CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Expanding Opportunity and Hope for Children in America(Originally posted in Daily Kos.) Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most comprehensive treaty on children’s rights. The convention has been ratified by nearly every country in the world, except for the United States. The convention would fill current gaps in U.S. laws, and provide all children in America with the same robust protections that children in 193 countries are already entitled to. Kevin is serving the rest of his life in prison without the opportunity for release for a crime he committed as a child. He’s not alone. Each year in the U.S., children as young as 13 are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any opportunity or hope for release. Approximately 2,570 children are sentenced to juvenile life without parole in the U.S. We are the only country in the world where children are serving such cruel sentences — and we stand alone with Somalia in failing to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). When we look to the CRC, a pragmatic guide for creating a better and more stable world, we see that sentencing children to life without parole clearly denies young people the opportunities they are due. Nurturing communities and access to a full range of opportunities has a significant impact on children. It’s common sense. Children represent our future, and we all have a stake in their development by creating and sustaining programs that support them and providing them access to a full range of opportunities throughout their childhood. We can do much better, and we must. We must ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society — our children — receive fair sentences for the crimes they commit and that they are given an opportunity for rehabilitation. The sentence of life without parole violates not only the CRC’s prohibition of life sentences for juveniles, but also violates the consideration of the needs of children — concepts outlined explicitly within the treaty. When we look at access to education, we’re seeing another disturbing trend taking place here in the U.S. We are falling behind when it comes to the treatment of our children in schools. In 2008, the ACLU's Human Rights Program and Human Rights Watch released a comprehensive analysis that found that children in Texas and Mississippi ranging in age from 3 to 19 years old were routinely physically punished for minor infractions such as chewing gum, talking back to a teacher, or violating the dress code, as well as for more serious transgressions like fighting. Corporal punishment, which is actually legal in 20 states, typically takes the form of "paddling," during which an administrator or teacher hits a child repeatedly on the buttocks with a long wooden board. As a result of paddling, many children are left injured, degraded, and disengaged from school. We found that some students are targeted more than others. Students with disabilities and students of color are punished at disproportionately high rates; this hinders a fundamental right to education and freedom from discrimination. For example, African-American girls in Mississippi are 2.2 times as likely as Caucasian girls to be paddled, a number that exceeds rates in other states. There is no evidence that these students commit disciplinary infractions at disproportionate rates. When we examined the corporal punishment of students with disabilities – ranging from paddling, to throwing children into walls — we found that the punishment could actually worsen these students' medical conditions and undermine their fundamental right to an education. Many parents noted that their children with autism became more fearful or angry after receiving corporal punishment, especially around their schools. Consider the story of Anna M.’s son, a 7-year-old with autism in Florida. He changed after he was restrained and received corporal punishment. His mother told us: He’s an avoider by nature, before he was never aggressive. Now, he struggles with anger; right after the incidents he’d have anger explosions... He would never leave my side. He had major nightmares, screaming. He wouldn’t go to Walmart, anywhere. He’d say ‘we’re going to run into him [the person who administered physical punishment].’ Students with disabilities— like all students —need safe, secure school environments in which they can effectively learn. No child should be hit, especially the most vulnerable. Corporal punishment cannot function as part of that environment: it causes pain, injury, and degradation of the student’s medical condition. And it is ineffective. There are positive solutions that create effective school cultures. Positive behavioral interventions and supports are proven to allow educators to respond to each child, teaching them why what they did was wrong and how they can correct their behavior. Creating caring school climates and positive approaches to discipline guarantees the human right to education for all young people in the United States. Looking to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we see clearly the right thing to do. Every child has the right to be free from any form of physical or mental abuse, and every country should “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation.” The child rights treaty recognizes the “right of the disabled child to special care” which should “ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education ... in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development. The treaty also expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It just makes sense. On this day, the 20th anniversary of the child rights treaty, the ACLU is examining how we’re faring in light of a global strategy for creating a better and more stable world. Providing children access to a full range of opportunities throughout their childhood is effective and essential. We just can't afford to let another 20 years pass. Tags: CRC
20 Years of Neglecting Children's RightsThis coming Friday marks the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most comprehensive treaty on children’s rights. The convention has been ratified by nearly every country in the world, except for the United States. The convention would fill current gaps in U.S. laws, and provide all children in America with the same robust protections that children in 193 countries are already entitled to. Twenty years ago, countries around the world came together and pledged to uphold children’s rights. Their pledge, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), is the most comprehensive treaty on children’s rights and was adopted on November 20, 1989. The CRC reflects the universal recognition of children’s unique human rights protection needs. Only two countries haven’t ratified the treaty: Somalia (which has been a failed state without an effective government over the past two decades) and the United States. The United States!? How embarrassing! Although the U.S. had a critical role in drafting the international treaty, and President Clinton signed it in 1995, the Senate never actually ratified the treaty. (Under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty doesn't become law until the Senate gives its advice and consent to ratification.) Even President Obama has recognized this embarrassment. During his presidential campaign, he said that it is "important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of human rights. It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review [the CRC] and other treaties and ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights." The CRC would fill current gaps in U.S. laws, and provide all children in America with the same robust protections that children in 193 countries are already entitled to. The convention would offer much-needed protection to vulnerable populations — including minority and poor children, and students with disabilities — in areas such as access to quality education, health care and protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation. The Obama administration has an opportunity to bring the CRC to the Senate for consent and approval. If ratified by the United States, the CRC would bolster existing protections and foster U.S. commitment to and promotion of children’s rights in the U.S. and around the world. This week, we'll be blogging about ways the ACLU has been advocating for children's rights. We can't afford to let another 20 years pass. Tags: CRC
U.S. Out of Step with the Rest of the WorldToday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida. In both cases, the petitioners argued that when a child is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Both Sullivan and Graham committed crimes in which no-one was killed: when he was 13, Joe Sullivan raped a woman, and at 16, Terrance Graham committed armed burglary. Sullivan and Graham are sentenced to die in prison. (Read more about the Graham and Sullivan cases and about the international human rights law angle here.) (PDF)
In the United States, approximately 2,570 children are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Children as young as 13 have been sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without a second chance and an opportunity for release. We are the only country in the world where children are serving such cruel sentences. In February 2006, the ACLU submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) challenging the practice of life without parole sentencing for children under universal human rights principles. The petition alleges that the human rights of children sentenced to life without parolesentences in the state of Michigan have been violated. It asks the IACHR to review Michigan sentencing laws as they are applied to children and find them in violation of the American Declaration of the Rights of Man and other universal human rights principles. Read the petition here. In sentencing children to life sentences without the possibility of parole, the United States is out of step with the rest of the world. As a champion of children's human rights, we should be doing so much better. We must ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, only receive fair sentences for the crimes they commit and that they are given an opportunity for rehabilitation. Tags: jlwop, juvenile justice
We've Come So Far, But Have So Much Farther to GoThe U.S. is the world's leading incarcerator with over 2.3 million people – or 1 in 99 adults – in prisons and jails across the country. Our incarceration rate of 760 per 100,000 people is the highest in the world -- five to ten times that of other Western democracies. In addition, because of increased reliance on detention as an immigration enforcement strategy, the number of immigrant detainees has tripled in the last ten years. Massive incarceration in the U.S. undoubtedly causes much human suffering and, when coupled with overcrowding, mistreatment of vulnerable populations and other threatening conditions of confinement, greatly hinders the rehabilitation and reformation of those detained. For those in supermax prisons, extreme social isolation, sensory deprivation and other cruel forms of treatment or punishment also threaten their basic rights. When U.S. law falls flat, lawyers and advocates often look to international law to protect the rights of detainees. Last week, in front of a large audience at Columbia Law School, human rights lawyers and advocates gathered to discuss the importance of a human rights framework. Sir Nigel Rodley, human rights expert and author of The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, described his research and work on behalf of those in detention. He discussed how much the landscape had changed since he began to study the rights of people in detention, and the dramatic breakthroughs he's seen in the human rights field to address violations. Today, there are better norms and mechanisms available to monitor and address abuses, and the protections afforded in international human rights law often surpass protections available under U.S. law. Speakers noted that there were many moments when they looked to the human rights framework because the Constitution didn't provide enough specific protections, using international human rights law to reinforce core American values. The panelists pointed out that human rights law (especially the rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and the Convention against Torture) can be a much more powerful tool to address prison conditions and rights violations. For example, if you take a close look at the ICCPR, it clearly states that incarcerated juveniles must be kept separate from adults, and that the aim of detention shall be rehabilitation. As the ACLU learned when it investigated the conditions of girls in confinement in juvenile detention facilities in New York, this was always not the case. The speakers from last week's panel also brought up how the U.S.' deviations from international human rights law have had serious ramifications around the world. Specifically, in the war on terror, U.S. actions have discredited us as a worldwide human rights leader and put us in the company of countries that routinely abuse human rights. Torture, secret detention, rendition, disappearances and holding people incommunicado threatened not only our security and safety but our standing in the world. Sir Nigel summarized the mood of the entire panel when he noted, "We've come so far, but we have so much farther to go." We couldn't agree more. Watch this space for video of the event!
World Day Against the Death PenaltyTomorrow marks World Day Against the Death Penalty, and it is only fitting that a global call was issued to abolish the practice. We join the ambassadors of the European Union (EU) who gathered today to call on all nations to abolish the cruel practice. Ambassador John Bruton, the head of EU delegation to the U.S., stated: "The EU not only considers capital punishment to be cruel and inhumane, but it also fails to deter criminal behavior and represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. Miscarriages of justice are inevitable in any legal system – and any miscarriage of justice that results in the death penalty is irreversible." In a statement released today, John Holdridge, Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project noted: The need to end this barbaric practice is underscored by the fact that eight men were released from death row in 2009 and that new evidence has come forward that a man executed in Texas in 2004 could not have set the lethal fire for which he was condemned to die, meaning that an innocent man almost certainly has been put to death at the hands of the state. The death penalty remains the penalty of the poor. The practice is plagued by many problems, including racial and geographic bias in the decisions to try cases. Recently, the ACLU presented a statement before the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE) in Warsaw, Poland, highlighting the human rights violations that plague the death penalty system in the U.S. The U.S. needs to end this practice, in order to restore our country's standing and image in the world as a beacon for human rights and democratic values. The ACLU calls upon President Obama and the 35 states around the country that still permit the death penalty to put an end to this costly practice that does not make us any safer. Learn more about the ACLU Capital Punishment Project at: www.aclu.org/capital/index.html
Profile-Me-NotIn a letter to the Obama administration made public today, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed concerns over a lack of progress to end racial discrimination in the United States. In particular, the letter urged the Obama administration and Congress to do more to end racial profiling, like passing the End Racial Profiling Act and reconsidering the 287(g) program. Monday's announcement that the federal government will investigate allegations of bias against Latino crime victims by police in Suffolk County, New York is an encouraging step, though there is plenty more to be done. You may remember that the ACLU advocates before the CERD Committee on the status of racial profiling and discrimination in the United States. This summer, we issued (along with the Rights Working Group) a report on the pervasive problem of racial profiling, and in December 2007, a comprehensive analysis of racial discrimination in the US. ACLU affiliates across the country are leading the charge to end racial profiling on state and local levels. Following the launch of the ACLU of West Virginia's Campaign to End Racial Profiling and a standing room only symposium on community and law enforcement relations, it was recently announced that the Charleston Police Department will require its officers to receive anti-racial profiling training. In Maryland, the ACLU has been working to keep the pressure on the Maryland State Police (MSP), who – despite being sued for profiling drivers of color on I-95 back in the '90s – appear to have done little to eradicate the practice. Data shows that drivers of color continue to be stopped at disproportionate rates, and the MSP is refusing to turn over documents that would show whether it is meaningfully investigating complaints by drivers. Both Illinois and New Jersey won significant legislative victories this session that will bring transparency to police practices in the two states. In Illinois, legislation extending the collection and analysis of data about all traffic stops will help to detect and deter bias-based policing. And in New Jersey, a new bill will make permanent the monitoring instituted in 1999 to combat racial profiling by the state police on the New Jersey Turnpike. The Rhode Island ACLU is in court today arguing that detaining car passengers based on an officer's "hunch" that they look undocumented amounts to racial profiling. And in Texas – where the Shelby County District Attorney is facing a federal lawsuit over a scheme in which authorities pull over mostly African-American motorists without cause, ask if they are carrying cash and, if so, order them to sign over the cash to the town or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes – the ACLU recently filed a brief opposing the DA's request to use the seized money to defend herself. Go, Team ACLU! - Nahal Zamani, Human Rights Program and Nicole Kief, Racial Justice Program Tags: CERD
Join us at “Human Rights and Detention”
This week, on Thursday, October 8th from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., human rights lawyers and advocates will gather to discuss the importance of a human rights framework to protect the rights of those deprived of their liberty. This special event features Sir Nigel Rodley, whose book, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, was just published in its third edition. Sir Nigel teaches human rights law at the University of Essex, served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture from 1993 – 2001 and is currently a member of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). He will be joined by a panel of human rights lawyers and advocates discussing detention in four different contexts – prisoners' rights in the criminal justice system, prisoners in armed conflict and counter-terrorism situations, immigration detention and juvenile detention – and the value a human rights framework would provide in addressing rights violations in the United States. The event is free and open to the public, and is co-sponsored by the ACLU Human Rights Program and Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. It will take place in room 103 of Jerome Greene Hall, located in Columbia University Law School at 435 West 116th Street in New York City. In addition to Sir Nigel, panelists include: David Fathi, Director, U.S. Program, Human Rights Watch; Scott Horton, contributing editor, Harper's Magazine and lecturer-in-law, Columbia Law School; Mie Lewis, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project; and Sunita Patel, staff attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights. The panel will be moderated by Professor Peter Rosenblum, Faculty Co-Director of the Human Rights Institute at Columbia law school. If you’re in the New York area, please join us! For event details, click here.
Religious Rights Are Human RightsYesterday, Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, presented a statement at the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE) in Warsaw, Poland. The OSCE is an intergovernmental organization consisting of 56 "participating states," including the United States, Canada, European countries, and Central Asia. The HDIM is Europe's largest human rights conference, and the most significant OSCE event addressing human rights and democracy in Europe, North America and Central Asia. For two weeks, more than 1,000 government representatives, human rights defenders, scholars, members of civil society and journalists examined the processes and extent to which OSCE member countries have implemented their commitments to human rights and democracy. Jamil presented a written statement on "Charitable Giving and Religious Freedom in the U.S." during yesterday's session on fundamental freedoms, which focused on freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. As you may know, the ACLU has recently documented the consequence of U.S. government actions on American Muslims' exercise of their right to profess and practice their religion through charitable giving. The ACLU's research shows that post-9/11 terrorism financing policies and practices are seriously undermining American Muslims' protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom from discrimination. President Obama just signaled his commitment to working with American Muslims to ensure they can fulfill zakat (zakat is one of the core "five pillars" of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims) and highlighted the importance of this issue in a recent statement to mark the end of Ramadan and the beginning of Eid-ul-Fitr, stating: "As I said in Cairo, my Administration is working to ensure that Muslims are able to fulfill their charitable obligations not just during Ramadan, but throughout the year." In his statement, Jamil noted: Despite the often weak nature of its evidence, the Bush Administration publicly trumpeted its actions as successes and made inflammatory and unfounded or exaggerated allegations when it designated Muslim charities as terrorist, indicted them criminally, or raided them. These government actions have created a general climate in which law-abiding American Muslims fear making charitable donations in accordance with their religious beliefs.While Obama's recent statements signal a step forward towards upholding the religious freedom of Americans — as this is a change in policy from the Bush administration — the Obama administration now must act. We call on the Obama administration to work with Congress to reform our terrorism financing laws and policies in order to bring these laws and policies into compliance with international standards, and meet our country's human rights commitments to better protect and promote religious freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The ACLU is joined by other groups who stand ready to work with the administration to make this happen. Stand with the ACLU today and demand religious freedom for everyone in America. Learn more about the issue at: /muslimcharities. — By Jennifer Turner and Nahal Zamani Tags: Human Rights Program
Just the BeginningPresident Obama spoke eloquently this morning, delivering a historic speech before the United Nations General Assembly. In his speech, Obama outlined his administration's steps towards what he called a "new era of engagement," noting that ensuring basic human rights is essential to a peaceful world. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement released today, "For eight years under President Bush, the U.S. undermined international human rights laws and refused to ratify treaties that have been embraced by the overwhelming majority of nations." Indeed, the first steps taken by Obama in his first nine months in office have been important. Issuing an executive order to close Guantanamo within one year, joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPRD) and prioritizing the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) all signal a new era of engagement with the United Nations and a commitment to human rights for the Obama administration. However, as President Obama proclaimed today, "this is just a beginning." While these are critical steps towards upholding and protecting human rights and illustrate a clear commitment to advancing human rights on behalf of the Obama administration, it's just the beginning. There is much work to be done both at home and abroad. The U.S. has concrete steps to take in order to uphold a robust human rights policy. Read more about these steps at http://www.udhr60.org/udhr_mag.html. In the press statement released by the ACLU, Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, noted: The Obama administration has already taken steps to break with the Bush administration's disastrous human rights policies but there is still much more to do, including honoring and expanding U.S. human rights commitments and fully incorporating them into domestic policy … we look forward to his administration taking concrete actions to translate these commitments to a robust human rights policy. Real action is needed, such as ratifying CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CPRD and other human rights treaties that are essential to promoting every human's dignity and well-being.
Lenora Lapidus, director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project concurred, We hope that his speech today before the General Assembly will be followed by real action on the part of the U.S. in finally joining the overwhelming majority of nations of the world in ratifying CEDAW and other international human rights treaties, and making human rights a key component of both U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Our credibility, just as Obama noted, will be judged by our deeds, not just by our words. Let's see how well we do.
Learn more at www.aclu.org/humanrights. Tags: Close Guantanamo
A Lesson from Bollywood: Time for America to Ban Racial ProfilingYou might have heard about Shahrukh Khan, the Bollywood megastar who was pulled out of a security line and questioned and detained for over 1 1/2 hours by Customs and Border Protection authorities at Newark airport, apparently because of his Muslim name. Khan, who is adored around the world, has an estimated fan base of 3.5 billion people and is a symbol of Indian national pride, was on his way to Indian Independence Day events in Chicago. News of his experience at Newark set off international protests. What made the incident particularly poignant was the fact that Khan had just finished filming My Name is Khan, a movie that deals with post 9/11 discrimination against Muslims in the United States. What a strange coincidence. However, it is critical to remember that the indignity suffered by Khan is emblematic of a larger problem of racial profiling in the United States. Indian and other South Asian travelers (be they Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Christian) have been subjected to similar forms of profiling and scrutiny including former Indian president Abdul Kalam and Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. Recently, CNN ran an op-ed by Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney of the Human Rights Program, about the Khan incident and the depth of racial profiling in the United States. In the piece, Chandra notes: The Khan case provides a chance for American society to re-examine the breadth and depth of racial profiling, its impact on minority communities in the United States, and its harm to America's reputation around the world.The ACLU saw two big successes against racial profiling in the recent weeks. The ACLU of New Jersey recently made advances in monitoring the State Police and upholding accountability, and the ACLU of Illinois was able to access information about the stopping of motorists. To learn more about the ACLU's work to combat racial profiling, check out our report, The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
