NEW YORK FINALLY OUTLAWS SHOCK TREATMENT OF STUDENTS
WNYT, NY - It's a practice many people probably didn't know was going
on-using electric shocks to control especially difficult students. For
many years New York has allowed the treatment. Now that's changing. The
Board of Regents voted to phase out most electric shocks. . . Those
pushing to do away with the shock therapy say it is a brutal way to
treat human beings, especially children. But there are others-including
some parents-who say nothing else has worked.
When a school district had a developmentally disabled student who
continued to act out or attack others, where normal discipline wasn't
working and positive reinforcement was unsuccessful, they'd sent the
child out of state to a Boston-area facility - the Judge Rotenberg
Center.
"We have not yet developed institutions that can handle these kids. I
wish we could. We are spending a fortune," Westchester County Regent
Harry Phillips said. At a cost of $209,000 a student, New York is
spending a total of $52 million a year.
To change the bad behavior, kids at the Rotenberg Center would be hooked
up with electrodes to their stomachs and legs and required to wear a
back pack at all times. Then if they misbehaved, staff would give them
a two second jolt of electricity, described as a static shock times 10.
Some students were getting 40 shocks a day.
The Regents were persuaded to phase out the electro shocks by advocates
like Dr. Alisha Broderick of Columbia University. "I think it requires
seeing them as somewhat less than fully human in order to be able to, in
any good conscience, apply these kind of dehumanizing techniques,"
Broderick said. . .
Students currently receiving electro shocks can continue with the
treatment, although the regents significantly tightened up the
procedures and rules. But as of 2009 no new students are supposed to
receive the shocks. The special schools will be required to use
positive reinforcements only.
http://www.wnyt.com/x11565.xml?sb=x183&ag=x995#
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SUPERMAX BRUTALITY DRIVING PRISONERS CRAZY
JEFFERY KLUGER, TIME - There's no such thing as a good day for a
prisoner at the highest level of security within the Ohio State
Penitentiary, a 504-bed supermax prison in Youngstown, Ohio. Every
inmate lives alone in a 7-ft. by 14-ft. cell that resembles nothing so
much as a large, concrete closet, equipped with a sink, a toilet, a desk
and a molded stool and sleep platform covered by a thin mattress. The
solid metal door is outfitted with strips around the sides and bottom,
muffling conversation with inmates in adjacent cells. Three times a day,
a tray of food is delivered and is eaten alone. The prisoner may spend
23 hours a day in lockdown, emerging to exercise once a day. The lights
in the cell never go off, although they may be dimmed a bit at night.
If there's not much to like about the conditions in Youngstown, there's
not much to like about the people confined there either. These are the
men corrections folks like to call "the worst of the worst," the kind of
felons who dealt drugs or led gangs or killed on the outside and
continued to do so in prison. For them, maximum security would not be
enough--only supermax would do. And say what you will about the
draconian environment, it keeps them under control.
But that level of control may be counterproductive. It's possible that
the very steps we're taking to keep society safe and such prisoners in
check are achieving just the opposite. The U.S. holds about 2 million
people under lock and key, and 20,000 of them are confined in the 31
supermaxes operated by the states and the Federal Government. That may
represent only 1% of the inmate population, but it's a volatile 1%. Push
any punishment too far and mental breakdown--or at least a claim of
mental breakdown--is sure to follow. When that happens, a constitutional
challenge can't be far behind.
In December, officials in Texas and California conceded that the suicide
rates in their prisons are on the rise, with the majority occurring
among inmates in solitary. This prompted an outcry against both systems.
. .
But is it constitutionally permissible? And even if it is, is this the
kind of open-ended mental-health experiment the government should be
running? "We have to ask ourselves why we're doing this," says
psychiatrist Stuart Grassian, a former faculty member at the Harvard
Medical School and a consultant in criminal cases. "These aren't a bunch
of cold, controlled James Cagneys. We're taking criminals who are
already unstable and driving them crazy."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582304,00.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW ARTICLE USED IN COURT
GREG SLAUGHTER WRITES ON the Fighting for Liberty site that he was
allowed to read a statement based on a Progressive Review article in
court. The article - on the right of juries to judge both the law and
the facts - reflects a viewpoint that has gotten your editor thrown off
of four juries despite a legal history that puts him on the same side of
the issue as William Penn, Peter Zenger, Thomas Jefferson, Chief Justice
John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver
Wendell Holmes.
Here's Slaughter's account:
|||| The judge's question to the box of "stooges" was, - "Do any of you
(state stooges) have any problem with, or objection to decide on a
verdict in this case based upon the meaning of the law as I instruct you
to as the meaning of the law?"
I came court prepared to state the correct constitutional answer to this
question. I boldly raised my hand. The judge quickly scanning his
juror's seating chart said, "Mr. Slaughter would you please explain to
this court why you feel that you can not decide on a verdict in this
case based upon the meaning of the law as, I instruct you to as the
meaning of the law?"
"The law might be a bad law, or an unjust law, and I could not convict
anyone of violating a bad or unjust law," I replied simply.
"Mr. Slaughter how would you be able to understand or interpret the law
unless, I provided you with the meaning and the correct interpretation
of the law?" asks the judge. . .
I replied, "The same way in which our forefathers knew if a law was a
good or just law, or a bad or unjust law, - our forefathers simply
relied upon their common sense and their good conscience or moral
guidance." . . .
Having so plainly spoken out about the court's commission of acts of
tyranny and treason against the people, I fully expected the judge to
order me hauled out of the courtroom in chains and thrown in jail. The
judge reacted very calmly and never interrupted me at any time. He
probably felt that it was best to allow me to freely speak, rather than
to silence me and risk the appearance of having something to hide.
Continuing on, I asked the judge if he would permit me to read aloud in
court a three page historical paper on a jury's right to judge the law
as well as the facts in a trial. To my astonishment the judge said that
he would allow it, and so I read the paper [similar to the one below)
aloud in open court, doing my best to control the paper from which I
read from noticeably shaking.
You could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom when I finished reading
the history on the rights and duties of a jury in America. I certainly
had everyone's attention. The judge finally spoke up, saying; "Mr.
Slaughter, I am sorry but, California law is very clear on jury
nullification, it forbids a jury from judging the merits of a law. As a
judge sworn to uphold the laws of California, I must disqualify you as a
juror based upon your stated belief that a jury has the right judge the
law, despite a California law to the contrary.". . .
As I exited the courtroom, I carefully examined the expressions of the
people seated there. I had a sense that most of them, to one degree or
another, understood what I had read to them regarding the historical
right of a jury to judge the law, as well as the facts in case. I
believe had been successful in tainting this particular jury pool in a
good way. That was one jury pool that I would have loved to have been
able to poll for their opinions afterwards. ||||
http://groups.google.com/group/fightingforliberty/browse_thread/
thread/c1ceb2e0ae109d71/a6519d1e24661d38?lnk=st&q=&rnum=
6&hl=en#a6519d1e24661d38
THE ARTICLE THAT SLAUGHTER USED
http://prorev.com/juries.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NYC AND DC: WHERE LIVING IS A MOVING VIOLATION
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - The Rev. Al Sharpton threatened to sue the city
over an increase in racial profiling suggested by the NYPD's own
statistics. Of the 508,540 people officers stopped on New York City
streets last year, 52% were black and 29% were Hispanic, according to
statistics released by the NYPD to the City Council.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/494807p-416862c.html
WNYT, NY - It's a practice many people probably didn't know was going
on-using electric shocks to control especially difficult students. For
many years New York has allowed the treatment. Now that's changing. The
Board of Regents voted to phase out most electric shocks. . . Those
pushing to do away with the shock therapy say it is a brutal way to
treat human beings, especially children. But there are others-including
some parents-who say nothing else has worked.
When a school district had a developmentally disabled student who
continued to act out or attack others, where normal discipline wasn't
working and positive reinforcement was unsuccessful, they'd sent the
child out of state to a Boston-area facility - the Judge Rotenberg
Center.
"We have not yet developed institutions that can handle these kids. I
wish we could. We are spending a fortune," Westchester County Regent
Harry Phillips said. At a cost of $209,000 a student, New York is
spending a total of $52 million a year.
To change the bad behavior, kids at the Rotenberg Center would be hooked
up with electrodes to their stomachs and legs and required to wear a
back pack at all times. Then if they misbehaved, staff would give them
a two second jolt of electricity, described as a static shock times 10.
Some students were getting 40 shocks a day.
The Regents were persuaded to phase out the electro shocks by advocates
like Dr. Alisha Broderick of Columbia University. "I think it requires
seeing them as somewhat less than fully human in order to be able to, in
any good conscience, apply these kind of dehumanizing techniques,"
Broderick said. . .
Students currently receiving electro shocks can continue with the
treatment, although the regents significantly tightened up the
procedures and rules. But as of 2009 no new students are supposed to
receive the shocks. The special schools will be required to use
positive reinforcements only.
http://www.wnyt.com/x11565.xml?sb=x183&ag=x995#
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SUPERMAX BRUTALITY DRIVING PRISONERS CRAZY
JEFFERY KLUGER, TIME - There's no such thing as a good day for a
prisoner at the highest level of security within the Ohio State
Penitentiary, a 504-bed supermax prison in Youngstown, Ohio. Every
inmate lives alone in a 7-ft. by 14-ft. cell that resembles nothing so
much as a large, concrete closet, equipped with a sink, a toilet, a desk
and a molded stool and sleep platform covered by a thin mattress. The
solid metal door is outfitted with strips around the sides and bottom,
muffling conversation with inmates in adjacent cells. Three times a day,
a tray of food is delivered and is eaten alone. The prisoner may spend
23 hours a day in lockdown, emerging to exercise once a day. The lights
in the cell never go off, although they may be dimmed a bit at night.
If there's not much to like about the conditions in Youngstown, there's
not much to like about the people confined there either. These are the
men corrections folks like to call "the worst of the worst," the kind of
felons who dealt drugs or led gangs or killed on the outside and
continued to do so in prison. For them, maximum security would not be
enough--only supermax would do. And say what you will about the
draconian environment, it keeps them under control.
But that level of control may be counterproductive. It's possible that
the very steps we're taking to keep society safe and such prisoners in
check are achieving just the opposite. The U.S. holds about 2 million
people under lock and key, and 20,000 of them are confined in the 31
supermaxes operated by the states and the Federal Government. That may
represent only 1% of the inmate population, but it's a volatile 1%. Push
any punishment too far and mental breakdown--or at least a claim of
mental breakdown--is sure to follow. When that happens, a constitutional
challenge can't be far behind.
In December, officials in Texas and California conceded that the suicide
rates in their prisons are on the rise, with the majority occurring
among inmates in solitary. This prompted an outcry against both systems.
. .
But is it constitutionally permissible? And even if it is, is this the
kind of open-ended mental-health experiment the government should be
running? "We have to ask ourselves why we're doing this," says
psychiatrist Stuart Grassian, a former faculty member at the Harvard
Medical School and a consultant in criminal cases. "These aren't a bunch
of cold, controlled James Cagneys. We're taking criminals who are
already unstable and driving them crazy."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582304,00.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW ARTICLE USED IN COURT
GREG SLAUGHTER WRITES ON the Fighting for Liberty site that he was
allowed to read a statement based on a Progressive Review article in
court. The article - on the right of juries to judge both the law and
the facts - reflects a viewpoint that has gotten your editor thrown off
of four juries despite a legal history that puts him on the same side of
the issue as William Penn, Peter Zenger, Thomas Jefferson, Chief Justice
John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver
Wendell Holmes.
Here's Slaughter's account:
|||| The judge's question to the box of "stooges" was, - "Do any of you
(state stooges) have any problem with, or objection to decide on a
verdict in this case based upon the meaning of the law as I instruct you
to as the meaning of the law?"
I came court prepared to state the correct constitutional answer to this
question. I boldly raised my hand. The judge quickly scanning his
juror's seating chart said, "Mr. Slaughter would you please explain to
this court why you feel that you can not decide on a verdict in this
case based upon the meaning of the law as, I instruct you to as the
meaning of the law?"
"The law might be a bad law, or an unjust law, and I could not convict
anyone of violating a bad or unjust law," I replied simply.
"Mr. Slaughter how would you be able to understand or interpret the law
unless, I provided you with the meaning and the correct interpretation
of the law?" asks the judge. . .
I replied, "The same way in which our forefathers knew if a law was a
good or just law, or a bad or unjust law, - our forefathers simply
relied upon their common sense and their good conscience or moral
guidance." . . .
Having so plainly spoken out about the court's commission of acts of
tyranny and treason against the people, I fully expected the judge to
order me hauled out of the courtroom in chains and thrown in jail. The
judge reacted very calmly and never interrupted me at any time. He
probably felt that it was best to allow me to freely speak, rather than
to silence me and risk the appearance of having something to hide.
Continuing on, I asked the judge if he would permit me to read aloud in
court a three page historical paper on a jury's right to judge the law
as well as the facts in a trial. To my astonishment the judge said that
he would allow it, and so I read the paper [similar to the one below)
aloud in open court, doing my best to control the paper from which I
read from noticeably shaking.
You could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom when I finished reading
the history on the rights and duties of a jury in America. I certainly
had everyone's attention. The judge finally spoke up, saying; "Mr.
Slaughter, I am sorry but, California law is very clear on jury
nullification, it forbids a jury from judging the merits of a law. As a
judge sworn to uphold the laws of California, I must disqualify you as a
juror based upon your stated belief that a jury has the right judge the
law, despite a California law to the contrary.". . .
As I exited the courtroom, I carefully examined the expressions of the
people seated there. I had a sense that most of them, to one degree or
another, understood what I had read to them regarding the historical
right of a jury to judge the law, as well as the facts in case. I
believe had been successful in tainting this particular jury pool in a
good way. That was one jury pool that I would have loved to have been
able to poll for their opinions afterwards. ||||
http://groups.google.com/group/fightingforliberty/browse_thread/
thread/c1ceb2e0ae109d71/a6519d1e24661d38?lnk=st&q=&rnum=
6&hl=en#a6519d1e24661d38
THE ARTICLE THAT SLAUGHTER USED
http://prorev.com/juries.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NYC AND DC: WHERE LIVING IS A MOVING VIOLATION
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - The Rev. Al Sharpton threatened to sue the city
over an increase in racial profiling suggested by the NYPD's own
statistics. Of the 508,540 people officers stopped on New York City
streets last year, 52% were black and 29% were Hispanic, according to
statistics released by the NYPD to the City Council.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/494807p-416862c.html
WHAT IS striking about the New York stats - aside from the evidence of
bias - is the sheer number of police stops each year, about 6% of the
daytime population of the city. In other words if you have lived in NYC
for 18 years and never been stopped frisked by the cops you are a
statistical anomaly.
You are even more likely to be stopped in DC where the somewhat unclear
evidence suggests that ethnically biased stops are concentrated in a few
favored white neighborhoods such as Georgetown and Adams Morgan. DC had
77,966 stop forms filled out by cops last year or about one for every 12
daytime occupants of the city.
http://www.policecomplaints.dc.gov/occr/site/default.asp
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment