Blogs

[Maybe in reality it's five words, Gang Enhancement and Guilt by Association. And The Rest of the Story tells why Gang Enhancement is flawed. Make sure to scroll down or click the header for the full article]

Two Words That Can Get You Life in Prison

By Raj Jayadev

BEFORE REBECCA RIVERA ENTERED the California courtroom to hear if her son, Joshua Herrera, was going to face a life sentence in prison, she gathered with 40 or so supporters, who were bustling with nervous tension.

“I talked to Joshua last night,” she said, “and he wanted us all to know that whatever happens in there—he is coming home.” She began to weep, then collected herself and walked into court.
Rivera had done everything a mother could do to prevent her son from receiving a life sentence. She had brought his story to politicians, students, church congregations and biker clubs. She had organized marches, rallies and press conferences, and she had facilitated a letter-writing campaign. It paid off. Sort of.
In the courtroom, Judge Arthur Bocanegra delivered Herrera’s sentence: 19 years. Rivera’s deepest fears vanished. The only time a mother can celebrate her son being sent to prison for 19 years is when it could have been for life.

With no significant criminal record, no history of violence and a promising future as a firefighter, 24-year-old Herrera had faced a life sentence in a level-four prison. The stiff sentence was based on what is called a “gang enhancement,” which was tacked onto charges against Herrera as a result of a get-tough-on-gangs law passed in Sacramento, California, in 1988.

U.S. appellate court hears cases at McGeorge

By Denny Walsh
dwalsh@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | Page 1B

A federal appellate panel, sitting in special session Wednesday in Sacramento, heard California's appeals in two constitutional cases decided in lower courts against the state and its officials.

Actions For Restoring America:
How to Begin Repairing the Damage to Freedom in America After Bush
http://www.aclu.org/transition/

The next president will become chief executive of a nation that has been greatly weakened - in particular, our freedoms, our values, and our international reputation have been greatly undermined by the policies of the past eight years.

Presidents have enormous power not only to set the legislative agenda, but also to establish policy by executive order, federal regulation, or simply by refocusing the efforts and emphases of the executive agencies. The new president must use all of these tools to restore our freedoms and move the country forward.

Doing so will require determined action in the face of inevitable opposition. It will require conveying to the American people why grants of unchecked power do not actually make us safer, and why Americans must stand firm in protecting the values that at our best we have always represented and defended at home and around the world.

Click the pic

Always Practice Safe Voting

Do you practice safe voting? The ACLU presents its top 10 “safe voting” tips. Voting is fun and exhilarating, but never to be taken lightly. Be sure to always act safely and responsibly when exercising your right to vote. It’s how to make your vote count.

UPDATE: Check out the ACLU’s Voter Empowerment Cards for specific information about voting in your home state. Go to www.aclu.org/vec.

[No on Props 4, 6, 8, 9 and Yes on 5]

Your Guide to Protecting Civil Liberties at the Ballot Box Nov. 4, 2008

NO on PROPOSITION 4

Amending the California Constitution to restrict teens’ access to reproductive health services would put millions of young people at risk. By voting "no," you are defending teen safety, especially for young women who are vulnerable to abuse at home.

NO on PROPOSITION 6

This dangerous initiative would deepen the budget crisis by diverting billions of dollars annually from schools, hospitals, and violence prevention programs into the criminal justice system. It is a misguided effort to incarcerate more and more people, including youth.

NO on PROPOSITION 8

The right to marry is a fundamental freedom – not one for the government to grant to some Californians and deny to others. By voting "no," you are taking a stand for basic fairness.

This is the video produced for the September 28, 2008, annual meeting of the Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union putting together several clips documenting some of the activities of the chapter during the last year.

[This blog is two articles: the first is an editorial in the LA Times on Prop 4, and the second is from the Feminist Law Profs blog on The Shifting demographics of abortion and the political fall-out which talks about the rate abortions getting lower - which everyone wants - but that the rate among non-white and low-income women have fallen more slowly]

Proposition 4 isn't really about parental notification; it's an attack on the right to an abortion.
September 25, 2008

The story behind "Sarah's Law" says a lot about it. "Sarah" was, according to Proposition 4 supporters, a 15-year-old girl who died from an abortion gone wrong 14 years ago, a death that might have been prevented had her parents been notified beforehand. Much of that is false. The girl's name wasn't Sarah; she lived in Texas, not California; and though she was 15, she already had a child and was in a common-law marriage, which means she wouldn't have been covered by the law Californians are being asked to consider.

That's how far the Proposition 4 campaign reached to come up with a poster girl. The initiative purports to protect California girls from dangers associated with abortions by requiring that their parents be notified. But Proposition 4 attempts to solve something that isn't much of a problem. There's no evidence that California's teenage girls are harmed by abortions with any frequency, whether or not their parents have been notified. The most recent known case of serious injury that might have been prevented by Proposition 4 occurred in the 1980s.

Would you allow a stranger to sift through your purse or wallet and take your driver’s license? Would you want your children or grandchildren to tell passers-by on the street what school they attend or their student ID numbers?

Of course not. You know it is important to protect your and your family’s personal information.

But any time that tiny computer chips called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags are included in California IDs, like drivers’ licenses, student badges, or medical and benefit cards, your and your family’s personal information can be at greater risk of being read and recorded without your knowledge.

Anyone with an RFID scanner can read the data stored on insecure RFID chips, from a distance, without you ever knowing, exposing you and your family members to the risk of tracking, stalking, and identity theft.

Take Action Here

Right now, two bills authored by State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) that would help protect the privacy of you and your family are on the governor’s desk. Please send a letter to the governor urging him to sign the bills.

[I haven't had a chance to read the ruling, but I assume the TSA is still using CAPPS or something very similar, which on paper and in gov. and corp. offices sounds like a great idea. But the problem with most ideas that come from well connected people who get to and fro from gov. and corp. offices to the country club in the back of a limo, is that those ideas are mostly about salving someones ego, and not so practical in the real world, i.e. as in using a profiling system to figure out who/m to be afraid of. There was a research paper written a few years ago by some MIT students who used a common-sense approach to explaining why the profiling thesis a.k.a. CAPPS is flawed, called Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System, [make sure to scroll down after clicking] short explanation here

Two articles below: the first is a straight news story on what the ruling was; and the second is an explanation by Anita Ramasastry of findlaw.com]

[~ John]

Court: Passengers can challenge no-fly list

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Critics of the government's secret no-fly list scored a potentially important victory Monday when a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the list violates their rights