There are a lot of different viewpoints on the role of the United States in the global arena. Is the country still as influential as it once was? Are other countries catching up? And what about globalization and the multilateral approach to global governing? Read on to learn about the history of the United States’ status as a superpower.

How did the United States become a superpower?

The United States’ pilgrimage toward becoming the world’s superpower started at the dawn of the 19th century. After the 1898 Treaty of Paris, it became a colonial power with overseas territories, including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and the Island of Guam. At that point in time, the United States could already be viewed as a great power or emerging superpower. After the two World Wars, France, Germany, Japan, and Great Britain were in decline due to immense economic hardships and military losses. At the same time, the United States and the Soviet Union were rising to power, but creating a dangerous rivalry for global dominance.

After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the world’s sole superpower. The world moved from bipolarity to unimultipolarity, meaning that one nation began to project its influence to other nations. During the next several decades, the United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, the global War on Terror was started, the Middle East broke into chaos, and Latin America was defined by multiple American interventions. All in all, many significant events have happened, but how did they influence America’s international standing?

Is the United States a superpower now?

If the United States is still a superpower and not in decline, it should maintain military, political, economic, cultural, and scientific superiority as to exercise global dominance.

In fact, the United States has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. As of 2012, American military expenditures accounted for 4.35 percent of its GDP, and 37 percent of global military spending. Even though the U.S. military spending decreased by six percent in 2012, American military expenditures still outnumber those of China and Russia. The U.S. spends approximately $600 billion a year on its military, more than many countries combined. It has military bases all over the word, numbering at least 1,000, while other nations generally have few military installations outside their territories. In addition, the American drone air fleet is able to reach almost anywhere without deploying ground troops or aircraft carriers.

Economic development has slowed and debt has risen, but the American economy is one of the most advanced in the world. According to the CIA Factbook, “the U.S. has the most technologically powerful economy in the world.” Even though its GDP is third to China and the European Union, America maintains its economic dominance when comparing Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Its GDP per capita is significantly higher than those of China and Russia, accounting for $54,800 in 2014. But, there are also some problems, including:

Stagnation of wages for lower-income families, inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, and sizable current account and budget deficits.

In addition, the United States has the second largest foreign debt, and its account balance is $385 billion in the red. Its unemployment rate is also rather high at 6.2 percent in 2014, which is more than China and  Russia.

On the bright side, the United States has the most impressive world trade profile. Only China and the European Union export more than the U.S., while no other country imports more. But most importantly, the U.S. stock market is still the base of global finance, and the U.S. dollar is the global currency. More than 80 percent of worldwide transactions and 87 percent of foreign market transactions are conducted in the U.S. dollar.

America also has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Ivy League Universities, and can be considered the cultural, educational, and technological hub. More people immigrate to the United States than to any other country, contributing to the economy and innovation.

According to Michael Beckley, Assistant Professor at Tufts University and a former research fellow at the International Security Program at Harvard University, the United States is not in decline, but quite the opposite–it’s thriving. In this view, globalization is attracting economic activity, reinforcing American power in the global arena.

Robert Kagan, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the United States, argues a slightly different viewpoint. He believes that the United States has never had its way in foreign affairs to start with. According to Kagan, the decline of the United States’ influence is a myth and an illusion:

Much of today’s impressions about declining American influence are based on a nostalgic fallacy: that there was once a time when the United States could shape the whole world to suit its desires.

Is the United States’ world influence declining?

It’s commonly believed that the United States is experiencing the decline of its global power. Christopher Layne, Distinguished Professor of International Affairs and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, argues that global power is shifting from West to East, leading to an American decline in influence and loss of global dominance.

Those who support the notion that America’s superpower status is fading often argue the following:

• Due to its policies in the Middle East and Latin America, America lost its soft power influence over other countries. The war in Iraq is widely considered a failure that exhausted the U.S. military and broke the bank, increasing the country’s debt and leading to even greater proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East.
• Starting from the period of decolonization, America portrayed itself as a protector of human rights and democratic values. Nevertheless, after 9/11, the United States widely used torture against suspected terrorists, who were confined in Guantanamo Bay and other “black sites.” Basically, the United States condemns other countries for violating human rights but abuses those principles itself. America didn’t sign various important international treaties. For example, while the majority of countries can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court (ICC) if their leaders commit certain international crimes, the United States cannot, suggesting double standards and tendency toward unilateral decision-making.
• At home, the state of permanent impasse in Congress is making it extremely difficult to make any progress in making decisions or reforming outdated and often counterproductive laws. In addition, racial inequality and poverty are on the rise, and infrastructure is deteriorating without proper investments.
• The U.S. economy still hasn’t fully recovered from the 2008 financial collapse, while other countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Turkey are becoming stronger in terms of their economies and militaries.

Some even compare the United States with the British Empire, referring to its collapse a century ago. But, at the very least, this viewpoint suggests that America has lost the favor of many countries. Meanwhile, China has reached the status of a great power, and globalization has become omnipresent.

Stephen Walt, Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, argues that “the real issue is whether developments at home and overseas are making it harder for the United States to exercise the kind of dominant influence that it did for much of the latter half of the 20th century.”

According to this view, the United States is not declining and is still one of the most powerful countries in the world, but its capacity to lead global order has been diminished due to the array of domestic and foreign policy failures. As the Cold War ended, international relations also changed, making it more difficult for the United States to exercise its influence in the world.

Further, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, argues in his book “Superpower: Three choices for America’s Role in the World” that the United States is still a global superpower. Watch the video below with Ian Bremmer to learn more about possible scenarios.

How will the future world order look?

As world affairs become more hectic and complex, with multiple players reaching regional influence and certain countries, such as China, steadily gaining more power in the global arena, the world is turning toward multipolarity. According to Global Trends 2030, compiled by the National Intelligence Council, the United States will lose its superpower status by 2030. Global networks and coalitions will run the show, and no single country will have superpower status. Interestingly, Asia is predicted to experience greater democratization, and the region itself is expected to become more influential in global affairs.

And what about China?

During the last several decades, many countries have improved their global standings due to economic growth and strategic foreign policy moves. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The balance of global economic power is shifting from the United States and Europe to a number of fast-growing and large developing countries.” Among those countries are China, India, and Brazil. Russia and the European Union are also influential in the global arena.

China is often invoked as the most likely competitor of the United States in terms of superpower status. A Pew Research Center public opinion survey found that an increasing number of Americans view China as the next global superpower. However, China is still seen as “not yet influential.” While China’s economy grows, its military is still lacking. Many Chinese are still impoverished, it has serious water and soil-pollution problems, and its Communist Party is highly stratified and rigid. China’s geopolitical position is another issue. Most of its neighbors are allies of the United States and strong global powers, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia. North Korea and Taiwan are also risk factors.

Conclusion

The United States is still enjoying its superpower status, but times are changing. Other countries are rising and America’s power may be waning. In order to preserve its global leadership, the United States should nurture global relationships and behave according to international law and its democratic principles and values. As the world is moving toward multipolarity, America should also make more friends, not enemies. It should be setting an example of global leadership and stay true to its principles without abusing its power.

Resources

Forbes: Why the U.S. Remains the World’s Unchallenged Superpower

RealClearWorld: Why China is Still No Super Power

USA Today: Intel Report Sees U.S. Losing Superpower Status by 2030

Time: These Are the Five Reasons Why the U.S. Remains the World’s Only Superpower

Washington Post: A Changing World Order?

BBC News: U.S. Superpower Status is Shaken

On Point: The Declining Superpower?

American Conservative: America’s Declining Superpower Philanthropy

Foreign Affairs: Whether or Not the U.S. is Declining is the Wrong Question

New Republic: Not Fade Away

Pew Research Center: China Seen Overtaking U.S. as Global Superpower

Congressional Research Service: Rising Economic Powers and the Global Economy: Trends and Issues for Congress

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the United States a Superpower in Decline? appeared first on Law Street.

Violating criminal law can lead to considerable expenses, including pre-trial, court, prison, and post-release fines and fees. The growing debt of those who are released from correction facilities is not helping them to integrate back into society, but rather leads to more crime and poverty. Read on to learn about criminal justice fines and fees, and how they affect vulnerable populations.

How high are criminal justice fines and fees?

When people enter the criminal justice system, they may find themselves trapped by steep fees associated with pre-trial, sentencing, corrections, and post-release. As a person moves through the system, fees and fines follow. On average, such fees and fines can amount to $14,000-$25,000 for those who were convicted of drug-related charges. In one case, a woman owed nearly $100,000–an immense burden for someone re-entering society after serving years behind bars. In many cases, small fees pile up and can reach thousands of dollars. According to the latest estimations, 10 million Americans collectively owe more than $50 billion in fines and fees–debt accumulated through the criminal justice system. Most of them are convicted of non-violent and, often, drug-related offenses. They are also disproportionately poor and minorities. Surprisingly, even a minor infraction can result in jail time for those who are poor and unable to pay fines and related fees.

How does the system of fines and fees work?

Fines are “monetary charges imposed upon individuals who have been convicted of a crime or a lesser offense.” It can be a traffic violation or any other crime, but fines for drug crimes are notoriously high. Oklahoma Watch gives some estimates of fines for drug-related offenses:

A conviction for sale or distribution of 25 to 1,000 pounds of hashish or concentrates comes with a maximum $100,000 fine…A third misdemeanor conviction of possessing marijuana paraphernalia brings a maximum one year in prison and $10,100 fine.

At the same time, a felony count of driving under the influence amounts only to $443, a big difference from drug crimes that can lead to tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and, in some cases, a lengthy prison sentence.

If a fine is imposed as a result of a crime, fees are charged for administration and providing services, or simply to supplement state and local budgets. There are a myriad of fees that American courts, prisons, and probation services impose on those who are channeled through the criminal justice system.

Pre-Trial Fees

Pre-trial fees are charges that are imposed on a person prior to a formal conviction. It starts with a fingerprinting fee ($5) and a jail fee for pre-trial incarceration ($25). An application fee to obtain a public defender could be also quite costly, ranging from $10 to $400 depending on the state. At least 43 states and the District of Columbia bill defendants for a public attorney. In some states this fee cannot be waived even for the poorest of defendants. In Florida and Ohio, a public defender fee is required even if charges are eventually dropped. Often, public defender fees are imposed when one applies for a public attorney, during the initial court proceedings, and at the end of the trial–the so-called public defender reimbursement fee. If one wants to post bond to be released while court proceedings are taking place, the bond fee is required (around $35) plus the bond amount determined by the judge. Some states also bill defendants for their own arrest warrants and charge a fee for a jury trial. For example, in Washington, a six-person jury costs $125, while a 12-person jury is twice as much.

Sentencing Fees

During the sentencing process a person is charged with a crime and either convicted or acquitted. In most drug cases, defendants plead guilty as mandatory sentencing laws can land one in prison for a long time versus pleading guilty to a lesser charge that requires probation supervision or a short period of time in jail. In any case, one ends up paying fees for court administrative costs, designated funds that can include libraries and prison construction, and prosecution reimbursement fees.

Courts often order lab tests, including DNA collection and drug testing. The fees for lab analysis can reach $165. If mandatory drug treatment is ordered, one has to make payments to revolving funds for drug education ($155) and any additional fees associated with drug treatment.

Other fees can be collected to assist crime victims. These fees are usually paid to a trauma-care fund, or for mental-health services for the victim. At the same time, restitution payments can be ordered to compensate a victim.

In Washington, a convicted person is presented with the Legal Financial Obligations (LFO), which include fines and fees as well as other costs associated with a case. In addition to the initial amount of the bill, the state charges 12 percent interest and $100 per year for a collection fee if one chooses to pay over time. The average felony conviction bill is around $2,540, and LFO cannot expire or be discharged in bankruptcy.

Some courts offer community service as an alternative to paying fees. But even this scenario has a catch. Courts can charge a day fee, usually around $5 every time one shows up for community work.

Incarceration Fees

The practice of charging inmates for their own incarceration, including clothing and doctors visits–the so-called “pay-to-stay”–was pioneered in the state of Michigan in 1984. As of now, at least 43 states charge inmates for room and board in jail and prison. Some state prisons charge only those inmates who are on work release or have a prison job, while others deduct money from inmates’ commissary accounts. When talking about jails, most of them operate on a per diem charge. Simply put, it’s a daily cell rental. Each county is free to decide the amount of this charge, with some reaching as high as $60 per day in California, or as low as $1 in Virginia.

Inmates in 35 states are charged for medical expenses while incarcerated. Most states require inmates to pay for every single doctor’s visit, around $5 each. Others, like Texas, charge a $100 yearly fee if a person visits a doctor at least once during that year. Three states–Missouri, Nevada and Michigan–charge their inmates for clothing. Tennessee joined that list in 2013, also charging for blankets, towels, and toilet paper.

Some county jails have been transformed into forms of involuntary hotels. In Fremont, California, inmates are offered more comfortable and rather small amenities for a one-time fee of $45 and an additional $155 per night. Many other states have similar practices.

In many states, released inmates are still liable for fees associated with their incarceration. In Florida and Wisconsin, if a formerly incarcerated person dies, his property can be confiscated for any unpaid debt.

Post-Release Fees

In 44 states, people sentenced to probation or released on parole are required to pay for their own supervision. Costs of probation can go up to $80 per month, and many states require a one-time fee to enter a parole program. Pennsylvania charges $60 to all those who were released on parole.

Costs of probation supervision can go even higher if one requires an electronic monitoring device. All states except Hawaii and the District of Columbia require a rental fee for electronic monitoring devices. In some states, parolees can pay up to $300 a month for their own electronic monitoring supervision.

When a person is convicted of drunk driving, his license is often revoked and he is required to install a vehicle interlock device that contains built-in drug test that a person is required to take in order to start the engine. In both cases there are fees for installment and maintenance of the device and for reinstatement of a license.

Other expenses can include fees for mandatory drug or alcohol treatment, therapy, and drug testing. Mandatory drug testing in drug court can cost between $80 to $100 per month.

Other Fees and Penalties

The overwhelming majority of people released from correctional facilities pay for court and prison-related costs through monthly installments that incur additional costs, including interest, payment plan fees, collection fees, and late fees. In Florida, failure to pay a fee can result in a $300 surcharge, while in California there is a 40 percent surcharge that has to be paid to private collection agencies. Some states go even further, allowing courts to send people back to jail or prison for not being able to pay their fines and fees, and for the failure to appear at court hearings about their debt. Some states, like Missouri, also allow inmates to trade their debt for more jail time, by crediting inmates with $10 per day toward their fines and fees. In addition, in some counties people can lose their license, food stamps, and even be denied the right to vote until all the debt is paid. But, perhaps, the most disturbing practice is when, due to small traffic fees, low-income people end up in debtor jails.

What are the issues with fees and fines?

The primary reason why states increase fees and introduce new ones is their lack of resources. With the War on Drugs, the number of admissions to prisons skyrocketed, forcing states to introduce new fines in order to support their budgets. In Oklahoma, the number of criminal justice fees increased from 23 to 63 since 1992. Since 1996, Florida came up with 20 new fees as well. As a result, there are a myriad of fees that add up to a considerable sum of money, especially for impoverished and unemployed people. Fines and fees are practically charged for anything and everything, including public attorneys, jail cells, court litigation, prison beds, and probation services. Fines and fees are expensive and omnipresent at every step of the justice system.

Discrimination Against the Poor 

Poor people face more difficulties paying their criminal justice bills. The majority are African Americans and Latinos. As these groups are historically marginalized and impoverished, even a relatively small bill could be an immense burden. For that reason, poor people have considerable disadvantages and are discriminated against for simply “being poor.” Some of them may also have mental illness, substance abuse problems, and child support payments to juggle. Adding jail time and debt is a recipe for a failure. Needless to say, poverty isn’t a crime and inability to pay criminal justice fines should never lead to incarceration. But, in America it does, with local jails being transformed into debtors prisons. As many poor people end up in debt and unable to pay steep fines and fees associated with their cases, they are thrown in jail. It’s partly due to aggressive collective practices by local and state courts, administrated through for-profit probation services. Currently, 13 states allow their municipalities to outsource probation to the private sector. As U.S. News & World Report explains:

If an offender is found guilty and can’t pay his or her fine on the spot, he or she is referred to the private probation company, which will usually establish a payment plan and oversee the person until the fine is paid in full. If the person falls behind on their payments, they become subject to having their probation revoked and in some cases could face jail time.

Barriers to Re-Entry & Recidivism

The system of fines and fees is not particularly helping those released from correction facilities. Formerly incarcerated people already face multiple barriers to re-entry into society. It’s extremely hard to find a decent-paying job with a felony conviction as every job application requires disclosure of convictions. If a person can’t find a job and has debt, or worse, is homeless, his life chances diminish considerably. Steep fines and fees perpetuate more crime and poverty, leaving formerly incarcerated people powerless and without any prospects for the future.

Fines and Fees Don’t Save States Money

The current system of fines and fees isn’t saving money or raising revenue for the states because it requires vast resources to maintain and support clerks, attorneys, judges, and probation officers, all those who collect fees and fines from offenders. In the end, prisons spend more money on incarceration than in collected fees, due to the fact that the majority of inmates are poor and unable to pay those fees. Almost a quarter of inmates go to homeless shelters after release and many are unemployed for years. Essentially, the system doesn’t produce the intended results, but delivers unintended negative consequences.

Conclusion

It’s understandable that states are trying to balance budgets through fines and fees, but how far is too far? Criminal justice system fees and fines accumulate into immense debt for the most vulnerable citizens. Poor people are punished for being poor with more fees and jail time, while those who are released from prison face more barriers to re-entry. Courts and prisons are still spending more than they are making. In this scenario, everybody looses.

Resources

Oklahoma Watch: Prisoners of Debt: Justice System Imposes Steep Fines, Fees

Time: Welcome to Prison. Will You Be Paying Cash or Credit?

ACLU: Modern-Day Debtors’ Prisons: The Ways Court-Imposed Debts Punish People for Being Poor

NPR: As Court Fees Rise, the Poor Are Paying the Price

Guardian: America Cannot Lock its Poor in Debtor’s Prisons to Fund its Police Departments

U.S. News & World Report: Private Misdemeanor Probation Industry Faces New Scrutiny

Knoxville News Sentimental: Low-Income Criminal Defendants Face Mounting Fees, Even for Public Defenders

Brennan Center for Justice: Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry

Brennan Center for Justice: Tennessee Inmates Must ‘Pay-to-Stay’

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debtor’s Prison: How Fines and Fees Trap Poor Americans in the Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

There has been a lot of talk lately about police brutality in connection with the killings of unarmed Black men. As a result of these discussions, the issue of police militarization has also become a hotly contested topic. Do we need highly militarized police forces in our communities? What are the issues behind government-sponsored militarization practices? Read on to learn about the history of police militarization, the main issues, and the current efforts to demilitarize.

How have our police become militarized?

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Thus, the distinction between police officers and soldiers was stipulated in the Bill of Rights. This fundamental principle was further codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that limits the power of the government to operate military forces inside its borders. It was clear from the beginning that the police should maintain peace inside the country, while military troops protect U.S. interests outside the borders.

During the Prohibition Era, criminal syndicates became involved in the  manufacturing and distribution of alcohol in the United States. At that time, the police also became more militarized, deploying armored cars and automatic weapons to counteract illegal alcohol “bootlegging.”

During the race riots of the 1950s-60s, police militarization continued. The Watts Riots of 1965 played a crucial role when SWAT teams were deployed to combat the violence. The upturn in the usage of battlefield weapons can be traced to this period as well.

The 1970-80s were marked by the rise of drug trafficking and the inception of the Medellin Cartel, one of the most powerful international narcotic rings. At the same time, street gangs began to hold considerable weapons arsenals, resulting in shoot outs and gun violence in some inner-city neighborhoods. As drug traffickers and local gangsters were heavily weaponized, police continued militarizing their departments as well.

But the most profound transformation came with the inception of the War on Drugs, initiated by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. During this time, the federal government started its long-term attempts at militarization and weaponization of local law enforcement agencies, primarily to enforce drug laws. Thus, the practice of transferring the army’s military equipment to police departments was born. The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act established close ties between the U.S. military and police by allowing military forces to aid police departments in drug and counterterrorism operations as well as in cases of civil disturbances. It’s widely believed that the War on Drugs introduced the large scale militarization of police departments, shifting the government focus from the civil unrest of the 1960s toward drug enforcement.

In 1997, the Clinton Administration created the 1033 Program, authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act. This initiative legitimized transfers of surplus military equipment from the Department of Defense (DoD) to police departments across the country to aid local law enforcement agencies in their anti-drug operations. Most of the transferable equipment came from U.S. involvement in wars, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To utilize this surplus of military equipment, it was further distributed to police departments across the country, and led to police agencies even obtaining mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

After 9/11, the militarization of police departments accelerated as the Patriot Act of 2001 came into play. Since 2003, militarization has become large scale, with the federal government giving grants as well as military gear, mainly through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Besides federal programs, the militarization of police was achieved through the expansion of companies that build military gear and sell it directly to police departments or the federal government. As of now, many  police departments are highly militarized with MRAT vehicles, SWAT teams, and military-grade gear, often originally intended for use in the battlefield.

How militarized is the American police force?

As was discussed above, the militarization of American police is channeled mainly through the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The numbers are staggering. In 1990, police departments received just $1 million worth of military equipment, but in 2013 this number reached $450 million.  By 2005, more than 17,000 police departments received military gear from the DoD. In the same vein, from 2002 until 2011, DHS dispensed $35 billion in grants to state and local police departments.

American police forces have sniper rifles, armored vehicles, and all sorts of heavy weaponry. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, at least 63 police departments received 15,054 pieces of personal protective equipment, and around 500 police departments obtained MRAP vehicles, all through government-sponsored initiatives, including the DoD’s 1033 program.

In addition, the use of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams has greatly increased throughout the last decades. In 1980, SWAT teams were utilized only 3,000 times–now they are deployed on a regular basis, around 50,000 times a year. By 2007, more than 80 percent of police departments in large cities with populations higher than 25,000 had SWAT teams.

What are the issues against militarized police forces?

There is no doubt that police officers should be well equipped to protect peace and security in American communities. The question is whether the current level of police militarization makes our communities safer and more secure or harms the very people police departments are trying to protect. Here are some of the arguments against police militarization.

It’s Unnecessary

Police militarization is unnecessary, especially when talking about small cities that have hardly any crime. There are a myriad of towns that have few murders but huge arsenals of military-grade gear and SWAT teams. For example, there were only three murders in Keene, a small town in New Hampshire, from 1999 till 2012, but its police department has spent $286,000 on an armored personnel carrier, in addition to spendings on other military gear. Federal programs provide incentives for law enforcement to obtain military equipment, even when it’s not needed.

It’s Dangerous

Highly militarized and well trained SWAT teams were designed for deployment in dangerous situations, for example, hostage situations or mass shoot-outs. Now, SWAT teams are used in routine drug enforcement operations. Overall, 79 percent of SWAT teams are deployed to execute search warrants, while only seven percent are used in high-risk situations.

SWAT teams often force their way inside a house, use violent tactics that may inflict bodily harm or property damage to homeowners, and scare children who may suffer psychological damage after the experience. In fact, 65 percent of such teams forced their way into people’s homes, relying on “no-knock” warrants. SWAT teams are also employed to counteract illegal gambling, underage drinking, and other low level non-life threatening crimes.

It Incites Violence

According to multiple psychological studies, paramilitary police forces can incite violence in communities. It’s called the “weapons effect,” meaning that people feel the threat of violence and get ready to fight back when they encounter military-like weapons and large machinery. Simply put, the mere presence of paramilitary police forces can escalate situations and produce tensions between police and community members that could be avoided if police would engage with people in a friendly way. In 2014 alone, 623 Americans were killed by the police.

Asset Forfeiture

Some argue that asset forfeiture is one of the primary ways used to fund police militarization. Many law enforcement agencies use money obtained through asset forfeiture to buy military gear, machinery, and other military-grade equipment. In 1986, the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund controlled $93.7 million; in 2012 the fund held $6 billion. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not asset forfeiture laws are discriminatory and unfair, with many lawmakers and politicians casting their support for changes in the matter. At the core of asset forfeiture laws is the principle that any property involved in committing a crime can be seized by the government, even if a person is not convicted or even charged with a crime. This argument holds that law enforcement chooses to raid homes to seize a house, or bust drug deals during monetary transactions to seize the cash. Such practices often happen in communities of color and focus on drug-related crimes. A 2013 investigative piece by New Yorker reporter Sarah Stillman provides that:

Thousands of police departments nationwide have recently acquired stun grenades, armored tanks, counterattack vehicles, and other paramilitary equipment, much of it purchased with asset-forfeiture funds.

No Public Oversight

Militarization of the police came into being without any public oversight. There were no public debates in this regard, and no agency was empowered to monitor military equipment transfers. The lack of transparency is evident in the inadequacy and sometimes even complete absence of records that document and track police militarization. The ACLU reports on the omission of information, deficiency in reporting, and nonexistence of government monitoring, all regarding the amount of military gear and its usage.

Communities of Color

SWAT team deployment and the overall militarization of the police increased while violent crime fell. It also coincided with the inception of the “War of Drugs,” which disproportionally targeted communities of color by raiding low-income communities and public housing in the search for drugs. According to the ACLU, 61 percent of SWAT raids were executed in minority communities, and 68 percent of those were drug related. At the same time, white people were usually targeted by SWAT teams only in serious and life-threatening situations, not drug raids. A similar argument is explained in a highly acclaimed book by Michele Alexander “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” where she talks about marginalization of Black communities and the creation of a new caste-like system based on race. According to her argument, the War on Drugs was waged to marginalize Black communities by disproportionately incarcerating young Black men. In this regard, the militarization of police was a necessary step to enforce punitive drug laws.

Police Imagery

When police officers are riding in MRAT vehicles and wearing highly militarized gear, some worry it sends the wrong message to communities. Police encounters can be highly traumatic experiences for anybody, but especially for communities of color that are often policed more aggressively. Instead of patrolling by foot and engaging with the community members, police officers use military-grade gear and painted camouflage vehicles. Thus, police officers are perceived more as soldiers fighting an enemy. As a result, the relationships between communities and police departments have become hostile. Community members are scared of the police and often don’t want to cooperate or even interact with law enforcement.

Big Business

For American companies that produce military equipment and gear, the militarization of police is a big business. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Blackhawk Industries sell their military equipment to police departments, or donate money to those politicians who favor further militarization of law enforcement. For example, politicians who voted against Representative Alan Grayson’s (D-FL) efforts aimed at limiting police militarization received on average a 73 percent increase in defense industry donations than those who supported his efforts. Besides the selling of equipment, military contractors sponsor training sessions for SWAT teams and other events to promote their products and sell them to police departments across the United States.

Current Efforts to Demilitarize Police Departments

Police militarization went largely unchallenged for decades. Only recent events, such as protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were able to shed some light on the issue of ongoing police militarization. When protests in Ferguson erupted, police met protesters with armored cars and military gear designed for battlefields. As the media was covering the events, millions of Americans were able to see the aggressive and intimidating images of highly armored police from Ferguson.

The #BlackLivesMatter movement also added fuel to the fire by demanding government to stop transferring military gear to local law enforcement agencies, and start dismantling the existing arsenals.

Eventually, the Obama Administration delivered a long-awaited response. A new policy focuses on the 1033 Program by regulating military equipment transfers, overseeing and monitoring the usage of military equipment, and reshaping police practices toward community-oriented approaches. For example, armored and weaponized vehicles as well as grenade launchers will be forbidden for transfer. Other transferable equipment will be regulated with restrictions and certain conditions for transfer. Essentially, a police department will have to justify the need for military equipment by presenting arguments and explaining precisely why and for what purposes it will be used. In addition, a new federal agency will be empowered with monitoring military equipment transfers and even conducting local compliance reviews if needed. The new policy also mentions community-based policing as a desired form of conducting police business. Police departments will have to engage with residents more, nurture trust, and build relationships with local leaders and youth in order to receive federal grants in the first place.

Conclusion

As the United States has the highest per capita gun ownership in the Western world, it’s assumed that police departments should also be highly militarized. But militarization has many issues and unintended consequences that cannot be ignored. Instead of weaponizing police officers, law enforcement officials should focus on engaging with residents and building meaningful relationships, not casting fear and intimidation with MRAT vehicles and heavy weaponry. It’s not only about limiting the 1033 Program, but reforming asset forfeiture laws, limiting aggressive drug enforcement in low-income communities, and providing clear guidelines regarding when SWAT teams are appropriate for deployment. It’s paramount that local activists and elected officials continue to demand accountability from police departments, and push the current efforts even further.

Resources

Washington Post: Obama Moves to Demilitarize America’s Police

Washington Post: Demilitarizing the Police is Not an Option. What is?

Pacific Standard: The Psychological Reason Local Police Don’t Need the Military’s Left-Over Weapons

Huffington Post: President Adopts Amendment Against Police Militarization

Economist: Disarming Warrior Cops

Economist: How America’s Police Became So Heavily Armed

Economist: Cops or Soldiers?

International Business Times: Police Militarization History Stretches Back to Civil Rights Movement

American Civil Liberties Union: War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing

Alternet: 11 Shocking Facts About America’s Militarized Police Forces

1920-30: Prohibition

National Gang Center Bulletin: History of Street Gangs in the United States

New Yorker: Taken

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Militarization of American Police: How Far is Too Far? appeared first on Law Street.

A Human Rights Watch report released this month titled “Callous and Cruel: Use of Force Against Inmates With Mental Disabilities in U.S. Jails and Prisons,” reported on the treatment of mentally ill inmates in prisons. The report documented major abuses in the prison system and major flaws in the availability of mental health services, and indicates that mentally ill do not do well in the American prison system. But why do they end up in correctional facilities in the first place? Read on to learn about mental health care in the United States and how it intersects with criminal justice.

How many mentally ill people are in correctional facilities?

People with mental illnesses are heavily represented in correctional facilities across the United States. In 2006, mentally ill inmates numbered 705,600 in state prisons, 78,800 in federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. In 2009, mentally ill individuals were on parole and probation at rates two to four times the general population. As of 2012, there were 356,368 mentally ill inmates in American jails and prisons. At the same time, psychiatric facilities hosted only 35,000 mentally ill patients, ten times less than the number of mentally ill inmates housed in correction facilities.

By various estimations, 20 percent of jail inmates and 15 percent of state prisoners, including violent and non-violent offenders, have some sort of mental ailment. Some of them were born with mental illnesses, while many acquired mental disabilities as the result of various circumstances. 

Why are so many mentally ill Americans in the prison system?

In order to understand why so many mentally ill Americans end up in correctional facilities instead of psychiatric hospitals, it’s important to look at the history and the changing dynamics of mental health care in the United States.

Using prisons and jails to house mentally ill people is not a new phenomenon. In fact, from 1770 to 1820, individuals with mental disabilities were routinely confined to correctional facilities. This practice was condemned as cruel and inhumane. As a result, the government asserted its obligation to care for and treat mentally ill people in a more suitable environment, creating a wide net of mental health hospitals across the country. Before the 1940s, the majority of mentally ill individuals, especially those with severe mental ailments, were housed in public mental institutions.

This situation changed in the beginning of 1950s. The government was again criticized for the inhumane treatment of mentally ill patients, now housed in psychiatric facilities, resulting in the inception of the deinstitutionalization movement. From this point on, instead of providing treatment and care in public mental hospitals, the government shifted the policies toward community-based treatment centers. The deal was sealed by the Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 that pushed mental health care away from state-run psychiatric hospitals and toward community-based centers. These changes allowed those with mental ailments to live in the community while receiving treatment at nearby mental facilities.

But in practice, this shift in policies created a disconnect between the care and treatment of mentally ill people, especially those with severe and chronic mental ailments. After deinstitutionalization, many were left without needed care as the government’s focus shifted toward outpatient mental services.

Shifting mental health policies toward outpatient services and breaking the link between treatment and care resulted in the decline of inpatient care and depreciation of state mental hospitals. In 1959, public psychiatric hospitals housed 559,000 mentally ill patients, by the late 1990s there were only 70,000 patients in such facilities. Now, there are only 35,000 patients in psychiatric hospitals, the lowest number in decades. Most states don’t even have enough psychiatric beds. From 2009-2012, the government disposed of 4,500 beds in public psychiatric hospitals. For example, Connecticut has only 20 beds per 100,000 people, while the nationally recommended standard is 50 beds per 100,000 people.

Thus, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services shifted public spending toward prescription drugs and outpatient treatment, largely ignoring the needs of those mentally ill people who required inpatient treatment. At the same time, access to outpatient mental health services proved to be worse than access to any other health services. In 2010, there were 156,300 mental health counselors in the United States. It’s estimated that 89.3 million Americans are living in areas that lack mental health professionals.

Mental health care is very expensive. In fact, 45 percent of people who suffer from some sort of mental illness fail to receive appropriate treatment due to the high costs associated with mental health services. A quarter of those who are mentally ill and have sought outpatient mental health services end up largely paying for treatment themselves, with out-of-pocket costs ranging from $100 to $5,000.

From 2009 to 2012, state governments, who pay most of the mental health care costs, also cut $5 billion from their funding overall, negatively influencing the availability and price of outpatient mental health services. 

The failure of the current mental health system to treat and care for people with severe and chronic mental illnesses paired with the lack of access to outpatient services is what has brought so many mentally ill people into the prison system. Those who have severe and/or chronic mental illnesses and cannot get access to outpatient mental health treatment, often end up in the criminal justice system. Before deinstitutionalization mentally ill people with severe and chronic illnesses were hospitalized, reducing their chances to break the law and come in contact with law enforcement. Some experts argue that beginning in the 1970s the United States has turned back toward incarceration practices resembling the 1800s paradigm of confining mentally ill people instead of treating and caring for them.

How do people with mental illnesses end up in the prison system?

Often, mentally ill people are arrested for crimes that could be avoided with proper mental health treatment or inpatient services. Those crimes are more bothersome than dangerous, and can include disorderly conduct, trespassing, disturbing the peace, and public intoxication. 

As 25-50 percent of mentally ill people in American prisons also suffer from substance abuse disorders, and 60 percent reported using drugs, alcohol, or both a month prior to their arrest, substance abuse issues can increase the likelihood of people with mental illnesses ending up in jail or prison. 

After initial contact with law enforcement, mentally ill individuals go through the court system. Due to harsh drug sentencing policies, such as “zero tolerance” and mandatory sentencing for certain drug offenses, mentally ill people are often sentenced to jail or prison terms.

All in all, those with mental disorders have a higher chance of coming into contact with law enforcement, mostly due to their mental condition. If they are regularly using drugs or alcohol, the chances are even higher. But, instead of offering treatment and support services to those with mental illnesses, the American justice system often uses the most punitive approach: incarceration.

What are the issues with incarcerating mentally ill individuals? 

Inadequate Staff Training

Inadequate staff training is one of the most important issues when talking about mentally ill people in the prison system. Many correction officers and jail deputies receive no guidance in how to interact with mentally ill inmates. Prison staff often don’t recognize symptoms of mental illness, nor do they use appropriate techniques, such as verbal de-escalation, when communicating with such inmates. Even when mental health professionals are available in the vicinity of the prison, guards rarely call for their intervention.

Physical Abuse

According to the recent Human Rights Watch Report, mentally ill inmates in American prisons and jails are regularly abused, including physically, by prison staff. The study cites the use of chemical sprays and stun guns as well as strapping mentally ill inmates to chairs and beds for prolonged periods of time. 

Solitary Confinement

Besides the fact that mentally ill inmates often suffer from physical abuse from prison or jail staff, they are also more often held in isolation, sometimes for months. According to a 2010 audit of three state prisons in Wisconsin, 55-75 percent of inmates in solitary confinement were mentally ill. Prolonged isolation of such inmates can exacerbate their conditions and increase symptoms of mental illness, often resulting in more misconduct instead of compliance.

Management Problems

As life in correctional facilities is heavily regulated and supervised, mentally impaired individuals can experience issues following rules, creating additional problems for prison guards. In many cases, their behavior is symptomatic, meaning that it’s conditioned by mental illness. They can  refuse to follow orders, and sometimes injure themselves, all things that can disrupt the daily routines of correction officers and other inmates. In some cases mentally ill inmates are provocative and can pose a danger to themselves or others.

Lack of Treatment

As prisons are not psychiatric hospitals, they often lack  mental health services as well as mental health professionals. Inmates are often not properly diagnosed, don’t have timely access to mental health services, and are often treated with medications only. Correctional facilities cannot usually aid mentally ill inmates in their recovery or even alleviate symptoms of their mental illnesses. In fact, the most helpful procedures for mentally ill patients are often not used in correctional facilities. Mentally ill inmates rarely receive therapeutic mental health interventions or participate in psychiatric rehabilitation programs.

Longer Stay

Mentally ill inmates usually stay in the prison system longer than those who have no mental issues. There are two primary reasons for this. First, mentally ill inmates can be less obedient due to their mental disorder, leading to additional charges and prolonged sentences. The other reason centers on the long waiting periods for beds in psychiatric hospitals. For example, in Florida’s Orange County Jail the average stay for mentally ill inmates is twice as long than for those without mental illnesses. In New York’s Riker’s Island Jail, the average stay for a mentally ill inmate is even longer—215 days–compared with 42 days for inmates without mental ailments. 

It’s Expensive

The cost of holding mentally ill inmates in prisons and jails is higher than average. This is due to the higher spendings on mental health services, including medications and staffing. It’s estimated that mentally ill inmates cost $130 a day, $50 more than average. The overall cost of incarcerating mentally ill inmates can be two to three times higher than average. 

Suicide & Rape

Mentally ill inmates are more likely to commit suicide than inmates who do not have mental illnesses. Multiple studies confirmed that the harsh prison conditions and the lack of proper treatment can increase the odds of suicide for this population. For example, a 2002 study of a Washington county jail noted that 77 percent of all suicides were committed by inmates with a mental illness. Sexual assault is another danger for mentally ill inmates. Many are are sexually assaulted, and their likelihood of being raped is higher than the general population in American prisons and jails. 

Watch the video below to get a full picture of mental health behind bars:

Conclusion

It’s evident that there are many issues with incarceration of mentally ill people, as there are many shortcomings and flaws in American mental health care, especially in prisons and jails. Such a system creates a cycle of incarceration for mentally ill people, by providing no remedies after the initial release. States should invest in more beds in public mental hospitals and provide better access to outpatient community treatment programs. It’s time to start treating and caring for the mentally ill, not just incarcerating them. 

Resources

Primary

National Institute of Corrections: Mentally Ill Persons in Corrections

Additional

Health Affairs: Mental Health Policy in America: Myths and Realities

The New York Times: Mentally Ill Inmates Are Routinely Physically Abused, Study Says

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel: Use of Force against Inmates with Mental Disabilities in US Jails and Prisons

Washington Post: A Shocking Number of Mentally ill Americans End up in Prison Instead of Treatment

West Hartford News: Lawyers: Mentally Ill Need Services, not Prison

Treatment Advocacy Center: How Many Individuals with Serious Mental Illness are in Jails and Prisons? – Backgrounder

Mother Jones: There Are 10 Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

Stanford Law School: Three Strikes Project: When did Prisons Become Acceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities?

Washington Post: Seven facts about America’s Mental Health-care System

USA Today: Cost of Not Caring: Nowhere to Go

HNGN: Human Rights Watch: Mentally Ill Prisoners Are Abused In U.S. Correctional Facilities

The Sentencing Project: Mentally Ill Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: An Analysis and Prescription

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are American Prisons Becoming Psychiatric Hospitals? appeared first on Law Street.

Art education can benefit students in different ways, including improving student performance across the whole curriculum. But art programs in schools are often the first to be cut, if budget cuts are necessary. As a result, many students are missing out on the benefits of art classes. So, is it important to provide art education in schools? Read on to learn about art programs’ benefits and the issues with funding them for public school students.

What is the current state of art education in American schools?

Art education in public schools usually includes any combination of dance, music, drama/theatre, and visual arts classes. It’s usually funded by the federal, state, and local governments, but not all schools provide their students with art education.

Budget Cuts

Following the recent recession, budgets cuts were consistent in schools across the U.S., with more than 95 percent of students attending schools with significantly reduced budgets. It’s estimated that since 2008, more than 80 percent of schools nationwide experienced cuts to their budgets. As a remedy in some instances, art programs were partially or completely eliminated from affected school districts. Dance and theatre classes in particular were cut drastically. During the 1999-2000 school year, 20 percent of schools offered dance and theatre classes, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 3 percent of schools allocated funds for dance classes, and only 4 percent taught theatre. The number of schools that offered music classes didn’t change significantly over the last decade, indicating no budget cuts in that subject area, with 94 percent of schools still offering music classes. But the number of schools offering visual arts programs dropped from 87 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2009-10. In 2013, public schools in major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are still struggling with budget cuts, resulting in the continued elimination of art programs across affected school districts. Due to budget constraints, fewer schools offer art classes today than a decade ago.

Emphasis on Core Subjects

In addition to less money being spent on education because of the recession, various government policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards have placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and reading. In doing so, they have sidelined arts education. In light of these policies, school districts began re-directing funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order to increase the overall scores of their students.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The act was then re-authorized to ensure better access to high-quality education for all children, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or class. As the emphasis was placed on core subjects, such as math and reading, funding for art programs decreased significantly, especially for those art classes that required studio materials. As a result, art education in some schools was completely eliminated, although children still sometimes had the option to take certain art classes after school with volunteer teachers. In some school districts, art classes were still offered, but only with a limited number of seats.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a current state-wide initiative that emphasizes the development of skills needed for students to succeed in college and future careers. As of now, 46 states have CCSS and are working on implementation. Similar to No Child Left Behind, CCSS focuses on those subjects that require standardized testing, and doesn’t include art education in its core. As a result, many schools choose to allocate funds for math and English language classes, often at the expense of art education. However, the Common Core Standards references arts in the curriculum, by some estimations, 75 times. In this regard, some art educators and advocates believe that art education can be aligned with the Common Core standards. To promote integration of art classes, the new National Core Arts Standards were developed and released to the public in 2014 as a conceptual framework. In 2015, a model cornerstone assessment pilot project was launched “to demonstrate the type of standards-based evidence needed to show student achievement.” These assessments will continue in 2016.

Disparities in Accessing Art Education

Even though art programs were slashed nationwide, schools with higher concentrations of impoverished students or minority students suffered the most. According to 2008 data, African-American and Hispanic students were two times less likely to have access to art programs in their school districts in comparison to their white peers. Interestingly, the rates of African-American and Hispanic students who have received art education while in school have been declining since the beginning of 1990s. In 1992, 50.9 percent of African-American 18-24 year olds received art education in childhood, while in 2008, only 26.2 percent of the same demographic had access to art classes in schools. Similar numbers are true for Hispanic children: 47.2 percent had art education in 1992 and only 28.1 percent had the option in 2008. In comparison, there were no comparable rates of decline in art education for white 18-24 year olds.

Most of the schools that serve low-income students already have reduced budgets due to the recession and its aftermath. In addition, as many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests. If a school fails these standards it may be placed into program improvement status. In this situation, art classes become even less of a priority, and may be significantly reduced or completely cut from the curriculum. Art programs in schools that have a large number of low-income students are also rarely restored. While more affluent school districts can rely on private funding to still provide art education for students, or parents can simply pay for after-school art classes, children in poor neighborhoods most likely don’t have those options. This scenario creates disparities in access to art education between communities.

What are the benefits of art education?

It’s evident that art classes are the first to be cut from the budget, the last to be restored, and often unavailable for low-income students. But why do we need art classes at all?

Improved Performance

First and foremost, art education improves the overall performance of students, including in the core academic subjects that are often emphasized by standardized testing requirements. Students who took four years of art classes scored 91 points higher on their SAT exams than those who took half a year or less. Multiple studies also confirmed that there is a correlation between art engagement and students’ other achievements. Students who regularly participated in art classes were four times more likely to be recognized for their achievements.

Higher Graduation Rates

Art education can help keep students in school. Schools with long-standing art programs have higher graduation rates. In many instances, art classes motivate students to stay in school, especially low-achieving students, by fostering closer ties with peers and creating community-oriented environments.

Inspiration and Creativity

Art can inspire students to create and express themselves in a variety of forms. It provides the spark that keeps children engaged and allows them to have fun while exploring the world through different art forms. Art education develops creativity and problem-solving skills, improves judgement, and shows children that there are multiple perspectives. Finally, it encourages inventiveness, helping foster innovative thinkers.

Child Development

Children in elementary schools can greatly benefit from art classes, as they are still growing physically and mentally. Visual arts classes are highly recommended for developing motor skills in young children. Every time a child holds a paintbrush or cuts with safety scissors, his motor and dexterity skills improve. The same is true for developing language skills. Young children can learn colors, shapes, and descriptive words while making simple art projects and discussing them with their peers and teacher. In fact, 33 percent of children are visual learners, meaning they absorb information from images. Art classes can help to improve visual-spatial skills and hand eye coordination.

Music education at a younger age is also very beneficial as it helps to connect both hemispheres of the brain, producing long-lasting improvements in communication and listening. In fact, children who play musical instruments just thirty minutes a week have more developed brains than their peers.

Art also makes children aware of different cultures, traditions, and customs, providing a foundation for understanding racial diversity, which is an important part of American society and history. All in all, art education has tremendous benefits for elementary school students, as it helps children to develop physical skills, brain functions, and ideas.

At-Risk Youth

Art classes are beneficial for students in many ways, but especially for children who are low-income and live in impoverished neighborhoods. Art programs can keep at-risk youth off the streets, and, consequently, away from correctional institutions. Not only can art programs provide incentives for these children to stay in school, but it can also improve their academic performance, including reading and math. At-risk students with a history of art involvement have higher college enrollment rates than their at-risk peers who didn’t pursue art education. They are three times more likely to earn Bachelor’s degrees than their peers. Students who didn’t take art classes are five times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. Art can help disadvantaged children to realize their full potential as it provides a safe harbor for those students who may lack a supportive environment at home.

How can we bring art programs back to schools?

It’s clear that art education is extremely important for children of all ages. As a result, many schools have begun to rely upon private funding or combinations of private and public funds when financing their art programs. Besides private donors, non-profit organizations have begun to play a leading role in funding art classes in local schools. For example, in 2013, the Eugene Education Foundation (EEF) allocated 30 percent of its grants to art education in schools. Those grants are funded by community members. EEF has also created an Artists in Residence program. This practice of bringing art experts into a classroom for a limited amount of time has proven to be very rewarding. For example, students at Awbrey Park Elementary in Oregon were able to experience Mexican arts and crafts for one month with an expert from Eugene Arte Latino. There are also many parent-teacher organizations that are fundraising for art education.

Charter schools can be also a leading force in art education. New York City has 210 charter schools, some of which have already implemented in-depth art curriculums. Ascend Learning is a network of seven charter schools in Brooklyn, modeled after elite private schools with famous paintings in the hallways to expose children to art.

On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.

Conclusion

Art education is an important component of childhood development. It also can pave the way for a child’s academic and future success as a professional. While the picture is not that bleak across the nation, it does in some cases fall across racial lines. In this regard, non-profits, communities, teachers, private individuals, and states are already creating a wave of change, moving from perceiving art education as expendable costs toward an overall realization of its benefits. The recent development of National Core Arts Standards is a promising step, as alining art eduction with Common Core Standards can hopefully bring arts back to the classroom.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: What is the Common Core?

National Center for Educational Statistics: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10

Additional

Americans For The Arts: Decline of Arts Education in Undeserved Populations

Americans For The Arts: Uneven Education Opportunities Nationwide

College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: The Art and The Common Core

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: Model Cornerstone Pilot Project 2014

Huffington Post: Is Federal Money The Best Way To Fund The Arts? Join The Debate

The Washington Post: Will Less Art and Music in the Classroom Really Help Students Soar Academically?

EugeneWeekly: Budget Cuts Affect Music, Arts

Think Progress: Public Schools Slash Arts Education And Turn To Private Funding

PBS Parents: The Importance of Art in Child Development

Artsz: 20 Reasons Why Art is Important for Children

US News: Extracurriculars Are Central to Learning

Seattle PI: Budget Cuts to Art Programs in Schools

The Hechinger Report: Do the Arts Go Hand in Hand With Common Core?

EdSource: Effort to Revive Arts Programs in Schools Gains Momentum

Art & Education Exchange: Where the Arts and Common Core Intersect

The AEP Wire: No Child Left Behind: A Study of its Impact on Art Education

The Notebook: NCLB: Taking a Toll on Arts and Music Education

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Art Programs: Should They Be Saved? appeared first on Law Street.

Beginning as a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter developed into a movement and became a leading force in the fight against police brutality and racism across the nation. People from all walks of life are uniting for justice, are inspired to speak up, and most importantly are ready to take action. But how did #BlackLivesMatter reach the masses? How has it developed into such a profound transformational force? Read on to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter, its inception, and the movement to end police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

What is #BlackLivesMatter?

#BlackLivesMatter (BLM) is a movement that focuses on anti-African-American racism in the United States. It was founded by three Black women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Although it began as a social media hashtag, they created the infrastructure for the overall campaign, framing it as “not a moment, a movement.”

According to #BlackLivesMatter, racism is still prevalent in American society through the marginalization of Black communities, which are intentionally left powerless and voiceless. In this regard, the movement asserts the right of all Black people to liberation.

BLM has opened up a broader conversation about long-standing racism and violence against Black communities in the United States. It aims to affirm the lives of all Black people who suffer from racial oppression in American society, including Black trans people, Black queer people, Black immigrants, Black incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, Black millennials, Black women, low-income Black people, and Black people with disabilities. 

The Inception and Evolution of #BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter was created after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy from Florida, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, on February 26, 2012. In July 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

The outcome of the trial led to resentment from Black communities, and America as a whole, as Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. The day after the acquittal, people took to the streets in major cities including Miami, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. More than 100 U.S. cities held demonstrations in support for Trayvon Martin.

Garza, one of BLM’s co-founders, used Facebook to express her outrage over the fact that nobody was held accountable for the death of an unarmed Black teenager. She finished her sentence with the phrase “we got us and our lives matter.” Cullors went further and added the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter when re-posting her friend’s message. People started to use this hashtag when talking about racism and extrajudicial killings of Black men in police custody. As a result, #BlackLivesMatter was born as a national organizing project. Watch the video below to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter from Garza.

Nearly a year later on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer allegedly put him in chokehold for 15 seconds while trying to take him into custody. That’s when #BlackLivesMatter started to solidify as a movement. According to Elephrame, a social media tracking website, two days after Garner’s death, more than 300 people marched in Staten Island, including Garner’s family.

Less than a month after that, on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Demonstrations became pervasive in cities both large and small. Thousands of people travelled to Ferguson to participate in marches, demanding justice for Brown and other victims of police violence. The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag became omnipresent on Twitter in relation to Ferguson protests and racism in general. More than 119 cities participated in a National Moment of Silence honoring the many Black citizens who have died as a result of police violence. Watch Oakland residents speaking on Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter protests in the video below.

During the ensuing months, divided demonstrations continued to transform into a collective force. At the end of November 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the New York police officer who used the chokehold to take Garner into custody on December 3, 2014, people began to demand justice even more fiercely. More demonstrations were held, reaching as far as Paris, London, and Melbourne. By the end of 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was already a strong platform for many protesters, with a broader mission, and a list of demands. 

The movement carried into 2015. BLM continued to incite discussions in academia, art communities, religious establishments, and high schools and universities. A #BlackLivesMatter exhibit was featured in an art gallery in Seattle, providing viewers with different perspectives on the movement. Cornell University Africana Studies and Research Center held a community talk about #BlackLivesMatter and the current state of activist movements, taking a social history perspective. These are only few examples of the movement’s proliferation and effects.

On March 4, 2015, a St. Louis County grand jury acquitted Wilson of all charges in the death of Michael Brown. The actions of protesters became even more pronounced, disrupting public transportation and shutting down highways and bridges while marching for Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.

On April 19, 2015 another Black man, Freddie Gray, died in the hospital after he was taken into custody by the Baltimore police. The events that followed shook the whole country as protests turned violent in some areas. Some police officers were injured, a state of emergency was declared, the National Guard was activated, and a 10 p.m. curfew was established in Baltimore. However, all officers involved in Gray’s death were charged with a range of crimes, including murder and manslaughter. During these latest events, many local chapters of #BlackLivesMatter marched in solidarity with Baltimore, including those in Chicago, Ferguson, and New York.

In the last 289 days, there were 431 general demonstrations and 430 for individual victims of police brutality, totaling at least 861 #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations.

An International Voice 

#BlackLivesMatter has a visible connection to other movements across the nation and abroad. Nationally, Palestinian solidarity activists, the low-wage workers movement, and Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) among others, all marched in support of BLM. In addition, medical students at 70 colleges, the so-called “White Coats for Black Lives,” held demonstrations in #BlackLivesMatter support. Internationally, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy marches and London’s Campaign Against Police and State Violence, among others, also stood in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its cause.

#BlackLivesMatter Tactics

The main tactic of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is to disrupt business as usual, including work, commuter travel, commerce, and other daily activities of U.S. residents. The rationale behind this tactic is based on the premise that people across the country need to wake up and recognize that anti-Black racism is a pervasive part of American society. BLM protesters disrupted traffic on Interstate 93 in Boston, shut down the BART station in West Oakland, California, partly shut down the Mall of America, and disrupted business as usual in many other places, all in the hope of drawing attention to its cause. 

What does #BlackLivesMatter aim to do?

#BlackLivesMatter put forward national demands and a vision for a new America. It seeks legal redress in the Michael Brown case, and asks the government to release the names of all officers involved in killing Black people for the last five years. It also calls for the creation of an advocate’s network that can institute changes across police departments, and demands that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weapons to police departments across the country. #BlackLivesMatter also demands more re-investment programs, specifically, re-directing law enforcement funds to federal departments charged with providing employment, housing, and educational services.

According to #BlackLivesMatter, its vision for a new America is as follows:

We Want an End to all Forms of Discrimination and the Full Recognition of our Human Rights. The United States Government must acknowledge and address the structural violence and institutional discrimination that continues to imprison our communities either in a life of poverty and/or one behind bars. We want the United States Government to recognize the full spectrum of our human rights and its obligations under international law.

In its vision, the movement includes not only the end of racially charged police violence and structural changes in police departments across the states, but also demands decent housing, quality education, and the end of the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.

#BlackLivesMatter developed rather specific proposals with regard to the de-militarization of local law enforcement departments across the country, including requesting a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments, and the repurposing of law enforcement funds to support community-based alternatives to incarceration. While not all demands are specific and policy oriented, BLM is working in conjunction with think tanks and non-profits such as the National Organization for Women and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, to continue conceptualizing policy aims. 

Criticism of #BlackLivesMatter

Even though many Americans support #BlackLivesMatter, there are those who simply don’t believe that racism in the justice system exists. In this view, African Americans encounter law enforcement frequently because they commit more crimes, thus more of them end up in the prison system. Police officers are viewed as protectors of public order, while African Americans are seen as solely responsible for the current state of their community. Watch the video below to learn more about this point of view.

In addition, an #AllLivesMatter hashtag was created to counteract the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In this view, law enforcement should treat all people with respect and dignity. The rationale is as following: if #AllLivesMatter, then #BlackLivesMatter too. Essentially, #AllLivesMatter protesters are making a point of including all races in the conversation about police brutality; however, supporters of #BlackLivesMatter as well as its founders consider such phrasing an act of colorblindness that completely excludes race from the equation, devaluing the whole point of the movement.

Conclusion

#BlackLivesMatter has already established itself as a movement for social change, transforming isolated incidents of police brutality into a larger agenda of eliminating racial inequality in American society. It’s impossible to predict if the movement will be able to sustain itself until it reaches its goal and the government meets BLM’s demands; however one thing is sure, #BlackLivesMatter is already changing peoples’ perceptions of racial inequality in America, creating dialogue, and clearing out the path for future leaders who will take on the issue of anti-Black racism. 

Resources

Primary

#BlackLivesMatter: National Demands

#BlackLivesMatter: A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Additional 

Elephrame: Track Black Lives Matter Demonstrations

Occupy: Black Lives Matter: The Evolution of a Movement

Political Research Associates: Five Right-Wing Media Narratives Attacking the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

Front Page Mag: Which Black Lives Matter?

Huffington Post: Stop Slandering Black Lives Matter

National Review Online: Black Lives Matter

Huffington Post: Reactions on the Streets After the George Zimmerman Verdict

Gothamist: Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With ‘Never 21’ T-Shirts

Thee New York Times: Baltimore Enlists National Guard and a Curfew to Fight Riots and Looting

KARE11: Black Lives Matter March in Support of Baltimore

Michigan Live: EMU Student Wears ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-Shirt Over Gown at Graduation

Huffington Post: What People Are Really Saying When They Complain About ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protests

King 5: Art Gallery Features ‘Black Lives Matter’ Exhibit

Star Tribune: Twin Cities Students Walk Out of Schools to Join Black Lives Matter Protest

The New York Times: Beyond ‘Black Lives Matter’ 

Alternet: Eight Developments of the Black Lives Matter Movement Most People Don’t Know About 

Dick Gregory: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Heard Around the World

NPR: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Slogan Becomes a Bigger Movement 

Cornell University: Scholar Leads Talk on ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement 

Washington Post: From Trayvon Martin to ‘Black Lives Matter’

International Socialist Review: Black Lives Matter: A New Movement Takes Shape

The New York Times: Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death

California Sunday Magazine: How Three Friends Turned a Spontaneous Facebook Post Into a Global Phenomenon

Boston Globe: Protesters Snarl Morning Commute on I-93 Near Boston

Sfist: Protesters Chain Themselves to BART Trains at West Oakland, Temporarily Halt Transbay Train Service

Huffington Post: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Shut Down Part of Mall of America

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BlackLivesMatter: How a Hashtag Sparked a Powerful Movement appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States spends more money on health care than any other developed country. At the same time, studies find that patients in other countries enjoy better quality and more accessible health care than Americans. Why is American health care so expensive and what are the underlying issues that hold the United States back from necessary reforms? Read on to learn more about the U.S. healthcare system and how it stacks up internationally.

How does the U.S. healthcare system compare internationally?

According to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund analysis of the U.S. healthcare system in comparison to other industrialized countries, the United States ranks last among peer nations. This poor ranking is not a one-time thing, as almost all previous editions of the report from 2004-2010 also ranked the American healthcare system the lowest in terms of both cost and quality. The report compares the United States to some of the most developed and industrialized nations in the world, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. All of these countries spend much less on health care and have higher-quality services.

What are the problems with the American healthcare system?

The United States adheres to a Selective Health Coverage (SHC) system, also called a hybrid healthcare system. Roughly half of healthcare spending comes from private funds, while the government covers the other half through federal, state, and local funds. The majority of healthcare costs are covered through private insurance companies that sell health coverage to employers and private individuals at different rates. The government provides coverage through Medicaid for low-income households, and Medicare for retired Americans.

High Costs 

As the United States has no universal health coverage, people mainly receive health insurance from their employers, the government, or purchase it through exchanges. The Affordable Care Act, which entered into force in 2013, made it easier to gain coverage, but 10 percent of Americans still lack health insurance.

As each insurance plan includes deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket costs, even with insurance, it could be quite expensive to seek medical services. In 2014, the average household spent $8,000 in medical costs, including monthly insurance payments, taxes, lost wages, out-of-pocket care, and other costs. These prohibitive costs mean that Americans may skip physician visits, treatments, tests, or follow-up care, even if recommended by their doctor.

The American healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world. Around 18 percent of the country’s GDP goes toward healthcare costs. The Netherlands ranks next, but spends only 12 percent of its GDP on health care. The government spends by various estimates between $8,500 to $10,000 per capita annually, and still requires high out-of-pocket costs for its citizens. Other industrialized countries spend from $3,000 to $5,500 per capita and manage to cover more people and offer better services. Overall, the U.S. ranks last on the Commonwealth Fund’s rankings for national health expenditures. There are plenty of reasons for that, including but not limited to high costs associated with administrative hassles and duplicate testing. The United States is also the only developed country where medical costs contribute toward, and in some cases directly lead to, personal bankruptcy. Even such business giants as Starbucks and General Motors have acknowledged the disproportionately high costs of providing health care to their employees.

Low Quality 

The healthcare system in the United States isn’t very efficient. While most other countries have adopted some kind of unified system of communication with patients and other providers, the U.S. system’s administrative hassles were cited as a problem by the Commonwealth Fund. The overall health of the American population is worse than that of other industrialized countries. The U.S. ranks last on all three measures of healthy living, including mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60.

What types of healthcare systems do other countries have?

National Services

The most popular type of healthcare system in the developed world is a national health services system. In this type of system, necessary medical care is fully paid for by the government. Hospitals and clinics are publicly operated, but private sector institutions also exist. Private medical clinics may have specific regulations they must follow, while the government pays them certain fees. Or, private medical clinics could operate solely like businesses and profit by providing superior, more personal or elective medical care. Many countries employ this mode;, including the United Kingdom, Spain, and New Zealand.

In the United Kingdom, health care is largely supported by tax contributions that are then used by the government to cover the vast majority of its population’s medical costs. Private coverage also exists, often through employers, but these premiums are affordable as to allow competition with public health care, which is free of charge. The U.K. healthcare system ranks first on the Commonwealth Fund’s list among other industrialized countries, particularly when it comes to efficiency and access.

National Health Insurance System

In a national health insurance system, also called a single-payer system, the government pays for all costs, but doesn’t operate healthcare services. Canada, Denmark, Taiwan, and Sweden are among those countries that operate a single-payer healthcare system.

Taiwan has one of the best healthcare systems in Asia. Health providers are employed by the public or private sector, but are paid standardized fees, which eliminates price competition and adds quality competition. In 2010, Taiwan spent three times less (6.5 percent) than the United States (16 percent) in its healthcare expenditures, covering 99 percent of its population. Administrative costs are also extremely low (1.5 percent) in comparison with the U.S., which spends 20-30 percent of overall healthcare funds on administrative costs.

Multi-Payer Health Insurance System

This system of health care is operated by Germany, Japan, and France. According to this model, all physicians are paid from a special fund, which is designated for healthcare services. The rates are the same for all physicians, cutting administrative costs for government, and creating quality competition.

Germany is a great example of a system that provides quality and cost-efficiency. Health services in Germany operate through an alliance of around 240 not-for-profit insurance providers that cover about 90 percent of the total population and are paid from a specifically designated “sickness fund.” The other 10 percent are generally high-income households that prefer private health insurance with superior services and quality. Amazingly, government expenditures for health care in Germany are half those of the United States, and the quality of health care is very high. Insurance companies and medical providers are closely regulated by the government, while employers and employees assume shared responsibility to pay taxes towards the “sickness fund.” Such a system helps to decrease the government’s costs and and provide more people with health coverage.

Watch the video below to learn more about Germany’s healthcare system.

Why is health care in the U.S. so expensive?

The complexity and for-profit nature of the American healthcare system is the primary reason for its high cost. As insurance companies are concerned with profit, they are always looking for ways to minimize their expenses and make money.

Expensive Mix of Services

The United States’ healthcare system provides a very expensive mix of services:

• The U.S. sees more specialist visits than in other countries, which are two-to-three times more expensive than general physician visits.
• Specialists often order more diagnostic tests and medical procedures that rack up the total costs. In comparison, other industrialized countries offer considerably fewer MRI scans, C-sections, and other procedures that could be avoided and are not always medically necessary.
• Duplicate testing is another issue that plagues American health care. As physicians and specialists make money from procedures, they often order duplicate testing. For example, dermatologists can order  biopsies from several affected skin areas, even if only one such procedure is required  for diagnosis.
• American hospitals also contribute toward the country’s expensive mix of services. They admit fewer people and, therefore, charge higher prices for hospitalization. They treat elderly people in the intensive care units (ICUs), while other countries subscribe to more specialized, palliative care, which is less costly.

Administrative Costs

There are thousands of health insurance plans available in the market, leading to variations in coverage, deductibles, co-pays, premiums, and other features. Not only is this system confusing, but such a system increases administrative costs as all doctor’s offices, laboratories, and hospitals have to bill insurance companies and patients for each rendered procedure and each doctor’s visit. As insurance plans vary greatly, medical facilities and patients have to constantly phone insurance companies to clarify details of premiums to find out what procedures are covered by the insurance company. Such a system creates unnecessary administrative hassles and drives up overall costs. It’s estimated that the United States “wastes” half of the $361 billion spent on administrative costs by spending it on expenses that could be avoided and are not necessary.

Pharmaceutical Spending 

Medical facilities and insurance companies are not the only players in the healthcare market. Drug manufacturing companies charge higher prices in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries. For example, branded prescription drugs are twice as expensive in the U.S. than in the rest of the developed world. In 2011, the United States paid $985 per capita for prescription drugs and other medications. That’s almost double what most other high-income countries spent on pharmaceuticals. This difference is due to the fact that other industrialized countries are often able to negotiate lower prices as they purchase pharmaceuticals in large quantities to provide medications for the whole population.

Interestingly, innovations and new medical technologies also drive up the cost of health care. The United States has more high-tech medical equipment than other industrialized countries. On top of it, it also has more stand-by equipment than other countries. The need to pay for the maintenance of these state-of-the-art technologies results in higher prices for tests, scans, and analysis for patients.

More Chronic Diseases 

People in the United States are less healthy than in the majority of developed countries. Obesity and other chronic diseases are more common in the U.S. than in its peer countries. That means that insurance companies and the government will spend a lot of money on managing chronic conditions that often require constant treatment, high-tech tests, and frequent hospitalizations.

Will the American healthcare system change?

If the United States ranks so poorly in health care, why doesn’t it do something to fix the problems? The answer to that question lies in the intersection between money and politics.

Interest-Group Lobbying

Many profit from the current healthcare system, including drug manufacturers, medical equipment providers, specialist physicians, insurance companies, and others who have considerable influence on public policy. The interests of those who make a profit from the current healthcare system are well represented through lobbying. In 2009, around 4,525 healthcare lobbyists were hired by more than 1,750 companies, including 207 hospitals, 105 insurance companies, and 85 manufacturing companies. For example, Big Pharma spent $22 million on healthcare lobbying in 2011; Blue Cross Blue Shield and biotech companyAmgen spent $21 million each on healthcare lobbyingthat year. None of the players involved in the healthcare business wants to lose profits, so lobbyists are trying to block any efforts that can damage their clients, even if those efforts could bring better health care to millions of Americans.

What are the possible solutions?

Even after the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in January 2013, roughly 10 percent of Americans are still uninsured. In order to fix that problem, the United States could work toward implementing another system of health care, but that’s unlikely to gain much ground.

There have also been alternative solutions offered, such as the so-called “managed competition” model proposed by Stanford University Business School professor Alain Enthoven more than two decades ago. According to this model, insurance companies, physicians, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and other actors in the healthcare industry could come together to form an entity that has the responsibility to provide care for specific municipalities based on an annual allowance. This strategy could produce higher quality and lower costs simultaneously.

Another proposed solution is based on the implementation of a universal tax credit, similar to the child tax credit, that provides a $1,000 reduction in income tax to families that have a child. Money for this tax credit could be obtained from existing health insurance subsidies, like Medicaid and Medicare.

Conclusion

The United States’ healthcare system has not served its people well, especially when looked at in comparison to its peer nations. There are many faults to the current system, including high costs, inefficient practices, and an unwillingness by many to change. In order to effectively provide health care to as many people as possible, more changes need to be made. While the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, the United States is still at the bottom of the list when it comes to effective health care.

 Resources

Commonwealth Fund: How the U.S. Healthcare System Compares Internationally

CNN Money: Healthcare Lobbying Boom Continues

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO: The U.S. Healthcare System: An International Perspective

Forbes: U.S. Health Care Ranked Dead Last Compared to 10 Other Countries

Forbes: Universal Coverage is Not “Single Payer” Healthcare

Forbes: Why We Should Replace Obamacare With a Universal Health Tax Credit

HealthPAC: How Other Countries Do it

Global Post: Eight Places That Do Health Care Better Than the US

Global Post: Special Report: Health Care in Taiwan

Atlantic: Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Health Care?

Center for Public Integrity: Lobbyists Swarm Capitol to Influence Health Reform

Law Dictionary: How Many Americans Really Do Not Have Health Insurance?

U.S. News & World Report: Obamacare Enrollees, by the Numbers

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Health Care: Last Place Among Peer Nations in Latest Study appeared first on Law Street.

Periscope, a new live-streaming application, was launched less than a month ago, but it’s already making headlines with celebrities and ordinary people alike broadcasting their daily activities and conversing in real time. Live streaming is not a novel concept, but it might be the next big thing in the social media world. As people are ready to embrace this new way of interacting, “periscoping” may soon become a daily activity for many people across the globe. Read on to learn more about Periscope and what live-streaming applications can bring to the table.

What is Periscope?

Periscope is part of the next generation of social media applications that are based on real-time interactions. Acquired by Twitter for nearly $100 million and launched on March 26, 2015, the tool seems to be on the rise.

How was Periscope created? 

Periscope started two years ago when CEO and co-founder Kayvon Beykpour was traveling to Istanbul, Turkey. The protests in Taksim Square, near the hotel in which Beykpour was supposed to stay, became violent; however he couldn’t find any meaningful information on the web about the extent of that violence. Thus, the idea for Periscope was born. He had an urgent need to see the protests in real time, but there was no social platform to do so. Periscope has already demonstrated its abilities to capture events in real time, including live streaming protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and capturing the fires in San Francisco’s Mission District and New York’s Lower East Side.

How does Periscope work?

Periscope is an IOS application that can live stream what you see at any given moment. It can essentially broadcast your every move if you wish. People are already using it in a variety of ways, including artistically, conducting Q&As, walking around a city, talking, or just showcasing their everyday activities. The app also has a way to interact with those who are watching, all in real time. Viewers can choose to ask questions or leave comments that are shown through a trace of messages on the screen, like a live feed. Engagement can also be demonstrated through hearts that viewers can create by tapping the screen as many times as they like. This feature shows viewers’ level of engagement and interest–the more hearts that are tapped, the stronger the viewers’ levels of satisfaction and excitement are.

Unlike other live-streaming apps, Periscope lets you save your broadcasts for a certain period of time, which enables viewers to play back what they’ve already seen. The app also allows viewers to invite their followers to watch a live steam together.

Some users of Periscope report a need for certain technical updates, such as better search features, better browsing, and a better notification system. The developers have already fixed the issue of the “zoomable map” that could pinpoint a person’s location when live streaming, and are continuing to work on other improvements.

Watch the video below to learn more about Periscope from BeyKpour who speaks about his idea and the app’s capabilities.

Is Periscope the first live-streaming app? 

All in all, progressive technological advances constantly change the world of social media interactions and online communication. Facebook was launched in 2004 and forever changed the way people communicate online. Twitter followed in 2006. Both companies have continued to expand by acquiring photo and video-oriented social media platforms; Facebook acquired Instagram, while Twitter bought Vine. Now, new advances are under way and live-streaming applications may be the next big thing.

History of Live-Streaming Apps

Periscope is not the first application to allow users to live stream their experiences. Live streaming has been around since the 1990s when video recording and instant messaging became the big thing. The reason why Periscope is making  waves right now is because live streaming has moved into the mainstream, and people are more comfortable revealing information about themselves.

Even before the idea of Periscope was born there were an abundance of applications that could be described as under the live-streaming umbrella. UStream was founded in 2007 and provides free video-streaming services as well as paid ProBroadcasting options. YouNow, launched in 2011, allows live broadcasting. Justin.TV has been around for several years and just recently was renamed Twitch Interactive, a new platform to broadcast video games or any gaming-related content. Livestream is another app that lets users broadcast and watch live events.

Meerkat

Meerkat is a live-streaming application that was launched on February 27, 2015–one month prior to Periscope. In this regard, Meerkat can be considered the first “new generation” live-streaming app. The application really made its debut last month at SXSW in Austin, Texas. A number of performers were “meerkating,” aka live-streaming their shows, which greatly promoted the app. Meerkat is a real competitor of Periscope as both apps are brand new, well designed, and easy to use. Unlike Periscope, however, Meerkat doesn’t provide an option to save broadcasts–all of its live streams are instant and cannot be replayed.

Watch the video below to learn more about Meerkat from its founder, Ben Ruben.

What are the concerns with using live-streaming apps?

Live streaming applications such as Periscope and Meerkat raise certain concerns, including the infringement of privacy, intellectual property rights, and harassment and cyber bullying.

Infringement of Privacy

Clearly, live streaming can invade peoples’ privacy. If you are in a public space, anybody can live stream you, revealing your activities and location. The fact that one may not wish to be live streamed is irrelevant as there are no real remedies for it. Generally, when people are in public places they don’t expect privacy, but with live streaming, the invasion of privacy becomes more pervasive and inescapable. People can be streamed without their permission or knowledge.

Celebrities and politicians have even greater privacy concerns, as Periscope can provide users with the instant ability to live stream public figures if spotted on the street or in any other public place. It could completely transform the way famous people maintain their images and market themselves.

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights generally protect people’s creations, whether they are in the form of music, design, photography, performance, or any other artistic expression. Intellectual property rights include trademark and copyright laws.

Live streaming is an immediate recording of something that is happening at any given moment, and therefore doesn’t require downloads or saving a copy of one’s broadcast. This leads to confusion as to how to apply existing copyright laws to the new generation of apps that can live stream certain content. In their terms of use, both Meerkat and Periscope state that users are prohibited from exploiting third-party copyrights and trademarks in their live recordings. In addition, under United States copyright laws, it’s illegal to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder.

As of now, live streaming is subject to the same laws that protect any copyrighted video, song, or photographic content. If one live streams, he distributes the content of his broadcast to an unknown amount of users and reproduces it at the same time. This can potentially infringe on artists’, publishers’, and labels’ copyrights if the content is copyrighted on the first place.

Simply put, if you live stream at a concert or sporting event, you could violate copyright laws, public performance laws, and exclusive rights of broadcasting stations to live stream an event. Most of the time concert venues and sport leagues clearly state on admission tickets their policies regarding video recording or streaming of the event. Not only can this violate the right of the artist to solely profit from her performance, but in the case of sporting events, can infringe on intellectual property rights of leagues and pay-per-view (PPV) producers. In addition, major television providers spend millions of dollars to obtain exclusive rights to broadcast games and other major events. Record labels’ performance rights can be easily infringed as well by live streaming sound recordings at shows.

It’s possible that live streaming performances and sporting events can also violate reproduction and distribution rights of copyright holders. As Periscope archives users’ live streams for 24 hours, it can potentially infringe on reproduction rights if the saved content is considered intellectual property.

Harassment and Cyberbullying

Using social media can perpetuate harassment and bullying. Generally, every social media platform has rules and protocols that prohibit pornographic or overly sexual content, as well as content that can incite violent, illegal, or dangerous activities. Periscope is not an exception–its community guidelines are crafted to prevent sexual comments and online harassment of any sort. However, the new app is still struggling with enforcing these rules as its instant messages are bursting with sexually explicit communications. It was reported that many female users have been sexually harassed while live streaming.

As Periscope exposes more intimate moments of people’s lives, the dangers of using this technology may become greater than those of other social media. The difficulty can be seen in its live feed, which vanishes in a matter of seconds–how can this dissipating content be reviewed? Private broadcasting settings are another worry as those can appeal to people who operate sex cameras or conduct other illegal activities.

Periscope is a very new app so there are expectations for future updates and technical improvements. The company has acknowledged the need to find a better solution for moderating users’ content, and is working now on a new feature that will allow for the easy and instant blockage of undesirable users.

What changes can live-streaming apps bring to our lives?

With live-streaming applications on millions of smartphones around the globe, changes in media coverage, politics, and advertising are imminent. But the biggest change may be manifested in a completely new kind of online interaction. With Periscope and other live-streaming applications, it will be easier to reconnect with families, and share happy moments such as weddings, birthdays, and graduations all in real time.

Live streaming can revolutionize news reporting by giving media outlets the opportunity to produce real-time news. At the same time, live streaming will create challenges for reporters as events and stories unfold instantly, journalists will have to adapt to the ever-changing dynamics of live-streaming reporting.

The advertising industry will greatly benefit from live-streaming apps, as well as experience difficulties in using such apps for marketing purposes. Live streaming can bring brands closer to customers, provide unbiased and instant feedback about products, and help to promote transparency in companies’ practices. On the other hand, brands that decide to live stream for the purposes of promoting their products may be overwhelmed by the amount of people they will need to alert about their live-broadcasting. Companies will need to make sure that every person featured in live streaming intended for commercial purposes has signed a release, otherwise the brand can be sued for violating personal rights.

The world of politics is about to change, too. Political campaigns can be live streamed, providing instant access to candidates’ everyday activities and all sorts of political events. Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul are already using Meerkat and Periscope to live stream their political endeavors. Some financial and structural constraints of political campaigns may be diminished as live streaming is a free and easy-to-use platform that provides instant access to millions of voters.

Conclusion

Humanity seemingly has no other choice but to embrace new technology and welcome a new generation of social media apps based on live streaming. But as technology evolves so should our laws. There is an urgent need to rethink and reevaluate current laws pertaining to intellectual property rights and synchronize them with technological advances. There is also a need to create better ways to protect individuals from bullying and women from sexual harassment on the web. Media outlets, record labels, and sports leagues should also embrace new technologies. Consumers should be ready for a closer engagement with brands. Meerkat may have started the revolution, but Periscope made a mind-blowing breakthrough. We’ll have to wait and see what’s next when it comes to live streaming.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Copyright Office: Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act, and Illegal Streaming

Additional

Australian Business Review: Periscope: Will the Live-Streaming App Be the Next Big Thing?

ABC News: Periscope, Meerkat, YouNow: Which Live Streaming App is Right For You

BBC News: Periscope: Anglesey Man Behind Video Streaming App

Billboard: The Meerkat Minefield: Legal Issues With Live-Streaming Apps

CBS: Periscope, Meerkat Threaten Multi-Billion Dollar Sports Broadcast Copyrights

Columbia Journalism Review: How Social Media Livestreams Will Impact Political Journalism

Customer Think: As Twitter Acquires Periscope, Live Video Streaming Apps Will Transform Social Media Marketing in the Second Half of 2015

DailyMail: New Live Streaming App Periscope is Already on Its Way to Becoming a Parent’s Worst Nightmare

Fast Company: Streaming Video on Periscope Just Got Way Less Creepy

Graham Cluley: Periscope Raises Privacy Concerns

Guardian: Periscope Up! Twitter’s Live-streaming App is Exciting Us, But Here’s How it Could Be Better

Huffington Post: Why You Should Care About Periscope, Twitter’s New Live-Streaming App

Huffington Post: What Does Periscope’s Live Mobile Streaming Mean to Media?

IT Business: Up Periscope, Down Privacy? Twitter’s Live Streaming Service Bound to Cause Controversy

Kerry O’Shea Gorgone: Meerkat, Periscope, Privacy and the Law: Is Live-Streaming Video Legal?

Legal Zoom: Copyright Law on Streaming PPV Events

MIT Technology Review: Broadcast Every Little Drama

New York Business Journal: Down Periscope: MLB  Set to Crack Down on Live Streaming From the Bleacher

The New York Times: As Twitter Introduces Periscope, Tech Titans Bet on Live Streaming Video

Providence Journal: So Social: Meerkat, Periscope Make it Easy to Live Stream From iPhone

Verge: Periscope, Twitter’s Answer to Meerkat-Style Live Streaming, is Now Available

Wired: Twitter’s Periscope App Lets You Livestream Your World

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Periscope & Meerkat: Live Streaming is the Latest Social Media Development appeared first on Law Street.

Criminal justice reform in the United States is long overdue as prisons are overcrowded, racial profiling remains a problem, and rehabilitation practices are often overshadowed by questionable “tough on crime” policies. After high-profile incidents of police brutality began circulating media outlets, the push for criminal justice reform has become greater than ever. Recently, both Republicans and Democrats decided to work together to transform the American criminal justice system, announcing the creation of a bipartisan coalition that would partner with non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups to craft and implement reform. The media called this left and right-wing union an “unlikely alliance,” emphasizing ideological and political differences between the two parties, and highlighting the fact that bipartisanship doesn’t happen very often on Capitol Hill. The question remains whether this bipartisan coalition can transform American criminal justice practices into a more fair, unbiased, and swift system? Read on to learn more about the current bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system in America.

How is bipartisan criminal justice reform coming along?

The Coalition for Public Safety

One of the first  tangible results of this consensus culminated in the creation of the Coalition for Public Safety, introduced on February 19, 2015. It’s a bipartisan coalition of funders and advocacy groups that will work on reforming the current criminal justice system and hopes to find solutions to the most pressing issues in the realm of current practices. The coalition is funded by both conservative and liberal groups such as Koch Industries, the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In addition, both right and left-wing organizations such as FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, the ACLU, and the Center for American Progress will partner with the Coalition to work at all levels of the government (local, state, and federal) to overhaul ineffective criminal justice policies. The initial funding is $5 million, and will be used to launch a campaign to tackle prison overpopulation, mandatory sentencing practices, reduce recidivism, and address many other issues endemic to the American criminal justice system.

The Coalition for Public Safety emphasizes a smarter, fairer, and more cost-effective criminal justice system. It identifies five main goals:

Reduce our jail and prison populations and associated costs; end the systemic problems of overcriminalization and overincarceration — particularly of low-income communities and communities of color; ensure swift and fair outcomes for both the accused and the victim; and make communities safe by reducing recidivism and breaking down barriers faced by those returning home after detention or incarceration.

The overall plan of the Coalition is to replicate state practices that have proven to be successful in dealing with specific issues of the criminal justice system on the federal level. As the Coalition is diverse in its political affiliations, the plan is to divide spheres of influence between conservatives and liberals while lobbying for reform.

Koch Industries and other organizations on the right will try to persuade Republicans, while the Center for American Progress and other liberal think-tanks will work on convincing Democrats to engage in meaningful dialogue about criminal justice reform. Other organizations such as the ACLU will lobby at the state level to include criminal justice reform issues on state ballots in 2016.

The Bipartisan Summit for Criminal Justice

Another early milestone of the criminal justice reform movement was the Bipartisan Summit for Criminal Justice held in Washington D.C. on March 26, 2015.

The summit brought together lawmakers, advocates, religious groups, and criminal justice leaders, totaling 600 people. There were 90 speakers who shared their experiences and proposed possible solutions to fix the American criminal justice system. Newt Gingrich and Van Jones hosted the event, putting their differences aside. Among the most prominent speakers and participants were Attorney General Eric Holder, Mark Holden (senior counsel for Koch Industries), David Simon (“The Wire” creator), Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, Piper Kerman (author of “Orange is the New Black”) and Senator Cory Booker. Non-profit organizations that advocate for justice were present  as well.

So, it’s clear that criminal justice reform is gaining momentum, but why did both parties come on board in the first place?

 Why are both parties on board with criminal justice reform?

Players across the political spectrum have begun to form a bipartisan consensus, but do they care about the same things? Both conservatives and liberals have agreed that criminal justice reform is necessary, however, their reasons for engaging in the initial dialogue seem rather different.

Conservatives are particularly worried about the high costs of maintaining the prison complex as it operates right now. Financially speaking, criminal justice spending is soaring. Some conservatives also cite religious arguments as a reason to give second chances to those who acted wrongly. This philosophy is in accordance with Christian tradition. In this view, prison reform requires rehabilitation, not just incarceration.

Democrats tend to be more concerned with minority rights and the personal freedoms of American citizens that are being diminished by the current criminal justice system. They propose well-funded social programs in impoverished and vulnerable communities instead of an aggressive expansion of the prison complex.

Why does America need criminal justice reform?

(Un)Fairness of the Current System

The American criminal justice system has multiple issues with which to contend. One of the biggest is the disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino youth and men. In addition, 60 percent of those who await trial, meaning they have not yet been formally convicted of any crime, are housed in detention facilities for months. The majority are lower income individuals who cannot afford to make bail. These holdings lead to many issues for these individuals, including loss of employment, housing, and even family.

In addition, civil asset forfeiture practices are often viewed as unfair as property can be confiscated at the pre-trial stage, without a formal conviction. In some cases, family members can suffer property seizure due to the actions of their children or other close family members.

Overall, the prison population is soaring with non-violent offenders, who are incarcerated for drug crimes, including simple possession or selling a small amount of marijuana.

It’s Too Expensive

The criminal justice system, particularly prison complexes, drain taxpayers’ money. On average, it costs $80 billion a year to maintain the American correctional system, not counting other criminal justice agencies and courts. As 86 percent of all prisoners are housed in state, not federal, correction facilities, state governments spend large sums of money on incarceration, leaving fewer resources for education, mental health, and social services. In addition, it costs around $88,000 a year to house a young offender in a juvenile facility. Juveniles in particular have more developmental and educational needs which have to be addressed by the prison facility where they are housed.

Recently, costs associated with police misconduct, such as fees and settlements, are also soaring as more incidents are published and openly discussed.

It Doesn’t Solve Problems

The current criminal justice system incarcerates violent and non-violent offenders alike without any consideration for the mental health, drug, or alcohol issues these people may face. Moreover, it doesn’t provide tools for those who have been released from prison to reintegrate back into society. Formerly incarcerated individuals are largely disenfranchised through laws restricting Pell Grants, voting, certain types of employment, and housing.

Overall, left and right-wing politicians have gotten it right: current criminal justice system is costly, ineffective, and unfair in many ways, and it needs fixing. Watch the video below to learn more about reasons why America needs a comprehensive criminal justice reform:

Are there any signs of progress?

This new wave of bipartisan criminal justice reform is still in its infancy, but signs of progress in changing ineffective criminal justice practices are seen in both state and federal initiatives.

State Practices

Many states have already enacted innovative programs to overhaul civil assets forfeiture practices and restore voting rights to those who bear the stigma of a criminal conviction. For example:

• State Representative David Simpson (R) introduced a bill that could potentially prohibit civil asset forfeiture without formal conviction in Texas. State Senator Nathan Dahm (R) proposed similar legislature in Oklahoma.
• Many states have enacted so-called “Ban the Box” laws that prohibit asking about criminal convictions in employment applications. Currently, “Ban the Box” laws have been successfully implemented in states such as Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Mexico. In addition, individual jurisdictions in various states have begun to use this practice.

Watch the video below to learn more about “Ban the Box” movement:

Federal Initiatives

On a federal level, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, is one of the most vocal proponents of criminal justice reform:

• Paul and Tim Walberg (R) from Michigan introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, that raises the burden of proof on the government for asset seizure.
• Rand Paul and Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, re-introduced the Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act of 2015 as a bipartisan effort to restore voting rights to non-violent formerly incarcerated individuals.
• Rand Paul, Brian Schatz (D) from Hawaii, and two U.S Representatives, Corrine Brown from Florida and Keith Ellison from Minnesota introduced the Police Creating Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available (Police CAMERA) Act of 2015 that creates a pilot grant program for police departments across the country who are willing to use body cameras.

In addition, education reform is being worked on, and the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act is on its way. Both pieces of legislation are important components of re-designing the American criminal justice system by breaking the school-to-prison pipeline, and increasing access to treatment for mentally-ill people in the criminal justice system.

What are the concerns over bipartisan criminal justice reform?

Not everybody believes in the future of bipartisanship, as history has consistently proven that consensus could be compromised at any stage of the process. For example, a recent human trafficking bill with bipartisan support was filibustered over anti-abortion language, and, consequently, died in the chamber. Doubts remain that bipartisanship could be successful as Congress starts its legislative process. Such concerns are voiced due to the profound differences in the two parties’ ideologies, as well as their social and economic views.

These differences also incite worries over the redistribution of prison money. Liberals generally seem to hope that after reform, money that was formerly used for incarceration will be released for education and social services. However, conservatives mostly remain silent on this issue, postponing the discussion for a later date.

Some critics on the left believe that bipartisan criminal justice reform was “right-wing” from the beginning, initiated by the Koch brothers, and then marketed as a “bipartisan” effort. In this view, the movement serves the conservative agenda by pushing the expansion of for-profit community correctional facilities, including the consolidation of medical treatment programs within prison complexes. The rationale is as follows: if non-violent offenders are released to community corrections rather than to prison confinement, it will produce a new source of revenue for private companies that provide treatment for addiction and other medical and mental health issues. The money will be channeled through non-profit organizations that are free to sub-contract their services.

In addition, the Coalition has heavy representation of conservative think-tanks and  prominent liberal groups, but it doesn’t include grassroots community and advocacy groups that could bring the voices of poor communities of color to the table.

Another point of criticism is centered on the notion that the Coalition doesn’t ask the right questions and completely ignores the issue of structural racism that fuels the community-to-corrections pipeline. It acknowledges “over-criminalization” and “over-incarceration” of individuals from these communities, but doesn’t address the underlying reasons for it.

Conclusion

Criminal justice reform is inevitable as there are multiple concerns about the current criminal justice system. However, will it produce the intended changes and improve the American criminal justice system? The Coalition has all the tools to initiate reform, but political differences and personal motivations of certain players can easily change the course of reform at any given moment. It’s a shaky “unlikely alliance,” but it’s certainly better than nothing at all.

Resources

Primary

LegiScan: Bill Text: TX HB3171 | 2015-2016 | 84th Legislature | Introduced

LegiScan: Bill Text: OK SB621 | 2015 | Regular Session | Introduced

Rand Paul: Sens. Paul, Schatz & Reps. Brown, Ellison Introduce Bipartisan Legislation To Help Expand Use of Police Body Cameras

Rand Paul: Sen. Paul Introduces Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act

The U.S. Department of Justice: Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety

Additional

#cut 50: A Bipartisan Summit on Criminal Justice Reform

Huffington Post Politics: Georgia Governor Signs ‘Ban The Box’ Order Helping Ex-Offenders Get Jobs

National Journal: This May Be the Year Crime Finally Stops Being a Wedge Issue

NBCNews: Editorial: Could Criminal Justice Reform Create Bipartisanship?

Politico: Fixing Justice in America

Slate: A Koch and a Smile

Southern Coalition for Social Justice: Ban the Box Community Initiative Guide

The Daily Caller: Red State Forfeiture Bills Signal Bipartisan Push For Justice Reform

Truth Out: “Bipartisan” Criminal Justice Reform: A Misguided Merger

Truth Out: Smoke and Mirrors: Essential Questions About “Prison Reform”

Truth Out: Confidence Men and “Prison Reform”

U.S. News: Lawmakers Outline Path Forward on Criminal Justice Reform

U.S. News: Democrats Block Human Trafficking Bill Over Abortion Language

Justice Policy Institute: The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies. Make Good Fiscal Sense May 2009

Vera Institute of Justice: The Price of Prisons. What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform: Can it Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

As concerns grow over the ethics of our nation’s police forces, there’s been talk alternatives to the current approach. One of those alternatives is a concept called “community justice.” But can community justice actually bring change and provide alternative solutions to traditional policing methods? Read on to learn about community policing and the court, and what these practices can bring to the table.

What is community justice?

Community justice is a broad term that includes practices for combating crime that directly or indirectly involve the community. The main goal is to enhance community life through problem-solving strategies, restore victims’ quality of life, reintegrate offenders, and strengthen normative standards in the community.

Community justice can be seen as a non-traditional model to deal with crime and disorder, as it creates a dialogue between citizens, community organizations, and criminal justice agencies. The focus is on the outcome for the community as a whole, not on individual cases. According to this perspective, crime is a community issue, and therefore, residents’ engagement is paramount in addressing it. Community justice advocates argue that stability can be achieved through partnership between the citizenry and law enforcement, or even through autonomous efforts of community residents.

Community justice is more of a theoretical concept than a practical tool, which gives practitioners a broad range of options when developing and implementing community justice practices. Generally, there are five avenues to pursue community justice initiatives: crime prevention, policing, prosecution, adjudication, and corrections. Some practices can fall into several categories simultaneously. As of now, community policing and community courts are two of the most widespread practices.

What is community policing and how does it work? 

Community policing, sometimes called problem-oriented policing, emphasizes crime prevention through active engagement between communities and police officers. Community policing focuses on crime issues specific to a certain neighborhood. The issues can range from the presence of habitual offenders to violent youth gangs or open drug markets. Sometimes community policing focuses on tackling issues such as vandalism, loitering, drunk driving, unwanted noise, litter, or abandoned vehicles.

Community policing uses non-enforcement and trust-building tactics to engage residents, including youth, to partner with law enforcement in tackling local public safety issues. The practices can vary greatly, but the most common include:

• Neighborhood meetings with police officers present and actively participating;
• The development of collaborative action plans where police officers and citizens work together to resolve local safety issues;
• Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). This means rebuilding neighborhoods by employing designs that fit the needs of a specific community and take into consideration its safety concerns;
• Assignment of officers to fixed locations and shifts so they can establish more personal relationships with community residents; and,
• Police engagement with public schools through direct instructions from an officer, or in the form of a school resource officer who is constantly present in the vicinity.

Watch the video below to learn about community policing in Long Beach, California.

Building trust, is perhaps the most important goal of community policing, as it creates a different dynamic in the neighborhood. Advocates believe that traditional policing often just creates fear. It’s believed that the active participation of community residents legitimizes police work and helps to maintain trust and reduce crime at the same time. In the long run, it can alter criminal justice policies and establish new professional norms in police departments across the country.

History of Community Policing

The inception of community policing can be traced to the 1800s when Sir Robert Peel pioneered the practice in one of London’s Police Departments. The United States took up the innovative approach and adhered to it until the beginning of the 20th century. However, with changes to technology like police cars and mobile phones, policies changed too. Slower paced and labor-intensive community policing was abandoned.

Its revival began in the 1970s, when several police departments employed more progressive practices, some of which contained elements of community policing, such as building public support and engaging citizenry. Since that time, community policing unequivocally has become a more common modus operandi in police departments across the country. Many state jurisdictions have either community policing units or employ community-oriented practices as strategies to maintain public safety and fight crime. Practices vary greatly, but all involve public outreach in one way or another. Since its inception, community policing in the United States has been supported by non-profit organizations, government agencies, and rendered various partnerships. Among the most important are the following.

• The Community Policing Consortium (CPC) was an early initiative to establish community policing as a legitimate practice. The CPC was founded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and is essentially a five-way partnership between the leading police associations and forums in the country. Its focus is to provide technical assistance and training materials to police departments.
• The Center for Problem Oriented Policing (POP) was established in 1999, and played a leading role in cultivating community policing practices in the United States. It is comprised of researchers, police practitioners, and academics.
• Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is a federal agency that operates under the Department of Justice. COPS assists with grants and with practical implementation of community policing practices. COPS’ initiatives include Making Officer Deployment Effective; Distressed Neighborhoods; Problem Solving Partnerships; Tribal Government Resource Grants; Domestic Violence Grants; Meth-amphetamine Initiatives; Technology Adoption; Justice-Based After School Activities; and Anti-Gang Initiatives.

In March 2015, Attorney General Eric Holder announced  a $4.75 million pilot community policing initiative. The project will be called the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, and will run in Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis; Pittsburgh; and Stockton, California.

What are the benefits of community policing?

Community policing is a completely different approach to criminal decisions and the actors involved. It rethinks the role of law enforcement, fundamentally changing the outcome of an everyday police encounter by building trust and respect between police officers and citizens. Community policing in a way is a crime prevention tool as it targets the root of the problem and heals the wounds of the community by creating an atmosphere of trust and support, not fear and retribution.

What are community courts and how do they work?

Community courts are neighborhood-centered courts that address problems of a specific community. All community courts are official arms of the justice system, with the appropriate jurisdiction to handle certain types of crime. Community courts can be multi-jurisdictional, have just one jurisdiction, or  act as specialized courts that focus on issues such as drugs, domestic violence, and mental health. Community courts often involve local organizations, churches, businesses, social service providers, criminal justice agencies, and community members to create new and innovative approaches to deal with local crime issues.

Community courts mostly deal with low-level habitual offenders, the so-called frequent flyers, who are responsible for quality-of-life crimes that are non-violent and low-level offenses. These can include loitering, panhandling, shoplifting, and trespassing. Frequent flyers usually reoffend because there are no mechanisms in place to help solve their problems. They cycle in and out of the system, breeding poverty and more crime.

The purpose of community courts is to break this cycle of crime in the community, aid victims, and rehabilitate offenders. To reach these goals, community courts use a mixture of traditional and non-traditional practices. Instead of putting offenders back into the prison system without offering aid, community courts provide a helpful alternative, often through drug treatment or job-readiness programs. Some community courts use mediation, job training and placement, drug treatment, homeless outreach, substance abuse, HIV prevention, and tutoring programs for youth. As a result, offenders pay back the community by working in the neighborhood in partnership with local organizations. This allows for better integration of offenders into the community. If an offender complies, he receives the benefit of social services, while if he fails, he will be brought back to the traditional court system for adjudication. By sentencing fewer people to incarceration and increasing the numbers of those who can remain within communities, community courts are building up mutual trust, which in turn can result in solving crime problems in that specific neighborhood.

History of Community Courts

Community courts are a later phenomenon than community policing. The first community courts in the country can be traced  to the early-to-mid 1990s, but they stalled due to the nation’s “tough on crime” policies. Recently, community courts were revived as an alternative to traditional adjudication practices, mostly due to the negative effects of the “tough on crime” era, and the overcrowding of American prisons.  As of 2014, there were 40 community courts in 14 states, including Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. New York City is the leader in the number of community courts, hosting six within its borders.

No two community courts are alike as each is unique in its structure and the programs it provides. Among the most prominent and effective are the following.

• The Midtown Community Court was established in 1993, and was the first court of its kind. It played a pivotal pole in cleaning up Times Square, which was at the time a frequent meeting place for prostitutes and drug dealers. Midtown Community Court heard more than 21,000 cases in 2013 alone, and yearly saves New York City $1.2 million by handling low-level offenders.
• The Hartford Community Court was created in 1998, and was the first program designed to apply to the entire city, including urban and suburban communities. It has a community service hot line, and even offers a quarterly newsletter through which offenders report back to the community about their successes.
• Launched in 2000, the Red Hook Community Justice Center was the first multi-jurisdictional community court in the United States. It also has a youth court, where teenagers resolve cases pertaining to their peers. Watch the video below to learn more about the community court in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

• Started in 2008, the Orange County Community Court is comprised of a veterans court, drug court, mental health court, DUI court, and homeless outreach court. All these specialized courts are housed in the same facility, making it convenient to screen and refer offenders to appropriate social services and treatment programs.
• The San Francisco Community Justice Center, launched in 2009, adjudicates misdemeanor and non-violent felony cases in four neighborhoods: Tenderloin, South of Market, Union Square, and Civic Center. It provides drug and mental health treatment, support groups, counseling, career development, and job training. .

Watch the video below to learn more about other community courts and their innovative approaches.

What are the benefits of community courts?

Community courts improve the quality of life in a neighborhood and reshape social norms of those community members who have committed crimes. They build up trust between community members and the justice system, reduce fear, and contribute toward more fair and accountable adjudication practices.

Community courts also provide quicker and cheaper alternatives to the traditional court system as they uses judges, not juries. At a community court, a defendant can see a judge, receive punishment, and connect with a social worker all in one day.

These programs can free traditional courts from dealing with petty crimes, allowing them to focus on serious offenders instead. As a result, the prison population and costs associated with incarceration and the adjudication process decrease. It’s hard to assess if community courts are the cause of reductions to recidivism and crime rates, but the overall compliance with court practices is high, and the public tends to support community courts even if it means higher taxes. As an example, while Red Hook Community Court sent only one percent of all defendants to jail, its traditional counterpart, Brooklyn Criminal Court, incarcerated 15 percent of its defendants. Even if 78 percent of guilty defendants in the Red Hook Community Court receive ongoing supervision through mental health and drug treatment, it’s still a cheaper option than sending them to correction facilities.

Conclusion

Community justice is already fostering positive changes. Can it be a solution to the growing incarceration rates and police discontent? It certainly seems possible, as community justice successes continue to spring up. Each community has its unique concerns and crime problems, thus, a community justice approach can be a good fit to serve the needs of individual neighborhoods better than any sort of one-size-fits-all approach. By imposing meaningful sanctions on offenders, building trust between police and residents, and forming genuine problem-solving alliances, our criminal justice system may have the opportunity to change for the better.

Resources

Primary

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Community Justice: A Conceptual Framework

New York Courts: Problem-Solving Courts

Additional

Central Valley Business Times: Stockton Picked For Unique Community Justice Program

Center for Court Innovations: Community Courts

Center For Court Innovations: Midtown Community Court

Center For Court Innovations: Red Hook Community Justice Center

Center for Court Innovations: Mentor Courts

Center for Court Innovations: Hartford Community Court: Origins, Expectations and Implementation

Daily News: Red Hook Community Court is a Success for Defendants and Taxpayers

Pacific Standard: Community Courts Across the Country are Fighting Judicial Backlog and Lowering Re-arrest Rates

Big Story: Novel Courts Handle Low-Level Crimes Across U.S

Christian Science Monitor: Community Courts Let the Punishment Fit the Crime, Compassionately

Wall Street Journal: What to Know About Community Policing

What-When-How: Community-Oriented Policing

USA Today: Alternative Courts Gain Ground For Petty Criminals

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Justice: Can It Improve America’s Criminal System? appeared first on Law Street.

As we live in the New Media Age, the internet has become an omnipotent tool that millions of us use every day for a variety of reasons. The internet changed the way we go about our daily lives, providing a myriad of possibilities to meet people, organize tasks, buy products, and even search for people’s public records with the click of a mouse.

Read More: The Big Business of Big Data

As the information broker industry is rapidly growing, the United States is struggling to catch up and adopt comprehensive data protection laws to regulate it. This prompts a discussion on how to balance online access to public records and personal privacy. Read on to learn more about data protection and freedom of information laws, the data broker industry, and the consequences of easy access to online public records.

What are public records?

Public records are documents that can be openly accessed for inspection by any person. Often, personal information becomes a part of a public record when a person interacts with government agencies on the local, state, or federal level. Public records can include quite a collection of data: birth, marriage, death, arrest, tax, property ownership, driver’s license, occupational licenses, and voter registration information. Most of the time, providing personal information to government agencies is mandatory, leaving individuals no choice but to disclose their addresses, social security numbers (SSNs), and medical or employment histories. For example, if one donates over $200 to a political campaign, he has to provide his name, address, and employment information. All of the provided data automatically becomes a matter of an individual’s public record, and can be accessed through countless information broker websites. Court files are also public records, and all information contained within the files, with few exceptions, can be accessed without legal restrictions as well.

How do you access public records?

Historically, public records could be obtained only in paper form by physically going to the government agency or court house that collected and stored the applicable information. Starting in the mid-1990s, courts and government agencies began to provide online access to their public records directories, and to sell public files to information brokers and data compilers. Now, government or information broker websites can provide easy access with just the click of a mouse. The data broker industry is booming with thousands of companies selling all sorts of public records online.

What are information brokers?

Information brokers are companies that collect all sorts of data, including internet browsing information like consumer survey data and social media profiles, analyze an individual’s information, package it, and sell it to advertising and marketing companies. Some of the information brokers also obtain public records from local, state, and federal government agencies, and re-sell them online, adding appropriate packaging and a more sophisticated design to the reports. Many of these companies provide access to public records on a subscription basis, when a member pays a monthly fee for unlimited access to millions of public records. As there are virtually no laws that directly pertain to the information broker industry, public records can be accessed by anyone, regardless of their purpose and intentions. There are also no licensing requirements, no central registration system of any sort, and no mechanism through which it would be possible to request a copy of a personal public record that has been circulating online. Even though the information broker industry has been operating for decades, its volume and scope is much greater now, with thousands of companies mining and compiling individuals’ public records, ready to reveal our most sensitive personal data to anyone at any time.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers.

What are the laws that govern the information broker industry in the U.S?

The information broker industry is governed by various data protection and freedom of information laws. While the United States strongly adheres to freedom of information practices codified in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there is no comprehensive data protection legislation, except for narrowly applicable laws that are subject-specific and limited in scope.

Freedom of Information Laws 

Freedom of information is a fundamental human right recognized in international law and in many national laws around the globe. As of 2012, there were 93 countries that adopted comprehensive freedom of information laws or similar administrative regulations. In the United Sates, the right to access information from the federal government is outlined in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a comprehensive law that provides government accountability and safeguards the freedom to access public records. In addition to this federal legislation, each state has some sort of FOI laws, with different degrees of accessibility and restrictions. As the information broker industry provides services in relation to availability of information contained in public records, it operates within the FOI legal framework.

Data Protection Laws

Data protection laws are centered on safeguarding personal information from unauthorized usage. Worldwide, more than 80 countries have adopted comprehensive laws to uphold the privacy of their citizenry. In 1970s there were only eight countries that had data privacy laws on the books; in 2010 the number skyrocketed to 89. The United States is one of only a few developed countries that doesn’t have a comprehensive law that protects online privacy, but instead relies on sectorial laws that provide limited amounts of regulation and have many loopholes. Most of these laws pertain to personal information held by the federal government, while legislation that regulates personal information in public records systems is essentially limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is guided by the fair information practices that were developed by the Department for Health, Education, and Welfare in the 1970s. On the whole, FCRA regulates the practices of credit reporting agencies. It promotes agencies’ accountability and safeguards security of personal data. The law requires information to be accurate, purpose specific, and accessible. It also outlines limitations on collection and usage of personal data as pertaining to credit reporting.

California’s Data Privacy Laws

California is one of the few states that protects the personal privacy of its residents as it pertains to online access to public records. In 2003, it enacted the Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) that requires websites that collect personal information on California residents to post and comply with the privacy policy of the state. In 2013, California enacted so-called “Don’t Track” legislation (AB 370) that requires certain websites to disclose information on how they collect data and track users. During the same year, the Right to Know Act was introduced in the State Assembly, but it failed to pass due to strong opposition from the trade groups representing the information technology industry. If enacted, it would require data brokers to provide a copy of an individual’s stored information upon request.

Case Study: Instant Checkmate

Instant Checkmate is a California-based people search engine that operates by compiling and selling instant access to criminal background checks. Originally, Instant Checkmate was a small internet startup, but it recently gained popularity due to its appealing packaging and additional features, such as its public criminal records directory, crime wire blog, and reverse phone look up.

Notably in 2014, Instant Checkmate paid $525,000 in a settlement for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit, filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claimed that the company was operating as a consumer reporting agency, but wasn’t complying with FCRA regulations, including accuracy of provided information and verification of the identity of those who were requesting consumer reports through its website.

Now, the company markets itself as a tool to locate childhood friends and check out online dates. When you enter the website, the first thing you see is a notice that states:

You may not use our service or the information it provides to make decisions about consumer credit, employers, insurance, tenant screening, or any other purposes that would require FCRA compliance.

As the FCRA is limited to regulating credit reporting agencies only, it’s not applicable to the rest of the information broker industry. In order to avoid FCRA regulations many information broker companies simply run a disclaimer stating that they are not a credit reporting agency, and continue to operate outside any legal framework that pertains to  personal privacy. Instant Checkmate is one of many information broker companies that has used this tactic to escape FCRA compliance.

Watch the video below to learn more about Instant Checkmate, how it operates, and how the information obtained through its platform can be used by the third parties.

What are the advantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records further upholds freedom of information as a fundamental right, and provides certain benefits to consumers and employers.

Benefits for the Citizenry

Access to public records is a mechanism to monitor the government as it allows its citizenry to review official actions and keep government agencies accountable. Online access to public records is an additional and more powerful tool to safeguard liberties and to ensure transparency of governmental practices. In this regard, the internet provides a platform to oversee and track government actions in relation to various matters, including decisions in individual cases.

Benefits for Consumers

Access to public records is an important consumer tool that is widely used in spheres such as employment, child support, retirement, and identity theft prevention, just to name a few. Online access to public records can highly benefit consumers and those who directly interact with government agencies and courts, if public records are accurate and up-to-date.

Benefits for Employers

In addition, access to public records can help employers screen applicants to decrease liability implications in the future. If using appropriate channels of inquiry, online background checks can assist employers in choosing the right candidate for the position.

What are the disadvantages of online access to public records?

Online access to public records increases privacy concerns, especially when the information broker industry lacks government oversight and is poorly regulated.

Discrimination and the Rise of the “Dossier Society”

Due to the fact that everybody can access public records online, individuals’ pasts become a matter of the present, including any transgressions, law violations, or simply embarrassing moments. In turn, it leads to discrimination and disenfranchisement of individuals whose records are not squeaky clean, denying them employment opportunities, normal relationships, and, simply, privacy. Some experts predict that in the future we could become a “dossier society,” meaning a society where everybody has an electronic profile that provides a detailed account of the individual’s life. In this view, a dossier society won’t allow social forgiveness and will force those who have blemishes on their records to work low-paying jobs without any possibilities for professional growth and development.

Economic Crimes

Most public records, including divorce decrees, child custody cases, and bankruptcy filings, contain sensitive information such as SSNs, financial account numbers, and dates of birth. Allowing online access to those records increases the risk of economic crimes, particularly identity theft. Online access to public records exacerbates the problem of financial fraud as it’s relatively easy to obtain personal information on the web as there are hundreds of websites that provide detailed records for a small fee. Identity theft has devastating consequences for victims as they cannot obtain credit, home loans, employment, or rent apartments.

Data in the Courtroom

Details of court cases, including the personal information of plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses, becomes a part of the court record, and, therefore, public records. Not only can revealing personal data discourage plaintiffs from proceeding with cases, but can undermine the safety of those who are involved in the proceedings, including witnesses who testify against one of the parties. In addition, defendants often use personal medical or sexual history to promulgate damaging allegations against plaintiffs in medical bill payment or sexual harassment cases. Online access to public records facilitates the process of obtaining court files, making it relatively easy to mine personal data that can be used to alter court proceedings.

Inaccurate Information

Many times allegations that are made during court proceedings turn out to be false, particularly in disputes between business partners, former lovers, or neighbors. As a result, inaccurate information becomes a matter of an individual’s pubic record. As public records can be widely accessed online, inaccuracies in connecting information to specific individuals also frequently occur. In addition, some information brokers’ files can be outdated, creating additional errors in background reports. Mismatches and inaccuracies in personal data reports can link individuals to crimes they didn’t commit, deny them opportunities for employment, and destroy their reputations. In 2002, a New York resident was awarded $450,000 in damages as his profile contained a false criminal conviction.

Personal Safety

As many information broker companies claim that their services can ensure personal safety by revealing criminal histories of online dates, neighbors, and other acquaintances, online background checks can also do exactly the opposite and jeopardize safety for some people. As personal information of witnesses and victims is a matter of a public record, if their identities and addresses are revealed, they can be targeted by criminals for retribution, stalked, or even re-victimized by their domestic partner.

Targeting Consumers

Information broker companies are clearly making money from compiling and selling public records online. Not only do they amass information from different government websites, but re-package and sort it, creating a brand new product in order to earn additional profit. Information from online public records is extensively used by commercial profilers for marketing and advertising purposes. Business owners also often use information from online public records to target specific groups, including those with credit or bankruptcy problems, for advertising.

Watch the video below to learn more about information brokers and how they are mining, compiling, and selling personal data to third parties.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, citizens of any democratic society should have a right to access public records in order to hold their government accountable and keep its practices transparent. At the same time, personal information of individuals should be protected, and, for that reason, the information broker industry should be regulated to make sure that unauthorized users don’t have access to sensitive and often private matters. As this technology progresses, these questions will all need to be considered.

 Resources

Primary

California Legislative Information: AB-1291 Privacy: Right to Know Act of 2013

California Constitution: Article 1 Declaration of Rights

California Legislative Information: AB-370 Consumers: Internet Privacy

U.S. Department of Justice: The Freedom of Information Act

Additional

Social Science Research Network: Global Data Privacy Laws: 89 Countries, and Accelerating

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: Public Records on the Internet: The Privacy Dilemma

Electronic Privacy Information Center: Privacy and Public Records

Top Ten Reviews: Instant Checkmate

Yahoo Finance: Free Public Criminal Records Directory Offered on Instant Checkmate Website

New Media Institute: What is New Media?

International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology: Data Protection and Privacy in the United States and Europe

FreedomInfo: 93 Countries Have FOI Regimes, Most Tallies Agree

CNN Money: Data Brokers Settle Charges Over Background Checks

Crime Wire: An In-Depth Look at Instant Checkmate

Crime Wire: What Kind of Background Check Does Instant Checkmate Perform?

National Consumer Law Center: Broken Records: How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Personal Records Online: Who’s Protecting Your Information? appeared first on Law Street.

A history of inadequate immigration policies paired with the notion of the “American Dream” creates an interesting paradox for the role of immigrants in American society. Growing pressure from immigrants’ rights advocates and the overall changes in immigration policies initiated by the Obama Administration have prompted a debate on how to deal with growing numbers of undocumented immigrants. Are current deportation policies a part of the solution or are they the problem themselves? Read on to learn more about deportation practices in the United States.

What is deportation?

Deportation can be broadly defined as an order to leave a country. Deportation in the United States is carried out in two ways: removals and returns.

A removal is an official judicial or administrative order to leave the country, and is a formal legal process. If a person is removed from the country, he is barred from legally entering the country for a certain or indefinite period of time. Appearance in front of an immigration judge or an officer is often a part of the removal procedure. An order of removal becomes a part of the individual’s permanent record. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the agency responsible for removal proceedings.

On the contrary, return is a more informal mechanism of deportation. It’s essentially a turn around at the border without any paperwork or formal procedure. In this way, being “returned” doesn’t result in any legal consequences and these individuals are not necessarily barred from re-entering the country in the future. U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehends people at the border, and can carry out either removal or return proceedings.

While removals can be carried out anywhere in the country or at the border, returns are only applicable to individuals trying to cross the border or people who were caught in close proximity to it.

What laws govern deportation practices in the U.S.?

Even though the United States emerged as an immigrant country, regulating immigration has been a long-standing policy of the U.S. government. Race and ethnicity have long played a crucial role in policy decisions concerning immigration. Virtually all ethnic groups have suffered the consequences of racially motivated policies of exclusion. For example, Chinese immigrants were marginalized and constantly targeted for deportation throughout the early history of the United States.

More recent policies and practices pertaining to deportation focus on so-called “smart enforcement,” which emphasizes deportations of those with criminal convictions or ties to terrorist organizations. This strategy is rooted in close cooperation between immigration and border patrol forces, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only did it expand penalties for unauthorized re-entry after deportation, but for myriads of other immigration-related crimes.

In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed into law. It authorized mandatory deportations for undocumented immigrants who had criminal convictions, even non-violent ones. The definition of “aggravated felony” in immigration law was expanded to include tax evasion, failure to appear in court, and even receipt of stolen property. In addition, this law created special procedures for those accused of terrorist charges, including limiting their habeas corpus protections.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further limited the rights of undocumented immigrants by expanding avenues for deportations without judicial review. According to both 1996 reforms, all undocumented immigrants with aggravated felony convictions were due for deportation, even if offense was committed years before the laws were enacted. In addition, the laws could be applied to all non-citizens, including legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants alike.

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was also enacted back in 1996. It allowed law-enforcement agencies to perform the functions of federal immigration agents by deputizing local police officers. In recent years, the implementation of the 287 (g) initiative was widely criticized for its lack of federal oversight, racial profiling practices, and draining of valuable resources that could have been used instead to investigate crimes.

After 2001, criminal enforcement and national security practices were further tied to immigration policies. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee both counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. All in all, the post-9/11 era can be somewhat characterized by the large number of initiatives and programs that pertain to immigration and deportation enforcement. Some major deportation-related programs include the following:

• The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was initiated in 2002 and required those who were from “suspect” nations, to register and interview with immigration authorities and to be fingerprinted. The program was criticized for its inherent religious and ethnic profiling as well as its broad overreach. More than 13,000 Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants were deported, devastating families and communities. The program was suspended in 2011 due to extensive lobbying by Muslim Americans.
• The Consequence Delivery System took off in 2005, targeting those who were trying to enter the country unlawfully, especially through the U.S.-Mexico border. The focuses of the initiative were on formal removals and criminal charges. The Consequence Delivery System not only discourages voluntary returns, but encourages formal removals that are closely entangled with criminal proceedings.
• Operation Streamline was introduced during the same year in order to speed up immigration proceedings by providing courts with the freedom to initiate so-called “group trials,” which provide few legal rights to immigrants. From 2009 to 2012, 208,939 undocumented immigrants went through such court proceedings and were expelled from the country.
• The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) was created in 2006 and encompasses different components to identify and remove undocumented immigrants and sometimes permanent residents within local, state, and federal correction facilities. Identified individuals can be removed even if they were not convicted of a crime and still have pending charges. As of 2009, 57 percent of those deported through CAP were not convicted of any crime.
• Secure Communities Program (SCP) is an ongoing information-sharing program that was created in 2008. The main goal of the initiative is to identify undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions through the screening of biometrical data when people are booked into jails. As of now, Secure Communities has helped to remove 283,000 of such undocumented immigrants, 93 percent of whom were Latino. Critiques of this program include concerns about it is racial profiling in communities of color and that the program has collateral damages, as many undocumented immigrants identified and removed through the SCP are non-violent offenders or traffic violators.

During the past several administrations, deportation policies have shifted toward a focus on border security and apprehension of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. In this way, immigration policies have become more closely associated with criminal enforcement.

How many people are being deported?

Overall, the number of undocumented immigrants who are deported has grown over time. There were only 70,000 people deported in 1995-96, the next year this number rose to 114,000. By 2012 deportations reached 419,384 and climbed to 438,421 in 2013. However, in 2014 the numbers dropped to 315,943, with two-thirds of people who were deported being apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of it.

By some estimations, since President Obama took office more than two million people were deported, prompting discontent from immigrant advocate groups. However, even though deportation numbers went up during Obama’s presidency, most of the increase in official figures stems from shifting policies.

How do we count deportations?

During the second term of George W. Bush’s administration, more people were formally removed than simply turned around at the border through the previously discussed Consequence Delivery System. When Obama became  president, he continued to follow the already-in-place practices of treating many returns as removals, resulting in the overall increased numbers of deportees. Before, immigrants who were caught at the border were simply sent back to where they came from, without legal consequences. Now, they are more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, and issued a deportation order. As a result, deportations that would previously be classified as returns are now officially counted as removals.

Return recordkeeping tended to be more informal. In most instances, people who were simply turned around at the border would not be counted in the official statistics. As a result, the total number of those deported seems higher now, but in the reality it’s hard to say how many people were returned and not counted in the official statistics before Bush started this trend. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of returns and removals were roughly the same, 1.6 million each; however, in 2013, 64 percent of removals were carried out at the border, signifying a 28 percent increase from 2008. Simultaneously, the number of people apprehended in the interior of the country dropped to 36 percent in 2013.

It’s clear that arrests at the border constitute a significant proportion of the overall deportations, while undocumented immigrants who have already been living in the United States are given less priority.

How are deportations are carried out?

Formal deportations are usually carried out only after a person appears before an immigration judge. However, during the last couple of years judicial proceedings were outpaced by expedited removals and other similar practices. In 2013, 83 percent of deportations were executed without judicial review. Moreover, 44 percent were fast-track removals and 40 percent were reinstatements of orders that were not previously carried out. During the same year, only 17 percent of deportations were carried out through judicial order, compared with 36 percent in 2011.

The video below looks at the life of one undocumented immigrant who was deported through reinstatement of previous order of removal after living in the United States for more than 20 years. He left behind a wife and five American children.

Who is being deported?

Criminals

The Obama Administration reiterated that it would target immigrants who committed crimes for deportation. Consequently, from 2009 to 2013 the numbers of deported immigrants with criminal convictions went up 54.6 percent. In 2013, 85 percent of deportees had been previously convicted of felonies or at least three misdemeanors.

However, in 2013, 60 percent of those who had a criminal record and were removed from the country, had only minor non-violent convictions, punishable by less than a year in prison. Since President Obama took office, only 20 percent of all deportees were convicted of serious crimes, including drug-related offenses. In 2012, less then one percent of those deported were charged and convicted with homicide.

Parents of U.S.-Born Children

Many of those who are deported have American-born children. It is estimated that in 2013, 72,000 parents with U.S.-born children were deported. In total, there are around 3.5 million undocumented immigrants who have a U.S. citizen child.

As a consequence, many U.S.-born children whose parents are being detained or deported enter the foster care system. Watch the video below to learn more about the growing share of such children in foster care.

Ethnic Composition

In 2013, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were the top countries of origin for deportees. During the same year, 72 percent of all deportees were from Mexico, with many apprehended at the border.

Meanwhile, immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia are more often expelled from the country after being suspected of having ties with terrorist groups outside the United States. From 2003 to 2012, 60,000 from Muslim countries in the above regions were deported from the United States.

What are the issues with current deportation policies?

First and foremost, deportations of undocumented immigrants affect families and communities. There are many undocumented immigrants who have been living in the United States for years. One quarter of deported immigrants are separated from U.S.-born children, and even more are separated from other family members.

Undocumented immigrants also face a lack of legal assistance, and are not provided with the same rights as American citizens, including due process. Deportees are not provided with an attorney, and most of them don’t have a court hearing before they are expelled from the country.

The costs of immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings are enormous. In 2010, $600 million was allocated to add border patrol agents and new surveillance technology. In 1993 the annual budget of Customs and Border Protections (CBP) was only $363 million, while in 2013 it reached $11.9 billion. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) costs taxpayers $5.9 billion as of 2013, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) expenses amounted to $2.9 billion in 2012.

In addition, treating returns as removals is not only costly but results in serious legal consequences for undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants may never again have the chance to re-enter the country, even if it’s years later.

 What is being done about deportation?

The current administration passed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 years old and before June 2007 to apply for a renewable two-year work permit and avoid deportation. Since 2012, 580,946 undocumented immigrants have benefited from DACA.

In 2013, the  Obama Administration pushed for another law, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). Among other things, the bill would allow undocumented immigrants–if they meet eligibility requirements–to apply for registered provisional immigration programs (RPI). RPIs are six-year programs that allow all those eligible to avoid deportation and receive work permits. In ten years, immigrants with RPI status would be able to apply for permanent residency. Eventually they could become citizens of the United States. While this bill did not pass, it’s another example of the changes that some are hoping to see to America’s immigration policies.

But not everybody is happy with the “path to citizenship” approach to undocumented immigrants. Many GOP members believe that all undocumented immigrants should simply be deported. Watch the video below to learn more about pro-deportation point of view.

Conclusion

By the lowest estimations, there are around ten million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Deportations cannot be the only meaningful solution as the numbers are too high and the issue is too complex for such a simple approach as mass removals. The current administration has already taken the first steps to reduce deportations and provide permanent solutions for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, the criminal justice approach to immigration should be re-evaluated as it has been long proven that there is no relationship between immigration and crime. What will be done to fix the problem of the many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is yet to be seen.

  Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

U.S. Congress: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FY 2014 ICE Immigration Removals

Department of Justice: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: Immigration Enforcement in Prisons and Jails

Immigration Policy Center: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Immigration Policy Center: The Growth of the U.S.Deportation Machine

LA Times: High Deportation Figures Are Misleading

LA Times: Number of Immigrants Deported From U.S. Dropped Sharply in Last Year

New Republic: Who’s the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama?

Pew Research Center: U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013

Tampa Bay Times: Lou Dobbs: Obama Administration ‘Manipulated Deportation Data’

Nation: Why Has President Obama Deported More Immigrants Than Any President in U.S. History?

The New York Times: Deportation Up in 2013; Border Sites Were Focus

The New York Times: More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Records Show

Washington Post: Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Washington Post: Is President Obama’s Claim To Have Increased Criminal Deportations Accurate?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Deportation Policy: Successes and Failures appeared first on Law Street.

The ideal portrait of a middle class household in the United States usually consists of a steady income, a sizable house, a few cars, yearly family vacations, and weekend outings. This image is rooted in the stereotypical family of the 1950s–a nuclear family residing in the suburbs. Until recently, being middle class in the United States was still reminiscent of that post-war generation of American families. But things have changed, and dramatically so. The middle class is shrinking rapidly, with more people moving down the income ladder. Read on to learn more about the status of the middle class in America and the reasons for its decline.

How to Define the Middle Class

There is no universal definition of middle class, but households that make enough money to live comfortably, take vacations, indulge in entertainment, and save for retirement and college funds can be broadly considered to fit the bill. However, the description of “middle class” can include a broad range of figures, depending on the chosen measurement.

The most common measure used to define middle class is income. The New York Times  has chosen 50 percent above the poverty level ($35,000) for a family of four as the lowest threshold and $100,000 as the highest income for a middle class family. Pew Research Center presented middle class as households ranging from those who make two-thirds ($40,667) to twice ($122,000) the median income. The U.S. Department of Commerce gives a more narrow range, from $50,800 to $122,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau considers middle class families to be those who fall between $20,600 and $102,000.

Other possible measurements could include occupation, education, social values, or some combination of the above. In addition, regional cost of living is often taken into account when categorizing American households. Interestingly, those who make less than $20,000 or more than $150,000 a year still sometimes consider themselves a part of the American middle class depending on where they live and the expenses they have. Essentially, the cohort is almost impossible to define, as each household has different needs. While some can manage to save for retirement on $20,000 a year, other families that may have an income over $100,000 have to pay larger medical or college bills, resulting in zero savings.

How is the American middle class changing?

The U.S. Census Bureau started to track household incomes in 1967. With some ups and downs, the overall income levels tended to increase over the earlier decades. However, starting in 2010 the American middle class has begun to shrink. As of now, 61 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 36 percent don’t contribute anything to retirement, and more than 40 percent work in low-paying jobs in the retail and service sectors.

People ages 30 to 44 are less likely to be middle class, while those who are 65 years and older are more likely to be middle or upper-middle class. As many baby boomers are working past their retirement age, and most of them receive Medicaid and Social Security benefits, households containing those who are 65 years and older are the fastest growing share of the contemporary middle class. The number of adults in middle class households decreased from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. At the same time, the number of adults who now live in upper-income households has gone up from 14 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2013. The share of younger adults, ages 18 to 29, who live in middle class households has fallen dramatically, with more of them moving to the lower class due to staggering unemployment rates.

In addition, family status is an important factor in association with income distribution among the American population. Two-adult households are more likely to be upper-middle class due to the fact that both adults are working, thus increasing the overall family wealth. One-adult households are disproportionately lower income for precisely the same reason. The traditional vision of American middle class families–two adults and children–is now on the decline, constituting only a quarter of middle class households. Some of them surely increased their income, moving to the upper-middle class, probably due to the increased number of women in the workforce.

White Americans are more likely than black Americans and Hispanics to live in middle- to upper-income families. In 2013, half of Black households and 43 percent of Hispanic households were lower income.

Location wise, the number of middle class households has decreased in the Northeast, especially in such states as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

Overall, the dynamics of the middle class in America are changing. In 1967, 53 percent of households were middle class families; in 2010 that share decreased to 43 percent, with some people moving up or down the income ladder.

Why is the American middle class changing?

The middle class in the United States is shrinking for a broad range of reasons that collectively influence the changing dynamics of middle class membership.

The Great Recession 

First and foremost, the Great Recession of 2008 resulted in lower incomes, high unemployment rates, and increased numbers of home foreclosures. It’s estimated that the median net worth (the amount by which assets exceed liabilities) was at $120,600 in 2007; after the recession this number dropped to $77,300. Due to long-term stagnation in wages, median household income has decreased from $56,080 in 1999 to $51,017 in 2012. Simply put, after 2008, many middle class families became lower-income families.

Creation of Low-Income and Part-Time Jobs 

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing market collapse, many middle-income jobs were lost. In response, low-income jobs were created, adding little wealth to American households. Employment in low-skill jobs increased 110 percent between 1980 and 2009, while available middle-skill jobs have risen only 46 percent. At the same time, more and more Americans are working part time as they cannot obtain full-time employment. In 2012, more than 2.5 million Americans were working part time, the highest number since 1993. Clearly, proliferation of low-income and part-time jobs resulted in the overall drop of middle class incomes. Watch the video below to learn more about low-paying jobs in the United States.

The Growing Income Gap

But not all middle class families moved down the income ladder. On the contrary, some households’ incomes skyrocketed instead. The gap between high-income Americans and everybody else reached its apex during the years following the Great Recession. Simply put, the wealth of upper-middle-class households has increased, while middle- and lower-class families’ incomes have declined or didn’t change at all. The upper class is earning roughly 50 percent of the overall national income and is holding 83 percent of all U.S. stocks. At the same time, lower- and middle class families hold only seven percent of the liquid financial assets, and own less than one percent of the country’s wealth.

While the number of millionaires in the United States has increased 16 percent since 2009, the number of children who live in poverty accounted for 21 percent of all children in 2010, the highest percentage in the last 20 years. The growing income gap is especially evident as the wealth of middle class families has diminished, while upper class families experienced significant boosts in their earnings. Watch the video below to learn more about income gap in the United States.

Shift of Jobs Overseas

As multinational corporations are looking to minimize expenses while maximizing  profits, they are shifting their operations overseas. This prompts significant reductions in employment opportunities inside the country as corporations are hiring less in the United States and more in the less-developed parts of the globe. The reason for this is very simple: there are fewer regulations and labor is cheaper. In addition, American companies don’t have to adhere to minimum-wage requirements or pay benefits to the overseas workers, significantly reducing their expenses. It’s estimated that from 1999 to 2008, American companies hired 2.2 million people in other countries, while scrapping 2.1 million positions inside the United States. Not only is it more expensive and difficult to conduct business in the U.S., it’s also much cheaper and more convenient to run a large company abroad.

Increasing Use of Technology in the Workplace

Not only do middle class Americans have to compete with overseas workers, but now they have to compete with computers and machinery. As the use of technology in the workplace rapidly grows, more and more middle class jobs disappear. Now, computers are doing the same jobs that humans used to do decades ago, depleting middle class employment opportunities. Essentially, technology is replacing human labor as computers can complete tasks faster, cheaper, and with more accuracy than human employees. Starting in 2010, the number of people employed as telephone operators, word processors, and typists has declined 63 percent. The share of travel agents has decreased 46 percent, while the number of bookkeepers has plunged 26 percent. In addition, such jobs as check-out cashiers, bank tellers, ticket agents, and secretaries are on the decline, as many businesses use computers instead of employing workers.

One of the recent examples of job technology taking over is “bookBots,” an innovative project at North Carolina State University. Instead of human librarians who retrieve books as students request them, robots are programmed to find requested books, now located within 18,000 metal bins, instead of traditional library shelves. Thus, many middle class jobs are already unavailable to humans due to the reduced costs associated with computerized services and ease of use for consumers. Many professions could become completely extinct due to technological advances and innovative approaches in the workplace.

Decline of Labor Unions

Besides the fact that the American economy is shifting overseas and some professions are going extinct due to the increased use of technology, fewer workers inside the United States are earning union salaries. Historically, labor unions were the most influential advocates for workers’ rights, and unionized workers were the backbone of the American middle class. Now, fewer jobs are unionized, prompting a large-scale decline in the influence and power of American labor unions. In 1983, one in five workers was part of a union; today this is true of only one in ten workers. Unionized workers’ median monthly salary is $10,000 more than that of their non-unionized counterparts. With the decline in labor unions, fewer American workers are earning middle class salaries. Watch the video below to learn more about labor unions and their importance for the middle class.

Increases in ‘Out-of-Pocket’ Expenses and Rising Debt

Middle class households are those families that, besides living comfortably, are able to save money. Many middle class Americans have to pay their college tuition without financial assistance, which is available to lower-income families only. Health insurance is another “out-of-pocket” expense that can be rather costly, as only those who have very low or no income are eligible for government assistance. In 2001, two thirds of American middle class families were able to accumulate savings; in 2010, less than 55 percent were saving money for retirement or their kids’ education.

A large portion of middle class income is going toward paying off student loans and maintaining medical coverage rendering it difficult to save for retirement or to buy a house. Some middle class households are deep in debt. In 1992, the median level of debt for middle class families was $32,200; by 2010 it increased 161 percent, reaching $84,000. The economic pressures that middle class households face today result in downward mobility and accumulation of debt.

Restored Payroll Tax Rate

In 2009, President Obama introduced a temporary measure to stimulate the economy by cutting the payroll tax, which finances Social Security and Medicaid by taking a percentage of income from both employees and employers. Before 2009, the payroll tax constituted 6.2 percent of income; after the changes, middle class Americans received a two-percentage-point break, resulting in a payroll tax of 4.2 percent instead. In 2013, the payroll tax cut expired and middle class households began to receive $84 less in their monthly paychecks, which is around $1,000 in yearly tax withholdings. As lower- and middle class families were the ones who enjoyed the two-percentage-point break the most, they are now the ones who are suffering the most.

Higher Food Prices

Food prices have increased globally and in the United States. On average, there’s been a 6.4 percent hike on most food products, while the price of some essentials such as meat, milk, and eggs is 16-22 percent higher than in previous years. Nevertheless, the income of middle class families is staying the same, constraining food shopping for many middle class households. The median income is increasing only one percent a year, making it difficult to keep up with rising food prices without moving down the income ladder.

Conclusion

The dynamics of the middle class in the United States are changing. Some of the above reasons for the middle class downturn are more serious than others, but all are collectively responsible for the decline in its traditional form. At the same time, technological advances in the workplace are inevitable and most likely  will continue to erase traditional service jobs and create new occupations, shifting the middle class around.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: America’s ‘Middle’ Holds Its Ground After the Great Recession

Additional

Sen. Bernie Sanders: The Middle Class in America is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

The New York Times: The Shrinking American Middle Class

CBS Evening News: Food Prices Soar as Income Stands Still

CNN Money: America’s Middle Class: Poorer Than You Think

CNN Money: America’s Disappearing Middle Class

DailyNews: Can Smart Machines Take Your Job?

Forbes: The U.S. Middle Class is Turning Proletarian

Huffington Post: Four Reasons It’s So Hard For the Middle Class to Buy a House

The New York Times: Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up

CNN Money: What Happens if the Payroll Tax Cut Expires

Pew Research Center: Are Americans Ready For Obama’s ‘Middle Class’ Populism?

PBS Frontline: The State of America’s Middle Class in Eight Charts

TIME: A Brief History of the Middle Class

USA Today: Middle Class a Matter of Income, Attitude

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Changing Dynamics of the American Middle Class appeared first on Law Street.

Attitudes toward prostitution in the United States have long been based on the Judeo-Christian tradition arguing that selling sex is immoral; however, global trends arguing for sexual self-determination and changing attitudes toward the sex industry have become more popular. The United Nations Secretary General has even called for the decriminalization of sex work. These changes pose the question: how should the United States address the issue of prostitution?

The U.S. still criminalizes sex work, but the urgency of making changes in this sphere is evident in the growing sex worker rights movement that strives to define the legal status and rights of prostitutes. Read on to learn more about different models of regulating prostitution, and the arguments for and against them.

What are the real numbers behind prostitution?

Prostitution is “the act of offering one’s self for hire to engage in sexual relations.” In other words, it’s an exchange of a sexual act for money.

It’s hard to determine the real numbers behind prostitution due to the fact that sex work is criminalized in the United States. As most of the actors involved in this business operate underground, statistics are rather scarce. Some estimates of the current number of prostitutes range from 230,000 to 350,000, but others put the number closer to one million.

Prostitutes come from a variety of backgrounds. Indisputably, there are those who come from marginalized and impoverished environments, were sexually abused, homeless, poorly educated, or drug addicted. In addition, some women and men are coerced or trafficked into prostitution. Every year thousands of people are trafficked for the purposes of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. However, this doesn’t mean that all prostitutes are forced or trafficked. There are also those who chose to become involved in sex work of their own volition. These people can have different motivations to enter the sex industry, citing high earnings, flexible work hours, or genuine passion for this line of work.

Should prostitution be decriminalized, legalized, or none of the above?

Generally, you hear about three distinct approaches to prostitution: criminalization, decriminalization, and legalization. All of them are rooted in different ideological perspectives and include diverse goals and contrasting methods of achieving their desired objectives. Watch the video below to learn more about the ongoing debate over prostitution.

Criminalization

Prostitution is criminalized in most parts of the United States. Proponents of this view often believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore label it as a criminal behavior. In their view, prostitution endangers marriages and is simply wrong. Prostitutes are viewed as criminals who behave illegally. The rhetoric of those who support criminalization is often centered on the notion that such alternatives as legalization will have devastating consequences on the American morale.

The supporters of criminalization also connect legal prostitution with increased sex trafficking, the spread of STDs, and a greater number of children being coerced into the sex industry. Watch the video below to learn more about Catharine MacKinnon’s arguments against the legalization of prostitution and its connection with human trafficking.

Decriminalization

Decriminalization means the removal of certain criminal laws related to the operation of the sex industry. When prostitution is decriminalized, consensual adult sexual activity in a commercial setting is no longer viewed as a crime. Decriminalization can be considered a half step toward legalization as individuals engaged in the business can be required to obtain a special permit or be subjected to penalties. Essentially, if a person is caught in the act, his punishment will be no more than a fine, something along the lines of speeding or a parking ticket.

At the same time, decriminalization doesn’t legalize sex work, but does instruct law enforcement to give low priority to prostitution cases. This approach intends to use the already existing legal mechanisms to support the health and safety of prostitutes. Many advocates of decriminalization cite labor and anti-discrimination laws as arguments to grant prostitutes certain rights, including freedom of choice and self-regulation.

Decriminalized systems often still impose criminal penalties for all other actors involved in the business, including clients and pimps. This perspective is rooted in the abolitionist movement that historically rescued women from prostitution and trained them for alternative careers. In this view, prostitutes are victims of male exploitation and supporters of this approach often consider prostitution demeaning to women.

The ultimate goal of decriminalization is to uproot the profession by targeting those who purchase sex in the first place. It’s believed that by eradicating the demand, the supply will subside on its own. The advocates of this form of decriminalization usually strongly oppose legalization that will make the sex business flourish instead of extinguishing the industry.

The Swedish Model

The Swedish model is the most influential decriminalization example. Since 1999, buying sex in Sweden is a criminal offense punishable by fines or up to six months imprisonment. Contrarily, selling of sexual services is not a criminal offense, meaning that prostitutes are not subjected to criminal law proceedings. The law is popular in Sweden–80 percent of the Swedish population supports the initiative, but many are still skeptical of its effectiveness.

The Swedish model was also adopted in Norway and Iceland. In 2014, Canada moved to this model of controlling public solicitation of prostitution and restricting demand on sexual services. In addition, similar decriminalization models were adopted in Nepal, India, American Samoa, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Guam, Republic of Korea, Palau, and Taiwan.

What are the arguments in favor of decriminalization?

Decriminalization of prostitution can arguably decrease violence against prostitutes. A study in San Francisco found that 82 percent of prostitutes have been assaulted and 68 percent were raped during their time working in the sex industry. Another study in Colorado Springs found that prostitutes were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitute women of their demographic. If sex work is criminalized, prostitutes are reluctant to ask for help or go to the police if victimized. If decriminalized, prostitutes and law enforcement will have an avenue for communication, and if a prostitute is victimized she can report the crime to the police without the fear of being charged and detained for prostitution.

Decriminalization can also benefit the investigation of sex trafficking cases as prostitutes can aid law enforcement with information from the inside. In addition, law enforcement can save valuable resources as police departments won’t need to deal with as many prostitution cases. In 2011, Texas alone spent $8 million on prison expenses related to prostitution. Decriminalization won’t eliminate the financial burden completely as pimps and johns are often criminalized in those countries who adhere to decriminalization model, but it can decrease expenses overall and re-direct resources towards other crimes.

What are the arguments against decriminalization?

Criminalization of sexual services for clients, and not for prostitutes, can be challenging as both those who purchase and provide sexual services are unlikely to admit to the transaction. Clients will be reluctant to do so due to the existing criminal laws, while prostitutes can lose their income and clientele if they aid law enforcement. In fact, several independent studies have shown that current laws have pushed some Swedish prostitutes underground, resulting in an increased danger of victimization.

Those who oppose the Swedish approach to prostitution are also concerned with its unintended consequences of stigmatization and marginalization of those who enter the sex industry of their own volition. The Swedish model doesn’t acknowledge that prostitutes can choose this occupation out of their free will, but view all prostitutes as passive victims of violence and abuse.

Overall, there isn’t much evidence that this approach improves the quality of work and life of sex workers, or decreases HIV or STD transmissions. Even through the Swedish model is popular around the world, both the Swedish and the international experiences don’t provide enough indications of decline in prostitution.

Legalization

Legalization usually involves a system of laws and government regulations that define the operation of the sex industry. Such a system can be highly regulated or merely define the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for those who operate outside the established framework. Prostitutes are often required to pay special taxes, can work only in specified zones, and to register with the government. In addition, prostitutes are often obligated to regularly undergo health checks, and to obtain special licenses to legally operate as a sex workers. Thus, the legalization of prostitution seeks to control, regulate, and define the rules of the sex industry.

The legalization model emphasizes freedom of personal choice and regards prostitution as a form of work. The supporters of this approach maintain the belief that sexual relations between two consenting adults should’t be criminalized as those who engage in this type of relations do so voluntarily. This rhetoric is centered on the notion that people are free to choose what to do with their bodies and, therefore, entering into contracts to provide sexual services is their right that shouldn’t be undermined by the views of those who don’t agree with their decision. At the same time, advocates for legalization acknowledge that people can be forced or coerced into prostitution. They also acknowledge the existence of trafficking and exploitation, but don’t believe that all women are victims, and that prostitution automatically leads to violence.

European Experiences

The Netherlands and Germany are, probably, the most prominent examples of legalization. The Netherlands legalized prostitution in 2000, and it’s now regulated by the country’s labor laws. Germany followed in 2002 by providing prostitutes with legal protections and social insurance. In both countries the sex industry boomed, resulting in increased numbers of legal brothels and prostitutes, but also prompted concerns over increased cases of human trafficking.

Nevada’s Legal Brothels

The state of Nevada has a long history of regulating prostitution in some counties, starting in  1937 when a law was enacted to require weekly health checks for all prostitutes. In 1971, Nevada began taxing brothels, thus legalizing the sex industry in rural counties of the state. As of now, there are around 500 prostitutes who are working in 30 brothels. A recent study found that 84 percent of the surveyed prostitutes in Nevada felt safe working in the legal brothels, and were not trafficked or coerced into prostitution. Contrary to the European countries that have legalized prostitution, Nevada’s sex workers are considered independent contractors. Consequently, they don’t receive unemployment, retirement, or healthcare benefits.

What are the arguments for legalization?

All arguments cited earlier in support of the decriminalization model, such as decreased violence, better cooperation with police, and re-direction of valuable law enforcement resources, can be relevant when taking about legalization, as well.

The advocates for legalization argue that such a model of regulating prostitution can provide even more safety for prostitutes. Legal brothels are often closely observed and monitored by the law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with safety regulations and to prevent sex trafficking cases. Legalization can also completely eliminate  the financial burden from police departments as there will be no prostitution cases to pursue. It’s estimated that in 2010, California alone arrested 11,334 people for prostitution. In Texas, an average of 350 prostitutes are sentenced to serve time in state prisons yearly. Proponents argue that legalization can decrease the prison population and save state resources that otherwise would be used to investigate, prosecute, sentence, and house those who are charged with this “victimless” crime.

In addition, legalization advocates argue that condom requirements and mandatory HIV and STD testing can reduce health risks for prostitutes and clients alike. If sex work is criminalized, fewer prostitutes will have access to testing services and fewer of them will practice safe sex. It was found that in the United States only three to five percent of STDs can be attributed to prostitution, supporting the argument that prostitutes are not vehicles of HIV and STD transmissions. The number of prostitutes infected with STDs in New Zealand and New South Wales, where prostitution is legalized, is very low or non-existent. In Nevada, there were no registered cases of HIV among legal sex workers. Watch the video below to learn more about Nevada’s health regulations and condom requirements for legal prostitutes.

Another argument is the revenue that legalized prostitution can bring in the form of income taxes. According to some estimates based on the current income of Nevada’s legal prostitutes, legalization can generate $20,000 in federal income taxes per person per year. Not only could this money be used to provide more social and health services for prostitutes, but could be spent on other governmental needs as well.

Perhaps the biggest and the most controversial argument in support of legalization of prostitution is the extension of labor rights and other occupational benefits to prostitutes. If prostitution is treated as any other profession, legal sex workers can be entitled to minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and safe work environments. They can claim benefits, form or join unions, and get access to medical insurance and pension plans.

Lastly, supporters of legalization believe that prostitution is no different than pornography, lap-dancing, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, which are all legal in the United States.

What are the arguments against legalization?

The most common argument against legalization of prostitution is its close connection with human trafficking and organized crime. The Netherlands’ legalization of sex work is cited as an example of a failing experiment as Amsterdam became a hub for traffickers and organized crime groups. The Dutch Justice Ministry closed over 320 prostitution windows as a part of the initiative to curb violence against migrant women, who are often forced by traffickers and pimps to work as window prostitutes in the city’s Red Light District.

The increase in child sexual exploitation is another point of concern for those who advocate against the legalization of prostitution. The adult sex industry is viewed as perpetuating the recruitment of children as sex workers, who also could be trafficked and coerced into sexual exploitation.

Prostitution is also thought to increase crime rates as it is a magnet for ancillary crimes, including drug, sex, and violent crimes. In this view, with any form of legalization those crimes can only increase as pimps and traffickers would have more legal avenues to conduct their illicit businesses.

Together with increased crime rates and  human trafficking, legalization can give more power to pimps as they are transformed into businessmen. According to this assumption, working in legal brothels can increase the likelihood of victimization as women spend their time in closed spaces and have fewer resources to ask for help or seek protection against abuse. Prostitutes in one of Nevada’s brothels compared their working conditions to a prison environment as most of the time they were locked inside their rooms waiting for clients and could leave the premises only with their male pimps.

Those who oppose legalization of prostitution also state that prostitutes will continue to spread diseases, even if their services are legalized. As it can take up to two weeks to process STD tests, sex workers can continue to infect their clients, prompting the spread of infections and STDs, regardless of their legal status.

Conclusion

How to deal with prostitution is an endless topic of debate. As decriminalization has its benefits and pitfalls, so does legalization. Even though each model has a different set of goals, both converge on the opinion that prostitutes shouldn’t be criminalized. The United States needs to start participating in the international discussions and may soon consider an alternative to the outdated criminalization model.

 Resources

Primary

UNODC: Human Trafficking

Additional

RNW: FAQ – Prostitution in the Netherlands

Alternet: Should Prostitution be Legalized?

Business Insider: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Prostitution in Nevada

Business Insider: Seven Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution

California State University Northridge: Should Contractual Sex Be Legalized?

CBS News: Prostitution Laws: Europeans Debate Whether Criminalization or Legalization Works Better

Difference Between Net: Difference Between Legalization and Decriminalization

Digital Journal: Amsterdam Courts Ready to Clean Up Red Light District

The New York Times: Labour Laws, Not Criminal Laws, Are the Solution to Prostitution

The New York Times: Legalizing Prostitution Leads to More Trafficking

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels are Coercive, too

Prostitution Education Network: Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms

The NAYked Truth: Prostitution: The Economic and Criminal Justice Benefits of Legalization

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prostitution: Should it be Legalized or Criminalized? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is the only country in the world to have such an array of laws that monitor, track, and restrict individuals convicted of sex offenses. Both federal and state laws govern the lives of sex offenders in all 50 states; convicted adults and juveniles alike are required to register as sex offenders, making their crimes, addresses, and other information public. The United States is also the only country in the world that prohibits people with prior sex crime convictions from living in certain areas. There are more than 800,000 individuals currently on the national sex offender registry, so many question if this nation-wide initiative to curb sex crimes is effective and worth the effort. Read on to learn more about sex offender laws, registries, community notifications, and current issues.

How many sex crimes are committed in the United States?

The sex crime category is broad and can involve unwanted or forced sex or any sexual contact that involves minors. Even crimes with no physical contact–such as those committed online–can lead to sex crime convictions and require sex offender registration.

It’s estimated that one in every five girls and one in every seven boys are sexually abused before they reach adolescence. The rate of sexual abuse for adults is lower; one in six adult women and one in 33 adult men have experienced sexual abuse. In 2005, sexual offenses accounted for 3.7 percent of all violent crimes. During the same year, it’s estimated that arrests for sexual crimes occurred only 27 percent of the time. Men account for 95 percent of arrests for sex crimes. Sex offenders represent only one percent of all arrests in the United States. Currently, there are around 150,000 sex offenders in the American prison system, and 10,000 to 20,000 are released to the community every year.

What is the sex offender registry?

The National Sex Offender Public Registry (NSOPR) was first established in 2005. It’s a database of information about convicted sex offenders who are released to the community, and it is coordinated by the U.S. Department of Justice. The registry can be fully accessed by law enforcement agencies and partially by the general public.

The information made available to the public is provided through the National Sex Offender Public Website that links state, territorial, and tribal sex offender registries. It includes information on a sex offender’s physical description, date of birth, residency, and crime committed. Essentially, state sex offender registries collect data from all cities and counties, and forward it to the NSOPR. As each state has its own system, there are variations in what information can be accessed by the public on a state-by-state basis.

Who is required to register as a sex offender?

The registration takes place after sex offenders are released to the community. Individuals who were convicted of specified sex offenses are required to register with law enforcement agencies. Sex crimes that involve minors or any from of sexual assault are the most common offenses that require registration, but sex crimes committed online or public sexual indecency can also lead to sex offender registration. In addition, failure to register in itself is a criminal offense.

Sex offenders usually have to re-register every year, and every time they move to a new location. Some states require an update to the registration every three to six months, depending on the crime committed. Sometimes, depending on state regulations, individuals convicted of  certain sex crimes don’t even have to register as sex offenders, or they are required to register with law enforcement only, without their information being released to the public. Some states have limits on how long sex offenders should be registered for, establishing a designated period of time after which their information is permanently removed from the registry. Sex offenders also have the right to petition for their name being removed from the public sex offender registry, but this practice is rarely used and often not successful.

What laws govern sex offender registration?

The majority of states created their sex offender registries in the 1990s, but there are a few states that established their registries even earlier, dating back to the 1940s.

The federal government came into play in 1994 with the passage of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. The act mandated states to establish sex offender registries or they would lose a certain percentage of their federal funding. Under this law, individuals convicted of sex crimes and released to the community were required to register for a flat ten-year period, regardless of the offense. At that point, states could exercise their discretion in releasing sex offender information to the public by assessing risks to the community. The 1996 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act lengthened the period of registration for certain sex crimes, mandating lifetime sex offender registration for those individuals who committed aggravated assault or were repeat sex offenders.

At the same time, Megan’s Law came into effect, requiring states to establish community notification systems. The law was named after seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped and killed by a known sex offender who was living across the street from her family without their knowledge. This law mandates public access to sex offender information, and requires law enforcement to notify the public about any sex offenders who live in the area. Megan’s Law also created the National Alert Registry, which allows the public to learn if a sex offender lives in their area by entering their zip code into the tool.

In 2005, Florida and several other states passed the so-called Jessica’s laws. Even though the Jessica Lunsford Act, a federal version of the law, was never enacted by the Congress, as of now 42 states have enacted similar pieces of legislation. Among other things, Jessica’s laws can require a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for committing sex crimes against a person under 12 years old, followed by lifetime probation and sex offender registration. In addition, Jessica’s laws mandate electronic monitoring for certain sex offenders who are on probation or parole.

The NSOPR was also established at this point, and it was re-authorized in 2006 with the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act also expanded the categories of people, including juveniles, who were required to register as sex offenders, and increased the period for which convicted sex offenders had to be registered.

Under Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress also passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which extended monitoring and tracking of sex offenders by requiring states to notify the public about sex offenders in the area and creating three risk levels of registrants. The risk assessment is solely based on committed offense, and the level of registrant further determines the duration and frequency of registration. For example, lower risk offenders must register every year, while higher risk sex offenders register every three months. Prior to 2006, sex offenders were required to only register at the jurisdiction where they lived, but now sex offenders are also mandated to register at the jurisdictions where they work or go to school.

What is the purpose of sex offender registration and public notifications?

Generally, all individuals convicted of sex crimes are required to register with law enforcement. The main purpose of sex offender registries is to investigate and prevent new sex crimes. As law enforcement agencies keep information about convicted sex offenders, the practice allows for closer monitoring and faster identification when a new sex crime is committed.

In addition to crime prevention, sex offender laws aim to monitor and restrict those who reside in the community and have committed sex crimes in the past. All sex offenders released to community supervision are mandated to approve their residency with supervising officers. Those who are not under community supervision often face residency restrictions as well, such as the prohibition of registered sex offenders from living within 500-2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds, daycare centers, and parks. Some states also prohibit sex offenders from passing through these “child safety zones.” Many states also use electronic monitoring for highest risk and violent sex offenders.

Another purpose of sex offender registration and community notification is to provide information for the citizenry so they can can exercise caution and be vigilant about their proximity to sex offenders who reside in the community. Not only can community members obtain information about sex offenders in their area, but they can share this information through organizing meetings, posting flyers, informing residents by going door to door, and posting in the local newspapers.

Is the sex offender registry effective?

The proponents of sex offender registration and public notification systems argue that they protect the public, especially children, from being sexually victimized. Their claims are based on the argument that such systems allow law enforcement and parents to work together to ensure public safety. Law enforcement has readily available information about convicted sex offenders in the neighborhood, while community members have tools to identify and exercise caution with sex offenders who reside in the area. Some state officials believe that sex offender registration and notification systems improve monitoring and facilitate information-sharing between law enforcement agencies.

Advocates also believe that residency restrictions can prevent future sex crimes as sex offenders have limited access to the areas where children usually congregate, such as parks, schools, and playgrounds.

Another common argument in support of current sex offender laws is that sex offender registration is a punishment for the committed crime. In this view, sex offenders should be shamed by the public as a ramification for what they have done in the past.

What are the arguments against the sex offender registry?

Some opponents of sex offender registration believe that such a system is inherently unfair as it targets people who have already served their sentence. Others point out the differences in sex offenses, denouncing a “one size fits all” approach to sex offenders. Those who advocate for changes in sex offender laws often don’t reject such a system completely, but refer to its shortcomings and the need to address its underlying issues.

Watch the video below for real stories of those who were convicted of sex offenses when they were juveniles and learn more about arguments against sex offender registry.

Sex Offender Laws Are Too Broad 

Sex offender registration applies to all individuals convicted of sex crimes without regard to severity of offense. As a result, both violent and non-violent sex crimes can lead to registration. In many states, prostitution, consensual teenage sex, and even public urination convictions can require individuals to register as sex offenders. Those who believe that the laws are too broad argue that in many cases the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, as urinating in the park is not the same thing as committing sexual abuse against a minor.

With recent laws requiring mandatory sex offender registration and public notification, even those who committed a single sex offense decades ago are required to register. That means that those who have fully rehabilitated and haven’t re-offended are placed on the public sex offender registry anyway. In addition, children are subject to the same regulations as adults. Those who advocate for changes in sex offender laws suggest making individualized risk assessments before requiring registration.

Watch the video below to learn about “one size fits all” sex offender laws in California.

Too Much Work for Law Enforcement

As there are around 800,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, with some updating their information every three months, the workload of law enforcement agencies has greatly increased. As mandatory registration is required for non-violent and low-risk offenders, law enforcement agencies also face difficulties in identifying potential crime suspects and those who require closer monitoring. Essentially, the effect is the opposite of the goal as law enforcement spend more time and resources on administrative registration and less on investigating leads.

Housing Restrictions Do More Harm Than Good

Most of the supporters of reforming current sex offender laws agree on the point that housing restrictions are harmful to offenders. As most states prohibit registered sex offenders from living close to public spaces where children can congregate, those individuals are pushed to move out from their families and familiar communities. In some instances, sex offenders cannot find a single place to live and become homeless. Some become unemployed because all employment opportunities are located in restricted areas, or because they live so far away that it’s impossible for them to commute to work. Restricted housing options result in lack of supervision and support, which are essential for successful re-entry and rehabilitation. Those who oppose residency restrictions also suggest that there is no evidence that such restrictions lead to a decrease in sex crimes. The concern is the opposite. In their view, community disenfranchisement can increase the likelihood of re-offending as registered sex offenders lack all supportive mechanisms needed for building successful lives.

Watch the video below to learn more about housing restrictions for sex offenders.

The Sex Offender Registry Doesn’t Deter Crimes

Opponents of sex offender registration and community notification systems argue that such a system is useless in itself because most of the convicted sex offenders don’t re-offend, particularly juveniles. In fact, recidivism rates for juvenile sex offenders are very low and few adult sex offenders committed prior sex crimes. In addition, most sex crimes against children are perpetrated by family members or trusted authority figures, not strangers.

Public Access Can Lead to Violence and Harassment 

The public nature of sex offender registration in itself prompts many risks. Online access to sex offender information can lead to harassment from neighbors and trigger violent behavior in those who were victimized. The bottom line is that information obtained through the public sex offender registry website can be used irresponsibly and even unlawfully by the same public that  such a system is trying to protect.

Conclusion

Indisputably, the current sex offender registration and public notification system was created with good intentions, but unfortunately it is filled with issues that require urgent public attention. Among others, there is a need as to create risk assessment mechanisms of released offenders to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Establishment of treatment and re-entry programs for convicted sex offenders is another necessity to ensure that those individuals can become productive members of society. It’s important to make sure that the sex offender registry is effective for both the people on it, as well as the people it aims to protect.

 Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

U.S. Senate: S.1675 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996

U.S. Department of Justice: National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW)

U.S. Government Accountability Office: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Additional

National Alert Registry: Jacob Wetterling Act

National Alert Registry: Home

ABC News: Five Myths About Sex Offender Registries

FindLaw: The Sex Offender Register: What You Need to Know

FindLaw: Sex Offenders and Sex Offenses: Overview

FindLaw: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Human Rights Watch: US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good

Human Rights Watch: No Easy Answers. Sex Offender Laws in the U.S.

Newstimes: Is the Sex Offender Registry Fair?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reforming the Sex Offender Registry appeared first on Law Street.

Every year starting in 2006, the Justice Department has announced that the aging prison population is one of its “top management challenges.” Major newspapers cover the issue, discussing the build up and consequences of this phenomenon. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch produce detailed reports on the topic. Many advocacy groups campaign for the release of elderly prisoners, and even prominent “tough-on-crime” politicians became concerned about rising healthcare costs in the prison system.

It has become common knowledge that the elderly are the fastest growing population in America’s prison system. Read on to learn about the magnitude of the problem, as well as reasons for, solutions to, and ramifications of the aging prisoner population in America.

How many elderly people are in prison now?

The number of men and women age 55 years and older has grown dramatically, from roughly 32,600 in 1995 to about 124,400 in 2010. That’s an increase of 282 percent in comparison with a 42.1 percent increase in the total prison population during the same years. In 2000, elderly inmates accounted for only three percent of the total prison population. In just ten years, their numbers increased by five percent. Now they account for approximately 16 percent of the total prison population.

It’s projected that the aging prison population may increase by 4,400 percent if you consider numbers from 1981 to 2030.  With this forecast, by 2030 prisoners 55 years and older will approach one third of the total prison population.

Across the states, the proportion of prisoners 55 years and older range from 4.2 percent to 9.9 percent. The highest rate is found in Oregon, and the lowest in Connecticut. In southern states, the elderly prisoner population increased by 145 percent just during the ten-year period from 1997 to 2007.

The majority of America’s elderly prisoners are male; elderly females constitute only six percent of all aging prisoners. In addition, 42 percent of aging prisoners are white, 33 percent are black, and around 15 percent are Hispanic.

Not surprisingly, older prisoners comprise the largest share of all prison deaths. From 2001 to 2007, 8,486 elderly inmates died in prison. The number of deaths increased 11.8 percent, from 33.9 percent in 2001 to 45.7 percent in 2007.

Those numbers are likely to increase as inmates continue to age and newly admitted middle-aged prisoners transition to older age.

Why are so many elderly people in prison?

Opinions differ on this matter, with some people pointing fingers at the “tough-on-crime” policies of the American government, while others cite the overall aging of the American population and those who commit crimes. Most likely, it’s all of the above.

Starting in the mid-1970s, the United States government enacted laws that allowed for longer sentences and restricted early releases. Among the most notorious policies were the mandatory minimum sentences, the “three strikes” laws, and the elimination of federal parole. The majority of now-elderly inmates entered the system at a much younger age and stayed there for decades, primarily due to the laws that mandated minimum sentences even for non-violent crimes. For example, 65 percent of aging prisoners in Texas are there for non-violent offenses, including drug-related and property crimes. In North Carolina, 26 percent of elderly inmates are habitual offenders, sentenced mostly for drug crimes, while 14 percent are sentenced for fraud, larceny, burglary, breaking and entering, and even traffic and public order violations. “Three strikes” laws for repeat offenders, truth-in-sentencing conditions, and technical parole revocations are all cited as contributing factors to the increase in the aging prison population in America. As a result, from 1986 to 1995, the number of prisoners serving 20 years or more tripled.

In addition, the number of prisoners who are serving life sentences has increased dramatically, including those with no possibility of release. It’s estimated that between 1984 and 2008, the number of life sentences increased about four times, from 34,000 to 140,610. Some of the prisoners can be eligible for parole in around 25 years depending on the jurisdiction, but only a small fraction of those will actually be released.

The increasing age of the prison population in America can be also attributed to the increased age at which offenders are entering prison. In recent years, people in their thirties and forties are getting arrested and sentenced to prison at higher rates. One study suggests that the driving force behind it is the growth in re-arrests of those who use drugs and have already spent some time behind bars.

How is the country affected by aging prisoners?

The most profound effect of the aging prison population is probably seen in the increased costs of housing and care for elderly inmates. Older prisoners are two to three times more expensive than younger offenders. It costs around $24,000 a year to house a young prisoner, but the expenses for an aging prisoner can be up to $72,000 per year. The reason for the jump, not surprisingly, is medical costs. As people grow older, they naturally have more health issues than their younger counterparts. Older prisoners with significant medical needs have to be housed in specific facilities that most prisons don’t have, or, if they do, cost them a fortune to maintain. Thus, prisons for aging populations increasingly resemble nursing homes more than correctional facilities.

Inmates are not eligible for federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, but by law are required to receive medical treatment. State and federal prisons cover all the costs. No matter whose responsibility it is to maintain prisons, taxpayers are the ones who pay for it. And as an aging prison population increases, healthcare costs will require more of the taxpayers’ money.

Watch the video below to understand the magnitude of the aging prison population problem.

What can be done to address the issue?

Investing in Prison Medical Care

Inmates are aging faster than the general population. Their physiological age is seven to ten years older than their chronological age. That means that if an inmate is 55 years old, he may have the medical needs of a 65-year-old person on the outside. The reasons for this phenomenon are lack of access to health services prior to incarceration, poor diet and exercise habits, and drug and alcohol abuse. At the same time, stress, lack of a support system, and depression while in prison add to the odds of faster aging.

No matter how you look at it, if we choose to keep elderly inmates in prison, we will have to provide adequate medical care and conditions, including appropriate housing and training for the staff. As of 2005, only 20 states had special housing for geriatric prisoners. Providing that the occupancy rate of these facilities may vary from 13 to 100 beds, it’s not nearly enough to care for all those who cannot get out of bed without assistance.

Releasing Elderly Inmates

Many state prisons have compassionate release and medical parole programs, but they are rarely used and often exclude violent or sex offenders. It can be granted for those inmates who have significant health problems, and those who are no longer considered a danger to society. Prisoners 55 years and older are often those who serve longer sentences for drug, violent, or sex crimes, meaning few of them will ever be eligible for early release.

In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged the issue of the aging prison population when he announced a new compassionate early release program for elderly inmates who pose no danger to the community and served more than half of their sentences. Since 1992, only 381 inmates were released under this condition in New York state. Other states have even lower rates of compassionate release.

The process of medical parole or compassionate release is a lengthy and sometimes difficult one for elderly inmates, as it may take many years and require demanding paperwork and evaluation. Release Aging People in Prison (RAPP) is one of many organizations that advocate for the rights of aging inmates and help them to go through the application and evaluation process. The group supports early release programs for elderly New York state inmates, claiming that these individuals pose no threat to society and served considerable time behind the bars.

Watch the video below to learn more about current efforts to release elderly inmates.

Outsourcing to Nursing Homes

Some states are considering public-private partnerships with nursing homes as they can reduce costs by transferring elderly inmates to more age-appropriate facilities. In 2010, California passed Penal Code 6267, which allowed a variation of medical parole for certain inmates. Those who need 24-hour care and are no longer a danger to society can be sent to private nursing homes. They will be assigned a parole agent for this time, but should be returned to prison if and when their condition improves; however, many have conditions that are terminal.

Scrapping “Tough-on-Crime” Laws

Those who worry about the aging population suggest relaxing current “tough-on-crime” laws, including mandatory sentencing and habitual offender laws. As a result of these laws, violent and non-violent offenders alike are aging in prisons, even though some of them have potential for rehabilitation and pose no threat to the public. Lessening terms of incarceration and using other methods of punishment instead can reduce the overall aging of the prison population.

Arguments For Releasing Older Prisoners

Low Risk to Society 

The advocates for release argue that elderly and ill prisoners pose no threat to society, as most of them are physically incapacitated and mentally impaired. Prison experts agree that only a very small portion of older inmates come back to prison facilities, including those who are still in a good health. The reason for it is age itself, as older people generally commit fewer crimes and are less likely to relapse after serving time in prison. In fact, the number of people 55 years and older who enter the prison system for the first time is relatively low (3.5 percent) and declining.

Recent studies conducted in Florida and Colorado reveal that an older age at release–50 years and older–is the most important predictor of lower recidivism rates. At the same time, many now-older prisoners were sentenced for non-violent offenses. If they have never committed violent crimes in the first place, there is a very low risk of them committing violent offenses when they are old or sick.

Medical release is for geriatric inmates–those who have considerable health issues, are bound to a wheelchair or bed, and are generally incapacitated. The argument is centered on the notion that even if such prisoners wanted to go on a crime spree, they wouldn’t be able to pull it off due to health and mental problems.

The Right Thing To Do

Another supporting argument for releasing elderly inmates is that it’s simply the right thing to do. According to this argument, elderly prisoners with serious medical issues, who were incarcerated for non-violent crimes and served a significant part of their sentences, should be shown some mercy. In this view, age and sickness should be considerations for release, and, at this point, continuing imprisonment is viewed as cruel and inhumane punishment.

What are the arguments against releasing older prisoners?

It Wouldn’t Be Fair

The argument against releasing elderly and sick inmates is centered on the belief that punishment should be carried out to its fullest. It’s understandable, as some older prisoners have committed violent crimes, and therefore deserve to be punished. The supporters of this approach often refer to the victims’ rights. Not only do victims deserve justice through punishment of offenders, but also this punishment shouldn’t be conditioned on age or health. In this view, the costs of crime are believed to be much higher than those of housing and caring for older prisoners. As society pays for keeping criminals locked up, it also pays for medical treatment and counseling for crime victims, replacement of stolen items, and other expenses associated with crime. Even though victims advocates don’t oppose early releases for sick and non-violent offenders, many politicians employ this argument in the discussion of aging prison population.

What if they commit more crimes?

Another reason why elderly prisoners are not being released is fear of bad publicity coupled with unwillingness to take responsibility in parole decisions. If even one of the elderly prisoners who was released as a result of a state’s parole decision committed a violent crime, state officials could be denounced or blamed for it. Most of the parole board members are not corrections professionals but rather political appointees who often want to appear as protectors of public order.

Watch the video below to learn more about the most common arguments against releasing elderly inmates.

What will happen to elderly prisoners after release?

Some prisoners could go back to their families, while others could be released to nursing homes or assisted-living facilities; however, private nursing homes can be expensive, and, as elderly inmates have no assets, they can be placed in only government-approved facilities. Even in this case, most of these nursing homes don’t want to accept formerly incarcerated individuals, especially if they served time for sex crimes. At the same time, those nursing homes that are willing to take elderly inmates in may not have beds available, resulting in prolonged waiting periods.

Conclusion

The aging prison population has increased dramatically and will continue to grow at an even more rapid pace. Multiple reasons contribute to the aging population of prisoners, including “tough-on-crime” sentencing policies, increase in age of offenders, and the general aging of the American population. Inmates are also more likely to age quickly due to prior lifestyle and prison conditions. All in all, some correctional facilities have become reminiscent of nursing homes with bars. Even as opinions differ on how to resolve the issue of aging prison population, policymakers should provide solutions soon, as further failure to act can result in negative ramifications for the American economy and society at large.

 Sources

Primary

State of California Legislative Analyst’s Office: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade

North Carolina Department of Correction Division of Prisons: Aging Inmate Population Study

Additional

Nation Inside: RAPP (Release Aging People in Prison)

Human Rights Watch: Old Behind Bars. The Aging Prison Population in the United States.

ACLU: At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly

Al Jazeera: Old Age in the Big House

Correctional Association of New York: Compassion vs. Safety: Should Aging/Ill Prisoners Be Released?

FAMM: What are Mandatory Minimums?

Graying Prisoners: States Face Challenges of an Aging Inmate Population

National Real Estate Investor: Aging Prison Population Calls for Nursing Care Partnerships

The New York Times: Graying Prisoners

Psychology Today: Aging Prisoners. The prison system is a Cemetery of Hope

Stateville Speaks Blog – Loyola University Chicago: The Elderly in Prison and Recidivism

Wall Street Journal: New Research Challenges Assumptions About Aging Prison Population

USA Today: Aging Prisoners’ Costs Put Systems Nationwide in a Bind

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aging Inmates: A Prison Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Victims of rape often experience multiple hardships in the aftermath of their attack. Not only can they sustain serious physical injuries during an assault, but many also experience emotional trauma. Some may lose a job or home, or will need to relocate due to safety concerns. Each case is different, but there are many common issues experienced by rape victims, especially when it comes to medical problems.

It’s estimated that 19-22 percent of rape victims experience genital injuries. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are contracted by 40 percent of rape victims, while one to five percent become pregnant by their rapists. Thus, for rape victims, medical expenses can be quite costly.

Read on to learn more about federal regulations, state practices, and current issues in medical assistance for rape victims.

How does the federal government regulate medical assistance for rape victims?

Medical assistance for rape victims is addressed by the federal government through two distinct laws: VAWA and VOCA.

What is VAWA and how does it help rape victims?

VAWA is the Violence Against Women Act, first passed by the federal government in 1994. It’s a comprehensive law aimed at protecting women who were victims of violence, including rape. Among other things, VAWA mandates that rape victims cannot be forced to pay for their own rape examination or for services of protective order. Essentially, it outlines the minimum requirements and necessities victims of rape should be entitled to, but still gives states substantial freedom to create their own guidelines, especially when it comes to financial assistance.

Since the law was passed, it has gone through several revisions. First, VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, enhancing penalties for abusers, adding immigration protections, and creating programs for elderly and disabled women. In 2005, Congress reauthorized VAWA again, focusing on amending rules regarding states’ accountability and public health responses to domestic violence. This revision also advanced rape victims’ rights, by requiring states to cover the costs of the rape kit. In the case of noncompliance, states would lose certain federal crime fighting grants.

The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA clarified the issue of forensic examination even further, providing that in no circumstances can rape victims be charged upfront for their medical examination, and reiterating that such medical services should always be provided free of charge. At the same time, this last revision still allowed states to require victims to submit claims to their medical insurance company, but emphasizes that victims are not responsible for paying deductibles or co-payments for the services provided. The newly revised version of VAWA also pays more attention to public outreach, stating that every victim should be promptly informed about free-of-charge forensic examinations.

What are VOCA and the Crime Victim Compensation Program?

VOCA is the Victim of Crimes Act that was first passed by Congress in 1984. It created the Crime Victims Fund, which provides federal monetary assistance to states through the Victim Assistance Grant and Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). The fund’s balance was estimated at more than $4 billion as of August 2010. As states receive federal funding they are supposed to use it to compensate crime victims. As of now, state compensation programs pay $500 million annually to more than 200,000 victims across the country.

Each state has its own Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP) that provides financial assistance for victims of crimes, including rape victims. Some state CVCPs were created even before VOCA came into affect. The first program was established in California in 1965. Federal grants cover 25-60 percent of the program’s costs. The rest of the money comes from local and state funds that are generated from criminal fines and penalties obtained through the court system. According to recent statistics, rape victims receive eight percent of all CVCP funds.

Typical programs provide help with medical bills, mental health treatments, funerals, and lost wages. As states decide what will be covered by their CVCP, the degree of financial assistance varies greatly. Some states may pay for travel costs to medical facilities, moving expenses, housekeeping, and even child care, while others will hardly cover medical bills. In addition, states may offer a variety of services, but provide different benefit amounts as well as have specific eligibility requirements.

What are the main issues in securing medical assistance for rape victims?

Variations in State Practices

Federal laws provide minimal guidelines to states about how to manage federal grants and what services to cover. This rift creates disparities, as each state has its own set of rules and regulations about medical assistance for rape victims. VAWA only mandates that states provide forensic medical examinations free of charge, but doesn’t mention non-forensic medical expenses. Thus, rape victims may end up paying for their medical treatment, including injuries sustained from rape, emergency contraception, and medications to prevent or treat HIV infections and other STIs. Some states cover these expenses, but are less likely to do so as there is no federal requirement to pay for these specific services.

For example, in Missouri, the victim compensation program won’t pay for treatment of injuries, medications, emergency contraception, STI testing, pregnancy testing, emergency room fees, or counseling. Essentially, it won’t cover any of the “collateral” costs of rape. It will only pay for the forensic examination as mandated by the federal law.  At the same time, in Montana, rape victims are provided with free pregnancy testing, STI testing, medication, hospital or emergency room stays, and even drug testing. Only 15 states cover the costs of STI testing, 13 cover pregnancy testing, six pay for emergency contraception, and only two provide free-of-charge counseling in relation to sexual assault.

State Caps on Medical Services

Not only does each state have a distinct set of laws that regulate what medical services can be covered by its victim compensation program, but many states have caps on how much they will pay for those medical services. The range is quite broad, from $450 in Oklahoma to $25,000 in Rhode Island. Five states–Utah, Vermont, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas–will cover a set percentage of the medical bills ranging from 70-100 percent. Some states will compensate victims only for the forensic medical exam, the bare minimum required by the federal law. Even in this case, victims will have to pay for their rape kit first, and apply for compensation of their expenses later. Interestingly, in Montana, rape victims can be compensated only if the fund still has money. If the fund runs out of money, victims will be charged for all medical services received.

Lax Enforcement of Federal Laws

In some states victims of rape are still billed for their forensic examinations. Such exams are essential for collecting evidence such as semen, blood, and tissue samples. Without a proper medical exam after a rape, the ability to solve the crime and to convict the rapist greatly diminishes. In California, in order to be eligible for the free forensic examination, rape victims have to cooperate with the police in the ongoing investigation. In Texas, victims of rape are mandated to report the crime to authorities within a four-day period. If they fail to do so, their medical exam won’t be covered. Illinois covers such exams only for low-income or uninsured victims, while Maryland doesn’t explicitly prohibit billing the costs of a forensic exam to the victim. Thus, some states may find loopholes in federal regulations to bill victims for their forensic examinations.

The cost of a rape kit can be up to $1,200. Watch the video below to learn more about how victims of sexual crime are billed in Louisiana.

Hospital and Law Enforcement Mistakes  

Hospitals and police stations are often the first points of contact for crime victims, including those who are the victim of rape. Hospitals administer forensic exams and provide other necessary medical treatments, and they are in charge of medical billing. As financial assistance for victims of rape is regulated by federal, state, and local rules, billing departments have to know how to navigate the system in order to bill correctly. They often mistakenly charge victims of sexual crime for forensic exams and other services due to improper paperwork or their lack of knowledge about the process. The medical file of a rape victim may not contain information on whether he or she was a victim of rape. At the same time, billing employees can be confused about the current laws, or not aware of the latest revisions. In most instances, after hospitals become aware of their billing mistake, they will make it right by billing CVCP or other organizations that should bear the costs of the rape kit.

The same confusion is taking place in police departments across the country. Some employees are still not aware about the latest VAWA revisions and still use outdated information, charging rape victims for their forensic exams.

How do these issues affect rape victims?

As medical assistance for rape victims varies greatly from state to state, some victims will have to foot some or most of the bill themselves. As a consequence, victims of rape can end up refusing medical treatment or skipping essential HIV or STI testing, harming their health.

At the same time, some victims may still be charged for their forensic examination, which is an essential part of the evidence collection process. If the victim is unsure about the costs of the exam, he or she can be reluctant to report the crime or undergo the procedure in the first place. As rape cases are already hard to prove, it can become almost impossible to obtain justice without the rape kit.

Billing rape victims for medical services, either by mistake or according to variations in state laws, can also harm a victim’s personal life. In many cases, victims of rape don’t want their family members to know about the victimization. If the parents of the victim hold the insurance policy, it can lead to shaming or family issues, or in some cases re-victimization, if the attacker is a family member.

Conclusion

Victims of rape receive financial assistance from a variety of sources including federal, state, and local funds. In addition, their insurance policies, if they have one, can cover some of the expenses. The federal government acknowledged in its latest revision of VAWA that victims should never pay for their forensic examination, as it’s a part of the evidence-collection process. At the same time, it’s not clear who should be paying for the “collateral costs” such as HIV, STI, and pregnancy testing as well as the treatment of physical injuries.

Resources

Primary

Congress: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

White House: Factsheet: The Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service: The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding

Additional

National Center For Victims of Crime: Crime Victims Compensation

National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards: Crime Victim Compensation: An Overview

ProPublica: Despite Promises, Some Rape Victims Stuck Paying Exam Bills

NPR: Despite Law, Rape Victims Sometimes Pay For Medical Services

New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault: The Cost of Rape

CBS Evening News: For Some Sex Assault Victims, Ordeal Carries Price Tag

Huffington Post: Worst States For Pregnant Rape Victims

Frisky: Some Rape Victims Are Forced to Pay For Their Medical Treatment

Huffington Post: Rape Victim’s Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?

NOLA: Billing for Rape: Louisiana Sex Assault Victims Often Face Hefty Bills for Medical Care

AEquitas: Summary of Laws & Guidelines. Payment of Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations

Human Rights Watch: Making Rape Victims Pay

ProPublica: As Rape Victims Wait, Money For DNA Testing Goes Unused

Office of Crime Victims Advocacy Quarterly Newsletter: Victims of Crime Act and the Creation of Victim Compensation Program

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Medical Treatment For Rape Victims: Who is Responsible? appeared first on Law Street.

The civil rights movement in America attempted to end segregation and racial discrimination of black Americans and secure federal protections of their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seemingly sealed the deal, prohibiting discrimination based on race. In spite of that, there is an argument to be made that racial discrimination is still a persistent problem in the United States. One important facet of the discussion is centered around the “war on drugs” and the so-called “tough on crime” policy approach that the United States has adopted since the 1970s. Racially disproportionate drug arrests have resulted in mass incarceration and prompted civil rights concerns. Read on to learn more about current drug policy and its implications in relation to civil rights.

History of Inequality in U.S. Drug Policy

Throughout history there have been many instances in which unequal treatment of various minority groups was evident in American drug laws. The first anti-drug law dates back to 1875, when smoking opium was penalized in San Francisco, primarily, it is believed, to stigmatize Chinese immigrants. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Act expanded the powers of the federal government, and concurrently the media portrayed black Americans as the primary users of cocaine, one such narcotic. Later, multiple reports by the media tied Mexican immigrants, who were entering the country for agricultural jobs, to marijuana-related violence. The result of that particular stereotype was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

Congress created its first mandatory minimum sentencing law in 1952, the Boggs Act, which required a minimum sentence of two to ten years for first-time marijuana possession. But the most notorious mandatory minimum drug laws were enacted in New York under Nelson Rockefeller, who was the governor at the time. That mandatory sentence threshold was raised to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The “Rockefeller Drug Laws” were enacted in 1973, signifying the beginning of a long-standing “tough on crime” policy in the United States.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was the culmination of the “war on drugs,” requiring identical penalties (a five-year minimum sentence) for five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine. As crack cocaine was cheap, it dominated poor black communities, while more affluent, usually white communities, used the more expensive powder cocaine.

 Are the U.S. Drug Policies changing?

Under the Obama Administration, the ratio of crack to powder cocaine was significantly reduced when the Fair Sentencing Act was signed into law in August 2010. The current administration also acknowledged that the previous laws were discriminatory and disproportionately impacted communities of color.

State laws are also slowly changing, with California at the forefront of the movement. A new law, “Proposition 47,” enacted in 2014, reduces simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Politicians are also starting to speak up, calling for the end of “War on Drugs.” Outgoing Attorney General,Eric Holder is one of the most vociferous proponents of reducing mass incarceration and re-integrating formerly incarcerated individuals back into society.

In addition, legalization of marijuana is a hot topic everywhere in the United States. More and more states have legalized the drug for either recreational or medical use, prompting the idea of country-wide legalization and regulation in the future. The New York Times editorial board and President Barack Obama have spoken out in support of the legalization movement.

It’s plausible that American drug policy is undergoing a transition from prohibition and harsh sanctions toward regulation and rehabilitation practices. But it can still be characterized as a punitive system, highly centered on deterrence through long and harsh sentencing practices. There are also many concerns that the current drug policies are still racist in practice. People of color are disproportionally imprisoned for drug offenses, often creating vicious circles of poverty and crime.

What are the main concerns with the current U.S. Drug Policy?

Our drug policy enforcers are part of the judicial system, and there are many concerns that the judicial system treats members of minority populations more harshly than their counterparts. For example, black men are stopped and frisked at disproportionately higher rates than members of other communities. In 2011 the number of stops of young black men in New York City topped the city’s entire population of young black men: 168,126 stops compared to a population of just 158,406 young black men. In the same year, 52.9 percent of the people stopped and frisked were black, 33.7 percent were Latino, and only 9.3 percent were white. The stop and frisk racial landscape didn’t change much in 2014: 54 percent of those who were stopped and frisked were black, 27 percent were Latinos, and 12 percent were white. African Americans are also stopped more frequently when driving or entering the country.

Critics of the drug policy worry that black Americans are also more likely to be arrested. The rate of arrests for black Americans is 2.5 times higher than white Americans. At the same time, even though the black and white population use marijuana at roughly the same rates, black Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses. Watch the video below to learn more about racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.

Finally, black users are more often convicted and incarcerated for drug felonies. In 2009, 50.5 percent of the state prisoners convicted on drug offenses were African Americans, 17 percent were Latinos, and 30.1 percent were whites. Black men and women were also sent to prison on drug charges at 11.8 and 4.8 times the rate of their white counterparts, respectively.

Critics of our current polices point out that as a result of such discriminatory treatment, black Americans enter the prison system at a higher rate, stay there longer, and are more likely to go back there again. The harsh penal sanctions for drug offenses result in mass incarceration of individuals of color. Black Americans convicted of drug offenses constitute 53.3 percent of those admitted to state prisons. Watch the video below to learn more about mass incarceration in the United States.

Who thinks the current drug laws aren’t discriminatory?

There is another point of view that claims that the notion of differential treatment according to race is non-existent. Those who subscribe to that school of thought argue that African Americans simply commit more drug-related offenses. This argument posits that the police and criminal justice system are not biased toward minorities. It further asserts that the reason why disproportionately more black Americans end up in the criminal justice system has to do with relative crime rates, not racial bias. Some conservative voices hold the same view, citing that African Americans simply commit more crimes, especially those involving drugs. The video below shows Bill O’Reilly, a FOX News commentator, speaking in support of this point of view.

So, is U.S. Drug Policy a Civil Rights Issue?

What is a “Civil Rights Issue”?

Civil rights are centered on the notion of discrimination. A civil rights issue arises when an individual or group has been discriminated against on the basis of its race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, or orientation. Civil rights issues are often discussed in the realm of employment or housing discrimination. Such spheres can be considered traditional civil rights battlegrounds.

The criminal justice system has been long overlooked when discussing civil rights violations. Only relatively recently did the ACLU and other civil and human rights groups begin to acknowledge that sentencing practices for drug offenses and the overall treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system is a civil rights issue.

How does the U.S. Drug Policy relate to Civil Rights?

Those who argue that the U.S. Drug Policy is a civil rights issue focus on the particular emphasis in drug laws that are not equal in their intent or enforcement. The majority of drug crimes are not committed by minorities, but the prison system is disproportionally filled with African Americans and Latinos.

The public has long associated poor communities of color with drugs and crime, a notion that was long perpetuated by the media. More minority arrests and convictions for drug offenses result in the belief that certain parts of the population use more drugs and commit more crime. It opens up a discussion on racial dynamics in American society and the impact of structural racism.

In this realm, many argue that the current drug policy can be considered a civil rights issue as it discriminates against communities of color in the criminal justice system by disproportionately targeting open drug markets in poor neighborhoods and failing to recognize the same dynamics in more affluent areas.

Conclusion

The current drug policy of the United States Government is centered on tough sanctions and long sentencing practices. It often ignores the fact that drug use is a public heath issue, locking up individuals for simple possession of certain drugs. At the same time, the enforcement of the current drug laws is disproportionately focused on communities of color, resulting in the mass incarceration of minorities. Thus, numerous civil and human rights groups consider U.S. drug policy a civil rights issue. But not everybody supports this point of view. The counter argument refuses a civil rights interpretation of the issue, claiming that minorities simply commit more drug-related offenses. No matter who is right or wrong, the current drug policy needs serious fixing.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Civil Rights

Additional

New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration at the Age of Colorblindness

Foreign Policy in Focus: U.S. Drug Policy

Huffington Post: More Nails in the Drug War Coffin: Top Stories of 2014

Sentencing Project: Incarcerated Parents and their Children

Human Rights Watch: Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006.

NYCLU: Stop and Frisk Data

ACLU: Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways

ACLU: Border Patrol Stops

Anti-Defamation League: Privilege, Discrimination, and Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Sentencing Project: Drug Policy

Human Rights Watch: Race and Drugs

New Century Foundation: The Color of Crime. Race, Crime and Justice in America

Center For Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al, v. City of New York, et al.

The New York Times: An Editorial Series on Marijuana Legalization

Huffington Post: Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

Legal Information Institute: Equal Protection

Leadership Conference: Justice On Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System

NYCLU Briefing 2011: Stop and Frisk

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drug Policy: Civil Rights Issue or Fair Enforcement? appeared first on Law Street.

Higher education is the most important aspect to economic prosperity. Colleges and universities prepare future leaders who will drive national and global economies. As globalization is not a new phenomenon, but an established process, education ties together countries via investments, banking systems, technology, and travel. As a result, the quality of education is on the agenda in many countries across the globe.

President Obama’s college rating system is a highly debated topic across the country, with policymakers and educators casting concerns over its shortcomings and dangers. The current administration has already introduced reform programs in health care and immigration, which were controversial at best; its plan to reform education is no different. It’s an all-encompassing reform that can play out either way. Read on to learn more about the benefits, shortcomings, and possible consequences of Obama’s college rating system.

Do other governments rank colleges?

Colleges and universities across the globe have long been rated by their governments in the hope of establishing the best educational value. Originally, independent agencies or non-profit organizations played the leading role in this task. Later, governments began to regulate and assess higher education. The United States is not the first country to take steps to ensure quality control in education. For example:

• Finland created the Higher Education Evaluation Council.
• Australia came out with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
• The European Union has its U-Map.
• Britain assembled an online tool to showcase university statistics and measure college performance.

Some initiatives are more successful than others, but all reflect the need to provide meaningful tools for students and governments to compare educational value. Following the global trend, Obama’s college rating system is an attempt to ensure quality of learning and accountability on the part of educational institutions in the United States.

Why would Obama want to rank colleges?

There are generally three main reasons why the current administration feels the need to address the educational sector, and, specifically, to establish the college rating system: rising student debt, inequality, and falling graduation rates. The picture is rather bleak. The majority of the prospective student body cannot afford college without taking out loans. In addition, there are few jobs available, especially for recent graduates. As a result, some default on their debt, while others struggle for decades to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, not only do colleges charge a lot of money for education, the quality of learning is deteriorating as well.

Rising Student Debt

As more students continue to borrow money from the government to pay for their higher education, the number of those who fail to find a job after graduation and to pay back their loans has increased dramatically over the last decade. According to a recent study, 60 percent of four-year college students graduate with an average $26,500 in debt. In addition, tuition increases every year, prompting concerns over the affordability of higher education. The same study estimates a 231 percent public college tuition increase and a 153 percent private college increase over the last 30 years.

Watch the short documentary below for more information on the increasing costs of tuition and deteriorating value of education in America.

Inequality

Inequality in education is a direct consequence of high tuition. Students whose families cannot afford to pay tuition for their higher education generally have two choices. They can either take out loans from the government, which often lead to decades-long debt, or they can start working low-paying jobs right after high school. Those are two extremes, of course, as some students receive scholarships or combine loans and jobs; however, even if a student qualifies for scholarships based on merit, he won’t necessarily be able to pay the full remaining tuition. Not only does this scenario exclude bright-but-poor students from receiving high-quality education, but it prompts many of them to take out multiple loans that they may not be able to repay.

Watch the shocking video below to understand the realities behind wealth inequality in the United States.

Low Graduation Rates

The number of students who fail to complete their studies has increased throughout the last decade. As of 2013, the United States ranks 13 out of 34 countries measured for college attainment. The Chronicle of Higher Education provides in-depth data and analysis on graduation rates across the country, which vary greatly by the type of the higher educational establishment and its location. Click here to read its most recent overview.

Low graduation rates prompt concerns that the overall quality of learning is deteriorating, even though the quality of learning cannot be measured by graduation rates alone. Students drop out of college for many reasons: financial difficulties, family issues, transfers, or simply because they are taking a break. The current administration, however, believes that colleges need to make sure their students are making progress toward a degree, especially those who receive financial aid.

So, how will rating colleges fix these problems?

Using the college rating system, the Obama Administration hopes to reduce student debt, provide more access and opportunities to low-income students, and improve higher educational standards. The president’s plan is to use these ratings as a mechanism of accountability and transparency. Before taking out a loan, students will have access to information on loan default rates, employment outcomes, and anticipated monthly payments after graduation. If students can make informed decisions, it should help to reduce loan debt. Also, the government will provide more federal funds for those colleges that keep their prices low and improve quality. It should help to quell inequality of access to higher education and raise the value of learning.

What does the college rating system look like?

The Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS) is a part of the Obama Administration’s effort to provide more transparency and accountability in higher education. The government is planning to fully implement PIRS by the 2015-2016 academic year.

College Scorecard

PIRS is essentially folded into one tool, the College Scorecard, already available online through the College Affordability and Transparency Center. It’s very easy to use, and requires only basic computer skills and internet access. The College Scorecard is still in the process of development; for now it provides information on costs, graduation rates, loan default rates, and median borrowing. The Department of Education is still working on obtaining data on the average income of former undergraduate students. The College Scorecard also provides information on changes in an institution’s cost, making it possible to see if tuition has gone up or down over a certain period of time. In addition, students and their families can search by area of interest, college location, and type of college.

Watch the video below for a detailed guide on how to navigate the College Scorecard.

What does it measure?

PIRS measures three main factors: access, affordability, and outcome. All three can be matched to inequality, debt concerns, and learning quality as the above-cited reasons for establishing such a system in the first place.

• Access comes from the percentage of students who receive Pell Grants, in an effort to obtain some knowledge on how equal or unequal higher educational institutions are.
• Affordability looks at average tuition, available scholarships, and student loan default information, thus looking at debt concerns.
• Outcome measures how many people graduate, how many pursue advanced degrees, and the average income of students after graduation.

In addition to being an information hub for prospective students, the president is planning to seek legislation to allocate financial aid to those institutions that obtain high ratings on PIRS. The current administration emphasizes that before the government designates its funds according to this mechanism, the college rating system should be well established, taking into consideration all of the concerns from university administrators across the country.

In order to receive more financial aid via grants and loans, higher education institutions will have to provide the best value and improve on their performance, hence helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What is the Obama Administration hoping to achieve?

The Obama Administration hopes to achieve greater accountability and transparency in higher education, especially with regard to the quality of educational institutions, student debt, and income after graduation. The system is meant to empower students and their families to make informed decisions when choosing a college or university to attend.

The president also plans to use the college rating system to aid policymakers who are allocating financial aid to higher educational institutions. It’s believed that such financial incentives will prompt colleges to improve their overall performance. The goal is to keep colleges accountable and transparent, rewarding those who will keep prices down and improve educational value.

The overall goal of the current administration is to decrease student debt and to increase access to higher education for low income students, improving quality of learning along the way.

What do critics say?

Obama’s college rating system is not without its critics who continue to debate its shortcomings and possible negative outcomes. Educational administrators, researchers, and policymakers across the country are troubled with what they see as a rather simplistic approach to rating schools, as well as reliability and validity of the data used, and predicting negative consequences for higher education.

Data and Measurement Problems

To assemble the College Scorecard System, the government obtained data from its own Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). It’s a self-reported data collection mechanism that provides information on first-time and full-time students who seek undergraduate or certificate degrees. It is evident that only a limited population group is measured, completely excluding part-time and transfer students. One of the main concerns here is that PIRS counts transfer students as “drop outs,” which essentially can produce faulty graduation rates.

In addition, as IPEDS is a self-reported tool, there is a danger of missing data elements that can be unevenly distributed depending on data collection practices and the diligence of college officials. The data on loan default rates is also concerning, as it can double-count those students who take out multiple loans.

Some experts and researchers believe that PIRS is based on faulty assumptions. The lack of validity and reliability of the data used can misguide students and their families when they are choosing which college to enroll at. The measurements are also not comprehensive, which can lead to misuse of data and produce inaccuracies in college ratings.

Simplistic Approach

PIRS has also been blamed for being rather simplistic in determining the value of colleges and universities across the country. The critique is centered on the notion that some colleges cannot keep their price tags down as they depend on state funding. One study draws parallels between community colleges in California and Florida on one side and New Hampshire and Vermont on the other. The first two are generously supported by state funds, while the latter two have much lower funding from the state. It’s clear that California and Florida community colleges are able to keep their tuition low, and New Hampshire and Vermont are forced to raise theirs.

Healthcare prices and other external factors can greatly influence tuition rates.. The danger is that those colleges that cannot keep their prices low, even if it’s not their call, will suffer the consequences. They can be punished by receiving no or significantly less funds from the federal government via grants and loans. As a result, with already low state funding and an inability to receive aid from the federal budget, they will be forced to raise their prices even more.

The college rating system also doesn’t provide a distinction between program-specific and institution-wide performance. PIRS measures only the aggregated performance of colleges, failing to recognize successes of specific departments. For example, the criminal justice department at Rutgers University is considered to have one of the most comprehensive curriculums for students who want to work in this field. At the same time, other departments at Rutgers are considered less strong. Because PIRS uses an aggregated performance mechanism, there is a possibility that Rutgers University will receive a low rating on its scorecard. As a result, fewer prospective students will enroll in the criminal justice program, which, in reality, is very strong.

Wage Differences

As was mentioned earlier, the College Scorecard will contain information on post-graduation employment. This data will be released from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration and forwarded to the Department of Education for further analysis. The main concern here is the disproportionality of wages across professions. For example, business executives and doctors earn higher wages compared to teachers and social workers. Colleges that specialize in liberal arts and the social sciences can be at a disadvantage compared to science and technology-centered schools. Thus, certain higher education institutions can receive low ratings just because of the occupations of their graduates.

Conclusion

Both data problems and the simplicity of the rating system lead to concerns about the future of the higher education sector. Will it produce the desired results or lead to negative consequences?Obama’s college rating system can improve the performance of teachers and learning practices for students; it can decrease student loan defaults and tuition prices; and it can even become an all-encompassing tool of accountability and financial aid disbursement. At the same time, it can further stratify the educational system, widening the gap between exclusive private and second-rate public colleges and universities and hurt liberal arts schools or those with already low state funding. Despite its limitations, PIRS is a starting point on a long journey in developing higher standards, reducing costs, and fostering accountability in colleges and universities across the country.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Fact Sheet on the President’s Plan to Make College More Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class

The White House: Education at a Glance

The College Affordability and Transparency Center: College Scorecard 

U-Map: The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions

Australian Government: Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

UNISTATS: Course Assistant

 Additional

American Council on Education:  Rankings, Institutional Behavior, and College and University Choice. 

Chronicle of Higher Education: Graduation Rates by State

Chronicle of Higher Education: Has Higher Education Lost Control Over Quality?

The New York Times: Colleges Rattled as Obama Seeks Rating System

The New York Times: On Bus Tour, Obama Seeks to Shame Colleges Into Easing Costs

MoneyBox: How Bad Is the Job Market for the College Class of 2014?

U.S. News: Report: U.S. Drops in High School, College Grad Rates

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s College Rating System: Will it Fix Our Higher Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Boko Haram became internationally known in April 2014 for the kidnapping of 276 teenage girls from a boarding school in the town of Chibok in Borno, a state in northeastern Nigeria. The group can be considered one of the deadliest and most dangerous terrorist organizations, as its attacks have displaced more than a million people and killed approximately 9,000 last year alone. This year is proving no different, as its beginning was marked with Boko Haram’s abduction of 40 boys and men, and its seizure of a multinational military base. Read on to learn about the group, its history, and what can be done to counter it.

What is Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is a militant Islamic group that operates in Nigeria and adjacent countries.

“Boko Haram” often translates as “Western Education is Forbidden,” conveying the group’s opposition to Western influence, as well as its support for Islamic education and Sharia law. In its local language the group is refered to as “Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad,” which can be translated as “The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad” or “People Committed to the Propaganda of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

Boko Haram follows a radical Islamic ideology based on the fundamentalist Wahhabi theological system. Its main goal is to establish an extreme version of Sharia law and a true Islamic State in the whole of Nigeria. In addition, the leaders have articulated their demands to end the current government and to prohibit western education in its territory. It imposes its values on all non-believers, killing all those who refuse to embrace that interpretation.

History

Boko Haram appears to have existed since the late 1990s, but the official beginning of its activities can be traced to the year 2002 when the group was unified under Muslim leader Mohammed Yusuf. Yusuf was an eloquent leader, attracting and recruiting followers to his radical vision of Islam. He condemned the corrupt Nigerian government and rejected Western education and culture, advocating strict Islamic ideology as the alternative. The first hostilities date back to December 2003 when Boko Haram militants attacked multiple police stations in the state of Yobo. Generally from 2002 till 2009, the group engaged with villagers who failed to adhere to Yusuf’s teachings, or attacked local police stations. As outbreaks of violence were sporadic and generally low-key, Boko Haram didn’t attract international attention.

Boko Haram Uprising 

Everything changed in 2009 when Boko Haram’s violence began to spread to northeastern states, including Borno, Kano, and Yobo, in the so-called “Boko Haram Uprising.” It is possible, though difficult to confirm, that local politicians manipulated local issues, prompting Boko Haram to use violence against the state. The authorities responded with brutality, killing Yusuf and several hundred of his followers. The video below tells the in-depth story of the 2009 events, featuring video recordings of extrajudicial killings by the police, including that of Mohammed Yusuf.

The Nigerian government denies the allegations, claiming that Yusuf was shot after he tried to escape police custody.

Change of Leadership

Boko Haram re-emerged under the leadership of Yusuf’s deputy, Abubakar Shekau. Staring in July 2010 when the organization released a video statement announcing Shekau’s leadership, Boko Haram became a truly violent group. It changed its methods and tactics; the attacks became widespread and deadly. The group started to carry out kidnappings and bombings, mostly operating in northeastern Nigerian states.

Click here to see a the timeline of the attacks, including a death toll for each.

Chibok Kidnapping

Boko Haram became known around the globe on April 14, 2014 when it kidnapped 276 girls from their schools in Chibok. It prompted the West to start paying attention to the proliferation of the group, and resulted in the worldwide “Bring Our Girls Back” campaign. As of now, 57 girls have escaped and 219 remain captive.

Funding Boko Haram

Boko Haram finances its activities through profits from bank robberies, kidnapping ransoms, and smuggling. Due to the presence of an indigenous mining industry in Nigeria, explosives are easy to obtain. Vehicles and weapons are usually stolen. Theft of weapons from government sites is especially concerning as it implies a certain level of infiltration of military and governmental institutions by the group or its followers. So far, there is no information that can point to Boko Haram receiving remittances from oversees, confirming the group’s sole interest in Nigeria and adjacent countries.

Ansaru

Ansaru is a splinter organization of Boko Haram based in the Kano and Kaduna provinces of northern Nigeria. It translates from local language as “Vanguards for the Protection of Muslims in Black Africa.” As evidenced by its name, the group is against the killing of Muslims, instead targeting Christian populations. As Boko Haram carries out murders of Muslims who adhere to a more tolerant version of Islam, Ansaru diverged, not willing to kill Muslim brothers.

Unlike Boko Haram, Ansaru has links with other radical Islamist groups outside the country such as Algeria and Mali. Some of its fighters are from Chad and Niger. It’s believed that it was Ansaru that introduced kidnappings and suicide bombers to the region in the last year. There are also rumors that two groups are reuniting as Ansaru tactics are evident in the most recent Boko Haram attacks.

Why is Boko Haram getting so strong?

Boko Haram’s ideology is not based on international goals, nor does it have tight ties with other radical Islamist groups outside the country. This poses the question of why its influence throughout the region continues to grow.

Poverty and Poor Governance

In spite of considerable oil wealth, the majority of the Nigerian population is poor. The country lacks infrastructure such as roads and transportation and there is a shortage of clean water and reliable electrical power, not to mention inadequate education and healthcare systems.

Nigeria is also one of the most unequal countries in the world. While profits from the oil extraction go to the pockets of the country’s elite in the South, the northern states are underdeveloped, uneducated, and desperately poor. This map provides a good idea of wealth distribution in Nigeria.

Both grand and petty corruption are considered widespread in the country, and are often cited as primary reasons for the above shortcomings and the overall poverty level. Transparency International scores Nigeria only at 27 out of 100. Combined with poor governance it’s a recipe for failure.

Religious Divide

Nigeria is literally divided into a Muslim North and a Christian South. Both religions converge in the middle belt, creating a fertile ground for the conflict. Besides that, the Muslim North was long dominated by the struggle between different Islamist factions, in particular the one between Salafi fundamentalists and tolerant Sufis. Boko Haram’s interpretation of Islam is very radical, while northern Nigerians adhere to the more traditional version of the religion. For example, Sharia law exists in the North, but regulated by the secular law and court proceedings. Boko Haram wants to implement a much stronger version of it, without proper trial and with public hangings for any minor deviation from its version of the religion. Not only is Boko Haram a threat to the traditional Islamists in the North, but also to the Christian population in the South.

The video below provides background on both economic and religious factors that contribute to the proliferation of Boko Haram.

Political Dispute

The current president of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, is Christian. That wouldn’t really be problem if he didn’t break a long-standing political deal between Muslim and Christian elites brokered at the end of military rule in 1998. In simple terms, the two religious groups decided that Muslims and Christians should take turns governing the country. The ruling People’s Democratic Party established this rule to manage ethnic, regional, and religious divisions between the Muslim North and Christian South. Now the deal is off. In November 2014, Goodluck Jonathan announced that he would seek a second term in the next elections scheduled for February 2015. This decision incited more dissatisfaction with the current government, especially from the northern states. At the same time, it provides a favorable environment for Boko Haram to proceed with its radical agenda.

Response to Boko Haram

Government Response

The Nigerian government doesn’t recognize that Boko Haram emerged from the country’s religious divisions, poverty, inequality, and poor governance. It declared a “state of emergency” in northeastern Nigeria and marked Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations. It further responded with killings of alleged Boko Haram members and many others who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nigeria’s security forces have been accused of human rights violations in the past and during their current efforts to contain the violence perpetrated by Boko Haram. As thousands of military and police forces were deployed around the country to fight the organization, they engaged in brutalities, disregarding law and human rights of the citizenry. Nigerian security forces are responsible for multiple atrocities against their own citizens such as extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, beatings, looting, and even rape. Not only did it create a further divide between the government and communities, but prompted many people to withhold information and provide support and lodging for Boko Haram instead.

The video below gives an in-depth look at the military abuses during Nigeria’s fight of Boko Haram.

International Response

The United States and British governments labeled Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations in 2013. The United Nations followed suit, designating Boko Haram an al-Qaeda affiliate in 2014. The same year, the U.N. Security Council announced that it approved sanctions against Boko Haram, including an arms embargo, travel bans, and asset freezes.

After the Chibok kidnapping, the United States and major western countries publicly condemned Boko Haram’s actions. The most famous public speech regarding the schoolgirls’ kidnapping was issued by Michelle Obama on Mother’s Day. See the video below.

The West also dispatched multidisciplinary teams of experts, expanded intelligence sharing, and provided aircrafts and military units to look for the missing girls. According to the White House there are several initiatives under way:

• A $40 million Global Security Contingency Fund for Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria to fight Boko Haram.

• The Security Governance Initiative (SGI) in which Nigeria and the United Sates are planning to work together to improve security sector institutions.

In addition, the United States provides some humanitarian assistance to the victims of Boko Haram through trauma counseling, and is planning to create other initiatives to promote democratic institutions, strengthen education for women, and improve dialogue with security forces.

The entire international community wants Nigeria and its neighbors, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Benin, to resolve the Boko Haram problem on their own, while the West will provide technical, advisory, and financial assistance. As former UK foreign secretary William Hague put it: “That requires a better regional strategy among the African countries, but with our support.”

However, countries that are committed to advancing human rights around the globe are reluctant to provide further assistance to Nigeria due to its security forces’ long-standing human rights atrocities. For example, the Leahy Law in the United States bars the Pentagon from training or funding military forces that commit human rights abuses.

What should be done to stop Boko Haram?

First and foremost, both the Nigerian government and the West should focus on humanitarian assistance to the victims of Boko Haram violence. The clashes between government forces and Boko Haram have already internally displaced thousands of people and forced many to cross the borders. It’s critical to secure basic needs for the Nigerian population and extend humanitarian assistance to the neighboring countries. As mentioned earlier, the United States has already assisted the affected population, and other Western countries should follow.

Before the international community can help to contain violence in the region, the Nigerian government needs to clean up its act. This includes:

• Prosecuting those responsible for the human rights violations. The citizenry needs to know that the government is protecting their interests. Needless to say, the military forces should stop engaging in further brutalities and human rights abuses. If Nigeria fails to do so, there will be no assistance from the West.
• Start lifting people from poverty. The “Safe School Initiative” is so far the only example of economic and security development in the northern region of Nigeria. It aims to provide the physical protection of schools. Started by a $10 million investment from the country’s business leaders, it was matched with another $10 million by the Nigerian government. More initiatives are needed to create jobs and safety in the northern states.
• Enforce the rule of law through the judicial system. The Nigerian government cannot retaliate by killing people without trial and expect its citizenry to trust it. The rule of law should be upheld for all Boko Haram affiliates according to the existing laws and through the court proceedings.
• Begin tackling corruption to legitimize the government and release much needed funds that otherwise would be pocketed by the few.

How Nigeria’s Neighbors Can Help

As Boko Haram’s violence has already spilled across the borders, adjacent countries should unite in their efforts to tackle the issue. Creation of a multinational joint border patrol comprised by representatives from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and the Republic of Benin can be the first step. Discussions between the countries is on the way, but action should be taken soon, before it’s too late.

How the West Can Help

The West can help to train Nigerian military forces in counter-insurgency, as that is essentially what they have to do to fight Boko Haram. Besides learning technical skills, security forces need to know how to engage with local communities in the northeastern regions to gain their support and trust. Western nations can also develop mechanisms of accountability to minimize human rights violations by military forces. It’s vital that appropriate training in how to engage with civilians and alleged Boko Haram supporters is provided as it will foster military personnel’s understanding of human rights principles and guidelines.

Western nations can provide greater intelligence and data support, increasing the chances of Nigerian forces finding the right strategies and methods to fight the terrorist group. And finally the West can provide financial support. Nigeria doesn’t have sufficient funds to initiate training, pay salaries to the military, and obtain much-needed equipment and arms. In addition, the high level of corruption spoils all the odds of using government funds to the fullest.

Conclusion

In order to effectively contain violence in Nigeria and to fight Boko Haram, tactical counterinsurgency should be paired with economic development and increased support for the rule of law. The Nigerian government should realize that Boko Haram has emerged from the shortcomings of the government’s own system and start dealing with that fact.  The Nigerian government should focus on human security and development, not military response alone as it’s simply not working.

Resources

Primary

HRW: Spiraling Violence: Boko Haram Attacks and Security Forces Abuses in Nigeria

Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre: Boko Haram: Origins, Challenges, and Responses

Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index 2014

White House: Fact Sheet; U.S. Efforts to Assist the Nigerian Government in Its Fight Against Boko Haram

Additional 

CNN: Boko Haram Fast Facts

World Bulletin: Nigeria 2014 Sees Bloodier, Emboldened Boko Haram

African Arguments: Nigeria is Losing This War: Here’s How to Win the Fight Against Boko Haram

CNN: Boko Haram Seizes Military Base in Nigeria

Hamilton Spectator: Boko Haram Extremists Kidnap 40 Boys, Young Men in Northeast Nigeria, Attack Army Base

BBC: Why Nigeria Has Not Defeated Boko Haram

Guardian: African Leaders Pledge ‘Total War’ on Boko Haram After Nigeria Kidnapping

The New York Times: Dealing With Boko Haram

Christian Science Monitor: Africa’s Best Response to Boko Haram

C-Span: Boko Haram and Nigeria

Human Rights First: To Stop Boko Haram, Start Promoting Human Rights

Vanguard: Boko Haram: The US House report

Huffington Post: Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan Will Run For A Second Term

Africa Check: Fact Sheet: How Many Schoolgirls Did Boko Haram Abduct and How Many Are Still Missing?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror? appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit filed for bankruptcy last July with over $18 billion in debt, the biggest municipal collapse in the history of the United States. The city also has the highest crime rate among all large cities in the country, which exacerbates its economic hardships even more. Our report, Crime in America: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 notes that unemployment, population reduction, slow police responses and a vast amount of abandoned buildings may be correlated with high crime rates in the city. According to Time Magazine, “Detroit is in particularly bad shape, many of its underlying issues — crushing debt and unfunded and unsustainable retiree benefits — are not unique.”

The country’s industrialization brought not only economic advancements and prosperity to the United States, but income inequality and multi-ethnicity problems to its cities. Detroit became known during the late 1950-60s as the “Motor City” or “Motown” due to the large concentration of automobile companies in its metropolitan area. Its freeway system was also constructed during industrial revolution, and facilitated the development of the city and its rapid industrialization.

However, instead of simply discussing the unfortunate economic and social hardships within the city, we should focus on what options Detroit really has for recovery!

Any suggestions?

Detroit is a city with a rich history and vibrant atmosphere, but high crime rates spoil all odds for its residents. Former Detroit Chief of Police and current Wayne County Sheriff, Benny Napoleon, reaffirmed this in his article in the Huffington Post, claiming that Detroit lost more than half of its population due to disorganized neighborhoods and high crime rates. He also proposed a Five Point Crime Reduction Plan, that should include but not be limited to the following:

– Data-driven approach

– Crime prevention

– Directed enforcement

– Problem-oriented policing

– Community policing

Sounds like a solid plan to me if staff training and implementation procedures are utilized systematically and correctly.

What has Detroit already done?!

There is a plethora of existing initiatives that have been adopted by the Detroit Police Department. Neighborhood Watch, for example provides the main line of communication between police and the community. Another useful crime prevention strategy is Citizen Observer, which is, in essence, a mobile platform that “provides updates of crimes trends, description of wanted suspects, missing persons, crime prevention tips, and other pertinent information pertaining to businesses and the community safety.” Other notable programs include Detroit’s Most Wanted and the Community and Police Advocacy (CAPPA) group, both of which equip the community with useful information and work directly with the public on a range of safety issues.

As we can see, the Detroit Police are vigorously trying to bring city crime down through community-oriented policing strategies, but one practice looks quite alarming to me: the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIC), which, according to its website, will “provide information about any offender who is, or was, in a Michigan prison, on parole or probation under the supervision of the MDOC, has transferred in or out of Michigan under the Michigan Interstate Compact, or who has escaped or absconded from their sentence.” The practice is disturbing because it can be easily misused by people to label and harass ex-offenders. It undoubtedly raises many ethical concerns.

Besides police initiatives, the Detroit community is trying to revitalize its neighborhoods to create a safe environment for all residents. The Helping Ourselves Overcome Disparities Project (Osborn HOOD) uses efforts from different city and neighborhood organizations to engage youth in community building and provide more mobility and safety to the Osborn area residents of Detroit. Osborne HOOD is an excellent example of community leadership and progressive thinking. Detroit should welcome similar initiatives in its backyard that can provide positive spillover effects and facilitate such projects on a larger scale.

Data and Necessary Surroundings

I strongly agree with the Five Point Crime Reduction Plan proposed by Benny Napoleon. Napoleon served as Detroit’s youngest Chief of Police and later became a prominent Assistant Wayne County Executive. As a longtime resident of Detroit with a 38-year public service career, he knows what is best for the city. Another important notion that he supports is the idea that comprehensive data collection is paramount in combating crime. The data-driven approach focuses on collecting and using data so we can understand patterns and try to reduce incidents of crime across neighborhoods. It’s truly a starting point for any preventive actions as well as for adequate respons times.

However, in addition to data gathering and analysis, Detroit needs systematic research on ecology of crime to understand where crime incidents are located to find the so-called “hot spots.” Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) can be utilized to make the public spaces safer. Some changes can be quite pricey, but Detroit can start with the small pieces of the puzzle that are relatively inexpensive, effective, and easy to incorporate. Small adjustments of neighborhood spaces like the replacement of blind spots with safer architectural designs, or changing the layout of streets to bolster neighbors’ interactions and provide a greater sense of community. Neighborhood watch groups should be also utilized in every community to better understand needs and the most pressing problems. The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg among the many innovative ways that CPTED can offer to transform criminogenic spaces into safe communities.

Detroit can learn a great deal about CPTED by looking at Irvine, California, which was rated the number one safest city over 200,000 population in 2012 according to our methodology. The city was carefully planned by Irvine Company in the 1960s utilizing some notions of CPTED. Omar Masry, an associate planner in the City of Irvine, California claims that implementation of CPTED in Irvine “enhances the sense of safety and security for new occupants and the surrounding neighborhood.” Using the same strategy for Detroit can render significant results in reducing its crime rates and reorganizing its communities.

So, Can We Rebuild, or Can’t We?

If we want crime reduction strategies to work in Detroit, strong police cooperation not only with communities, but with other sectors of local government, should be implemented. To eradicate “hot spots” of crime in Detroit we will need to “rebuild” the city by changing existing environments and providing safer opportunities for its residents. Communities should come together without having to wait for government and police to magically alter existing realities. The real change will happen when all human resources are pulled together including local government officials, police officers, community leaders, young professionals and educators.

It has been long proven that alone we can do so little, while together we can do so much.

—

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Gwert38 via Wikipedia]

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can We Rebuild Detroit? Affirmative Thoughts appeared first on Law Street.

Buying a $299 whiteboard that can stop bullets is a startling reality for educational professionals across the country. The LA Times estimates that Hardwire LLC sold around 100 such boards to schools in 5 different states. According to the website “the high-tech tablet — which hangs on a hook, measures 18-by-20 inches and comes in pink, blue, and green — can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack and as a portable writing pad in quieter times”.

Being an alternative to arming teachers, the invention of this multifunctional tablet draws attention to the fears in the American education system.

But does this mean that people are simply waiting for more mass shootings to happen? Does it mean that it’s no longer safe to send your kids to school, or pursue a career in education?

I decided to look at the statistics to find the definitive answer, specifically a Small Arms Survey New Armed Actors Research Note, provides a reliable data on gun ownership in participating countries. According to their report, the United States has 270,000,000 firearms in the possession of its civilian population alone, making the U.S. the world’s leader in civilian gun ownership. Although almost every American agrees that mass shootings, particularly those at schools, are a very important issue, there remains a great deal of disagreement on how to solve the problem. Anti-gun folks will argue that all mass shootings happened just for one reason: the availability of guns. The solution they offer is to prohibit guns, and voilà, the problem is solved! But the reality is – the prohibition of guns will not happened because American society is not ready for that. The latest poll by Gallup showed that 74 percent of Americans are against banning guns for civilians! Thus, it will take many more significant events like school shootings for Americans to change their perceptions on firearms and reform gun laws in the United States. Furthermore, the government can’t even tighten existing gun laws due to the political rivalry, and strong lobbying of pro-gun organizations. In contrast, pro-gun politicians suggest that we arm teachers, and again, voilà, the problem will be solved. The irony of this proposition is all too clear to me, so I have to ask: is it really going to help? Mother Jones analyzed 62 mass shootings in America, finding that not even one of these events was prevented by an armed bystander.  In fact, some of these heroes were actually injured or killed as a result of their attempts to stop the attack.

Live Science indicates that although mass shootings are not a common phenomena, when compared to other violent crimes in America, the amount has been steadily increasing. The same source suggests that most of the shooters had difficulty to connect with other people and wanted to be seen as notorious as possible. The interesting characteristic of almost all mass shooters is their ability to plan and execute their projected shootings despite their mental instability. This reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell-Tale Heart” where murder was meticulously planned and executed by the unknown narrator who is suffering from a mental disease. The Huffington Post suggests that “a history of abuse or ineffective parenting, a tendency to set fires or hurt animals, a sadistic streak, and self-centeredness and a lack of compassion” all can characterize mass shooters. So will arming teachers prevent these people from shooting until their last breath? Probably not.

The problem of mass shootings, especially on campuses, is not only due to the availability of guns, but also to the lack of proper treatment for the mentally-ill. Real Clear Politics encourages us to address the widespread problems of young unstable adolescents and to stop meaningless fight about gun control. The violence exposure through TV and video games combined with alienation, individualistic culture, pressure to succeed, and mental disturbance, can create a lonely mass shooter who might come to your college, school, movie theatre, or grocery store tomorrow.

I decided to look at the statistics again, but now within the American mental health care system. Washington Post provides seven facts about mental health system in the United States, among those are high price tags on mental health services, bias in mental health treatments, and restricted access to mental medical care. Fox News also breaks down for us what is wrong with mental health care in America, and the picture is not all bright. Inadequate training of professionals in the industry and sky-high costs of treatment itself are only two perplexing realities of mental health care system today.

So how do we cure campuses form mass shootings? Changes can happen, but people should not only be aware of the issue realities, they should fiercely advocate for changing the ineffective policies that currently exist. Tightening gun laws to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing firearms, and providing more mobility and resources to mentally-ill people alone can decrease mass shooting incidents. The problem itself should be viewed as multidimensional issue that involves government, local communities, educational system, and healthcare.

There is no time for meaningless fights about gun control and dubious ideas to transform schools and colleges to citadels with armed teachers. A $299 pink board also won’t help tackle the problem.

But what should teachers and students do in the meantime?

Teachers will buy those colorful boards hoping they will never use them as “protection shields”, put guns in their classroom drawers, and start to teach hoping that history will never repeat itself.

In memory of Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting.

—

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [woodleywonderworks via Flickr]

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guns, Whiteboards, and the Mentally Ill: How to Cure Campuses From Mass Shootings appeared first on Law Street.