Saturday, December 23, 2017

Control The Patrol: Body Cameras

The Restorative Justice Coalition is among many organizations and activist groups across the nation calling for police accountability and transparency. With the climate of the world we live in, this just makes sense. Still, resistance has been among us. We are writing out our policy points with the intent that individuals from all sides will see the importance and benefit of our measures.

If you live in Hillsborough or Pinellas County, we urge you to sign our petition and engage your local representatives.

Why Body Cameras?
Restorative Justice Coalition gathered data from Campaign Zero and Body Worn Cameras Scorecard to develop a sensible plan on body camera usage. The fact is body cameras alone are not a solution. Recklessly enacted body camera policy can actually be more dangerous, as they can be a tool of surveillance, rather than accountability, which defeats the purpose.

The City of Tampa already has a body camera program; while we recognize this, it is extremely faulty, which we will explain as we go along. We are urging City of Tampa to update their body camera policies. City of St. Petersburg and City of Plant City lack body cameras entirely.

The Logic
"Locks are not meant to keep thieves out but rather to keep the honest, honest."

Accountability makes sense. A USF Study suggests that police officers who actively wear body cameras decreased the amount of blunt force they use on civilians when compared to those who do not wear any at all. The amount of force reduced is marginal but is a step in the correct direction. Further, body cameras, when regulated properly, can allow for increased accountability when reviewing cases of police misconduct, especially if the case makes it to prosecution.

In July 2017, Plant City Police killed Jesus Cervantes and there is nothing to show for it except for the accounts of the police officers involved. Since there is no footage, there is nothing to indicate to the public or investigators that their stories are correct. While the police chief explains that they are not worth the expense, it should be noted that the City of Plant City Police operates on a budget of nearly $6 million dollars annually but only employs 70 police officers. In addition, the City had no problem approving a $300,000 armored tactical vehicle despite their misgivings earlier in the year.

How Body Cameras Help
Aside from what is cited above, Rialto, a small police force, experimented in 2012 and found:

"The results were surprising — because they were so clear. When officers were wearing cameras on shifts, police use of force against suspects was 50 percent lower. Similarly, complaints against the police fell to almost zero in the 12 months after the cameras were introduced. 






Police use of force and the complaints it engenders are expensive for police departments. They cost the trust and cooperation of communities. And a single complaint against a police force can cost upward of a million dollars in compensation. For a small force like Rialto, that’s a big blow to the budget."
Further, they the usage of body cameras famously caught police misconduct when law enforcement decided to plant drugs on a civilian in Baltimore.

Plant City and City of Saint Petersburg
With the complete absence of body cameras, we are unable to evaluate the conduct of police officers with their behavior and interactions with the public. We encourage you to urge your local representatives to support body cameras that are well regulated.

City of Tampa
We need our City to improve their body camera regulation to meet acceptable standards of regulation, as defined by Body Worn Camera Scorecards, which has been signed and approved by many organizations across the country, representing marginalized members of our society.

As of October 2017, BWC Scorecard ranked City of Tampa as follows:
Makes the Department Policy Publicly and Readily Available
Limits Officer Discretion on When to Record
Addresses Personal Privacy Concerns
Prohibits Officer Pre-Report Viewing
Limits Retention of Footage
Protects Footage Against Tampering and Misuse
Makes Footage Available to Individuals Filing Complaints
Limits Biometric Searching of Footage
Our goal is to change all of the marked areas into green checkmarks. Some barriers exist within state law but the City of Tampa should mark their policies to be the most progressive as possible. If state law is an issue, City of Tampa should advocate and lobby state representatives to adjust the laws and allow local control.

Biometric Searching of Footage should never be permitted. Biometric footage could result in the building of a database and can be used as surveillance. Facial recognition tools should be forbidden from any body camera functionalities. Prohibit Officer Prereport Viewing would prevent officers from being able to collaborate a story based on the camera view--their authentic memory of the incident should be documented first before they can view the camera and "match it up". Protect Footage Against Tampering can be done by requiring the footage to be handled off-site, to a third-party agency whom only releases footage when it complies with a complaint or public request. Officer Discretion to Record must be clearly, finely defined and this will help prevent officers from picking and choosing which incidents they chose to record, including providing disciplinary action for failure to adhere to the guidelines. Limit Footage Retention policies are important; unless footage is being used in response to a public complaint or a prosecutor investigation, the footage should be eliminated after six months to secure the data of the public. For full details of Restorative Justice Coalition's policy points on body cameras, and the related research, you can view our full guide. (Bit.ly/RJCGuide)

We are suggesting this law, as written by the ACLU (although slightly amended) to be entered into state and local law.

We believe that by implementing that law as local ordinance will improve the City of Tampa's transparency, accountability and prevent unnecessary surveillance.

You can sign our petition now: www.controlthepatrol.com

In addition, you can share this blog post and continue the conversation. While body cameras, and the other functions we are fighting for, will only make a dent on changing the state of policing locally, it is imperative that changes are made to protect the most vulnerable of us all.

Friday, December 22, 2017

City of Tampa: Bathhouse Ordinance

Recently, the City of Tampa went through their first reading of a revival of a bathhouse ordinance from the 1980's. The original ordinance was crafted to allegedly combat HIV and specifically targeted members of the gay and trans communities. You may be asking yourself, why would such an ordinance be revived in today's climate? The claim from the City is to stop human trafficking.

Human trafficking is undoubtedly deplorable and is violent. No sensible individual would even debate this. However, when you dig deeper into the ordinance, and the advocacy groups fighting for it to pass, you must look at the broader impact within the ordinance.

The ordinance will aim to criminalize victims

Although the City and the ordinance's advocates claim these efforts are to rid City of Tampa of their human trafficking dilemma, the ordinance is likely to cause more criminalization of the victims. In the past year, the police have raided these establishments and each time, they arrest women who are engaged in sex work. If the focus is on victim survival and restoration, then why, we must ask, would we arrest the victims?

Do we arrest robbery victims to prevent robbery?

According to the National Survivor Network, 50% of human trafficking survivors faced their first arrest as a juvenile. Of those, half of them faced convictions. 90% of trafficking survivors report that during their time as a trafficked victim, they experienced an arrest by the police. Around 25% of these victims were arrested 10-20 times during the span of their experience as a trafficked victim. How does arresting victims, especially multiple times, end human trafficking? Most of the arrested victims face charges such as prostitution or solicitation, yet only 40% of the surveyed victims noted that the human trafficker was also arrested. When the human trafficker was arrested, they were never charged with any human trafficking charges and in many cases, their charges were dropped.

Surveyed victims also noted to the National Survivor Network that they were often coerced into testifying against their trafficker and other victims as condition of receiving victim assistance from the state programs. A CUNY study titled "Criminalization of Trafficking Victims" noted a similar pattern.

In fact, according to the CUNY study, in 2012, as a result of police raids, 2,962 individuals were arrested for prostitution, whereas only 34 individuals were arrested for human trafficking related charge in New York.

The ordinance will further disenfranchise communities.

It is no secret that in the United States, a criminal conviction can severely impact your livelihood. Victims of trafficking who face conviction are forced to live with unimaginable barriers for the duration of their lives. The National Survivor Network noted that 70% of trafficking victims who were convicted were unable to expunge their criminal convictions, even after establishing their victimhood.

Limiting access to employment, housing, education, federal and state benefits and other factors only creates economic distress, disenfranchisement and further marginalization and is not effective to protecting victims.

The ordinance will only enable sex traffickers.

The largest component of irony of this ordinance is that it would actually further enable sex traffickers rather than eliminate them. As detailed above, convicted victims find themselves struggling to find employment. Branded with a harmful criminal record, victims are often left with no choice but to seek work in the trafficking trades indefinitely.

There are countless personal accounts and compelling research that shows that a criminal record serves to further marginalize and relegate individuals into a second class citizenry status, and as such, often results in individuals resorting to criminal behavior to survive.

The ordinance will waste taxpayer resources.

The added bureaucracy imposed on the businesses for the licensing and registrations are certainly a great tool of revenue for the City. In addition, utilizing the police force to perform raids and reviews of the suspected bathhouses will come at a cost.

Ultimately, however, as the "Criminalization of Trafficking Victims" study shows, these raids are ineffective and do nothing to curb human trafficking.

So, why should our taxpayer dollars go to this resource when we could instead allocate resources to programs designed to help victims at their own self-determination.

The ordinance will uphold institutional racism and discrimination.

Many sex workers and human trafficking victims alike are from already marginalized communities, such as black, brown and indigenous communities, immigrants, trans, queer, poor or disabled.

Many victims of human trafficking, in the sex trade and labor trade alike, are people of color.

Ultimately, the Restorative Justice Coalition and the Sex Worker Solidarity Network stand strong against human trafficking. Although members of Clean Up Kennedy have proclaimed that our activism exists only because we benefit from human trafficking (pictured below)--the opposite is true. A truly restorative justice approach to human trafficking is vital to actually ending the crisis. At no time in the history of this country, has overpolicing, criminalizing or stigmatizing anyone resulted in a positive, transformative change within society.

If we truly want to end human trafficking then we cannot take these lazy, lackluster approaches. True transformations within society at all ends will be needed to bring forward justice for the victims--but certainly, diversion programs, arrests, jails and convictions are not the key to this transformation.

Will you please call City Council and let them know this ordinance is harmful, wasteful and needs to be voted against?

Guido Maniscalco - (813) 274-7071
Mike Suarez - (813) 274-7072
Luis Viera - (813) 274-7073
Harry Cohen - (813) 274-8134
Charlie Miranda - (813) 274 -7074
Yvonne Yolie Capin - (813) 274-8133
Frank Reddick - (813) 274-8189



Amnesty International's Sex Work Proposal


Saturday, July 22, 2017

Who's the Boss?

Picture it. America. 1776. A new country is born. The oppressive rule of the British empire is behind us and the new world is ours. The 13 states comprise the United States of America.

Embedded in the foundation of the United States was a hierarchical culture. At the time, it was very openly and the truths were self-evident that the people who  America was for was White Anglo Saxon Protestants, known as WASPs.

The dynamic was simple. In a gender structure, male WASPs dominated and female WASPs were servant to them. The other dynamic of this was these WASPs had to own property to be considered part of the voting population and therefore represented and representing within the governmental structures of the new country.

The dynamic is interesting when you look at it in a historical context. So plainly, a system was set in place to prioritize one sect of society over all the others. Breaking it down, an Anglo Saxon did not include Italians, Greek or Spaniards...they were white Europeans but not Anglo Saxon. It didn't include black people or Asian people. So many people were left out!

Of course, suffrage eventually came to people without property, then black people, then women. Now, it is, theoretically, a universal right unless, in some states, you have a felony.

In the book The New Jim Crow, we learn that slavery and Jim Crow have not gone away but rather have re-manifested into new, complex ways.

So, when we look at that context, we obviously understand that this re-manifestation has had an effect to where some people who might have been enslaved pre-13th amendment might not wind up incarcerated, just based on chance. Likewise, some people who are white, who definitely wouldn't have been enslaved, might wind up trapped in the criminal justice system. This is because the re-manifestation has to be challenging, race neutral (on paper) and as a result, it is complex and impossible to fully oppress just the group you wish to oppress.

Now, if these systems could manifest in new, modern ways, why couldn't the WASP system? Just like the prison industrial complex doesn't encapsulate all black people and how it sometimes oppresses white people, any new manifestation of the WASP system will, inadvertedly, not work in the advantage of all Anglo-Saxon Protestants and in some cases, non-WASPs are able to sneak into the elite class and build power. Ultimately, however, the main gist and purpose remain in place.

Only someone living completely under a rock would believe that money doesn't have power in politics today. It isn't an entirely new concept but it is something that has recently blown up to new proportions with the Citizens United ruling. Economist Robert Reich speaks on the control of money in great detail in his blog post: "Right now we’re headed for a perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy, and a public in the aftershock of the Great Recession becoming increasingly angry and cynical about government. The three are obviously related."

It is no doubt that the wealthiest, elite class (often referred to as the 1%) control our corporations and our government. They do this through campaign finance and access to the resources to manipulate and control the government. By doing so, the government still belongs to a limited minority club. Whereas that was previously property owning WASPs (re: white Anglo-Saxons with wealth), it is now those who have the largest incomes.

So, who does have the largest incomes and therefore, by default, the most control for the electorate process in the United States?

According to the research, the top 1% of wealth in the United States belongs to a 96% white population, with only 1.4% of the wealth belonging to black Americans. The remaining percentages go to Latinos and Asians and are still, obviously, very small numbers.

"William Darity, Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics at Duke University told the Duke Chronicle:
“The major sources of wealth for most of the super rich are inheritances and in life transfers. The big reason is racial differences in access to resources to transfer to the next generation.” Darity added that the practices of enslavement, violence, Jim Crow, discrimination and dispossession of property have kept generations of African Americans from accruing the type of wealth that whites in the top 1 percent have today."
As the chart demonstrates, white people still hold the key to the democratic process. Although a small number of black people have risen into this elite class, just like a number of poor white people have entered into the New Jim Crow, none of this negates that fact that America is ran by wealthy (property-owning) white people. Now, let's take a look at wealth and religion:
Because this data isn't specific to just the 1%, it can make the conclusion a bit harder to affirm. However, using deductive reasoning, I think we can come up with a pretty clear answer. Catholics only have 19% of people with income exceeding $100,000. Because that paints with a very broad brush, we do not know how many of them are actually at the 1% level but I think it is fair to say not too many.
We can see that the Jewish community has a large sector above that $100,000 mark. It may make it seem that Jewish people, who clearly are not Protestants, are in the top tier. But looking at the collective percentage of wealth of Protestants, who are classified in several categories on this sheet, it does appear that Protestants, if were to be combined into one column, would account for more wealth than the Jewish and Hindu religious groups. Episcopal Christians have a wealth range of 36%, Presbyterians in the top tier are at 35%, so on and so forth. Again, although this chart does not represent just the 1%, it does make a compelling argument that the majority of those in the 1% might be Protestant. Here is a clearer breakdown of the top tier by religion, according to Slate
Let us breakdown some of the ethnic backgrounds of our top tier 1% and see what we come up with, thanks to this interactive chart by FiveThirtyEight:
First, we need to understand what makes someone an Anglo-Saxon. Although it is often disputed and re-defined in time, it typically covers those from the Germanic tribes, such as the British, Germans, Scottish, Irish, Welch and French. Not all Europeans are Anglo-Saxon, as discussed earlier, such as Italians and Greek Europeans. It is important to note also that ethnically, some European Jews would also be Anglo Saxon because they may ethnically come from an Anglo-Saxon defined ethnicity.
Bill Gates--Irish, Scottish and German  [ANGLO SAXON] 1
Warren Buffett--British [ANGLO SAXON] 2
Larry Ellison--Jewish Italian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 1
Charles Koch--English, Dutch, Scottish, German [ANGLO SAXON] 3
David Koch-- same as above [ANGLO SAXON] 4
Sheldon Adelson-Ukrainian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 2
Christy Tallant Walton-- English [ANGLO SAXON] 5
Jim Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON[ 6
Alice Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON] 7
S. Robson Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON] 8
Michael Bloomberg--German [ANGLO SAXON] 9
Larry Page--English [ANGLO SAXON] 10
Jeff Bezos-- German [ANGLO SAXON] 11
Sergey Brin--Welsh [ANGLO SAXON] 12
Mark Zuckerberg--Yiddish/German [ANGLO SAXON partial] 13
Carl Ichan--Undetermined 1
George Soros--Hungarian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 3
Forest Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 14
Jacqueline Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 15
John Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 16
Steve Ballmer-British or German [ANGLO SAXON] 17
Len Blavatnik-Wales [ANGLO SAXON] 18
Phil Knight-English [ANGLO SAXON] 19
Michael Dell-English [ANGLO SAXON] 20
Abigail Johnson-English [ANGLO SAXON] 21
Paul Allen-English/Scottish [ANGLO SAXON] 22
Anne Cox-English [ANGLO SAXON] 23
Charles Ergen- Turkish [NON ANGLO SAXON] 4
Harold Hamm-English [ANGLO SAXON] 24
Ronald Perelman-Yiddish [NON ANGLO SAXON] 5
Lauren Powell-Welch [ANGLO SAXON] 25
John Paulson- Dutch/British [ANGLO SAXON] 26
Rupert Murdoch-Scottish [ANGLO SAXON] 27

 Obviously, people may have multiple ethnicities and since pure bred Anglo Saxon probably doesn't exist anymore and likely didn't in 1776, it is difficult to truly know. However, since the founding fathers did not run DNA tests on people to determine their true relationship to Anglo Saxon, it is fair to say appearance combined with last name can help determine who was and wasn't in the elite club. From the list identified above, only 5 1% would not be considered Anglo Saxon, while 27 of the listed are.
As discussed prior, unlike the full exclusivity that the WASP system provided in the 1800s, today, due to policy changes, some non-Anglos have snuck in and made it to the elite class. Likewise, some non-whites and non-Protestants have done the same. Remember, though, they are outliers and as outliers, they make hardly a dent on the WASP control of the government structure. Because we know the 1% influence politicians and campaigns, we know that the WASPs still have control of the system. 
It is interesting to see how this has manifested. In the past, male property owning WASPs counted on voting to control the government. As policy changed and the structure took some power from the WASPs, this system had to change to accommodate the new times. I am certainly not saying that voting is useless, however, running for office is expensive and typically reserved for the rich. The top 1% have no qualms or issues with donating large sums of money to politicians or campaigns, whether directly or through PACs. As a result, they largely influence the government and how things are run, just as they did in 1776.
Take away from this what you will. I have a desire to end this exclusivity and live in a truly representative republic, that is centered on all of the citizens and not just WASPs. It is a possibility--but we have to change the way we allow government to obtain their assets. There are several methodologies to this but one way that I am particularly in favor of is the Move the Amend campaign. 
O:)
~ArchAngel~



Tuesday, May 2, 2017

How to Fix America's Police: Chapter 2

[history of policing] "Next came the formal hue and cry, a practice in early English law (the Statute of Winchester, 1285), which provided, mandatorily, that all able-bodied men of villages and towns would shout out, clang a bell, or sound a trumpet if they witnessed a felony, for example, a robbery. They would chase down ad, if fast enough, lucky enough and tough enough, capture the robber. By law, the pursuers could not be held liable for "damages" resulting from the pursuit of apprehension. Also by law, it was a crime to raise a false hue and cry.

This approach to policing was abolished in the early nineteenth century, giving way to a more formal arrangement whereby "watchmen" were hired to keep an eye on their town or village through the night. Often old and feeble, frequently drunk, and not above taking bribes or extorting their fellow citizens, the watchmen were authorized and obligated to arrest any stranger to pass through town during hours of darkness (absent evidence of a crime, the hapless stranger was released when the sun came up). In the quieter areas of town, the most glamorous and exciting part of the job was to call out the hour ignite the gas lamps at night and snuff them out in the morning.

In America, prior to the Industrial Revolution, public order was maintained through the use of night watches. The northern colonists, for example, typically established local ordinances that required able-bodied men to take a turn on night patrol. Larger towns often raised money to pay for a constable or two whose job was to keep an eye out, maintain order on the streets and put out fires. The southern colonies, on the other hand, embraced slave patrols, the first "modern" police organization in America. Larger than the watches of the North, the slave patrols maintained the economic order of the southern colonies by controlling slaves, capturing fugitives and administering punishment.

Rural areas embraced the sheriff concept, borrowed from the British. Sheriffs were largely tax collectors and writ servers. Law enforcement on the western frontier was very much a hit-and-miss proposition, with vigilantes holding sway in the earliest days. In times, settlers from the northern colonies generally opted for appointment of a marshal with watchers, whereas settlers from the South favored election of a sheriff and a posse system."

"After years of cagey, intense political maneuvering, [Sir Robert] Peel persuaded a wary Parliament to consider a policing act. Why the reluctance? As noted, the lawmakers feared that an organized police force would inevitably lead to corruption, tyranny and militarization with police officers treating the populace as enemy combatants. But Peel, promising assurances of scrupulous accountability, prevailed. And Parliament passed the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.

Of course, not every supporter of the act was driven by the same public-spirited motives of crime prevention and the greater civic good. The wealthy, propertied class exerted substantial pressure on the Parliament too. How else but through organized policing could its special interests be protected and served? Some things never change."

"In transplanting the British system to American soil, the emissaries ignored many of the safeguards that Peel had assiduously labored to include in this act. From the time the NYPD was formed, ward bosses, commissioners and chiefs presided over a political spoils system in which cops ought beats and the upwardly mobile purchased promotions. Hiring standards were nonexistent; supervision and discipline, hit and miss. It helped, of course, if your father, grandfather, brother, uncle or cousin worked for the City. The same or similar systemic deficiencies spread like a contagion to other American cities as they too adopted haphazardly version of the British model."

Peel's Nine Principles in policing

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning are found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

"As we can see, corruption and misconduct have been an integral part of the structure and culture of American policing from the very beginning. Although some agencies have shown halting progress, the institution itself has failed to make necessary, lasting changes. And the American people, particularly young people, poor people and people of color, those most in need of fair, equitable and caring police work--are making their discontent known."

Norman Stamper.

MY COMMENTARY
Relating back to Chapter 1, I reference again the phenomenal leadership of Ruth Beltran, an organizer for Black Lives Matter Tampa. Beltran spoke at a meeting of Showing Up for Racial Justice and in her discussion of the police, she stated the police exist today to serve the ruling class. By looking at the origins of the institution, as described by Stamper's historical account, Beltran is not off the mark in the least. See "The wealthy, propertied class exerted substantial pressure on the Parliament too. ".

Because the institution of American policing is an evolution of slave patrols of a not-so-distant past, it isn't possible for the institution to serve more than the interests of an elite, ruling class and maintain a racial caste system. As I stated in my commentary from the first chapter, the institution must be absolved completely and re-created from the ground up.

Had Peel's nine principles actually been applied to the institutions then perhaps we would have, at least in theory, a much more effective and just policing system. Of the nine principles, I believe each would hold enormous merit to an effective police system. However, principle number 7, which eludes to the fact that the police are the public and the public are the police is one of the most important aspects. This is an aspect that is severely missing from our culture of policing, where police view themselves as superior to the public, rather than as servants to and a part of society at large.

However, it is the final principle that stands out the most to me. As Chapter 1 told us, policing is about the numbers game, whether that be arrests, field investigations or citations. Principle nine clearly states that policing effectiveness should be measured by the absence of crime rather than the visible evidence of police action. Had this principle been embedded in our policing system from the beginning, we'd likely see a completely different culture and system.

The chapter began by discussing early versions of community control, which was through the form of watchmen. While I don't believe such a system could exist in a large society, nor do I believe it would be absent of extortion, racism, sexism and myriad of other problems, there is still a way to work toward community policing.

Campaign Zero offers several solutions that are relevant to at least working toward instilling these principles.

Community Representation


  • Establish effective oversight structures.  [Peel Principle: 5, 7, 8]
  • Remove barriers of reporting police misconduct. [Peel Principle: 5]
I think it is important that all actions relating to policing are followed up with a community oversight panel, that is chosen and directed (and accountable) to the public. The ability to file complaints in policing should be simplified and direct. The civilian review board should have all subpoena powers and final ruling in police actions, from hiring, promotions, demotions and termination. 


Sunday, April 30, 2017

How to Fix America's Police: Chapter 1

Chapter 1: From Ferguson and New York

[In reference to citation quotas] "The numbers game shaped us as police officers, indeed it defined us as police officers. As I observe in my current consulting, training and expert-witness work and note in federal investigations into police departments like Ferguson, there is abundant evidence that the numbers games survives to this day. In fact, many supervisors believe that counting and recapping activity is the only way to evaluate police performance."

"There was zero assessment of the quality of my relations with the citizens I'd been hired to protect and serve. The people on my beat were, in a word, irrelevant. As long as I stopped enough of them, handed them enough tickets, arrested enugh of them, I would, at am minimum, keep the sergeant off my back. And, optimally, get him (there were no hers at the time in any of the supervisory, much less managerial or executive ranks, or, for that matter, in uniform) to support my aspirational career track."

[in reference to DOJ investigation to Ferguson Police Department] "The 102-page document is a searing indictment of a Midwest police agency whose cops--aided and abetted by their chief of police, the city prosecutor, the municipal court judge, the court clerk and virtually every elected official in town--systemically violated the constitutional rights of its citizens. And did so in the most blatant, public, unapologetic way imaginable. It was almost as if they didn't know any better--a theory worth pursuing."

"What they found confirmed 'a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in the Untied States Constitution and federal statutory law."

"Speaking personally, the anger comes from a realization these these government officials knew or should have known that not onyl were they harming the very people they'd been hired to help, they were methodically breaking the law."

"As I have acknowledged previously, I behaved badly as rookie cop, sometimes spectacularly so, especially in my disregard of civil liberties. Nevertheless, I amassed a personnel file full of brownie points and other accolodes, and I was rewarded with plum assignments and promotions."

"And that makes me wonder about the silent men and women of official Ferguson, those singled out for praise in the Department of Justice investigation."

"The conversation is not about farming. Or cosmetology, or food service, or retail sales. It is about life and death, peace and freedom decision-making. About enforcing the law of the land and ensuring justice."

"What exactly did the investigators find wrong in Ferguson?:

Focus on Generating Revenue."

"The DOJ found that virtually every branch and tributary of the city's bureaucracy--the mayor, city council, city manager, finance director, municipal court prosecutor, court clerk, assistant clerks, police chief--all were enmeshed in an unending race to raise revenue through municipal fines and fees:
City officials routinely urge Chief Jackson to generate more revenue through enforcement. In March 2010, for instance, the City Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that 'unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year....Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, its not an insignificant issue.' Similarly, in March 2013, the Finance Director wrote to the City Manager; 'Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver 10% increase. He indicated they could try.' The importance of focusing on revenue generation is communicated to FPD officers. Ferguson police officers from all ranks told us that revenue generation is stressed heavily within the police department and the message comes from City leadership. The evidence we reviewed supports this perception.'"

"Let's say a young cop has joined the local PD to give back to her community, to make a positive difference in the lives of her fellow citizens. But pressure for more tickets (or more field investigations, more arrests) transforms her into a hunter and the citizens on her beat into prey. The young, idealistic cop, yielding pressure from her boss, wanting to get ahead, starts targeting motorists and pedestrians. Soon, she is pulling over cars with flimsy or no justification, writing bad tickets; stopping people without reasonable suspicion; arresting them without probable cause. And, if you're the one being cuffed or cited, don't even try to explain yourself to her. She's too busy, she has other numbers to collect.

An officer trained in a system where people are reduced to numbers is very likely to dehumanize the people on his or her beat, and once that happens there's little hope for decency, mercy or even something resembling objectivity. The people are simply a means to a self-centered end: good performance appraisals, choice assignments, a succession of stripes, bars,a nd stars and other insignia or tank as one advances up the rungs of the hierarchical ladder, taking home fatter and fatter paychecks.

Governments need money to operate, of course. Fair and equitable taxation, reasonable service fees, other irreproachable, transparent sources of revenue make sense. Excessive reliance of fines, fees and forfeitures wrung from the criminal justice system does not. The former has legitimacy; the latter--policing for profit--lacks it."

POLICE PRACTICES

"Variables too numerous to count affect the development and durability of the cop culture. Each police department is different but only, I submit, in minor, usually cosmetic ways: the cut of the uniforms, the color scheme of the cars, the argot, jargon and patois of cops on the beat."

"Renowned sociologist Jerome Skolnick wrote the definitive book on police culture. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society provides foundation wisdom about the extent to which danger and authority combine to produce a cops working personality and foster social isolation and solidarity within the ranks. In fact, Skolnick maintained that any job description that called ona  person to exercise discretionary decision-making authority in the face of physical danger (think police officer) was simply demanding way too much of the practitioner. Add to the mix certain organization pressures, like the numbers game, and you have the makings of a department whose members are all but guaranteed to act with indifference, if not hostility, toward outsiders, namely, the people they've been hired to protect and serve."

"I know of no law enforcement agency, certainly no local PD or sheriff's department, whose members have escaped these influences--and their behavioral manifestations and consequences.

In Ferguson, for example, the DOJ investigation found the City's emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD's approach to law enforcement. Patrol assignments and schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson's municipal code with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation."

" A cop playing the numbers game in earnest will inevitably develop tunnel vision, along with a distorted understanding of the limits of his authority: the 'sanctioned right to order the actions of others':

This culture within FPD influences officer activities in all areas of policing, beyond just ticketing. Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority. They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence. Police supervisors and leadership do too little to ensure that officers act in accordance with law and policy and rarely respond meaningfully to civilian complaints or officer misconduct. The result is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probably cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The report relates to the story of thirty-two year old African American man who'd been playing basketball in one of the city's public parks. Seated in his car, cooling off, he noticed a police vehicle pull in behind him, blocking his own car. The officer got out, demanded ID, accused the man of being a pedophile, ordered him from his car, and patted him down--not one discrete action of which was justified, legally or otherwise. The cop asked for permission to search the car. The man, asserting his constitutional rights, declined--which evidently, in the officer's mind, now justified an arrest.
 At gunpoint, reportedly. The man was charged with eight violations of the Ferguson Municipal Code, including 'making a false declaration' (for telling the officer his name was Mike when it was actually Michael), not wearing a seat belt (even though he was in a parked car), having no driver's license and having an expired license. The man told federal investigators he lost his long-term job as a contractor with the federal government because of those charges."

MUNICIPAL COURT PRACTICES

[From DOJ report] "The court primarily uses its judicial authority as a means to compel the payment of fines and fees that advance the City's financial interests. This has led to court practices that violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection requirements.'

"Returning to Ferguson. The DOJ report states tat in just one year (2013), the court issued over 9,000 warrants for minor violations such as traffic and parking tickets and housing code violations (another big money-maker for the city). 'The court's practices...impose unnecessary harm, overwhelmingly on African-American individuals and run counter to public safety."

RACIAL BIAS

"The evidence is in. The FPD has engaged for decades in systemic racial discrimination.

The city's African-American population stands at roughly 67% but as the departments own statistics show, from 2012 to 2014, African-Americans accounted for 85% of vehicle stops, 90% of all citations, 93% of all arrests. Blacks were more than twice as likely as white motorists to be searched during traffic stops, even though such stops were 26% less likely to yield contraband (than for the traffic stops of white motorists). During that same period, the department wrote four or more citations to blacks on 73 occasions; only twice did non African-Americans receive four or more citations. There was an acknowledged, ongoing contest to see who could write the most tickets and tallies were posted on a stationhouse wall to spur officers to ever-increasing heights of productivity."

"Police use-of-force figures are equally problematic. Almost 90% of documented force was applied against African-Americans. And topping them all at 100%, in all fourteen documented dog bite cases (there are four canines on patrol), the person on the receiving end was an African-American."

COMMUNITY DISTRUST

"Many city officials and police officers, along with some (mostly white) Ferguson residents, maintain the public outcry against their police department was caused by outside agitators--a woeful defense heard often during civil rights demonstrations of yesteryear in the South."

"As the Justice Department concluded its report, 'our investigation has shown that distrust of the Ferguson Police Department's is longstanding and largely attributable to Ferguson's approach to law enforcement. This approach results in patterns of unnecessarily aggressive and at times unlawful policing; reinforces the harm of discriminatory stereotypes; discourages a culture of accountability and neglects community engagement.

The report documents numerous examples of unlawful stops, unlawful arrests, unlawful force, unlawful discrimination. It chronicles ticket fixing for friends and relatives. It describes neglectful police practices, including a slow, apathetic, occasionally abusive response to victims of crimes, particularly domestic violence. It enumerates racist, sexist and other offensive e-mail exchanges between department supervisors and court personnel, one depicting President Obama as a chimpanzee, another referring to bare-chested dancers, presumably in Africa, as Michelle Obama's high school reunion."

THE BRUTAL, THE CORRUPT, THE RACIST, THE INCOMPETENT.

"It's been going on for a long time, since the days of the early eighteenth century slave patrols. The problem of police abuse in this country is systemic, it runs deep and wide and it is getting worse. And when people in charge cling to that "vast majority" sound bite they advance a solitary diagnosis and a sole prescription: bad cops? Fire them. Why bother with a costly, systemic reform if 'inappropriate' behavior is merely an anomaly?"

"How do we get our cops to understand that citizens are entitled to respect, while cops need to earn it?"

"Today's law enforcement agencies, including Bratton's [NYPD], are even more distant and disengaged from the communities they serve. They are certainly more militarized, coming across as soldiers rather than domestic peacekeeprs, with almost everything about them being military--their uniforms, vehicles, weapons, jargon, tactics and so on. Reflecting the reality that increased militarization does not represent progress, American law enforcement today is arguably corrupt, bigoted, brutal and trigger-happy as it was during the 1960s and 1970s, not to mention earlier eras."

Norm Stamper.

My Commentary:
The system of policing is not broken. Therefore, I am in the school of thought that it cannot be fixed. Rather, it would have to be abolished and completely built back up from scratch. What I mean when I say it isn't broken is this: it is working exactly as it has been designed to. It is working to maintain a status quo that works in favor white supremacy, male superiority and affluence. Essentially, as Ruth Beltran says, it maintains the guardianship of oppression.

That being said, the information is still useful because when we think about how our society should be and we work towards it, we have options. While we live in the current system, we have angles to work toward systems of relief. Relief means that it doesn't absolve the oppression system but rather, while it is still  a working institution, it creates a system that is categorically less harmful. As we work toward revolution, these tools and knowledge can help build systems that actually work by changing the intentions and design of the institutions.

For profit policing is a system of that is addressed both by Dr. Alexander's book "The New Jim Crow" and a component in Campaign Zero.

The culture described by Stamper is very much in line to the capitalistic nature of this system. Money motivates. Policing is not about actually serving and protecting the people but rather about serving and protecting the pockets of the city or state. In the work of campaign zero, they propose:

Another aspect that is relevant to this chapter is the end of broken windows policing as proposed by the Campaign.  

In the past, I have seen proposals that eliminate the patrolling done by police altogether, including traffic policing. As I learned in "The New Jim Crow", traffic policing is fundamental to maintaining the war on drugs. As unrelated as they may seem, traffic policing allows the officer to invade the space of drivers. It is commonly based on racial bias. Traffic laws are so abundant and it is seldom in the interest of public safety. I was once pulled over because my tag light was out. How, exactly, does that enhance public safety? In this school of thought, the police would serve the community in a similar way to  that of firemen. They would remain in their precincts until they are called instead of patrolling for trouble. This would effectively, in my opinion, eliminate much of the problems established in this chapter and the for-profit policing model with citations. 

What are your thoughts?



Monday, March 13, 2017

Criminal Justice Reform and The New Jim Crow

For a long time, I hesitated to read the New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

I knew that it would tell me some overwhelming truths and that, as a passionate advocate for criminal justice reform for years, would make the fight seem even more difficult.

But that isn't what happened. If anything, it has fueled this passion to a greater degree and I am grateful for taking the time to read her work.

To give you a brief understanding, my history with the criminal justice system does not involve the self. I have as of this writing never been arrested or received anything worse than a traffic ticket. I have had encounters with law enforcement, some negative and some unremarkable, but for the most part, I've been pretty clear of it. Much of this, of course, has to do with being white.

I started to feel there might be injustice in the system early on and I am not entirely sure what sparked it. I remember the television show COPS being played when I was very young and feeling a sense of disgust by it. Watching people, in their lowest of low moments, being handled by the police, whether they were a criminal or not.

I couldn't understand why drug policy existed and why drugs were used to trap people in cages. Still, in my early days of criminal justice reform, I was very much attached to centrist, respectable reform. I supported the system as it was, I thought it just needed some tinkering. As the years have developed and shaped my views, though, I have come to realize that the entire system needs to be reshaped and reformed, at all levels. If reading is not your forte, I recommend the film 13th.

Like many white criminal justice advocates, I believed that the true flaw in the criminal justice was a classist issue. I still, of course, believe that the system is very classist and favors all types of affluency. That is not in debate. However, as the years have gone by and especially after reading Alexander's analysis, it is undeniable that the criminal justice is inextricably a racial caste system.

But there are many questions that the average thinker might have on that matter. I will do my best to answer them but mind you, I am no scholar, unlike Alexander. So your best bet is to definitely read the book.

The criminal justice system exists to create crime, not eradicate it. 

Particularly, as we delve into the war on drugs, you will see a trend. The war on drug began to develop shortly after the Civil Rights movement reached it's peak. Gradually and over time. In 1972, the United States housed approximately 350,000 in prison walls. Today, that number is an astronomical 2 million plus.

It was 1971 when President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs but it did not amp up for some time, especially into policy.

At the time of Nixon's declaration, only about 2% of Americans believed that drugs were a prominent problem in the nation. That's a very small number for a President to make a full declaration of war! It was a fierce media campaign littered with propaganda and fearmongering that by 1989, 64% of the American public believed drugs were the nation's largest problem.

Shaping the war on drugs took strategy. For example, the Department of Justice eliminated nearly all the budget to fight so-called white collar crime and reallocated such funds to instead fight street drugs at a federal level. With that in mind, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 was passed to criminalize drugs at a federal level and create federal penalties to enforce upon the land for offenders of all types, taking precedence over even the most violent of criminal infractions.

So, why this dramatic refocus? Why a fear campaign based on what was perceived to be a very minimal problem at the time (remember, 2%). The answer is simple and very unpopular but can't be overstated: racism.

But why so coded?

The Civil Rights Movement had done marvelous work to change the narrative. White Southerners had touted "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" But the hard work of the many activists in the era proved to put a dent on this plan. Between 1955 (Brown v Board) through 1964 (the Civil Rights Act), segregation was falling apart. Freedom rides and brave activists challenged segregation laws and brought national conversations to the injustices of the Jim Crow system.

With the Civil Rights Act cutting Jim Crow off at the legs in 1964, the political arena had to shift. Racial language was no longer going to rattle the public conscious. They wanted the Civil Rights era "trouble" to end and the only way to do that would be to eliminate the segregationist laws. Suddenly, :it wasn't segregation forever in the strategy.

However, before the official end of the Civil Rights movement as we knew it, politicians began code-switching. Because the segregation and state's rights conversation was becoming moot, the focus switched to law and order. In essence, law and order became the new segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

Nixon aide admits what the war on drug was really all about.

Poor People's Movement

An interesting aspect of a unified poor people's movement is sure to set bells into the elite in our Capitalist system. As the history has shown us, it is an uprising of the poor that brings the most dangerous threat to the elite. In order to resolve this, a racial caste system becomes necessary. Alexander explains this in great detail throughout the book.

In fact, when slavery was abolished, according to Alexander, newly freed slaves had what she referred to as a "moment in the sun". So much so, that the poor whites began to fear they would be relegated to the bottom of the caste system with these new rights.

In 1870, 15% of all the federal representatives were black, Black people were gaining power and at fierce momentum. During this phase known as reconstruction, from 1863 to 1877, black prospering became a nuisance to the political agenda and to the ignorant poor whites. However, the very last thing the elite wanted at the time was a multiracial alliance.

In order to achieve this, laws were enacted known as Black Codes to develop a sense of racial order. One such law was known as vagrancy, which required newly freed slaves to provide proof of employment and should they fail to do so, considered them criminals. With the provision in the 13th amendment that allowed for those duly convicted of a crime to work in force servitude, this essentially placed the black man back on the plantations, much to the satisfaction of the poor whites.

Convict leasing as it was called was this system of control. Black people found themselves criminalized for everything, including criminal mischief or even making insulting gestures.

Gradually, as the Southern Democrats began to regain control of the system, order was to be restored. Jim Crow laws were developed under the guise of protecting white people and black people from each other. This relegated black people to a certain part of town and certain sections of public accommodations, as well as employment opportunities. Eventually, Jim Crow would become known as the system. The Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 affirmed what is known as the separate but equal doctrine.

But this wouldn't be the first time that racial order had to be restored. After the fall of Jim Crow in 1964, many race activists, including Dr. Martin Luther King, began to switch focus from civil rights to economic rights. The Poor People's Campaign was organized by Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Council in 1968.

In fact, Dr. King formally announced: "We have moved from the era of civil rights to the era of human rights."

The FBI was so concerned with this movement, in fact, (just as it was with civil rights) that they began to monitor and attempt to infiltrate the movement. This was known as Operation POCAM.

With the racial under caste system nearly devoid, restructuring a movement that was interracial was remnant of a time where poor whites and blacks fought together, threatening the very structure of the capitalist regime..

As such, Dr. King had to be eliminated and the movement was set up for immediate failure. And with the problem out of the way, the Nixon administration began working on the new racial caste system, the criminal justice system.

Developing a System

As stated prior, in 1970, only 2% of Americans actually believed that drugs were a serious problem in this nation. The hype needed to grow to sell this narrative. Media campaigns were distributed through film, television, school education, PSAs and radio to talk about the dangers of drugs.

With the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 starting the launch of this campaign and fund allotment for drug enforcement, the war was in it's earliest of phases. By 1985, crack was introduced into poor black communities and by 1986, crack became the biggest news story to sweep the nation as the newest danger to the American way.

In 1988, legislation was passed that would disbar individuals with a drug offense from public housing, student loans, welfare benefits and called for mandatory minimums, unprecedented law for the federal system at the time.

In 1988, the Edward Byrne Grant established that federal aid would be given to police departments, including providing of military grade equipment, to police departments that actively fought the war on drugs.

By 1991, 1/4 of the criminal justice system was made up of young black men, most of which had been convicted of a non-violent drug offense.

In 1992, President Bill Clinton ran on a tougher on crime campaign and endorsed three strikes and you're out crime policies. In 1994, he passed a crime bill that, in part, authorized $16 billion to building prisons and expanded monies into state police forces. As such, we saw the largest increase of inmates in the history of the nation.

How Consent Search Fuel the Drug War 

Race neutral codes had to be used to ensure that this new racial caste system could be successful in a supposed colorblind era. In order to do this, police had to be given incentive and extra discretion to find drug users.

Initially, police chiefs and governments opposed this focus. Feeling they had stronger priorities, they weren't all to excited to make drug crime their primary battle. However, with the financial incentives becoming all to great to pass up, the police departments developed a cultural switch.

Police have discretion to stop motorists for a plethora of offenses, often even some of which seem to cause no apparent danger to the public. Included in this list would be a broken tag light or a California stop and roll.

Police often coerce passengers into consenting to searches of their vehicles, because most people, but especially people of color, would not have the nerve to deny consent to these searches. As such, police would find themselves able to legally search vehicles and in many cases, finding drugs or other illegal activity.

This isn't limited to traffic stops. This can happen on buses or even when traveling on foot. Because consent automatically grants an officer the right to search without probable cause, many people find themselves in a heap of trouble because they unwittingly forego their right to privacy.

Despite the fact that no evidence exists to suggest white people do less drugs than black people, black people are more likely to face punishment for drug crime. In fact, 3/4 of the prison population now consists of black or Latino people for non-violent drug crime.

Even the sale of drug is more likely to be attributed to white youth between 12-17, according to Alexander, yet black people are still more likely to wind up imprisoned.

Crack cocaine, a drug known to be more prominent in the black community, for example, is by design, given harsher sentences than it's more white preferred counterpart, powder cocaine.

Racial disparity in criminal justice.

The Prison Label

Alexander extends the notion of the problems in the system to go far beyond prison walls. In fact, she uses the term the prison label to describe felons, whom she has stated are in second class citizenry.

Some people never face prison at all, with prosecutors having the right to load up charges and public defender offices being grossly underfunded, people who are charged with drug crimes are very likely to accept plea bargains instead of risking mandatory minimum sentences. Even if they are innocent, they are more likely to plea guilty to avoid 20-30 year sentences and as such become branded as felons without ever stepping foot in state prison.

When you have the prison label, you are often excluded from public housing, employment opportunities, student loans, certain private housing, voting in certain states, serving on juries and many other aspects of society. Sometimes these bans are permanent. On top of the social stigma of the felony label, such disenfrachisement from society will increase the odds of recidivism.

But what about white people caught in the system?

Alexander makes note of the fact that in this racial caste system, unlike Jim Crow, white people wind up in the caste system. Although the number is much smaller than of their black counterparts, the war on drugs certainly harms white people and white people are definitely disenfranchised in society.

In fact, Alexander explains this as collateral damage, a true aspect of any war. Just as innocent people are caught in the crossfires of the supposed war on terror overseas, so are people within this war on drug. The target may be black and brown people but inevitably, some white people will fall victim to the war as well. In fact, this is necessary in this supposed colorblind era in order to maintain a racial caste system. Some white people will, in essence, need to be relegated to second class citizenry in order to maintain the belief that the system is just and non-biased.

However, the effects of this system is largely upon the backs of black and brown people in society. In fact, the war on drugs is so effective, and the law and order rhetoric is so effective, that media depictions from every angle have criminalized black and brown people to such an extent that many people believe or assume black and brown people must be criminals, even if such is not true.

Racism with the criminal justice system.

Parallels between Jim Crow and Felony Status 

Prior to 1964, black people could be declined employment on the sole basis of race.

Currently, employers may discriminate at-will against those with felony convictions. White felons are more likely to get offered work than black felons--in fact, they're more likely to get offered work than black non-felons.

Prior to 1965, laws made it exceedingly difficult for black people to register to vote or to participate in voting and government.

Currently, several states do not allow people with felony records to vote or participate on juries.

Prior to civil rights, housing authorities, whether public or private, could deny black people housing on the basis of race.

Today, felons can be disbarred from housing.

For a more defined list and understanding, view this powerpoint.

My white readers; It is time for us to stand together to end this racial caste system once and for all. We must not continue to be duped into a caste system under the guise of law and order. Once we are able to break the chains for people of color, we can finally unite and do the work that the freed slaves and the poor whites tried to do in reconstruction. And the work that Poor People's Campaign tried to do in the late 1960's. Once every man is free, we can finally all be free from the despicable spell of capitalism, greed, poverty and pain. But we cannot do it if we continue to live a "colorblind" life where we fail to acknowledge the reality of racism.

We must dismantle the criminal justice system, restore the rights back to those who've lost them and amplify the voices of the most marginalized. We must not allow the system to continue to let us believe we are better than "them".

We must fight.

Much love,
ArchAngel O:)






Saturday, March 11, 2017

Showing Up Against Hate is Important

Every Friday for the last several Friday's, the Wall of Love has formed in Ybor City. A concept of Out and Loud Tampa, an intersectional LGBTQ activist group, the Out and Loud team gather protesters en masse to stand against the famous hate preachers of Ybor city.

Larry Keffer is a street preacher and founder of the Biblical Research Center. He spends his evenings, along with a group of other vested preachers, yelling into the bullhorns preaching the supposed word of God to the public.

I've seen them there for years, usually ignored them. Most people ignore them in fact. They continue walking along and act as though they're not here. Occasionally, I would see people engage them, whether it is in a heated rage or an attempt to have a civil conversation.

Aaron Munoz and team at Out and Loud finally decided that ignoring was not enough. With 2016 the deadliest year for trans women, but especially trans women of color, and now with the arrival of a Trump administration, it is no longer the time to be quiet.

Some people might view the work of Out and Loud and similar protesters as counterproductive or disruptive. Some people will call them whiners with no purpose or vision or even bullies.

Often times, the free speech defenders will chime in how we are disrupting another group's free speech. Listen when I tell you...free speech only protects you from government persecution, not the persecution of the public. Unless the police arrest Larry and his crew for their speech, their free speech has not been violated.

But why is the work Out and Loud doing so important right now? I mean, with the Republican Congress, isn't there more important fish to fry?

Let me explain it this way. One of the most powerful ways for laws to be effective is not through their existence on paper but rather the cultural norms surrounding them. Jim Crow laws were effective because they went mostly unchallenged for a long time, people just culturally accepted them. What, I think, Out and Loud is doing is taking a stand culturally, regardless of the face of law. Even if the most oppressive, backwards anti-LGBTQ laws come into force, they are only as good as the community's perception of them.

For example, currently in many localities, it is perfectly legal to turn away gay and trans people for goods and services. However, after seeing how successfully Out and Loud has rallied a community, do you think a business would make the unwise decision to use such leeway in the law?

Probably not. Because we will tear it up!

Aside from that though, the most important aspect of this is our protection to the next generation of LGBTQ. They are the most vulnerable and will take the largest backlash from this administration. It is our work, our suffering, and the suffering of the LGBTQ elders before us that allowed the way for the gay youth to be more openly accepted and less stigmatized. Now all of that work is threatened and at-risk.

I remember being a young gay coming out to Ybor to party and having those hateful signs in my face with an angry man of God yelling his rhetoric. I remember that.

We are doing a huge service to the youth of today to let them know we are not going to stand by and watch them get hurt. We are a huge community, yes full of shade, full of internalized oppression and full of problematic behavior, but nonetheless a huge community. We will love and protect one another. We will take the streets to make sure our young gay and trans future feel protected and secure.

It's just what we are going to do.

I don't expect those outside of the community to get it--and at this point, I really don't care,

The work we are doing is amazing and crucial in these trying times and we will continue to be heard.

Much Love,
ArchAngel O:)

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform

As a long-time advocate for criminal justice reform, I found both the movie 13th and the book, The New Jim Crow by Dr. Michelle Alexander, to be incredibly helpful in solidifying the problems we have in our criminal justice system.

Serious reform is needed to make a just system that will dismantle the racial caste system and classist system.

So, here's my dream legislation, as legislation is one component to making this change. Obviously, I am not a legal scholar, so, please feel free to chime in with critiques or suggestions. It won't solve all the problems but it's a start.

PROHIBITION OF FOR PROFIT CORRECTIONS
All aspects of correction, from the Department of Justice, policing at all levels of government, jails, prisons, probation, parole, diversion programs and drug courts shall be considered aspects of the public sector, funded by government funds, and shall have no stakeholders in the private sector. Private, for-profit industry in any area of these agencies shall be outlawed at the local, state and federal level.

AMEND THE Controlled Substance Act of 1970
Strikethrough Section 812. Schedule of controlled substances, Schedule I, (c10 Marihuana), (c17 Tetrahydrocannabinols)

Strikethrough Section 841. Prohibited Acts, (b) Penalties and (d) Offenses involving chemicals

Strikethrough Section 844. Penalties for Simple Possession (a) through (c)

Strikethrough Section 844a. Civil penalties for small amounts of certain controlled substances (a) through (j)

Strikethrough Section 848. Continuing criminal enterprise (e) death penalty

Strikethrough Section 849. Transportation and safety offenses (a) through (c)

Strikethrough Section 853. Criminal forfeitures (a) through (p)

Strikethrough Section 862. Denial of federal benefits to drug traffickers and possessors section (a) through (h).

Strikethrough Section 863. Drug Paraphernalia sections (a) through (e).

Strikethrough Section 880. Administrative inspections and warrants, (c1)

Strikethrough Section 886. Payments and advances section (a) payments to informers

Strikethrough Section 886a. Diversion Control Fee Account (entirety)

ELIMINATE THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
Shall terminate the entirety of the Drug Enforcement Agency.

VOTING RIGHTS 
Shall hereby deem that the voting rights of all United States citizen of or exceeding eighteen years of age shall have the right to vote in local, state and federal elections irrespective of previous or current state of incarceration, felony or misdemeanor status. Such right cannot be infringed upon at any time.

REMOVAL OF MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING
Shall hereby deem all mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines at a local, state and federal level shall be unlawful and returns the right to discretion of judges and/or juries as defined by state law.

PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION IN PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT
Shall hereby consider discrimination on the basis of felony conviction of which is five years or older at the time of application a violation of employment law at the local, state and federal level for all private sector employment. Authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to monitor and provide guidance, as well as respond to grievances in relation to matters related to discrimination on the basis.

Prohibits the usage of any type of question, whether in writing, electronic or verbal, on any job application in which an applicant must clarify whether or not they have been arrested and/or convicted of any crime.

Prohibits the usage of background screening upon any applicant in which, at the date of the background screening being ran, would review criminal convictions that exceed five years.

Exception: Financial institutions may review any criminal convictions of any crime that involves larceny, theft, embezzlement or any other so-called "white collar crime" without limitation but must apply such employment exclusions, in writing, to all applicants and must apply such exclusions equally and without exception to all applicants of whom have a relevant record.

Exception: Nothing in this section shall be construed as overriding guidelines by state or federal law that place restrictions on the obtainment of certain licenses in which a person's crime would be in strict violation of such licensures ethical codes.

Exception: All crimes of a sexual nature, including but not limited to sexual battery and crimes related to children or human trafficking, shall be subject to limitless review and such individuals classified as sexual offenders may be disbarred from employment in which these individuals reasonably would expose the public to potential harm (for example, working with children or vulnerable persons.)

Exception: Nothing in this section overrides or limits the ability to exclude employment to individuals convicted of crimes in the nature of abuse to vulnerable populations from working in a sector with such vulnerable persons, for example, medical professionals who perform home health care.

AMEND THE US. CODE 1437--LOW INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Strikethrough Section C--Subsection 2b, "Where the Secretary determines that a project assisted under this section is located in a community where drug-related criminal activity is generally prevalent and the project’s operating, maintenance, and capital repair expenses have been substantially increased primarily as a result of the prevalence of such drug-related activity, the Secretary may (at the discretion of the Secretary and subject to the availability of appropriations for contract amendments for this purpose), on a project by project basis, provide adjustments to the maximum monthly rents, to a level no greater than 120 percent of the project rents, to cover the costs of maintenance, security, capital repairs, and reserves required for the owner to carry out a strategy acceptable to the Secretary for addressing the problem of drug-related criminal activity."

Strikethrough Section D-Subsection 1b iii, "or any drug-related criminal activity on or near such premises, engaged in by a tenant of any unit, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control,"

Strikethrough Section O-Subsection 6c iii, "drug-related"

Strikethrough Section O-Subsection 7D, "drug-related"

AMENDMENT OF EDWARD BYRNES GRANT 
Amends eligibility of the Edward Byrnes Grant by removing "Drug enforcement" from the grant requirements.

JUVENILE OFFENDER POLICY
Prohibits any persons under the age of 21 from being considered an "adult offender" for all crimes, with the exception of murder, sexual battery or an act of terrorism. Requires local, state and federal agencies to treat all offenders, excluding the above offenses, who are less than 21 years of age at the time of the charging of the crime from entrance into punitive programs or institutions as designated for adult offenders.

Prohibits juveniles or persons under the age of 21 from obtaining the felony designation for any crime, including continual or repeat offenses, with the exception of murder, sexual battery or an act of terrorism. Prohibits the usage of a background screening to prohibit protected juveniles from exclusion in schooling or employment on the basis of a conviction that occurred before the age of 21.

IMPRISONMENT AND COMPENSATORY PRACTICES
Such persons who become imprisoned by a local, state or federal agency but of whom have not been duly convicted of a crime shall not be incarcerated or detained for any period greater than 48 hours, unless properly indicated by a grand jury. Such persons who are incarcerated after a period of 48 hours shall be compensated, in the amount of not less than the locality's minimum wage per hour, for every quarter hour after the 48th hour of detainment, if:
(1) the individual is not eventually convicted of a crime related to detainment.

Any such person who is eventually convicted of a crime shall not be entitled to remuneration. Persons whom are not convicted, whether by acquittal of a jury or by the discretion of a judge and/or agency, shall be duly paid for all time lost exceeding 48 hours in the amount of minimum wage per quarter hour after the 48th hour.

Detainee shall be entitled to remuneration, without penalty of taxation, within 7 calendar days from the date in which detainee is duly acquitted from their crime. The Department of Justice shall be tasked with enforcing and handling all grievances of non-payment or violation of this provision.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION DURING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Any such person whom is detained by a local, state or federal agency, but not duly convicted, shall be protected from job termination or discipline as a result of criminal proceedings. Such employers must retain the individual and re-instate the individual, without prejudice, upon an acquittal or dismissal of charges against any arrestee. However, should such arrestee become duly convicted, the employer shall have the right to terminate such employment indefinitely.

Exception: Arrestees who are charged for criminal behavior by their employer, or by an employee of the company, shall not be entitled to job security during the criminal proceedings.

Furthermore, employers shall not discriminate against persons who are required to report to court proceedings, whether as the charged individual or serving as a witness in criminal or civil proceedings. As such, employers may not discipline, demote or terminate any such employee who is not duly convicted but required to tend to court proceedings.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be tasked with enforcement and handling of grievances related to this nature.