11-12-2009 Georgia:
by Bill Rankin
The Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta will have a new director at the beginning of next year.
Sara Totonchi, 33, will be the first non-lawyer to head the non-profit, although she has long been immersed in some of the center's most high-profile causes -- improving the state's indigent defense system and legal attacks against Georgia's sex offender registry law. The Southern Center, founded in 1976, represents inmates on death row and files lawsuits to improve prison and jail conditions.
Totonchi, a graduate of Berry College, joined the Southern Center eight years ago after working for the Georgia Commission on Family Violence. In recent years, she has been the center’s public policy director and chaired Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Totonchi said one of her main goals as the center's new director will be trying to enhance transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.
"Our office takes the cases no one else will take," Totonchi said in a recent interview. "Our alliance with the underdog is always something that has deeply moved me." ..Source..
November 12, 2009
GA- Southern Center For Human Rights to get new leader
March 21, 2009
Understanding Human Rights
2009:
Every individual has dignity. The principles of human rights were drawn up by human beings as a way of ensuring that the dignity of everyone is properly and equally respected, that is, to ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence, talent and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual and other needs.
Dignity gives an individual a sense of value and worth. The existence of human rights demonstrates that human beings are aware of each other’s worth. Human dignity is not an individual, exclusive and isolated sense. It is a part of our common humanity.
Human rights enable us to respect each other and live with each other. In other words, they are not only rights to be requested or demanded but rights to be respected and be responsible for. The rights that apply to you also apply to others.
The denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms not only is an individual and personal tragedy, but also creates conditions of social and political unrest, sowing the seeds of violence and conflict within and between societies and nations.
Human rights are set out as principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A declaration is not legally binding. It lays out principles and objectives and carries moral weight.
However, a large number of laws and legal documents are based on the principles set forth by the Universal Declaration. Many countries have cited the Declaration or included its provisions in their basic laws or constitutions. And many human rights covenants, conventions and treaties concluded since 1948 have been built on its principles.
A covenant, convention or treaty, unlike a declaration, has the force of law. Those who sign the document, called the signatories, have not only a moral obligation but a legal obligation to respect its terms. A covenant, convention or treaty is signed between states. Once it is signed, it must be ratified by the signatories. This means, that the treaty must be accepted by the country’s own parliament or equivalent legislative body. Then it becomes law.
One of the greatest achievements of the United Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of human rights legislation. For the first time in history, there exists a universal code of human rights one to which all nations can subscribe and to which all people can aspire.
The broadest legally binding human rights agreements negotiated under UN auspices are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
There are six committees within the UN system that try and check to see whether countries comply with the human rights treaties they have signed. These are called ‘treaty monitoring bodies’. These are:
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The Human Rights Committee
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Committee against Torture
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
The Committee on the Rights of the Child
The committees may call upon Governments to respond to allegations and may adopt decisions and publish them along with criticisms or recommendations.
Over the years, the United Nations has developed different methods to investigate human rights abuses and to press for remedial action.
Experts known as special rapporteurs or representatives gather facts, visit prisons, interview victims, and make recommendations on how to increase respect for human rights. They investigate situations in specific countries and conduct thematic studies on such issues as torture, religious intolerance, racism, the sale of children and violence against women. Each year they send thousands of urgent cables to Governments requesting the release of prisoners, the commutation of death sentences or other vital action.
Working groups have been established to investigate such issues as involuntary disappearances and arbitrary detention. Their reports highlighting human rights violations help to mobilize international attention.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the UN human rights programme and promotes universal respect for human rights. Human rights activities in the United Nations are coordinated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. The Office, services the UN Commission on Human Rights and most UN human rights treaty bodies. Every year, the Office receives about 400,000 complaints of human rights violations. ..News Source.. by
March 2, 2009
IL- Do sex offenders have rights?
3-2-2009 Illinois:
Sex offenders in Illinois are punished in a variety of ways but the most substantial takes place in the branding of their identity. Unlike other criminals, sex offenders have to report their every move. They're told where to live and where they can and can't go because their crimes elicit so much disdain from the general public.
As proof, it took about 30 seconds of Internet searching to pull up the number of sex offenders residing in Normal along with their addresses, photos and details of their crime.
New bills in Illinois are raising questions about how much segregation is too much or if there is such a thing. The scope of these new bills' reach is what we find a cause for concern.
While some bills seem to be obvious like banning sex offenders from working in holiday settings and dressing like Santa or the Easter Bunny, others seem to lend a Big Brother feeling like the monitoring of their movements via GPS for the rest of their lives.
Most cringe at the idea that their neighbors may be among those branded for one of society's most unforgivable crimes, a crime that is considered "especially heinous." While this cringe is indeed warranted, it is also the result of the stigma that lawmakers are working hard to keep in place with this new legislation.
Some other ideas being proposed involve banning offenders from Internet dating sites, nursing homes and parts of public libraries.
While we admit that our perspectives place us at a disadvantage in examining these new laws, there is no shortage of angles and ethical questions that need to be considered.
We aren't parents, victims or perpetrators of sex crimes but we are human beings who align our views with those of the American Civil Liberties Union, who claim these new restrictions are unconstitutional and provide the offender with no choice but to start living life "off the books."
While in the case of sex offenders there is no guarantee they won't commit the same crime, it seems somewhat unreasonable to place umbrella restrictions on sex offenders when the nature of their crimes can be very different.
To even consider reforming sex offenders, the facts would need to be considered on a case by case basis. For instance it isn't known if the crime was the result of an innate flaw that provides the propensity to be a repeat offender or if the incident occurred due to statutory rape laws during an otherwise consentual act.
The disparity between types of sex crimes is enormous and the severe range of control within the new bills are as well. We need a more efficient way to classify the variety of sex offenders.
Sex offenders will always have a hard time finding any job, residence or trust from society for the rest of their lives. We say increased restrictions, such as GPS tracking, are not appropriate in every, or even any, situation. ..News Source.. by Daily Vidette Editorial Board
October 10, 2007
The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do Laws Targeting Sex Offenders Increase Recidivism and Sexual Violence?
2006
ABSTRACT:
Sex offenders are universally hated and despised and seen as dangerous sexual predators unless locked up and kept under surveillance. Following a number of highly publicized violent crimes, all states passed registration and notification laws and many passed civil commitment laws. Although these laws were passed as a means to decrease recidivism and promote public safety, the resulting stigmatization of sex offenders is likely to result in disruption of their relationships, loss of or difficulties finding jobs, difficulties finding housing, and decreased psychological well-being, all factors that could increase their risk of recidivism. The civil commitment programs amount to expensive preventive detention and incapacitation rather than treatment; very few have been released. The high costs of the civil commitment programs divert resources from other programs with a better chance of being effective in reducing sexual violence.
Introduction
Sex offenders are the most vilified group in society. People hate and despise them and think they should be locked up for life. Other criminals consider them too abominable to associate with. They are seen as dangerous sexual predators for whom treatment won't work and who are at a high risk to reoffend. These beliefs are widespread, unsupported by facts, and have resulted in harsh laws specifically targeting sex offenders (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004). These laws are easily passed since it is politically dangerous to take any stance other than that of being tough on sex offenders. Such laws include central registries that exist in all 50 states, involuntary civil commitment laws in 16 states, and new laws in several states restricting where released sex offenders can live.
The focus is now on protecting society rather than individual rights. Janus (2004b) notes the paradigm of governmental social control has shifted from solving and punishing crimes to identifying "dangerous" people and depriving them of their liberty before they can do harm. I believe the net result of this may well be to increase rather than decrease recidivism of sex offenders and make society as a whole more dangerous rather than safer in terms of sexual violence. ..more.. by Hollida Wakefield, M.A.
