Yesterday President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAMA) into law. Not only does it reinstate the earlier VAMA provisions which helped women who suffered domestic violence and sexual assault, it also extends protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans.

"All women deserve the right to live free from fear," President Obama said, (USAToday.com)

Last year the Congress failed to come to an agreement to reauthorize the act. This year, the Senate passed the bill on a 78-22 vote which included every Democrat, every woman, and 23 of 45 Republicans. An attempt to remove the protections for new groups was eventually rejected and the bill passed the House on a 286-238 vote, (FOXnews.com).

"The Violence Against Women Act has set the standard for how to protect women, and some men, from domestic abuse and prosecute abusers and is credited with helping reduce domestic violence incidents by two-thirds since its inception in 1994," (Bostom.com).

Selected VAMA Provisions

• Enables domestic violence crimes against women to be prosecuted in federal courts
• Prevents service providers from refusing services to gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual victims of domestic violence
  
• Offers grants for transitional housing and legal assistance
• Offers grants for law enforcement training and hotlines
• Reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
• Allows Tribal Courts to prosecute non-native attackers of Native American women on tribal lands
• Adds stalking to the list of crimes for which protection is available to undocumented immigrants
  
• Supports programs to reduce sexual assaults on college campuses
• Authorizes programs to reduce the backlog of rape investigations

Native American women experience domestic violence at roughly twice the rate of the general U.S. population. Although Native American Tribes are legally sovereign nations, U.S. federal law and Supreme Court rulings have not enabled Tribal Courts to exert jurisdiction and prosecute non-native American perpetrators of crimes on their lands.

This is a huge barrier to justice for Native American women, nearly half of whom are married to non-American Indians. In fact, nearly "77 percent of people living in American Indian and Alaska Native areas are non-Indian, according to a recent Census report," (AP.org). The latest version of the Violence Against Women Act will change that in regard to domestic violence.

‘‘One of the great legacies of this law is it didn’t just change the rules, it changed our culture. It empowered people to start speaking out,’’ Obama said, (Boston.com)


Resources:

Associated Press, "Congress Passes Bill Renewing Violence Against Women Act," FoxNews.com, 2-28-2013.
Cohen, Tom, "House Passes Violence Against Women Act After GOP Version Defeated," CNN.com, 2-28-2013.
Fonseca, Felicia, "Law Gives Tribes New Authority Over Non-Indians," AP.org, 3-7-2013.
Jackson, David, "Obama Signs Renewal of Violence Against Women Act," USAToday.com, 3-7-2013.
Lederman, Josh, "Obama Signs Expanded Violence Against Women Act," Bostom.com, 3-7-2013.
Parker, Ashley, "House Renews Violence Against Women Measure," NYTimes.com, 2-28-2013.

Capital punishment has been a fiercely debated issue in Nebraska since the drafting of the state's constitution. If you are interested in the history of Nebraska or criminal justice, I encourage you to watch the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications show ...Until He is Dead online. It includes an interview with descendants of the one man killed by the state of Nebraska who was later exonerated.

A total of 37 men have been executed by the state of Nebraska. Fifteen years after statehood, Nebraska conducted its first state execution by hanging, NETNebraska.org. Hanging continued to be the method of execution until 1913 when the state legislature took up the debate. They considered eliminating the death penalty. Instead, they kept it and changed the method to electrocution.

After using the electric chair 15 times, Nebraska ended up being the last state in the union with electrocution as its sole method for capital punishment. When stopping that practice in 2008, the seven-justice majority of the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on the evidence of pain during electrocutions. "It is the hallmark of a civilized society that we punish cruelty without practicing it," CNN.com. Although never used, lethal injection has been the only option for capital punishment in Nebraska since 2009.

                                           Time Line of Capital Punishment in Nebraska

• First execution by Nebraska territorial court, Cyrus Tator, August 28, 1863.
• Nebraska became a state, March 1, 1867.
  
• First legal execution in Nebraska, Samuel D. Richards, April 26, 1879.
• Death of the only executed prisoner in Nebraska later exonerated, Jackson Marion, March 25, 1887.
• A man was hanged twice after the rope broke on the first attempt, Albert Haunstine, May 20, 1891.
  
• Last legal public hanging, George Morgan, October 8, 1897
• Method of capital punishment changed from hanging to the electric chair, March, 1913.
• First execution by electrocution (two men in one day), December 20, 1920
• Most notorious criminal executed in Nebraska, Charles Starkweather, June 25, 1959.
• U.S. Supreme Court blocked capital punishment, June 29, 1972.
• Nebraska Supreme Court issued rulings on four death penalty cases in one day to clarify the use of capital punishment, February 2, 1977.
• The last state execution to date, Robert Williams, December 2, 1997.
• Nebraska Supreme Court ruled electric chair violates ban on "cruel and unusual punishment," February 8, 2008.
• Lethal injection replaced electric chair as means of state execution, September 1, 2009.

 
         "There is a real easy way to avoid ever getting the death penalty. Don't kill anyone else."
                                                                                   --Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning

Early death sentences were carried out by the counties. Since 1903, death sentences have been carried out at the state penitentiary. Of the 70 inmates who have sat on Death Row in Nebraska, 23 have been put to death. One, Charles Starkweather, murdered 10 people on a killing spree in 1958. It was the kind of case in which it is easy for proponents to argue the merits of capital punishment.

                                                              "The state should not kill."
                                                                                   --Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers

In one case, this state took an innocent man's life. William Jackson "Jack" Marion was convicted of shooting to death a friend named John Cameron in 1887. The dead body was paraded into the court. The conviction came after three trials and little evidence. The Clerk of the Gage County Court recorded his sentence: "He shall be taken by the sheriff to the place of execution and be hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead" NETNebraska.org. 

The Omaha Bee recorded Marion's final words on the gallows, "I have made no confession and have none to make. God help everybody. That is all I have to say" NETNebraska.org.  About four years later, someone who did not believe John Cameron was the dead man found him in Kansas and brought him back to Nebraska. It was a century later, in 1987, that Governor Bob Kerry signed a pardon for Jack Marion.

The history of the death penalty in Nebraska presents extreme examples of a state struggling to create a system of justice. How does it sit with your views on crime and punishment?


Resources:

Kelly, Bill, "Until He is Dead: A History of Nebraska's Death Penalty," NETNebraska.org, premiered 2-8-2013.
Kelly Omaha, "History of the Death Penalty in Nebraska," Dipity.com, 1-20-2013.
Mears, Bill, "Nebraska court bans the electric chair," Cnn.com, 2-8-2008.
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, "Capital Punishment: Rules & Regulations," Corrections.state.ne.us, (accessed 2-20-2013).
Young, JoAnne, "Nebraska Electric chair becoming historical artifact," Journalstar.com, 6-26-2008.

We have heard stories in which police use deadly force against what appeared to be a gun-wielding attacker. Later, it may have been determined that the offender held a toy gun or even a cell phone. How is the use of force to be judged in such a situation? By the "objectively reasonable" standard.

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court made this statement when ruling in Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386):

"The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application" (McBride).

This is the current legal standard by which police use of force is evaluated in federal courts. It suggests that one must assess the case based upon what was known/believed by a  reasonable police officer at the time. Whatever may be determined later does not change the perceived danger at the moment. According to Howard Rantz, author of Understanding Police Use of Force (Criminal Justice Press, 2003), court rulings have "affirmed the principle that deadly-force incidents must be judged from the precise moment the 'seizure,' i.e. deadly force, occurs" (Davis).

The must ask if a reasonable officer with similar training and experience would have acted the same in similar circumstances (Roufa).

In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court gave us three factors to consider when evaluating use of force:

1. The severity of the crime at issue,
2. The threat of the suspect, and
3. The level of resistance offered by the suspect (Flosi).

The objectively reasonable standard has begun to replace use-of-force continuum in departmental policies. This includes influential agencies like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Los Angeles Police Department.

This is the general use of force policy of the LAPD:

"Use of Force - General. It is the policy of this Department that personnel may use only that force which is 'objectively reasonable' to : Defend themselves; defend others; effect an arrest or detention; prevent escape; or overcome resistance" (McBride).

We cannot fairly evaluate police actions based on what we learn about an incident after the fact. So it is not pivotal if we later find out that an offender's gun was unloaded. It only matters that the officer involved can articulate the perceived threat to her life or the lives of others at the moment and that her actions be deemed "objectively reasonable." It would be truly unreasonable of us to judge police based on facts they could not have known at the time.


Resources:

• Davis, Kevin, "Officer Survival in 20/20 Hindsight," Officer.com, 1-3-2013.
• Flosi, Ed, "Use of Force: Defining 'Objectively-Reasonable' Force," Policeone.com, 2-8-2012.
• McBride, Kevin, "Objectively Reasonable Standard for Training Officers in Use-of-Force,"  Lawfuluse.com, 10-31, 2012.
• Roufa, Timothy, "Uses of Force in Law Enforcement and Corrections," About.com, (accessed 1-8-2013).