In answer to the above question…..it’s complicated.

However, before we discuss the implications of Tuesday’s California Supreme Court hearing, here’s what the LA Times and the NY Times reported on the basic facts of the matter.

First the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to rule that the backers of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures have the right to defend them in court, a stance that would give opponents of same-sex marriage the chance to champion the initiative all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During an hour of oral arguments, several justices appeared skeptical that only elected state officials may defend measures passed by voters, as gay-rights lawyers claimed.

If that were the case, same-sex marriages would resume in California because Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris have refused to appeal last year’s federal ruling against Proposition 8.

Justice Ming W. Chin observed that the power of the people to enact laws would be curtailed if initiatives could be blocked in court every time officials refused to defend them.

“So the attorney general and the governor get to pick the laws they want to enforce?” asked Chin, a conservative on the court.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of the court’s more liberal members, appeared to agree. Denying initiative sponsors the right to appeal, she said, would be “nullifying the great power that the people have reserved for themselves” and “would not promote principles of fundamental fairness….”

Now the NY Times:

In a hearing that suggested no quick resolution to the long-contested legal battle over Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban in California, several members of the state’s highest court seemed skeptical of arguments on Tuesday that the measure’s supporters should not have a chance to defend it in federal court.

The hearing, at California Supreme Court here, came at the behest of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is reviewing a 2010 decision by a federal judge who found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.

The appellate court had asked the state court if the backers of Proposition 8 had legal standing under California law to defend the measure, because both the current and previous governors and attorneys general of California have repeatedly refused to argue for it. Opponents of the measure say that without standing, there is no case, something that could mean a resumption of same-sex marriage in the state, where it was briefly legal in 2008.

But while no decisions were issued at the hearing on Tuesday — the seven-member Supreme Court has 90 days to do so — there were indications that several California justices were wary of finding that supporters of Proposition 8 had no right to defend the measure…..

Now here’s where it gets complicated: If the California Supremes rule that the Prop 8 defenders have no official right—-aka legal standing— to challenge Judge Vaughn Walker’s findings that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, that will be good news for all who favor equality—at least in the short-run—because marriage for same sex couples will become instantly legal in the state of California.

Yet, while California will have won the battle, the larger precedent-setting war will have been lost, at least in the short run, because that will mean there will be no Supreme Court challenge to Prop 8.

Of course, if the Prop 8 case goes to SCOTUS, it’s a roll of the dice. The Constitutional law dream team of Ted Olson and David Boies could lose, while a “no standing” decision gives them an instant victory in California.

However, if standing is established, and the case goes from the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court, and if the US Supremes rule in favor of Prop 8 challengers Olson and Boies….. that, ladies and gentlemen, is the ball game. Equality will become the law of the land.

NOTE: Just got back. Back fully in biz tomorrow.

The best reporting thus far on the inmate hunger strike that originated in the Pelican Bay SHU—or Special Housing Unit—came from California Watch reporter Michael Montgomery, whose latest story ran on Tuesday in his series on the strike—what it meant, who is behind it, and whether it accomplished anything.

One thing you should know is that Montgomery knows this material. In past years, he has reported some deeply disturbing stories on the psychological effects wrought by these isolation units that confine inmates in windowless cells for 23 hours out of every day, separating them from nearly all human contact for years at a time.

In the course of this series, he discovered that many of the strikers’ demands already existed as recommendations that emerged from a year-long internal study commissioned by the CDCR then roundly ignore.

Here are links to Montgomery’s radio broadcasts in order— here and here and here.

His written stories on the strike may be found here and here.

Below there’s a clip to give you a feel:

State corrections officials are moving forward with a major policy initiative that could improve conditions and reduce the length of time some inmates spend in controversial isolation units. The changes are being proposed amid threats of another hunger strike by inmates who spearheaded one last month at Pelican Bay State Prison.

The policy changes, which still are being worked out, are in line with proposals highlighted in an internal study completed in 2007 by a panel of experts appointed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, according to interviews and documents. The panel’s recommendations included:

***Moving to a conduct-based model that punishes inmates for tangible offenses, rather than for mere affiliation with a gang. This approach is widely used in other states and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

*** Ending the practice of indefinite detention of alleged prison gang members and associates in the Security Housing Units

***Ending the practice of automatically sending validated prison gang members and associates to the Security Housing Units

***Creating a “step-down” program inside the Security Housing Units to encourage positive behavior by offering incentives, such as special programs

***Ending the distinction between prison gangs and other threat groups to give the department more flexibility in determining inmate placement in the Security Housing Units

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE JUSTICE GAP (YES, THERE IS A SOLUTION)

This Op Ed from the New York Times not only opines with deservedly righteous indignation, it offers a solution—or at least a good idea.

The clip below is self-explanatory:

Most low-income Americans cannot afford a lawyer to defend their legal interests, no matter how urgent the issue. Unless they are in a criminal case, most have no access to help from government-financed lawyers either.

In civil proceedings like divorces, child support cases, home foreclosures, bankruptcies and landlord-tenant disputes, the number of people representing themselves in court has soared since the economy soured. Experts estimate that four-fifths of low-income people have no access to a lawyer when they need one. Research shows that litigants representing themselves often fare less well than those with lawyers. This “justice gap” falls heavily on the poor, particularly in overburdened state courts.

There is plenty the government, the legal profession and others can do to improve this shameful state of affairs. With the economic downturn, only around two-thirds of law school graduates in 2010 got jobs for which a law degree is required, the lowest rate since 1996. That leaves the other third — close to 15,000 lawyers — who, with financial support from government and the legal profession, could be using their legal expertise to help some of those who need representation.

While the Constitution requires that defendants in criminal cases be provided a lawyer, there is no such guarantee in civil cases. The Legal Services Corporation, created by Congress, gives out federal grants that provide the bulk of support for legal aid to the poor. Over the decades, that budget has shrunk — it was $404 million in 2011, about one-third less than it was 15 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed reducing that to $300 million for 2012. The cut would be devastating; the budget should, instead, be increased.

Half of the people who seek help from legal aid offices are already turned away…

NOTE: There will be only light blogging today because I’m spending some time with my 25-year-old son who is going to get married over Labor Day weekend (!!!)

Yes, well….of course the videos will be key evidence in the horrific Kelly Thomas beating casein which six Fullerton police officers pummelled the homeless and unarmed Thomas into a fatal coma.

The LA Times’ LA Now has the story. Here’s a clip:

Both the FBI and the Orange County district attorney’s office are investigating the incident, and the case has generated an emotional response from residents of the college town who are demanding answers from the police department.

Passengers boarded an Orange County transit bus on the night of July 5 with disturbing stories of a violent altercation they had witnessed between police and a homeless man at the train depot.

“The cops are kicking this poor guy over there. All these cops,” one woman told the bus driver in a conversation captured on a grainy bus surveillance tape.

“He’s almost halfway dead,” another passenger told the driver. “They killed him.”

Exactly what happened that night has become the subject of anger and much speculation in the Orange County community…..

Here’s the longer version of the story that will appear in Wednesday’s paper.

THE MYTH OF THE EXTRAORDINARY TEACHER: WITHOUT DECENT CONDITIONS EVEN THE BEST TEACHERS AREN’T AT THEIR BEST

I missed linking to this LA Times Op Ed by LA teacher Elie Herman, that ran this Sunday, so here it is belatedly. It’s a good read, I promise.

Solitary Watch is a website launched two years ago that is dedicated to bringing the topic of solitary confinement in American prisons into the public conversation.

Here’s a clip from their statement of purpose:

Many Americans have recoiled from the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and polls show that a clear majority oppose the use of torture under any circumstances, even on foreign terrorism suspects. Yet conditions of confinement in U.S. prisons and jails that transgress the boundaries of humane treatment have produced little outcry.

The use of solitary confinement in the United States provides the clearest example of this situation. Solitary confinement has grown dramatically in the past two decades. Today, at least 25,000 prisoners are being held in long-term lockdown in the nation’s ”supermax” facilities; some 50,000 to 80,000 more are held in isolation in “administrative segregation” or “special housing” units at other facilities. In other words, on any given day, as many as 100,000 people are living in solitary confinement in America’s prisons. This widespread practice has received scant media attention, and has yet to find a place in the public discourse or on political platforms.

As part of their strategy, SW posts stories about and voices of those who are now or have been held in isolation. This week, however, the voice is that of a mother whose mentally ill son—who is referred to as “A”— is in solitary in Vacaville.

I’ve not fact checked this tale, but there’s enough here to suggest that her son is in a heartbreaking situation that desperately needs examination before something tragic happens.

Here’s a clip. But read the whole thing, because a clip doesn’t do it justice.

Today I drove the 75+ miles to the California Medical Facility at Vacaville ready to meet with my son’s psychiatrist and social worker, and praying, too, that maybe, just maybe, they might feel some compassion and allow me to see him. I’d had this thought in my head that, somehow, they would let me have a “contact” visit–meaning a person to person visit, not separated by glass from one another.

I had previously expressed how important I felt it was that A receive the warmth and comfort the human touch can bring and that they would see the sense of this and let me hug my son and hold his hand, touch his face, rub his head like I use to when he was younger. He is nearly 30 now. They have him in solitary all the time now.

[SNIP}

On the phone, the doctor had sounded so compassionate and sounded as though she was crying for A, too, as she told me how very lonely he was and how he was becoming more delusional. This was why we had set up the meeting. I had been told that it was never done; that a parent never came to meetings with the doctor or the treating team; but I had begged through the tears of a mother desperate to do whatever is necessary to bring help and comfort to my son and they had agreed…..

She never does get to see her son.

Anyway, read it.

AND IN OTHER NEWS…..IN THE LAPD RETALIATION IS STILL A PROBLEM

In a report released Monday, Nicole Bershon, the LAPD’s independent Inspector General, says that the department still has problems with officers retaliating against cops who report misconduct, and that it does not investigate retaliation allegations well at all.

Joel Rubin at the LA Times has the rest.

CLOSING 70 CALIFORNIA PARKS NOT SO EASY

Jerry Brown announced that 70 state parks are scheduled for closing as part of budget cutting but, as the the LA Times points out in an editorial on Tuesday, closing parks is a bit more complicated than some lawmakers recognize.

Jerry Brown has closing 70 California Parks on his budget cutting list. The LA Times

OH, YEAH, AND MARIA LEFT ARNOLD BECAUSE HE HAD A LOVE CHILD WITH ONE OF THE HOUSEHOLD STAFFERS WHO’D BEEN WORKING FOR THEM FOR 20 YEARS—You know, in case you, like, missed the news.

Lee Baca was just great in the face of the bigoted and staggeringly arrogant questioning from Congressman Peter King’s House Homeland Security Committee hearing on the “radicalization of American Muslims.”

The LA Times’ Robert Faturechi reports:

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca shot back at a congressman who warned him during a congressional hearing Thursday that a Muslim group the sheriff supports is affiliated with terrorists and is “using” him.

The reference to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose Southern California branch Baca has allied with, came during a controversial House hearing on the question of whether American Muslims are becoming radicalized.

“You are aware” that CAIR is affiliated with Hamas, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) said.

“No I’m not aware,” Baca interrupted.

“Let me bring this to your attention ... I’m trying to get you to understand that they might be using you,” Cravaack said.

Baca, noticeably irritated, told the congressman that he is aware of no criminal allegations have been made against CAIR. If there were any such allegations, he said, “bring them to court.”

“We don’t play around with criminals in my world,” Baca said before the packed hearing.

The tense exchange wasn’t Baca’s first on the issue.

During a hearing last year, Baca cut off a congressman who asked the sheriff why he attended CAIR fund-raisers, despite the group’s “radical” speech. Baca called the line of questioning from then-Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) “un-American.

Un-American is right.

A big thank you to Lee Baca for standing up to these fools.

You can find Baca’s prepared remarks here.

WitnessLA has obtained county documents indicating that a deputy probation officer (DPO) working for the Los Angeles County Department of probation has been twice arrested on complaints of child molestation, based on accusations by three of his adopted children—and that’s before you get to the DCFS reports.

Although the arrests did not lead to convictions, in five other instances the officer was the object of complaints of child abuse and child sexual abuse made to the San Bernardino DCFS (Department of Family and Children Services.)

In three of those instances of abuse complaints, the charges were “substantiated” by DCFS.

County documents also show that, for several years, the same officer had a live in “nanny” for the children who also happened to be a convicted sex offender. (When the “nanny” was 19 years old, he was convicted of having anal sex with a minor under the age of 18.)

Yes, you read right. The officer had a live in friend/nanny who is also a convicted sex offender.

Yet, as of May of this year, the officer was still working for LA County probation—and is reportedly working still (although the department’s human resource section won’t confirm, one way or the other).

Most recently, the officer has been supervising adult probationers, not juveniles. The department won’t say if he supervised juveniles earlier in his employment for the LA County or not.

THE NIT-PICKY DETAILS

Okay here, in excruciating detail, is what the county paperwork shows:

In 2002 this officer adopted four children—three boys and one girl—some or all of whom it is believed were in his care as foster children prior to the adoption.

Five times between May of 2001 and December of 2006, allegations of child abuse, sexual abuse and/or general neglect were filed against the officer, and thus required investigation by the Department of Family and Children Services in San Bernardino .

In three out of the five cases, the charges were “substantiated.” In other words, they were investigated and found to be true, according to county documents.

Here’s the list:

On May 24 2001, the charge of physical abuse was substantiated against the officer

On December 4, 2003, another charge of physical abuse was substantiated against the officer—this time along with his housemate.

Three years later, on December 21, 2006, allegations of sexual abuse, plus general neglect and the absence of a caretaker were lodged against the officer. Those allegations were again substantiated.

(Earlier that same year, two other allegations of sexual abuse were made against the officer, and in one case his housemate as well, however they were not substantiated.)

(Okay, I know this is tedious, but stick with me here.)

On the same day that the sexual abuse allegations were substantiated, the San Bernardino Police stopped by the officer’s house to find out why his housemate, the nanny, had failed to register as a sex offender.

According to an article in the San Bernardino Sun. and also according to LA County documents, when the police officers came to the house, three of the officer’s children—one presumes the three boys— alleged that their father had “molested them repeatedly.”

Both the officer and the housemate were arrested on suspicion of child molestation. In the end, however, criminal charges were not filed.

According to a separate LA County document, The officer was rearrested for molestation a week or two later. Again there were no charges.

SO, DOES PROBATION KNOW ABOUT THE MOLESTATION CHARGES, ET AL?

Did LA County Probation higher ups know that one of their officers had been repeatedly slammed with child abuse allegations—with at least three of those charges found to be righteous?

Yep, they did.

And what did they do about it?

Just about nothing.

Read the rest of this entry »

The New York Review of Books has a remarkable two part series on rape in American correctional facilities. The stories appear in the March 11 issue and the March 25 issue, and are written by David Kaiser and Lovisa Stannow.

The first part concerns itself with the prevalence of rape in juvenile facilities, jails and prisons. It starts with harrowing accounts of the abuse scandal at the Texas Youth Commission:

Adults who want to have sex with children sometimes look for jobs that will make it easy. They want authority over kids, but no very onerous supervision; they also want positions that will make them seem more trustworthy than their potential accusers. Such considerations have infamously led quite a few pedophiles to sully the priesthood over the years, but the priesthood isn’t for everyone. For some people, moral authority comes less naturally than blunter, more violent kinds.

Ray Brookins worked for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), the state’s juvenile detention agency. In October 2003, he was hired as head of security at the West Texas State School in Pyote. Like most TYC facilities, it’s a remote place. The land is flat to the horizon, scattered with slowly bobbing oil derricks, and always windy. It’s a long way from the families of most kids confined there, who tend to be urban and poor; a long way from any social services, or even the police. It must have seemed perfect to Brookins—and also to John Paul Hernandez, who was hired as the school’s principal around the same time. Almost immediately, Brookins started pulling students out of their dorms at night, long after curfew, and bringing them to the administration building. When asked why, he said it was for cleaning.[1]

In fact, according to official charges, for sixteen months Brookins and Hernandez molested the children in their care: in offices and conference rooms, in dorms and darkened broom closets and, at night, out in the desert. The boys tried to tell members of the staff they trusted; they also tried, both by letter and through the school’s grievance system, to tell TYC officials in Austin. They did so knowing that they might be retaliated against physically, and worse, knowing that if Brookins caught them complaining he could and would extend their confinement,[2] and keep on abusing them.[3] They did so because they were desperate. But they were ignored by the authorities who should have intervened: both those running the school and those running the Texas Youth Commission.[4] Nor did other officials of the TYC who were informed by school staff about molestation take action……

Part two talks about the solution to the problem that the authors call “one of this country’s most widespread human rights problems, and arguably its most neglected.”

They discuss the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission’s report, which “analyzes the dynamics and consequences of prisoner rape, shows how sexual abuse can be and in many cases already is being prevented in detention facilities across the country, and proposes standards for its prevention, detection, and response.”

In any case, read the stories here and here. This is important work.

PS: Why is it, by the way, that the New York Review of Books has written more thoughtfully and more frequently in the last year or two about the deeper issues surrounding prison reform, than, say, The Los Angeles Times has?