Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:12 pm
Time: 9:12 pm
Results for civil rights
14 results foundAuthor: Bahdi, Reem Title: Racial Profiling Summary: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to ignite a bomb on Christmas Day, 2009, as Northwestern flight 253 descended to the Detroit airport has spurred a new round of debate over the efficacy of racial profiling as a national security strategy. In May 2007, in Vancouver, B.C., the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) held a public conference on racial profiling. Questions of racial profiling – broadly understood as profiling on the basis of race or religion – had hardly received the attention it deserved at the time and the Association’s board felt that it was important to encourage a public and open dialogue on the issue. To that end, they invited a number of experts to share their opinions about racial profiling and national security. The papers commented on here reflect the range of papers presented at the Vancouver conference. Details: Vancouver, BC: B.C. Civil Liberties Association, 2010. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/10racialprofiling.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/10racialprofiling.pdf Shelf Number: 120759 Keywords: Civil RightsRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement (Canada)Racism |
Author: Forman, James Title: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow Summary: In the last decade, a number of scholars have called the American criminal justice system a new form of Jim Crow. These writers have effectively drawn attention to the injustices created by a facially race-neutral system that severely ostracizes offenders and stigmatizes young, poor black men as criminals. This Article argues that despite these important contributions, the Jim Crow analogy leads to a distorted view of mass incarceration. The analogy presents an incomplete account of mass incarceration’s historical origins, fails to consider black attitudes toward crime and punishment, ignores violent crimes while focusing almost exclusively on drug crimes, obscures class distinctions within the African American community, and overlooks the effects of mass incarceration on other racial groups. Finally, the Jim Crow analogy diminishes our collective memory of the Old Jim Crow’s particular harms. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Law, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 243: Accessed June 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1966018 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1966018 Shelf Number: 125410 Keywords: African American Prisoners (U.S.)Civil RightsDisenfranchisementRacial DiscriminationRacial ProfilingUrban Poor |
Author: The Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition (MACLC), The Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Title: Mapping Muslims: NYPD Spying and its Impact on American Muslims Summary: Since 2001, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has established a secret surveillance program that has mapped, monitored and analyzed American Muslim daily life throughout New York City, and even its surrounding states. In 2011, the unveiling of this program by the Associated Press (AP) and other journalists1 who had obtained leaked internal NYPD documents led to an outcry from public officials, civil rights activists, American Muslim religious leaders, and members of the public. Protesters and advocates held that such racial and religious profiling was not only an example of ineffective policing and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, but it also marginalized and criminalized a broad segment of American Muslims. Almost a year later, in August 2012, the Chief of the NYPD Intelligence Division, Lt. Paul Galati admitted during sworn testimony that in the six years of his tenure, the unit tasked with monitoring American Muslim life had not yielded a single criminal lead.2 Proponents of the sprawling surveillance enterprise have argued that, regardless of its inefficacy, mere spying on a community is harmless because it is clandestine and that those who are targeted should have nothing to fear, if they have nothing to hide. Our findings, based on an unprecedented number of candid interviews with American Muslim community members, paint a radically different picture. We have found that surveillance of Muslims’ quotidian activities has created a pervasive climate of fear and suspicion, encroaching upon every aspect of individual and community life. Surveillance has chilled constitutionally protected rights—curtailing religious practice, censoring speech and stunting political organizing. Every one of our interviewees noted that they were negatively affected by surveillance in some way - whether it was by reducing their political or religious expression, altering the way they exercised those rights (through clarifications, precautions, or avoiding certain interlocutors), or in experiencing social and familial pressures to reduce their activism. Additionally, surveillance has severed the trust that should exist between the police department and the communities it is charged with protecting. Section One of the findings highlights the impact of NYPD surveillance on religious life and expression. Interviewees felt that the NYPD’s spotlight on American Muslims’ practice of their faith, their degree of religiosity and their places of worship disrupted and suppressed their ability to practice freely. Many also indicated that within heterogeneous Muslim communities, this has resulted in the suppression of certain practices of Islam more than others. Interviews also highlighted the atmosphere of tension, mistrust and suspicion that permeates Muslim religious places – which the NYPD has infiltrated with informants and undercover agents, deeming them “hot spots.” These law enforcement policies have deeply affected the way Muslim faith is experienced and practiced in New York City. Section Two documents how NYPD surveillance has chilled American Muslims’ freedom of speech. Interviewees noted a striking self-censorship of political speech and activism. Conversations relating to foreign policy, civil rights and activism are all deemed off-limits as interviewees fear such conversations would draw greater NYPD scrutiny. This same fear has deterred mobilization around Muslim civil rights issues, and quelled demands for law enforcement accountability. Parents discourage their children from being active in Muslim student groups, protests, or other activism, believing that these activities would threaten to expose them to government scrutiny. Surveillance has also led to a qualitative shift in the way individuals joke, the types of metaphors they use, and even the sort of coffee house chatter in which they engage. Since 2001, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has established a secret surveillance program that has mapped, monitored and analyzed American Muslim daily life throughout New York City, and even its surrounding states. In 2011, the unveiling of this program by the Associated Press (AP) and other journalists1 who had obtained leaked internal NYPD documents led to an outcry from public officials, civil rights activists, American Muslim religious leaders, and members of the public. Protesters and advocates held that such racial and religious profiling was not only an example of ineffective policing and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, but it also marginalized and criminalized a broad segment of American Muslims. Almost a year later, in August 2012, the Chief of the NYPD Intelligence Division, Lt. Paul Galati admitted during sworn testimony that in the six years of his tenure, the unit tasked with monitoring American Muslim life had not yielded a single criminal lead.2 Proponents of the sprawling surveillance enterprise have argued that, regardless of its inefficacy, mere spying on a community is harmless because it is clandestine and that those who are targeted should have nothing to fear, if they have nothing to hide. Our findings, based on an unprecedented number of candid interviews with American Muslim community members, paint a radically different picture. We have found that surveillance of Muslims’ quotidian activities has created a pervasive climate of fear and suspicion, encroaching upon every aspect of individual and community life. Surveillance has chilled constitutionally protected rights—curtailing religious practice, censoring speech and stunting political organizing. Every one of our interviewees noted that they were negatively affected by surveillance in some way - whether it was by reducing their political or religious expression, altering the way they exercised those rights (through clarifications, precautions, or avoiding certain interlocutors), or in experiencing social and familial pressures to reduce their activism. Additionally, surveillance has severed the trust that should exist between the police department and the communities it is charged with protecting. Section One of the findings highlights the impact of NYPD surveillance on religious life and expression. Interviewees felt that the NYPD’s spotlight on American Muslims’ practice of their faith, their degree of religiosity and their places of worship disrupted and suppressed their ability to practice freely. Many also indicated that within heterogeneous Muslim communities, this has resulted in the suppression of certain practices of Islam more than others. Interviews also highlighted the atmosphere of tension, mistrust and suspicion that permeates Muslim religious places – which the NYPD has infiltrated with informants and undercover agents, deeming them “hot spots.” These law enforcement policies have deeply affected the way Muslim faith is experienced and practiced in New York City. Section Two documents how NYPD surveillance has chilled American Muslims’ freedom of speech. Interviewees noted a striking self-censorship of political speech and activism. Conversations relating to foreign policy, civil rights and activism are all deemed off-limits as interviewees fear such conversations would draw greater NYPD scrutiny. This same fear has deterred mobilization around Muslim civil rights issues, and quelled demands for law enforcement accountability. Parents discourage their children from being active in Muslim student groups, protests, or other activism, believing that these activities would threaten to expose them to government scrutiny. Surveillance has also led to a qualitative shift in the way individuals joke, the types of metaphors they use, and even the sort of coffee house chatter in which they engage. transparency, and accountability when it comes to the NYPD has never been greater. Details: New York: The Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition (MACLC), The Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://www.law.cuny.edu/academics/clinics/immigration/clear/Mapping-Muslims.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.cuny.edu/academics/clinics/immigration/clear/Mapping-Muslims.pdf Shelf Number: 128325 Keywords: American Muslims (New York City, U.S.)Civil RightsMinority GroupsRacial Profiling in Law EnforcementSurveillance |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Civil Rights Investigations of Local Police: Lessons Learned Summary: On July 24, 2012, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced a plan to overhaul the New Orleans Police Department that was broader in scope and more detailed than any other consent decree the DOJ had issued since it was given the authority 18 years earlier to investigate local police departments. The 2012 New Orleans consent decree is expected to last at least five years and cost more than $11 million, though the agreement likely will take longer and cost more to carry out, if recent patterns of DOJ involvement with local law enforcement agencies are any indication. The shape and substance of recently issued consent decrees, in Seattle as well as New Orleans, share little resemblance to the first one the DOJ obtained involving a major metropolitan police force. These consent decrees were made possible by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which gives DOJ’s Civil Rights Division authority to investigate state and local law enforcement agencies that it believes have unconstitutional policies or engage in unconstitutional patterns or practices of conduct. The law is intended to address systemic issues, rather than individual complaints. The alleged misconduct cannot be an isolated incident. And there is no private right of action under the 1994 law; only the Justice Department is given authority to launch investigations and litigation under this statute. The law arms DOJ with the authority to file civil lawsuits against local governments in order to force them to adopt reforms. However, cities typically settle these cases before they go to trial or before a lawsuit is filed. More than 25 police departments have experienced some form of DOJ involvement in the past two decades. When Pittsburgh—the first major case—came under a consent decree in 1997, the mandate focused on two particular areas of policing, produced generalized requirements, and lasted a relatively tidy five years. Some later investigations and reform processes have taken 10 years or more. But one constant in the DOJ’s oversight of police departments accused of discriminatory and unconstitutional activity is the primary types of wrongdoing that have triggered federal involvement: improper use of force by police, unlawful stops and searches, and biased policing. That’s what recently brought DOJ attention to police departments in New Orleans and Seattle. That’s what initiated DOJ involvement in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit and Cincinnati in the early 2000s. And that’s what brought Pittsburgh under DOJ’s watch in 1997. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/CivilRightsInvestigationsofLocalPolice.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/CivilRightsInvestigationsofLocalPolice.pdf Shelf Number: 129450 Keywords: Civil RightsPolice BehaviorPolice MisconductPolice Use of Force (U.S.) |
Author: Front Line Title: Front Line Brazil : murders, death threats and other forms of intimidation of human rights defenders, 1997-2001. Summary: The defence of human rights in Brazil is a dangerous undertaking. In virtually every context in which human rights defenders operate-whether rural conflicts, the fight against urban police brutality and the violence of organised criminal elements, the defence of the environment and of indigenous peoples, or on parliamentary human rights commissions-they face harrassment, intimidation by unwarranted lawsuits, death threats, physical attacks and even murder. This report analyzes fifty-six separate incidents of violence and harrassment of human rights defenders-nineteen instances of homicide, causing twenty-three deaths, and thirty-seven other incidents including attempted murder, death threats and other forms of harassment-over the past five years. These were not the only such cases during this period, but rather represent a frightening national tendency. Still, the numbers are impressive: twenty-three deaths, thirty-two death threats, four instances of attempted murder, four unjustified prosecutions, four beatings, one kidnapping, one disappearance and one unjustified detention. This report sheds light on a series of aspects of the defence of human rights in Brazil that merit attention. First, human rights defenders are a varied lot in Brazil. While most pertain to some form of organised civil society group, such as nongovernmental organisations or unions, many are public authorities, prosecutors, and elected officials. What they have in common is their labour in defence of one or more of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Second, while public authorities, prosecutors and elected officials may enjoy an additional level of protection not afforded to non-state members of civil society groups, even these public authorities are not immune from attacks. This report considers the dangers of human rights defence in Brazil by analyzing instances of abuse and intimidation affecting human rights defenders since 1997, as well as the response of relevant authorities to these incidents. Global Justice chose to limit this report to cases from the past five years due to the existence of literally hundreds of instances over the past decade. Beginning with this universe of cases, we tried to focus on 1) the most serious abuses; 2) instances of abuse that were most representative of the kinds of difficulties faced by defenders; 3) cases that represented the diversity of contexts in which defenders face risks in Brazil; 4) cases that demonstrated the regional diversity of abuses; 5) cases that were well documented and 6) cases known to authorities. Unfortunately, we were forced to eliminate a number of instances that should be in this report due to the lack of corroborating information. As such, while the report includes nineteen cases involving twenty-three homicides, and dozens of incidents of death threats and other forms of intimidation, those figures are not exhaustive, but rather a sampling of the many instances of abuses of the rights of defenders in Brazil. Details: Blackrock : Front Line : Global Justice Center, 2002. 229p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/files/en/1564_FrontLineBrazil_0.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Brazil URL: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/files/en/1564_FrontLineBrazil_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137463 Keywords: Civil RightsDeadly ForceHomicidesHuman RightsHuman Rights AbusesPolice Use of ForceViolence |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Summary: In June 2010, hundreds of thousands of Canadians took to the streets of Toronto to peacefully protest the G20 Summit, which was taking place behind a fortified fence that walled off much of the city's downtown core. On the Saturday evening during the Summit weekend, a senior Toronto Police Commander sent out an order - "take back the streets." Within a span of 36 hours, over 1000 people - peaceful protesters, journalists, human rights monitors and downtown residents - were arrested and placed in detention. The title of this publication is taken from that initial police order. It is emblematic of a very concerning pattern of government conduct: the tendency to transform individuals exercising a fundamental democratic right - the right to protest - into a perceived threat that requires a forceful government response. The case studies detailed in this report, each written by a different domestic civil liberties and human rights organization, provide contemporary examples of different governments' reactions to peaceful protests. They document instances of unnecessary legal restrictions, discriminatory responses, criminalization of leaders, and unjustifiable - at times deadly - force. The nine organizations that have contributed to this publication work to defend basic democratic rights and freedoms in nine countries spread over four continents. Across the regions where our organizations operate, States are engaged in concerted efforts to roll back advances in the protection and promotion of human rights - and often, regressive measures impacting the right to protest follows in lockstep. And across the globe, social movements are pushing for change and resisting the advancement of authoritarian policies; dozens, hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals are marching in the roads and occupying the public space. In rural areas across the global south, there are a variety of demands, calling for access to land or resisting the exploitation of natural resources that threaten indigenous peoples' or peasants' territories. In urban settings, housing shortages or lack of basic services spark social protests and upheavals. Even in developed economies, there are disturbing tensions provoked by the contraction of the economy, globalization policies and the social and political exclusion of migrants. Students' movements all over the globe are demanding the right to education. History tells us that many of the fundamental rights we enjoy today were obtained after generations before us engaged in sustained protests in the streets: the prohibition against child labor, steps toward racial equality, women's suffrage - to name just a few - were each accomplished with the help of public expression of these demands. If freedom of expression is the grievance system of democracies, the right to protest and peaceful assembly is democracy's megaphone. It is the tool of the poor and the marginalized - those who do not have ready access to the levers of power and influence, those who need to take to the streets to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, these are also rights that are frequently violated. Our organizations have witnessed numerous instances of direct state repression during protests: mass arrests, unlawful detentions, illegal use of force and the deployment of toxic chemicals against protesters and bystanders alike. At other times the state action is less visible: the increased criminalization of protest movements, the denial of march permits, imposition of administrative hurdles and the persecution and prosecution of social leaders and protesters. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/global_protest_suppression_report_inclo.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/global_protest_suppression_report_inclo.pdf Shelf Number: 139432 Keywords: Civil RightsProtests and DemonstrationsPublic Disorder |
Author: Lieblich, Eliav Title: The Case Against Police Militarization Summary: The police and the military are different. That much is common ground. Yet, in recent times the police have become increasingly militarized. Unsurprisingly, many find this process alarming and disconcerting, and call for its reversal. However, while most of the objections to police militarization are framed in instrumental arguments, these are unable to capture the fundamental problem with militarization. This Article remedies this shortcoming, by developing a novel and principled argument against police militarization. Contrary to arguments that are preoccupied with the consequences of militarization, we argue that militarization undermines our basic understanding of the nature of the liberal state. Consequently, the real problem with police militarization is not that it brings about more violence or abuse of authority - though that may very well happen - but that it is based on a presumption of the citizen as a threat, while the liberal order is based on precisely the opposite presumption. A presumption of threat, we argue, assumes that citizens, usually from marginalized communities, pose a threat of such caliber that might require the use of extreme violence. Viewed through the prism of the presumption of threat, the problem of police militarization becomes apparent. Perceived as threatening, the policed community is subjected to militarized forces, and thus effectively marked as an enemy. This mark, in turn, leads to the policed community's exclusion from the body politic. Crucially, the pervasiveness of police militarization has led to its normalization, thus exacerbating its exclusionary effect. Indeed, whereas the domestic deployment of militaries has always been reserved for exceptional times, the process of police militarization has normalized what was once exceptional. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2840715 Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2840715 Shelf Number: 146108 Keywords: Civil RightsMilitarizationPolice MilitarizationPolicingWar on Drugs |
Author: United States Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: The Civil Rights Division's Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work: 1994-Present Summary: There are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country. Law enforcement is a demanding, rigorous, and – at times – dangerous profession. The vast majority of men and women who police our communities do so with professionalism, respect, bravery, and integrity. But as we have seen around the country, when police departments engage in unconstitutional policing, their actions can severely undermine both community trust and public safety. Today, our country is engaged in a critically important conversation about community-police relations. This report describes one of the United States Department of Justice’s central tools for accomplishing police reform, restoring police-community trust, and strengthening officer and public safety – the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement of the civil prohibition on a “pattern or practice” of policing that violates the Constitution or other federal laws (the Department’s other tools are described later in this document). Pattern-or-practice cases begin with investigations of allegations of systemic police misconduct and, when the allegations are substantiated, end with comprehensive agreements designed to support constitutional and effective policing and restore trust between police and communities. The Division has opened 11 new pattern-or-practice investigations and negotiated 19 new reform agreements since 2012 alone, often with the substantial assistance of the local United States Attorney’s Offices. The purpose of this report to make the Division’s police reform work more accessible and transparent. The usual course of a pattern-or-practice case, with examples and explanations for why the Division approaches this work the way it does, is set forth in this report. The following is a brief summary of its major themes: The Division’s pattern-or-practice cases focus on systemic police misconduct rather than isolated instances of wrongdoing. They also focus on the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies and local governments rather than on individual officers. The Division’s pattern-or-practice cases begin with the launch of a formal investigation into a law enforcement agency to determine whether the agency is engaged in a pattern or practice of violating federal law. An investigation most often consists of a comprehensive analysis of the policies and practices of policing in a particular community, although an investigation may also focus on a specific area of policing practice. If the Division finds a pattern or practice of police misconduct, it issues public findings in the form of a letter or report made available to the local jurisdiction and the public. The Division conducts a thorough and independent investigation into allegations of police misconduct and substantiates any conclusions it draws with evidence set forth in its public findings. After making findings, the Division negotiates reform agreements resolving those findings, usually in the form of a “consent decree” overseen by a federal court and an independent monitoring team. The lead independent monitor is appointed by the court, and usually agreed upon by both the Division and the investigated party, but reports directly to the court. If an agreement cannot be negotiated, the Division will bring a lawsuit to compel needed reforms. When the court finds that the law enforcement agency has accomplished and sustained the requirements of the reform agreement, the case is terminated. In recent years, the Division’s reform agreements have included data-driven outcome measures designed to provide clear and objective standards for measuring success and determining whether the law enforcement agency has met the objectives of the agreement. At all stages of a pattern-or-practice case, from investigation through resolution, the Division emphasizes engagement with a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members and people who have been victims of police misconduct or live in the neighborhoods most impacted by police misconduct, police leadership, rank and file officers, police labor organizations, and local political leaders. Each of these groups brings a different and important perspective and plays a critical role in accomplishing and sustaining police reform. In keeping with the focus on systemic problems, the Division’s reform agreements emphasize institutional reforms such as improving systems for supervising officers and holding them accountable for misconduct; ensuring officers have the policy guidance, training, equipment and other resources necessary for constitutional and effective policing; creating and using data about police activity to identify and correct patterns of police misconduct; and institutionalizing law enforcement agencies’ engagement with and accountability to the community. The sections that follow provide background on why Congress gave the Division authority to address systemic police misconduct, how the Division opens pattern-or-practice investigations, what an investigation involves, and how the Division negotiates reform agreements. The report then outlines the common threads among the Division’s current generation of police reform agreements, explaining how the Division’s model promotes sustainable reform and constitutional, effective policing, as well as how those agreements come to a close. Finally, the report discusses the evidence to date of the impact of the Division’s pattern-or-practice work on police reform, as well as future directions for research and reflection on that impact. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2017. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/922421/download Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/922421/download Shelf Number: 147803 Keywords: Civil RightsPolice AccountabilityPolice MisconductPolice ReformPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community Relations |
Author: Rozema, Kyle Title: Good Cop, Bad Cop: An Analysis of Chicago Civilian Allegations of Police Misconduct Summary: Preventing police officer misconduct, while giving police officers the incentives and flexibility to fight crime, is a notoriously difficult challenge. We explore whether civilian complaints can help identify and reduce police officer misconduct. Using data on over 50,000 civilian allegations against police officers in Chicago over a 13-year period, we find that civilian allegations are strongly associated with (1) non-civilian allegations of misconduct, such as allegations from supervisors, and (2) the likelihood of and outcomes in civil rights litigation. We conclude that civilian allegations contain a strong signal of police officer misconduct. In particular, lawsuits against police officers are external and quantifiable measures of officer misconduct and typically arise from serious incidents. We further find that, if an administrative body sustains an allegation against an officer, that officer's civilian allegation rate decreases and the probability that he or she exits the force increases. We conclude that civilian allegations against police officers in Chicago can be better utilized to prevent misconduct. Details: Chicago: Northwestern University, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2866696 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2866696 Shelf Number: 147558 Keywords: Civil RightsComplaints Against the Police Police Corruption Police Misconduct |
Author: United States Commission on Civil Rights Title: Targeted Fines and Fees against Low-Income People of Color: Civil Rights and Constitutional Implications Summary: The report examines (1) the reality - and real harm - of cities imposing fines and fees on residents to raise city funds rather than to secure legal compliance and increase public safety and (2) the U.S. Department of Justice's enforcement efforts to encourage constitutional practices and hold jurisdictions accountable for constitutional violations stemming from the way these jurisdictions impose fines and fees. The Commission's findings are drawn from diverse perspectives across the political spectrum, shared at two public briefings with policy experts, federal officials, state judges and court administrators, and advocacy groups. To prepare the report, the Commission also received information from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and reviewed relevant literature and data. By majority vote, the Commission finds: Many jurisdictions now require courts to collect fees for civil and criminal activities - such as traffic violations - in addition to government programs unrelated to courts. In almost every state, juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, and fees on youth, their families, or both - even though research shows that imposing such fees is ineffective to actually generate revenue. Some cities target poor citizens and communities of color for fines and fees, using law enforcement as ticketing and collections agencies to increase municipal revenues, rather than to improve public safety and civil compliance. Targeting the poor and communities of color for fines and fees undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Best practices should break the connection between revenue from fines and fees and the budget needs of cities and courts. U.S. Department of Justice efforts begun in the Obama Administration to discourage these practices have increased access to justice and should continue in the Trump Administration. These conclusions draw on bipartisan consensus, reflected in public testimony to the Commission, as well as in research and data the Commission reviewed, that cities' practices of preying financially on their own residents and targeting low income persons and persons of color are at best unwise and all too often unlawful. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist crystalized the concerns of criminalizing poverty: "No one should have to fear being jailed for light speeding, having a tail light out, or not wearing a seatbelt. Not only is it wrong to potentially ruin someone's life over small infractions, but incarcerating an individual can often times cost the government more money as they waste resources on people who pose no threat to the community. The DOJ and the United States Commission on Civil Rights has a duty to encourage better practices in municipal courts to avoid abuse." Former Obama Justice Department official Chiraag Bains noted the agreement on this issue across the political spectrum, pointing out the common threads in advocating for court reform: "Unlawful and unfair practices involving excessive fines, the incarceration of the poor because of their inability to pay, and racially disparate enforcement violate core American values: liberty, fairness, equality." By majority vote, the Commission recommends: Courts and cities should use a common standard to evaluate an individual's ability to pay, presuming inability to pay for individuals who are homeless, incarcerated, confined to a mental health facilities, juveniles, or whose income is below the poverty level. DOJ should coordinate data collection and publicly share data and analysis of court fines and fees across the country. Such data collection should include the race, gender, and ability status of persons against whom fines and fees are assessed, to determine whether the assessment practices have a disparate impact on the basis of a protected status. States and cities should remove the potential for or existence of conflict of interest incentives to assess fines and fees by, for example, returning revenue from fines and fees to a general budget fund and discontinuing the use of for-profit collections agencies. DOJ should investigate additional jurisdictions related to this topic, and, where appropriate, issue reports to incentivize further, national, reform. Congress should enact legislation to give DOJ authority to investigate courts that impose fines and fees in an unconstitutional manner. Courts and cities should provide counsel to contest the imposition of a fine or fee and to determine indigency, as appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: USCCR, 2017. 238p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148017 Keywords: Civil RightsCourt FeesCriminal FeesCriminal FinesRacial Disparities |
Author: Armstrong, Andrea Title: The Impact of 300 Years of Jail Conditions. The New Orleans Prosperity Index: Tricentennial Edition, March 2018 Summary: New Orleans has jailed people for almost as long as the city has existed. Beginning from the first incarnation of Orleans Parish Prison in 1721 by Jean-Baptiste de Bienville at Jackson Square to its current iteration under federal court supervision near the criminal courthouse at Tulane Avenue and Broad Street, the jail has imposed inhumane conditions on the people detained there. But the conditions in the jail not only affect those detained, but our community as well. Modern accounts of Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), recently renamed the Orleans Justice Center, have focused on the impact of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and its aftermath, with little attention to centuries of detention that came before. This article links the current conditions in the jail to the jail's historical role in New Orleans to explore the extent to which detention in the New Orleans jail has contributed to racial inequality in New Orleans today. A historical account of the jail is important to understand the centuries of inhumane conditions imposed overwhelmingly on African American members of our community. Written accounts from the 1800s to present describe dangerous, unsanitary, and torturous conditions for Orleans parish detainees. As recently as 2013, Federal District Court Judge Lance Africk described the conditions in the jail as "an indelible stain on the community." These dehumanizing conditions are disproportionately imposed on African Americans. Local, state, and federal legislative reforms of criminal justice policies have focused on the drivers and outputs of incarceration, but have largely ignored the conditions of confinement themselves. In so doing, these reform efforts ignore the devastating and lifelong effects on detained individuals and our community. This essay concludes by highlighting the importance of community engagement in improving conditions at the jail. Details: New Orleans: Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series 2018-05: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3152415 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3152415 Shelf Number: 149875 Keywords: Civil RightsJail AdministrationJailsPrison ConditionsPrison LawPrisoners |
Author: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. New York Advisory Committee Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth in New York: A Civil Rights Violation Summary: On July 10, 2014, the New York Advisory Committee held a briefing on New York's use of solitary confinement (or extreme isolation, as it is sometimes termed) of youth inmates. The expert presenters included representatives from various state and city agencies and institutions in the State of New York as well as advocates and former inmates. The Committee examined the extent of the use of solitary confinement of youth in the State of New York and the City of New York, and, in particular, the disproportionate assignment of racial minorities to solitary confinement. At the briefing, the presenters discussed (a) the history of solitary confinement within the United States, (b) the conditions of solitary confinement in New York jails, (c) the mental, physical and developmental effects of solitary confinement on youth in New York jails, (d) the primary legal protections related to solitary confinement of youth inmates and (e) the pending legislative, judicial and executive efforts to eliminate or limit the solitary confinement of youth. In addition to the briefing, on June 25, 2014, the Committee conducted an on-site review of Rikers Island Correctional Facility (Rikers). This allowed the Committee to examine the conditions in punitive segregation units at Rikers and to speak with (i) prison officials, (ii) representatives of the New York City Department of Correction (NYC DOC) and the New York City Board of Correction (NYC BOC), and (iii) youth at Rikers who officials selected to speak with the Committee. Lastly, the Committee held a preparatory consultation on July 24, 2014 with experts in various states concerning the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Committee consulted with Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator for PREA at the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Teresa Abreu, Acting Executive Director for the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Juvenile Detention Center; Michael Dempsey, Executive Director of the Indiana Department of Correction's Division of Youth Services; Rick Angelozzi, Superintendent of both Columbia River Correctional Institution and South Fork Forrest Camp within the Oregon Department of Corrections; and Jason Effman, PREA Coordinator for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Based on this record, including the documents referenced herein, the Committee offers 10 findings and makes 7 primary recommendations and 31 total recommendations-found in Chapter 4 of this report-and recommends that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights call on the Department of Justice and other appropriate federal officials and agencies to use their authority to implement the Committee's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC:The Commission, 2014. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Shelf Number: 150482 Keywords: Civil RightsInmate MisconductIsolationJuvenile InmatesRacial DisparitiesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Richardson, Rashida Title: Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice Summary: Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using algorithmic predictive policing systems to forecast criminal activity and allocate police resources. Yet in numerous jurisdictions, these systems are built on data produced within the context of flawed, racially fraught and sometimes unlawful practices ('dirty policing'). This can include systemic data manipulation, falsifying police reports, unlawful use of force, planted evidence, and unconstitutional searches. These policing practices shape the environment and the methodology by which data is created, which leads to inaccuracies, skews, and forms of systemic bias embedded in the data ('dirty data'). Predictive policing systems informed by such data cannot escape the legacy of unlawful or biased policing practices that they are built on. Nor do claims by predictive policing vendors that these systems provide greater objectivity, transparency, or accountability hold up. While some systems offer the ability to see the algorithms used and even occasionally access to the data itself, there is no evidence to suggest that vendors independently or adequately assess the impact that unlawful and bias policing practices have on their systems, or otherwise assess how broader societal biases may affect their systems. In our research, we examine the implications of using dirty data with predictive policing, and look at jurisdictions that (1) have utilized predictive policing systems and (2) have done so while under government commission investigations or federal court monitored settlements, consent decrees, or memoranda of agreement stemming from corrupt, racially biased, or otherwise illegal policing practices. In particular, we examine the link between unlawful and biased police practices and the data used to train or implement these systems across thirteen case studies. We highlight three of these: (1) Chicago, an example of where dirty data was ingested directly into the city's predictive system; (2) New Orleans, an example where the extensive evidence of dirty policing practices suggests an extremely high risk that dirty data was or will be used in any predictive policing application, and (3) Maricopa County where despite extensive evidence of dirty policing practices, lack of transparency and public accountability surrounding predictive policing inhibits the public from assessing the risks of dirty data within such systems. The implications of these findings have widespread ramifications for predictive policing writ large. Deploying predictive policing systems in jurisdictions with extensive histories of unlawful police practices presents elevated risks that dirty data will lead to flawed, biased, and unlawful predictions which in turn risk perpetuating additional harm via feedback loops throughout the criminal justice system. Thus, for any jurisdiction where police have been found to engage in such practices, the use of predictive policing in any context must be treated with skepticism and mechanisms for the public to examine and reject such systems are imperative. Details: Unpublished paper, 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333423 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333423 Shelf Number: 154662 Keywords: Civil RightsPolice DataPolice MisconductPolicingPredictive PolicingRacial Bias |
Author: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Title: New Era of Public Safety: A Guide to Fair, Safe, and Effective Community Policing Summary: The Leadership Conference Education Fund today launched a new campaign, "New Era of Public Safety" featuring groundbreaking tools to increase trust, fairness, justice, and mutual respect between police departments and the communities they serve. The campaign guidebook and toolkit offer community-centered policy solutions to equip U.S. communities and police departments with best practices and recommendations for adopting 21st century policing models, including tools for advocacy. The campaign launch will include a Washington, D.C. kickoff event, featuring leading voices in activism, law enforcement, and journalism. "Repeated instances of police brutality and misconduct have shaken our nation," said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Education Fund. "These incidents have deepened our distrust in law enforcement and reinforced the belief that all people are not policed equally. With this comprehensive guide and toolkit, we hope to renew trust in our nation's law enforcement by providing tools to put communities first as they work to keep everyone safe." True public safety requires that communities and police departments work together, and solutions should be driven by each community, working with the departments that serve them. The Education Fund's "New Era of Public Safety" campaign, report, and toolkit provide more than 100 recommendations to reform policing. These recommendations outline a road map for 21st century policing that equips law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve with the knowledge and tools they need to keep communities safe. Report recommendations include: End "broken windows policing" and other models that emphasize quantity over quality. Maintain and optimize a range of community partnerships. Tailor policing strategies to meet the needs of specific neighborhoods. Encourage communities to participate in the development and delivery of community policing training. Ensure officers inform community members of their rights to refuse or revoke consent and to document it. Develop stand-alone policies for fair and objective interactions with specific groups. Collect, analyze, and publicly report data relating to bias-based policing. The Education Fund also named Dallas, Texas and Minneapolis, Minnesota as inaugural jurisdictions to implement "New Era" recommendations. These pilot projects will provide local advocacy and strategic partnerships for organizations and activists to implement best policing practices through issue-centered campaigns. The Education Fund will launch the campaign at an event on March 28 at 5:00 p.m. ET at the Eaton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The event will feature remarks from Education Fund President & CEO Vanita Gupta, and a panel discussion moderated by the Washington Post's Wesley Lowery, and featuring Camden County Police Chief Scott Thomson; Center for Policing Equity Co-Founder and President Phillip Atiba Goff; and Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of Advancement Project. The event will be live-streamed here, with a chance for online viewers to submit their questions. A collaborative assembly of community advocates and law enforcement served as contributing authors throughout the process. They include: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; the Policing Project at NYU School of Law; Ron Davis, partner, 21CP Solutions, LLC, and former director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Scott Thomson, chief of the Camden County Police Department, and president of the Police Executive Research Forum; and Sue Rahr, executive director, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. These experts provided key insights into the development of the report. Andrea Ritchie and Wesley Ware contributed to the concept and content for the toolkit. Julio A. Thompson also provided significant and invaluable contributions to the report. Details: Washington, DC: Author, 2019. 416p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2019 at: https://policing.civilrights.org/ Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://policing.civilrights.org/ Shelf Number: 155431 Keywords: Civil RightsCommunity PolicingPolice LegitimacyPolice ReformPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPublic Safety |