Five teenage boys who painted graffiti on a historic black school in Ashburn, Virginia, in September have received an unusual sentence. The boys, all 16 or 17, wrote racist slurs on the exterior of the old school, as well as swastikas, the words “white power,” and vulgar images. But Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Alex Rueda is the daughter of a librarian and understands power of education. She recommended sentencing the boys to read books by some prominent black, Jewish, and Afghan writers, write a paper on hate speech, visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and listen to an interview with a former student of the school they vandalized.

The school, Ashburn Colored School, taught black children from 1892 until the 1950s. The boys will listen to the words of former student Yvonne Thornton Neal, which is a fitting sentence, said Deep Sran, founder of the Loudoun School for the Gifted. “We thought it would be good to really understand the story of Ms. Neal and the local community and why it was so important to them,” Sran said.

Five white teenagers who sprayed racist graffiti were sentenced to visit a Holocaust museum and read black authors: https://t.co/zKa8qUTMgn pic.twitter.com/Oi5PKtB0ja

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 3, 2017

Students at Sran’s school, which one of the boys had previously attended, have been working on restoring the old school, raising money with bake sales and yard sales. The students were devastated by the vandalism. Their school owns the property that the old institution stands on and the plan was to turn it into a museum. Sran said it stood there for 40 years without any incidents like this. “The moment you bring attention to what it is and that it’s being restored somebody decides to deface it,” he said.

Rueda said the vandals didn’t seem to understand the gravity of their actions at the time of the crime. Three of them are also members of minority communities according to the Washington Post, and one had written “brown power” next to the other racist remarks. “It really seemed to be a teachable moment. None of them seemed to appreciate — until all of this blew up in the newspapers — the seriousness of what they had done,” Rueda said. Now the boys have some reading to do, and if they manage to write reports on all the books they read as well as complete the research paper on hate speech within a 12-month period, their cases will be dismissed.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti-Painting Teens Sentenced to Study Hate Speech and Visit Holocaust Museum appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer star Lionel Messi has been sentenced to 21 months in prison, after he was found guilty of three counts of tax fraud in a Spanish court. But legal experts have cautioned that given the nature of his crimes and the length of his sentence, the Barcelona player probably won’t serve any time actually behind bars.

Messi’s father was also sentenced to 21 months in jail for tax fraud but he too probably won’t serve time. The two defrauded Spain of $4.5 in between 2007 and 2009. According to BBC they were found guilty of “using tax havens in Belize and Uruguay to conceal earnings from image rights.” In Spain, those found guilty of financial crimes and sentenced to under two years in jail are able to serve that time on probation. This will require them to stay out of legal trouble while they are on probation, as well as meet other requirements. They both could be facing hefty fines, as well, but given Messi’s enormous net worth, even hefty fines shouldn’t be a big burden for the star.

Messi’s team, Barcelona, has issued a statement of support for their player and his father, saying:

The club, in agreement with the government prosecution service, considers that the player, who has corrected his position with the Spanish Tax Office, is in no way criminally responsible.

At this point, Barcelona is the only team that Messi plays for, given that he recently announced his retirement from the Argentine national team and international soccer.

Both Messis are expected to appeal their cases. Here’s a press release explaining the appeal:

The Messi press release in English where it confirms he will appeal to the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/v6QLS8xadG

— Guillem Balague (@GuillemBalague) July 6, 2016

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 Lionel Messi Sentenced for Tax Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

A six-second video of a game of beer pong has lead to an arrest warrant and  intensive manhunt for Ethan Couch, the famed “affluenza teen” who avoided jail time two years ago for the drunk-driving deaths of four people because he was rich.

New information released in search for “affluenza” teen Ethan Couch. https://t.co/CZNUqUhWT5 pic.twitter.com/oaPyt5QTut

— WPEC CBS12 News (@CBS12) December 21, 2015

Couch, 18, missed an appointment with his probation officer on December 10, leading authorities to issue a warrant for his arrest. Now authorities believe his mother, Tonya, is helping to hide him after he was labeled a missing person on nationwide databases Monday.

The decision to run comes just a few weeks after the beer pong video surfaced on social media, showing Couch partying with others. The video alone isn’t proof of Couch violating his probation since the teen isn’t seen drinking, but an investigation into the incident may have caused him to flee.

ya boy ethan couch violating probation. i got more if u want @CityofBurleson @TarrantCountyDA pic.twitter.com/otiGprQ1uD — h (@BlondeSpectre) December 2, 2015

Couch was 16-years-old when a drunken joyride with his friends ended with him mowing down a young woman changing a flat tire and the three pedestrians who stopped to help her. His lawyer used expert testimony from a psychologist to convince a judge that he was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions because he suffered from “affluenza,” thanks to a whole lot of money and bad parenting.

Instead of serving jail time, the Texas teen was sentenced to therapy at a long-term in-patient facility and 10 years of probation. But for many, the sentence only perpetuated Couch’s lack of accountability and offered no justice for his victims.

Now authorities are offering a $5,000 reward to anyone with information leading to an arrest. Unfortunately it’s unclear exactly how long he has been at large, and due to the family’s considerable financial resources, the pair could have already fled the country.

The judge that sentenced #ethancouch should be investigated & made to resign. Couch committed mass murder and is now on a beach in Mexico.

— Born2Rezist (@Born2Rezist) December 16, 2015

The whole situation just reeks of irony. A judge avoided a tough sentence that would have held him accountable for four people’s deaths, because he doesn’t have a history of being held accountable. It just doesn’t make sense. If authorities are able to capture Couch and his mother, hopefully they won’t get away with yet another slap on the wrist.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Affluenza’ Teen Ethan Couch on the Run, Missing Mom Presumed Helping appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you keeping track, Chris Brown has landed himself in legal trouble for at least the third time since his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. This time the R&B singer found himself in court because of a recent performance he gave at the Fiesta Nightclub in San Jose, California. The terms of Brown’s probation require him to get permission before leaving Los Angeles County; however, he didn’t do that, and instead traveled over 300 miles outside of the county for the January 11 show.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Brandlin revoked Brown’s probation yesterday in light of the unapproved travel, as well as the fact that Brown is still 200 hours short of completing the required community service component of his plea agreement. Probation revocation isn’t necessarily a go-directly-to-jail card; judges have several different options at their disposal in this type of situation, including requiring entry into some type of treatment program or adding additional time onto the length of probation, among other things. In Brown’s case, Brandlin is allowing the singer to remain free at least until March when another hearing in the matter is scheduled.

Brown’s attorney Mark Geragos–known for representing celebrity defendants, including Michael Jackson and notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson–claimed that Brown’s unauthorized travel was not in fact the singer’s fault, but rather that Geragos’ office provided him with bad information on this particular term of his probation.

Brown’s probation dates back to the infamous incident with Rihanna following the Grammys in 2009, when he choked, punched, and bit her. Since his arrest and subsequent plea agreement in that case, Brown has not stayed out of legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after being arrested for punching a man outside his Washington, DC hotel. He was sentenced to time already served after spending two days in jail; however, because he was already on probation for assaulting Rihanna he received 131 days in jail as a result of the new guilty plea. He was also ordered to enter rehab as a result of this incident, but he was kicked out for violating the center’s rules before finishing the four-month program. He was also charged in a hit-and-run incident in early 2013, but the charges were later dropped.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chris Brown is Back in Court…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney brought us the  ‘Dark Side of Snapchat’ recently, explaining its less-than-savory methods of use by the consumers. Now it looks like all of those dark sides have landed the company, for lack better words, in deep shit. Snapchat is facing scrutiny of its practices and policies.

On May 8, 2014, Snapchat was slapped with complaints by the Federal Trade Commission that the popular mobile messaging app deceived consumers about the ephemeral nature of snaps, among other things. Furthermore, the FTC alleged that the company misrepresented the platform’s privacy and security. The FTC’s complaints allege the following:

1. Snapchat misrepresented its privacy and security actions in its marketing to consumers.
2.  Snapchat misrepresented the ephemeral nature of snaps when it is known to the company that there are several ways to store the ‘disappearing messages,’ such as third party software available for download.
3. Snapchat stored video snaps unencrypted on recipients’ devices outside of its ‘sandbox’ (in layman’s terms this means that they were stored externally from the app). Furthermore, the recipient could retrieve the ‘disappearing videos’ if he or she connected the mobile device to a computer.
4. Snapchat mislead consumers regarding the notification functionality. If a recipient of a snap took a screenshot, the sender would receive a notification, but the FTC noted multiple ways in which the notification system could be avoided.
5. Snapchat misrepresented its data collection practices to Android app users because the app transmits geolocation information, which is in direct contrast to the company’s privacy policies. (Clearly, marketing privacy does not mean actual privacy.)
6. Snapchat misrepresented the security of the ‘Find Friends’ feature. Snapchat received complaints that the feature did not verify the phone numbers, therefore, consumers potentially were communicating with someone other than the designated recipient.

While Snapchat settled the FTC charges and has not incurred monetary penalties, the company was placed on probation and will be subjected to independent privacy monitoring for the next 20 years. If the company is found misrepresenting its practices again, it could face up to $16,000 per infringement. However, this is relatively minor punishment for the company in my opinion.

Do I think that consumers truly believe that all their messages are private? No, not at all. However, if your business platform is based on some degree of privacy and security, you should really make an effort to deliver on those promises — not have one security breach after another. The company was rated with one out of six stars on the ‘Who Has Your Back’  2014 report released by Electronic Frontier Foundation last week. Snapchat is truly innovative and I hope it moves faster on the learning curve because it is a great app. But, in the words of Dottie People, “get your house in order.”

Click here to read the original post by Anneliese Mahoney: “The Dark Side of Snapchat.”

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Featured image courtesy of [Jose A. Perez via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.