We will be presenting the pros and cons of the Death Penalty. Should we have a death penalty, and if so is lethal injection really the best method? Can California afford the exorbitant costs involved with executing someone? A panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.
Our keynote speaker, Gloria Killian, who sat on Death Row three years and was incarcerated 17 years for a crime she didn't commit, will share her experiences.
Radio Personality Mario Solis-Marich will emcee the event. Ferial Masry, Educator and state assembly candidate will present her perspective as a Saudi-born woman. Jonathan Kraut from the SCV InterFaith Council; Carole Lutness, an LA County Psychiatric Social Worker; Bob Handy, Navy officer, retired, Political Democratic Activist, Attorney Joseph Trigilio, Federal Prosecutor; and Sharon Y. Garrett, President of the NAACP SFV Chapter will also be presenting. This event is a collaboration of all three Santa Clarita Valley clubs:
The Democratic Alliance for Action, Michael Kulka, President;
The Democratic Neighbors of the 38th Assembly District, Carole Lutness, President;
The Democratic Club of the Santa Clarita Valley, Bill Bailey, President.
LA QUINTA INNS & SUITES, 25201The Old Road, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91385 4:00PM to 7:00PM. $5/Admission. Videos, Desk top Displays. A 501c3 sponsored event. Refreshments. Free Parking. Email: minwilli@gmail.com (661) 295-9318
It’s become a depressingly predictable event. Every few months, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a branch of the US Department of Justice, releases new figures showing that the US prison and jail population has grown yet again and has reached a new all-time high. The latest statistics, released last week, show that as of June 30, 2008, more than 2.3 million people were behind bars in this country — an increase of almost 20 percent just since 2000. This gives the United States an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 residents - the highest rate in the world, dwarfing those of other democracies like Great Britain (152 per 100,000), Canada (116), and Japan (63).
The aforementioned is quoted from an article appearing within the Huffington Post, entitled: “Prison Nation” and authored by David C. Fathi. This ever increasing prison population demands immediate action as to “why” our country is producing so many incarcerated individuals within our society and “how” can prevent this increasing trend of penalized peoples.
Mr. Fathi’s article also sites:
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.
It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.
Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
As you can read, our past political environment seems to account for these numbers and hopefully will begin to decrease once attention is directed by our President to these alarming statistics.
Our dysfunctional criminal justice system has been a long time in the making, and no one should have any illusions that it will be fixed overnight. But a National Criminal Justice Commission would be an important first step toward ending our shameful status as the world’s leading prison nation.
The following video presents Janet Reno, former Attorney General in the Clinton Administration presenting her views on concerns within our present day legal system.
Janet Reno: Improving the Legal System
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
I guess I’m not giving up on AIG until someone is behind bars or there’s some dare good answers to questions of “Who took our money and what was it used for?”
Right now I should be authoring postings on the G20 and how our President is fairing with the European leaders who feel we should report to them on all matters American; but I still hung-up on AIG and how any corporation felt it was above the law and dictated its terms and conditions to us the taxpayers.
Today the Wall Street Jounrnal published this online article, informing its readers there was an auditor that was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
For me the issue is “Why didn’t this come to light earlier”, this could have solved many a questions, time and especially money. So, is there some darkness unknown to the Obama administration, because I’m sure had this administration learned of this auditor’s existence sooner, appropriate action would have been rendered, by bring this auditor into the shinning daylight of our gloomy economic burdens we’re facing.
Below is the article from the Wall Street Journal, authored by Ryan Grim and entitled: “Congress Wants AIG Mole’s Documents”.
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.
The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.
Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”
The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.
“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Not to my knowledge dose any of our elected officials have me on their private contact list, nor have I requested such a privilege be extended to me; however, I do follow our country’s online political news very carefully and I don’t recall either President Obama or our Attorney General, Eric Holder mentioning candidates for Federal Judgeship. I could be wrong?
So, this bring to my mind; why would the Republican members in our Senate ever bring up the issue of rejecting our President’s selections for Federal Judges, “other” than those chosen by the Bush Administration. What a bunch of spoilt children!
I think these boys and girls should devote more of their concentration on solving the ever increasing and pressing problem of the economy than concerns that may happen on the horizon.
My foundation for this argument and posting comes from an article posted on Politico stating the following:
Federal Judges
Republicans warn Obama on judges By MANU RAJU | 3/2/09 6:56 PM EST
President Barack Obama should fill vacant spots on the federal bench with former President Bush’s judicial nominees to help avoid another huge fight over the judiciary, all 41 Senate Republicans said Monday.
In a letter to the White House, the Republican senators said Obama would “change the tone in Washington” if he were to renominate Bush nominees like Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond. And they requested that Obama respect the Senate’s constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by seeking their consultation about potential nominees from their respective states.
“Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,” the letter warns. “And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.”
In other words, Republicans are threatening a filibuster of judges if they’re not happy.
The letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years. Democrats regularly complained that Bush nominated conservative judges without consulting them, then the Republican-controlled Senate ran roughshod over them even if the nominees lacked support from homestate senators. Obama’s lawyer Gregory Craig has begun his outreach with senators about potential nominees, and several Republicans have warned Obama that the quickest way to squander bipartisan goodwill is to nominate far-left judges.
To complement the aforementioned posting the following YouTube video, which brings back many a memories regarding how bitter bipartisan fighting can become when Senators were in disagreement over the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick.
Judge Leslie Southwick
If you are from New Mexico, you probably already know, but I wanted to make sure. If you know anyone in New Mexico, make sure they know to call.
Subject: NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE ABOLISHES THE DEATH PENALTY; GOVERNOR CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO SIGN THETHE ARTICLE BELOW DESCRIBES AN EXCITING VOTE IN NEW MEXICO TODAY. THE GOVERNOR IS INVITING PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS TO HELP HIM MAKE A DECISION ON THIS BILL. HOPEFULLY ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL GUIDE HIM TO SIGNING AND NOT VETOING THE BILL. IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN NEW MEXICO, PLEASE URGE THEM TO ASK HIM TO SIGN THIS IMPORTANT BILL.Death sentence would be replaced by life without the possibility of paroleSteve Terrell | The New Mexican
3/13/2009The state Senate, following nearly three hours of debate, voted 24-18 to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole.That means House Bill 285, sponsored by Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque will go to Gov. Bill Richardson for his signature.The governor's office set up a hotline for getting the opinions of New Mexicans on the issue. That number is 505-476-2225. Those wishing to weigh in via e-mail can do so through the governor's web site at: www.governor.state.nm.us and clicking on "Contact the Governor.""This is an extremely difficult issue that deserved the serious and thoughtful debate it received in the Legislature," Richardson said in a prepared statement. "I have met with many people and will continue to consider all sides of the issue before making a decision."Richardson must act on the bill within three days after he receives it.The 24 senators who voted for the bill were all Democrats. Three Democratic senators — Richard Martinez of Española, Tim Jennings of Roswell and John Arthur Smith of Deming — joined the 15 Senate Republicans in opposing the bill.This was the first time since 2001 the Senate has voted on a death-penalty repeal. Martinez voted for the repeal in 2001, but Sen. Phil Griego, who voted for HB285 voted against the similar bill in 2001.
In the past we used terms such as “Street Life”, “Street Smart”, “Street Wise” and even “Street Fighter” to describe individuals whom we though of as being educated, both academically and common sense wise. Now we seem to be grouping these various categories of people into two very distinct groups namely the people from “Main Street” and those from “Wall Street”.
The stark differences between Main Street and Wall Street are very defined in my opinion, and in today’s rapidly changing society the difference comes down to one main point of difference, which is “Money”.
Earlier this week I read an idea piece posted by a political newswire service where an attempt was made to compare President Obama to the English story book character Robin Hood, which in many ways is some what of a true comparison. The article, as you can surmise, places our newly elected President fighting for those of us on Main Street, while supposedly taking our taxpayer dollars “back” from those on high residing on Wall Street.
Since the days of Ronald Reagan’s Administration, an ever elite group of token Americans have taken over our system of earning, distributing and regulating our nation’s money supply, so for me, I fully support our president and his efforts to “right” past wrongs of the people who we trusted to take care of our saving accounts, investments and retirement benefits.
In another article published this past week by UPI Asia, on the 25th of February, by Hari Sud, entitled: “Power of Wall Street over U.S. government” is an example of my exacting feelings of what has and is happening in our country. I’ve taken the liberty of high lighting certain excerpts, which I feel best illustrates America’s financial community as I’ve come to know it today.
All the people that likes the life can help on this way.
Please partecipate on this blog, organizing meeting and events, pushing Barak Obama to be really a new and honest President that respect the life of every man and every woman!
We cannot talk of America like a civil State until there is the death penalty!
Fight it!
Yes we can!
giosby
(Italian language)
