The project “Photo Requests from Solitary” offers inmates held in solitary confinement a chance to ask for any image that they want, and to get their request fulfilled by professional photographers, artists. The inmates’ ideas range from the mundane to the elaborate—from a simple photo of a frog in its natural habitat, to an imaginary scene where a black man dramatically unshackles.
According to Kozlowska, the exhibition opened Sept. 13 as part of Photoville, a photography festival in New York’s Brooklyn Bridge Park. Viewers see the requests and the photos alike. It’s meant to raise awareness about solitary confinement, as a movement to abolish isolation in New York prisons is gaining ground. Meanwhile, the photos, sent to inmates in their cells, provide them some form of relief in conditions of extreme sensory deprivation and isolation proven to be psychologically damaging.
“The idea is that human imagination can survive even this,” said Jean Casella co-director of the watchdog group Solitary Watch. “When you ask people what they want to see, there’s never any shortage of images or fantasies… Part of the message of this show is that you can’t take that away, no matter what you do.” The exhibit also shows the inmate’s detailed requests, which the organizers say are just as powerful, if not more moving to the viewer.
The project started in 2009, within a group working to shut down the notorious Tamms Correctional Center, a super-max prison in Illinois. The inmates were strictly isolated from each other and the outside world, says Laurie Jo Reynolds, an artist and activist.
When discussing a poetry exchange with inmates, someone asked if they could send the prisoners photos. But with each photo sent, the inmate would have to give up one of their own. Reynolds asked: “Why not ask them what they want?”
Tamms was shut down in 2013, and the project was expanded to other states. The Brooklyn exhibition shows requests and photos from New York.
Over the years, certain categories emerged in what the inmates wanted to see in their cells. “I think those categories are useful in thinking about the experience of being in prison,” Reynolds says.
My opinion? It’s a wonderful idea. Legally speaking, there’s strong debate that solitary confinement is “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment includes torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for the crime committed.
Artistically speaking, inspiration can come from many places. Dark and lonely places; even, where people are forgotten, downtrodden, separated from families and their aspirations destroyed by their choices and terrible circumstances. What do prisoners think about when placed in solitary confinement? What does one dream and yearn for? These visions of freedom are powerful indeed.
“Under this statute, the State properly charged Gray for his actions. When he was 17, Gray took a photo of his erect penis and sent it, unsolicited, to another person. Gray is a “natural person” and therefore a person for purposes of the statute. He was also under the age of 18, making him a minor under the statute as well. He stated he was attracted to T.R., and when he sent the picture he included the phrase “Do u like it, babe?,” indicating an attempt to arouse the recipient. The picture he transmitted was, therefore, a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct because it was a picture of a minor’s genitals designed to sexually stimulate the viewer. This falls squarely within the statute’s plain meaning.”
“There is a long-standing and well-accepted rule that when a legislature enacts a criminal law to protect such a specific class, we cannot interpret that law to permit prosecution (and potential revictimization) of members of that protected class for their own exploitation—unless the legislature explicitly says so. The legislature did not say so here. Hence, the general rule applies,” said Justice McCloud. “Gray, the depicted minor, cannot be prosecuted under this statute for disseminating pictures of himself.”
Timely article by Diana Hefley of the Everett Herald reports that lawyers for Everett are expected in federal court Monday to defend the merits of a lawsuit filed earlier this year against the makers of the pain medication OxyContin.
According to Hefley’s article, the City of Everett is blaming Purdue for ignoring the diversion of its product, a prescription opioid, to the black market. The lawsuit alleges the multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company’s irresponsible business practices helped set in motion what some officials now call an opioid epidemic in Snohomish County, marked by a spike in overdoses, deaths and crime.
The lawsuit claims Purdue knew OxyContin was being funneled to “pill mills” and drug traffickers, including some who set up shop in Everett. Heroin use in Snohomish County and nationwide has skyrocketed in recent years. Addicts often cite prescription painkillers as the source of their introduction to opioids.
Hefly reports that Everett’s lawsuit doesn’t name a dollar amount. Instead, it claims the city has spent and will need to continue to spend significant tax dollars addressing addiction in the community.
Purdue filed a motion to dismiss the case.The company’s lawyers wrote that the city’s allegations are based largely on a false theory that Purdue did nothing to alert law enforcement to the illegal diversion.
Two criminal prosecutions into trafficking rings show that “law enforcement was, at the time, already aware of, and investigating, the criminal conduct of physicians, pharmacies and gang members at issue,” Purdue’s attorney, Thomas Adams, wrote in court papers. Apparently, the city lacks any standing to hold Purdue responsible for Everett’s costs associated with responding to addiction and crime, the defendants argue.
“While we are deeply troubled by the abuse and misuse of our medication, this lawsuit paints a completely flawed and inaccurate portrayal of events that led to the crisis in Everett,” the company wrote on its website.
Hefley reports that Purdue was sued a decade ago in Washington. Several states alleged the company had engaged in deceptive marketing practices. Purdue agreed to pay the states $19.5 million as part of a consent judgment. Washington received more than $700,000. As part of the judgment, Purdue agreed to implement diversion detection programs.
However, the City of Everett claims Purdue ignored its obligations. The city pointed to the criminal prosecution of Jevon Lawson, a California transplant and aspiring rap artist, living in Snohomish County, who peddled large amounts of OxyContin. The Daily Herald wrote about Lawson’s indictment in 2011. Everett has defended its lawsuit in a 31-page response.
Its lawyers cited multiple cases — one involving a gun maker and other companies that sell toxic chemicals — to support the contention that Everett has a legal right to hold the manufacturer of a product responsible for harm done to the community.
Everett isn’t the only city taking on the pharmaceutical giant. Last week, the City of Tacoma filed a federal lawsuit against Purdue, along with co-defendant pharmaceutical companies Endo and Janssen. The lawsuit claims the opioid manufacturers made misleading statements about the risks of their products to doctors and patients for the past 20 years.
My opinion? A large amount of my clients charged with DUI, drug crimes, assaults, property crimes and identity theft are, in fact, suffering from drug addictions to opiods. Recent reports and crime data also reflects an uptick in opiod-related crimes. Although we must take accountability for our actions, it violates justice to assume that drug addicts are totally responsible for their actions when prescription “medicine” drives them to abuse drugs and exhibit criminal behavior. Good luck to the City of Everett. And excellent reporting from reporter Diana Hefley, by the way.
Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member face criminal allegations that you allegedly committed while under the influence of prescribed opioids. the defense of Diminished Capacity may apply. Under this defense, diminished capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition, drug addiction or other factors he/she could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he/she is accused of committing.
Apparently, Menchaca was the ex-brother-in-law of Duarte. Vela and his family were living in Okanogan County. Apparently, Vela and his family were afraid of Menchaca, who just finished serving a prison sentence in California. Also, Vela had already contacted Menchaca when Menchaca returned from California and told Menchaca to stay away from his family.
On the date of the incident, Vela’s wife called Vela and said she thought she saw Menchaca driving by their house. Vela went home, retrieved a firearm and then was heading to Brewster to pick up a child, when he saw Menchaca parked along the road on old Hwy 97 near the Chiliwist Road. Vela stopped and confronted Menchaca. According to a witness at the scene, Vela then pulled out a pistol and shot the Menchaca two or three times. Menchaca died at the scene from the gunshots.
Vela then drove back to his home, put the gun away and called 911 to report the shooting. Vela told Deputies he was at his home and would be waiting for them. Deputies arrived and picked up Vela without incident. Vela was transported to the Okanogan County Jail and booked for various firearm offenses and Murder in the Second Degree.
The trial occurred in January 2015. Prior to jury selection, the State moved in limine to exclude evidence of Menchaca’s prior bad acts. Vela responded that he sought to admit certain prior bad acts of Menchaca known to him to establish the reasonableness of his fear of Menchaca. Specifically, Vela wanted to introduce testimony that (1) Menchaca threatened to return to Okanogan and kill Duarte Vela’s after being released from prison, (2) Menchaca kidnapped Vela’s younger sister in 2007 when she was just 15 years old, (3)
Menchaca had repeatedly battered Vela’s sister throughout their marriage, and that she had told Vela about this, (4) Vela’s wife witnessed the domestic violence abuse from Manchaca to Vela’s sister (5) Vela was told by his family members about Menchaca’s threat to kill his family and Menchaca’s domestic violence against Blanca, (6) Vela feared Menchaca being around his family, (7) Vela believed he needed to arm himself when he went to his sister’s apartment to confront Menchaca, (8) Vela’s wife told him the SUV driver Martinez and Menchaca gave her a threatening look when the SUV first parked in or near the pullout, (9) why Vela followed the SUV the first time, (10) why Vela believed there were two people in the car when he followed the SUV the first time, (11) Martinez’s statement to him that he was alone in the SUV, (12) what he felt when he saw Martinez later drive by with Menchaca in the passenger seat, (13) why Vela had an elevated fear as he went after the SUV for the second time, (14) Vela’s wife being upset when he returned and explained that Menchaca was not in the SUV, (15) Vela’s belief that something was wrong when Martinez and Menchaca both got out of the car and walked toward him, (16) what Vela feared Menchaca and Martinez might do as they walked toward him, and (17) the degree of bodily harm Vela feared just before he shot Menchaca, as Menchaca became upset and reached into his pocket.
However, the trial court excluded the proferred evidence on the basis that the testimony was irrelevant, too remote in time and ultimately inadmissible.
However, the trial court denied the instruction. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Vela appealed.
several miscellaneous statements offered by Duarte Vela to show his state of mind, the
trial court erred,” said the Court.
“Menchaca’s past threat to kill Vela’s family was central to Duarte Vela’s ability to explain the reasonableness of his fear. Unless the evidence was inadmissible under the State’s other arguments, the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence deprived Vela of the ability to testify to his versions of the incident.”
a defense. It therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The Seattle Police Department Office of semiannual report detailing bias crimes and incidents for the first half of 2017. During this time, a total of 178 criminal and non-criminal bias based incidents were reported, up from the 128 incidents reported at the same time last year.just released its
The report indicates that the increase can be attributed in large part to victims feeling more comfortable reporting bias crimes due to enhanced trust, improved reporting mechanisms and ongoing community outreach by the Department.
An article written by Jacob Sullum of www.reason.com talks about how a federal judge recently ruled that Colorado’s online database of sex offenders violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Last week, a federal judge recognized what anyone dealing with the burdens, obstacles, and dangers of life on the registry knows: Its punitive impact far outweighs any value it might have in protecting the public. In fact, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch concluded, registration can violate the Eighth Amendment by imposing what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The three men who challenged Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act were sentenced to probation. Two of them also served 90 days in jail. Their real punishment began later, when they found that appearing in the state’s online registry of sex offenders made it impossible to lead a normal life.
David Millard, who pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault on a minor in 1999, has been employed by the Albertsons grocery chain since 2003. His job was jeopardized after a customer saw his name and photo on a sex offender website.
Millard was forced to move repeatedly after his status as a registered sex offender was revealed, once by police and once by a local TV station. The second time, he had to fill out about 200 rental applications before finding an apartment he could rent.
Millard later bought a house in Denver, which is periodically visited by police officers seeking to verify his address. “If he is not home when they visit,” Matsch notes, “they leave prominent, brightly colored ‘registered sex offender’ tags on his front door notifying him that he must contact the Denver Police Department.”
Millard experienced name calling and vandalism, and he worries that worse may be coming. “Because of the fear and anxiety about his safety in public,” Matsch writes, “Mr. Millard does little more than go to work, isolating himself at his home.”
Eugene Knight was convicted of attempted sexual assault on a child in 2006 based on a crime he committed when he was 18. He’s a “full-time father” because he is unable to find work that pays well enough to cover the cost of child care. However, Knight is not allowed on school grounds to drop off his kids or attend school events.
Arturo Vega, who pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual assault as a juvenile but is listed in Colorado’s public database because he failed to comply with registration requirements he did not understand, has tried twice to get off the registry. Both times his petitions were rejected by magistrates who insisted he prove a negative: that he was not likely to commit another sexual offense.
The Court’s Rationale
Judge Matsch held that the lower court’s justices did not foresee the ubiquitous influence of social media, the proliferation of commercial websites peddling information from sex offender registries, or the cheap scare stories that local news outlets would produce based on that information. Those developments have magnified the life-disrupting potential of registration, as illustrated by the experiences of the plaintiffs in this case.
Judge Matsch noted that because of the registry, these men face “a known, real, and serious threat of retaliation, violence, ostracism, shaming, and other unfair and irrational treatment from the public…regardless of any threat to public safety based on an objective determination of their specific offenses, circumstances, and personal attributes.”
By forcing sex offenders into this precarious situation, Judge Matsch reasoned, the state is punishing them. He noted that State or federal courts have reached the same conclusion in Alaska, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.
“Maybe someday the Supreme Court will stop pretending otherwise,” wrote Sullum.
Excellent article by Major Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership says that the Trump administration wrongfully revoked President Obama’s Executive Order 13688, which limited the scope of a federal program that allows state and local police departments to obtain military equipment free of charge.
“I’m convinced that the 1033 Program has been one of the single greatest contributors to the public losing trust in law enforcement,” said Major Franklin.
He further said that scrapping Executive Order 13688 means police departments will again have unfettered access to high caliber guns, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles, among other forms of military equipment. “During a time when criminal justice and police reform have bipartisan support, this decision shows a clear misunderstanding both of what Americans want and, more perilously, of what’s truly effective at improving public safety.”
In his article, Major Franklin said that the use of such equipment for regular police work damages police-community relations. Militarization has eroded public trust in police, the effectiveness of law enforcement overall, and ultimately, public safety.
“Officers need to engage in crime prevention and crime fighting activities that work,” said Major Franklin. They do not need to participate in programs that waste resources and create dangerous situations for both law enforcement and the public. He claimed that in the SWAT raids studied by the ACLU for its 2013 report, War Comes Home, 79 percent of SWAT deployments were issued to execute search warrants, mostly for drugs. Somewhere between 36 and 65 percent of those drug searches resulted in no discovery of illegal contraband. “Even if everything goes smoothly and nobody gets injured or killed during a raid, it’s still an enormous waste of time and extremely dangerous for both officers and civilians.”
“An all-too-common SWAT scenario is one where SWAT’s involvement escalates a nonviolent situation into a deadly one,” said Major Franklin. “Imagine that you are awoken at dawn by the sound of men shouting and battering down your door. You can’t hear what the voices are saying, but you realize your home is being invaded. Your instinct tells you to grab your lawfully owned gun and face the intruders. You race downstairs and make it to the front door only to find the intruders are police – and they think you have drugs. The police are scared of an armed man running toward them, and you’re barely awake. You’re confused. And then shots are fired. Nobody remembers who pulled the trigger first.”
“With each of these incidents, public trust in the police erodes,” said Major Franklin. He claimed that research shows people who don’t trust police are less likely to report a crime. “I can tell you from experience it makes them much less likely to cooperate in investigations. Without the community to help us, police work — the hard work of solving rapes and homicides and kidnappings — becomes nearly impossible.
Major Franklin said his philosophy is instead guided by the Nine Principles of Policing set forth by Sir Robert Peel and his commissioners nearly 200 years ago, which have set the standard ever since. The very first principle is to prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force.
“I support replacing the 1033 Program with one in which officers must demonstrate competence, be trained in proper equipment usage, and may only use military equipment for hostage, active shooter, and barricade scenarios. I believe this because I became a police officer to protect people. When people fear the police more than they fear crime itself, the legitimacy of the career I loved so much becomes meaningless,” said Major Franklin.
It wrote that according to civil rights attorney Rodney Diggs with Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt, “The LAPD faces a need for systemic change”. In May 2017, the LA police commission unanimously approved 25 new recommendations, after discovering alarming findings in the LAPD’s first ever, Use of Force Report.
Diggs, who has handled multiple wrongful death lawsuits stemming from officer-involved shootings and individuals with mental disabilities, believes these recommendations are a step in the right direction.
“Over the years I have practiced, I have seen [approximately] 50-60% increase in wrongful death cases related to individuals suffering from mental disabilities/illness.”
According to the article, Lawyer Monthly surmised that such a vast increase of wrongful deaths is cause for huge concern. Therefore, what accounts towards this increase?
“The changes are due to the officer’s lack of being trained and dealing with individuals who suffer from mental illnesses,” says Diggs. “Conventional police training directly clashes with effective tactics for resolving a typical mental health crisis. Unfortunately, much of that training relies on a command-and-control approach that can lead to dangerous escalations in the use of force.”
HANDLING CITIZENS WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
“It’s more of a lack of training,” said Diggs. “Proper training takes time and money and the reason to why departments may not choose to use resources needed to train officers, is because the value may be hard to quantify. Once departments realize that it may cost money upfront for training but ultimately will save money and lives, they will see the return on investment.”
Training ought to enhance the public’s trust and to lessen the cases we are seeing involving mishandling alleged perpetrators. Rodney says: “Training will teach officers that they do not have to approach a situation and take action right away. But in a medical emergency, slowing it down, getting additional resources and perhaps even stepping back should be the norm.
“When the public sees that someone’s life is saved because an officer properly assessed a situation and now that family doesn’t have to lose a loved one, then the public will trust that the police are equipped to handle these situations.”
“Additionally, the media plays a big role in the perception of its viewers,” said Diggs. He elaborated that the media can either assist in enhancing the public’s trust or incite fear. “So if we want to bridge the gap between officers and civilians, the media needs to highlight instances in which officers do the right thing in a very sticky situation.”
USE OF WEAPONRY
“Use of force is never acceptable unless the force used is objectively reasonable and used only when necessary to accomplish lawful objectives,” said Diggs. “Officers have to assess the situation and determine which use of force should be used in their specific situation.”
USE OF FORCE AND WEAPONRY
In the article, Rodney outlines the factors officers should use when deciding whether to use force and what type of force option to use:
(1) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others;
(2) The severity of the crime;
(3) Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest; and
(4) Whether the suspect is a flight risk or attempting to escape custody.
Further, deadly force should only be used if there is an immediate threat of death or severe bodily injury to the officer or another.
However, implementing an effective process will not be easy. The article states that one possible method of improving often involves implementing better and stronger sanctions; so, we wonder whether those involved in wrongful deaths need to be better sanctioned.
“A lot of times we see that criminally, officers are not charged with murder or even disciplined within their own departments,” said Diggs. “Despite the monetary compensation that may be awarded to families, the officers face no discipline and the money that is being paid is not being paid out of the officer’s pockets. Monetary compensation by way of settlement, or event civil verdicts, does not equate police reform.
“Greater sanctions would cause a deterrent and would cause officers to think twice and consider the reasonable and appropriate force options available to them or opt not to use force, especially deadly force, when it’s not needed,” says Diggs.
The OIG Report of National Best Practices report itself discusses the following options:
- Increased de-escalation training, and adopting de-escalation as a formal agency policy.
- Discouraging force against those who pose a danger only to themselves.
- Other options, such as chemical spray and personal protection shields.
- Providing prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force.
You can read the full proposed report here.
My opinion? Great article with excellent suggestions from Mr. Diggs.
In Washington, parents are entitled to raise and reasonably discipline their children, so long as that discipline does not interfere with the children’s health, welfare, or safety. Parents may reasonably use corporal punishment (like spanking) to discipline.
But what does the law in Washington really mean by “reasonably discipline”? Under Washington law, the physical discipline of a child is not against the law when it is “reasonable and moderate.” But what does “reasonable and moderate” mean? Couldn’t those broad guidelines mean different things to different people?
To provide further guidance, Washington law elaborates that physical discipline is reasonable and moderate when it is “inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.” Physical punishment should be in direct response to a child’s disobedience or acting-out, rather than a blanket response to general bad behavior. Any person besides a parent, teacher, or guardian must be authorized in advance by the child’s parent or guardian to use reasonable, moderate force to correct or restrain the child when it is appropriate.
Washington’s law also provides a list of actions that are presumed to be unreasonable methods of disciplining a child, including:
- throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting
- striking a child with a closed fist
- shaking a child under age three
- choking or otherwise interfering with a child’s breathing
- threatening a child with a deadly weapon
- any other act that is likely to cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks
So if we know what going way too far looks like, but we also know that physical punishment is okay when it’s reasonably tailored to correct a child’s behavior, where is the line between discipline and abuse, and how can parents avoid crossing it?
In Washington, child “abuse” is defined as “injury of a child by any person under circumstances which cause harm to the child’s health, welfare, or safety.” When potential child abuse cases come before a court, the court will evaluate the child’s age, size, and health condition, as well as the location of the child’s injury and the surrounding circumstances, to help determine whether the acts at issue were reasonable discipline or abuse.
So ultimately, yes, parents, teachers and guardians are legally allowed to spank children for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. However, you must keep in mind (both for your sake as well as your child’s) that physical punishment should always be:
- reasonable and moderate
- inflicted by a parent, guardian, teacher, or someone with advance parental permission
- intended to correct or restrain the child
If you find yourself facing child abuse allegations in response to perceptions about how you discipline your children, please contact attorney Alexander F. Ransom. He is a compassionate, attentive, and experienced advocate who help parents in these difficult circumstances.