ObamaLaw – Coming to a police department near you! – Part 5

I almost didn’t finish this blog series about the President’sTask Force on 21st Century Policing’s Interim Report (a) after the news broke about the six cities that would be testing grounds for federalized police departments (b). Reading that news made me sick to my stomach because it made one thing glaringly obvious – this was his plan all along and this report was nothing more than a way to ease the public into accepting it in much the same way an experienced player would ease their virgin mate into sex. Oddly enough they both have the same goal and the same result, too – we’re getting screwed!

Still, there is something to be said for knowing your enemy and I believe there may be useful nuggets in this report of what we need to be on the lookout for, what to expect. So….on with “pillar” five – Training & Education. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it past the second sentence before having to stop and shake my head at the bitter irony.

Today’s line officers and leaders must meet a wide variety of challenges including international terrorism, evolving technologies, rising immigration, changing laws, new cultural mores, and a growing mental health crisis.

Let’s see….

International terrorism….wouldn’t be much of an issue if we had a real man in the Office instead of someone who is either somebody’s bitch or the biggest wuss in history. Not sure which one he is, maybe both.

Evolving technologies….could be useful if not abused like the federal government’s use of wiretapping technology.

Rising immigration…..refer to comment above about international terrorism.

Changing laws….wouldn’t be an issue if the federal government would stop infringing on the rights of the States.

New cultural mores……refer to comment above about rising immigration. People should be coming to America to be a part of our culture, not coming to America and then demanding that we change our culture for them. Being aware of different cultures is important, as well as knowing the finer nuances of them, but the law is the law and every culture should have to obey the law equally. Applying the law according to different cultures opens the door for things like Sharia Law…where domestic battery and pedophilia are perfectly allowable since it’s all “part of their culture”. Okay, that may fly where you come from but here in America if I see you beating a woman or molesting a child I’m going to exercise my legal and Constitutional rights to subdue you by any means necessary (lethal or otherwise).

Growing mental health crisis….as a social worker, this one hits close to home. Mental health needs are on the rise, that cannot be argued. However, if you look at why these rates are on the rise you have to wonder if the federal government hasn’t brought this one on itself also – kids are being placed on ADHD meds at an alarming rate because they don’t get recess so they can study more for Common Core exams; many companies are cutting employees’ health benefits as a result of Obamacare; the sagging economy combined with the skyrocketing cost of medical care means many people can’t afford therapy and/or expensive medications; and – my favorite – the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric care that was commissioned by LBJ and the Democratic Congress in 1963. Many people with long-term mental illness don’t have family that are willing or able to care for them so, without long-term mental health facilities to rely on, they end up unable to socially function, homeless, and at risk of becoming the next leading news story as the culprit behind the latest shooting spree.

Grrrr…..moving on. I was able to get past a few paragraphs before something caught my eye.

Many who spoke before the task force recommended that law enforcement partner with academic institutions; organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF); and other sources of appropriate training. Establishing fellowships and exchange programs with other agencies was also suggested.

Funny….there isn’t a National Organization of WHITE Law Enforcement Executives. This is another great example of the pot calling the kettle black – no pun or racist connotation intended.

The need for understanding, tolerance, and sensitivity to African Americans, Latinos, recent immigrants, Muslims, and the LGBTQ community was discussed at length at the listening session, with witnesses giving examples of unacceptable behavior in law enforcement’s dealings with all of these groups. Participants also discussed the need to move towards practices that respect all members of the community equally and away from policing tactics that can unintentionally lead to excessive enforcement against minorities.

I want to point out something absolutely critical about the above statement. Look at the populations mentioned. Do you see ‘Asian’? How about ‘Indian’? ‘Russian’? ‘Italian’? ‘Native American’?’Israeli’? I didn’t see any of these nationalities listed. Did you see ‘military’? ‘Catholic’? ‘Mormon’? ‘Buddhist’? ‘Atheist’? ‘Deaf’? Hmmm….I didn’t either. Each one of these is a unique nationality and a unique culture, yet they’re not listed. Why not? Because these nationalities and these cultures are, by and large, respectful of America and of police authority. The populations listed in the report are being disrespectful and are demanding that our nation change for them – even though they’re a minority. Everyone else is willing, happy even, to come here and adopt our culture versus the other way around. Respect is a two-way street – you have to give it to get it and when those populations start giving it then they’ll start receiving it. Need an example of what this looks like? Ben Carson. Raised by a single mom in an impoverished neighborhood. He nor his mother demanded that the country take care of them because they had it rougher than others. Instead, Ben’s mom taught him that he could change his situation through education and hard work. Today he’s a leading pediatric neurosurgeon. And he’s black. And, yes, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat if he ran for POTUS.

5.1 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of partnerships with training facilities across the country to promote consistent standards for high quality training and establish training innovation hubs. A starting point for changing the culture of policing is to change the culture of training academies. The designation of certain training academies as federally supported regional “training innovation hubs” could act as leverage points for changing training culture while taking into consideration regional variations. Federal funding would be a powerful incentive to these designated academies to conduct the necessary research to develop and implement the highest quality curricula focused on the needs of 21st century American policing, along with cutting edge delivery modalities.

Let me translate this for you: The Federal Government should take over training facilities so that we can dictate what police officers are taught. Let me tell you something else, too – a little counseling trivia. In providing therapy, social workers and counselors are taught to look out for little catch phrases that the client may use when the truth is going to make them sound or look bad. It’s a way of preserving their image both with themselves and with their therapist. I’ve already spotted several “catch phrases” throughout this document. “Development of partnerships” = taking over by federal government. “Federal funding as incentive” = do it the fed’s way or we withhold federal funding. Federal incentives were used to get states to adopt Common Core. When several states refused to adopt the educational standards the federal government withheld federal education funding unless they did. It’s mafia-style extortion, plain and simple. “21st century American policing” = policing according to the needs/wants of the federal government, regardless of what the American people want….i.e. federal police state (aka Fascism). Anyone who has any common sense should be scared witless by this.

5.3.1 ACTION ITEM: Recognizing that strong, capable leadership is required to create cultural transformation, the U.S. Department of Justice should invest in developing learning goals and model curricula/training for each level of leadership.

Cultural transformation? Why do we need a ‘cultural transformatin’? You don’t go into someone’s home and have them redecorate according to your tastes. In that same manner, you don’t go into a different country or live a different lifestyle and demand that everyone else cater to you. More importantly, though, did you notice the part about the US DOJ should invest in developing model curricula? Let me translate that one for you – the DOJ determines what the police officers are taught.

5.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should instruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation to modify the curriculum of the National Academy at Quantico to include prominent coverage of the topical areas addressed in this report. In addition, the COPS Office and the Office of Justice Programs should work with law enforcement professional organizations to encourage modification of their curricula in a similar fashion.

HOLY CRAP! How do you expect an organization that protects the country against terrorism to be able to do their jobs if they can’t use profiling? If the DOJ dictates the FBI’s training based on the content of this report, then the FBI would no longer be able to use race, ethnicity, or gender in any of their discriminating efforts to help protect against terrorism. And it won’t stop there. Soon it will be “discriminating” to label someone as a sexual predator and the sex offender database goes away. And neighborhood sex offenders won’t be first on the list when the FBI are searching for a missing child. And people will have no way of knowing whether the person they’re living next to is a great babysitter or a criminal monster. Sex offenders are already crying discrimination…..this would play right into their hands. And at that point God help our children because the police sure as hell won’t be able to.

5.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as determining gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual misconduct and harassment.

Determining gender identity for arrest placement? So, let me get this straight….if you arrest a guy who claims he’s gay you are then forced – by rule – to place him in a holding cell with women. And the next thing you know you have several lawsuits being filed by women who were raped. This has “bad idea” written all over it. If they’re physically male, you place them with other males. If they’re physically female, you place them with other females. Same goes for public restrooms. Or you can go to PC extremes and let the LGBT community have their own jails/prisons. Oh wait…that would be prejudiced. Never mind. And again, why should the police be forced to interact any differently with these populations? This goes back to what I was saying earlier about it opening the door to bad things like Sharia Law. I’ll give you an example. Police are called out to a domestic dispute at a house in a known Islamic neighborhood. If the police were to observe the cultural norms of the Muslim faith, they would go to the home and speak to the man. Only the man. Because in Muslim culture women are property, not people. And without being able to speak to the woman the police would never know that her husband beats her repeatedly, or that he has multiple wives by allowance of the local Muslim cleric and the latest is a child bride that he rapes repeatedly. And don’t say that this would never happen. I was once a social worker at a hospital where several of my patients were Muslim women. I was told in training not to address the woman but instead to address the man that accompanied her, since it is their custom that he speaks for her. Muslim women don’t even have the right to determine their own medical care, or the confidentiality of a doctor-patient relationship. That being said, I do have to admit one thing….every Muslim woman that I saw was older and the accompanying individuals were always sons. Almost every son was also accompanied by a sister as well as his wife and – to be totally honest – they were always very respectful of their mother. Most seemed genuinely concerned about the woman’s health and well-being. I would like to think that this is a cultural norm for them, but I’ve seen the statistics that state otherwise. In Islam the woman has no voice and no rights except those given to her by her husband. If he’s good, then she’s lucky and she is very well taken care of. If he isn’t a nice guy, her life will read like the horror stories from the history of African slaves.

5.13.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should provide funding to incentivize agencies to update their Field Training Programs in accordance with the new standards.

Remember what I said earlier about “catch phrases”? “Incentivize agencies to update their Field Training Programs in accordance with the new standards.” Translation: Adopt our training standards or lose federal funding. (just like Common Core!)

That wraps up “pillar” five. Stay tuned tomorrow for my analysis of “pillar” six, “Officer Wellness & Safety”.

(a) http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf

(b) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/six-cities-racial-bias-pilot-program_n_6859160.html

ObamaLaw – Coming to a police department near you! – Special: The people of the Task Force, Part 2

Yesterday I told you about some of the members of the president’s executive order Task Force that is responsible for guiding the administration in overhauling America’s police departments. So far on the Task Force we have a known Constitutional rights violator (Ramsey), a prisoner rights advocate (Robinson), and an illegals-before-Americans advocate (Lopez). Let’s see what we can learn about four more of the Task Force members.

Bryan Stevenson, Appointee for Member, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Bryan Stevenson is Founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), a private, non-profit organization headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama.  In addition to directing the EJI since 1989, he is a Clinical Professor at New York University School of Law.  He previously has served as a visiting professor of law at the University of Michigan School of Law. Mr. Stevenson has received the American Bar Association’s Wisdom Award for public service, the ACLU’s National Medal of Liberty, and the MacArthur Foundation “Genius” Award Prize. Mr. Stevenson received a B.A. from Eastern College (now Eastern University), a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and an M.P.P. from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

Equal Justice Initiative? I can see already where this is heading. And received an award from the ACLU? Can’t be good. One visit to EJI’s website confirms that this is another liberal organization, but this one goes one step further. You know all those laws we fought so hard to get put into place to protect children from sex offenders? You know, can’t live close to schools, parks, or day cares….have to register your residence…..all that good stuff that we use to try to keep our kids safe. Well, this guy wants to do away with it. This was taken from the EJI website(a):

Alabama also is home to some of the nation’s harshest sex offender registration and residency restrictions. Alabama’s Community Notification Act applies to everyone convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the nature of the offense. It bars people from living within 2000 feet of a college, school, or day care center. Many people have been left homeless or deprived of critical medical care because they cannot find homes that comply with the CNA. Indeed, people have been convicted of a felony offense and sentenced to 10 additional years in prison because they were unable to identify a CNA-compliant residential address prior to their release from prison.

I don’t care what else is out there about this guy, this one bit of info is all I need to know about him to know that he’s a scumbag. You don’t place the rights of a criminal over the safety of a child. EVER.  If you look around the website, you’ll also find that this individual implied that the “mass incarceration” of colored people today is the continuation of slavery and lack of civil rights. You know, in social work we look at behavior as a symptom and we strive to find the root cause of the behavior. It can be anything from an abusive family, lack of a role model, socioeconomic disparities, etc. These are the causes of the behavior, hence the behavior is merely a symptom. Nowhere, on any of these different websites, have I ever seen anyone suggest more than placing a band-aid on the problem. “African Americans are being arrested in droves, oh no! That means the justice system is racist and must be changed!” No! Change the morals and values of the people so that you have families versus “baby mamas” and “baby daddies”. Change the cultural perception from “I’m being oppressed by the man” to “life is hard but I can succeed if I try”. Change their view of the government from “you owe me because we were slaves” to “education is critical so that history doesn’t repeat itself”. Damn it! Nobody owes anybody anything in this country except what we owe to our veterans. This country started out with slaves. Guess what? THEY WERE WHITE! They came over on the Mayflower and were known as  “indentured servants”.

Let’s move on before I REALLY get on my soapbox.

Brittany Packnett, Appointee for Member, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Brittany Packnett is currently Executive Director of Teach For America in St. Louis, Missouri, a position she has held since 2012.  From 2010 to 2012, she was a director on the Government Affairs Team at Teach for America.  Ms. Packnett was a Legislative Assistant for the United States House of Representatives from 2009 to 2010.  From 2007 to 2009, she was a third grade teacher in Southeast Washington, D.C., as a member of the Teach For America Corps.  Ms. Packnett has volunteered as Executive Director of Dream Girls DMV, a mentoring program for young girls, and was the founding co-chair of The Collective-DC, a regional organization for Teach For America alumni of color.  She currently serves on the boards of New City School, the COCA Associate Board, the Urban League of Metro St. Louis Education Committee, and the John Burroughs School Board Diversity Committee.  Ms. Packnett received a B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis and an M.A. from American University.

Fortunately for us, Ms. Packnett is on social media, which means that we can view her very own words to get an idea of her beliefs. Let’s see what her Twitter account says….

 Hmmm…..terms and conditions apply to be free. Interesting perspective. Let’s see what Ms. Packnett has re-tweeted from some of her followers…..

Racist traditions? Christopher Columbus Day is racist? What?! Sure she’s got to be joking.

Hmmm. Nope. Not only is she not joking, but she thinks that Thanksgiving is a racist tradition too. Enough said on this one. Moving on.

Susan Rahr, Appointee for Member, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing

Susan Rahr is Executive Director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a position she has held since 2012.  From 2005 to 2012, she served as the first female Sheriff in King County, Washington.  Ms. Rahr spent over thirty years as a law enforcement officer, beginning as a patrol officer and undercover narcotics officer.  While serving with the King County Sheriff’s Office, she held various positions including serving as the commander of the Internal Investigations and Gang Units, commander of the Special Investigations Section, and Police Chief of Shoreline, Washington.  Ms. Rahr received a B.A. from Washington State University.

Sue is an interesting one because she was actually a sheriff. And she was well liked. Even more surprising, I like her. An article in The Business Journals sums up everything that I like about Sue. Here are a few excerpts from it (b):

When she stepped into the new role, Rahr was surprised to see how the atmosphere at the academy had become similar to a military boot camp. On a recruit’s first day, they would be screamed at and humiliated like soldiers in training. If a recruit was ever tardy, they were told to “drop and give me 50 push-ups.” And there was a military-style protocol requiring recruits to snap to attention if they ran into a higher-up in the hallway.

“They were so stressed out that they weren’t learning the material they needed to learn, so we moved away from military boot camp,” Rahr told me. “We’re not training them to be soldiers and followers. We are training them to make decisions and use judgment.”

To change this “counterproductive atmosphere,” Rahr said she removed a trophy case in the academy and replaced it with the U.S. Constitution.

She explained that oftentimes police officers believe the Constitution is something that gets in the way of the job. Rahr wants it to be something to uphold — their mission.

She doesn’t want her officers to be followers but instead wants them to make decisions and use judgment. She ditched the trophy case and replaced it with the Constitution. The Constitution! A document that our president claims to be a hindrance, this woman uses as a training device for her officers. “…oftentimes police officers believe the Constitution is something that gets in the way but she wants it to be upheld and to become their mission. I love this woman’s attitude and training ethics. I can’t wait to see how she gets along with her Task Force cohorts – especially the ones who feel that the convicted criminals’ rights are more important than public safety.

As much as I would love to talk about the breath of fresh air that Sue Rahr represents, we must move on.

Tracey Meares, Appointee for Member, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Tracey Meares is the Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a position she has held since 2007.  From 2009 to 2011, she also served as Deputy Dean of Yale Law School.  Before joining the faculty as Yale, she served as a professor at The University of Chicago Law School from 1995 to 2007.  She has served on the Committee on Law and Justice, a National Research Council Standing Committee of the National Academy of Sciences. She was appointed by Attorney General Holder to serve on the inaugural Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Science Advisory Board.  She also currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation.  Ms. Meares began her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Harlington Wood, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  She later served as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice.  Ms. Meares received a B.S. from the University of Illinois and a J.D. from The University of Chicago Law School.

Hmmmm…..first impression is that she’s another one of Holder’s stooges. However, researching her work I was impressed with both her literary skills and her reasoning abilities. She speaks clearly, is well-spoken, and has a good delivery in her reports. Definitely a scholar, and this gave me hope. I thought at first that my hopes were going to be dashed when she spoke of legitimacy as being a persons willingness to defer to a government authority because they feel that authority has the right to tell them what to do. She talked of how important this is and how it is the leading indicator of compliance with the law. My liberty-infringement indicator was threatening to go off, but then something occurred to me. She’s explaining why African Americans commit so many crimes – because they don’t feel that our government has the right to tell them what to do. And she’s right. I’ve worked with African American youth who have no respect whatsoever for a white teacher but will instantly fall in line with a black teacher. As a culture, they have become so sensitized to the race issue that if you’re not like them then you can’t be trusted and therefore don’t have the right to tell them what to do. She goes on to talk about how procedural justice is made up of 4 key factors – voice, decision fairness, treatment with dignity and respect, and trust. These factors determine how individuals will respond to authority figures. I highly recommend watching this video of her presentation on procedural justice (c). She doesn’t say that one side or the other did this wrong and therefore things need to change. She says this side acted this way because that side made them feel bag and this is how we can change this. It acknowledges the faults of both sides while also providing common sense solutions. I can’t fault that and without further research I can’t fault her either.

So, where are we now? Constitutional rights violator (Ramsey), a prisoner rights advocate (Robinson), an illegals-before-Americans advocate (Lopez), sex-offender rights over public safety advocate (Stevenson), an anti-American reverse-racism pro (Packnett), a Constitutional sheriff (Rahr), and a scholar (Meares).

Tomorrow I’ll be wrapping up research into the Task Force members and get back to my analysis of the Interim Report. I haven’t seen anything yet that in any way eases my concerns. As far as I can tell, you’ve got a panel of Obama-bots with a smattering of Conservatism sprinkled in so the administration can claim fairness. We still have much to be worried over. Like maybe the fact that this whole Task Force was created by executive order. Have you thought about why that was? Why not let it be recommended by a committee, or an agency? I can think of only one reason – because with an executive order Obama would have been able to hand-pick the members of the Task Force. That’s why it’s so important that we look at who they are and what they stand for – or against. Right now the majority of these people stand against traditional American values and ideals….the very things that made this country great. We can be great again, but not with an administration like the current one and task forces like this one.

(a) – http://www.eji.org/massincarceration

(b) – http://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/profiles-strategies/2014/08/with-the-debate-over-police-actions-in-ferguson.html?page=all

(c) – http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/procedural-justice-secret-ingredient-tracey-l-meares-community-justice-2014

ObamaLaw – Coming to a police department near you! – Special: The people of the Task Force

This blog post is going to look specifically at the people that comprise the “ObamaLaw” Task Force. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, I urge you to read the original blog post about this topic so you can get caught up.

In the processing of writing Part Three of my analysis of the Interim Report I did some brief research on the person who was chosen to co-chair the executive-ordered Task Force. The history that I read about Charles Ramsey was terrifying. If you’ve read Part Three of my analysis, you know the danger this man represents. If you haven’t, pay attention. If this man is responsible for overhauling the nation’s law enforcement agencies – and succeeds – the US is going to look like Nazi Germany in no time. I’m glad that I found this information, though, because it alerted me to the fact that we don’t know who these people are, what they’ve done, or what they stand for. It seems to me that if these are the people who are going to shape the future of law enforcement it might behoove us to know their platforms and action history. I’ll be getting my information from a variety of sources and will list them at the conclusion of this post.

According to the Fact Sheet: Task Force on 21st Century Policing (a) released by the White House on December 18, 2014:

The Task Force will be chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, who also serves as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, and Laurie Robinson, professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University and former Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs.

This is what the Task Force posted a bio for Ramsey:

Charles Ramsey, Appointee for Member and Co-Chair, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Charles Ramsey is the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), a position he has held since 2008.  Since 2010, he has served as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Police Executive Research Forum.  Commissioner Ramsey began his law enforcement career in 1968 as a cadet with the Chicago Police Department (CPD).  Over the next thirty years, he held various positions with CPD, including Commander of the Narcotics Division, Deputy Chief of the Patrol Division, and Deputy Superintendent, a role he held from 1994 to 1998.  In 1998, he was named Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC), where he served until early 2007.  In 2007, Commissioner Ramsey served on the Independent Commission on Security Forces of Iraq, leading a review of the Iraqi Police Force.  In addition to his current role at PPD, he also serves as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Commissioner Ramsey received a B.S. and M.S. from Lewis University.

This is what the fact sheet didn’t tell you:

In 2008, Charles Ramsey made The Washington Post when his department began doing safety stops and collecting demographic information on the drivers and occasionally even their passengers.(b) This information was then put into a police database. These were people who had committed no crime nor were they suspected of having committed a crime. On September 27, 2002, the police – under Ramsey’s orders – surrounded Pershing Park and arrested over 400 people that were allegedly protesting the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.(c) Many of the people arrested weren’t even protesters but were instead media and pedestrian traffic. The problem with the arrests was that the police had not warned anyone to disperse and had actually prohibited people from leaving the park. Following the arrests, the booking procedures of the detainees included such demeaning things as being told to “strip naked, bend over, and cough”. I strongly urge you to read the full article here for a complete description, including first-hand accounts, of the acts that Ramsey and his force committed. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled on January 13, 2006, that the arrests violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the individuals and that Ramsey could be held personally liable for the violations. Ramsey’s escapades cost the city officials of Washington one million dollars that was paid out to more than 120 of the protesters, not including, not including other settlements reached by the D.C. government (one settlement in excess of $640,000). None of this includes the $1.3 million in legal fees that was paid for Ramsey’s legal representation.

Next on the Fact Sheet’s list is Laurie Robinson. Here’s the bio provided for her:

Laurie Robinson, Appointee for Member and Co-Chair, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Laurie Robinson is the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, a position she has held since 2012.  She served as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice from 2009 to 2012.  Prior to that, Ms. Robinson served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP and Acting Assistant Attorney General for OJP.  Previously, she was a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Team.  From 2003 to 2009, Ms. Robinson was the Director of the Master of Science Program in Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.  From 1993 to 2000, she served her first term as the Assistant Attorney General for  OJP.  Before joining DOJ, Ms. Robinson spent over twenty years with the American Bar Association, serving as Assistant Staff Director of the Criminal Justice Section from 1972 to 1979, Director of their Criminal Justice Section from 1979 to 1993, and as Director of the Professional Services Division from 1986 to 1993.  She is a Senior Fellow at the George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, and serves as co-chair of the Research Advisory Committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  She also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Vera Institute of Justice.  Ms. Robinson received a B.A. from Brown University.

Laurie was an interesting one to investigate. Her previous titles and positions read like the who’s who of justice. Being more on he “book” side than the implementation side, she’s never been involved in any altercations or lawsuits. However, if you believe in the old adage of “guilty by association” then she is as sunk as the rest. Laurie served served as assistant attorney general in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) during the Clinton administrations.(d) One week after obama was brought into office, Laurie began serving as acting assistant attorney general and principal deputy assistant attorney general of OJP. She held these positions until she was nominated to take over the leadership of the office. If you’re like me and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, her associations probably aren’t enough to condemn her to scrutiny. Most of what Laurie has represented in the past has been fair and good, but her borderline-liberal views of key topics could be pushed in the realm of liberalism under the current administration. Robinson has been active on boards for organizations that advocated for the rights of illegal immigrants. (e) She believes that there are a disproportionate amount of blacks and Latinos in American jails because the system is biased, not because these populations are committing more crime. Vera, for whom she was a board member from 2001 to 2009, states on their website: “Vera helps officials in criminal and juvenile justice systems to reduce the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in those systems.” Laurie has also orchestrated several meetings between her professional associates and Attorney General Eric Holder, during which meetings Holder got the ideas for several of his programs.(f) Laurie is a stubborn advocate for what she calls “Justice Reinvestment”, a bipartisan effort through which legislators and policymakers come together to determine how to reallocate resources to both save money and reduce recidivism.(g) Laurie raved about Kentucky legislation which, based on a Justice Reinvestment analysis, reserves prison beds for the most serious offenders and re-focuses resources on community supervision, probation and parole systems, and evidence-based programs. Basically, what they’re saying, is that unless you are an extremely violent individual, you should be allowed to stay in society. Laurie went on to state that Kentucky “is projected to reduce its prison population by more than 3,000 inmates over the next 10 years and save some $422 million as a result of the new law.”. I don’t know about you, but I’m not entirely comfortable with that.

Moving on in the list, next is:

Jose Lopez, Appointee for Member, President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing
Jose Lopez is currently the Lead Organizer at Make the Road New York (MRNY), a Brooklyn-based non-profit community organization focused on civil rights, education reform, and combating poverty.  He became Lead Organizer of MRNY in 2013.  Mr. Lopez began his career in 2000 as Youth Organizer with Make the Road by Walking, which later merged with the Latin American Integration Center to form MRNY in 2007.  He continued to serve as Youth Organizer with MRNY until 2009, when he became Senior Organizer.  Since 2011, Mr. Lopez has represented MRNY on the steering committee of Communities United for Police Reform, a New York City organization advocating for law enforcement reform.  From 2001 to 2004, he was an active contributor to the Radio Rookies Project, an initiative of New York Public Radio.  He received a B.A. from Hofstra University.

For those of us who are fighting desperately for AMERICAN rights over illegal immigrant rights, this guy’s achievements are a direct slap in the face. MRNY’s facebook page posted this statement on December 14, 2014: “MRNY Lead Organizer Jose Lopez was among the leaders who met with President Obama today to discuss policing. Latinos are a key part of this urgent conversation. Read the ‪#‎FergusonAction‬ statement.” Reading the action statement was about as pleasant as swallowing a mouthful of razor blades. It stated that the Ferguson Action group’s demands included “the federal government using its power to prosecute police officers that kill or abuse people” and “defunding local police departments that use excessive force or racially profile. Instead of having the Department of Justice (DOJ) wholesale giving more than $250 million to local police departments annually, DOJ should only fund departments that agree to adopt DOJ best practices for training and meaningful community input.”. This last line brings up a very interesting choice of wording – “should only fund departments that agree to adopt DOJ best practices”. As a mom who has been fighting Common Core for two years now, I can tell you that this is EXACTLY how the education system was federalized. The federal government tied state funds to accepting Common Core – they could either go the way of the feds or they could go broke. Common Core has turned out to be disastrous, resulting in a plethora of negative results. For example, elementary-aged kids are now being diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders as a result of high-stakes testing, ADHD diagnoses have skyrocketed as a result of recess being cut out to make room for test prep, and children are actually learning less because they’re only being taught what’s on the test. The other thing about Common Core, is that if you trace the money you will find Pearson Education and other educational companies provided a significant amount of funds to the Obama Administration. I would be willing to bet that if you followed the money for the “best policing practices” it would also lead back to the administration. Jose Lopez’s MRNY is also responsible for stopping deportations through legal intervention and lobbying to change immigration law. According to their website, their 2012 victories include: “launched an immigration law practice serving thousands with Deferred Action applications and hundreds more with deportation defense, permanent lawful status, and immigrant services fraud prevention”; “mobilized 20,000 new voters on Election Day as part of our new Campaign for Respect & Dignity, after registering 12,000 voters of color in NYC and Long Island and, with the Center for Popular Democracy, an additional 7,000 in Pennsylvania”. Folks, if that doesn’t scare you I don’t know what will.

There are eight more Task Force members that I’m going to save for later posts (4 tomorrow, last 4 Tuesday) since this post is already so long. The members so far – a known Constitutional rights violator (Ramsey), a prisoner rights advocate (Robinson), and an illegals-before-Americans advocate – are proving to be fairly impressive…..if you live in a communist country. Wake up, America, and look at the areas of federal over-reach. Health care, education, internet, and now our police departments. These are key areas that have to be taken if you’re planning to overthrow a nation’s system of government and take control of its people. It’s not too late, but we have to get this under control. Contact your legislators, your representatives, your Congressmen, your police chiefs….and don’t stop contacting them until they begin to hear us.

(a)  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/18/fact-sheet-task-force-21st-century-policing

(b) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/01/AR2005050100848_pf.html

(c)  http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/25398/boss-hogtie

(d) http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/office-of-justice-programs-who-is-laurie-robinson?news=841747

(e) http://www.vera.org

(f) http://nij.ncjrs.gov/multimedia/video-nijconf2010-opening-robinson.htm

(g) http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-laurie-o-robinson-speaks-international-community-corrections

(h) http://fergusonaction.com/white-house-meeting/

Teaching the Next Generation of Social Workers How to Protect the Guilty and Ignore the Innocent

Anyone who’s followed my blogs recently knows that I’m a social work student currently in my last year for my MSW. One of my classes right now is Advanced Clinical Ethics and is supposed to teach us how to behave in an ethically responsible manner when counseling our patients. Today my class received an email from our professor which detailed the rationality behind this past week’s discussion assignment.

The hypothetical ethical dilemma was a difficult one indeed. I am counseling a client who is coming to me for drug addiction. My client divulges to me that she committed a crime a long time ago in which someone was injured, but she was not caught for it. Instead, another woman was convicted of it and is serving a lengthy prison sentence for a crime she did not commit. After repeated urging, the client refuses to turn herself in and has reminded me of my obligation to client confidentiality. The question is simple – do I break that confidentiality and turn her in or maintain confidentiality and let an innocent woman continue to serve time for a crime she is innocent of? 

My answer to the discussion question was an honest one. I would tell my client that I have no choice but to try to help the woman wrongfully incarcerated, but that I would do this in a manner that would be least damaging to my client. I would let my client decide whether I go to the State Attorney to try and garner a plea bargain for my client, taking into account that she did come forward and is making progress in turning her life around, or I would simply go to the State Attorney and tell them that the woman they incarcerated is innocent but I can’t tell them how I know that due to client confidentiality, thereby running the risk of them re-opening the case and my client being found out (at which point they probably would not be so willing to work out a plea agreement). I would tell my client that those are her choices and she can decide, but that it is my ethical responsibility to take action.

The email from my professor today made me very angry. I went into social work because I want to help people. I want to promote social justice without having to become a police officer. I want to be one of the good guys that comes in and helps the underdog. Maybe it’s hereditary…..I come from a long line of firefighters, state troopers, paramedics, EMTs, military…..the innate sense of justice and responsibility to society is in my blood and is a part of my core being. So what am I supposed to do with this? 

This is the email sent to the entire class from my professor. I have removed my professor’s name as well as the name of my university in the hopes of minimizing the potential academic flashback (yes, I will probably get into trouble for posting this but I feel the public has the right to know what their counselors and therapists are being taught):

Winter 2013

DISCUSSION QUESTION MODULE 3

What a great discussion week!  Your posts were very good.  It is evident from your posts, you are taking your profession seriously and want to be the best social worker you can be!

Issues in case:

Client reveals to her social worker she committed a crime.

Client reveals another woman is serving time in jail for this crime to her social worker.

The social worker has asked the client to reveal this information to authorities and client refuses.

Main Ethical dilemma: Does the social worker have the ethical responsibility to keep confidentiality or should she report what Mary’s has told her to the proper authorities?  What is the social worker’s Ethical responsibility using the Dolgoff’s Ethical Principles? This was the assignment.

Any other information provided in this scenario is not pertinent to the main ethical conflict for the social worker.

It does not matter how long the client is in treatment. It does not matter what the client is in treatment for. The relationship between social worker and client does not matter in making the ethical decision. It does not matter how long ago the crime was committed.

This question asked specifically to discuss your answer using Dolgoff’s Ethical Principles.

Principle 1: Protection of all human life, including the client and the lives of other people. Takes precedence over every other obligation.

Neither Social Worker’s client nor the woman in jail is in imminent danger to their lives.  “Imminent danger meaning “physical threat of death to either of them” Both women are safe. You should not use your perception of prison as an unsafe place where the woman might be “killed or maimed (beat up).”  If you believe prisons are unsafe and “dangerous”, could you serve on a jury and judge a person to prison and keep your ethical principle to keep ALL people from harm?

That being said, this Principle does not apply to the Social Worker’s dilemma and the social worker MUST keep confidentiality.

Principle 2: Equality and Inequality…equal persons have the right to be treated equally.  The client and the woman in jail are equals and should be treated as such.  The “system” treated both women equally.  The client escaped the system and the system “tried” the woman in jail and found her guilty with the information available to them.

This principle does not apply to Social Worker’s dilemma.

Principle 3: The social worker should make practice decisions that foster a person’s autonomy, independence and freedom.  A person does not have the right to decide to harm him/herself or anyone else on the grounds that the right to make such a decision is her/his autonomous right.

The first sentence leads SW’s to understand this is most important. As such, the social worker does not have the right to break confidentiality.  The social worker does not have the right to make a decision for client.  Revealing the client committed a crime might or would lead the client’s freedom to be compromised.  It is not the social worker’s autonomous right to break confidentiality.

THIS PRINCIPLE SUPPORTS KEEPING CONFIDENTIALITY.

Principle 4:  A social worker should always choose the option that will cause the least harm, the least permanent harm, and or the most easily reversible harm.  This principle does apply.  We are looking at these Principles remembering our client is the “person” unless the principle states “all people”.  This principle does apply. 

THIS PRINCIPLE SUPPORTS KEEPING CONFIDENTIALITY.

Principle 5: A social worker should choose the option that promotes a better quality of life for ALL people, for the individual as well as for the community.  This principle does apply.  The woman in jail needs to be considered under this principle.  Her quality of life could be improved (getting out of jail) if the client confesses to the crime.  But the client’s quality of life would or might be in limited (going to jail) if she confesses.   This principle does apply.

THIS PRINCIPLE SUPPORTS BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY.

Principle 6: A social worker should make practice decisions that strengthen every person’s right to privacy.  Keeping confidential information inviolate is a direct derivative of this obligation.  This principle does apply.

THIS PRINCIPLE SUPPORTS KEEPING CONFIDENTIALITY.

Principle 7: A social worker should make practice decisions that permit her to speak the truth and to fully disclose all relevant information to the client and to others.  This principle does apply.  The social worker should discuss with the client truthfully her feelings on the legal obligation of the client to confess to the proper authorities she committed the crime. 

THIS PRINCIPLE SUPPORTS KEEPING CONFIDENTIALITY.

 The NASW Code of Ethics is the FIRST resource to use in any ethical decisions.  Since this question asked you ONLY to use the Dolgoff’s Ethical Principles, and if you only used Dolgoff’s Ethical Principles, you could make an ethical decision. I think at this point you want an answer to whether to keep or break the client’s confidentiality.

Based on the NASW CODE OF ETHICS:

(c) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the

course of professional service except for compelling professional reasons. The

general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not

apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent

harm to a client or other identifiable person or when laws or regulations require

disclosure without a client’s consent. . (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of

California 17 Cal. 3d425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14,551 P. 2d 334, 1976.)

REMEMBER THIS CODE SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER CODES. BASED ON NASW CODE WE ARE OBLIGATED TO KEEP CONFIDENTIALITY.

In Mary’s case, using the above Code, as we must before using any other Principles, the social worker MUST keep confidentiality. The social worker has no knowledge of foreseeable or imminent harm to either her client or the woman in prison.    “HARM” is the key word in that sentence.  “HARM” meaning “threat of death” or “life threatening maiming.”

Consulting with a supervisor or a peer social worker is always advisable with difficult cases.  If you determined you must report this “crime”, you should do so disclosing the least amount of information necessary while keeping your client’s confidentiality. Also seek legal counsel before reporting.

Using the Dolgoff’s Principles, Principal #1 is the hierarchy of all other Principles.  As explained above, we are bound to confidentiality in Mary’s case.

If you came up with a different answer and it was based on the NASW Code of Ethics and Dolgoff’s Principles, it is the right answer for “you” with the knowledge you had at the time.

That being said, if you have determined a different answer BASED IN ANY WAY ON FEELINGS ABOUT THE CLIENT’S BEHAVIOR, THE “TERRIBLENESS” OF PRISON, THE “POOR WOMAN” IN PRISON”  “I COULDN’T LIVE WITH MYSELF” OR SIMILAR THOUGHTS, her “Cowardly behavior”, please know those are “value judgments” and should not be used in any ethical decision.

The author makes a true statement in your book.  She states there are no final or universal answers to difficult ethical questions. I would add as long as we keep our personal values and morals separate from ethical decisions and base decisions on knowledge of NASW Code of Ethics and Dolgoff’s Principles we are being ethical, responsible and professional social workers.

I would caution you all not to add more to the “cases” we discuss than the information that is known.  When you add suppositions, you cloud your judgment.  Also, answer the question that is asked: this week it was use the Dolgoff’s Principal….said nothing about applying Code of Ethics.  It is ok to add to posts but always keeping centered on the question asked.

A great week students!  The posts were, for the most part, professional and based on Knowledge of the NASW Code of Ethics and Dolgoff’s Principles.  Again a reminder to post and reply respectfully to the discussion board.  You all showed an open mind to take in other’s opinions which either strengthened your opinion or changed your opinion. 

 

Basically, this email is using accepted philosophy to justify one of the primary things wrong with our communities today – there is no regard for the greater good and it is every man for themselves. My professor’s responses sit wrong with me on so many different levels I don’t even know where to begin. Clinically speaking, what kind of a person are we helping our client to become? Someone who has no ability to accept the consequences of their actions and has no regard for their fellow man. If situation were only slightly altered and my client were a child and the other woman was another child wrongfully serving a timeout, a parent or counselor would be vilified for allowing such an injustice. After all, we’re teaching the one child that she can get away with doing wrong if she simply lies about it and there will be no consequences. And for the child serving the timeout, she’s being taught that there’s no such thing as fairness or justice in the disciplinary system.  This was actually covered in my Child Psych class and we were educated about the psychological dangers involved in such scenarios. So, again, clinically speaking this makes no sense to me.

Outside of the therapist’s office, in the world of human beings, this is still WRONG. Nowhere in humanity is it accepted as fair or just to allow an innocent person to serve the sentence of the guilty. One guy did this very thing and the Christians haven’t shut up about it since! (That’s a joke, people). As a Christian, doing my best to live by the Golden Rule, how can I possibly sit back and accept this? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I were that woman sitting in prison, I would darn sure want someone on the outside fighting for me. How about the Ten Commandments? Thou shalt not bear false witness. Could I, as a Christian, maintain my client’s confidentiality knowing it violated my religious beliefs to do so?

What about the viewpoint from a law-abiding citizen? My client has violated the justice system by withholding information regarding a crime in which someone was injured. I now have similar information regarding the case. Would I also not be breaking the law by withholding that information? The very order that we depend on in society is founded on the belief in a justice system that I, at that point, would be helping to undermine.

Aside from all these different viewpoints, I think this one thing burnt me up the most…this one particular line from my professor – “I would add as long as we keep our personal values and morals separate from ethical decisions and base decisions on knowledge of NASW Code of Ethics and Dolgoff’s Principles we are being ethical, responsible and professional social workers.” 

In terms of this statement, I would like to point out Miriam-Webster’s definition of ‘ethics’: a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong. 

One cannot have ethics without first having morals. And what good are those morals when we’re told that we can not let them guide or sway our sense of ethics?

I’ve learned a lot in my time with my current university, but I think today I learned the most important lesson of all. I learned what type of social worker I don’t want to be.

And a note of warning to anyone who may potentially be a future client of mine…..if you tell me that you hurt someone and you’re letting another person sit in prison serving the time for it, you can bet your sweet ass I’m turning you in.

 

Why are we avoiding the REAL issue here?

Immediately after the shooting in Newtown, the first thing the politicians did was start clambering about gun control. Now, to follow up on their threats, Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) has introduced a ban on high capacity magazines and clips. The problem is that her definition of “high capacity” would make some handguns completely illegal, such as any handgun that holds more than 10 rounds.

While I think that any murder is atrocious, especially the murder of innocent children like those at Sandy Hook, I feel very strongly that the government is doing what it does best – it’s distracting the American people with fast, expensive, useless legislation to appease the masses rather than fix the root of the problem. The root of the problem, of course, is: crime, a lax justice system, and high criminal recidivism.

I’m not just idly ranting about this – there are statistics and common sense evidence to back this up. The Huffington Post claimed in a blog post dated 04/06/11 that “guns are used to murder more than 9,500 people in our country in a single year”. That’s tragic – it truly is. But how much more tragic would it be if that number were increased by 989,883? Almost a million lives lost to violence….now THAT would be tragic. Guess what? According to the data from a study published in 2000 in The Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 989,883 is how many times US civilians used guns to defend themselves and others from crime per year. Almost a million lives saved because people were allowed the freedom to choose the best tool to defend themselves and their families.

Gun and ammunition ‘control’ only applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to perpetrate their evil deeds. A great example of this would be the Columbine High massacre, which took place during a government-imposed assault weapon ban. Those were KIDS and they still managed to wreak havoc because laws meant nothing to them. Washington DC instituted a gun ban in 1976 and it was in effect until 2008. During that time, Washington maintained a murder rate that was 73% higher than when the gun ban took effect. Why? Because the criminals were bringing the guns in from other states and the law-abiding citizens were left defenseless.

Most of the gun crimes that are committed are done so by someone who obtained the firearms illegally. Ahhh, yes, but if guns or ammo is ‘controlled’ then there won’t be any of the bad stuff out there to be stolen. Right? Wrong. Crack is illegal. Cocaine is illegal. Meth is illegal. Yet these things are still obtainable on any street in America.

The real problem in this country is a lax justice system. According to justfacts.com, “nationwide in 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution”.Of all these people who were captured and turned over for prosecution, here’s a statistic that I hope pisses you off as much as it did me….“currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crime“. ONE PERSON. Where is the justice for the other 11 victims? There isn’t any, because our justice system failed them.

The country has such a high crime rate because criminals know there is a good chance they won’t be caught. IF they do get caught, they can trust over-crowded prisons and a backed-up court system to minimize the odds they’ll actually serve hard time. IF they actually get sentenced, they can look forward to 3 square meals, free education, free rent, and free cable for the few short years they’ll serve before their early release. And recidivism? Here’s a couple of statistics for you….

“A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense. Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records.”

Sandy Hook Elementary was a senseless tragedy that never should have happened. However, ignoring the real change that needs to take place and substituting it with the band-aid that is gun legislation is an even greater tragedy. Why aren’t we cracking down on the criminals? Why doesn’t the ‘death penalty’ really mean the DEATH PENALTY, instead of ‘sit on death row for 30 years while waiting for an appeal only to be executed anyway after having consumed millions of dollars of taxpayers’ resources’??? Why isn’t prison time hard work, like the chain gangs of old? Criminals aren’t afraid to go to jail, they’re not afraid of prison, they’re not afraid of our justice system’s punishment, and until they are crime isn’t going to change. THIS is what our government needs to be addressing. Without changing the desire to harm, without changing the utter disregard for the value of human life, we are solving nothing and are only disarming those who will soon be included in the statistics of those victimized.

No, gun control is not the issue. The real issue is crime, and the real criminal is our own government for aiding and abetting violent offenders while disarming the innocent.