The Reddit user who edited and spread the now-famous video clip of President Donald Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo for a head has issued an apology. The user goes by the name “HanA**holeSolo,” and wrote a lengthy post apologizing to the whole Reddit community.

“I am in no way this kind of person. I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so my entire life,” he wrote.

He went on to say that he does not support any kind of violence and that he posted hateful, controversial posts to get attention from other users. This then became a form of addiction, as he wanted to see how far he could go.

“Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site,” he said.

Redditor HanAssholeSolo, the guy who posted the Trump/CNN clip the president tweeted, has apologized to @CNN, the media, and others pic.twitter.com/GlePoiSlFj

— Brandon Wall (@Walldo) July 4, 2017

The user has since deleted his account, so the statement is no longer available. But a lot of people are questioning whether the apology is sincere, or if it’s just another step in the “trolling.” Some pointed out that the apology didn’t come until after CNN had tracked down and identified the user.

On the other hand, a lot of people criticized CNN and accused the media network of blackmail after it published an article about how its journalists tracked down the Reddit user. In the article, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski wrote that HanA**holeSolo was identified through a Facebook search using information he had written himself on Reddit.

When Kaczynski tried contacting him, he got no reply. But on Tuesday, HanA**holeSolo posted his apology. After that, HanA**holeSolo contacted CNN to confirm his identity and expressed that he was nervous about being exposed. CNN wrote:

CNN is not publishing ‘HanA**holeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.

It followed up with, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.” A lot of people on the right took that as a threat and started using the hashtag #CNNBlackmail.

If only @CNN spent as much time tracking down info on IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, Iran deal etc as they did a meme writer! #CNNBlackmail

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 5, 2017

However, Kaczynski said in a tweet that HanA**holeSolo had called him to say that he completely agrees with the article’s statement, and that he did not perceive anything it said as a threat.

The user has previously posted things on the pro-Trump subreddit The_Donald that makes it hard for some to believe that the apology is sincere. In June, he posted a chart of CNN employees with Jewish Stars of David next to their images, writing, “Something strange about CNN…can’t quite put my finger on it.”

On Sunday, he wrote “F**k ISLAM,” and commented on a photo of refugees, “There’s a MOAB (Mother of All Bomb’s) for that.” Reportedly, he also frequently used slurs to describe African-Americans, women, and Muslims. He has also attacked Black Lives Matter, feminism, Islam, liberals, and the state of Maryland.

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 CNN Faces Backlash for Article About Reddit User Who Made Trump Video appeared first on Law Street.

An Arkansas man has been arrested for allegedly driving his car into a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol early Wednesday morning. Interestingly, this is the second time that Michael Tate Reed, 32, has been arrested for driving into a religious monument. The last time was in 2014, when he ran over another Ten Commandments display at the Oklahoma State Capitol. That time he said Satan made him do it and he reportedly threatened to kill President Obama.

But Reed seems to be non-partisan–he also recently threatened President Trump on social media. He had also planned for the event by creating a GoFundMe page, with which he hoped to raise enough money to replace his car. Around 5 a.m. on Wednesday, Reed drove his car straight into the statue, while shouting, “Oh my goodness, Freedom!” He also streamed the incident on Facebook Live.

Before the crash, he said in the Facebook video that he was back at it with “white plans,” but it’s unclear what he meant by that. He also said that he is a Christian but added, “one thing I do not support is the violation of our constitutional right to have the freedom that’s guaranteed to us, that guarantees us the separation of church and state, because no one religion should the government represent.” Finally, he asked people who support his cause to use the hashtag #Checkmate on social media.

NEW: Man accused of knocking over 10 Commandments statue at AR Capitol did the same thing in OK, 3 years ago:https://t.co/3F8dJsNdur #arpx pic.twitter.com/YtdpH2j292

— Emma Pettit (@EmmaJanePettit) June 28, 2017

The monument crumbled and Reed was taken to the hospital and then to jail. The stone statue had only been up for a day, but Republican State Senator Jason Rapert was confident a new monument would be up soon. He sponsored a law that took effect in 2015, which allowed private citizens to fund the religious monument and put it outside the Capitol. Opponents of that bill said that escaping a government-established religion was one of the things the colonists fled when they first set foot in America.

The crash sparked both criticism and support on social media. Some hailed him as a hero and patriot for standing up for the constitution, while others said the opposite. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee did not exactly support what happened.

Some idiot in my home state broke all 10 commandments at the same time. He wasn’t Moses and it wasn’t Mt. Sinai. https://t.co/r8hXrJ32JZ

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 28, 2017

But others definitely did.

some idiot legislator thought it was okay to place a religious statue in a place where governing occurs, despite separation of church and st https://t.co/1CmKRwVTZg

— John Hornor (@johnhornor) June 28, 2017

Reed was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder back in 2015. Later that year, he sent a letter to the Tulsa World describing why he had destroyed the monument at the state’s Capitol. He wrote that he got his inspiration from Dracula movies, that he thought he was the incarnation of a British occult leader called Aleister Crowley, and that a killer virus in the shape of Michael Jackson’s spirit had infected meat. He said that at the time of the 2014 crash he was also trying to get in touch with Satan’s high priestess, Gwyneth Paltrow.

After the earlier incident, many Republican lawmakers tried to paint what happened as politically motivated or an act of violence or terrorism, but Reed’s family insisted it was his illness. He was released from a mental health facility after doctors found a combination of medicines that seemed to work for him. It’s not clear what prompted Wednesday’s crash, but hopefully, he will get proper care.

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 Man Arrested for Driving His Car Into Ten Commandments Display at Arkansas Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

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 Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

Today, United States law enforcement officials charged the security detail for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after they escalated a protest outside the Turkish Embassy, leading to violence.

The skirmish broke out this May after Erdogan and his security detail met with President Donald Trump at the White House on May 16. Court documents reveal the demonstration was peaceful until a group of “radicalized protesters began taunting the peaceful protesters,” according to the Washington Post.

When Erdogan’s group arrived at the property, Turkish security provoked the demonstrators and a violent outburst broke out that entangled demonstrators from both sides, Turkish security, and American law enforcement. Eleven people were injured and nine were hospitalized, as Erdogan watched from his Mercedes-Benz.

Police in Washington D.C. have been investigating the incident alongside the State Department and Secret Service.

These charges levied against Turkish security officials are the first steps since the attack a month ago. Since the incident, American authorities have been frustrated privately and publicly regarding what they perceived as a foreign government’s attack on American free speech, according to the New York Times. 

The State Department responded by saying “violence is never an appropriate response to free speech” and that officials are “communicating our concern with the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a bill condemning the violence and asking for punishment.

While America views free speech and protest as an integral part of its democracy, the same cannot be said for Turkey. After a failed military coup last year, Erdogan’s government has pursued enemies and detractors of his regime. Nearly 200,000 people have been arrested, dismissed, or suspended from their jobs, according to the Washington Post. While the United States ranks 43rd in the World Press Freedom rankings, Turkey is ranked 155th.

One issue is that Erdogan and his team returned to Turkey just hours after the skirmish and it is unlikely that the country would extradite its people to face charges. If they ever return to the United States, however, they risk being arrested, according to the New York Times.

With that in mind, the State Department added that it would consider additional action “as appropriate under relevant laws and regulations.”

Another issue the outburst created was how it would impact diplomatic relations between the nations. It has already halted the progress of a $1.2 million arms sale to Turkey, according to the New York Times.

The incident has certainly raised tensions with Turkey, and American officials may continue to be disappointed with their attacks on protesters. Now it remains to be seen how Turkey, and Erdogan, will respond to the charges from law enforcement.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkish Security Detail Charged after May Melee appeared first on Law Street.

In a crackdown on religious freedom, the Chinese authorities have banned Islamic baby names and other religious symbols in the mainly Muslim region of the country, Xinjiang. About half of China’s 23 million Muslims live in this region, which is one of the most militarized in the country due to violent conflicts that authorities blame on religious extremists. Xinjiang is home to a Muslim minority group called the Uighurs.

Now Chinese officials have said that “religious” names like Islam, Quran, Saddam, and Mecca are prohibited, as such names could “exaggerate religious fervor.” Children that are given these names will not be eligible for household registration, which is what gives citizens access to social services, healthcare, and education in China.

The new rules follow other restrictions issued last month by the Xinjiang authorities that ban men from wearing an “abnormal beard.” Specific cities in Xinjiang already had bans in place prohibiting women from wearing face veils in public spaces like airports or train stations, but now the ban will apply to the whole region.

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, called the actions by the Xinjiang authorities “blatant violations of domestic and international protections on the rights to freedom of belief and expression.” She said that officials are punished by the state if they are too lenient on these “crimes” or other actions deemed inappropriate. One official was reprimanded for complaining about the new rules to his wife through a messaging app. Another one was fired from her job for having her wedding ceremony at home and not at a location approved by the government.

China bans Islamic baby names in Muslim majority Xinjiang province https://t.co/cWsITdTHeL pic.twitter.com/13i04R9yll

— Aüd (@CodeAud) April 25, 2017

There have been a number of violent incidents in Xinjiang in recent years that have been blamed on Muslim extremists. In 2013, 35 people, including 16 Uighurs, were killed in a confrontation between rioters and police. State media claims a group of religious extremists attacked police officers after one of their group members was arrested. Police killed 11 of them and labeled the act a terrorist attack.

That incident made many worry that the violence of 2009 would be repeated, when protests led to the deaths of at least 197 people. Many killed were Han Chinese, the main ethnic group in China. And in 2015, more than 50 people died in a knife attack at a coalmine in northwestern Xinjiang. State media claimed that one of the suspects said he had been carrying out a jihad.

But human rights experts say that the Chinese government’s harsh crackdown on Muslims will only deepen the Uighurs’ resentment. A spokesman for an exiled group of Uighurs, Dilxat Raxit, said that the violence was sparked by the Chinese government’s indiscriminate detentions of Uighurs. Others say that the government strongly exaggerates the level of organization behind protests and violence. “If the government is serious about bringing stability and harmony to the region as it claims, it should roll back–not double down on–repressive policies,” said Richardson.

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 China Bans Islamic Baby Names, Beards, and Veils in the Xinjiang Region appeared first on Law Street.

On March 2, Cecilio Pineda Brito, a nationally known crime reporter, was shot dead by two men on a motorcycle. On March 19, Ricardo Monlui Cabrera, the editorial director of the Córdoba’s Él Politico newspaper and president of his local journalism association, fell victim to similar motorcycle drive-by. Miroslava Breach Velducea, a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada, was shot and killed four days later. Last Friday, reporter Maximino Rodriguez Palacio was shot dead in La Paz, Mexico, marking the fourth fatal attack on a journalist in only six weeks.

The recent spate of attacks is shocking but not surprising. Human rights and freedom of the press advocates, both domestic and international, have long been calling for a response to anti-media violence in Mexico.

Freedom House’s 2016 Freedom of the Press Index named Mexico “one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists and media workers,” citing numerous violent attacks in 2015. Conditions have only been intensifying.

According to a report by Article 19–a non-profit devoted to protecting freedom of expression–suppressive and/or violent attacks on journalists have been on the rise since 2010. The report found 426 acts of aggression against journalists and 11 homicides in 2016. While 2016 was the bloodiest year for journalists under President Enrique Peña Nieto and the worst since 2000, 2017 may surpass it.

Despite these statistics, Peña Nieto’s government seems unconcerned with attacks on journalists. Article 19 reports that the Mexican Special Prosecutor’s Office on Crimes Against Freedom of Expression–known in Mexico as FEADLE, its Spanish acronym–only investigated 118 cases of the 426 acts of aggression against journalists and that 99.75 percent of attacks go unresolved.

Although criminal organizations often take most of the blame for any kind of violence in Mexico, there is a slew of evidence implicating the government in the anti-media violence. In 2016, “State agents” supposedly perpetrated 53 percent of the 426 acts of aggression identified by Article 19–criminal organizations are believed to have perpetrated 4 percent of the attacks.

Last month, Gilberto Israel Navarro Basaldúa, a journalist from the city of Guanajuato, reported that an employee of the municipal government’s economic council had swerved his car and hit Navarro off his motorcycle. Although employees of state and municipal governments are believed to have carried out the majority acts of aggression, Article 19 found 56 examples in which federal officials allegedly attacked the press.

It is clear that the Mexican government is unwilling to protect its media. Peña Nieto has blamed local governments for obstructing investigations but Article 19 found that his government had consistently refused to use its authority to take control of the process. The fact that state workers from all levels of government are believed to be responsible for the majority of acts of aggression against the media perhaps explains why the government is unwilling to investigate and prosecute anti-media crimes.

Historically victimized by criminal organizations and now increasingly victimized by government officials, the Mexican journalists have no place to turn. Freedom of the press has long been under threat in Mexico, but it appears the government is intent on undermining the expressive freedom in its entirety.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Responsible for Anti-Media Violence in Mexico? appeared first on Law Street.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel unwittingly prompted a public battle with President Donald Trump on Monday, when he criticized Trump for focusing on the crowd size at his inauguration. On Tuesday evening, coinciding with an “O’Reilly Factor” segment on violence in Chicago, Trump tweeted a veiled threat aimed at Emanuel. 

“If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24 percent from 2016), I will send in the Feds!” Trump tweeted, citing figures that aired on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Official statistics from the Chicago Police Department (CPD) put the numbers a bit lower, at 234 people shot, and 38 killed. In 2016, a department spokesman said, 227 were shot, with 33 deaths. The spokesman said the department’s figures do not factor in “justified” shootings (those in self-defense) or officer-involved shootings.

Emanuel’s verbal spat with Trump stemmed from a bit of criticism he lodged at the president on Monday: “You didn’t get elected to debate the crowd size at your inaugural,” the mayor said, referring to Trump’s insistence that his inauguration ceremony was the most-watched ever. “You got elected to make sure that people have a job, that the economy continues to grow, people have security as it relates to their kids’ education. It wasn’t about your crowd size. It was about their lives and their jobs.”

On Wednesday, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said his department was “more than willing” to work with the federal government to combat Chicago’s persistent violence. Chicago had a bloody 2016. The death toll was the highest in nearly two decades, at 762 people killed, largely the result of gang violence.

Days before U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch left office, her department released its findings that the CPD “engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.” The Justice Department also found a pattern of racial discrimination practiced by Chicago officers.

On Wednesday, a Chicago Democrat, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, came to Emanuel’s defense. “The president wants publicity and to be seen beating up on Democratic elected officials and appearing hostile to a big city like Chicago in the eyes of his suburban and rural voters,” he said.

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 Trump Threatens to “Send the Feds” to Chicago to Deal with “Horrible Carnage” appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Obama gave his last speech as POTUS, and today, Trump held his first news conference in 167 days. Read on to find out what they said! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s Moving Farewell Speech

Last night, President Barack Obama gave his last speech before leaving the White House, and it’s safe to say that there was not a dry eye in the place. Though he admitted that his job hasn’t been easy, and that he’s seen a lot of setbacks, he hasn’t lost hope. Obama urged his supporters to not give in to fear, guard their values, and be open-minded. The crowd cheered loudly enough to drown out his words, and when he paid tribute to Michelle, many people stood up. “You took on a role you didn’t ask for and made it your own with grace and grit and style and good humor,” he said, wiping his eyes. And of course he mentioned his BFF, VP Joe Biden, and said, “You were the first decision I made as a nominee, and it was the best, not just because you have been a great Vice President, but because in the bargain I gained a brother.”

But where was his youngest daughter, Sasha, during all of this? It turns out that she missed the speech because it was a school night and she had a test in the morning. Now that’s discipline!

#WhereIsSasha Hopefully blocking the driveway to the White House pic.twitter.com/NodjX8x4tB

— Sabra Berger (@SabraBerger) January 11, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: January 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Christmas Prison Break: Six Inmates Escape Through the Toilet

Early Christmas morning, six inmates at a Tennessee jail made a run for it and escaped through a broken toilet. Police captured five of them pretty quickly, but one is still on the loose. David Wayne Frazier is considered the most dangerous escapee and was imprisoned for aggravated robbery and possession of a weapon.

The unusual escape was made possible by a water leak behind a toilet that had damaged the surrounding concrete wall and bolts. The men were able to simply remove the toilet and crawl out through the hole in the wall, according to the Cocke County Sheriff’s office. At least the men got a little bit of freedom on Christmas.

They were able to unscrew and remove the toilet’s bolts, exposing a hole big enough for them to wiggle through https://t.co/oiK4LzvgoA

— New York Post (@nypost) December 26, 2016

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

San Francisco police are currently looking for four male suspects involved in the shooting of four students outside of the June Jordan School for Equity.

Three of the victims–all teenage males–are said to have been treated for non-life threatening injuries, while a 15-year-old female remains in critical condition with an upper-body gunshot wound at San Francisco General Hospital.

#SFPD investigating shots fired @ Brazil & La Grande. 1 Confirmed victim. Shelter in place. SFPD searching for suspect. pic.twitter.com/8gYb9Vi3q7

— San Francisco Police (@SFPD) October 18, 2016

The shots rang out in the parking lot outside of the school shortly after the school let out at approximately 3:15 PM Tuesday, terrifying students. According to KRON 4, the police believe the teen girl who was shot may have been the intended target.

Four male suspects dressed in dark hoodies and dark jeans fled the scene of the shooting, but it is unclear if a getaway car was used. SFUSD Interim Superintendent Myong Leigh said the suspects were not students.

“Our understanding at this time is that a small group of outsiders unaffiliated with the school came to campus around the time of school dismissal, targeting a particular student for reasons that are presently unclear,” the superintendent wrote in a statement released Wednesday. “Sadly, four students were injured during the incident.”

A manhunt is underway to locate the four suspects still at large.

Students at the school were extremely shaken and confused by the violence. Student Nia Gastinell told CNN that she had hidden with fellow classmates underneath desks, and was instructed by a school administrator to stay away from the windows.

You don’t know if somebody’s going to die the next day,” Gastinell said. “Or come back and shoot again into our school.”

Some students responded Wednesday to the violence with messages written in chalk in the parking lot where the shooting took place.

Students at June Jordan school for equity write messages in parking lot. 4 students shot. San Francisco @kron4news pic.twitter.com/75HzYtaMXR

— Will Tran (@KRON4WTran) October 19, 2016

Classes resumed Wednesday at June Jordan with added support available for students and staff.

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 Suspects on the Loose After San Francisco Shooting That Injured Four appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone’s favorite ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s released a statement expressing its support for the Black Lives Matter movement last week. Now a group of police officers are calling for a boycott of the ice cream.

Last Thursday, Ben & Jerry’s wrote in a statement:

Systemic and institutionalized racism are the defining civil rights and social justice issues of our time. We’ve come to understand that to be silent about the violence and threats to the lives and well-being of Black people is to be complicit in that violence and those threats.

Most social media users greeted the news with joy.

Why Ben and Jerrys woke af

⚡️ “Ben and Jerry’s release statement in support of Black Lives Matter”https://t.co/N75HRmAv4B

— Chocolate Metaphor (@_MikePearson) October 7, 2016

But the police organization Blue Lives Matter, which was created after the killings of two NYPD officers in Brooklyn in December of 2014, released a statement on Monday urging “all Americans” to boycott the ice cream brand. It said:

Ben & Jerry’s just recently announced their support for Black Lives Matter along with a misinformation campaign accusing law enforcement of widespread systemic and institutionalized racism. Many companies have offered misguided statements of support for Black Lives Matter in the past, with the false belief that they are expressing support for civil rights.

The event gave birth to the hashtag #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor and a bunch of suggestions for new flavors in honor of the company’s statement.

He Was Unarmed Dough #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor

— NUFF$AID (@nuffsaidNY) October 7, 2016

Fudge The Police #BenAndJerrysNewFlavor

— W.E.B. Dem Boyz (@Kevunn) October 7, 2016

#BenAndJerrysNewFlavor New Cone, Who Dis?

— Taco Bout It (@Anthoneezuss) October 7, 2016

Blue Lives Matter claims in the statement that Ben & Jerry’s endorsement of Black Lives Matter is anti-police and dangerous, because it inspires people to kill police officers by spreading false and misleading information about the police being racist. It said that BLM is not a civil rights group, but a political one, fighting for its own goals such as a disruption of the Western nuclear family structure and tax-paid damages for harms inflicted on black people. They wrote:

By not only attacking law enforcement, but openly supporting Black Lives Matter, Ben & Jerry’s is sure to anger most Americans who do not agree with the political causes that they are supporting.

Ben & Jerry’s is used to speaking up when it comes to supporting causes it cares about. The founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, have previously supported the World Wildlife Fund and Occupy Wall Street. They also supported Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and even honored him by creating a special ice cream flavor for him; chocolate mint with the name ”Bernie’s Yearning.”

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 Police Group Demands Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Associated Press revealed that South Sudanese troops went on a nearly four-hour violent rampage, where they raped foreign aid workers and killed a local journalist near the country’s capital of Juba. The worse part is, the nearby U.N. compound and the U.S. Embassy knew, but did nothing.

For three long years, Juba has been the center of a civil war between President Salva Kiir and the opposition forces led by Riek Machar. During the course of the war, both sides have often targeted civilians. But on July 11, soldiers celebrating a battle win in the capital attacked the Terrain hotel complex, which is a temporary home to many foreign aid workers, expats, and members of the Sudanese elite.

Residents of Terrain heard shouts and gunfire, while  between 80 and 100 men armed, drunk, and wearing the symbol of the President’s army broke into the hotel complex. Security guards at the hotel armed only with handguns didn’t stand a chance.

The soldiers began their rampage inside the complex by stealing phones, computers, and wallets. Then they beat up foreigners with their rifles–seemingly singling out Americans–and fired bullets close to people’s heads.

A man from the Philippines said the soldiers definitely had hatred for America, recalling one soldier saying: “You messed up this country. You’re helping the rebels. The people in the U.N., they’re helping the rebels.”

Three women interviewed by the AP said they were raped–one of them by 15 men. One of the women said security advisers from an aid organization had told them they would never be the target of an attack since they were foreigners. She claimed this exchange happened half an hour before they were assaulted.

Local journalist John Gatluak was killed for having the same tribal markings as Machar. A soldier shot him twice in the head and four more times in other parts of his body.

Many sent texts, emails and Facebook messages to people on the outside, pleading for help.

“All of us were contacting whoever we could contact. The U.N., the U.S. embassy, contacting the specific battalions in the U.N., contacting specific departments,” said the woman raped by 15 men.

But why didn’t the U.N. or the U.S. Embassy do anything to stop the attack? According to an internal timeline compiled by the U.N. that was obtained by the AP, a member of the U.N.’s Joint Operations Center in Juba first received word of the attack at 3:37 p.m, minutes after the breach of the compound.

Then over the course of the next hour, the timeline noted more U.N. staff members began receiving messages from inside Terrain. At 4:33 p.m., a Quick Reaction Force was informed; however it wasn’t until 6:52 p.m.–more than two hours after first the first message–that the U.N. Department of Safety and Security (DSS) declared it would not be sending a team.

Ethiopians from the U.N. mission were asked to send a Quick Reaction Force instead, but the emergency team took too long and the mission was abandoned. The U.N.’s Department of Safety and Security also asked Quick Reaction Forces from China and Nepal to intervene, but no one did.

“Everyone refused to go. Ethiopia, China, and Nepal. All refused to go,” said an American man who alerted U.N. staff of the attack after being released early from the compound.

According to the U.N. timeline, a patrol was supposed to go the following morning instead, but it “was cancelled due to priority.” When asked why no one responded, the U.N. said that it is investigating the matter.

But the U.N. isn’t the only organization facing blame. The U.S. Embassy was also asked for help, and reportedly never answered the American citizens trapped inside the hotel. The Embassy also did not respond to repeated requests for comment from AP.

The foreign aid workers in the field are there to help local civilians, but when they themselves become targets of attacks, the U.N. and their embassies should be the first ones to assist them. Instead, they were ignored when they begged for help.

Human Rights Watch is now calling for increased sanctions and an arms embargo on South Sudan.

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 South Sudanese Soldiers Raped Foreigners, While the U.N. Did Nothing appeared first on Law Street.

A major crackdown in Bangladesh has led to the arrest of over 8,000 people over the weekend, in an attempt to stop the wave of violence that has killed hundreds of liberals and members of minority groups over the past few years.

The mass arrests started on Friday and are scheduled to last for a week. Officials say that all the arrests are made on the basis of specific charges. Over 100 of those arrested are alleged militant Islamists.

Bangladesh is a largely Muslim nation and has suffered from some extraordinarily violent killings lately, many carried out with machetes in broad daylight. Since the beginning of last year over 30 people from minority groups have been killed, including Christians, Hindus, atheist bloggers, gay activists, liberal academics, and even foreign aid workers.

The latest of the horrific killings happened last week, leaving an elderly Hindu priest, a Hindu monastery worker and a Christian shopkeeper hacked to death. The Muslim wife of an anti-terrorism policeman was also stabbed and shot.

The Islamic state has claimed responsibility for 21 of the recent killings and al Qaeda for many others, but the Bangladeshi government says that neither of the groups is involved. According to junior foreign minister Shahriar Alam, ISIS and al-Qaeda want to claim responsibility for attacks they didn’t carry out, while native Bangladeshi radical groups are actually behind them.

The government’s inability to stop these radical murders has spurred international criticism and pressure on the state to do something. PEN America said in April:

The persistent failure of the Bangladeshi Government and the international community to better protect threatened thinkers has created a climate of fear and direct threat to free thought in the country.

The government’s recent crackdown is huge, and the number of total arrests was up to 8,192 on Monday morning. But the opposition has criticized the government, claiming the arrests are just for show or for suppressing political dissent, arguing that a large number of the arrested are ordinary criminals with existing warrants against them, for narcotics, firearms, or other offenses.

However, local police said that they have caught some members from banned radical group Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), which is a group accused in some of the most recent killings, and also a senior official from banned Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

We’ll see by the end of the week where the total number of arrests ends up, but hopefully many of the real perpetrators will be among those detained.

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 Bangladesh Arrests over 8,000 in Attempt to Stop Radical Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Going to a Trump campaign rally is kind of like going to a WWE match.

The rallies tend to draw a certain kind of crowd, they’re big on theatrics, and there’s a strong possibility that at some point there could be some real violence.

In fact, a Trump rally in Tucson, Arizona erupted into violence Saturday when a white anti-Trump protester carrying a sign that read “Trump is Bad for America” was allegedly sucker punched and kicked by a black Trump supporter.

Despite this, Trump declared his rallies “lovefests” on Sunday, telling ABC’s “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, “We don’t condone violence. And I say it. And we have very little violence, very, very little violence at the rallies.”

Trump may be okay living in denial, but Twitter isn’t.

The alarming number of attacks on protestors at Trump rallies have inspired users to begin mocking the Republican presidential frontrunner using the trending hashtag #SaferThanATrumpRally.

So in no particular order here are 15 things that are apparently way safer than going to a Trump rally.

Marrying OJ #SaferThanATrumpRally pic.twitter.com/OO5Lc96nCL

— MJ (@MJGWrites) March 21, 2016

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 Pretty Much Everything is #SaferThanATrumpRally appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that Trump rallies are raucous affairs, in fact, that’s probably putting it mildly. On Friday night, Trump even cancelled a campaign event due to what he called security concerns, although the decision was made by the campaign and not local police.

A lot of blame has been passed around for the violence and the underlying forces that create it, but the true responsibility lies with Trump and his supporters engaging in it. When asked about his responsibility Trump merely deflects, arguing that he can’t be held responsible for his protestors. But he can, and more to the point, he should be, because it is clear that he plays a role in this violence.

Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016

If you’ve watched coverage of Trump’s campaign closely, you’ve undoubtedly seen clips of him interacting with the crowds at his rallies. Several people have collected all the instances of violence so I won’t go into every example, but let’s take a closer look at how he responds. It’s not that Trump deflects or shrugs off responsibility for the violence, he condones and promotes it. He justifies what happens by saying that his supporters are passionate and that it’s beautiful to watch. But he also goes a step further at his events. When protesters attempt to disrupt a speech, he engages with them and the crowd calling on people to kick his opponents out, he’s repeatedly offered to pay legal fees for supporters who beat up protestors, and he trashes protestors while praising people who attack them.

Another high profile incident happened recently when Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields was hurt at a campaign event. When walking up to ask Trump a question, Fields was aggressively pulled away from the candidate, leaving several bruises on her arm. A Washington Post reporter who saw the incident wrote that Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was the one who assaulted Fields. Video of the incident is unclear and the Trump Campaign and Breitbart have argued that it wasn’t Lewandowski. However Fields, Breitbart’s Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, and spokesperson Kurt Bardella have all severed ties with the site, alleging that the campaign and the website are lying.

To be fair, some may criticize the media for playing up what happened to Michelle Fields. Journalists are very interested in what happens to other journalists so naturally this case has gotten a lot of coverage, but this isn’t an isolated incident and the possibility that her assault was from someone inside the Trump campaign makes it all the more concerning.

But more than that, the violence that goes on at Trump rallies and his response to it is emblematic of how Trump deals with things that are no longer acceptable in the United States. An example of this is the way he dealt with an issue surrounding support from the Ku Klux Klan. After David Duke, an infamous Klan leader, spoke out to support Donald Trump, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump if he would denounce Duke and the Klan in an interview. Trump’s response was troubling to say the least. He initially said that he didn’t know anything about David Duke then danced around the issue for several days, claiming that there was a problem with his earpiece during the interview and couldn’t hear the question. While Trump eventually made a clear disavowal of David Duke and the KKK, he took his time and sent a signal to his supporters.

This episode sparked a lot of debate, but arguably the best exchange occurred between two CNN commentators–Van Jones, an activist and former Obama Administration advisor, and Jeffrey Lord a former official in the Reagan administration. They debate Trump’s rhetoric, which Jones calls “playing funny with the Klan.” The altercation created a very compelling scene:

Ultimately, what all this tells us is that Trump’s actions speak to his leadership style–a style where he will refuse to take responsibility for his actions and the resulting actions of others, where he’ll justify violence with “passion,” and allow people to harm his opponents without intervening. It no longer seems like a stretch to think that a Trump presidency, with Trump in control of law enforcement agencies and the authority to issue unconditional pardons, could be particularly violent. And that’s just a question of leadership. When it comes to policy, Trump constantly misdirects, misinforms, and even outright lies to the public.

In the meantime, little has been done to stop Trump or challenge him to own up for what happens at his rallies. Now we are left waiting for the next incident at a Trump event, maybe it’s a serious injury, maybe it’s worse.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump and the Violence that Follows Him appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Chicago’s celebration of the Fourth of July quickly turned into a bloody massacre. Reports vary on the exact amount of fatalities and people injured, although it appears that at least ten people were killed, and over fifty others were harmed due to gunfire in multiple different incidents throughout the city. This bloodshed was horrifying, although it’s only one of many instances of gun violence in the Windy City in recent years that have left countless people dead and put residents on high alert.

Among the victims was a seven-year-old boy, Amari Brown, who was fatally shot while watching the fireworks with his father, Antonio. Investigators believe that the intended target of the gunfire was his father, who is a known gang member with forty-five past arrests and who refused to cooperate with detectives during the investigation into his son’s death. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy made an emotional plea to the public, urging people to put an end to this senseless brutality that has swept the city in not only the past few months but throughout recent years.

Chicago has a notorious gang population and the usage of guns is staggering. The problem is not too little of a police presence on the streets, given that it was actually increased by thirty percent over the holiday weekend, nor was it a lack of gun confiscations and arrests since these numbers were also higher than usual. Instead, McCarthy believes that there is a “broken system,” since criminals never really have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. He claims that gun control laws are too lenient in the city, despite Chicago having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Shooting during July 4th celebration leaves 7-year-old dead; police say bullet meant for dad http://t.co/GmReoTORHe pic.twitter.com/KLyrggsJ3U

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 6, 2015

Sadly, these vicious shootings aren’t anything new for Chicago–the city has a long history of gun violence. Police have amped up their seizure of illegal weapons, which has proven to be effective since shooting incident rates are actually down compared to this same short period of time last year, but it’s not quite enough. Chicago has been plagued with crime for many years, garnering attention from news sources nationwide. It is the third largest populated city in the country, and yet its homicide rate is drastically higher than New York or Los Angeles. Evidently, changes must be made in order to put an end to this constant carnage. The cops are working feverishly to deter and terminate gun usage, although this is impossible to do without the full support and cooperation of the public.

One of the victims last weekend was seventeen-year-old Vonzell Banks, who was gunned down in a park that was named after Hadiya Pendleton, an honors student who was murdered in cold blood there in 2013. Pendleton’s death became a symbol of national gun violence, as she was killed while walking with friends through the park only a mile away from President Obama’s Chicago home, not long after she attended his inauguration. Unfortunately, the amount of shootings in this city has hardly decreased since her passing.

Amidst tragedy, authorities are hoping that they can turn these deaths into something positive. In memory of the many victims, they are encouraging the public to band together and not only be vigilant for other possible acts, but also work toward discouraging future gang activity within the community. One tactic that officials have used is creating mentoring programs and day camps for local children as a way to discourage them from becoming involved in gang activity. They are trying to reach kids at a young age so that they always have somewhere to turn to where they can grow and prosper rather than resorting to violence or crime.

In recent years, Chicago has become what can only be compared to a battlefield in certain parts of the city, with some residents even giving it the nickname of “Chiraq.” It has been known for a long time that Chicago is experiencing a surge of unnecessary violence, although the death of the seven-year-old sparked citywide cries for justice and peace. Hopefully those cries will finally start to make a difference.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endless Bloodshed on the Streets of Chicago Mars Holiday Weekend appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there have been multiple cases of athletes putting their hands on women and suffering the consequences. Baltimore Raven’s running back Ray Rice and Texas Tech football player Nigel Bethel II both recently assaulted women and were dismissed from their teams. But most recently, Florida State University’s Quarterback De’Andre Johnson has made the news after an altercation with a young woman at a bar.

On June 24th at a night club called “Yiannis,” 19-year-old Johnson was caught on video shoving past a woman–a 21-year-old FSU student–waiting in line for her drink as he made his way to the front of the bar. The two then began to argue and the woman proceeded to hit him in the face. Johnson grabbed her arm and punched her across the left side of her face.

According to the Tallahassee Police Department incident report, the woman had bruises near her left eye, swelling of the left cheek and upper lip, and a small cut near the bridge of her nose. Jose Baez, Johnson’s well-known criminal defense and trial attorney stated on Monday:

While it is clear from the video that De’Andre Johnson was not the initial aggressor, his family wants to take the lead in helping him learn and grow from this experience. He is currently participating in community service and faith-based programs focused on battered women, substance abuse and the empowerment of children…De’Andre is extremely embarrassed by this situation and would like to express his heartfelt apologies to everyone, including those who were directly affected, Coach Fisher and his teammates, the entire Florida State University community, as well as his family and friends.

The Florida State Seminoles head coach Jimbo Fisher announced that Johnson had been suspended indefinitely from the FSU football program on June 25th. This week, just hours after the state’s attorney’s office released the video, Coach Fisher dismissed the freshman quarterback from the team. Johnson, who was named Florida’s “Mr. Football” as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville was charged with misdemeanor battery. He turned himself in to Tallahassee police on June 30th and was released on a $500 bond. According to FSU’s athletics policy, if a student-athlete is charged with a misdemeanor or felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the department makes a decision on discipline on a case-by-case basis.

This is not the first time an FSU football player has been in the headlines due to trouble off the field. Jameis Winston, the former Florida State University quarterback-turned-top NFL draft pick, was accused of rape in 2012. Winston claimed the charges were false and they were eventually dropped. It does not seem that Johnson will be as lucky as Winston was.

While this might seem like a straightforward case of yet another instance of violence from a promising young football player, there is another thing worth noting–a double standard. Although Johnson was obviously very much in the wrong, the woman who hit him has not yet been charged. I have always been a firm believer that no man should ever put his hands on a woman, but I am also a believer that no woman should put her hands on a man, and I’m not alone.

I think De’andre Johnson should be kicked out of FSU and charged with battery, but the woman (clearly the aggressor) should be charged too..

— Marcus Aurelius (@marcusjordandoe) July 7, 2015

Everyone deserves to be punished if they behave inappropriately and violently. The student who was hit should be charged for hitting him as well–regardless of the high profile nature of this case, respect should still be key. Obviously, Johnson’s behavior was completely over the line here; by putting his hands on the woman he lost the respect of many and a promising future. Violence is never the answer–that’s a lesson worth repeating again and again.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FSU Quarterback Pays the Price for Bar Brawl with Young Woman appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

America has a race problem. America has a gun problem. America has a violence problem. America has a problem with racially motivated gun violence.

A massacre occurred Wednesday at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina when nine black people were fatally shot during their weekly bible study. Twenty-one-year-old Dylann Roof confessed to shooting and killing these nine people. The massacre is being reviewed as a hate crime and was almost certainly racially motivated.

Dylann Roof has been charged with 9 counts of murder and one weapon possession charge in the #CharlestonShooting: http://t.co/l3EcsDWT1I

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 19, 2015

Several interviews with former friends of Roof have raised a concern that I simply can’t disregard. One of Roof’s friends said in an interview in response to the massacre on Wednesday:

It was a race thing because he had told me that black people was taking over the country…that he wanted it to be segregation[…]white with the white, black with the black[…]I mean he was drunk one night and he was just talking about him wanting to hurt a whole bunch of people. And whenever he was saying he was wanting to do something crazy, I just blew it off and didn’t really pay attention to him because he was intoxicated.

The fact that one of Roof’s friends didn’t think anything of his seemingly constant racial slurs, threats of violence against black people, or the plans he revealed to him about the massacre is horribly disconcerting. What Roof did is obviously not this friend’s fault. But the reality is that in 2015, a young man can get drunk and spout off plans to murder people because of their race and his friends can brush it off. They’re desensitized to racist banter, to threats of violence, to prejudice, and to xenophobia. The American society that Dylann Roof lives in brushed off and “didn’t really pay attention” to his grossly discriminatory views because, unfortunately, they aren’t uncommon.

From politicians to a young man from South Carolina, animosity toward minorities in America is a systemic, institutionalized, and far-too-accepted issue that is somehow only discussed in depth when we encounter a tragedy. I couldn’t help but notice the us-versus-them narrative present in both Roof’s remarks to the people in the church at the time of the shooting and in Donald Trump’s presidential announcement from earlier this week. It has been reported that Roof said to the victims, “I have to do it… You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” Just a few days ago, Trump made similarly racist remarks against Mexicans as he announced his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Both Roof and Trump use “you” collectively, grouping an entire race in Roof’s case and an entire country in Trump’s, in an attempt to justify their disgusting prejudices. Both men use rape as a tool–a justification for their hatred–even though these beliefs are completely unfounded. Roof alleged that black people are taking over the country, and Trump declared that Mexico is “killing us economically.”

Summary of #DonaldTrump's speech: "I'm white & rich and I only like other white rich people… & all Mexicans are drug dealers & thugs, bye"

— Neighborhood Queer (@MartyredWisdom) June 16, 2015

While I seriously doubt that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign speech was anywhere on Dylann Roof’s radar, the point I’m trying to make is that the roots of racism run deep in this country’s core and we overlook them far too often. Whether this problem arises out of ignorance or out of naivety I’m not quite certain, but either way, it needs to stop.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America Has a Huge Racism Problem appeared first on Law Street.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–last month marked the third highest number of homicides in Baltimore history. The city saw 43 homicides in the month of May while arrest rates sharply declined. Since Freddie Gray’s controversial death in April, the relationship between the police and the public has taken a turn for the worse. Unrelenting media coverage and public outcry over police-related violence have made 2015 the year of police scrutiny, or as some may say, accountability. Recent cases of police-related violence have led to greater distrust in the police in many areas across the country.

The growing sense of disconnect between local communities and the police has led many to question whether law enforcement is the problem, not the solution. Some believe they are better off without the constant presence of the police. This belief is especially common in the city of Baltimore, where riots erupted after Freddie Gray’s death.

The protests sent a message to Baltimore police officers indicating that they were undesired in many communities. The riots also led to a rapid decline in proactive law enforcement techniques, an effort to appease many Baltimore residents. But in light of recent murder statistics, are people better off with less policing?

The month of May saw a drastic decline in police activity, with arrests going down approximately 56 percent compared the same period last year. In May 2014, police arrested 2,396 people in the first 19 days of the month, with an average of 126 arrests per day. Last month, however, there were considerably fewer arrests, as police arrested 1,045 people, an average of 55 arrests per day.

Anthony Batts, the Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department, attributes the dramatic decrease in proactive policing in Baltimore to the growing fear of prosecution among police officers. At a recent city council meeting, Batts said “There are people, and they’ve said this to me, ‘If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested?’” This growing fear of legal action against officers appears to explain the sharp decline in arrests, which comes just one month after six police officers were indicted for their involvement in Freddie Gray’s death.

While the rate of arrests in Baltimore plummeted last month, the number of homicides did not. Instead, the city experienced its single bloodiest month in more than 40 years with a total of 43 homicides. The month of May saw more than 40 percent more murders relative to the previous year, and the rate nearly doubled the 22 homicides of the month prior. A total of nine murders occurred over a violent Memorial Day weekend, which also had nearly 30 shootings.

Last month’s raw homicide figures were the worst of any month in 40 years, and the third worst in Baltimore’s history. This is particularly shocking when looking back at the well-documented history of violence that made Baltimore one of the most violent cities in America for some time. August 1990 held the fourth bloodiest month in Baltimore history with 42 homicides, December 1971 takes second place with 44, and August 1972 tops the list with 45.

In terms of raw numbers, May saw fewer murders than December 1971 and August 1990, but when you adjust for changes in population the rate was actually much higher than any previous month. The murder rate last month was 6.9 murders per 100,000 residents, a stunning 38 percent higher than the rate in August 1972. This is because Baltimore housed roughly 280,000 more residents in 1972 than in 2015 according to Census data.

The chart below shows the adjusted murder rate for the four deadliest months in the Baltimore’s history as well as their total homicide counts.

Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and current professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice put these numbers in perspective in a recent blog post:

Even if no other people had been murdered in Baltimore before May, and even if no more people were killed from today until 2016, Baltimore would still have an above average annual homicide rate just based on the May killings.

In the first full month since the Freddie Gray protests two major changes have occurred in the city. Arrest rates have dropped by more than half, while homicides have risen by 40 percent. Antoinette Perrine, a Baltimore resident whose brother was recently gunned down near her home in West Baltimore told CBS Baltimore, “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside… police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.” It may be too early to tell, but a reduction in police activity might not be what is best for the city of Baltimore.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore After Freddie Gray: One of the Bloodiest Months in History appeared first on Law Street.

A place once called the “City of Angels” is now known as the gang capital of the nation. Los Angeles, California has become one of the most gang prevalent cities in the United States. Over the past three years there have been a total of 16,398 verified gang crimes in LA including homicides, rapes, robberies and felony assaults. These gangs have affected many families and communities by taking the lives of innocent people. One of the families recently affected by this violence was the family of Tavin Price. Price, a developmentally disabled 19-year-old, was shot and killed in front of his mother on Friday in Southern Los Angeles, in an incident that many believe was gang related.

Price and his mother, Jennifer Rivers, were on their way to the beach when they stopped at a car wash near the corner of Florence Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard. According to Detective Eric Crosson of the Los Angeles Police Department, while Tavin’s mother was at the carwash he went to a nearby market to purchase cigarettes. There he was approached by a suspect described as a black man in his late teens or early 20s and was questioned about his red shoes. Crosson stated, 

He was confronted by someone who inquired about his possible gang affiliation because of some red clothing he was wearing. He denied being a gang member and went back to where his mother was.

Price, who was no taller than 5 feet and less than 100 pounds, quickly returned to his mother as she said “let’s go” while the man followed him. Before they could leave, Tavin was shot four times in the back and chest. After hearing gunshots, Rivers turned around and chased the gunman until she lost sight of him. Price was then rushed to the hospital where he passed away during surgery. Rivers stated,

Every time I close my eyes, I see my son’s eyes rolling around as he cried, ‘Mommy I don’t want to die.’ That’s my final memory of him. But I can’t let that be my strongest memory.

Price would have turned twenty on Monday, and had just accepted a warehouse job. Police and family members believe that Price had no affiliation to any gang. Detective Crosson said that he was victimized because he wore “the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood.” The color red is associated with a dangerous network of street gangs founded in Los Angeles called the Bloods. Melvin Farmer, a gang interventionist who was formerly associated with the Crips–the rivals of the Bloods and affiliated with the color blue–said the car wash stands on a dividing line between the rival gang territories. Detective Eric Crosson describes this area as “exceptionally violent” and has noted at least five other killings nearby. About three blocks away a 40-year-old man was killed two days before Price. A few blocks farther, a 28-year old woman was killed two weeks earlier. It does not appear that these murders have any connection, but are representative of the prevalence of violence in the gangs’ territories. Tavin’s mother stated:

I wish he would have just shot me instead of my child because that’s cold for a mother to watch somebody just gun her child down in front of her face. That’s a hard, hard thing to deal with, believe me, I can’t even sleep at night since my son died.

Price’s family held a vigil at the car wash where he was described as a man “who loved his family more than anything.” Antheyst Jarrett, a 27-year old black woman, was arrested after the shooting and has been charged with witness intimidation and conspiracy to commit murder. Authorities say she was present during the confrontation. Police are still working hard to find the suspect and bring peace and justice to Price’s family.

R.I.P. #TavinPrice, a young man who was murdered near Florence & Crenshaw ’cause his shoes were the wrong color. #BlackLivesMatter

— The Eclectic Beings (@EclecticBeings) June 2, 2015

Gang violence has declined in Los Angeles, but there is still significantly more work to do. In the LA area alone, there have already been over 200 homicide deaths in 2015. According to the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, LA has more than 400 gangs, with over 39,000 members. Communities, families, and policemen have to continue to work hard to put a stop to this violence and to save the lives of innocent people like Tavin Price.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Los Angeles Teen Killed: Was His Shoe Color to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey folks! How many of you are big video game players?

Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom.

But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right?

Yeah I am.

So! If you know anything about video games, you probably — hopefully — know about how insanely sexist the industry is. Really, it’s depressing.

Only about 21 percent of video game developers are women. Giant Bomb, the largest online video game database, exclusively employs white, straight men. And the characters in video games? They’re rarely, if ever, women — and when they are, they tend to be hypersexualized sidekicks with insane amounts of T&A.

On every level, from who designs the video games, to who distributes them, to who’s featured in them, the video game world sends one message loud and clear.

This is a place for men.

But the thing is, it’s not. Forty-eight percent of video game players are women. That’s nearly half. The world of video games is absolutely a place where women are hanging out, passing time, and spending money. Yet they’re almost unilaterally shut out of every aspect of the gaming world that reaches beyond their personal playing console.

Enter women like Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. A feminist cultural critic and a video game developer, respectively, these women are two among a community of feminist gaming critics. They speak out against the sexism and misogyny that runs rampant in the video game industry, and on Wu’s part, she develops games that feature corporeally realistic and empowered female characters.

As a result, they both receive violent, sexualized death threats almost constantly. Because obviously, advocating for the video game industry not to be a weird club of circle-jerking white dudes is something that merits murder, right?

Apparently so. This week, those depressingly routine threats of violence reached such a fever pitch that Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speaking engagement at Utah State University, and Wu was driven from her personal home.

What happened, exactly? We’ll start with Sarkeesian. She was scheduled to give a speech at Utah State University on Tuesday, but the day before, university administrators received an email threatening that a gun massacre would happen if they allowed the event to go on.

Now, keep in mind that bomb threats are par for the course when it comes to Sarkeesian’s speaking engagements. So she’s used to fearing for her life every time she steps out in public, as are the folks who choose to book her to speak at their establishments.

But this time was different. The dude who made this threat sent it out under a pseudonym referencing Marc Lépine, the Montréal shooter who killed 14 women and himself back in 1989. His email reads like something straight out of Elliot Rodger’s diary. And, most importantly, because of the concealed-carry laws in Utah, the folks at USU refused to prevent anyone from bringing a firearm into the event.

So, faced with the prospect of giving a speech to a crowded room full of concealed guns — one of which might be attached to the deranged misogynist who threatened to make sure that all the life-ruining feminists on campus were killed (he literally said that) — Sarkeesian made the obvious decision.

She canceled the event. The lack of security USU was offering left her with no other real choices.

She did.

And this Marc Lépine character isn’t alone. He’s part of a vast community called #GamerGate, which is essentially an online club of gamer boys who haven’t learned yet that girls don’t have cooties. But they aren’t little boys; they’re grown-ass men. And that means that they aren’t just taunting the girls on the playground; they’re threatening to rape and murder all the women in the gaming community who dare open their mouths.

This week, #GamerGate didn’t stop with Sarkeesian. They also attacked feminist game developer Brianna Wu. Frustrated by the boys’ club’s temper tantrums, Wu tweeted a meme poking fun at them.

This was just sent to me, a new meme called Oppressed Gamergater. Love it. http://t.co/Sp9sQPgLxQ pic.twitter.com/6UEWRgPGcn

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 9, 2014

The response?

The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe. Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women. pic.twitter.com/ZU6oEVxMGL

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 11, 2014

#GamerGate started battering Wu with crazy-train subtweets, threatening to anally rape her until she bled, castrate her husband and choke her to death with his severed penis, and murder all of her future children. Because they were going to grow up to be feminists anyway, so clearly that means they should die, right?

After the threatening Twitter creeps revealed her personal address, Wu was forced to leave her home.

Folks, this shit is batshit insane. The gaming world isn’t the only place where women — and feminist women, specifically — are targeted with a violence and vitriol that’s truly disturbing. Sexism is rampant in the tech industry in general. Just take a look at the wildly sexist (albeit nonviolent) comment Microsoft’s CEO made last week about closing the income gap.

But this week’s events have put the gaming community’s particular brand of misogyny in the spotlight. It’s seriously time this crap stopped.

The men of #GamerGate are threatening to kill women like Sarkeesian and Wu simply because they dare to speak and to work within their universe. They play video games. They make video games. They ask that video game companies hire more female developers and design games with more realistic and empowered female characters.

These are reasonable, nonviolent, nonthreatening requests. They’re only asking for women to be more positively represented in the gaming world.

And yet, somehow, that’s a goal that merits a sexually violent, vengeful death.

This shit’s unacceptable. People of the world — especially you, men of #GamerGate — stop treating the women in your worlds with violence and aggression. We have every right to be here and to demand respect. And if you can’t handle that, we’re kindly asking you to GTFO.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

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 [Auraelius 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 Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

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 [m01229 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 Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice appeared first on Law Street.

When I was 21 about to graduate from college, my cousin Katie, six at the time, promised me that she would come live with me when I got a job and be my maid because she really, really liked using her play broom and mop to clean. As a future law student, I realized something about this statement:

1. Katie told me she would do this (offer).
2. I said, ‘sounds good’ (acceptance).
3. My place would be clean, and without a maid it definitely wouldn’t be, and Katie would be able to fulfill her love of cleaning while simultaneously having a place to live (consideration).
4. We were both more than likely on the same page (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. Sweet!

So, a few years later I moved to New Jersey to start my independent, adult life and told her she was required to come with me. Imagine my surprise when she, now nine, told me she no longer liked cleaning, and plus her parents probably wouldn’t let her come with me because they would miss her too much.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

I knew a breach when I saw one, and I told her I might have to sue; however, more pressing matters existed at the time, and I kind of forgot. But I was reminded of this story recently when I read an article about Jesse Dimmick.

Dimmick faced the same dilemma that I did with Katie: he made a very clear oral contract with a couple, and they just went and breached it. Unlike me, though, Dimmick had the strength and character to actually fight for his rights and sue.

Here is the story: Dimmick and an accomplice went to the Aurora motel in Colorado and met Michael Curtis; the men were all big druggies. The duo stabbed Curtis to death, stole his drugs and wallet, and ran away (Dimmick pled guilty to this so I feel free to leave off the “allegedly” here). The accomplice was then caught and arrested at another motel. This made Dimmick think that the cops might want to arrest him too, and he knew he had to do something to protect himself.

So he went to Kansas where he found some friends: Jared and Lindsay Rowley. He didn’t know the couple before he entered their house uninvited and held them at knifepoint, but something like that shouldn’t stand in the way of potential companionship.

To celebrate the newly formed friendship, the couple offered the fugitive food, drink, and a blanket. They then watched movies together until Dimmick fell asleep. This is where this story takes a turn for the worst: the Rowleys turned out to be very bad hosts. When their new pal fell asleep, they had the audacity to run to the cops and give away his location. The police came barging in to wake up the sleepy murderer from his much-needed nap, shooting him in the process.

Not even done with their betrayal, this horrible couple actually sued Dimmick for home invasion and stress! But don’t worry, Dimmick realized that the Rowleys were in the wrong and decided to make sure they never treated any other fugitive on the run from the law in a similar manner: he countersued.

Dimmick had realized the same thing that I had realized with Katie:

1. He told the couple that he would give them an undisclosed amount of money if they hid him (offer).
2. He said they agreed to the offer (acceptance).
3. He would have a safe haven to protect him since he “feared for his life,” and they would get money (consideration).
4. I’m sure both parties knew what they were doing here (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. And Dimmick wanted $235,000 for this egregious act. After all, not only did they breach the contract, but that breach caused the poor man to get shot.

Strangely, the court decided to dismiss this lawsuit despite the strong case Dimmick presented. Then, to pour gas on the fire, Dimmick was first convicted of two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to eleven years then convicted of murder and given another 37 years.

I just don’t understand the court system. When a man with a clearly valid case like this one cannot win, what is the point in even trying? Horrible as this is to say, with this line of inappropriate judicial highhandedness, there is a chance I wouldn’t have even won my case against Katie despite the fact that I was clearly right.

I sympathize with Dimmick. It is hard to trust anyone these days, and the only solution seems to be to get everything in writing and probably also have it notarized. Next time Katie offers to work for me, I’ll have learned my lesson. I hope for his sake Dimmick will too. If some other inmate offers him protection for certain “other favors,” Dimmick should break out the pen and paper: I’d hate for him to lose another case orally.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Advice: Oral Contracts Don’t Apply When You’re Held at Knifepoint appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.

Paterson, New Jersey erupted last month after a 12-year-old girl was shot and killed. People rallied for an end to the recent violence, demanding a safer city in the wake of Genesis Rincon’s death. The tragedy comes shortly after Jerry Speziale was appointed as the new police director. Advocating community policing, Speziale and Mayor Jose Torres think that dynamic approaches can help with the crime problem in Paterson. This may seem like a interesting new strategy for fighting local crime and violence, but successful community policing programs were successfully used in Paterson not that long ago.

One such community policing program, the Village Initiative, operated from 1998 to around 2010 and had some measurable benefits for local youth. What did the Village Initiative accomplish, can community policing prevent further deaths like Rincon’s, and what can other cities learn from Paterson?

Paterson has long been plagued by high crime rates. The year that the Village Initiative launched, its violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was roughly 67 percent higher than the national average. The Village Initiative responded to the crime problem in Paterson by bringing the community to at-risk juvenile probationers, making them responsible for their court orders, and reducing their chances of committing a crime again.

In an interview, Dr. James Pruden said that it’s important “for [juveniles] to see the government functioning positively in their lives.” An emergency medical specialist at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, Pruden was an active contributor to the Village Initiative who rode along with officers to visit at-risk probationers. Along with police, teachers, and other community leaders, he saw the program in action and witnessed its effects firsthand.

The Village Initiative

The Village Initiative offered important opportunities to minors such as vocational courses; from business training to cosmetology and automotive repair, the courses gave them opportunities to build marketable skills. In addition, there were components that set juveniles up for part-time jobs. These are no longer available, though. Around 2010, the Village Initiative lost much of its funding, likely related to the city’s other budget cuts during the midst of the national recession. Fortunately, the “ride along with a medical evaluation” that Pruden participated in continued after the funding stopped, along with a few other pieces of the program.

“They had this educational piece, they had the medical piece, they had the business piece, all designed to turn these kids in a different direction and to show them that the interest in them was not only because they were misbehaving,” said Pruden. The community was not simply responding to the negativity surrounding the juveniles’ lives, it was about instilling something positive in them. This should be the central tenant of all community policing initiatives.

“It’s not like I’m providing much of a medical service. What I would do was go to the house, find out what was going on, talk to them about their health issues… At the end of it, I would go back with the data the next day and talk to a case manager at the hospital. She would call them up and make sure they made their cardiology appointment, or she would cut through the red tape to facilitate their entry to the teen pregnancy program. And we would do this not only for patients that came to our hospital, we do this for people who go to free-standing clinics or to other hospitals.”

– Dr. James Pruden

The Results

St. Joseph’s Hospital sometimes treats rival gang members simultaneously, and the hospital could become a spot for continued dispute between them. As that conflict can be detrimental to the doctors and families there, Pruden was tasked with making the hospital a neutral zone. Through the social infrastructure of the Village Initiative, he reached out to community leaders to establish correspondence and set up meetings with gang members. After eight months of work,Pruden succeeded in negotiating with the gangs so that St. Joseph’s would be a safer space.

Anecdotes like that help illustrate the positive community relationships formed by the Village Initiative. But what do statistics tell us about its effects? Despite sharing some criticism about how data on the program was collected, Dr. Pruden said that the available information shows impressive results. Prior to the Village initiative, juveniles with first-time probation had a 37 percent recidivism rate; however, kids involved in the Village Initiative had recidivism rates of only 5 percent. But, he reminded me, “then the funding went away!”

As Pruden says, maybe the effects of the Village Initiative could be judged solely by the difference between a 37 percent and five percent recidivism rate. Maybe it could have only made changes in the lives of the specific juveniles who were involved in the program. But it could also be judged by the potential, immeasurable impact that ripples throughout the community, starting with those juveniles.

Lessons from the Village Initiative

From local advocates to national movements, community policing is in high demand now. For instance, more cops are patrolling neighborhoods on bicycles as a part of a community policing initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts. Nationally, the Obama Administration has ramped up the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office under the Department of Justice. A COPS report, Community Policing Defined, states that the approach “promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques.”

However, COPS is sometimes criticized for pushing policing in the opposite direction; reporter and author Radley Balko said that COPS supports many police chiefs who consider SWAT raids “to be a core part of a community policing strategy.” As police aggression only divides the police and the community, there is even more need to prescribe the Village Initiative. If Balko is correct and many have misconceptions, the country should find a model for community policing in the success of Paterson’s project.

Pruden’s work through the Village Initiative was not just a medical house call, but a social checkup. This should be how community policing looks, with community leaders working with one another. Police supervise medical evaluations, doctors help police at-risk youth, and the force of the community creates something positive together. Let’s prescribe the Village Initiative’s community policing in New Jersey to other cities in need.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [City of North Charleston via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Policing in New Jersey: A Model for Stopping Local Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

 Featured image courtesy of [Fabricator77 via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all experienced the bystander effect at one point or another in our lives. Whether you kept walking as a mother punished her child at the local park, or looked the other way when someone stashed a shirt from a store in their bag. Bystander effect knows no bounds and you will be affected by it at some point in your life.

Americans are nosy when it comes to Hollywood celebrities and their lives.

But when it comes to normal citizens, we don’t seem to want to get involved in their personal lives because of the “risks” involved.

Last Tuesday afternoon, a 27-year-old McDonalds worker named Catherine Ferreira was brutally beaten after work by her co-worker Latia Harris, 25. What Harris did is unequivocally brutal. In my eyes what is even worse is the bystanders who not only stood by and watched Ferreira get thrown around like a rag doll, but pulled out their phones and videotaped the event. You can watch it below if you’re so inclined but be aware that the video is graphic.

There are some cases when you just shouldn’t get involved, but when someone is getting beaten to a bloody pulp in front of her child, I believe that it is the bystander’s duty to step in and intervene. Whether it is verbally or physically, you cannot just sit by and watch a person get battered, and if you do, you might as well throw in a couple of punches yourself because you’re honestly just as bad.

Shaking My Head.

To the people in the video standing by watching and recording as the woman’s son pleads for Harris to stop pummeling his mother: shame on you. To the kids who record videos of fights and yell “worldstar!” as punches are being thrown: shame on you. To all the men and women who record drunk people as they make fools of themselves: shame on you. And to make matters worse, these videos are recorded for the sole reason of getting attention. Newsflash people, if your video goes viral on the web, that makes you about as famous as…

Honey Boo Boo…..

I’m no saint. I know that I am guilty of looking the other way from time to time. But what I do possess are morals and a conscience. Let me define those terms, because it seems like we have forgotten what they mean as a society. Now we could delve into the discussion of what morals really mean, and I could bring up Kant, Hume, and Nietzsche and we can discuss it for hours upon hours. But to save us time I’m just going to give you the Trevor Smith definitions.

Morals: A set of just standards that we conform to because we are civilized beings.

Conscience: That little voice inside your head that tells you when something is really wrong.

I know that we have evolved into a society that condones fighting, which is why people may not see the problem with Harris beating the shit out of her co-worker. But have our consciences disappeared? Did the little boy pleading for the fight to end not just break your heart? Did Ferreira’s limp body not make you want to jump in and say, “Hey Latia, I think she’s had enough?” No? I guess not.

Ah Choooooo

As a society our moral compass is starting to point in the wrong direction. We don’t need more videographers recording our worst moments, we need more heroes to step in and stand up to the Latia Harrises of the world. So I’m going to challenge you: the next time you see an argument heat up, or a kid getting bullied, or a fast food worker getting mistreated, say something. I promise you’ll feel great about yourself, and it will make a world of difference for the person you’re helping.

That felt good

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Taylor Sloan via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bystanders? More like Bye Standards. appeared first on Law Street.

Violence between Israel and Palestine has surged over the last month following a chain of antagonistic murders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli students— Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel— were killed. Their bound and partially burned bodies were found in a field northwest of Hebron two weeks later. In retaliation, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammed Abu Khdeir, was abducted, bound, and burned alive one day after the burial of the three Israeli students. Khdeir’s cousin, 15-year-old Tariq Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian-American vacationing in East Jerusalem was arrested by Israeli police and beaten while in custody; videos of the boy’s bloody face circulating in social media have only magnified the emotional force behind the escalating tensions between the two countries, engendering missile exchanges between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. On Monday July 7, Israel authorized the mobilization of 40,000 reserve soldiers in preparation for an invasion of Gaza, which according to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon “will not end within a few days.”

Amid the gruesome murders and savage beatings should it be surprising that graffiti has played a critical role in the escalating violence between Israel and Palestine? Since 2008, Price Tag attacks have been a growing phenomena in Israel, though primarily in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; they originated from the “Hilltop Youth” of the West Bank, illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land — 100 small outposts scattered on strategic hilltops. “A ‘price tag’ means that when the government of Israel decides to evict a settlement, an outpost, even the smallest wooden shack in the land of Israel — it has a price,” according to Moriah Goldberg, a 20-year-old Price Tagger. “Maybe it will make them think twice before they do it again.”

Attacks involve destruction of property perpetrated by Israeli extremists against Arabs —desecrating cemeteries, burning Korans, chopping down olive trees — as well as anti-Arab and anti-Christian defamatory graffiti slogans including the phrase “Price Tag.” “Price tag, King David is for the Jews, Jesus is garbage;” “Jesus is a son of bitch,” spray painted on the entrance of a church; “A good Arab is a dead Arab, Price Tag,” spray painted on a mosque; “Death to Arabs;”  “Enough Assimilation,” “Arab Labor = assimilation;” “Non-Jews in the area = enemies.”

Recently, however, Price Tag attacks have increased in frequency and grown more violent. Attacks have surged from a handful in 2008 to 23 already in 2014; along with slashing tires, Price Tag attackers have firebombed empty vehicles, leaving their signature graffiti marks in the wake of their destruction. In response to the arrest of Israeli suspects for the murder of Abu Khdeir, Price Taggers destroyed a light-rail station in East Jerusalem, leaving Hebrew graffiti reading”Death to Israel” across the burned-out edifice. Price Tag is a “shadowy network of clandestine cells,” according to a recent profile of the guerrilla graffiti group in Foreign Policy, posing a “danger to Israeli security. Future acts of vandalism against Palestinians could escalate tension beyond their current, already dangers levels.”

In 2012, the U.S. State Department began listing Price Tag attacks as acts of terrorism in the Global Terror Report, though Israel falls short of this judgement; on July 1, Israeli Defense Minister Ya’alon defined the attacks a “illegal organizing,” stipulating more severe sentences for the Jewish perpetrators. “[T]errorism is a suicide bomber in a crowded mall or someone who shoots people,” said Dani Dayan, the former director of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of municipal councils of Jewish settlements. Price Tag attacks should be treated as “extreme vandalism” or even “hate crime…There’s no comparison between this and real Palestinian terrorism[.]”

Whether or not Israel defines Price Tag as ‘terroristic,’ victims still consider the attacks state-condoned violence against non-Jews due to Israel’s apparent failure to prosecute. Historically, more than 90 percent of investigations into settler violence fail to lead to an indictment. According to Slate, while Israel has condemned the recent rise in Price Tag attacks, the response by authorities has been “charitably described as sluggish.” Between 2005 and 2013, 992 investigations of complaints of Israeli violence against Palestinians were conducted, yet only 7.8 percent led to indictments.

There have been quite a few arrests of Price Tag attackers, in fact; the most recent was July 1, when a 22-year-old Israeli was detained in connection with a Price Tag attack in which assailants torched a christian monastery, spray painting “Jesus is a monkey.” “It is unbelievable to us that Israel can catch enemies, very sophisticated enemies, overseas, but they can’t catch a bunch of punks who live here,” said Jawdat Ibrahim, the owner of a local restaurant. “These attacks happen in an atmosphere, maybe an atmosphere that says, ‘Hey, it’s okay, you’re never gonna get caught.’ ” In a poll released last week by Israel’s Channel 10 News, almost 60 percent of those surveyed agreed that the government “didn’t really want to catch” Price Tag attackers, indicating that Israel condones this violence, or at least allows it to happen.

“There’s no doubt that the Price Tag phenomenon is very influenced by political processes,” said Hebrew University political sociology lecturer Eitan Alum. “They’re violent acts with logical and political goals.” Yet Price Tag is is also an expression of hate, inciting violence among and between Palestinian and Israeli communities.

“‘Price Tag’ and ‘Hilltop Youth’ are sweet, sugary nicknames, and the time has come to call this monster by its name,” famed Israeli author Amos Oz publicly declared on May 14th, 2014, his 75th birthday. “Hebrew neo-Nazis. The only difference between European neo-Nazi groups and Price Tag in Israel,” Oz continued, “lies in the fact that our neo-Nazi groups enjoy the tailwind of quite a few lawmakers who are nationalists, and possibly even racists, and also a number of rabbis who provide them with a basis that, in my opinion, is pseudo-religious.”

Oz’s sobering, if however startling, remarks point to pressing issues regarding the difference between Price Tag and other instances of political graffiti, globally. While graffiti artists like Ganzeer in Egypt, and Captain Borderline in Brazil have used their graffiti to critique oppressive government apparatuses, Price Tag specifically targets elements of the Israeli people based on race, ethnicity, and religion; the group’s intent is malicious, a vindictive visual assault on non-Jews who are otherwise victims of an apartheid Israel, or are continually subject to military violence, as is the case in Gaza.

It is important to differentiate these two strains of political graffiti: while graffiti can promote equality and liberty, it can also counter these values. Once a haven for the oppressed, founded on socialist values, Israel has become an oppressor. Price Tag is a plague of hate, radicalized by twisted Zionism, and ruthless settler politics. “Faithless Jews who don’t fear God can call me a terrorist if they want,” said Price Tagger Moriah Goldberg. “I don’t care what they say about me. I only care what God thinks. I act for him and him alone.”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Adrian Fine via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Graffiti as a Catalyst for Escalating Israeli-Palestinian Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Prison officials are struggling to stop the violence that plagues Georgia’s state prisons, and the deplorable conditions that Georgian prisoners are experiencing have begun to creep beyond the cell walls. The numbers alone are shocking. Since 2010, 33 prisoners and one officer have been killed by prisoners in Georgia, according to a report released by the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR). The number of homicides committed by prisoners in Georgia’s state prisons has tripled since 2004. Georgia has seen more homicides in its state prisons in one year than other states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky have each had in the last 10 years. Who’s to say that kind of behavior will cease when these perpetrators are released?

Victims of these often-fatal attacks are considered lucky if they survive. CNN recently reported that Georgia’s prisoners regularly face being stabbed, burned, raped, and dismembered. When a prisoner under attack shouts for help, the victim’s pleas usually fall on deaf ears. For the most part, sympathy is lacking for those prisoners subject to violence while serving time, so advocacy for change is hard to muster. But what the public needs to understand is the lasting effects this violence has on society once the prisoners are released. The report highlights this point:

Prisons are supposed to provide rehabilitation. But violent prisons teach and breed violence. Further, since about one third of people in the GDC [Georgia Department of Corrections] are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, the dangerous conditions in Georgia prisons threaten those who have committed violent crimes and those with no history of violence alike.

The report lists the legal standards against violence in prisons and tries to pinpoint the root causes:

• Supervision of prisoners is dangerously inadequate.
• Prisoners have access to lethal weapons that are either smuggled in, or fabricated using items found at the prison.
• Some cell door locks have been left broken for years.
• Gangs have filled a security vacuum and control many prison resources.
• Prisoners have access to a steady supply of cell phones and smart phones.
• Protective custody procedures are inadequate, and prison officials ignore threats to prisoners’ safety.

According to the SCHR report, prison officials are in violation of laws protecting prisoners if they knowingly disregard violence and make no attempts at halting imminent danger. Furthermore, some prison officials are directly involved in the smuggling of contraband inside prison walls. My colleague Alexandra Stembaugh wrote about similar problems in the war on drugs behind bars. It’s clear that we need tougher consequences for culprits to curb this kind of corruption.

Some of the most violent prisons in Georgia include Baldwin State Prison, Smith State Prison, and Hays State Prison. At Baldwin, countless attacks were carried out uninterrupted. One man was beaten, tied up, had scalding water poured on his groin, and a broom handle shoved up his rectum. No officer came to his rescue until he stumbled to the exit with both eyes swollen shut and his face covered in blood. This incident was neither a freak accident nor a rare occurrence. According to the SCHR report:

In case after case, attacks on men at Baldwin start and finish without anyone on the prison staff knowing they are happening. GDC reports have repeatedly documented incidents in which officers find out about an assault only after prisoner-witnesses report it, after the victim manages to escape, or when officers find a man injured on the ground.

Still lacking sympathy? Take into account the 33 percent of prisoners who were incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. Then take a look at your tax dollars, which are supposedly used for “maintaining” those prisons. The GDC Annual Report for 2013 showed the total funds spent in the fiscal year exceeded $1 billion, 97 percent of which came from state funding. Such a large amount of money is spent on this small percentage of the population, so why are violence and rape so prominent in Georgia’s jails?

Maybe it’s the serious lack of supervision in these prisons, which allowed locks to remain broken for several years. Maybe it’s the amount of influence gangs have–in some prisons the gang affiliates are able to choose the living assignments. Maybe prison officials fear their lives because so many prisoners have access to lethal weapons, drugs, and outside connections. But something must be done to stop this epidemic. The Pew Research Center reported that in Georgia prisons “the average offender released in 2009 served 3.2 years in custody, 75 percent more than the average offender released in 1990.” That means criminals serving longer sentences in deplorable conditions have more time to adopt violent tendencies.

Despite all the GDC’s efforts to rehabilitate their inmates, the constant violence plaguing Georgia prisons trumps their progress. I’m on board with the SCHR–the Supreme Court needs to investigate the GDC and get an inside look at Georgia prisons. Put an end to the senseless, brutal violence. Stop the torture. Do something to put those tax dollars to use. I’m not defending criminals–they landed themselves on a metal cot in an 8 by 10 cell. But I also don’t think they deserve having every last human right stripped from them. And the last thing Georgia’s citizens need is to fear their releases. Better regulations in prisons paired with successful rehabilitation programs could help break this horrible cycle.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Senger via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Georgia’s State Prisons: Breeding Grounds for Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Hump Day, folks!

Have you had your mid-afternoon pickmeup yet? I fucking hope so, because I’m not easing you into this today. We’re just going to cut right to the chase.

We’re talking about rape, today, folks.

Prepare to be simultaneously infuriated and irrationally happy.

About two weeks ago in Calhoun, Ga, it was prom night. The teenagers of Calhoun High School were pumped to get fancy and get down. Let’s all picture the jubilation of Footloose, for a moment, shall we?

Awesome. But post-prom, shit started to get a bit less Kevin Bacon and a bit more Steubenville, Ohio. At an after party — predictably held at a secluded cabin in the woods — nearly 30 students got super drunk. Things quickly spun out of control.

After several hours of heavy drinking, an 18-year-old woman found herself in a room with four of her male classmates, where she was allegedly gang-raped. The victim reported being unable to remember exactly who raped her, only recalling that it was multiple men, and that foreign objects were inserted into her vagina. The victim suffered severe internal injuries from the assault, including substantial, traumatic, vaginal tearing.

Cue feelings of shock and appall.

What the fuck is going on here, people? What. The. Actual. Fuck.

This is not the first time I’ve written about rape here at The F Word. In fact, I’ve written about rape a depressing amount. We’ve talked about the infamous Steubenville rape case, the reasons your rapist probably won’t be facing any consequences, and the fact that lawmakers in Michigan are forcing women to take out rape insurance.

The world is filled with fucking rape. This is news to no one.

But let’s take a moment and think about why in fuck’s name this shit keeps happening. Why are men consistently and violently forcing themselves onto unwilling women?

Because they feel fucking entitled, that’s why.

Awesome attitude, dude.

Alcohol and drugs and partying and short skirts — contrary to what Fox News and its ilk will have you believe — do not cause rape. Rape culture causes rape. It’s a culture that privileges men and other masculine folks as the arbiters of power to be wielded over an inferior class of women and feminine-presenting folks. It’s a culture that says “boys will be boys,” “penises have a mind of their own,” “men can’t control themselves.”

It’s a culture that tells women to carry pepper spray, to pull their skirts down, not to go out at night alone, not to drink, not to date.

It’s a culture that tells women not to live their lives freely, so as to avoid violent assault, all while giving men free reign to do whatever the fuck they want, consent be damned. This is a culture that tells men they own the streets. They own the world. And they own women’s bodies.

This guy. This guy all over the fuckin’ place.

We all know that this rape in Calhoun is no isolated incident. But let’s reiterate just how not isolated it is.

1 out of every 6 women in the U.S. has been the victim of sexual assault.

That’s a lot of fucking women. And those are just the ones who are reporting their experiences and being counted — if we take silent victims into account, the numbers soar higher. Not to mention all the men who get raped, all the trans folks, all the genderqueers who aren’t being counted because statisticians aren’t sure where to fit them into the equation.

Rape is a hugely, wildly pervasive problem, and its victims are paying a lifetime price.

But the rapists themselves? Ninety-seven percent of them will face no jail time at all. No consequences. No accountability. Nothing.

This is beyond disappointing.

Now, it’s important to note that the vast majority of men and masculine-presenting people are not rapists. All you “Not All Men!” devil’s-advocate-conversation-derailers, please save your breath. We are fully aware that not all men are violent, rapist fucks.

And this Calhoun case is living, breathing proof of that. It stands out from other recent high-profile rape cases — like Steubenville — in that the authorities have taken the victim’s allegations seriously, are pressing substantial charges against the alleged perpetrators, and have not carried out a gross, slut-shaming, rape-apologist smear campaign against the victim.

This is the part where we can all get irrationally happy. Authority figures simply doing their jobs shouldn’t be cause for shocked celebration, but it’s undeniably rare that a rape case gets handled appropriately. Bravo, Calhoun law enforcement! Thank you for rising to the level of our depressingly low bar! (I mean that in the most sincere, not-sarcastic way possible, I promise.)

But amid our relief that Calhoun seems to be doing things right, we can’t forget about why these things keep happening.

Those four high school boys gang-raped their classmate for the same reason Michigan legislators are forcing women to buy rape insurance. That’s the same reason Daisy Coleman’s house was burned to the ground after she tried to report her own rape. It’s also the same reason Elliot Rodger murdered six people in Santa Barbara after penning a manifesto about what a crime it was that women had failed to offer him their vaginas on a silver platter.

It’s because we live in a society that doesn’t teach men not to rape. It doesn’t expect men to treat women or their bodies with kindness and respect. It makes excuses for violent behavior, shifts blame to victims, and props up an overarching culture in which men feel entitled to a woman’s sexuality and bodily autonomy.

Not all men are rapists, murderers, misogynists, slut-shamers, or victim-blamers. But all men live in a world where they’re mostly allowed to be. And women? All of us get to live in fear of meeting the same fate as Daisy Coleman, or running into an Elliot Rodger — and then being blamed for our own irresponsibility for putting ourselves in a position to be harmed in the first place. Don’t believe me? Just ask #YesAllWomen. This shit is real.

So folks, let’s raise this bar. Let’s create a world where it’s not exciting to meet a man who doesn’t feel entitled to your body, or a cop who will take your rape case seriously. Let’s fashion a society where all people — regardless of their gender — can move through the world without the fear of violence and domination. Let’s do it together.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Parker via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BREAKING: Cops in Georgia Are Taking a Rape Case Seriously appeared first on Law Street.

There’s something called a smart gun. If you’ve never heard of it, that doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve never actually heard of them either. It’s essentially a gun that corresponds to an owner, and won’t fire unless it is appropriately activated. Right now, that mostly means that the gun needs to be within a few feet of a watch or ring that activates it, or some sort of other sensor. In the future, it may mean guns that are activated by retinal or fingerprint scan. For that reason, they’re sometimes called personalized guns too.

Either way, it provides an option for added security. It mostly keeps a gun from being stolen and used, unless the sensor is stolen, too. When it comes to the guns that involve a scan, those obviously could not be stolen and used, or used by a child or someone else in the home. It would prevent those tragic stories we see so often where a young child gets a hold of his parents’ gun and shoots himself or a family member. It also would be harder to sell those types of gun illegally, because of the transfer of identification required. So to me it seems like this is a pretty awesome idea.

New Jersey legislators thought the same thing. They actually passed a law in 2003 that as soon as a viable personalized/smart gun got onto the market and was sold somewhere in the US, within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to be smart guns. Essentially New Jersey wanted to make this awesome technology mandatory as soon as possible — the three-year buffer would give gun sellers the time to make the switch and make sure that all the kinks have been worked out.

So once a smart gun is sold somewhere, that three-year countdown starts. And the crazy lunatics who don’t like this technology have been trying to put off the clock for a while now. It hasn’t been a problem though, because while these guns do exist in Europe, they hadn’t quite made it to the U.S. yet. And why not? Well because anytime anyone tries, the NRA and other gun groups block it.

But meet Andy Raymond, a gun shop owner in Maryland. He announced a few weeks ago that he was going to start selling the Armatix iP1 smart gun. It doesn’t fire unless it’s within 10 inches of a corresponding watch.

But as soon as Raymond made this announcement, he, his girlfriend, and even his dog started to get death threats. Because that’s super reasonable.

Raymond is just the latest example in a long history of incredibly harsh opposition to smart guns. When the CEO of Colt wrote an op-ed supporting smart guns in the late 90s, he lost his job a short while later, probably in part because of his controversial opinions. Other gun shop owners have reported similar incidences of harassment if they tried to sell smart guns.

The argument against the guns is usually that they are by necessity too clunky — if you need to make sure that it reads your fingerprints, you might have a hard time dealing with an intruder quickly. Some crazies have also posited the conspiracy theory that the added technology in the guns could lead to the government being able to shut them off or track the people who owned them.

The New Jersey law was probably a bit preemptive — three years isn’t a lot of time to change over the entire type of gun bring sold in a state. It seems like the best approach may have been to give people the option with what kind of gun they wanted to buy, at least at first. But still, this rabid hatred for a gun that would most likely make our world safer is ridiculous. Gun advocates and the NRA need a very serious reality check.

—

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 [Michael Saechang 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 Keep Your Hands Off My Smart Gun appeared first on Law Street.

This post is not about Kanye West but the title was inspired by him. The title, I think, can forevermore be used as a turn of phrase that attempts to express all the rage, exasperation, and downright frustration experienced by young Black men in America. Kanye used it to reference his experience of celebrity — how he felt trapped in a cage, with insensitive, often antagonistic, onlookers. The paparazzi often “tap on the glass” of his cage merely to elicit a reaction. His response to this madness? The admonition: IT’S NOT SAFE FOR YOU IN THIS ZOO.

Well, I don’t want to use this phrase to qualify my experience as a Black man. I’ve had pretty easy sailing most of my life. My family was working class, but I always had food on the table and a roof over my head. I never got into much trouble, and none of my childhood friends were involved in gang violence. However, that’s more than the urban youth of Chicago can say. Those Black and minority boys are portrayed in the media as nearly subhuman. They are demonized and vilified to the point where some cease to care if they continue the violence that has plagued Chicago recently. I’d argue that there is more to the story.

News about the urban violence in Chicago is inescapable. It’s almost a given that Chicago is synonymous with gun violence these days. There is news of raising minimum sentences for repeat offenders who are involved in violent crimes using guns and would require the person to serve no less than 85% of the sentence imposed. I could spend an entire post chronicling the problems with mandatory minimum sentences, but this most recent proposal seems somewhat tempered by a provision that does not compel the minimum sentence for a first-time offender. But will punishing offenders more harshly really act as a deterrent?

Many people’s image of Chicago is influenced by the popular culture. And no, I don’t mean the movie “The Untouchables” or that “Chicago Fire” show full of dusty white men in Fireman’s uniforms. What I mean is the image of Chicago, and Chicago’s Black youth, as exemplified by everyone’s favorite walking, talking dustball, Chief Keef. If you don’t know Mr. Keef, as he is hilariously referred to in some news articles, allow me to introduce him.

Okay so that’s not Chief Keef, but it’s a close representation of the young man. Here’s what he really looks like:

Chief Keef, born Keith Cozart, was born in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago’s now-infamous South Side. Without deriding this young fellow, who happens to be only 18, his music and his media image are indicative of the almost rabidly violent frustrations of the Black youth in Chicago. He has an infant child. He’s had trouble with the law. In 2011, he was apprehended on charges of heroine manufacture. [I couldn’t possibly tell you how to manufacture heroine but then again, I guess you could Google it.] When he once left his home with a jacket covering his hands, and an officer stopped to question him, Mr. Keef (see how silly that sounds?) flashed the gun he was concealing at the officer and then ran away. The officer chased while Keef repeatedly turned around and pointed the gun at the officer. The officer discharged his weapon but never struck the rapper. Keef was eventually sentenced to home confinement.

His music is violent. His image is dangerous. But does that really represent the kid? I don’t think so. I think the rapper is representative of a Black youth culture in poorer parts of Chicago that simply doesn’t see a way out of their circumstances. Kanye once asked “what the summer of the Chi’ got to offer an 18-year-old?” Perhaps quite little. But I also don’t think it isn’t fare to scapegoat much of the violence in inner-city Chicago on a populace that is often caught in the same pressures that lead many others, of all races, to lash out with antisocial behavior. But I think the media portrayal of the city and its ills is almost a self-fulfilling narrative.

My point is that when you treat a group of people like animals, when you dehumanize them and talk about them as if they are a collage of violence, drug use, abuse, and distribution, they are bound to begin thinking that’s the only way to identify themselves. But you know what also happens? Sometimes the animals bite back. Sometimes the very societal pressures they struggle under become too much and they erupt. And I guess that was the point Kanye was making when he said “It’s not safe for you in this zoo.” The very idea of a zoo creates a false sense of calm created by the feeling of control the people have over the animals. We begin to believe that these creatures are at our beck and call. We become complacent with the environment in which we have placed these creatures without thought to the stressors we have put them under. And then someone gets hurt, and we wonder why.

Don’t get me wrong, however. Urban violence is not explained away by someone’s lack of social mobility. But neither is it a symptom of some incurable, violent rage that a subset of Chicago’s youth population has. It is more complex. Chicago is just an extreme example, but similar feelings of frustration erupt in towns all across this country. So lest the media fool you into thinking urban violence is exclusively in Chicago, peer out your window and examine the surroundings in your city. Recognize that when you dehumanize a culture you don’t understand, it might not be safe for you in that zoo.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ClaireUS via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Not Safe for You in This Zoo appeared first on Law Street.

More than 20 percent of women in the armed forces have experienced sexual misconduct in the military. Due to fear of backlash, this statistic is significantly under reported. In the last year, however, reported sexual assaults in the military increased an unprecedented 46%.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have truly made bi-partisan efforts to shed light on this national travesty. Sen. Gillibrand recently predicted that the current Military Sexual Assault Bill, which would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command, will receive the necessary votes to pass.

The efforts of Sen. Gillibrand and others fighting for reform, particularly to take military oversight of sexual assault cases out of military hands, is increasingly gaining attention and steam. The Invisible War, a groundbreaking documentary directed by Kirby Dick, helped make waves on the road to reform, expanding awareness of the critical issue. Two of the women featured in the film, attorney Susan L. Burke and former Airman First Class Jessica Nicole Hinves, joined the Forum on Law, Culture and Society at Fordham Law School for the Forum Film Festival to discuss the issues raised by the film and the steps needed for reform and to pass the Military Sexual Assault Bill. Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, film executive producer Maria Cuomo-Cole, and Rear Admiral Susan J. Blumenthal rounded out the panel.

(All statistics in the film are from U.S. Government Studies)

The Invisible War addresses the rampant under-reporting of sexual harassment in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed in action. In addition, women who have been raped in the military have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men who have been in combat.

In fact, about 80% of sexually assaulted men and women do not report. Yes, I said men and women, as male victims comprise approximately one percent, or 20 thousand cases, of all military sexual trauma.

A study by the United States Navy included in the film asserts that 18 percent of incoming recruits have attempted or committed rape before entering the military. An alarming statistic considering that we hold our military to such high standards and expect a certain degree of oversight. Twenty-five percent of women do not report rape because their commanding officers are the rapists. Due to the chain of command disciplinary system, prosecution of these attacks is entirely at the discretion of the military and the commanding officers are in charge. Although Congress has the power to exercise congressional oversight over these military sexual misconduct situations, few members have chosen to become involved until recently.

Susan Burke suggested that the military justice system is flawed and must be modernized. “Put the adjudicatory power in the hands of the prosecutors – not the commanders,” she stated.

The problems with sexual misconduct in the military is not new. As the film points out, in 1991, the Navy dealt with sexual misconduct issues with regard to the Tailhook Convention in which approximately 200 Navy and Marine airmen participated in “The Gauntlet”. This involved men roaming the halls in search of women to assault. “The Gauntlet” ending with the sexual assaults of hundreds of women.

The embarrassing events that took place at the Tailhook Convention in 1991 are absolutely unacceptable; however, such conduct did not end there. In 1996, the Army dealt with sexual misconduct at the Aberdeen Proving Ground involving the rape and sexual harassment of 30 women. In 2003, the Air Force dealt with sexual misconduct within their Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, there was a scandal involving the rape of a Marine stationed at the Marine Barracks in D.C., a very reputable place to be stationed due to its proximity to the U.S. Capitol building.

Many of the resulting lawsuits and prosecutions in these sexual misconduct cases often end in a form of insignificant justice. In Jessica Nicole Hinves’ case, the man who was under investigation actually received a promotion. Many of these lawsuits end poorly, partially due to the Feres Doctrine which states that the U.S. government is not liable for injuries sustained during service (including rape, apparently).

Additionally, a December 2011 lawsuit was dismissed because the court claimed that sexual harassment is “an occupational hazard of military service.” This seems outlandish, outrageous and absolutely upside-down. Since when is rape and sexual misconduct part of the job description when enlisting in the military to serve our nation and protect our freedom? What’s next, barcodes on every American citizen’s neck as a residential hazard of living in the United States?

Even with bills such as the STOP Act aimed at rectifying the many injustices our service people endure when it comes to sexual assault, many still wonder if it will be enough. According to, Jessica Nicole Hinves, this type of moral erosion is a national security issue, as military feminism is looked down upon by higher ranking commanders.

Holding servicemen accountable for the sexual misconduct they perpetrate is essential in order to maintain the respectable and cohesive nature of our military. Resistance to oversight legislation aimed at removing military sexual assault cases from the chain of command is at odds with the military’s insistence that in order to maintain good order and discipline, commanders need to maintain leadership, control and power.

The panel suggested that military justice can and must be effected through civilian control, encouraging audience members to tell their Congressional representatives that commanders must be held accountable and that higher ranks do not put people in a position to make legal determinations about sexual assault. Countries such as England, Australia and Israel have taken the oversight out of military hands. Therefore, perhaps it is time the United States follows suit.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Army IMCOM via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forum Film Festival Series: Part 2 – The Invisible War appeared first on Law Street.

So, this Monday was Veterans Day. For those of you who don’t really know what that means—other than a day off from school or work—Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor all of the brave men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces.

So, that grandfather you have who served in World War II? Your uncle who fought in Vietnam? Give them a hug today.

But you know who else deserves some extra appreciation today? Your aunt who did two tours in Afghanistan.

These days, the face of Veterans Day is seriously changing—and for the better. With the ban on women in combat positions lifted last January, more and more women are getting the recognition they deserve for their military service.

Because guess what, lovelies? Women were serving in combat positions long before the ban was lifted almost a year ago.

Captain Vernice Armour is a perfect example. In August of 2004, she was flying an AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter for the 11^th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq. One of the missiles she fired saved an entire squad of Marines, one of whom she met by coincidence later. He thanked her for saving his life.

The first black woman to serve as a combat pilot. Such a bad ass! Courtesy of GS Kansas Heartland via Flickr.

Captain Armour is just one of thousands of women who have served in military combat positions. But while their participation was technically banned, they didn’t have access to the same honors and benefits as their male counterparts.

The approximately 200,000 positions officially deemed as “combat” offer higher pay and more opportunities for promotion. With women categorically shut out of those roles, the chances of rising up through the ranks of power—or the pay grade—were slim to none. But since that ban has been lifted, more opportunities are opening up for women soldiers.

And that’s fantastic for a whole bunch of reasons! Let’s get into those, shall we?

Alright! First of all, giving women official access to combat positions means that they’ll receive credit for the dangerous work they’re doing. Under the ban, while women were shut out of these jobs on paper, there were still plenty of them doing the work in real life.

But, since it was technically illegal, many of them were doing it without recognition. That’s just not OK, am I right? If you’re running the same risk of getting blown up as the guy next to you, you deserve to be honored on the same level when you get home.

But credit is just the beginning. Letting women into combat has the potential to change military culture as we know it, and that’s a huge deal.

Currently, the rate of sexual assault in the military is outrageous. The documentary The Invisible War points out that women soldiers are more likely to be raped by one of their comrades than they are to be killed by enemy fire.

So, women in the military are statistically safer with the enemy than they are with their own fellow soldiers. That is totally unacceptable. And we haven’t even looked at incidents of male-on-male rape within the military.

Sadly, male soldiers—of all nationalities—are often encouraged to engage in sexual warfare, creating an oppressive rape culture. It’s a strategy that doesn’t stop at killing the enemy. It goes on to violate it, emasculate it, and destroy its very soul. It’s a depressingly effective way to win wars, when used in conjunction with the technology of combat.

Don’t believe me? Read Grace Cho’s Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, and the Forgotten War. In it, she tells the story of the mass rapes that occurred in Korea at the hands of multiple invading armies, the U.S. being just one of them. These massacres gave rise to the booming prostitution economy that surrounds any foreign military base—where war ravaged women turn to support themselves and their children. Cho’s mother was one of those women. Her father was, likely, a kindly client.

But why is this rape culture so prevalent among military men? With women largely excluded for many generations, the armed forces have had the room to grow into a hypermasculine, old boys’ club.

The military has made itself into a place where men can gather to be their most savagely masculine—to revel in the knowledge that they have the brawn, they have the power, and they will stop at nothing to prove their superiority.

Allowing women to enter this space has the potential to change all that.

YAY!

As more women gain access to the pathways that lead to military promotion, the more women will ultimately occupy high-ranking leadership roles. With women increasingly ruling the roost, the gendered power dynamics of the whole organization can start to transform.

Perhaps more GI rape victims will report their attacks, feeling more comfortable confiding in a female superior. Maybe those superiors will be less inclined to sweep sexual assaults between soldiers under the rug. And maybe with the threat of real consequences, rates of sexual assault will ultimately decline.

Maybe female generals will discourage soldiers from engaging in sexual warfare. Maybe they won’t be as keen to turn a blind eye when it does occur.

But most importantly, maybe having some women in charge will change this sexist idea that men have the power. That men are the protectors. That men call the shots.

Because, as more male soldiers report to female commanders, their views about women will have to start changing.

The old boys mentality that women are frail, hysterical baby-makers, whose uteruses must be protected at all cost, will start to crack. The presence of female military officials will force male soldiers to view women in a new light—less as passive, walking wombs, and more as intelligent, powerful individuals, with skills and smarts capable of outpacing their own.

So this Veterans Day—the first one we’ll celebrate without the ban on women in combat—give some extra love to all the women soldiers out there. They’re an underappreciated lot.

—

Featured image courtesy of [US Air Force via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Veterans Day Reminder: Women Are Fighters, Not Fetus Factories appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few days for rape culture, folks.

This past weekend, the Kansas City Star published a long and revealing feature detailing the story of the Colemans—a family who moved to Maryville, MO following a personal tragedy, only to be driven away months later when their daughter, Daisy, accused a prominent football player of rape. Their house has since been burned to the ground.

That’s right. The rape victim and her family were driven out of town—not the rapist. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the rape accusations, all of the charges were dropped, and Daisy’s attacker got off scot-free. He’s currently studying at the University of Central Missouri.

The story went viral. News outlets across the country jumped on it, Anonymous picked it up on Twitter, sparking the hashtag movements #OpMaryville and #Justice4Daisy, and a demonstration is scheduled to happen on October 22 at 10 a.m. outside of the Maryville Courthouse. (Are you in Missouri? You should go.)

But, as awful as this story is, it’s not the first time a similar case has hit the Twittersphere. It’s been less than a year since the infamous Steubenville case—and while Maryville headlines have only just appeared, the actual rape occurred earlier in 2012 than Steubenville.

So let’s take a few minutes, and forget about the government shutdown and the debt-ceiling crisis. Let’s take a minute and redirect our focus. Because every time a political brouhaha like this happens, we all tend to get obsessed with the crazies who are throwing a tantrum in the capitol—and we forget that there are a hell of a lot more of them wreaking havoc right here, in our daily lives.

So what happened in Maryville, and why do we care? You should really read that Kansas City Star article—it’s incredibly well written. But, if you don’t have time to read nearly 5,000 words, here’s a quick summary.

Melinda Coleman lived in Albany, NY with her husband and four children. They had three boys and one girl, named Daisy. Then, tragically, Dad died in a car accident. Looking for a fresh start, Melinda moved with the children to Maryville, MO at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year. At first, everything went well.

Then, one night, Daisy and a childhood friend from Albany went to a party with a group of older boys—senior year football players, to be exact. Once there, they were both raped, while some of the boys took videos. Afterwards, they were returned home, where Daisy was left out in the front yard, drunk and literally freezing, overnight.

There was plenty of evidence to support the rape charges—depositions from the two girls and a number of partygoers, rape kits, and confiscated iPhone videos. But Matthew Barnett, Daisy’s accused, was a Maryville fixture. He was popular, star of the football team, and his grandfather was a former representative in the state legislature.

Simply put, the Barnetts were one of a few key families in Maryville—influential and untouchable—and the Colemans were recent transplants, outsiders. Add that to the frighteningly commonplace practice of victim blaming in sexual assault cases, and you’ve got yourself a recipe for charge-dropping.

And that’s exactly what happened. All of the charges were dropped, allowing Barnett to go on living his life, while Daisy and her family were left to deal with the horror of their own. Melinda was unceremoniously fired from her job. Daisy and her siblings were tormented, harassed, and threatened with physical violence. Ultimately, Melinda decided to move the family back to Albany.

In a not-so-convincing coincidence, their house—empty and up for sale—burned down shortly after. The charred remains have yet to be cleaned up.

But why do we care? This kind of bullshit happens all the time. How is this any different?

It’s not. And that’s exactly why it’s so important.

1 out of every 6 women in the U.S. has been a victim of attempted or completed rape. Every 2 seconds, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted. Victims of sexual assault are more likely to suffer from depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to contemplate suicide. And that’s only accounting for the victims themselves—their families and loved ones can be severely affected as well.

Sexual assault is a very, very big problem, devastating the lives of millions of people in this country alone.

But 97 percent of rapists will never spend a day in jail. Matthew Barnett is just one of millions.

To say that this is unacceptable would be the understatement of the year. As a nation that likes to pat itself on the back as the leader of the free world and the harbinger of human rights, this is incredibly disheartening.

After all, if the land of the free and the home of the brave doesn’t take this shit seriously, then who the hell does? Virtually no one, that’s who.

How does our legal system only hold 3 percent of rapists accountable for their actions? How is this the kind of reality that our justice system supports and creates?

I’ll tell you how.

Patriarchy. That’s how.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term, patriarchy is basically the opposite of feminism.

If we accept Rebecca West’s statement that feminism is the radical notion that women are people, then we can understand patriarchy as the douche-y notion that women are not people.

Or at least, not people who are valued as highly as men.

Patriarchy is what’s at work when women get paid 77 cents to a man’s dollar, or when men offer us their seat on the subway, because ugh my weak lady legs can’t support my body for three stops.

Patriarchy is what’s at work when the Supreme Court can rule in favor of a woman’s right to choose, and more than 40 years later, Roe v. Wade is still legally imperiled by gazillions of restrictions across the nation.

Patriarchy is what’s happening when women work a double, triple, or quadruple shift, and no one raises an eyebrow. It’s what’s happening when the Hate Crime Statistics Act doesn’t include gender-based crimes, because violence against women is so commonplace that to track those numbers would be way too hard, so let’s not even bother trying.

And—say it with me now—patriarchy is what’s happening when a 14-year-old girl named Daisy can get raped, on videotape, by a 17 year-old-boy, and her attacker does not go to jail. Instead, she’s verbally abused, run out of town, and her house gets burnt to the ground. Meanwhile, her rapist happily attends college and writes disgusting Tweets about women and their sexuality.

Gross.

This shit is awful, and it’s got to be changed.

So come on, good lawyer folks. Get on that.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Your Rapist (Probably) Isn’t Going to Jail appeared first on Law Street.