CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Achieving the Ideals Embodied in the CRCToday 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.
On August 6, 2009, federal officials announced that the T.Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas, would no longer house immigrant families. This marked the end of an almost three-year struggle to vindicate the basic rights of children detained in this facility. The Hutto facility, a former prison operated by a private adult corrections company, was opened in May 2006 by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) as part of a move that aimed, in part, to deter child smuggling and keep families together. At Hutto, children of all ages were forced to wear prison uniforms, lacked adequate medical care and educational access, endured threats of separation from their parents from guards and were rarely allowed outdoors. Not only did such treatment betray established U.S. law, it was also an affront to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In the spring of 2007, the ACLU, along with a number of cooperating attorneys, filed lawsuits on behalf of 26 detained children charging that ICE was operating the Hutto facility in violation of existing standards governing the treatment of children in immigration custody. On August 27, 2007, the ACLU won a landmark settlement with ICE that greatly improved conditions at Hutto. While the settlement was a victory, Hutto remained structurally a prison. The ACLU continued to advocate, along with other groups, for ICE to close Hutto and use alternatives to detention for families. The closure of the Hutto Family Detention Center just a few months ago was a victory, but the struggle is not yet over. One other family detention center remains — the Berks facility in York, Pa. It is imperative that the U.S. end the practice of family detention altogether. No innocent child should be in detention when alternatives exist that would allow the government to meet its law enforcement aims in a much more humane manner. Then and only then will the U.S. be one step closer to achieving the ideals embodied in the CRC. Tags: CRC
Heather Ellis Case is One in a Long Line of Missouri's racial injustices(Originally posted on The Grio.) When hundreds of people rallied outside a Wal-Mart in Kennett, Missouri Monday, they did so to protest the treatment by police and local prosecutors of Heather Ellis, the now infamous 24-year-old African-American college student who three years ago made a routine trip to that very same Wal-Mart to run some errands and ended up leaving in handcuffs after being accused of cutting a checkout line. Led by civil rights activist Dr. Boyce Watkins and a coalition of civil rights organizations including the ACLU, the protesters marched to the Dunklin County Courthouse where, beginning today, Ellis, a Kennett native whose father still serves the Church in God in Christ congregation in town, will find herself fighting for her freedom after being charged with multiple felonies that could land her up to 15 years in prison. They were there to decry what Ellis has said was the abhorrent treatment she received from both her fellow shoppers and police. In a complaint she filed with the NAACP, Ellis says she was pushed by a white customer, hassled by store employees and called racial slurs by police who physically mistreated her. The police were called to the scene after Ellis and her cousin got into two separate checkout lines, and after Ellis joined her cousin when one line started moving faster than the other. Make no mistake — this single incident involving Ellis warrants community outrage and the storm of subsequent local and national media coverage it has elicited. It is disheartening to think that in this day and age a woman who never before had any criminal record and who has aims on going to medical school and becoming a doctor could face years of imprisonment over an incident so minor. But this case is about much more than Heather Ellis. Indeed, her case snaps into focus broad, systemic and longstanding problems with discriminatory policing and prosecutions in the Kennett area and across the state of Missouri, and exemplifies the unjust and disparate treatment that people of color in Missouri's Bootheel region routinely receive from law enforcement and in the criminal justice system. Data compiled by the Missouri Attorney General show that police target people of color disproportionately for stops, searches and arrests. While African-Americans comprise just over 12 percent of the Kennett population, they accounted for almost 15 percent of traffic stops in 2008. During that same year, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched and to be arrested. The racially disparate treatment of Hispanic drivers in Kennett is especially stark: 2008 traffic stop data shows that they are stopped by police at a rate more than three times their representation in the population. In addition, Hispanic drivers were more than four times as likely to be searched and close to four times as likely to be arrested as white drivers. People of color are also disproportionately represented in Missouri's prison population. Though African-Americans account for 11.39 percent of the state's population, 40.11 percent of the Missouri prison population is black. A significant percentage of people in state prison are sentenced from the Bootheel. Treating people differently based on race betrays the fundamental American promise of equality under the law. We rely on police and other law enforcement officials to be standard-bearers of fairness and justice. When communities of color are treated unfairly, it can create a climate of fear and resentment. These communities may be less likely to rely on or cooperate with police, and an adversarial relationship between police and communities of color compromises everyone's safety. Heather Ellis, as well as all Missourians, deserves to be treated according to these principles. The security of our community and our democracy depend on it.
Teach Your Children WellThis 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. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognizing "the right of the child to education," specifies that education "shall be directed to…the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential." The convention also requires "all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity," and mandates the implementation of the convention's guarantees "without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's…race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status." For far too many young people in America, a system of education structured according to these principles is simply not available. Our zero-tolerance approach to education and school safety, characterized by an overzealous reliance on punitive measures and law enforcement, has sent countless children down the school-to-prison pipeline, robbing them of the educational development and human dignity afforded by the convention. Just this month in Chicago, a food fight ended with the arrest of more than two dozen students, who will struggle to overcome the emotional and practical damage done by this kind of police encounter. Indeed, research has shown that being arrested significantly increases a young person's odds of dropping out of school, lowers standardized test scores, reduces future employment prospects, and increases the likelihood of future interaction with the criminal justice system. Yet in 2005, almost 70 percent of public school students ages 12 to 18 reported that police officers or security guards patrolled their hallways Last month in Delaware, a first-grader was suspended for bringing a camping tool — which his school deemed a weapon — to class. He was in good company. According to 2006 U.S. Department of Education data collection, 3.3 million students received out-of-school suspensions and more than 100,000 students were expelled from school. Students of color, disproportionately subjected to harsh disciplinary measures, bear the brunt of this over-criminalization. As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we must imagine an approach to education guided by the principles of human dignity, freedom from discrimination, and the full development of every child. Tags: CRC
Fighting for Voting Rights for All AmericansToday marks the second day of a two-day United Nations forum on "minorities and effective political participation." Chaired by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the forum has attracted legislators, academics and members of the nongovernmental organization community from around the world to Geneva to address the continuing problems faced by minority communities engaging in the political process. Although the U.S. holds itself out as a model democratic society, the benefit of democracy continues to elude millions of Americans. The U.S. has repeatedly failed to protect the voting rights of minority communities, and has turned a blind eye to state actions that make it more difficult for minority citizens to participate in the political process. The ways in which people of color are systematically kept from the ballot box in the United States are many and varied. The ACLU submission to be presented at the forum focuses on two populations whose voting rights the U.S. government has consistently and repeatedly failed to protect: Native peoples and those with criminal records, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. Though on its face race-neutral, felony disfranchisement – the set of policies and practices that bar 5.3 million Americans with criminal records from the ballot box – has a particularly devastating impact on minority individuals and communities. Across the country, 8.25 percent of the African-American voting-age population is barred from voting due to felony disfranchisement laws, compared to only 2.42 percent of the general voting age population. In states with the greatest levels of African-American disfranchisement, those rates rise to more than 20 percent. If incarceration rates hold steady, three in 10 of the next generation of black men can expect to be disfranchised at some point in their lives. Indeed, the origins of felony disfranchisement lie in explicit efforts to keep African-Americans from the ballot box. After passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, southern states began to tailor their felony disfranchisement laws to target African-Americans. For example, Mississippi revised its constitution to impose disfranchisement as a penalty specifically for crimes of which black people were most frequently convicted. In 1902 at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, felony disfranchisement laws were introduced with the stated intent to "eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State." These laws remain in effect today. Though the movement for equal rights has led to dramatic gains for Indian voters and transformed elected bodies that serve Indian communities, Indians continue to struggle against ongoing disfranchisement and discriminatory election practices that prevent them from participating equally in the political process. The recent ACLU report Voting Rights in Indian Country, which accompanied our U.N. submission, outlines current obstacles to Indian voting, including electoral systems that dilute Indian voting strength; discriminatory voter registration procedures; onerous voter identification requirements; lack of language assistance at the polls; noncompliance with the Voting Rights Act and the historic refusal of our government to recognize Indians as U.S. citizens. Human rights standards protecting the right to vote, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, are robust because the right to vote is fundamental in every way. And yet the United States continues to fail to protect the voting rights of minority communities, in violation of the United States' commitments under international treaties that enshrine the right to vote. The Obama administration has committed itself to enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which is a good step toward protecting the fundamental right to vote. But as our submission to the U.N. demonstrates, much remains to be done to protect this right for all Americans.
Florida Failing Its Schoolchildren, High Dropout Rates Violate State ConstitutionLast week, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit against Florida state officials for violating the state constitution, which guarantees a free "uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality" public education to its citizens. In Florida's Palm Beach County, between one-third and one-half of students do not graduate from high school, depending on the method of calculation used (the most generous, not surprisingly, is Florida's self-reported method). In addition to low graduation rates, a significant disparity exists between the graduation rates of African-American and Hispanic students and those of white students in Palm Beach County. The stark difference across racial lines is evidence enough of a constitutional violation, but the ACLU lawsuit aims to improve the graduation rates for all students enrolled in Palm Beach County. Our case, Aho v. State of Florida, is novel because the only remedy we seek is a meaningful improvement in Palm Beach County's graduation rates without pushing students out of the system. The State of Florida and district officials can decide how to best achieve those results. It is no secret that a quality education exponentially increases one's chances of success in life. Wayward parents are often blamed for a failing education system, but this lawsuit demonstrates that even parents following every imaginable step to access a quality education are let down by Palm Beach County schools. Beyond that, the school system has a constitutional obligation to educate all students, even those who are not from privileged backgrounds. The district's graduation rates, which fall well below state and national averages, also cannot be explained by low socioeconomic status, as students in similar and/or worse socioeconomic conditions do far better in other districts. We understand that Palm Beach County has a difficult job to do. But kids in Florida deserve an environment that promotes opportunity and success and fulfills the constitutional right promised to them, regardless of their race, age, disability, district, and no matter how easy or convenient it is to provide. After all, what good is a constitutional right when it's left unenforced?
"Give Us Our Books, Don't Treat Us Like Crooks" So went the call for change on the steps of New York City Hall. On October 22, folks from the New York Civil Liberties Union and I participated in a rally at City Hall to raise public awareness about and garner support for the Student Safety Act. The rally was attended by over 100 high-school youth active in the Urban Youth Collaborative, a network of community organizations committed to ending overpolicing in New York City public schools and ensuring that our schools are safe places of learning for everybody. Unfortunately, overpolicing in public schools is hardly limited to New York City schools. The school-to-prison pipeline—a term given by advocates to the convergence of harsh disciplinary policies and reliance on police in schools that pushes children out of educational environments and into the juvenile justice system—is a growing problem all over the country. The brisk autumn weather was a perfect backdrop for a rally that was deeply moving and energizing for everyone involved. After things wound down, I had the chance to talk with 18-year-old Jaritza Geigel, a recent graduate from the Bushwick School for Social Justice, and a speaker at the rally. Jaritza shared her experience with police in her school and performed an original piece of spoken-word poetry. In anticipation of the November 10 hearing on the Student Safety Act, I asked Jaritza to contribute to the Blog of Rights about what the Student Safety Act means to her: For as long as I can remember, school has always felt like the safest place besides my home. As I grew older, I felt the same way about school until I started to attend a school with metal detectors, scanning, gated windows, and overpolicing. Urban Youth Collaborative is made up of five core organizations: Desis Rising Up and Moving, Future of Tomorrow of Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, Make the Road New York, Sistas and Brothas United of The Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, and Youth on the Move of Mothers on the Move.
Race and Death Penalty Links Run Deep and Wide(Also posted on Daily Kos.) Last week, South Carolina pardoned two great-uncles of radio personality Tom Joyner, both executed in 1913 for a murder they did not commit. The two African-American men had been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of killing a white Confederate Army veteran. Historical records demonstrate that the authorities probably declined to prosecute the most likely suspects to avoid revealing that the victim was having an affair with a young black woman in the community. This was 1913. This was South Carolina. But even with a black president governing in a purportedly post-racial world, race still plays a major role across the country in who lives, who dies and even who gets charged with a capital crime. In the United States, each death-penalty state, as well as the federal government, has its own capital-sentencing statute and procedure. But what proves consistent throughout these various systems is the insidious influence of race on the decisions about who lives and who dies. Race looms large north and south, in the past and now, and whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Nationally, studies consistently demonstrate that, everything else being equal, a defendant is approximately four times more likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person than for a black person. The racial configuration by far the more likely to result in a death sentence is a black defendant and a white victim. Studies of jurors from across various death penalty states demonstrate that in "black on white" murder cases with six or more white male jurors, juries issue a death sentence 78.3 percent of the time. But if three or more jurors were black males, the overproduction of death sentences disappears. Under Connecticut's capital sentencing statute, black defendants have received death sentences at three times the rate of white defendants in cases with white victims. From 1995 to 2001 in New York (which has since abolished the death penalty) the state sought the death penalty twice as often when the victim was white as when the victim was black Historically, New York's numbers mock the principle of equal justice under the law: From 1890 to 1963 (when New York last performed an execution), 90.4 percent of executions were for the killing a white person, and 80 percent of those executed were black. Under modern federal death penalty statutes as well, a majority of those sentenced to death have been people of color, a majority of those receiving a life plea have been white, and the government has sought the death penalty at an increased rate when the victim was white. (See the ACLU's 2007 report, The Persistent Problem of Racial Disparities in the Federal Death Penalty.) The evidence of race's role takes definitive shape in individual cases also. For example, an Ohio case shows that the life of a black person has less value than that of a white person when deciding if a crime is capital. Gregory McKnight, a black man, was convicted of the separate murders of a young white woman and a young black man. Based on an extraordinarily tenuous theory that could have applied to either murder, the State charged McKnight with the aggravated kidnapping murder of the young white woman (but not of the young black man), and thereby obtained a death sentence During the last two years, three men, including ACLU client Levon "Bo" Jones have been exonerated from North Carolina's death row: All three were falsely convicted of killing white victims. Jones was convicted and sentenced to death by an all white jury. In a Texas case, a federal appeals court ruled that the State must grant a new trial to a Latino defendant who was sentenced to death based upon "expert" testimony that Latinos pose a greater threat of future dangerousness than whites. As Justice Anthony Kennedy recognized in a recent Supreme Court case regarding school integration, race still matters in American society. Regrettably, race will likely still matter a century from now. The only surefire way to avoid further fatal mistakes like these, and to eradicate the role of race in the death penalty, is to abolish the death penalty itself.
Loving v. Virginia Still Relevant 40 Years LaterMore than 40 years after the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws barring interracial marriage unconstitutional, it was upsetting to learn that a Louisiana justice of the peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple. On one hand, the public's reaction to this terrible act shows we've come a long way since the Supreme Court ruled that preserving the racial integrity of its citizens does not justify Virginia's law banning people of different races from marrying. Yet that this act could happen at all, especially by an official of the state of Louisiana, is still sobering. Justice of the peace Keith Bardwell's justification for refusing to issue the license is especially troubling. Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond, LA, that he was not a racist but merely concerned about the welfare of any children the couple may have. Racism veiled in concern for children is nothing new. No doubt this same sentiment was expressed by many seemingly well-intended people back in 1958 when a sheriff and two deputies stormed the bedroom of Mildred and Richard Loving in the early morning, and arrested the couple because it was illegal under Virginia law for Richard, who was white, to be married to Mildred, who was black and Native American. The couple eventually pled guilty to violating the law, and rather than spend a year in jail, they agreed to leave the state for 25 years. Following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Mildred wrote Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, asking him if the new law would allow them to live together in Virginia. Kennedy forwarded the letter to the ACLU, which persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, to strike the law. The notion that government has any business meddling in matters of the heart is absurd. Why should government get to decide which couples are worthy of marriage and which aren't? Fortunately, in the years since the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law, most people have come to realize that laws barring interracial marriage were based on nothing more than prejudice and deep-seated hostility that flew in the face of our nation's promise of equality. And few people understood the pain that comes from that prejudice and hostility as well as Mildred Loving -- who, just months before she died, issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in her case, urging support for marriage for lesbian and gay couples.
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
Texas Statute Paves Way for Highway RobberyLast Friday, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas submitted a brief to the Texas Attorney General's office arguing that a District Attorney in East Texas should be barred from using money unfairly taken from motorists under Texas's asset forfeiture law to defend herself from a lawsuit brought by motorists who claim that their property was taken illegally. The District Attorney, Lynda K. Russell, is accused of participating in a scheme in which police officers routinely pulled over motorists in the vicinity of Tenaha, Texas without cause, asked if they were carrying cash and, if they were, ordered them to sign over the cash to the town or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes. The seizures were purportedly made under Texas's asset forfeiture law, which enables authorities to seize the profits of crime without a conviction. However, authorities had no evidence that plaintiffs were engaged in any criminal activity. None of the plaintiffs was arrested or ever charged with a crime. In a CNN.com article, David Guillory, one of two lawyers representing the plaintiffs, estimates that authorities in Tenaha seized an astounding $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and that in about 150 cases – almost all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists – the seizures were illegal. District Attorney Russell argued that she should be able to use these funds for the "official purpose" of defending herself from charges that she threatened motorists with criminal charges if they didn't hand over their money. The irony is rich, given that the purpose of the asset forfeiture law is to make sure that criminals don't benefit from their crimes. Furthermore, Texas law prohibits the D.A. from using forfeited assets for this purpose. According to state legislator John Whitmire, police agencies across Texas are wielding the asset-forfeiture law more aggressively these days to shore up their shrinking operating budgets. In Tenaha, the facts show that it was African American motorists who were forced to pay the price for the economic shortfall. Similarly, near the Mexican border, Hispanics allege that they are being singled out by local law enforcement. Yet again, it looks like people of color have come to bear the brunt of unfair and illegal enforcement of policy. What's more, this is not the first time that the use of asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool has been criticized. The practice received considerable attention in 2000 and 2001. Although the ACLU opposes the use of forfeited assets to pay for District Attorney Russell's defense, the ACLU has also argued that she should receive skilled government legal representation. In a disturbing refusal to accept responsibility for the D.A.'s actions, the Attorney General and the county both refused to represent Russell. Left unchallenged, this position is a threat to the civil and constitutional rights of all citizens. When a public official violates constitutional rights, the government must be held accountable. Otherwise, a dangerous precedent is set whereby government may excuse itself from overseeing the people it empowers and finances to act on its behalf. Either the county or the State must step up and take responsibility for Russell's actions in Tenaha. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
