By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States – The self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio has allegedly committed multiple civil rights violations.  The allegations specifically refer to maltreatment of Latino prisoners.  Arpaio has dismissed the complaints as “politically motivated.”

Arpaio has always prided himself as tough on crime, especially illegal immigration.  He has consistently dismissed accusations of using racial profiling tactics.  He is most well known for jailing inmates in tents in the desert and dressing them in pink underwear.

The U.S. Justice Department has began an investigation into alleged systematic discrimination against Latinos, including unjust immigration patrols and jail policies that deprive prisoners of basic Constitutional rights, reports the Huffington Post.  Beyond the civil rights investigation, a federal grand jury has also been investigating criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009, according to the Washington Post. 

The Huffington Post quoted Thomas Perez as saying, “We found discriminatory policing that was deeply rooted in the culture of the department, a culture that breeds a systematic disregard for basic constitutional protections.” 

Perez is the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division.  According to CNN, he added that an independent reviewer described Arpaio’s tactics as “the most egregious racial profiling in the United States.”

According to figures provided by Arpaio’s office, 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in 20 police sweeps since January 2008 were undocumented immigrants.

CNN reports that the Justice Department said Arpaio’s detention officers invoked offensive slurs and profanities against Hispanics, calling them “wetbacks,” “Mexican bitches,” and “stupid Mexicans.”  The report also said that Latinos are four to nine times more likely to be stopped in traffic stops in Maricopa County than non-Latinos are; often times, Latino drivers are stopped and arrested without good cause.

Furthermore, the Associated Press reports that legal U.S. citizens who are Latino were arrested or detained without cause during many of the traffic stops.  Additionally, the civil rights report says that Latino inmates in Arpaio’s jails were punished for failing to understand English commands although they had little to no English skills.  These violations were punished with solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day.  Further denials of basic daily services were also reported.

Arpaio insists that the politically motivated allegations by the Obama administration are uncalled for.  The Huffington Post quotes Arpaio as saying, “The Obama administration might as well erect their own pink neon sign at the Arizona-New Mexico border saying welcome illegals to your United States, may home is your home.”

Jack MacIntyre, Arpaio’s deputy chief said that the Justice Department’s allegations were a “sneak attack by the federal government on the citizens of Arizona,” reports CNN.  Arpaio’s attorney, John Masterson said, “People have an intention to go out on a witch hunt, and that’s what they come up with”

Adding to the political atmosphere, Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry is defending Sheriff Arpaio, according to CBS News.  Perry agrees that the Justice Department is on a ‘witch-hunt.’  “I would suggest to you that these people are out after Sheriff Joe,” said Perry, according to CBS News.

In addition, Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman, Rob Haney has described Arpaio as “a national hero.”  He too believes that the Department of Justice is “tyrannical” and is personally attacking Arpaio for his stance on immigration, reports the Tucson Citizen.

Arpaio previously worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which allowed him to work in Mexico City for some time, developing a compassion for the people there.  “[E]nforcing the law overrides my compassion.  I took an oath of office and I’m enforcing the state and federal law.  I will continue to enforce all the laws,” Arpaio said (CNN).

On top of these civil rights issues, Arpaio is currently facing pressure from his opponents to resign due to failed sex crime and molestation investigations.  The Huffington Post reports that his office said more than 400 sex crimes investigations had to be reopened after the Justice Department learned of cases that hadn’t been adequately investigated, or investigated at all.

As of now, the Justice Department requires Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination that a judge would monitor for compliance, reports the Associated Press.  Arpaio has until January 4, 2012 to decide whether he wants to work out an agreement; if not, the federal government will likely sue him.

For more information, please visit:

CBS News — Perry Defends Joe Arpaio — 16 Dec. 2011

The Huffington Post — Joe Arpaio, Arizona Sheriff, Rebuked by Justice Department for Civil Rights Violations — 16 Dec. 2011

Tucson Citizen — Arpaio is “a National Hero” — 16 Dec. 2011

CNN — Arizona Sheriff Rebuts Federal Allegations of Discrimination Against Latinos — 15 Dec. 2011

The Star (Associated Press) — ‘Toughest Sheriff in America’ Arpaio Violated Civil Rights, Says Scathing Report — 15 Dec. 2011

The Washington Post — Arizona Sheriff’s Office Gets Hit with Scathing Civil Rights Report from Justice Department — 15 Dec. 2011

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States – December 9 officially marked “International Human Rights Day” throughout the world.  Many celebrated by making others aware of current human rights issues.  Among these discussions was a speech given by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton supporting gay rights throughout the nation and the world.

Clinton used her platform not to discuss more obvious human rights abuses, but to talk about the “invisible minority” that is the gay community.  The speech about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals took place in Geneva.  According to the Huffington Post, the speech was far from political, avoiding any praise of the United States; rather, she described the American record as “far from perfect.”

International Human Rights Day commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948.  Generally, the document serves as a reminder that all people are entitled to fundamental human rights and freedoms.

“Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality.  And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments too,” Clinton said.  The Huffington Post reports that she continued on to give examples of countries where men and women can still face death for being gay.  She reinforced the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if not applied equally in all countries, is not “universal” at all.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Clinton used the speech to announce the creation of a Global Equality Fund to assist in obtaining civil rights for gays abroad.  The United States has committed about $3 million to the new fund.  President Obama issued a memorandum further explaining the purpose of the fund.

According to the New York Times, the fund is in place to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

Listeners were impressed and humbled by the speech.  A senior State Department official in Geneva said that Clinton “came not to wag a finger, but to really invite a conversation,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times reports there are still many countries that use violence against gay individuals.  In Turkey, there are still reports of harassment.  In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is banned and sex between two men or two women is punishable by death or flogging.

Overall, Clinton’s speech was well received by the congregation.  The New York Times reports that she received a standing ovation as she left the stage.  International Human Rights Day takes place every year on 9 December, encouraging people to be tolerant of other cultures and values, and recognize some of the atrocities ongoing today.

For more information, please visit:

CatholicCulture.org — Promotion of Gay Rights  Worldwide is a U.S. Foreign Policy Priority, says Clinton — 9 Dec. 2011

The Huffington Post — It’s Not Gay Rights; It’s Human Rights: Clinton Breakd Down the Wall — 8 Dec. 2011

The Los Angeles Times — Hillary Clinton Calls on World  to Not Discriminate Against Gays — 6 Dec. 2011

The New York Times — U.S. Backs Gay Rights Abroad, Obama and Clinton Say — 6 Dec. 2011

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States – Amnesty International is advocating for the United States to stop its policy of courts sentencing children to life in prison without parole.  Amnesty’s recent publication, “This is where I’m going to be when I die; Children facing life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in the USA,” highlights the problems associated with condemning children to life in prison; the report illustrates the problem through the stories of three people.

RTT News reports that there are more than 2,500 adult prisoners serving life in prison in the U.S. for crimes they committed as children.  Further, Irish Times News reports that in the United States, children as young as 11 years old have received life sentences.

Natacha Mension is a Campaigner on the USA at Amnesty International.  She said, “In the USA, people under 18 years old cannot vote, buy alcohol, lottery tickets or consent to most forms of medical treatment but they can be sentenced to die in prison for their actions.  This needs to change.”

As of now, according to RTT, Amnesty International reports that the United States and Somalia are the only two nations that have not ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This convention forbids life sentences without parole for crimes committed by minors, no matter what the crime is.  The convention has been in place for nearly two decades now.

The United States Supreme Court found that “life without parole is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile” because a child offender “will serve, on average, more years and a greater percentage of his or her life in prison than an older offender” will serve for the same crime, according to Amnesty International.

BBC News further reports that Amnesty reinforces the idea that it does not condone child crime whatsoever.  “We are not excusing crimes committed by children or minimizing their consequences, but the simple reality is that these sentences ignore the special potential for rehabilitation and change that young offenders have,” said Mension.

Amnesty’s above-mentioned case study took an in depth look at three people including Christi Cheramie.  Cheramie killed her 18-year-old fiancé’s great aunt when she was 16 years old.  She is now 33 and still in prison, seeking an executive clemency with the Louisiana Board of Pardons.  The report details her childhood which was “marked by sexual abuse” and at least two attempts of suicide.

Amnesty will continue to press the United States to change its policy in this area of law and sentencing, arguing that life imprisonment for a minor is too harsh a sentence.

For more information, please visit:

BBC News– US Must Stop Jailing Minors for Life, Says Amnesty — 30 Nov. 2011

Irish Times News — Too Young to Vote, But They Can Be  Sentenced to Die in a US Prison — 30 Nov. 2011

RTT News — US Urged to Halt Jailing Minors for Life Without Parole — 30 Nov. 2011

Amnesty International — USA Must Halt Life Without Parole Sentences for Children — 29 Nov. 2011

 

by Ryan Elliott
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America & Oceania

MONTGOMERY, United States –While Arizona or even Texas might come to mind when discussing tough state laws on illegal immigration, Alabama has taken center stage in what has been described as the strictest state law on illegal immigration
in the United States. This law enacted last September is so harsh that the Department of Justice said it is unconstitutional, and threatens basic human rights.

The Department of Justice filed a brief with the 11th circuit court of appeals, which according to CNN, stated that the “Constitution leaves no room for such a state immigration-enforcement scheme.” The brief also said that the law was nothing more than an attempt on the part of the state to force illegal immigrants to “deport themselves.” Reporting on the passage of the new law, CNN likened it to “the Jim Crow South,” and “the police state it has created is equally cruel.”

Assuming Alabama’s law were to be enforced in its entirety, it would, among other things: require that public schools deny admission to children who weren’t able to prove their citizenship; an individual who could not supply proper documentation could be jailed or detained indefinitely; employers or even civilians who either employ or harbor illegal immigrants would face certain legal repercussions.

Although a federal court has already stricken portions of this law, most notably the measure that requires public schools to verify the status of students, other provisions still remain. For instance, a provision of the law would allow police officers, in the course of routine traffic stops, to ask for documentation from “suspected illegal immigrants.”

Sponsors of the law, Senator Beason and Representative Hammon, have confirmed that the goal of this new law is to force illegal immigrants out of state of Alabama. But they also are careful to note that the law does not permit racial profiling. However, it is difficult to see where this line is drawn, and how such a provision would “expressly forbid” racial profiling. In fact, this provision has created a great deal of fear and anxiety among Alabama’s growing Hispanic population.

According to the Huffington Post, earlier last week, around 100 opponents of the new legislation, most of whom were young Hispanics, protested around Alabama’s Capitol and the Statehouse. Most protesters were seen holding signs and placards that criticized the new law. Police arrested thirteen protesters, who refused to cooperate with them, for disturbing the peace. A Montgomery attorney, Mike Winter, offered to represent those arrested and acknowledged that some could be held by immigration officials.

Meanwhile, supporters of Alabama’s new law claim that illegal immigrants cost Alabama taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars each year, namely on education and social services. What’s more, with the unemployment rate hovering around ten percent, some supporters feel that illegal immigrants are creating higher unemployment in the state because illegal immigrants are taking Alabamian jobs. In short, supporters of the law feel that if the law achieves its goal, there will be more jobs for Alabama residents.

The law has already motivated some illegal immigrants to leave Alabama. Those who left Alabama did so because of the increased likelihood of being discovered. Perhaps the main factor in individual’s decision-making to leave was a provision of the  law that forbid any illegal immigrants from conducting business transactions with the state. Alabama officials interpreted this portion of the law to mean, according to CNN news, that illegal immigrants could not obtain an annual permit for their manufactured homes. The effect being, of course, that immigrant’s illegal status would become highly visible to residents and law enforcement agencies. Before there was a mass exiting of illegal immigrants, however, District Judge Thompson enjoined Alabama from denying these permits to individuals who could not supply proper documentation.

Several consequences of the new legislation still loom large, however. As in other parts of the country, a large percentage of farm workers in Alabama are illegal immigrants. As a result, many farmers believe that this new law, if enforced, would destroy their capacity to operate. The Washington Post reports that Alabama “farmers say that jobless U.S. workers, mostly inexperienced in field work and concentrated in and around cities, are ill-suited and mostly unwilling to do the back-breaking, poorly paid work required to plant and harvest tomatoes, squash, cucumbers and other crops.” Furthermore, the Washington Post reports that “farmers also say that, if they were to raise wages to make the jobs more attractive, as advocates for the new law suggest, crop prices would soar, making Alabama produce uncompetitive.”

The fate of Alabama’s new law remains to be seen, but it has already been labeled many things, including unconstitutional and an “overreaching of state power” by the Obama administration. Other legislators around the nation have proposed alternative solutions to ameliorate the problems faced by illegal immigration. According to the Washington Post, these solutions might be as simple as having the federal government set a supply of visas commensurate with the demand for foreign labor, or possibly adopting a guest-worker program.
For more information, please see:

USA Today —Ruling on Ala. Immigration Law Averts Exodus, Groups Say — 25 November, 2011

CBS News —Consequences of Alabama Immigration Law Set In –23 November, 2011

Miami Herald — Alabama Lawmakers Defend Immigration Law as Congressional Democrats Challenge It  –21 November, 2011

CNN News– Alabama\’s Immigration Law: Jim Crow Revisited — 17 November, 2011

Huffington Post– Alabama Immigration Law: Police Arrest 13 Protesting Controversial Legislation –15 November, 2011

CNN News —U.S. Makes Case Against Alabama\’s Immigration Law — 15 November, 2011

Washington Post — How Alabama’s Immigration Law is Crippling its Farms–3 November, 2011

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

HAVANA, Cuba – This past week, Raul Castro enacted legislation that allows residents to buy and sell property for the first time in nearly 50 years.  However, do not assume Castro’s new policy is to create a better life for his people.  The Cuban government wants to rejuvenate its economic system, not promote the basic property rights of the citizens.

Cubans have lived under harsh oppression for half a century.  Historically, according to BBC News, parents were able to pass property on to their children, but buying and selling property was not allowed.  The new law, which took effect on November 10, allows Cubans to own a maximum of two properties and to freely buy and sell properties.  Additionally, back in October, the Cuban government passed legislation that allowed Cubans to purchase and sell vehicles, although it is still heavily regulated.

Previously, Cubans lived in overcrowded apartment buildings due to a severe housing shortage, reported BBC News.  Cubans could not legally buy or sell properties, but could merely swap them with each other through very informal processes, according to Salon.com.

While the Cuban government is seeking to overcome economic depression, many are still dismayed by the fact that there are severe restrictions on movement and the lack of a democratic process, specifically a lack of political opponents.

The New York Times calls this new legislation “a major break from decades of socialist housing.”  According to Salon.com, the Cuban citizens appreciate the change, even if it is not for human rights reasons.

Many people are skeptical of Castro’s economic policies over the last year.  His allowance of private enterprise is welcomed, but it has not generated any results as of yet, at least economically.  Castro reiterated the fact that the new law is not designed to promote any kind of accession to wealth, according to The Miami Herald.

The new law allows families to relocate to a bigger or smaller property as is necessary.  However, it is still difficult to manage.  The Miami Herald reports that there are still so many restrictions, and such a housing shortage, that it will be difficult for people to find the place they need.  Cubans are skeptical because corruption is obviously still rampant, and the residents foresee many title issues in the future.

Many hope that this is just the first step of many in promoting human rights and better treatment of Cuban citizens.

For more information, please visit:

Associated Press — Amid Economic Reforms, Cuba Goes After Corruption — 20 Nov. 2011

PolicyMic.com – Cuba Needs to Focus on Human Rights More than Economic Freedoms — 20 Nov. 2011

The Miami Herald — Cuba’s Housing Reform Draws Praise, Doubts — 20 Nov. 2011

Salon.com — Cuba’s Private Property Revolution — 19 Nov. 2011

BBC News — Cuba Passes  Law Allowing Private Home Sales — 3 Nov. 2011