Human Rights Watch – Law Street https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com Law and Policy for Our Generation Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:46:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 100397344 Parents of Intersex Child Win $440,000 Lawsuit Over Surgery https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/parents-intersex-child-win-440000-lawsuit-cosmetic-genital-surgery/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/parents-intersex-child-win-440000-lawsuit-cosmetic-genital-surgery/#respond Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:30:23 +0000 https://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=62544

Surgeons say cosmetic genital surgeries can severely and irreversibly harm intersex children.

The post Parents of Intersex Child Win $440,000 Lawsuit Over Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
"Image" Courtesy of Cinthia Costa License: (CC BY 2.0)

The parents of an intersex child reached a $440,000 settlement in their four-year lawsuit against the hospital that performed genital surgery on their son prior to his adoption, according to court records released Wednesday. The lawsuit is likely the first of its kind for intersex people.

Pam and Mark Crawford’s son, identified in the lawsuit as “M.C.” because he is a minor, was born intersex with both male and female genitalia. The South Carolina Department of Social Services took M.C. into custody after his biological father abandoned the family and the state determined his biological mother to be an unfit parent. The Greenville Hospital System referred M.C. to surgeons at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) who performed genital surgery on him in 2005 and 2006 to remove his male genitalia and further construct female genitalia.

The Crawfords first saw M.C. on an adoption website on which he was listed as a girl. They later learned that M.C. had been born intersex and had been assigned female through genital surgery. The Crawfords adopted M.C. when he was 20 months old. As he grew up, M.C. rejected “girlier” clothing, opted for a more “boyish” appearance, and eventually expressed that he wanted to be a boy, according to Buzzfeed.

M.C.’s family and community accepted him as he transitioned, but his parents told Buzzfeed that the social workers and the hospital’s decision to perform genital surgery on their intersex child should have never been allowed in the first place. In 2013, the Crawfords sued the South Carolina social services department, MUSC, and the hospital system, claiming the hospital had committed medical malpractice.

The Crawfords claimed that “M.C. has incurred medical bills, pain and suffering, damages, and permanent impairment” as a result of the surgery, according to court records. The hospital system settled for $20,000 last year, according to Buzzfeed. MUSC, which settled for $440,000, will pay $270,000 to a structured settlement company to purchase an annuity policy that will pay $440,000 to M.C. over the next 16 years.

While gender is increasingly being accepted as a spectrum, many people still maintain that sex is a binary system. However, intersex activists hope to demonstrate that sex, too, is more than either “male or female,” and that intersex children can be perfectly healthy without needing sex “normalization” cosmetic surgeries that they have not consented to. Additionally, intersex people’s characteristics are not limited to external sexual organs that fall somewhere in the middle of the sexual spectrum, but may also have internal sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics that appear later in life.

Human Rights Watch, in collaboration with interACT, spoke with intersex people, their parents, surgeons, and other professionals for a report released last week. The report condemned the practice of non-consensual cosmetic genital surgeries on intersex children. In a June report, three former surgeons general said that such surgeries “can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.”

“Cosmetic genitoplasty should be deferred until children are old enough to voice their own view about whether to undergo the surgery,” the surgeons’ general report said. “Those whose oath or conscience says ‘do no harm’ should heed the simple fact that, to date, research does not support the practice of cosmetic infant genitoplasty.”

As acceptance expands, hopefully the stigmatization of intersex people and efforts to force them into a binary system will fade as well.

Marcus Dieterle
Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents of Intersex Child Win $440,000 Lawsuit Over Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/parents-intersex-child-win-440000-lawsuit-cosmetic-genital-surgery/feed/ 0 62544
New Study Finds Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/marijuana-arrests-outnumber-violent-crimes/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/marijuana-arrests-outnumber-violent-crimes/#respond Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:45:22 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=56132

A new report from the ACLU and Human Rights Watch sheds light on drug-related arrests.

The post New Study Finds Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Arrests for small amounts of marijuana outnumbered arrests for all violent crimes combined last year, according to a new report released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch highlighting the abundance of drug possession crimes in America.

The 196-page report title “Every 25 Seconds: The Human Toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States,” found that every 25 seconds in the U.S., someone is arrested possessing drugs for their personal use, and on any given day 137,000 men and women are behind bars in the U.S. for drug possession. In fact, one in nine arrests are for drug possession, amounting to over 1.25 million each year.

Interestingly enough, many of these people haven’t yet been convicted of a crime, but are being detained pretrial because they can’t afford to post bail–leading many defendants to “plead guilty simply to secure their release, in cases where they might otherwise want to go to trial.”

As a result, these convictions exclude them from job opportunities, public housing, quality education, welfare assistance, voting, and more, and subject them to discrimination and lifelong stigma.

“Rather than promoting health, criminalization can create new barriers to health for those who use drugs,” the report says. “Criminalization drives drug use underground; it discourages access to emergency medicine, overdose prevention services, and risk-reducing practices such as syringe exchanges.”

The authors of the report call for drug use to be treated as a public health issue, rather than a criminal issue. The report says:

Ending criminalization of simple drug possession does not mean turning a blind eye to the misery that drug dependence can cause in the lives of those who use and of their families. On the contrary, it requires a more direct focus on effective measures to prevent problematic drug use, reduce the harms associated with it, and support those who struggle with dependence. Ultimately, the criminal law does not achieve these important ends, and causes additional harm and loss instead. It is time for the US to rethink its approach to drug use.

Federal figures bolster the report’s findings. While drug-related arrests have drastically increased since 1979, drug use remains high. In 1979, less than 200 in 100,000 people were arrested on drug charges. By the mid-2000s, that ratio rose to 500 in 100,000, its peak. Today, federal figures estimate 400 in 100,000 people are arrested for drug use or possession.

Proponents of strict drug-use penalties argue that tough sentencing practices can deter use and will keep the public safe. For instance, since 1979, illegal drug use by children age 12 and up was at its highest rate in 2015, at just under 18 percent. That rate was much lower at the peak of drug-related arrests in the mid 2000s, but the full picture is much murkier than just that blip in time.

The report also found that while whites are more likely to use illicit drugs in general, black adults are more than two-and-a-half times as likely as white adults to be arrested for drug possession–furthering problems of racial discrimination.

 Alexis Evans also contributed to this story.

Alec Siegel
Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Study Finds Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/marijuana-arrests-outnumber-violent-crimes/feed/ 0 56132
Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/facebook-makes-changes-to-problematic-real-name-policy/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/facebook-makes-changes-to-problematic-real-name-policy/#respond Sun, 01 Nov 2015 21:20:58 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=48900

A few steps in the right direction.

The post Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
Image courtesy of [SimonQ錫濛譙 via Flickr]

After significant public controversy, Facebook is making some edits to its problematic “real name” policy. The company received criticism after requiring that users use their “real names,” and allowed other users to flag when someone wasn’t adhering. But critics argued that this policy led to harassment and complications, particularly for the LGBTQ community, performers who go by different names, those who are attempting to hide their identities, and groups whose “real names” didn’t fit the narrow rules prescribed by Facebook–particularly those from Native American backgrounds. But in response to that outcry, Facebook is now making some changes to this policy that should benefit all.

Previously, Facebook required users to use their “real names,” or some semblance of that name. There were a few reasons that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave for this policy–including the fact that that it’s easier to find people to connect with when we all use legal names. Additionally, Zuckerberg made the argument that requiring “real names” made it less likely that fake profiles could be used for harassment.

There have been complaints about this policy for a while, but an open letter written recently by a variety of advocacy groups accelerated the discussion. Authors of the letter included the ACLU and the Human Rights Watch, and as a whole represent:

Transgender and gender variant people whose legal names don’t accord with their gender identity.

People who use a pseudonym or name modification in order to protect themselves from physical violence, legal threats from repressive governments, or harassment on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or political activities.

People who have been silenced by attackers abusing Facebook’s “Fake Name” reporting option.

People whose legal names don’t fit the arbitrary standards of “real names” developed by Facebook, such as Native Americans, other ethnic minorities, and members of the clergy.

These individuals have often had a hard time reclaiming their profiles after being accused of using “not real names.” More dangerously, sometimes Facebook has reinstated profiles with an individual’s legal name instead of the one they were previously using, possibly outing them or exposing them to violence. Read the full letter below:

In response to this letter, Facebook has announced that it will be making a couple changes to the policy that will help alleviate these concerns. To start, users will be able to provide context to Facebook about the name they choose when they sign up for an account. This will allow Facebook to understand why someone might have difficulty verifying their identity. The other change is that users who flag others for “fake names” will have to explain why they’re flagging an individual, to ensure it isn’t just for harassment purposes. Finally, Facebook will make it easier for those who have been locked out of their accounts due to the policy to regain access. While Facebook hasn’t totally changed its tune, it is a good step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney
Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Makes Changes to Problematic “Real Name” Policy appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/facebook-makes-changes-to-problematic-real-name-policy/feed/ 0 48900
U.N. Leaves Israel Off ‘List of Shame’ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/world-blogs/israel-not-included-uns-list-shame/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/world-blogs/israel-not-included-uns-list-shame/#respond Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:50:40 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=44642

The U.N. decides not to make an example of Israel and Hamas.

The post U.N. Leaves Israel Off ‘List of Shame’ appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
Image courtesy of [Emily Drew via Flickr]

Despite growing political pressure, both Israel and Hamas avoided the United Nations’ annual report on Children and Armed Conflict. The report lists countries with a record of children’s rights violations.

The U.N. Secretary-General’s office for Children and Armed Conflict reviews ongoing conflicts to determine whether children’s rights violations occurred. In addition to a summary of active conflicts, the report also includes two annexes, or the so-called “list of shame.” The U.N. calls upon all listed parties to end and take measures to prevent future crimes against children in order to be taken off the list. The report focuses on violations of six specific children’s rights, including the recruitment of children as soldiers, the killing and maiming of children, sexual violence against children, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction of children, and the denial of humanitarian access.

Although Hamas and Israel are not listed in the annexes of the most recent report, it does designate four pages to discussing the 2014 Gaza conflict. A total of 561 children in Israel and Palestine were killed, 557 of which were Palestinian. U.N. estimates also indicate that at least 1,000 of the 2,955 Palestinian children who were injured will be permanently disabled. Additionally, at least 262 schools and 274 kindergartens in Gaza were affected last summer due to Israeli airstrikes. The death toll in the Gaza conflict even surpassed the number of minors confirmed killed in Syria last year. Palestine had the third highest number of child deaths among all conflicts in 2014, and the highest number of damaged or destroyed schools.

Although the number of recorded abuses against children rose significantly, the Secretary-General decided to let Israel and Hamas off the hook. The list remains unchanged from the previous year despite what Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls “grave violations suffered by children as a result of Israeli military operations in 2014.”

Unnamed U.N. officials told the Associated Press that initial recommendations for the list, which circulated internally within the United Nations, included both Hamas and Israel. But due to disagreements among people on the ground, neither group was included in the final version of the report.

Placing Israel on the annual report could have a meaningful effect on the country. Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have all signed action plans to prevent future violations. According to the Office of Children and Armed Conflict, these actions plans “outline concrete, time bound steps that lead to compliance with international law.” As of this year, 23 parties have signed action plans–11 governments and 12 non-state groups–nine of which have fully complied with their action plans and are no longer on the list.

Human Rights Watch has been one of the strongest proponents of including Israel and Hamas in the report’s annexes. Prior to the report’s release, Philippe Bolopion, the organization’s Crisis Advocacy Director, sent a letter to Ki-Moon urging him to include Israel, Hamas, and several other armed groups engaged in conflicts. Bolopion reinforced that point last month saying,

Applying consistent standards would add some long-time abusive parties to the list, including Israel and Hamas, for their wartime conduct harming children… Failure to include countries and groups that are known offenders will harm a report that’s been a powerful tool to protect children in war.

Since its creation in 2005, the Office for Children and Armed Conflict has monitored both Israel and Palestine. While previous reports document violations by these groups, they have both consistently avoided the report’s annexes. In his letter, Bolopion emphasizes, “other parties to armed conflict have been listed in your annexes in the past for less serious violations.”

The U.N. missed an important opportunity when it excluded both groups from the list. In the event of future conflicts, there are few measures in place to protect the lives and rights of children who are caught in the middle of the conflict. While the violence between Israel and Hamas might seem impossible to end, further international scrutiny may be help ensure that children’s most basic human rights are preserved in the future.

Alissa Gutierrez
Alissa is a member of the Catholic University Class of 2018 and was Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Alissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.N. Leaves Israel Off ‘List of Shame’ appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/world-blogs/israel-not-included-uns-list-shame/feed/ 0 44642
Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/#comments Tue, 13 May 2014 20:11:38 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=15499

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting. Want to guess the two sides? Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, […]

The post Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting.

Want to guess the two sides?

Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, although for very different reasons when it comes to the two nominees.

The first nominee is Michael Boggs. If appointed, he would have a lifetime seat on the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He’s a pretty conservative man–as a Georgia legislator he voted very much to the right on some contentious issues. These include voting to keep the Confederate symbol on the flag of Georgia, make abortion laws stricter, banning gay marriage, and defending discrimination against gay couples.

So why in the world would President Obama nominate Boggs? Well it’s all part of a deal. Georgia, like much of the United States, has long been plagued with a shortage of judges. There are constantly open seats on every level of the judiciary. Anytime one side nominates someone too controversial, they get bogged down and that seat never gets filled. So Obama made a deal with the two Republican Senators from Georgia–Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. They compromised on seven nominees–four of whom were GOP picks, three are liberal. And the nominees are a package deal, meaning the Senate need to approve all or nothing.

It was a gutsy move on Obama’s part. And it looks like it is really not panning out well at all. They do not appear to have a problem with the other three conservative nominees, but many Democrats say that Boggs is just too much of a compromise.

For example, Human Rights Watch released a statement, saying, “through this clear and unapologetic record Boggs has signaled his hostility towards issues of equality in his home state as an elected official. If confirmed, Boggs’ could entrench these destructive, anti-equality values on the federal bench for generations to come.” The Congressional Black Caucus said they were taken by surprise by the nomination and condemned the nomination. The hearing will be today, and it will be interesting to see if there’s enough opposition for this deal to fall completely apart. 

But Michael Boggs isn’t the only judicial nominee that’s causing problems for the White House. Obama nominated David Barron, a Harvard Law School Professor to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike with Boggs, the disagreement isn’t over Barron’s politics–he’s actually pretty liberal. Instead the hesitation comes from his work on a particular case, the killing of an American extremist named Anwar al-Awlaki.

Barron worked on the team that put together the legal justification for the killing of al-Awlaki by American forces. Liberal criticism of Barron includes the fact that they do not believe the White House has released enough information on Barron’s views and involvements on the subject. Prominent liberal lobbying group ACLU, as well as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have demanded the release of supposed memos detailing that involvement.

All of these judicial nominees hang in the balance, which is sad because the deal would make progress in filling seats, and David Barron himself is supremely qualified. And honestly speaking, I think the problems come from a lack of prudence in the White House and a strange and surprising disconnect between Obama and fellow Democrats. He’s not running for election again, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that Obama can afford to piss off too many of his usual allies. They hold the power to make the last few years of his presidency pretty ineffectual. If they deny these nominees, lots of behind-the-scenes work will be thrown out of the window, leaving behind the problem of empty courts and backed up cases. Obama has a couple choices here: asking for permission or for forgiveness. So far he’s been choosing the latter, but at this point, the former may be better advised.

[Msnbc]

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

 

Anneliese Mahoney
Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/feed/ 1 15499
How U.S. Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/human-rights-watch-releases-enlightening-new-report-on-sentencing/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/human-rights-watch-releases-enlightening-new-report-on-sentencing/#comments Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:22:10 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=9510

The Human Rights Watch is an independent organization dedicated to protecting human rights domestically and around the globe. This week, they have released an extensive 126-page report called “An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How US Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty.” The argument focuses on the issue of mandatory minimums—certain crimes in which […]

The post How U.S. Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

The Human Rights Watch is an independent organization dedicated to protecting human rights domestically and around the globe. This week, they have released an extensive 126-page report called “An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How US Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty.”

The argument focuses on the issue of mandatory minimums—certain crimes in which convictions automatically require a minimum punishment, such as a given amount of years in prison. One example of a mandatory minimum is the three-strikes law, which requires that if an individual is found guilty of a third felony charge, they have a mandated harsher sentence. Mandatory minimums are especially controversial in drug cases—there are certain types of drugs like painkillers and hard drugs that mandate harsh sentences.

Supporters argue that certain crimes deserve uniformly appropriate punishments. After all, we’ve all seen what happens when judges are allowed sole discretion in deciding punishments—the recent case of Stacey Dean Rambold, who was given only a 31-day sentence for raping an underage girl. Critics of the law argue that it does not allow the accused to be charged on a more appropriate case-by-case basis. They also argue that it leads to a countless number of unfair convictions and sentences, such as these examples. Ninety-seven percent choose to plead guilty.

Another issue with mandatory minimums is that they only refer to types of drugs and amounts, not the actual job of the person being charged. For example, a kid who is working as a courier can be charged with selling large quantities of drugs, instead of the actual drug dealer facing charges.

The report released by the Human Rights Watch details how these mandatory minimum requirements in drug cases are being manipulated. Prosecutors give defendants the choice: either go to trial, and if convicted, face harsh mandatory minimums, or plead guilty to a lower sentence than the mandatory minimum. According to this report, they also threaten to add charges to the crimes, such as prior drug convictions, or if they had a weapon at the time they were arrested.

Given that some of these mandatory minimums can be a life sentence, this offer is incredibly enticing.

The Human Rights Watch report looked at a number of cases in which defendants pled not guilty, and the results were devastating. For example, a woman named Sandra Avery, who was characterized as a small-time drug dealer, was offered a sentence of 10 years for possessing 50 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. She turned it down, and instead chose to go to trial. She is now serving life in prison without parole.

The HRW report calls this a “trial penalty.” They explain that a trial is a right within the United States, but that for those who have been forced to plead guilty for fear of an unreasonable sentence, that right has been taken away. The relevant statistics that the HRW gathered are convincing—as noted in the report, “the average sentence for federal drug offenders who pled guilty was five years, four months; for those convicted after trial, the average sentence was sixteen years.”

This report will most likely add to a growing sentiment that mandatory minimums need to be revisited. After all, Attorney General Eric Holder has made his feelings on them clear—he has stated that the laws need to change. Hopefully, this report will continue that discussion, and changes will be made to ensure that everyone does receive the due process of law.

[Human Rights Watch]

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Tori Rector via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney
Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How U.S. Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/human-rights-watch-releases-enlightening-new-report-on-sentencing/feed/ 2 9510