Carrot Suit Clemency Rethinking Prison Reform and the Criminal Justice System Sat, 11 Aug 2018 23:31:54 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Carrot Suit Clemency 32 32 Inspiration from Assata Sat, 11 Aug 2018 23:30:05 +0000

We can learn from many people in history. There are lessons to be learned from every situation and from every person. Those lessons can then be translated into progress in other arenas.

Oftentimes, when people research ways in which to reform prisons and rehabilitate those with the criminal label, they do the obvious—they read articles and books on the subject, they talk to people within the industry, and they study what has and has not worked in the past when changes are attempted.

While you can think outside of the box while staying within the four-corners of the subject matter you are trying to improve or revamp, sometimes thinking outside the box entails looking in places that would not seem to provide the best guidance at first glance. Sometimes sources from other historical events and revolutions can provide the necessary ingredient to spark lasting beneficial change.

Currently, I am listening to the audio book Assata—the autobiography of Assata Shakur, a black revolutionary who is living in Cuba where she has political asylum. Throughout her childhood, she encountered numerous obstacles as an African American woman growing up in a racist and segregated culture. As an adolescent, she was constantly taught that she was not as worthy as her white counterparts.

Assata, a strong woman who was determined to not let society’s label define her, developed into a powerful advocate for black individuals in America. Many white people, especially those in power, despised her for her politics. She was jailed. She was abused. She was condemned. Nevertheless, the resistance she encountered did not silence her. She did not give up on what she believed was right because others hated her for her politics. She stayed resolute and positively impacted the lives of numerous African Americans.

Lessons learned from studying Assata’s past are applicable to many areas of life, including prison and criminal justice reform. Assata’s words are power and provide a template for transformation:

  2. “We need a r/evolution of the mind. We need a r/evolution of the heart. We need a r/evolution of the spirit. The power of the people is stronger than any weapon. A people’s r/evolution can’t be stopped. We need to be weapons of mass construction. Weapons of mass love. It’s not enough just to change the system. We need to change ourselves. We have got to make this world user friendly…r/evolution means the end of exploitation. r/evolution means respecting people from other cultures. r/evolution is creative…r/evolution is love.”
  3. “The rulers of this country have always considered their property more important than our lives.”
  5. “What kind of justice is this? Where the poor go to prison and the rich go free. Where witnesses are rented, bought, or bribed. Where people are tried not because of any criminal actions but because of their political beliefs.”
  6. “If you are deaf, dumb, and blind to what’s happening in the world, you’re under no obligation to do anything. But if you know what’s happening and you don’t do anything but sit on your ass, then you’re nothing but a punk.”
  7. “Only a fool lets somebody else tell him who his enemy is.”
  8. “Nobody is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them.”
  9. “When Black people seriously organize and take up arms to fight for our liberation, there will be a lot of white people who will drop dead from no other reason than their own guilt and fear.”
  10. “All you have to do is ask yourselves, who controls the government? And who are the victims of that control?”
  11. “People are tried and convicted in the newspapers and on television before they ever see a courtroom.”
  12. “Those who have dared to speak out against the injustices in this country, both Black and white, have paid dearly for their courage, sometimes with their lives.”
  13. “And it is that one percent, the heads of large corporations, who control the policies of news media and determine what you and I hear on radio, read in the newspapers, see on television. It is more important for us to think about where the media gets its information.”
  14. “In the long run, the people are our only appeal. The only ones who can free us are ourselves.”
  15. “We do not have the right in the name of social justice to bore anyone to death.”
  16. “Too many people in the U.S. support death and destruction without being aware of it. They indirectly support the killing our people without ever having to look at the corpses.”
  17. “Love is contraband in Hell, cause love is an acid that eats away bars.”
  18. “Any community seriously concerned with its own freedom has to be concerned about other peoples’ freedom as well.”
  20. “Revolution is about change, and the first place the change begins is in yourself.”

We do not have to agree with everything a person says for that individual’s lessons to be applicable. We do not have to like a person to find the truth in his or her words. We do not have to condone a person’s actions to treat them with love and respect. It is easy to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of jails and prisons and how we set those entrenched in the criminal justice system up for failure. By not fully educating ourselves, we are accepting the injustice. It is time for people to get educated about what the criminal justice system truly looks like from those who have firsthand experience—not the judges, not the prosecutors, not the police, not the prison guards, but from the accused.

]]> 0
Hiding Behind the Badge Sun, 05 Aug 2018 22:30:13 +0000 In all walks off life, you will come across hypocritical people. They do not walk the same walk they talk. Human beings are multi-faceted. We show different sides of ourselves depending on the circumstances. This is especially true in the Internet era. Individuals are all the more willing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and disparage or condemn other people.

There used to be a network called “Bored At” for certain colleges. On this network, students could anonymously post anything they wanted and other college students could give the posts thumbs up or thumbs down. The websites transformed into an anonymous forum where students could post horrific thoughts and comments about their peers. In 2014, Jezebel published an article about a Bored at Baker post where a male college student at an elite college urged for others to rape a specific girl who was referred to as a whore.

Similarly, we have all heard stories of powerful CEOs who have a loving family, drive the fancy car, have the summerhouse in the Hamptons, and travel the world on private jets. However, greed takes over. When he thinks he is not in the limelight, he embezzles money from his company. He is sure no one will catch him. Many people probably get away with this behavior, but numerous others are caught and prosecuted.

Someone’s true character shows when he or she can hide behind the cloak of anonymity or thinks that no one will find out the truth. People in positions of power are especially prone to this type of behavior. After all, society tends to treat those in power with the utmost respect.

While such behavior is in no way limited to the police, law enforcements officers frequently hide behind the respect of the badge. Across America, police officers are revered by a majority of the population. On Facebook, you will see pictures with the caption, “I support our men in blue.” On the highways, people automatically slam on their brakes if a patrol car appears in their rearview mirror, as they do not want to get stopped. Many law-abiding citizens feel at ease when law enforcement is in view. They feel safe, secure.

Similarly, those sporting a law enforcement badge are regarded as credible. If a police officer says it is so, then it must be true. In a criminal jury trial, if there are two witnesses—a police officer and a defendant—almost every time, the jurors will believe the man in the uniform. The jurors believe he has no motive to lie. The jurors believe that the officer is the pinnacle of American society.

Unfortunately, as in all sectors of society, some police officers wear their uniform and badge as a mask. In reality, when no one is looking, the men and women wearing the badges let their true character shine through.

In the courtroom or out on the streets when the public is around, the officer acts as sweet as apple pie. He laughs, he makes jokes, and he behaves professionally. However, as soon as he no longer has to put on a show, he treats those he is arresting or those in his custody with utter disrespect.

Behind the scenes, the officer hurls expletives and demeaning slurs towards the individual in handcuffs. He will push and shove the individual despite the situation not calling for such behavior. If the inmate ever reports the officer’s behavior, the police officer has an easy explanation—the inmate was not treating him with respect and was disobeying his commands. Even when such excuses are false, this assertion will quiet any grumblings about the officer’s behavior. The man displaying a badge and utility belt is more credible to outsiders and supervisors than a man in jail-issued clothing, handcuffs, and shackles.

Normally, when someone disrespects us, we set boundaries. We tell the person we will not tolerate such behavior. If the insults continue, we will distance ourselves. We will not let someone talk down to us. We will not sit around idly while someone bullies us. We will not allow our supervisors to push against the wall or shove us to the ground.

Inmates, however, do not have such luxuries. Someone in shackles cannot stand up for himself. He cannot tell the officer that he does not appreciate his tone of voice. He cannot make a snide comment back to the officer engaging in racial slander. He cannot put his hands up and try to defend himself from the officer’s physical abuse. Well, he can, but if he does, he will pay the price. The officer will tase the individual. The officer will move the prisoner to solitary confinement. The officer will deprive the person of his or her commissary. The officer will leave the accused in the holding cell for a much longer period of time than necessary. The officer will retaliate in the worst of ways.

Again, we are back full-circle. If the inmate reports the officer’s unacceptable behaviors, who will be believed? The officer, of course. Even worse, the officer will amplify his cruel treatment of the tattletale. Even more derogatory comments and physical abuse will be directed towards to person behind bars.

Unless and until society as a whole stands up to those who bully inmates, the cycle will continue perpetually. It is easy to turn a blind eye to situations involving those accused of horrific crimes—murder, robbery, sexual assault, residential burglary, etc.—but by doing so, we are condoning inequality and exploitation. Those in shackles are human too. They deserve the same respect and tolerance as the men in blue.

]]> 2
A House Cannot Stand Without a Foundation Fri, 03 Aug 2018 04:49:46 +0000 If I had to describe myself in a nutshell, I would tell you that I am “go, go, go.” Even on days that I intend to keep time open for rest and relaxation, I end up turning those days into scheduled days of rejuvenating activities. For instance, I might start my morning off by walking the dogs and then head to a yoga class. After yoga, I have just enough time to change into some dry clothes at the studio and drive downtown for a meeting with friends. Afterwards, I will grab coffee and attend a book study, followed by lunch with a friend. When I get home, I will go for a bike ride and then spend maybe thirty minutes reading on the sofa with my dogs before I am off to my next activity. I enjoy having activities to fill up my day.

Needless to say, I am the same at work. In the past, I have had jobs where I went to work five days a week, but my assigned weekly tasks could easily be finished within two and a half days. Therefore, I had plenty of time to prep food at work, go on long walks at lunch, surf the internet, and work on art project’s in my supervisor’s office as we caught up on life. Do not get me wrong—such a light schedule is very stress-free and can be quite enjoyable if you have ways to fill up the time, but it is not me.

I work best under pressure. I want a job where every minute counts, where I have to use each moment wisely if I want to make it to my evening yoga class. I like having impeding deadlines. I enjoy feeling productive at work. I prefer jobs where there is not a moment to spare during the workday. This is what works for me.

Of course, each person is unique. We all have different interests and hobbies that make us tick. However, at our core, some semblance of a routine seems to inspire productivity in most people. That is not to say that everyone needs to be go, go, go. In fact, such a lifestyle does not work for many people. However, structure does work.

Children grow up going to school. After school, oftentimes students will participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. This schedule helps children learn discipline. When we are of the age that we enter the workforce, we have set schedules at our jobs. Our bosses tell us that we must be present at a certain time and that we much remain on the premises performing our job duties for an allotted amount of time.

Imagine if children went to school, but had no guidance. For instance, if teachers told their students that they needed to learn various subjects and read numerous books within the next few months, but then the teachers left the students to their own devices. The overwhelming majority of grade school aged students would not follow through on the assignments, not because these students do not care about learning, but because they do not yet have the discipline and work ethic needed to self-monitor their learning. In part, that is why the structure provided by schools and teachers is so crucial.

Similarly, consider if you start a new job and while you are very smart, you do not yet have the technical knowledge necessary to perform your tasks. However, your employers tells you that you do not need to attend the trainings unless you feel like it. The trainings are very sporadic and at inconvenient times, so you decide not attend. While normally you may be a great employee, at this particular job, you would have a very hard time succeeding.

Knowing that structure and routine breed success, why does society tolerate a lack of structure behind bars? We want those in jails and prisons to remain crime-free and be upstanding members of society, yet we typically do not mandate that they attend programs behind bars. While we want them to change, we are not providing them with adequate new tools to break their previously engrained habits. We are telling them to change on their own accord. It is like going to the hardware store for bread.

You can tell me all you want that I need to have a better work ethic, but what does a better work ethic look like in practice? You can tell me that I need to have more compassion, but what does that mean in terms of how I interact with someone? You can tell me that I need to treat others with respect, but what are some examples? We cannot help someone be the best version of him or herself if we do not require sufficient guidance. More is necessary than merely providing opportunities.

In society, we have many self-help or personal betterment type groups such as church gatherings, bible studies, meditation groups, yoga classes, drum circles, and twelve-step groups. However, it intimidates many people who have never attended those type events to commence participation. How will I feel if I do not fit in with the group? What if I do not know what to do when I am there? Will I feel uncomfortable? These fears prevent us from experiencing certain first times.

Therefore, we cannot expect those in custody always to participate in whatever programming is available just because the opportunity presents itself. Instead, we need to provide a push, a jumping-off point. We not only need to encourage those behind bars to attend programming, but we also need to require them to attend. Moreover, we need to command penal institutions to provide more structure and more programming on a daily basis, at least if we truly want to see rehabilitation.


]]> 1
One Strike and You’re Out Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:26:29 +0000 Think about the culture shock when you have spent your entire life enjoying freedom—and likely taking it for granted—and the next minute you are arrested and ultimately convicted of a crime carrying life in prison without the possibility of parole. Before that moment, you never had seen the inside of a jail cell. You had never spent your day pacing back and forth in tight quarters. You had never had your every move dictated to you by officials.

Instead, you had the ability to select your own meals. You could call friends and chat with them for as long as you wanted. Your dictated your social calendar. You selected the times you wanted to workout. If you were bored, you could drive down to the local bookstore and buy an unlimited amount of reading material. You had the option of catching a film at the nearby theater. The world was your oyster. Now, all those seemingly simple luxuries are forever stripped away.

No matter what age you are, the new reality of your existence in prison for life is a rude awakening. A sixty-year-old man with no criminal record and a loving family will never have the opportunity to spend time with his family again apart from any allotted prison visitations. He will no longer have the opportunity to travel, fish, go for a jog, or lounge around the house with his dogs. He has no opportunity for parole, no chance for a redo.

A forty-year-old woman with no prior convictions cannot attend her daughter’s piano recitals. She cannot cheer her daughter on from the sidelines as she plays in her soccer games. She will not personally experience her daughter’s coming milestones such as her high-school graduation, her wedding, or the birth of her first child. The now-incarcerated woman cannot provide a shoulder for her daughter to cry on when she does not get the job offer for her dream position or when she breaks her leg. This woman now must learn about these momentous times through second-hand accounts. This is life without the possibility parole.

A twenty-year-old boy who finds himself in prison for life without parole will never enjoy his mother’s home cooking again. He will not have the privilege of finishing his college classes with his friends. He can no longer attend concerts or play video games with his brother. He will not meet the love of his life or ever have a career. His life is forever changed. This is life without the possibility of parole.

Sending any member of society away to prison for life—with no chance of ever living his or her life outside of the sterile, dismal institution setting—when that individual has absolutely no prior criminal record is cruel and unusual punishment. Others may have been in and out of prison for ages for various crimes, but this unlucky first time offender is there for the remainder of his days. Most people get second chances. Most people get third, forth, and fifth chances. But not this individual. He gets life without the possibility of parole.

That sixty-year old man who has been law abiding until this very moment never wants to find himself back behind bars again. Given the opportunity to rehabilitate on the outside, he would be an upstanding member of society. He would stay out of trouble. Similarly, that twenty-year-old boy could grow into a tremendous father, husband, and brother. He could have a successful career. He could mentor younger children on how to avoid the path he initially went down. Instead, the legislature has decided to prevent him from having such an opportunity. It does not matter that as people grow older, they change. It does not matter that people can learn from their mistakes. It does not matter that the forty-year-old version of oneself is always more mature than the twenty-year-old version. The legislature has ruled, and there is nothing that can be done. He will be in prison until the day he dies.

Laws arbitrarily state that individuals who commit certain special circumstances are required to spend their life in prison without the possibility of parole. While the legislature may initially have had good intentions when implementing such laws, it is too severe of a punishment to put everyone convicted of an enumerated offense into prison for life without the possibility of parole. Rules of such gravity should not be one size fits all. Instead, the laws should take into account the entire picture—and not just the picture portrayed on paper by the police department.

A major factor that needs to be considered is the past criminal record of an individual. Someone who has never before committed any sort of criminal offense—whether misdemeanor or felony—should never face life in prison without the possibility of parole no matter how egregious the circumstances are surrounding the crime. A long prison sentence, if needed, can suffice. Similarly, a person whose only criminal conduct is driving on an invalid license fifteen years prior also should not face the scare of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Again, given the minimal criminal record of the individual, such punishment is cruel and unusual.

As long as life without the possibility of parole exists, the laws need to be revamped so as to not unduly punish first time offenders or those with minimal and unremarkable past records. No first time offender needs a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Further, as long as life without parole remains a sentencing option, youthful offenders who are in prison for life without the possibility of parole should no longer be excluded from youthful offender parole hearings. Likewise, elderly parole programs should not bar first-time offenders over the age of sixty. The punishment needs to fit the crime as well as the individual. Everyone deserves a second chance.

]]> 0
It’s Possible; Therefore, It Must be True Mon, 23 Jul 2018 03:10:24 +0000 Under California law, a single witness can prove any fact. In other words, the testimony of one witness, who states something happened, if believed, is sufficient to convict a person for any crime.

The classic example is the he-said-she-said domestic violence case. A woman calls the police in tears stating that her husband choked her until she lost consciousness. There are no visible injuries, just the wife’s statement. The husband vehemently denies touching the wife in any manner. He states that she is making up the allegations because she believes he is cheating on her. In this type of case, it ultimately comes down to who do you believe is the most credible witness? One person is lying; which person is it?

Another obvious example of the he-said-she-said line of cases is statutory rape where the defendant states the allege act or acts never happened. The minor, age seventeen, proclaims, “She had sex with me!” The female defendant, who is in her twenties, is adamant that she has never had any sexual contact with the minor on any occasion. The jury must decide who is the most believable. Again, one person is lying, and one person is telling the truth.

A less thought about situation is a case based solely on the eyewitness identification of a single witness. Take an individual charged with an attempted homicide for the benefit of a criminal street gang. There is no DNA evidence. There are no surveillance videos or photographs of the suspect. No other witness collaborates the victim’s statement regarding the suspect description. The police merely have the surviving victim’s declaration when viewing a social media picture of multiple subjects, “That person was the shooter!” With the blink of an eye, “that person” is now looking at life in prison.

The standard of proof a jury must use when deciding whether the person on trial is guilty or not guilty is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt means an abiding conviction that the charge is true. This standard leaves room for some doubt—possible doubt—just not a reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the law, even if the jurors have a slight doubt as to guilt, the jury can still render a guilty verdict.

Of course, convictions would be nearly impossible if the standard was absolute certainty, or no doubts whatsoever. Maybe an incident captured on surveillance video would be a no-brainer, but even then, if there is a mental state requirement for the crime, videos do not memorialize an individual’s inner thoughts.

Unfortunately, however, in the single witness cases, it is all too easy for juries to use a lower burden of proof than intended under the law to return a guilty verdict. For instance, the complaining witness in a sex case may take the stand and make numerous inconsistent statements. While memory fades with the passage of time, important details do not waiver. The truth does not change. Not remembering the color shirt you had on at the time of the incident is reasonable. Not remembering if you were lying on your left side or right side is understandable. But, not remembering where you were when the sexual contact occurred is less reasonable. Giving completely contradicting statements about where you had sexual contact is less reasonable. If you are claiming sexual assault—and alcohol was not a factor—the location of the assault should be seared in your mind.

Nevertheless, especially in sex cases, juries rationalize the memory problems. Jurors chalk up the inconsistencies to the victim does not want to be testifying. The victim has erased the atrocity from her memory. We would not be here if it did not happen, the jury justifies. The defendant must be lying; he has an interest in the outcome of the case. These rationales can be true at times, but the problem starts when jurors use these thoughts to lower the prosecution’s burden of proof.

If criminal defendants always lie, then there would be no place for jury trials. Once someone is arrested of a crime, they are automatically guilty under this theory. The presumption of guilt would apply as opposed to the presumption of innocence. Everyone has heard of cases, though, where someone is falsely accused. In fact, many people have been falsely accused of something—even if it does not arise to the level of criminal charges—at some point in their lives. No one accused of a crime would waive his Fifth Amendment right and give testimony on the witness stand if the presumption under the law was he is a liar merely because he is charged with a crime.

Likewise, if an alleged victim of a crime were always truthful, there would also be no reason to have jury trials. If a person says it happened, then it must be so, would be the line of thought. Anyone could cry wolf and ruin a person’s life forever.

While it may be convenient to assume that no one would be in court if the crime did not occur or that the accused must be lying because he has an interest in the outcome of the case, such thoughts truly do lower the burden of the prosecution. The district attorney no longer has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the prosecution solely has to establish that it is possible that the situation could have happened. It is possible that the alleged victim was raped. It is possible that the accused was the person at the scene as the witness claims. A likelihood that something happened a certain way, a possibility, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, though.

Do not let people’s lives be flipped upside down because there is a possibility of guilt. Put yourself in the shoes of the accused or the family of the accused. Consider how you would feel if you were accused of murder only because a witness said that you looked like the shooter he saw at the scene. It quickly becomes evident why injustice results when the burden of proof is shifted to a standard much below proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

]]> 1
Gasp! A Sex Offender! Mon, 16 Jul 2018 04:52:40 +0000 “He is a sex offender! Stay away!,” everyone whispers as he walks into the room. “We do not want him here!,” others exclaim amongst themselves. The chatter continues as this group of self-proclaimed spiritual people—allegedly accepting of all—is in an uproar over the man’s presence. Mind you, this gentleman has done absolutely nothing to the group. He has never sexually harassed any of the women. He has never made unwanted sexual comments to the females in the room. He is an individual attending the get-together just like the rest of us. The only difference? Someone had learned through the online sex offender registry that he was on that dreaded list. Therefore, clearly, he must be a danger to society and no women are safe around him.

The rumblings about this man’s presence do not subside. I hear one woman standing nearby me bellow, “There could be children present; he is not welcome!” This makes me chuckle. Children? We are a group of people that met weekly at this location and not once have I seen children. Of course, children could come with their parents if they wanted to, but parents choose to leave their children behind. On this particular night, as usual, there were no children in sight. Additionally, that reasoning—he is not welcome because children might be present—did not really make much sense to me. There could be children anywhere in public. Registered sex offenders would not be able to go to any location based on this woman’s rationale.

The way the group was gossiping about this man behind his back saddened me. The fact that the majority of the individuals were so strongly opinionated about his presence caused me grief. Hearing a confrontation, I remerge from my thoughts into the present moment just in time to see the woman who was fearful children would suddenly appear emphatically order the man to leave the property. She tells him he is not welcome. We do not want him here. She tells him to never return. At this point, I feel as if I needed to step in and defend the man.

While I did take his side, if I could re-do this moment, I would have advocated even more on his behalf. I do not approach the duo as the woman kicks him out, but as soon as it happens, I tell the others standing around outside that I do not see any issue with his presence. As the man rides off into the night on his bicycle and the confronter returns, I ask her why she does not want him here and why she feels it is necessary to make him leave. “The children! The children! He is a registered sex offender!” I am sure she said more, but that is all I remember.

I still see this man around town at times. Without fail, someone mentions, “He is a registered sex offender! Be careful!” I have not seen him kicked out of any places since that one fateful day, but individuals always keep a healthy distance from the man. They will not engage in conversation with him. They will not greet him with the normal pleasantries they treat their friends. He is an outsider. He is unwanted, all because he is a sex offender. He is marked for life

Unfortunately, the way that the sex offender registration law has played out in real life seems contrary to the primary purpose of the registry. When most people think of “sex offender,” an image of a serial child molester comes to mind. For instance, a man who breaks into houses in the early morning hours to take advantage of innocent children or a relative who abuses all the toddlers in the family. While these individuals can be found on sex offender registries, the majority of registrants do not fit into that mold.

Think about the following instance—oral copulation of a minor. A 22-year-old boy has oral sex with a 17-year-old girl. The 22-year-old college student made a terrible decision. He should not have engaged in any sexual activity with the minor. However, he has since learned his lesson. His arrest for oral copulation of a minor made him open his eyes and change his life. He is more careful about with whom to have intimate relations. He has learned about the horrors of jail and the criminal justice system. Prior to this incident, he had a completely clean record. He did not even have so much as a traffic ticket. Now, however, not only is he a felon, but also he is a sex offender registrant for the rest of his life.

Similarly, think about an intoxicated college student who indecently exposes himself in public. He is arrested and charged with a misdemeanor violation of indecent exposure.   Maybe he has a past driving under the influence on his record, but that is the extent of his criminal past. Nevertheless, because of this misdemeanor conviction for indecent exposure that he sustains, he also is a sex offender registrant for life.

Sex offender registries do not differentiate between the violations with which someone is convicted. A serial child molester and the inebriated college student who had an indecent exposure conviction on his record twenty years ago are treated the same. They both have the label. The label follows them both around as they navigate life. Anyone can find either of the offenders’ names with a search of the Internet. There are restrictions on where they are allowed to reside. There are numerous other regulations they must abide by as well. Most importantly, there is a massive social stigma.

It is time for a change. It is time for the legal system to revamp the sex offender registration requirements. Numerous registrants on the list are harmless. They are some of the nicest people you will know. They could be your neighbor, your brother, your friend, or your spouse. They could be the man behind the deli counter, the woman ringing you up for coffee, or the man sitting on the park bench. When a wide array of criminal charges require blanket sex offender registration, registration becomes meaningless. The punishment of registering does not fit the crime oftentimes. Sadly, however, the majority of society members do not have this intricate knowledge of the criminal justice system. Instead, they hear “sex offender” and run.

Sex offender registration should always be a case-by-case basis determination. Further, the overwhelming majority of registrants should not be required to register for life. Start with a short time frame and see what changes the person makes in his or her life. Make it such that after a certain period, people graduate off the list. Make temporary sex offender registration the norm. Only in extreme circumstances, should someone be required to register for life. The punishment needs to fit the offense.

]]> 0
Nonchalant Justice Thu, 12 Jul 2018 04:09:20 +0000 Think about the most consequential moment of your life. That moment that you were nervously anticipating. Maybe it was the day you were awaiting college admissions results. Maybe it was the day your child underwent a high-risk surgery. Maybe it was the time that your wife was battling numerous pregnancy complications and you were unsure if your baby would survive. Maybe it was the day you accepted a job offer in another state. No matter how large or small the moment seemed to others, to you that was one of the most important moments of your life. It mattered. You desperately cared about the outcome.

How would you feel if as you sat in the waiting room eagerly awaiting news that your child’s surgery was a success, you overheard the doctor state to her colleague, “I do not really care about this surgery. I have way more important surgeries scheduled in the future. Whatever happens, happens.” You would be livid! This is your daughter’s life! The doctor does not care about the outcome of a high-risk surgery that will affect her for the rest of her life? If that were my daughter, I would fly out of my seat and demand to speak to a supervisor. I would yank my child out of the operating room and rush her to a different hospital. I would file a grievance against the doctor and her staff. I would not put my daughter’s life in that doctor’s hands.

While less extreme, the California Bar Examination results were important to me. I had attended law school for three years. I had paid an exorbitant amount of money to take the classes. I studied around the clock seven days a week. I dedicated four months of my life to rigorously studying for the bar exam. I skipped all social functions. I lost touch with friends. The only time I left the house was to go to my bar review lessons or a 6 a.m. yoga class. I did not put on makeup, comb my hair, or dress in anything but workout clothes for the entire four-month period.

The stress of the bar examination was enormous. I had dedicated the past three years of my life to this endeavor. I did not have the stamina in me to take the examination again if I failed. I felt as if my life was on the line. Day-after-day for months I anxiously awaited the results. I had so much invested in the outcome of the examination that I would have been furious had I learned that the grader of the examination merely read one of six essays and made a conclusion about my intellectual prowess based on that one answer. I would have been enraged had the grader solely skimmed my answers and haphazardly assigned me a score. My life was in that person’s hands and I wanted him or her to treat me fairly.

Oftentimes, when people think about the criminal justice system, you hear comments such as “I hope you have a good attorney.” Of course, it truly is important to have a fierce and zealous advocate fighting on your behalf. You are relying upon your defense attorney to select the correct composition of jurors, to appeal to the jury, present a spellbinding opening statement, expertly cross-examine prosecution witnesses, call the strongest defense witnesses, and seal the deal with a memorable closing argument. You want an attorney who has your best interests at heart and helps you receive the most favorable outcome on your case and your life, not his.

However, what many people do not think about is the other side of the criminal justice equation—the prosecutor. A criminal defendant’s life is equally in the hands of the prosecutor. Just as you would not want a surgeon who performed a surgery on you just because she wanted the experience, neither do you want a prosecutor that will not plea bargain with you merely because she wants the trial experience. Just as you do not want a surgeon who is more concerned with future surgeries that appear more serious on paper, you do not want a prosecutor on your case that solely wants your case to be over so he can move onto his next case. You do not want a prosecutor who boasts, “I won’t even look at this case much before we start trial. I have more important cases to worry about.”

This is how injustice manifests. The prosecutor does not talk to his single witness to see if her statement, as recorded by police, is accurate. The prosecutor does not spend time trying to decide if a borderline case is even worth prosecuting by conducting a thorough investigation. The prosecutor does not open the discovery envelope containing the exculpatory defense witness statements until the case has been assigned to a trial court.

The prosecutor treats your case as if it does not matter, because to him, it truly does not matter. He will go home at the end of the day, have a nice meal, and sleep on a luxurious bed. He will not be concerned about the years you spend in jail or the negative impacts the conviction will have on your personal life. He will not care about the fact that he prosecuted a case that probably should have resolved. It will not impact him that he assumed you were guilty just because he read the police officer’s version of the events. He will forget about you. To him, he is doing his job and getting so-called criminals off the streets.  It does not matter if the punishment far exceeds what is fair and just for the crime you committed. It does not even matter that you are not guilty, yet you have been falsely convicted. He will still forget about you.

Defense attorneys can behave in similar manners. There are bad apples in every profession. However, oftentimes, society focuses on the more glaring instances of injustice while overlooking other contributing factors. The nonchalant attitude certain prosecutors have about some, or all, of the criminal cases assigned to them helps ensure that inequity results in our criminal justice system.

]]> 0
It’s Him! Sat, 07 Jul 2018 00:22:53 +0000 If you ask me to describe the cashier who rang me up at the grocery store this past weekend, I will not be able to tell you. Maybe I can tell you she had brown hair and give an approximation as to her body type, but I would never be able to pick her out of a group of pedestrians walking down the street. I do not have her face engrained into my memory. I could not recognize her in a Facebook photograph. I do not have a good enough recollection about her appearance.

If you ask me to pick out that nice man who changed my flat tire for me or rescued my dog from a cliff, then you also will be out of luck most likely. I interacted with the gentleman for a short period of time. I conversed with the gentleman. But, select him out of a crowd? No can do.

After I have had one face-to-face meeting with a client, put him in a courtroom with a sea of other bodies facing criminal charges, and I will likely not be able to recognize him. Instead, I will have to call out his name and see who positively responds. Contrarily, once I have met the individual three or more times in person, I am able to walk right up to him or her without having to confirm the name.

In college, I participated in a daylong leadership development program. During that course, I met another student at my school for the first time. We sat by each other the entire day and engaged in meaningful conversation. At the conclusion of the event, we decided to meet for lunch the following week.

The day of the scheduled lunch, we confirmed via email the location we would meet. After class, I walked over to the allotted venue and waited…and waited…and waited for her to show. This was before the era of smartphones. I did not have the ability to ping her on Facebook messenger or send her an iMessage. The food hall was hopping. People were coming and going in droves. Other students stood by the entrance to meet up with their lunch dates, but none of them was my new friend.

Eventually, the hallway cleared out after the majority of the students had purchased their sandwich or salad and claimed a table to park at for the remainder of the lunch period. There was just one girl and I left waiting for our lunch mates. I kept looking at her because she was the only other person there. Is that her? No way. That is not her. After more time passed, I finally asked her if she was Lucy.

Awkwardly, we both laughed when we realized our mistake. We both had been standing there for a good twenty minutes and did not recognize each other. Unlike the day at training, on this day her hair was in a ponytail. The dirty blonde hair I had remembered looked much darker when gathered back on the top of her head. She looked as if she had just come straight from the gym. She looked nothing like the person I remembered from that day together and the person I had envisioned in my mind.

As for my appearance, I cannot say what threw her off. I do not remember what I was wearing. What I do know, though, is that she did not recognize me either. I was out of place. I looked different.

What is terrifying is the extreme frequency with which district attorneys and police officers rely on eyewitness identification alone in convicting the accused of a crime. Most frequently, law enforcement employs two methods. Method One: an infield show up. An officer working the case transports the witness to the location of an arrest. When the witness arrives, a police officer pulls a handcuffed individual out of a police cruiser and asks, is this him? The person may have similar facial features to the suspect. The person may have the same color shirt on as the suspect. However, the person may or may not be the same person who actually committed the crime. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the time, the witness will say, “Yes that is him” or “He looks similar to who I saw; I think it’s him.” In fact, I have yet to see an infield show up where the witness has not identified the subject.

Method Two: the infamous six-pack photo lineup. The investigating officer on a criminal case creates an assortment of five-people who fit the description of the suspect and then the sixth picture is of the person whom the police have already arrested for the law violation. In many counties, the officer working the case then inquires if the witness sees the suspect in the photographic lineup. It is all too easy for the officer to influence the witness’s identification given that the authority figure knows precisely who is in jail for the offense.

Moreover, if the individual happens to say something like, “This man has similar facial features to the suspect,” the law enforcement officer will eagerly make the witness place his or her initials by the photograph. The initials provide confirmation that the photographed individual is the actual perpetrator, not that the individual has a similar haircut and skin tone as the suspect. A response by the witness of, “I do not know if this is him, but this person looks similar,” turns into a report by the police officer that the witness positively identified the suspect in the photographic lineup. If the police did not audio record the identification process, the accused is out of luck. Most likely, a jury is going to believe that the defendant is the perpetrator.

There are numerous examples of cases where faulty eyewitness testimony has led to convictions. Jerome Johnson spent thirty years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Only one witness implicated Mr. Johnson in the murder. Mr. Johnson, now exonerated, is one of the few lucky ones—that is, if anyone can consider spending thirty unnecessary years of your life incarcerated in a state prison. The majority of people convicted due to faulty eyewitness identification will remain behind bars.

Given the concrete data regarding the egregious problems with basing a conviction solely on eyewitness identification, it is time for the laws change. If the district attorney’s office does not have anything more than eyewitness identification testimony to connect someone to the crime, the prosecutor should not go forward with the charges. If the prosecutor is unsure about an individual’s guilt or has any doubts himself as to whom the actual perpetrator is, the district attorney should not prosecute the defendant.

Our current laws make false convictions all too easy. The statement of one witness can send a human being to prison for life. How would you feel if that falsely accused person was you? By sitting back and watching these false convictions happen to members of our society, we are effectively condoning these improper convictions. Change takes a village. Change takes dedication of the masses. Change takes action. Stop passively allowing injustice, and instead, fight for change.

]]> 1
The Fast Track to a Life Behind Bars Wed, 04 Jul 2018 04:22:53 +0000 The criminal justice system effectively sentences those with mental illness to life in prison. Penal institutions are not the nation’s largest “protectors” of the mentally ill; yet, jails and prisons are no place for these individuals.

It is common to see those struggling with mental illness to constantly enter the revolving door of county jails. Sometimes, law enforcement picks up mentally ill individuals on petty theft charges when they walk into a convenient store and steal a necessary item for survival. Other times, police arrest them on misdemeanor vandalism, under the influence of a controlled substance, or disturbing the peace charges. Vagrancy related charges as well as indecent exposure misdemeanor charges are also routine. Eventually, the officers become familiar with these members of society and approach them as soon as they spot them on a sidewalk or in an alley combing through trashcans.

The misdemeanor charges for the mentally ill continue to build until these individuals have a sizeable criminal record. Overtime, as the prosecutors and judges realize that certain individuals are repeat offenders, any sympathy for the persons—if there even was any to begin with—goes out the door. As soon as the case-filing deputies at the district attorney’s office observe the numerous misdemeanor convictions on a person’s Records of Arrests and Prosecutions (RAP) sheet, they issue a complaint alleging felony violations. After all, it is not hard to find a basis for felony conduct, especially considering that many crimes are wobblers, meaning that the crimes can constitute either felonies or misdemeanors.

Over time, one felony charge turns into three felony charges. Then four. Then five. Then six. Eventually, that felony charge turns into a felony strike charge, a serious felony offense. For instance, the incoherent ramblings of a schizophrenic on the street corner turn into criminal threat allegations. The twirling of a previously discarded metal rod found in a recycling bin escalates into allegations of assault with a deadly weapon. Petty theft from the local grocery store turns into a robbery when an irrational monologue causes the clerk to be in fear for her life.

A mentally ill individual with a strike on his or her record is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for life in prison without obtaining the proper mental health help necessary to overcome the disease. A strike conviction on one’s record means that any subsequent felony charge will carry double the amount of prison time that an individual without a strike on his or her record would face for the identical felony offense. Therefore, the mentally ill will forever have longer prison sentences that span years at a time. At this point, misdemeanor arrests and prosecutions of the mentally ill individual are a distant memory. He or she has been labeled a felon, a criminal, a monster.

Once a strike is on one’s record, that person is marked for life. It is as if that person is wearing a sign that says, “Come arrest me! I am a felon with a strike on my record!” The police and the district attorneys are out to get these individuals. The mentality seems to be that once a serious felony offender, always a serious felony offender; rehabilitation is impossible.

Moreover, thanks to the implementation of the Three Strikes Law, once a mentally ill individual receives his or her third strike conviction, that person faces a harsh reality: the possibility of life in prison. Automatically, the individual is facing twenty-five years to life for crimes—many of which are not near as serious as the charges’ names imply—committed while battling mental demons. It does not matter if that person’s mental disorder is one day in remission. It does not matter if the community member is now taking his or her medications to keep the mental health issues at bay. It does not matter that the person has never had the opportunity to even work with a team of doctors to try to find a remedy for his or her plight. The prison system fails to distinguish between individuals society unfortunately labels as criminals and the mentally ill.

Yet, walk into any county jail and you will see hundreds upon hundreds of individuals suffering from mental inflictions. Stroll through the jail halls and you will see these humans discarded like trash inside of cold, sterile concrete cells where they are alone with their inner demons. The solitude and the emptiness cause the schizophrenic voices to reappear, to dominate. The mental illnesses surge to the forefront. The mental illnesses erupt like a volcano back in full force.

And this is how the cycle carries on time and again. That explosion of the disease does not subside while these individuals are behind bars. The mental affliction continues accruing more and more strength. It turns into violence. It turns into hopelessness. And in that state of despair, these individuals are released back out onto the streets. Their jail sentences are over. The jail guards wipe clean their hands as they wearily watch the individuals saunter into the night with no place to go, no place to call home. In no time, these persons will be right back where they left. Inside that bleak cells battling their mental diseases.

For some reason, society is okay with this harsh reality. For some reason, society looks the other way. However, what if you were diagnosed with cancer? What if you were diagnosed with heart disease? What if you were diagnosed with meningitis? Would you be satisfied with the government throwing you behind bars where you were no longer a nuisance to your loved ones? Of course not. You would be in an uproar. You would protest against the inhumane conditions and the lack of health care. You would have family members flock to the government headquarters and advocate on your behalf. You are fortunate. You are lucky. The mentally ill members of society who are in and out of jails and prisons are not so fortuitous. They need that same love and support. They need you to care.

]]> 1
Food is Nourishment for the Soul Fri, 29 Jun 2018 04:13:09 +0000 What smell of deliciousness wafting from the kitchen takes you back to your childhood days? Maybe it is the smell of pumpkin pie baking in the oven at Thanksgiving time. Possibly it is the scent of homemade apple cider brewing on Christmas morning. Perhaps it is the aroma of your mother’s famous meatloaf. Whatever it is, scents and tastes conjure up memories. Whether it is our carefree childhood days or a birthday dinner complete with a home-cooked meal, smells and flavors of food remind us of our cherished pasts.

Food is also a way that families and friends bond with one another. Every Thanksgiving, families across the country indulge in a feast with their loved ones. For special occasions such as birthdays and weddings, the hosts cut cake for the guests to enjoy. Oftentimes, when you have not seen a friend in a long time, you plan to meet for dinner or lunch and catch each other up to speed on life happenings over a shared meal.

When you go back home to visit your family once you are in college, your mother cooks your favorite meal for you to savor. For Halloween, neighbors pass out candy and other tasty treats. At work trainings, employers provide lunch so that more people will attend.

Food provides comfort as well. When you are sick, you might crave a piping hot bowl of chicken noodle soup. On a hot day when you are working in the yard, you may request a smoothie to cool you down. During final exams at school, perhaps you eat more than usual due to the stress of the situation. When you go through a breakup, you may just want to sit on your sofa in your pajamas nourishing your soul with a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream all to yourself. On a cold winter night, your family decides to cook a hearty stew for warmth.

Food plays an integral part in our society. In fact, throughout the course of history, food has served as a staple at ceremonies, events, and other gatherings. When life circumstances have not deprived you of the pleasures of meals and snacks, it is easy to take for granted the comfort, nourishment, memories, happiness, and social opportunities food provides.

Contrarily, find yourself in a situation where you are suddenly deprived of all ties you have to food, and it will feel as if your life is spiraling out of control. Imagine enjoying home-cooked meal after home-cooked meal and unexpectedly finding yourself in jail with the same baloney sandwich and lukewarm mush called dinner day in and day out. Imagine the freedom of strolling down a convenient store aisle and selecting the candy bar of your choice and then without warning, circumstances deprive you of all, or most, options. It would be a rude awakening.

In prison-run fire camps, families and friends of those in custody can bring coolers full of food and beverages (non-alcoholic, of course) to enjoy in the park together. There are grills on which you can prepare fresh hamburgers or warm up the neighborhood-award-winning macaroni and cheese. Picnic tables dot the visiting yard and provide ample space to set up large spreads of all the inmate’s favorite foods. Individuals expecting visitors frequently skip the standard prison food on the day the company arrives, and instead, chow down during their visits. After all, these visits—complete with feasts—last for hours. Loved ones catch up with one another while enjoying the fresh air and sharing a meal.

Unfortunately, the number of individuals in custody who get to enjoy such privileges is limited. County jails, as well as the majority of prison facilities, do not allow in outside food at all unless it comes from an on-property vending machine in the visiting area or commissary. Those behind bars are stuck eating the same mediocre (on a good day) food. If an inmate does not have any money on his or her books, it is impossible to supplement the despicable jailhouse food with just-add-water ramen bowls or other highly sought after food items that people on the outside would still not want to eat on a daily basis.

Given the important role that food plays in our society, there is no valid reason to deprive those in custody of homemade food and treats. Even if visitors cannot bring in food to all facilities due to security issues, penal institutions can and should provide higher quality meal options to inmates. Provide a cooking class. Let those behind bars participate in meal planning and meal preparation. Create cookbooks of the favorite family recipes of those behind bars and help them recreate these meals. Organize a chili cook-off and hold an awards ceremony. Bake cakes for a monthly birthday celebration. Provide inmates with a comfortable location outside of their cells to sit down, enjoy their meal, and socialize with their fellows.

Food is fuel. Just as vehicles need quality gas to function, the human body needs nutritious food to excel. Society should not tolerate jails and prisons feeding inmates food that its members would never dream of eating on a daily basis. If the food is not good enough—whether in quality or quantity—for the majority of the population, then society should not deem it appropriate for those charged with or accused of crimes.

Food is nourishment for the soul. Is not the goal of rehabilitation to nourish the soul? Jails and prisons should not be so terrified of allowing inmates to indulge in harmless luxuries that the rest of us take for granted. Small, yet meaningful, changes together make a world of difference. Try it, and see the results.

]]> 0