Don’t Kill for Me

Posted on October 4, 2011 by Marty Ryan

The execution of Troy Davis two weeks ago reminded me of a point in my life when I became active in fighting the reinstatement of the death penalty in Iowa.  I no longer recall specific dates, but I do remember the moments.

Harold Lamont (Wili) Otey was executed by the State of Nebraska on September 2, 1994.  Perhaps a year before that, sometime in the fall, he must have had a stay, because I’m quite sure that the vigil I attended on behalf of Otey was a fall event.  Iowans Against the Death Penalty had organized a rally on the west steps of the Iowa Capitol.  The weather was balmy early in the evening, but it became breezy and crisp after sunset.  I had attended a few IADP meetings, but I was not an active participant, until this night.

Television cameras had set up, print reporters had their notepads in hand, and a radio station reporter had a microphone that he put up to each speaker’s face.  The first few people to speak were quite predictable.  They said all the right things and cited all the statistics.  The news media was about to leave when I asked if I could read a poem.

I was given approval and began reading a poem written by Carl Sandburg; one he wrote in the 1920s.

Killers

C. Sandburg

I AM put high over all others in the city today.

I am the killer who kills for those who wish a killing today.

Here is a strong young man who killed.

There was a driving wind of city dust and horse dung blowing and he stood at an intersection of five sewers and there pumped the bullets of an automatic pistol into another man, a fellow citizen.

Therefore, the prosecuting attorneys, fellow citizens, and a jury of his peers, also fellow citizens, listened to the testimony of other fellow citizens, policemen, doctors, and after a verdict of guilty, the judge, a fellow citizen, said: I sentence you to be hanged by the neck till you are dead.

So there is a killer to be killed and I am the killer of the killer for today.

I don’t know why it beats in my head in the lines I read once in an old school reader: I’m to be queen of the May, mother, I’m to be queen of the May.

Anyhow it comes back in language just like that today.

I am the high honorable killer today.

There are five million people in the state, five million killers for whom I kill

I am the killer who kills today for five million killers who wish a killing.

As I was reading this, I felt a television camera in my face; the radio reporter’s microphone under my chin.  Like the queen of the May, I became the leader of the parade, but there would be no execution.  After I finished, the media packed up and left.

One lone reporter remained and reported the real story.  Darkness had replaced dusk.  Sirens wailed in the downtown area west of the Capitol and the wind picked up, as the rustling of the leaves became more of a backdrop to the eerie sensation surrounding the participants.

Among the people at the west steps was John Ely, the state senator from Cedar Rapids who led the abolition movement in the Iowa Senate during the 1965 repeal.  He had spoken earlier, and I thought I had been in midst of a hero.  But another hero emerged from the darkness and stood to the side.

He stood with his hands in the trench coat he was wearing, and it was difficult to see his face.  But someone in the crowd knew it was former Governor Harold Hughes, a man who risked his political career by signing the bill that abolished capital punishment in Iowa.  He was wearing an earring now.  It’s part of the reason why I wear one, which is a longer story.  He asked if he could address the crowd.

In his loud baritone voice, that never needed an audio system to be heard, Governor Hughes mentioned that he had listened to all the speakers before him.  He waited until the media left so that he could again proclaim his dislike of capital punishment.  He wanted us to know that he was with us.  His conscience couldn’t let the night go by without speaking out one more time.

After that night, I became more than active; I dedicated a large part of my life to the abolitionist movement.  People in Georgia maintaining vigilance as the state put Troy Davis to death brought back memories.  I truly believe that a stronger movement is coming.  As we said in 1995, during Iowa’s serious attempt to reinstate the death penalty, “Don’t kill for me!”

 

Posted in Death Penalty, Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Losing More than Liberty

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Marty Ryan

 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

–          The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

What could be more explicit?

Albert Florence was a passenger in a car traveling on a New Jersey road when the driver was pulled over by a New Jersey State Trooper.  Florence was taken in to custody on a non-indictable civil matter unrelated to the traffic stop.  Even though he claimed the unpaid matter had been taken care of, the trooper brought him to the jail to be booked.  In the booking process, Florence was told to strip, hold his hands out, lift his genitals, and raise his tongue with his mouth open.  All of this took place with a jailer standing within an arm’s length. 

If that wasn’t bad enough, Florence was transported from the Burlington County Jail to the Essex County Correctional Facility after 6 days.  At Essex, he went through a similar naked routine as he did upon entering the Burlington County Jail. This time “he and four other detainees were instructed to enter separate shower stalls, strip naked and shower under the watchful eyes of two corrections officers. After showering, Florence was directed to open his mouth and lift his genitals. Next, he was ordered to turn around so he faced away from the officers and to squat and cough.”  After a day spent in the Essex County facility, the charges against Florence were dropped and he was released. 

Strip searching is getting out of hand. 

Shoshana Hebshi has become somewhat of a household name since September 11 of this year.  Spend some time reading her blog of Sept. 12 on her website http://shebshi.wordpress.com/.  She is continuing to write further on this matter and I, for one, plan to check in periodically. If you don’t know, Shoshana is a married suburban mother of twins who just happens to have a parent who is Jewish and one who is Saudi Arabian.  She sat next to two men from India on a plane from Denver to Detroit. Someone on the plane reported that the three (who didn’t know each other from Adam) were engaged in suspicious activity – evidently the two men used the lavatory.  Upon landing in Detroit, the plane was diverted to an isolated designation and the three were removed from the plane in handcuffs, interrogated, strip searched, and allowed to leave after a considerable amount of time.

Shoshana describes her observances, her fear, her apprehension, and her embarrassing moments.  She had to urinate before being removed from the plane, but she couldn’t in the cell because of the lack of cleanliness, and because “[n]ear the ceiling above the toilet there was a video camera.”

When she was free to leave after hours of being held, a federal officer “apologized for what had happened and thanked me for understanding and cooperating.”  Yuk!  Thanks for cooperating?  And, if she hadn’t?   He told her: “It’s 9/11 and people are seeing ghosts. They are seeing things that aren’t there.” He said they had to act on a report of suspicious behavior, and this is what the reaction looks like.”  She doesn’t know how this will affect her.  For one thing, she claims she will no longer fly on September 11.  I would quit flying altogether.  Of course, I haven’t flown since 1999.

Shoshana sums it up properly by noticing what we all have experienced.  “This country has operated for the last 10 years through fear. “  In a more recent blog she wrote that “the story is not about me. It’s about our rights. We live in a country that was founded on distinct principles of freedom and democracy. We have a constitution to protect those tenets. There is nothing clearer than that.” 

Two years ago, several high school girls in Atlantic, Iowa, were strip-searched as a result of a claim by another student that her $100 was missing.  A lawsuit over the incident was settled on Tuesday (Sept. 20) of this week when an attorney for the school issued the following media release:  “After the investigation of all the facts involving the searches of several girls at the Atlantic High School several years ago, the Atlantic Community School District has determined that the searches violated the school’s policy and state law regarding school searches. The school district acknowledges that the involved girls did nothing wrong.”

Albert Florence, Shoshana Hebshi, and four unnamed girls in the Atlantic Community School District were all ordered by different levels of government (state, federal, local) to remove clothing from their body and stand naked in front of an agent of government [Note:  The girls in Atlantic were never totally naked, and each had to disrobe to different degrees of nudity, shaking bras and panties being part of the procedure].  None of them were charged with a crime.  None of them were a threat to the government or to society.  Yet, they were forced into humiliation and embarrassment.  They cooperated.  But what if they hadn’t? 

Does our Fourth Amendment mean anything anymore?  The Atlantic high school girls are compensated for what they had to endure; Shoshana Hebshi has been in contact with the ACLU; but here’s the scary part.  On Wednesday, October 12, the United States Supreme Court will conduct oral arguments in the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 621 F. 3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010).  The sole question before the High Court is “whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.”  This is Albert Florence’s case.  Don’t think for one minute that this is a slam-dunk case. 

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that “the strip search procedures described by the District Court at BCJ and ECCF are reasonable.” The Appeals court reversed the “District Court’s grant of summary judgment” and remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with [its] opinion.”  In coming to this conclusion, two of the three circuit judges based their reasoning on balancing “the Jails’ security interests at the time of intake before arrestees enter the general population against the privacy interests of the inmates.”  They gave more weight to the security interests.

And there you have it.  Ben Franklin’s famous quote was almost obscure until ten years ago.  Since terrorists have successfully drove Americans into a state of fear following 9-11, we have “sacrificed liberty for the sake of a little temporary safety,” and have deserved neither.  We have allowed the government to ransack our bodies.  Children are constantly told not to allow strangers to touch them or allow them to see their private parts.  How do you then explain to a child what happens at airports when TSA workers grab people inappropriately – including some toddlers? 

We’re losing our safety, our liberty, and our dignity.  But most importantly, we’re losing our Fourth Amendment.  Sadly, no one seems to be offering a reward for its safe return.

Posted in Criminal Justice, Issues, Privacy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

We Have a Problem

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Marty Ryan

The Department of Corrections (DOC) is recalculating sentences for approximately 3,444 offenders in Iowa prisons after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v. State that a probationer may count the time in which he was “committed to the DCS [Department of Correctional Services] for electronic monitoring and home supervision” as earned time.  Earned time is that amount of days that is subtracted from an inmate’s sentence for good behavior.  It appears as though the DOC had been requiring probationers to start their sentences all over again once probation was revoked and the violator entered prison.

3,444 inmates must have their sentences recalculated.  There are approximately 8,800 Iowa prisoners incarcerated in the various correctional facilities across Iowa.  You can do the math, but it amounts to roughly 40% of the offenders that may have their sentences reduced.  The DOC, county attorneys, and others are screaming that “the sky is falling”.  They’re concerned that these offenders might be released into society.  I hate to bring this up, but wasn’t the offender a threat to society when he or she was on probation?  What’s different?

A huge concern for the DOC is the fact that many of these offenders will be released without supervision, without rehabilitation, and without services.  Shall we blame the courts for a problem that exists with our prison system?  When I began this essay with the statement that “we have a problem” I wasn’t referring to the problem seen by DOC, the county attorneys, etc.  No, I’m claiming that the problem is with the manner in which services are provided to offenders lying in waste within the walls of our state’s correctional facilities. 

There are three primary reasons for incarcerating offenders: Punishment; rehabilitation; and societal protection.  The first and third reasons are no-brainers.  Rehabilitation should be a constant goal because over 90% of offenders will be released back into society at some time.  The DOC’s mission statement states that:

Offenders under our supervision participate in rehabilitative programming, including basic education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, life skills, victim empathy, and work experiences. Beginning with their first day in prison to their last day of community supervision, our reentry planning and coordination is designed to assist offenders’ successful reentry into society and to reduce the likelihood of future victims.

The statement says that this all takes place from the first day in prison.  But that’s not true.  If it was true, why would the sky be falling?  Most programs are placed on hold until the offender gets nearer to a release date.  True, some educational and life skills programs are available once an offender has been transitioned into the system.  But often, substance abuse treatment and especially work experience programs are delayed until an inmate is closer to being released from incarceration.  Therein lies a problem. 

Rehabilitation, including substance abuse and alcohol abuse issues need to be addressed up front – from the beginning.  A person who is going to be incarcerated for five years will claim that they don’t have a problem after 3 years.  “I don’t have a problem; I haven’t used for 3 years!”  One of the first steps toward recovery is an acknowledgement that a person has a drug or alcohol problem.  Waiting until a person is about to be released before being admitted to a rehabilitation program can only serve as fertilizer for denial.  Treatment needs to be addressed immediately if it is to be effective.  If those 3,444 offenders who may be released earlier than expected had been receiving treatment, life skills, and victim empathy from the first day they entered the Oakdale facility, the job of rehabilitation would be complete (or near complete) and protecting society would fall into order.  

Yes, we have a problem.  It needs to be fixed from the inside.  It’s time to quit blaming the courts and the legislature and perform the mission as stated.  “Beginning from the first day . . . “

 

© Copyright 2011  Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved. 

Posted in Criminal Justice, Issues | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A Wise Decision

Posted on September 1, 2011 by Marty Ryan

Lawyer jokes exist because almost everyone has had to reach out to an attorney at some time in their life to settle differences, defend their honor, or interpret a legal matter.  Attorneys are a part of life.  Almost everyone can relate to an experience with a lawyer, and the familiarity and wide scope of services offered by attorneys breeds a fertile playground for jokes. But attorneys take a bad rap.  The standard for ethical conduct required of lawyers is the strictest of any profession.  Iowa’s Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys sets a high bar (no pun intended).

As a paralegal, I must know and abide by those same canons listed, with a small departure on the ones that pertain to lawyers only.  Because I’m familiar with the integrity of the profession, it came as a shock to me when the Office of Professional Regulation recommended a proposal to allow attorneys to voluntarily suspend their licenses and keep the reasons for doing so a complete secret.

On Friday, August 26, 2011, the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it had considered the recommendation of the Office of Professional Regulation (allowing an attorney to voluntarily suspend his or her license to practice law and keep the information about the suspension confidential).  The Court considered the proposal, but rejected it; and rightfully so.

There are numerous reasons why an attorney may want to voluntarily suspend a license to practice law.  The attorney may want to go into business with a non-lawyer, and the business may border on a legal practice without actually practicing. 

An attorney may enter into another field of employment and maintaining a law license may be impractical.  The attorney may not wish to attend the required continuing legal education, a requirement that could be costly amount to sacrificing several hours of time.  Attorneys also have to pay fees to the Client Security Fund.  But a lawyer may choose to suspend a license that could have an adverse effect on the public. 

A lawyer may choose to suspend his or her license for reasons that the public has a right to know.  The most dangerous reason for wanting to keep a voluntary suspension quiet is to avoid publicity of a disciplinary prosecution.  The public has a right to know when lawyers are being punished, and for the grounds surrounding that punishment, even if the punishment is a slap on the wrist.

The Court made a wise move by rejecting the proposal.  We need more transparency in government – not less.  There is no need for those who practice law to be the butt of more jokes. 

 

 

Posted in Issues, Open Meetings/Public Records | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Get the Lead Out or

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Marty Ryan

A Tale of Two Bills

Once upon a time there was a hunter who wanted to bring young relatives raccoon hunting.  So a law needed to be passed that allowed children to go raccoon hunting with their parents’ permission.  The Iowa Senate agreed that this would be a good law and passed a bill that would allow a resident under the age of sixteen to go raccoon hunting with any “competent adult with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, . . . so long as the minor is not hunting and does not carry or use a firearm or other weapon.”

The Senate passed this good law with unanimous support and sent the bill to the Iowa House for their blessing.  All appeared to be honest and good at the Iowa Capitol.

But, unknown to the trusting citizens of Iowa was a dark force at the Iowa Capitol determined to circumvent the system to pass a bill allowing hunters to shoot mourning doves with the dreaded lead shot—a deadly poison to children and wildlife including the American symbol for freedom—the Bald Eagle.  Since the Iowa House ran into obstacles for passing the coveted dove hunting bill, an evil plot developed.  The raccoon-hunting bill was amended by the Iowa House in a manner not often seen.

By using a current law that allowed for the hunting, possession, disturbance, and killing of “gray or fox squirrel, bobwhite quail, cottontail or jackrabbit, duck, snipe, pheasant, goose, woodcock, partridge, coot, rail, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, pigeons, or deer,” the dark force added the words “mourning dove” to fit right in between “partridge” and “coot”.

Wait a minute.  What happened to the hunting of raccoons?  A point of order was justifiably raised that the amendment was not germane (meaning pertinent, relevant, or related to the issue).  So, the Iowa House voted to suspend the rule in order to pass the bill.  The bill allowing a youngster to hunt raccoons with grandpa now morphed into a companion bill to SF 464, “an act allowing the establishment of an open season for hunting mourning doves.”

Using this procedural maneuver, in which the dove hunting bill from the Senate wouldn’t have to face the agony of going through another committee meeting in the House, the two companion bills become twins.  This means that the Senate legislation allowing for the open season on mourning doves can be taken up for consideration right away because there is already a bill on the House Calendar that matches it exactly.  Wow!  What a neat trick.  It’s just like magic.  You see, if the bill were to have gone through committee it may have come out with a provision that banned lead shot.  The dark forces did not like that.  Steel shot costs too much!

An amendment was offered that would have prohibited lead shot, but it was shot down without a vote.  The final vote was as follows:

The ayes were, 58:

Alons Anderson Arnold Baudler Byrnes Chambers Cohoon Cownie De Boef Deyoe Dolecheck Drake Forristall Fry Garrett Grassley Hagenow Hager Hall Helland Horbach Huseman Iverson Jorgensen Kaufmann Kearns Koester Lukan Lykam Massie McCarthy Miller, L. Moore Muhlbauer Olson, R. Olson, S. Paustian Pearson Quirk Rasmussen Rayhons Rogers Running-Marquardt Sands Schultz Shaw Smith, J. Soderberg Sweeney Taylor, J. Upmeyer Vander Linden Wagner Watts Windschitl Wolfe Worthan Mr. Speaker Paulsen

The nays were, 39:

Abdul-Samad Baltimore Berry Gaines Gaskill Hanson Hanusa Heaton Heddens Hein Hunter Isenhart Jacoby Kajtazovic Kelley Klein Kressig Lensing Lofgren Mascher Miller, H. Oldson Olson, T. Petersen Pettengill Raecker Schulte Smith, M. Steckman Taylor, T. Thede Thomas Tjepkes Van Engelenhoven Wenthe Wessel-Kroeschell Willems Winckler Wittneben

Absent or not voting, 3:

Brandenburg Murphy Swaim

The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to have passed the House

-Governor Branstad signed into law.

Will there be a happy ending to this sad tale?

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan will be fighting to get the lead out of this legislation.  It falls under our new Fairness Issue.   But we need your help.  Please subscribe to this issue.

Epilogue:  On March 23, the bill allowing grandpa to take his grandson out to hunt raccoons was referred back to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

© Copyright 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

 

 

Posted in Fairness | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Time to cut the strings

Posted on August 14, 2011 by Marty Ryan

The Iowa Code is not reading material that excites even the most avid readers in the state.  You know that there is a law against murder in there somewhere, but what it says exactly, or how it applies to a particular incident is left to a prosecutor and defense attorney to argue about in front of a judge, and often – a jury.

It might interest some to know that the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Iowa District Departments of Correctional Services (Community Based Corrections or CBCs) are not closely related.  As a matter-of-fact, these two agencies are completely distinct from each other.  Each has its own board of directors.  The DOC’s board is selected by the governor with the Iowa Senate’s approval.  The selection of CBC board members in an entirely different process that involves county supervisors and judges, and an entity known as a project advisory committee.

A  CBC must “furnish or contract for those services necessary to provide a community-based correctional program which meets the needs of that judicial district.  The district department is under the direction of a board of directors, selected as provided in section 905.3, and shall be administered by a director employed by the board.  A district department is a state agency for purposes of chapter 669.”

As you can see, there is no mention of the Iowa Department of Corrections.  It is an entirely separate agency of the state as it pertains to the state’s tort claims act (Chapter 669).

On the other hand, Iowa Code section 904.10, which defines the responsibilities of the Department of Corrections, limits the Department’s relation to the CBCs to that of accreditation and funding.

The department shall administer the institutions listed in section 904.102.  The department shall be responsible to the extent provided for by law for all of the following:

1.  Accreditation and funding of community-based corrections programs including but not limited to pretrial release, probation, residential facilities, presentence investigation, parole, and work release.

2.  Iowa state industries.

3.  Jail inspections.

4.  Other duties provided for by law.

Reading the recent Des Moines Register opinion pieces, articles and op-eds, a person can get a sense of wondering why the Legislature has neglected to provide funding for three halfway houses; one in Cedar Rapids, one in Sioux City, and another in Waterloo.  

Although CBCs are separate from the DOC, operating under separate boards and separate directors, CBCs must have their funding channeled through the DOC.  The funding for community-based corrections depends upon the lobbying efforts of the DOC.  The DOC has a lobbyist (oops!  They’re called liaisons); CBCs have no such luxury.  The CBCs must depend upon the DOC efforts at the Capitol to gain anything beyond federal funding.  Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?

The DOC is a state level agency for all the apparent reasons.  CBCs have local control intertwined within each judicial region.  Mixing these two separate and distinct entities in a process that involves discussing needs with legislators can leave the Big Bossy Brother making the final determination as to who gets the greater slice of the pie.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan believe it’s time to cut the strings.  If CBCs are to remain individual agencies of the state for tort purposes, they should be in control of their own budgets.  CBCs should submit their budgets directly to the Joint Subcommittee on Justice Systems in the future and leave the DOC to fend for itself without the potential for leaving empty buildings all over the state.

 

Posted in Fairness, Issues | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments