Saturday, November 5, 2016
Objections
"This clip offers an overview of objections, including an explanation of how they work and descriptions of the different types of objections."
Exhibits in the Courtroom - Prof. Paul Zwier, Emory University School of...
Exhibits in the Courtroom - Prof. Paul Zwier, Emory University School of Law.
Gibbons v. Ogden - Equal Justice Under Law
"Equal Justice Under Law
Gibbons v. Ogden (4th in a 4 part series).
Presents a conflict between the States and Congress over the authority to regulate commerce. In this case, which linked States' authority to license steamboats in federal waters with a seemingly unrelated issue, slavery, Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the Constitution to give the Federal Government the duty to determine the rules of commerce and established how to lay the foundation for an American common market nearly a century before Europe enjoyed it.
Purchase of the tape of this video was made possible through a contribution by Joseph Kulhavy."
Gibbons v. Ogden (4th in a 4 part series).
Presents a conflict between the States and Congress over the authority to regulate commerce. In this case, which linked States' authority to license steamboats in federal waters with a seemingly unrelated issue, slavery, Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the Constitution to give the Federal Government the duty to determine the rules of commerce and established how to lay the foundation for an American common market nearly a century before Europe enjoyed it.
Purchase of the tape of this video was made possible through a contribution by Joseph Kulhavy."
McCulloch v. Maryland - Equal Justice Under Law
"Equal Justice Under Law
McCulloch v. Maryland (2nd in a 4 part series).
Can states tax the operations of the federal government? In this unpopular decision, the Supreme Court dealt a great blow to a claim of states' rights by striking down a state's attempt to interfere with a legitimate federal activity.
This series includes: Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, United States v. Aaron Burr, and Gibbons v. Ogden."
McCulloch v. Maryland (2nd in a 4 part series).
Can states tax the operations of the federal government? In this unpopular decision, the Supreme Court dealt a great blow to a claim of states' rights by striking down a state's attempt to interfere with a legitimate federal activity.
This series includes: Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, United States v. Aaron Burr, and Gibbons v. Ogden."
United States v. Aaron Burr - Equal Justice Under Law
"Equal Justice Under Law
United States v. Aaron Burr (3rd in a 4 part series).
Dramatizations of historic decisions from the courtroom of America's great Chief Justice, John Marshall.
Dramatizes the trial of Aaron Burr, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall. Strictly adhering to the Constitution, Marshall stepped between Burr and death, and the doors were closed against government abuse of the treason charge."
United States v. Aaron Burr (3rd in a 4 part series).
Dramatizations of historic decisions from the courtroom of America's great Chief Justice, John Marshall.
Dramatizes the trial of Aaron Burr, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall. Strictly adhering to the Constitution, Marshall stepped between Burr and death, and the doors were closed against government abuse of the treason charge."
The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
"The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano."
12 Tips for Appellate Advocacy
"Michael Tigar, listed among the best oral advocates in American history, will present his 12 Ideas on Appellate Advocacy. A seasoned appellate advocate with 100's of representative experiences, Mr. Tigar's advice and reflections are invaluable to anyone interested in oral advocacy. Hosted by the Moot Court Board.."
Mastering Cross Examination - In the Courtroom
"Prof. Charles H. Rose III discusses how to master the performance of cross examination in the moment, in the courtroom."
Professor Rose Discusses Probable Cause & the 4th Amendment
"A review of some fundamental concepts applicable to 4th amendment jurisprudence under the United States Constitution."
Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generat...
"x x x.
Are we witnessing diminishing protection against unreasonable search and seizure? When it comes to police misconduct, is race a factor?
“If the First Amendment is our most cherished right under the constitution,” says Attorney Christopher Naughton on the television program’s preview, “then the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure is right behind it.”
The American Law Journal presents "Search & Seizure: A ‘New’ Fourth Amendment for a New Generation?” with host Christopher Naughton. His guests are criminal defense attorney Kevin Mincey of Mincey & Fitzpatrick, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli and former New Jersey State Police Major and Chief of Staff Michael Schaller of New Jersey’s King, Kitrick, Jackson & McWeeney.
Has a new, high tech-oriented generation come to expect less privacy - and therefore less protection- under the Fourth Amendment?
The program examines a panoply of current, critical topics: warrantless stops, cell phone seizure, GPS tracking, stop and frisk, “officer cams” and possible racially motivated police misconduct. The panel also gives their take on the latest and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment cases as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s controversial Commonwealth v. Gary (2014) decision that now allows vehicular search and seizure based on probable cause. Program 1440.
For more information, visit LawJournalTV.com.
x x x."
Are we witnessing diminishing protection against unreasonable search and seizure? When it comes to police misconduct, is race a factor?
“If the First Amendment is our most cherished right under the constitution,” says Attorney Christopher Naughton on the television program’s preview, “then the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure is right behind it.”
The American Law Journal presents "Search & Seizure: A ‘New’ Fourth Amendment for a New Generation?” with host Christopher Naughton. His guests are criminal defense attorney Kevin Mincey of Mincey & Fitzpatrick, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli and former New Jersey State Police Major and Chief of Staff Michael Schaller of New Jersey’s King, Kitrick, Jackson & McWeeney.
Has a new, high tech-oriented generation come to expect less privacy - and therefore less protection- under the Fourth Amendment?
The program examines a panoply of current, critical topics: warrantless stops, cell phone seizure, GPS tracking, stop and frisk, “officer cams” and possible racially motivated police misconduct. The panel also gives their take on the latest and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment cases as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s controversial Commonwealth v. Gary (2014) decision that now allows vehicular search and seizure based on probable cause. Program 1440.
For more information, visit LawJournalTV.com.
x x x."
Beyond Search & Seizure | Jeffrey Rosen | TEDxPhiladelphia - YouTube
"x x x.
Ubiquitous surveillance is threatening American values of privacy and equal justice in ways the founders of the Constitution never could’ve imagined when they penned the Fourth Amendment that protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this spellbinding talk, Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, describes how the use of public surveillance systems, brain scans, DNA collection and consumer profiling calls for new translations of the amendment so that it protects privacies in the 21st century that the Constitution’s framers took for granted in the 18th. Recognizing that ubiquitous surveillance is akin to the general warrants that sparked the American Revolution, we must all demand zones of immunity that protect privacy and equality in the digital age.
Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a museum and civic-education headquarters dedicated to non-partisan Constitutional discussion and debate. Well-versed in American freedoms and rights, he is a law professor at George Washington University and a contributing editor to The Atlantic, and has been referred to as “the nation’s most widely read and influential legal commentator.” Among many other works, he is the author of The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, and co-editor of Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
x x x."
Free from Fact: Reuters Checks Duterte’s Figures on Drugs | CMFR
"x x x.
WHEN President Rodrigo Duterte launched his “war on drugs,” local and international media chronicled the events that were unfolding with daily reports. In July, CMFR noted the superficial reporting by local media (“Anti-Drug Campaign: Swallowing Everything the Police Says”) but succeeding months saw improvements in the coverage of some media organizations. ABS-CBNNews.com, for instance has recently launched new research on the profiles of the drug war victims. The international media, however, has done a better job providing more background about crime and drugs in the Philippines, eliciting some backlash from the administration and its supporters, particularly on social media.
The British news agency Reuters posted “As death toll rises, Duterte deploys dubious data in ‘war on drugs’” on Oct. 18 that took a closer look at the data on illegal drug users, the drugs used, and the number of users needing treatment that the President Duterte himself cites so often. Reuters determined that his claims were dubious and not based on existing evidence, even as recorded by Philippine agencies.
Time magazine (“Inside President Rodrigo Duterte’s War on Drugs,” Aug. 25) cited data provided by international agencies tracking drugs and crime, which raised doubts about claims made by President Duterte. Reuters’ investigation was the first major examination by any media outlet – local or foreign –that examined claims used by government to justify the war on drugs that have killed more than 4,000 people since it began on July 1.
The Reuters piece reviewed several claims of the administration. In his first State of the Nation Address, President Duterte said that there were 3.7 million drug addicts. Reutersnoted that the 2015 survey of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) pegged the number at 1.8 million. The discrepancy, however, does not matter to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Metro Manila Regional Director Wilkins Villanueva, who the report quoted as saying: “He (Duterte) just exaggerates it so we will know that the problem is very big.”
The article also discussed the claim made by the administration in its booklet “Winning the First Phase of the Drug War” that 75 percent of heinous crimes in the country have gone down. The source of this information is unknown. According to Reuters, the booklet was handed out by the president’s media team in September during a regional summit in Laos.
Two months after Duterte assumed office, the government credited the drug war for helping reduce crime in the country (“Duterte’s drug war lowered crime rate,” The Philippine Star, Aug. 14). Looking at the statistics from the Crime Research and Analysis Center under the Philippine National Police Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM), however, Reuters pointed out that the crime rate has been falling since 2013.
Reuters also quoted Australia’s National Drug and Alcohol Research Center Researcher Alison Ritter as saying that the rise and fall of the crime rate “can’t be attributed to a single campaign or a single institution such as the police.”
Distinguishing between one-time users and problem or perennial users is vital in an anti-narcotics battle. The Reuters report notes that the president uses the term “drug addicts” to apply to both and does not distinguish between users of shabu or crystal methamphetamine and marijuana. The piece cited academics who pointed out that there is a difference between the two substances, with the former having a higher risk of addiction and its being “associated with a greater range of physical and psychological harms.”
Some local media reports record everything that the government says without question, which can serve to legitimize propaganda claims. Reuters checked and found that the numbers dished out by Duterte officials did not quite add up. The public has accepted these claims with many willing to go along with the idea that the killings are necessary. The times demand a more critical and more enterprising press. Journalistic skepticism is a healthy response to a government that likes speaking in hyperbole.
(See infographic here)
x x x."
With at least 4,700 people killed in the government's anti-drug war, teams from the United Nations and the European Union are coming to the Philippines to investigate the spate of summary executions and the deaths of drug suspects in police operatons, and review the country's compliance with its human rights obligations.
"x x x.
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairman Jose Luis Martin "Chito" Gascon said the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, recently accepted Malacañang's invitation to look into the deaths in President Rodrigo Duterte's relentless campaign against illegal drugs.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and the UN will discuss in the coming weeks the dates of the visit as well as the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, according to Gascon.
Most likely, Gascon said the probe would officially start in the first quarter of 2017.
Later in November, a team from the European Union (EU) will arrive in the Philippines to meet with government leaders, businessmen, and economic managers to evaluate the country's human rights, environmental and labor conditions.
Gascon said the EU would find out whether the country has continued its commitment to human rights and other policies as mandated in 27 international agreements entered into by the Philippines. Of these agreements, 10 involved human right treaties.
If the EU saw that the country has relaxed its commitment to human rights, he said the finding would affect the General System of Preference Plus (GSP Plus) mechanism which has granted the Philippines access to the European market.
"If this team assesses that there is a backsliding or fallback in our commitment to human rights, then the GSP Plus mechanism may be in jeopardy. Since we joined in 2014, there has been significant impact in terms of our exporters and we would want this to continue," Gascon explained in a news conference at the Handuraw restaurant in Cebu City on Thursday.
Gascon expressed hopes that President Duterte would strengthen ties with other nations and observe due process in his aim to eradicate illegal drugs and crimes.
Some 20 young people from Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines signed a manifesto on Thursday to denounce extrajudicial killings.
Gascon was invited to speak during the program.
"Instead of bringing security and the rule of law, we believe that the violent campaign against the drug trade has made the country more unsafe with innocent people killed, drug lords evading arrest, and murder cases rising," the manifesto read.
"We call on the Philippine government to condemn the murder spree, immediately solve the vigilante killings, act on the failed police operations, and serve justice to the families of the murder victims," it added
Since July 1 to November 1, the Philippines' war on drugs has led the deaths of 4,791 suspected drug pushers. Of the number, 3,001 were gunned down by unknown assailants while the rest were killed in police operations.
The U.N.'s Special Rapporteur has the authority to "undertake visits to examine the situation of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution in the respective country, and to formulate recommendations to the government and other actors on upholding the right to life."
"We hope that the war on drugs and the fight against crimes will be undertaken in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees respect for human rights at all time," Gascon said. SFM
x x x."
Former Makati City mayor Elenita Binay has scored a victory in the Sandiganbayan, as the court dismissed a P21.7-million graft case filed over the alleged overpricing of furniture for the city hall in 2000.
"x x x.
In a 90-page decision dated Oct. 28, the antigraft court's Fifth Division granted her demurrer. This effectively cleared her, then-general services department head Ernesto Aspillaga, other city officials, and the suppliers on grounds of insufficient evidence.
The court said prosecutors failed to establish the supposed conspiracy to rig the bidding in favor of supplier Asia Concept International, Inc.
Prosecutors also failed to prove that the bidding led to overpricing of P2.78 million and excessive purchases worth P5.91 million.
Because of this, the court said Binay and her co-accused could not be held liable for causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits to private parties under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
"In this case, the said punishable acts have not been so proven," the ruling stated. "Accordingly, the instant case against all the accused... is ordered dismissed."
A special division of five magistrates tackled Binay's plea to dismiss the case on demurrer, with Justices Roland B. Jurado, Samuel R. Martires and Jose R. Hernandez making up the majority that voted in Binay's favor.
No collusion
The Office of the Ombudsman claimed there was collusion between Asia Concept and rival bidder Office Gallery International, Inc., as they were supposedly operated by the same person, Beda Aquino.
Prosecutors also showed two disbursement vouchers issued in September 1999 and October 2000 to Office Gallery and Asia Concept that both bore Aquino's signature.
But, the court said Aquino was not even listed among Office Gallery's stockholders and officers. It added the vouchers bearing his signatures would not prove his ownership of both firms, because of the length of time between the two transactions.
The court also disagreed that the issuance of the purchase order on Aug. 17, 2000---the day after the bidding just took place---indicated it was predetermined.
This was because the prosecution merely assumed the city officials did not undertake the proper procedures. "Clearly, it simply assumed that such post-qualification process could not be had in view of the alleged lack of time to do it," the decision read.
Signatures prove nothing
As for Binay and other city officials, the court said that just because they signed the documents and vouchers throughout the procurement process does not imply they conspired to rig the bidding.
Their participation in the bidding process "would not necessarily indicate that the said acts were all geared toward the accomplishment of the unlawful objective of a simulated or rigged one," the court said.
The court said prosecutors did not submit evidence to show city officials knew the process was marked by irregularities, and that Binay and Aspillaga issued the purchase order despite the supposed lack of public bidding.
"There must be other grounds other than the mere signature or approval appearing in a voucher to sustain conspiracy," the decision read.
Overpricing
The court also rejected the contention that excessive purchases were made, as witnesses only compared the order with the furniture layout plan. It said prosecutors should have shown whether the "excessive" furniture actually went unused.
Meanwhile, the court disregarded the findings of an auditor that the furniture was overpriced, because she was not presented to testify and could not be cross-examined by defense lawyers. It also noted how auditors merely compared the prices of the purchased furniture with those of similar items without obtaining a more reliable price benchmark.
Two magistrates---Justices Geraldine Faith A. Econg and Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta---dissented from the decision and opined the evidence was enough to sustain the continuation of trial.
Other co-accused in the case include former city councilor Salvador Pangilinan, former city administrator Nicanor Santiago, Jr., and Asia Concept corporate officer Bernadette Aquino.
Binay still faces a separate case before the Fifth Division over the purchase of furniture and fixtures worth P72.06 million from Office Gallery in 1999.
She also faces another count of graft before the Fourth Division over the separate procurement of P13.25-million furniture pieces in 2000, as well as four graft and malversation cases before the Third Division over the purchase of P45-million worth of hospital beds and sterilizers for the city-run Ospital ng Makati in 2000 and 2001.
During the years leading to the May elections, the family of former Vice President and presidential contender Jejomar Binay has been beset by accusations of profiting from "moro-moro" biddings held just for show. JE/rga
x x x."
BIR relaxes property transfer requirements | Business, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com
See - BIR relaxes property transfer requirements | Business, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines -- Property transfers just got easier with the Bureau of Internal Revenue removing the need to present proof that taxes were paid for acquiring the land for the first time.
Under Revenue Memorandum Circular 105-2016, submission of a copy of certificate authorizing registration (CAR) "shall no longer be required" on one-time property transfers.
The order, signed by BIR Commissioner Caesar Dulay, was dated Aug. 23, but was only released on Wednesday.
The CAR is proof that levies were paid for the property being transferred. Under the order, the CAR being pertained to is the document from the current owner's original acquisition of property before he or she transfers it again.
BIR officials could not be reached for comment as of this post.
But Benedict Tugonon, president of industry group Tax Management Association of the Philippines, welcomed the move.
"This will surely expedite the processing of tax clearances on real property transactions and avoid unnecessary potential issues," Tugonon said in a text message.
He alleged that before, requiring CAR has resulted into a "finding or fishing expedition" on past transactions involving the property, which he said should be tackled "separately."
"Requiring the submission of the previous CAR when the property was acquired was unreasonable and at times, impossible to comply," Tugonon said.
x x x."
MPs condemn newspaper attacks on judges after Brexit ruling | Media | The Guardian
"x x x.
Writing in the Guardian, Lord Falconer, who was lord chancellor between 2003 and 2007, said: “The British public continues to have confidence in the independence and quality of judges. But both are undermined by this Brexit-inspired media vitriol.
“The lord chancellor, Liz Truss, has a constitutional duty to defend the judges. She needs to make it clear immediately the government has no quarrel with the judges and has total confidence in them.
“Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse. Liz Truss’s silence feeds the sense the government is either hopeless at avoiding conflict or couldn’t care less about the constitution.”
Labour’s justice spokesman, Richard Burgon MP, also urged Truss, to uphold the independence of the judiciary in the face of “hysterical headlines … Some of the headlines in today’s newspapers personally attacking the judges who heard this case are unacceptable,” he said.
“As lord chancellor, Liz Truss should not stay silent. It is the lord chancellor’s job to uphold the independence of British judges and she must speak out urgently against the hysterical headlines of some papers and these attacks on British justice.”
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “Where is Liz Truss? Her job is to uphold the rule of law and defend the judiciary and yet she is utterly silent while judges are being attacked by some newspapers. Our hard-fought rights and freedoms are protected by the law, British law that the Brexiteers claim that they wish to uphold.”
Truss is under a statutory obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary, the solicitor and legal blogger David Allen Green has pointed out. Section 3(6) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sets out the lord chancellor’s duty to protect judicial independence.
Asked whether Truss wished to comment, the Ministry of Justice said she would not be making a statement.
The prime minister’s spokesman refused to condemn the language, saying: “I don’t think the British judiciary is being undermined.” He added: “I’m not commenting on newspaper coverage.”
Brendan Cox, widower of the Labour MP Jo Cox, cautioned against allowing the tone of the debate about Thursday’s judgment to become too febrile.
He tweeted: “Whatever our views on the court ruling I hope we can take a step back & debate it soberly. Inciting hatred has consequences.” Jo Cox, who represented the Batley and Spen constituency, was killed in the run-up to the EU referendum.
During the high court Brexit case the claimants challenging the ministers’ right to trigger Brexit received death threats and online abuse.
Politicians from the three main parties leapt to the defence of the judges. A former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, expressed alarm at attacks on the judiciary. “They are entirely unjustified and are either made in ignorance or out of malice, it’s impossible to know which,” he said.
“The judges are the safeguarders of our unwritten constitution. Nothing they have done ought to take anybody by surprise. To accede to the principle that you can change primary legislation by royal prerogative is a constitutional monstrosity and would totally undermine everything that our forebears struggled to give us. It would trash the constitution.”
The Conservative chair of the Commons justice select committee, Bob Neill, and Anna Soubry MP, a barrister, also condemned the headlines. She described the coverage in a tweet as: “Hysterical, dangerously inaccurate & bullying”.
Jonathan Marks, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: “The headlines in much of the press today and the anti-judge rhetoric from some politicians is extremely worrying. This hostility to the rule of law is irresponsible; the personal attacks on judges are plain nasty.
“British citizens won our freedoms from the tyranny of the crown painfully and over many centuries. The rights of minorities to think as they will, to live at peace and to claim the protection of the law against an over-mighty state are at stake here.”
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “These are risible and constitutionally illiterate attacks from politicians who should know better. The high court has reaffirmed the sovereignty of parliament within the rule of law. In other words, it has fulfilled precisely its most critical function in a democratic society. The idea that judges would be better employed kowtowing to the executive is shameful heresy from political pygmies.”
The Welsh Assembly announced on Friday that it would seek permission to intervene in the anticipated supreme court hearing in which the government will appeal against the high court ruling. Announcing the Welsh government’s involvement, Mick Antoniw, an assembly member and counsel general for Wales, said he would raise concerns about the impact of Theresa May’s attempt to use royal prerogative powers on the devolved assembly.Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, the chair of the Bar Council, which represents barristers across England and Wales, said: “Publicly criticising individual members of the judiciary over a particular judgment or suggesting that they are motivated by their individual views, political or otherwise, is wrong, and serves only to undermine their vital role in the administration of justice.”
x x x."
The Guardian view on prison reform: a welcome start | Editorial | Opinion | The Guardian
"x x x.
The justice secretary denies there is a prisons crisis, but what else should one call it? Assaults, self-harm and suicide have risen alarmingly over the last year: Nick Hardwick, the chair of the parole board and former chief inspector of prisons thinks that violence behind bars is at its worst ever level. None of this is surprising given the sharp decline in staff numbers and loss of expertise since 2010, leaving 18,000 officers overseeing 86,000 inmates and dealing with new challenges presented by the influx of “legal highs”, mobile phones and use of drones to smuggle in other contraband. The good news is that Liz Truss has carried through some of the more practical of her predecessor Michael Gove’s bold promises on reform in today’s white paper on prisons. Stressing that the system’s purpose is safety and rehabilitation, not just containment, the justice secretary promised to recruit 2,500 more officers and build 10,000 modern prison places – including five small women’s “community prisons” – so decrepit Victorian jails can close. Such change is welcome; and it is needed urgently.
Prisons have been used as dumping grounds, the last resort for dealing with social policy failures, as their population shows: around a quarter have been in care as a child, at least a third have a mental or physical disability, and half have the literacy levels of an 11-year-old. It is hard enough to tackle complex and deep-rooted problems at the best of times; it is impossible to do so under current conditions. It is pointless to talk about rehabilitation when there are too few prison staff to let inmates out of their cells for longer than an hour or two or ensure even the most basic levels of hygiene, let alone engage constructively with them as the new strategy demands. Even with today’s boost, there will be 4,500 fewer officers than in 2010. And no one has yet built their way out of a prison crisis. Yet while ministers’ rhetoric has changed, in reality they are still on the course set by Michael “prison works” Howard and David Blunkett: the sentence inflation that they oversaw – for theft and drug offences, as well as violent and sexual crimes – has doubled the prison population since the early nineties. Real reform demands the courage to address sentencing, as former home and justice secretary Ken Clarke pointed out, and redirect resources to credible community alternatives, found to have significantly lower reoffending rates than short sentences in the government’s own research.
Recidivism costs the country £15bn a year, Ms Truss warned; almost half of prisoners are reconvicted within a year of release. She maintains that the solution is to cut reoffending, as well as increase early intervention to prevent people from committing crimes. In truth, to be viable, such a reduction needs enough officers with the opportunity to build relationships with a smaller prison population in a better estate.
The alternative, as Mr Clarke pointed out, is simply condemning more people to “overcrowded slums”. Nowhere is more deserving of this name than Pentonville, where an inmate was stabbed to death last month. Back in 1938 it was described as long overdue for demolition, yet here it is still, almost 80 years later, now condemned as “the grimmest of the grim”. Mr Gove was right to single it out when he first proposed his “new for old” building scheme; Ms Truss must make sure it is one of the first to go.
x x x."
UK prison reform report wants hard-coded no-fly zones in drones to keep them out of jail • The Register
"x x x.
The UK's Ministry of Justice has revealed it is trying to have drone-makers hard code prison locations into their products, to ensure jails become no-fly zones.
A new report on Prison Safety and Reform (PDF) says “Over the past year there has also been a sharp rise in the number of drones used to fly and drop contraband over the prison walls.”
“The use of drones as a means of smuggling items into prisons is relatively infrequent compared to throw overs or attempts by those entering prisons to hide items about their person,” the report says, “But the potential for drones to cause harm both to prisoners and staff is very real, and we are making sure we are working proactively to meet this threat.”
Hence the intention to “... trial, together with industry, the inclusion of prison coordinates in no-fly zones which have the potential to be programmed into the majority of drones on the market”.
The report offers no detail on the trial, but does explore other technology issues among them the “nearly 17,000 mobile phones and SIM card[s]” found on the inside during 2015, up from “just over 7,000 in 2013.”
Better policing of drones is one way to keep phones out of prisons. The report also mentions a plan to hire 50 new intelligence officers to, among other things, analyse data from phones seized on the inside.
“On a daily basis we collect good quality intelligence – such as email, text and phone call data stored on seized mobile phones – but we cannot make full use of that data,” the report says. “That means that opportunities are being missed and criminal activity is going unchecked and unpunished.”
It sounds like authorities have a dose of big data fever because the new intelligence unit will “develop specialist intelligence capabilities to make sure we gather and are fully exploiting the information we have. We will use the potential for large scale data analysis to guide the focus of intelligence analysis and will build our ability to securely receive and develop the most sensitive intelligence”.
Prisons will also use new powers to permanently disconnect phones and SIMs known to have been used within prisons. But the report warns that phones are hard to stop, for the following reasons:
Attempts to smuggle phones into prison are increasingly brazen and sophisticated, taking advantage of the fact that phones are becoming thinner and smaller. In some cases, the supply chain is so well established that phones are replaced easily soon after they are seized.
x x x."
Prison reform white paper opens door to successful reduction in reoffending - FE News
"x x x.
Prisoner Apprenticeship Pathway is a major step forward
No more evident that ministers have ‘got it’ as far as joined-up support is concerned are the white paper’s proposals for a new Prisoner Apprenticeship Pathway. This will offer prisoners opportunities that will count towards the completion of a formal apprenticeship on release. Prisoners will have access to the same high quality training and education that an apprentice could expect in the community, and will not need to repeat training that they have successfully completed in custody on release, if they can demonstrate competence in the activity they are being trained in during the apprenticeship.
Apprenticeship training providers will be able to support governors in turning this aspiration into a ‘quick win’. Governors would be advised though to be fully transparent in their commissioning processes to secure the best local support from commercial, charitable or college providers.
Commenting on the proposals and the announcement that the Ministry of Justice will publish a detailed education strategy for prisoners next year, AELP CEO Mark Dawe said:
“The White Paper has the potential to be the most important game-changer in decades for transforming the successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds in the process.
“Employment and training providers are ready to play a key role working closely with prison governors, probation services and other support agencies. But we mustn’t let ‘outside the gate’ bureaucracy get in the way of securing an ex-offender either a good apprenticeship or sustainable employment. The join-up of education and work services inside and outside prison is critical to the success of these proposed reforms and AELP looks forward to discussing with the government how we can take them forward.”
x x x."
Forum highlights shortcomings of Wisconsin criminal justice system · The Badger Herald
See - Forum highlights shortcomings of Wisconsin criminal justice system · The Badger Herald
"x x x.
"x x x.
Currently, over 6 million individuals nationwide cannot vote or perform jury duty due to mass incarceration, Thedford said. Thedford said almost 9 percent of these individuals are African Americans who have finished their sentence.
Thedford argued the state’s justice system allows private companies to benefit from convicting people. Approximately 4.5 percent of prisons are owned by private companies, and companies send convicts to these prisons to use them as cheap labor, he said.
Madison community leader M Adams said the criminal justice system, or the “prison industrial complex,” is not capable of being reformed and should be abolished. She said Wisconsin prisons should be rehabilitating inmates instead of using them as an extension of “slavery.”
“Revolution is necessary,” Adams said. “You don’t upgrade on slavery — you abolish it.”
Experts at the forum also discussed how Wisconsin’s criminal justice system impacted prisoner rights. In order to address violations of prisoners’ rights, National Lawyers Guild spokesperson Michael Roy introduced the Prisoners Legal Advocacy Network, which is an organization that would advocate for prisoners’ rights.
After receiving complaints from prisoners, PLAN would investigate the issue and ask prisoners to sign paperwork allowing them to file a claim and make the government aware of the violation.
Roy said UW students are also trying to incorporate a Wisconsin chapter of PLAN. The organization is not able to take legal action against prisons, but it would help preserve the claims of prisoners and push prisons to end such violations.
UW junior Tyriek Mack said students need to be involved in reforming Wisconsin’s criminal justice system and start seeing community issues as their own.
“This is all our fight,” Mack said. “We’re here, and we have to be committed. We have to take advantage of the moments we don’t have control over, so everyone can benefit.”
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)