#Closerikers and Then What?

I made my way to the #CloseRikers workshop on the morning of March 5th, 2017 hosted by Beyond the Bars Conference. Despite joining the #Closerikers vigil in front of Mayor de Blasio's residence back in December 2016, I was also very interested in the next steps. Close Rikers Island and then what?

The facilitators were Janos Marton, Director of Policy & Campaigns and Erin George, Advocacy Coordinator at Just Leadership USA. Erin and I graduated from the School of Social Work together so it was great to see a familiar face and the staunch level of advocacy your peers are involved in!

They began the workshop by giving a brief history of jails in NYC. Prior to Rikers Island, the New York City detention center was Black Wells Island, currently named Roosevelt Island. Black Wells Island seems to have had an interesting history with multiple owners. I looked it up and turns out it was initially owned by a group of Canarsie Indians called the Minnahanock. Towards the end of the 17th century, it was owned by the Blackwell Brothers who sold it to the City of New York in the early 19th century. It was mainly used for physical and mental rehabilitation which included a penitentiary, lunatic asylums and hospitals. However due to disrepair and buildings being demolished, it was turned into a residential island in 1973.

During this time, the new detention center was already established elsewhere in the name of Rikers Island in 1932.

The facts of Rikers Island are uncontested:

•  It admits an average of 211 detainees a day. Which means that for a given year, an average of 77,000 New Yorkers cycled through Rikers. 
• Violence towards detainees by DOC staff rose every year from 2004 to 2008.
• It costs tax payers of New York an average of $209,000 a year to detain a person at Rikers Island.
• There is a disproportation number of Blacks and Latinos detained: 89%. Given that they comprise of 53% of this city's residents, something doesn't add up.  
• The majority of detainees (79%) are awaiting trial because they are too poor to afford bail. This certainly doesn't align with the justice system's concept of "innocent until proven guilty." 

I have heard again and again horror stories of detainees, specially youth, awaiting trial for many years and experiencing absurd levels of brutality in the hands of Correction Officers. Stories like Kalief Browder come into my mind and it hurts and saddens me that Rikers Island is home to such savagery. 

With that said, it should be noted that many court mandated programs rely on Rikers Island as a condition of a participant's release. When an individual is detained at Rikers, court mandated programs such as Alternative-To-Incarcerations (ATIs) advocate for individuals to be released to the community in place of serving time at Rikers and work with these programs who will monitor them and connect them to services appropriately; be it mental health, substance abuse, housing, income support, educational, vocational or employment. If these individuals become non compliant or ceases to engage with the program, after diligent search is conducted, the programs are required to report this to the Courts who will issue a warrant for their arrest. This process holds individuals accountable and works toward reducing recidivism by assisting with re-entry services. As unfortunate as it is, having a mandate over their heads help individuals in taking this release seriously and not considering it a "get-out-of-jail-free card." What happens when Rikers Island is shut down?

And so I posed this question to the facilitators. The slogan of the campaign is #Closerikers, Build Communities. It sounds self-explanatory and yet in need of more elaboration. They responded that they are working on:

• Speedy trial reform (so as to honor an individual's right under the Sixth Amendment)
• Bail reform (where participants are increasingly Released on their own Recognizance [ROR'd] in place of paying for bail or bond) 

Unfortunately, this still didn't answer my question about what would happen to ATI programs. If you're thinking that we could bring in prisons as the jail alternative in response to an individuals non-compliance is still not the answer. Some of these participants are arrested for misdemeanors, which amounts their sentence to less than a year of jail time. Prisons are primarily for individuals serving felonies; with sentences longer than a year. In addition, prisons are for those convicted (post-plea). Similar to ATIs there are Alternative to Detention (ATD) programs that work towards getting participants ROR'd (pre-plea) into the community. So city jails unfortunately play a role in ATDs and ATIs. 

The other major question posed by attendees at the workshop was what Mayor de Blasio's response has been to the #closerikers campaign. He reportedly stated that closing it down would be too expensive, too lengthy a process, and too complicated. However this is not to say that the Mayor supports incarceration over rehabilitation. Throughout his years he has chartered a number of ATD and ATI programs through the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and the Department of Justice, namely the Supervised Release Program and the Court-based Intervention and Resource Teams. 

I agree with the campaign in that Rikers is beyond reform and needs to be shut down. But I need more convincing in terms of the broader picture and consequences of closing it down. And I'm certain that the same thoughts are resonating in the minds of those closest to deciding the fate of this island, namely Mayor de Blasio. 

The State vs. The People: Government Strategies to Eliminate Protest and Responses from the Movement

Given my own belief that protests are a profound way of bringing about social change, I was interested in this panel hosted by the Beyond the Bars Conference a week ago, which discussed past government strategies to obstruct and end protests and any form of resistance.

This is what they had to say:

Fred Hampton of the Black Panther
Party

G. Flint Taylor, Human/Civil Rights Attorney and Partner at People's Law Office started the discussion by giving a history of past governmental strategies. During the Edgar Hoover Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was established in the 1920s. Towards the end of the 20th century, the FBI began the Cointel Pro, short for Counter Intelligence Program, to initially disrupt the Communist Party in the US and later expanded to include the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panther Party. Flint stated that during these times there were certain code words used by them such as "Neutralize" which reportedly meant "to kill" when attempting to destroy coalitions such as the Rainbow Coalition and Activist and Chairman of the Black Panther Party, Fred Hampton, who was "assassinated" in a police raid in Chicago in 1969. Flint believes that the current government could employ similar strategies to dismantle activist groups and coalitions aligned with obstructing government policies.

Sting Ray Machine

As seen from an x-ray van

Erin Beth Harrist, Senior Staff Attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union primarily represents individuals in cases of repressed First Amendment rights, in other words, free speech. She provided possible techniques and instruments that the government, through law enforcement, could deploy when dealing with protesters. This included sting ray (portable machines which can intercept information off of an individual's phone), x-ray vans, also known as Z Backscatter vans (vehicles which can reportedly scan into vehicles and even individuals), sound cannons, also known as Long Range Audio Devices (LRADs), (a device which can fire noise of upto 150 dB - where an eardrum could break at 160 dB), and the use of drones. Erin further warned that there could be police infiltration into communities and coalitions associated with resistance and conduct mass arrests (for obstruction of vehicular roadways).

Erin added that individuals have a constitutional right to video/record police activity as long as you are in a public space. This goes along way in acquitting individuals who are unlawfully arrested. NYCLU, along with ACLU conduct many 'Know Your Rights' workshops to prepare individuals when encountering law enforcement agencies. 

Radhika Sainath, Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal, spoke about the 'Palestine Exception' for free speech. She played a powerful video of students and other activists around the country who have experienced backlash for engaging in Palestine advocacy. The video, provided here, portrays students speaking of how they abandoned their involvement/association with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement (which works to end international support for Israeli's oppression of Palestinians) or the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in fear of being arrested for allegedly being a terrorist, as many of them are reportedly being labeled. 

The panelists however concluded that despite the risk that comes with protesting and advocating for justice, social change historically comes about as a result of civil disobedience. As Radhika rightly noted, "I don't think there would have been such an immediate response to the recent 'Travel Ban' had it not been for people unexpectedly mobilizing and protesting at JFK and other areas of the country." 

How Do We Respond to Violence? Strategies for Transcending the Punishment Paradigm

At the Beyond the Bars Conference 2017 on March 04, 2017, I attended a panel discussion from individuals discussing the punitive response to violence in this society and underscoring rehabilitation instead.

Panelists included:

Mariame Kaba: Organizer, Educator and Curator 

Ayoola Mitchell: Community & Survivor Outreach Specialist, Insight Prison Project 

Vincent Schiraldi: Senior Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice                                     Policy and Management

Danielle Sered: Director, Common Justice, Vera Institute of Justice 

Moderator: Marlon Peterson, Founder, The Precedential Group & 2015 Soros Justice Fellow

Ayoola started the panel by detailing out her experience with violence. Her 23 year old son was shot 17 times. A few years later, her 19 year old son was shot and murdered. She found out last year that the individual who murdered her son died last year. She remembers feeling sad and not at all vengeful when either of her sons were shot. She stated not wanting the perpetrator to go to prison and instead to be rehabilitated appropriately. "This is the power of forgiveness." 

Mariame has lived in Chicago for 20 years and identified as a victim of violence. She stated that education is of utmost importance. And yet if you are poor you cannot be educated. "And you can't end poverty without ending capitalism." 

Danielle also reported being from Chicago and a victim of violence. She stated that the incarceration of her perpetrator did not deliver healing. She placed importance in Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) programs in addressing violent acts. She discussed the disproportionality in how ATIs are offered to perpetrators of violence in the criminal justice system. "We all know that Whiteness is the oldest form of ATI in the US." When working with perpetrators of violent acts, Danielle stated she saw three common denominators, "Shame, isolation, exposure to violence and inability to meet one's economic needs."

Vincent stressed the importance of "youth first." He stated that youth should never be sent to prisons or jails regardless of their alleged crime. He discussed that these are no place to rehabilitate youth and have vast consequences to their physical and mental health. He spoke about Khalief Browder's case as unfortunately not being one of a kind. He added that violence by Correction Officers are extremely under-reported by male youth. 

This session profoundly impacted me and I think to many others as these panelists spoke about forgiveness. Most of them identified as victims of violence and yet, they spoke about rehabilitation versus punishment. I found this amazing and extremely humbling. 

The US criminal justice system certainly needs to move away from punitive measures in addressing violent acts. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." 

"Invisible Women - The Experience of Women and Girls in the Era of Mass Incarceration"

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, my friend Kacy and I attended a panel discussion at the Union Theological Seminary hosted by Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow". My main incentive to go was of course that Michelle Alexander was hosting it. I had recently finished reading her book and was excited to see her in person. My passion for criminal justice reform was secondary in this case.

Michelle spoke so eloquently about the issue of mass incarceration, about the systemic racial injustice to people of color. She was reportedly told that she can choose any topic for this panel discussion. Her book, "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" included in its Introduction that "relatively little is said here about the unique experience of women, Latinos and immigrants in the criminal justice system... I hope other scholars and advocates will pick up where the book leaves off and develop the critique more fully or apply the themes sketched here to other groups and other contexts." And rightfully so, she picked the impact of mass incarceration on women.

The panel included four amazing female advocates:

 

• Susan Burton, Executive Director, A New Way of Life and Co-Founder of All of Us or None
• Gina Clayton, Executive Director, Essie Justice Group
• Andrea James, Founder Families for Justice as Healing and author of Upper Bunkies Unite And Other Thoughts on the Politics of Mass Incarceration
• Teresa Younger, President and CEO, Ms. Foundation for Women

Michelle began the discussion with Gina, whose loved one is incarcerated. He is reportedly serving his ninth of twenty years in prison. She spoke about working as a public defender and resolving to further examine and expose the harmful impact of mass incarceration on women who have loved ones living behind bars. She founded the Essie Justice Group in 2014 to support and empower women with incarcerated loved ones.

Susan Burton* was my favorite panelist. Susan was in and out of prison for twenty years. A correction officer had once told her, while she was boarding the bus back to her home in Los Angeles after her sixth stint behind bars, “We’ll see you back here soon,” he chided. “We’ll have a bed waiting for you.” Susan was determined to never return again. She checked herself into a residential drug treatment program, got herself clean, found a job and eventually a house. Her next step was to return to the same bus station she was dropped off from prison. She approached women just like her, returning from prison. Susan offered them a house to live and guidance on getting their life back on track. Her venture is called "A New Way of Life."

*Susan was featured in the Star Bucks series, 'UpStanders: Breaking the Prison Pipeline.'

Andrea James served a 24-month federal prison sentence, is a former criminal defense attorney and the Founder of Families for Justice As Healing." While incarcerated she became deeply concerned about the excessive prison sentences that women were serving, an average being ten years, while their families and children were left to survive on their own. She had dedicated her life to advocate for women in prison and to end the war on drugs.

Teresa Younger served as the first female and first African American Executive Director of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Connecticut. She was most recently the Executive Director of the Connecticut General Assembly’s Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW), where she has spearheaded successful campaigns that have resulted in state legislation to raise the minimum wage and provide paid sick leave in Connecticut. Today she is the President and CEO of Ms. Foundation for Women whose focus is on advocating for equal pay for equal work, access to affordable, high-quality reproductive health care, addressing child care costs and parental leave, or ending gender-based violence.

At the end of the panel discussion, individuals from the audience were invited to speak, namely those impacted by mass incarceration. I distinctly remember two women who spoke; one of them was a white lady with a history of criminal justice involvement. She reported that she at first did not know how to speak out on racial injustice, with the fear that her friends of color will say, "Oh what do you know!" After being incarcerated she has been advocating for racial justice and prison reform. The other female was Tiffany McFadden who volunteers her time to assist women in navigating the Family Court Process. She provides them resources and referrals. She took great pride in being a volunteer assisting these individuals. Kacy and I, being paid social workers to also assist our clients, decided to speak with her after the discussion ended to exchange contact information. Who knows, I could refer my clients to her and in turn share any helpful resources I have. I left her with my business card. She emailed me the next day.

Did We Need a Trump Presidency to Wake up and Smell the Lack of Women’s Rights?

Me and my friend, Adriana Lovera, at the #nycwomensmarch

#whyimarch: Over the days leading up to the Women's March, I spoke to various women on their varying perspectives of The Women's March. The responses I received included, "I hate Trump" "For women's rights" "Isn’t this an Anti-Trump March?" to "I'm not going - I don't believe in this march. Half of these women protesting voted for Trump."

That's what I was afraid of. What could have been solely a civil rights march to send a strong and clear message to the new administration about women's rights, had now become a political march. My intention in going for this march was not to protest the new President. I want to protest for rights that women are entitled to. I march for free healthcare, equal pay, Medicaid-funded abortions (even though I don't personally believe in abortions), paid family leave, immigration reform, LGBTQ rights, climate change and ending mass incarceration. 

Marcher holding a sign with the hashtag 'Not my president'

At the Women’s March itself, I felt uncomfortable as people chanted along hate slogans towards President Trump. I was disappointed that the organizers of this march had not fostered a more positive environment of change. I would have appreciated more support from the organizers on what to say and how to say it in order to create a more direct impact. For the folks who wanted to vent about President Trump, they had the chance to do so at the protests soon after the election or on the eve of his inauguration. I was disappointed because I wanted the Trump Administration and other Republicans to take the Women’s March seriously. We are essentially asking for their support of women’s human rights. How can we get them to listen if half the signs and chants revolved around “Hey-Hey, Ho-Ho, Donald Trump has got to go” or “Tiny hands and tiny feet, all you do is tweet tweet tweet.” Apparently when “They go low, we go even lower.” I felt these hate catchphrases towards President Trump was why the protest lost support from many women who sincerely believe in women’s rights and would otherwise have joined in.

While I understand that the President's cabinet choice reeks of people who do not agree with most or all of these rights, let’s pause to ponder. The American woman didn't have access to equal pay or paid family leave even during the Obama Administration. Why didn't we protest then too? Because President Obama agreed and aligned with those rights? But in the face of the new Administration that is blatantly denouncing these rights, we were given a wake-up call about how unjust it is that women get paid less than men, among other issues.

Marcher in NY

As an advocate for social justice and social change, I had a hard time grappling with what the march really meant. Even with the release of the "Unapologetically Progressive Platform" by the Women's March organizers there were differing viewpoints to #whywemarch. I spoke to my sister-in-law, a staunch advocate of women's rights, to process all the messages including the inauguration speech of the new President. And she made a valid point; she said, "It’s crazy to even think this but maybe Trump's presidency caused us to demand for a message with more conviction about women's rights which a Hillary Administration might not have."

Because the former presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, voiced those very rights in her campaign, we would have been complacent in the pace of progress that would have taken place. Again, think about it. If Mrs. Clinton became president, would we be urgently marching for women's rights with such an unapologetically progressive platform - which includes not only supporting access to safe and legal abortions but demanding the right to publicly funded abortions?

As a social worker working within the criminal justice system, I am only too familiar with the systemic issues of mass incarceration, poverty, homelessness, access to healthcare and welfare programs - issues which needed urgent reform even under the Obama Administration.

And so I wish this March came sooner and that we didn't need to wait for the election of a Trump Administration to wake up and fiercely advocate.

My favorite!

As for myself, I march for all women of this country to demand what we have been deprived of - inherent human rights.