes. It printed newspapers and books, held seminars as well as rallies, and even tried to establish a Klan university in Indiana.

Along with drumming up racial fears, the 1920s Klan relied on scientific and theological racism in The Imperial Night-Hawk, its national newspaper. Writing for the paper in 1923, a Louisiana Klansman and minister, W. C. Wright, outlined the Klan’s intellectual position on white supremacy, in which white people were “the leading race,” America was “a white man’s country, discovered, dedicated, settled, defended, and developed by white men,” and the distinctions between the races were scientific and divinely created.

The 1950s saw another surge of “respectable” racism, this time in the form of the Citizens Councils, founded in Mississippi by Robert B. Patterson in response to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. Rather than the vigilantism and terrorism of the 1950s and ’60s Klan, the councils relied on more middle-class methods of opposing civil rights: boycotting black-owned businesses and denying mortgages to black people. The sociologist Charles M. Payne describes them as “pursuing the agenda of the Klan with the demeanor of the Rotary Club.”

While it might seem newsworthy that today’s alt-right members wear suits and profess academic-sounding racism, they are an extension of these previous white supremacist movements, dressed up in 21st-century lingo, social media and fashion. We ignore that continuity at our peril: Focusing on their respectability overlooks their racism, but more pressingly, by convincing ourselves that they are taking a new, mainstream turn, it makes white supremacy appear normal and acceptable.

The alt-right is not an example of white supremacy marching toward the mainstream; this has always been the case. It is an example how white supremacy went from an unarguable fact of American culture to a debatable and offensive reality. That’s not novel; it’s American history.

Marc Mauer: A 20-Year Maximum for Prison Sentences

Democracy Journal 

Clarence Aaron was a 23-year-old college student from Mobile, Alabama, with no criminal record. In 1992, he introduced a classmate whose brother was a drug supplier to a cocaine dealer he knew from high school. He was subsequently present for the sale of nine kilograms of cocaine and was paid $1,500 by the dealer. After police arrested the group, the others testified against Aaron, describing him as a major dealer, which led to his being sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment.

Unfortunately, in the era of harsh mandatory sentencing laws, stories such as Aaron’s are all too familiar. The injustice against Aaron was eventually recognized and, in 2013, after 20 years in prison, he became one of a relative handful of federal prisoners to receive a sentence commutation from President Obama. Cases such as his have fueled momentum for criminal justice reform in recent years, with major presidential candidates in both parties calling for a substantial reduction in our prison population, due to a U.S. rate of incarceration that’s five to ten times that of other industrialized nations. A growing consensus has developed around the idea that the “war on drugs” has relied far too heavily on excessive punishments, and that treatment interventions for substance abusers are both more effective and compassionate than long-term imprisonment.

But if a prison-reduction strategy is focused primarily on drug policy reform, we will be sorely disappointed in the results. Of the 2.2 million people behind bars in America today, nearly half a million are incarcerated for a nonviolent drug offense. So even if we were to release that entire group, we would still have a rate of incarceration far higher than that of any comparable nation.

The heart of the problem, as documented in a major report released by the National Research Council in 2014, is that the tripling of the prison population since 1980 was produced by changes in policy, not crime rates. Half of the prison expansion resulted from sending more people to prison due to the increased adoption of mandatory sentencing policies and prosecutorial charging decisions, while half resulted from longer prison terms. The latter trend is increasingly the major barrier to substantial reductions in incarceration.

Nationally, one of every nine people in prison—160,000 prisoners—is serving a life sentence. About a third are serving life without parole, and of the remainder, political considerations—governors and parole officials believing they need to demonstrate how “tough” they can be on individuals convicted of serious crimes—have made parole release increasingly difficult to secure in many states. In addition, an undetermined number of offenders are serving “virtual life sentences.” For example, a 40-year prison term imposed on a 35-year-old offender essentially equates to life imprisonment.

The excessively lengthy incarceration of offenders—yes, even for violent crimes—is counterproductive, costly, and inhumane. To remedy this problem, Congress and state legislative bodies should establish an upper limit of 20 years in prison as a maximum penalty, except in unusual cases such as a serial rapist who has not been amenable to treatment in prison or a mass murderer. The rationale for such a policy shift is grounded in both humanitarian and public-safety concerns. Life sentences ruin families and tear apart communities; they deprive the person of the chance to turn his or her life around. Moreover, it has long been known that individuals “age out” of crime, and that this occurs at a surprisingly young age. As is true of all adults, offenders mature in prison as they age and develop a longer-term vision for their lives. Research by leading criminologists Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura demonstrates that an 18-year-old arrested for robbery is no more likely to be arrested for this crime by the age of 26 than anyone in the general population. Thus, each successive year of incarceration after this decline sets in produces diminishing returns for public safety.

This impact comes at great cost as well. Estimates are that the cost of imprisoning an elderly offender is double that of a young offender, largely due to high health-care costs. Given that public-safety resources are finite, incarcerating aging prisoners inevitably diverts resources from preschool programs, substance abuse treatments, and mental health interventions that all produce demonstrated and substantial crime-reduction benefits.

Lengthy prison terms also exacerbate the dramatic racial and ethnic disparities that have defined the phenomenon of mass incarceration. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of the people serving life in prison are African-American or Latino. The sight of elderly men of color in prison uniforms and bound in wheelchairs only reinforces the racialized nature of incarceration in the modern era. [MORE]

Alex Halderman: Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

From [HEREYou may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. That article, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen.

How might a foreign government hack America’s voting machines to change the outcome of a presidential election? Here’s one possible scenario. First, the attackers would probe election offices well in advance in order to find ways to break into their computers. Closer to the election, when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states, rigging the machines to shift a few percent of the vote to favor their desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during pre-election tests, do its dirty business during the election, then erase itself when the polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs — though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from pre-election polls.

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

What’s to stop an attack like this from succeeding?

America’s voting machines have serious cybersecurity problems. That isn’t news. It’s been documented beyond any doubt over the last decade in numerous peer-reviewed papers and state-sponsored studies by me and by other computer security experts. We’ve been pointing out for years that voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever. I’ve demonstrated this in the laboratory with real voting machines — in just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on those machines that silently alters the electronic records of every vote.

Could anyone be brazen enough to try such an attack? A few years ago, I might have said that sounds like science fiction, but 2016 has seen unprecedented cyberattacks aimed at interfering with the election. This summer, attackers broke into the email system of the Democratic National Committee and, separately, into the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, and leaked private messages. Attackers infiltrated the voter registration systems of two states, Illinois and Arizona, and stole voter data. And there’s evidence that hackers attempted to breach election offices in several other states.

In all these cases, Federal agencies publicly asserted that senior officials in the Russian government commissioned these attacks. Russia has sophisticated cyber-offensive capabilities, and has shown a willingness to use them to hack elections. In 2014, during the presidential election in Ukraine, attackers linked to Russia sabotaged the country’s vote-counting infrastructure and, according to published reports, Ukrainian officials succeeded only at the last minute in defusing vote-stealing malware that was primed to cause the wrong winner to be announced. Russia is not the only country with the ability to pull off such an attack on American systems — most of the world’s military powers now have sophisticated cyberwarfare capabilities.

It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the Internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area. There’s no question that this is possible for technically sophisticated attackers. (If my Ph.D. students and I were criminals, I’m sure we could pull it off.) If anyone reasonably skilled is sufficiently motivated and willing to face the risk of getting caught, it’s happened already.

Why hasn’t more been done about this? In the U.S., each state (and often individual counties or municipalities) selects its own election technology, and some states have taken steps to guard against these problems. (For instance, California banned the use of the most dangerous computer voting machines in 2007 as a result of vulnerabilities that I and other computer scientists found.) But many states continue to use machines that are known to be insecure — sometimes with software that is a decade or more out of date — because they simply don’t have the money to replace those machines.

There is one absolutely essential security safeguard that protects most Americans’ votes: paper.

I know I may sound like a Luddite for saying so, but most election security experts are with me on this: paper ballots are the best available technology for casting votes. We use two main kinds of paper systems in different parts of the U.S. Either voters fill out a ballot paper that gets scanned into a computer for counting (optical scan voting), or they vote on a computer that counts the vote and prints a record on a piece of paper (called a voter-verifiable paper audit trail). Either way, the paper creates a record of the vote that can’t be later modified by any bugs, misconfiguration, or malicious software that might have infected the machines.

After the election, human beings can examine the paper to make sure the results from the voting machines accurately determined who won. Just as you want the brakes in your car to keep working even if the car’s computer goes haywire, accurate vote counts must remain available even if the machines are malfunctioning or attacked. In both cases, common sense tells us we need some kind of physical backup system. I and other election security experts have been advocating for paper ballots for years, and today, about 70% of American voters live in jurisdictions that keep a paper record of every vote. [MORE]

Texas Death Case Tests Standards For Defining Intellectual Disability

NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday hears a case that questions intellectual disabilities and the death penalty — specifically, what standards states may use in determining whether a defendant convicted of murder is mentally deficient.

In 2002, the justices barred the execution of the intellectually disabled. But it left the states considerable room to decide who is "mentally retarded." Two years ago, the court put its thumb more firmly on the scale, telling states they were not free to use a rigid IQ number to determine "retardation," but instead "must be informed by the medical community's diagnostic framework."

Now the state of Texas is defending its use of standards that major medical organizations do not endorse. Instead, the state's test is based on what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals called "a consensus of Texas citizens," that not all those who meet the "social services definition" of "retardation" should be exempt from the death penalty.

The man at the center of the case is Bobby J. Moore, whose gun discharged during a botched robbery, killing a 70-year-old store clerk in Houston in 1980. There is no doubt about his guilt or about the fact that he has limited mental abilities. Even the prosecution's psychologist testified at trial that Moore likely "suffers from borderline intellectual functioning."

 

Moore's lawyers argue that Texas is using outdated standards to determine "retardation," instead of the current medical standards required by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state of Texas argues that there is no national standard, and that the state should not be limited to current medical diagnostic tools or standards.

Moore's lawyers note that, at age 13, he didn't understand the days of the week, the months of the year, how to tell time, or the principle that subtraction is the reverse of addition. He failed first grade twice, but school officials continued to advance him in order to keep him with children of a similar age. In addition to his other difficulties, his father beat him repeatedly over his failures in school. And when Moore was 14, his father threw him out of the house to live on the streets.

Moore's IQ tests range from a low of 57 to a high of 78 with an average of just over 70 — definitely in the retardation range.

All of that led a Texas trial judge to conclude that under current medical standards, it would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute Moore.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision, declaring that states are not obligated to use current medical standards alone. Instead, the Texas court used the definition in the diagnostic manual put out by the American Association on Mental Retardation in 1992 as opposed to the revised manual put out in 2010.

The state court said that using that earlier standard, Moore was not mentally deficient citing that he was able to adapt to circumstances. As a young teenager, Moore adapted to life on the streets and robbed stores to finance a drug and alcohol habit. Moreover, the appeals court noted he was able to make and execute plans. For example, during the 1980 robbery, he wore a wig to conceal his identity.

Using these factors, the appeals court concluded that Moore was not sufficiently disabled to qualify for exemption from the death penalty.

Now the Supreme Court will decide, and its ruling could well affect the standards in other death penalty states.

Trump Secured The Lowest Non-White Vote In Decades

News for Black America

In research that surprises absolutely no one, President-elect Donald Trump received minimal support from minority voters, according to a new study conducted by Reuters, The Huffington Post reports.

According to the poll, Trump won the presidency with less support from Black and Hispanic voters in at least the last 40 years, shedding light on the divisive and polarizing campaign Trump rode into the presidency on.

Though he has publicly denounced White nationalists, he consistently uses language and tactics that say otherwise. It hasn’t stopped the groups from aligning themselves with him and the platform he runs on to “Make America Great Again.”

He secured 8 percent of the Black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.

“Among black voters, his showing was comparable to the 9 percent captured by George W. Bush in 2000 and Ronald Reagan in 1984,” according to HuffPo. They both did better among Hispanic voters with 34 percent and 35 percent, respectively, according to exit polling data. Trump fared badly with Asian American voters, The Huffington Post reports, “his performance was the worst of any winning presidential candidate since tracking of that demographic began in 1992.”

Trump’s anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric no doubt awakened a deep-seated divide that exists in America. According to The Huffington Post, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported 701 incidents of “hateful harassment and intimidation” between November 9 and November 16.