The bodies of over 300 people were discovered in a mass grave at the Nasser medical complex in Khan Younis, a Gaza city besieged by Israeli forces. The discovery of these Palestinian bodies, many of which were reportedly bound and stripped, is more evidence of "plausible" genocide committed by Israel during its bombardment of Gaza. Over 34,000 Palestinians have died thus far, with more than two-thirds of the casualties being women and children (Al Jazeera, 4/21/24).
After an attorney representing Grants Pass, Thomas Evangelis, described sleeping in public as a form of "conduct," Justice Elena Kagan disputed the claim and reminded Evangelis that he was presenting a legal argument in favor of policing "a biological necessity."
"Presumably you would not think that it's okay to criminalize breathing in public," said Kagan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. "And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public."
Evangelis is representing the city in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case stemming from a 2018 lawsuit filed by an unhoused woman, Debra Blake, who accused officials of "trying to run homeless people out of town."
"On any given day or night, hundreds of individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon, are forced to live outside due to the lack of emergency shelter and affordable housing in their community," the original lawsuit stated.
The city has passed ordinances banning people from sleeping or camping on publicly owned property, with violators subject to fines of hundreds of dollars.
A lower court ruled that the city's bans were in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, "when there was no other place in the city for [unhoused persons] to go."
The city's only homeless shelter, Gospel Rescue Mission, has 138 beds, and the plaintiffs have said there is frequently no room for many of the hundreds of unhoused people in Grants Pass.
On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared inclined to agree with the plaintiff in the original lawsuit who claimed Grants Pass ultimately wanted unhoused people to leave the city. She pointed to comments city officials have made about their aim "to remove every homeless person and give them no public space."
"Wasn't Grant Pass's first-attempt policy choice to put people, homeless people, on buses so they would leave the city?" she asked Deputy United States Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler. "Police officers would buy them a bus ticket, send them out of the city. But that didn't work because people came back because it had been their home... So then they passed this law, and didn't the City Council president say, 'Our intent is to make it so uncomfortable here that they'll move down the road,' meaning out of town, correct?"
Kneedler acknowledged that the statement was made at a City Council meeting.
"Not only is [sleeping] something that everybody engages in, but it's something that everybody has to engage in to be alive," Kneedler said in response to a question from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "So if you can't sleep, you can't live, and therefore by prohibiting sleeping, the city is basically saying you cannot live in Grants Pass."
The city argued in its case that prohibiting local officials from regulating and banning homeless encampments in public places would cause more people to sleep outdoors—an argument U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), speaking at the rally outside the court, said exposed "how absurd our country's approach to the unhoused crisis is."
"Instead of enacting real solutions to the unhoused crisis, Grants Pass has taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court and is calling for the court to overturn a landmark decision from 1962 that says the government cannot punish people based on status. So we're here today to demand the Supreme Court support humanity, adhere to constitutional precedent, and protect the rights of our unhoused neighbors," said Bush, who has spoken about previously being unhoused herself and sponsored related legislation.
"A person should never be punished for not being able to afford rent or a home," Bush added. "A person should never be punished for sleeping outside or in a car when they have no other place to go. A person should never be punished for simply existing. We need universal housing, universal housing vouchers, and a permanent federal rental assistance program—these are all tangible steps that would actually solve this crisis."
The case arrived at the high court four months after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released annual data showing a 12% increase in homelessness last year from 2022, largely due to a sharp rise in the number of people who were without housing in 2023 for the first time in their lives. Experts often argue the federal figures are an undercount.
On Monday, the Eviction Lab at Princeton University released new data showing that in 25 of the 32 cities it analyzed, an increase in eviction filings was seen between 2022-23.
"The country lacks millions of units of affordable rental housing, and in those units that are available, a record number of tenants are paying well beyond their means," reported the Eviction Lab. "High interest rates prevent younger, middle-class renters from buying homes, which in turn increases demand in the rental sector."
Considering the dynamics contributing to a growing unhoused population, Sotomayor asked of people facing homelessness in Grants Pass: "Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?"
The conservatives on the Supreme Court, who make up the majority, signaled a willingness to rule in favor of the city, with Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledging that the case is centered on "a policy problem because the solution, of course, is to build shelter to provide shelter for those who are otherwise harmless," but noting that "municipalities have competing priorities."
The answer to the questions being asked at the Supreme Court Monday "is not complicated," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). "Unhoused people need housing. Housing is the answer. Housing NOT Handcuffs."
Ramirez repeated a phrase that was seen on many signs held by rally attendees, who included the national grassroots economic justice group VOCAL and organizers with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC).
"What the Supreme Court decides in this case will say a lot about what kind of country we are and what country we want to be," said Efrén Olivares, director of strategic litigation and advocacy at the SPLC. "We demand a future without policies like the one before the court and a government that instead works to ensure that the right to affordable housing is guaranteed for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
This article originally appeared in the Common Dreams on April 23rd, 2024.
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
.png)
.png)
By Nick Evans
In its initial hearing, Reps. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, and Phil Plummer, R-Dayton, presented the proposal as procedural update rather than a wholesale change. Currently there are almost 200 people on death row in Ohio, but executions have been on hold since 2018.
“We have a situation today where for six years, we have refused to carry out capital punishment — in violation of the law,” Stewart argued. “It is the law. And until this body votes to do something different, then we need to give (the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections) the tools to carry out these sentences.”
For the most part, Stewart sought to downplay the additional execution method. He cited an example of an inmate requesting nitrogen hypoxia, and defense attorneys arguing they believed the process is “humane” and “completely painless.”
The inclusion of nitrogen hypoxia, Stewart argued, is a way to break up the backlog. Assuming lethal injection is available, death row inmates could select the method of their choice, and in the event that lethal injection drugs are unavailable, nitrogen hypoxia would allow executions to continue.
“In our view nitrogen hypoxia is a plan B,” Stewart described. “It is a set of suspenders to go along with the belt. It would be preferable to continue using lethal injection, but we need to do something.”
Stewart and Plummer presented their idea as a value-neutral response to a stated lack of lethal injection drugs. “Despite his decision to delay the executions,” Plummer said, “Governor DeWine has indicated that the legislature could address this issue by authorizing an alternative method.”
Stewart dismissed criticism of Alabama’s “botched” nitrogen hypoxia execution as death penalty abolitionists speaking in sensational terms. An AP reporter who viewed the execution described Kenneth Smith thrashing and gasping as prison officials administered the gas. Stewart acknowledged their bill isn’t likely to change the minds of people who already oppose the death penalty.
“Respectfully, though, I think there’s another bill for that,” Stewart said, referring to measures in the Ohio House and Senate that would abolish the death penalty.
“This bill is saying we have the law that we have, and until we change it, we need to find a way to carry out what juries have already imposed,” he said.
.png)
While some inmates may have requested nitrogen hypoxia and some defense attorneys have looked favorably on the protocol, it’s acceptance isn’t universal. The American Veterinary Medical Association, for instance, OK’d the procedure under some circumstances for euthanasia of chickens, turkeys and pigs. For all other mammals, though, the panel warned it’s inappropriate and likely to cause distress.
“Now, if we’re going to use gas, which, frankly, our veterinarians will not use on our animals, why would we use that on human beings?” state Rep. Michele Grim, D-Toledo, asked.
Stewart argued it’s “vastly more humane” than the violence that put inmates on death row in the first place. He added that in countries where assisted suicide is legal, nitrogen hypoxia is one of the approaches people use.
State Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, meanwhile, said the problem with Ohio’s capital punishment system is the length of time it takes to pursue appeals. “That is the problem in a nutshell,” he said, “plus the unavailability of the three-drug injection.” But he noted if the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly blessed the protocol, the proposal might just lead to more appeals.
“To my knowledge,” he said, “the United States Supreme Court has only signed off on hanging, electric chair, firing squad, and lethal drug injection as being constitutional — don’t violate the Eighth Amendment.”
“I believe what you’re saying about nitrogen hypoxia,” Seitz added, “but it hasn’t yet been blessed, if you will.”
Stewart argued the likelihood of nitrogen hypoxia passing muster in the court is high, but added their preferred method remains lethal injection. Notably, nothing about the long and complex appeals process unique to death penalty cases will change under Stewart and Plummer’s measure.
This article originally appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal on April 18th, 2024.
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
.png)
The House bill from Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton of Crossville could stack up to five years in adult prison on top of a juvenile sentence for kids as young as 14 who have committed serious crimes.
A separate component of the bill would require juvenile court judges to automatically transfer 16- and 17- year olds facing charges of first and second degree murder, or attempted murder, to adult court.
The bill gives juvenile judges another tool to keep serious offenders in the criminal justice system after they turn 19 – the age at which juvenile sentences legally end, Republican Rep. Andrew Farmer of Sevierville, said in a House committee last month.
“I know we’re saying we don’t want to do this to our youth. It’s not their fault. They haven’t had the upbringing. They haven’t had the family and a lot of times they haven’t,” Farmer said.
“Unfortunately there are situations where kids are where they are, and all we can deal with is the cards we’ve got dealt on the table and give them the opportunity for the best life possible from this point forward. That’s what the intent and policy behind this legislation is.”
Juvenile advocates say the measure would subject youth to incarceration in an adult prison without a jury trial — a Constitutional right guaranteed to every adult.
The House bill “not only allows but mandates that juvenile judges send young people who have successfully completed the juvenile justice portion of their sentence to adult prison even if they have not committed any more offenses — and it sends them to adult prison without a jury trial,” said Jasmine Miller, staff attorney with Youth Law Center.
The bill requires juvenile judges to simultaneously sentence youth who are at least 14 years old to a juvenile and adult sentence if they are in juvenile court for having committed a second serious offense. A District Attorney can also pursue the so-called blended sentence for first-time offenders.
Juvenile judges can opt to hold a hearing to consider suspending the adult sentence once the youth reaches 19 years old.
But the bill binds judges to strict criteria: if a youth has violated three or more of the rules outlined in the bill, a judge must transfer him or her to the custody of the Department of Correction for a minimum of three years – and up to five.
The criteria troubles Miller, who notes that many of the metrics used to decide whether a young person would go to prison after serving his or her juvenile sentence are not crimes.
Failing to attend school regularly, failing to get passing grades, failing to graduate from high school and failing to enroll in higher education or get a job are all factors a judge would be required to consider. Three or more of these failures would legally require the judge to transfer custody of the teen to the Department of Correction.
Chattanooga Juvenile Court Judge Robert Philyaw said that juvenile judges have long wished for more tools to handle serious young offenders.
But, he said, juvenile judges are in the best position to decide whether a minor should be treated as an adult.
“Not all cases are equal and not all kids are the same,” Philyaw said. “Taking someone’s status as a minor away from them is a serious prospect. Anything that tramples or takes away from our ability to have an independent judicial case and hearing is problematic from my standpoint.”
Davidson County Juvenile Judge Sheila Calloway said she shares concerns about the constitutionality of the blended sentencing portion of the bill. Calloway said she is also concerned about the automatic transfer of 16- and 17-year-olds to adult courts.
Most teens accused of felony murder are already transferred to adult court, she said. But juvenile judges also encounter situations, particularly among youth facing attempted murder charges, that are not always clear cut.
Juvenile judges can assess whether a child was the primary aggressor, for example or a victim of trafficking — a criteria Tennessee lawmakers in 2022 required judges to take into consideration when sentencing juveniles. Keeping young people under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts also provides them with rehabilitative services and legally mandated education services — services that may not be provided in adult prisons, Calloway noted.
“Once you lose the ability to make those decisions, it opens the door to youths being sent to the adult system that do not have to,” Calloway said.
Juvenile judges across the state offered to meet with lawmakers last summer to go over concerns about the bill after a version of it was introduced in the Senate last year, but were not given the chance, Calloway said. “We have not been invited,” she said.
Preston Shipp, a former Tennessee prosecutor who now serves as senior policy counsel for the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, said the bill also ignores the deeper understanding that has developed in recent years in the field of juvenile justice, including the science of child brain development which points to the capacity to “age out of crime.”
“You don’t need to let them off,” he said. “But we need age-appropriate accountability. They are not little adults. They do not belong in an adult environment.”
The bill is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in a House committee.
This article originally appeared in the Tennessee Lookout on April 16th, 2024.
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
.png)
By Jake Johnson
.png)
Progressives in the U.S. Congress on Sunday urged the Biden administration to resist calls for an attack on Iran following the country's retaliation against Israel for the deadly bombing of Tehran's consulate in Syria earlier this month.
Minutes after clearing the gallery of people opposed to pro-gun legislation, the Senate passed a bill Tuesday allowing teachers to go armed at school.
The bill’s passage came a little more than a year after six people, including three 9-year-olds, were killed in a mass shooting at The Covenant School, a private Christian facility in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville.
The mass shooting in late March 2023 brought cries for gun control and even a measure to close the autopsy records of children. But Covenant parents opposed the measure to let teachers be armed, which includes a requirement they go through 40 hours of yearly training, psychological evaluations, background checks and approval by the local law enforcement agency and school officials.
The House version is awaiting action after going through committees in April 2023.
About 45 minutes before the Senate vote, Lt. Gov. Randy McNally cleared the gallery as the public hissed, snapped fingers, then started hollering.
Most of the Covenant parents in the gallery opted to leave after the uproar in reaction to comments by Senate Minority Leader Raumesh Akbari of Memphis, who pointed out, “A teacher is not allowed to put a rainbow flag on her desk, but she’s allowed to carry a gun.” She was referring to a House-passed bill restricting flags in schools.
Covenant parents were so shaken by the gallery’s clearing they needed time to gather their emotions afterward.
“As mothers, we’re very disappointed at how things went today, and we can absolutely do way better,” said Covenant parent Mary Joyce.
Yet Covenant mother Melissa Alexander said the group is continuing to have “productive conversations” with lawmakers in an effort to bolster students’ safety. She declined to say what measures the group is supporting.
“All we can do is keep showing up and sharing our stories,” Alexander said, noting she believes her child was spared in last year’s shooting because the teacher made sure students were quiet.
“It is really hard as a new mom to stand here and talk about a piece of legislation that puts my son’s life at risk,” Lamar said.
She noted that some senators had joked as troopers cleared the gallery, in what should have been a somber situation.
Senators turned down amendments that would have prohibited unlicensed staff from being armed at school and would have required de-escalation training.
Democrats argued that the bill could create a situation in which a teacher could shoot a student, whether accidentally or on purpose to break up a fight.
Criticism also centered on provisions in the bill that would keep parents from knowing whether their children’s teacher was carrying a gun. In addition, sheriff’s offices and school districts would be immune to lawsuits in cases of teacher-related shootings.
“What I’m worried about as a parent, I want my child’s teacher to stay with the children and not get involved with a counter-offensive,” state Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, said during debate.
Sen. Paul Bailey, the bill’s sponsor, countered that confidentiality would ensure that someone who wants to commit a school shooting wouldn’t know whether the school personnel they encounter are armed. He also said the training requirements should avert accidental shootings.
Sen. Ken Yager, a Kingston Republican who supported the bill, also argued that the measure is needed in rural areas where counties might have only two deputies on duty.
“We are not trying to shoot a student but trying to protect a student from an active shooter,” Yager said.
This article originally appeared in the Tennessee Lookout on April 10th, 2024.
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
.png)
COLUMBIA — South Carolina lawmakers could make moves to diversify the state Supreme Court. Or it could become the only all-male, all-white high court in the nation through at least 2028, the next time an opening is expected.
Three female judges — including two women of color — are among six candidates vying to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Don Beatty, the only Black justice on the state’s high court. The other three candidates are white men.
.png)
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed two bills Friday morning that would prohibit civilian oversight boards from investigating police misconduct and stop people from getting too close to first responders doing their jobs.
The governor received both bills (HB 601 and SB 184) on Wednesday and held the signing ceremony on Friday in the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office in St. Augustine. During the ceremony, DeSantis portrayed the bills as efforts to protect law enforcement officers from people who wanted to abuse them publicly.
“They’re not free to use law enforcement as political piñatas,” DeSantis said, referring to the civilian police oversight boards. “They’re not free to create false narratives. They’re not free to try to make it miserable to live or to work in uniform, and these things are highly political.”
In Florida, there are 21 such boards and half of them were formed since the protests over the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, according to a 2022 report. The boards are in cities including Miami, Tallahassee, Orlando, and Tampa.
Under HB 601, which will go into effect on July 1, the boards won’t be able to investigate complaints against law enforcement officers or correctional officers. Instead, sheriffs or chiefs of police will have the power to appoint overnight boards composed of three to seven members.
Equal Ground, a social justice organization aimed at protecting the rights of Black Floridians, bashed DeSantis’ approval of the bill.
“By banning independent citizen review boards, Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislators in Tallahassee are once again taking away the freedom of countless Floridians, whose voices are being silenced and whose safety is now at risk,” wrote Genesis Robinson, interim executive director of the group, in a statement.
He continued: “We know that civilian review boards are often the last line of defense for Black people to hold rogue law enforcement officials accountable for misconduct. Disbanding police review boards contradicts the ongoing efforts to reform policing practices and address systemic issues within law enforcement.”
But DeSantis and the main sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Wyman Duggan of Duval County, insisted that the law wouldn’t abolish the boards and that they could still discuss law enforcement policies.
“What they cannot do is use them as a vehicle to persecute our law enforcement officers, which to many of these organizations is the only utility that they think that organization has. So, when you hear people saying that these boards and commissions are being prohibited or abolished, that’s not true,” Duggan said during the bill signing.
However, the oversight boards can’t subpoena witnesses and documents, and none have any actual disciplinary power.
During the legislative session, HB 601 prompted a protest from activists infuriated with the move to strip civilian oversight boards of their power, of which the activists said the boards had little to begin with.
The other bill DeSantis signed Friday prohibits people from getting within 25 feet of a first responder “engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty” if the first responder has warned the person to stay away. The infraction would be a misdemeanor. SB184 also garnered backlash from groups such as the First Amendment Foundation, which called the bill blatantly unconstitutional in a statement Thursday.
“We appreciate the importance of protecting first responders but are concerned that the bill prevents citizens from going near or filming first responders within 25 feet if told not to approach,” the First Amendment Foundation wrote. “This bill would undermine citizen journalists and could allow for undocumented police misconduct.”
This article originally appeared in the Florida Phoenix on April 12th, 2024.
Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
