THE
PAGE 5
MAROON
FRIDAY, APRIL 19 2013
PRISON: Opinions on the safety of prisoners varies Continued from page 3 and then classified. “That includes types of offense, criminal history, background, that sort of thing, so that people aren’t all lumped together,” Capowich said. “So that younger inmates, nonviolent inmates, or the minor offenders aren’t housed with gang members and people with a history of violence.” When people are first entering the prison and are being booked, Capowich explains that there is still some concern for inmate safety in central holding areas. “When someone is first booked, while that’s being done, everybody is sort of housed in a central area,” Capowich said. “That’s a problem, because then you automatically have people being mixed together — inmates that is.” Lieutenant Angela Honora of the Loyola University Police Department says that Loyola students who find themselves in trouble with the law go through a certain process once they are arrested. According to Honora, if a student is arrested for the possession of illegal drugs, and they test positive for drugs, they are transported to lockup. “Sometimes they may never get to the second phase of lockdown because they’re usually out before the second process,” said Horona. Professor Medina believes that the current focus on the inadequacies of Orleans Parish Prison should not only concern the citizens of New Orleans, but it should also get them to call out even more strongly for change. “The ability of that prison to continue to work in our community depends on our willingness to accept those conditions,” Medina said.
Due to lack of funds, the Mayor of New Orleans does not support the sheriff’s consent decree which proposes reforms to the prison system.
PROPOSED REFORMS 1. Prisoners should be provided with a safe and secure environment. 2. Orleans Parish Sheriff ’s Office should ensure that all inmates are not subjected to unnecessary or excessive force by staff and are protected from violence by other prisoners.
THE PRISON DEBATE
by dates
APRIL 1 Federal court hearing opened concerning the OPP consent decree.
APRIL 2
3. Orleans Parish Sheriff ’s Office shall provide direct supervision in housing units.
Tapes of inmates partaking in illegal activity were turned over by the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office after a request from the city.
4. Orleans Parish Sheriff ’s Office must ensure that the staff conducts random monthly shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners don’t possess or have access to dangerous contraband.
Federal Judge states that the City of New Orleans was involved in the jail reform negotiations.
According to the consent decree, these are some of the main reforms the department of justice wishes to enforce at Orleans Parish Prison.
the video that started it all In a video presented in a consent decree hearing between Sheriff Marlin Gusman and the United States Department of Justice, Orleans Parish Prison convicted inmates are seen using illegal drugs, flailing a loaded gun, and escaping the prison to cruise down Bourbon Street. The consent decree agreed upon by Gusman and the Department of Justice calls for the reform of Orleans Parish Prison — a prison that, the department claims, violates the constitutional rights of its prisoners.
APRIL 3
APRIL 4 Sheriff Marlin Gusman testified over jail conditions and responded to the video that was released claiming that he doesn’t think that OPP conditions are unconstitutional.
APRIL 9 Mayor Mitch Landrieu asked that OPP be put under full federal control, because he doesn’t think Sheriff Gusman is fit to oversee the jail reforms.
APRIL 10 The city declined Mayor Landrieu’s motion of putting OPP under federal control. Hearings are expected to continue in May.
Appeals court hears challenge to gay therapy ban BY LISA LEFF & PAUL ELIAS Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California’s novel law seeking to ban licensed counselors from trying to turn gay teens straight is boiling down to a question over whether the therapy is free speech or a medical treatment that can be regulated by government. Judges on the nation’s largest federal appellate court considered 90 minutes of legal arguments over the ban on “sexual-orientation change” counseling of minors, which other states are considering. The three-judge panel is considering two challenges to the law approved in California last fall. It took no action Wednesday and will issue a written ruling later. The law was to go into effect Jan. 1, but the court put it on hold pending its decision. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California ban of violent video games because the state failed to show a compelling reason to infringe on game-makers free speech rights to manufacture the products. He said it appeared the same argument could be applied to the evidence lawmakers relied on in
passing the prohibition on sexualorientation change therapy. “We really don’t have anything compelling, as I see it,” Kozinski said. “Government has to have a compelling interest in curtailing speech.” California Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Robert Gordon, who is defending the ban, cited mainstream medical organizations’ support of the law, and testimony before the state Legislature by several people who said they were harmed by the counseling. Kozinski replied that opponents of the law also testified before lawmakers that they benefited from the counseling. Lawyers for parents of children who are undergoing the counseling and licensed professionals who administer the “talk therapy” argued the ban goes too far. But Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel and a lawyer opposing the law, said there is “no evidence of harm.” The law says therapists and counselors who treat minors with methods designed to eliminate or reduce their same-sex attractions would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards.
JOSE LUIS VILLEGAS/ AP PHOTO
Rae Tate, of Sacramento, Calif. leads the supporters of gay marriage during a demonstration at the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento, Calif., on Tuesday, March 26. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second of back-toback gay marriage cases, turns to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples.