Sarasota Tackles City’s Growing Homeless Population

14Jul

Sarasota Tackles City’s Growing Homeless Population

July 14, 2016 by Derek Byrd

In Sarasota, Florida, homeless people are becoming more of a mainstay than not. There are far too many, and many of them are homeless because they lost jobs that were good due to the recession.

Sarasota can see the homeless and poor without help, and right next to them is the very wealthy that have nothing to want for. In the city, there is one shelter for all the homeless people, but they are not allowed to sleep outside or in their cars without having to face some sort of harassment, or criminal complaint.

The only shelter in the area can only fit so many homeless per night, so when it is full, the other plighted individuals must find somewhere else to go. Since the weather is nice all year round in that part of the country, they could let them have a camp of some sort, or open more shelters so that they do not have to sleep on sidewalks, benches, and in some cases on streets. These people, are not all alcoholics, or drug attics. No, by far, not, and there are children that are affected.

There is an anti-panhandling law in this city. Those that are homeless, with nowhere to go and no food, cannot ask others for help, or they might reap repercussions from the law. This can hurt the homeless even more, because they can’t get work or housing, and then, they have no where to go. It is almost as if the city just turns its back, and wants them all to die.

The city also closes the parks at dark so that the homeless can’t sleep there, and they have taken out benches, and other such items that might enable a homeless person to sleep there. They have also had outreach teams try to get the homeless to go to the shelter, but there is no guarantee that they will get to stay. It is the hope that they will open up an emergency shelter that can at least help in some way. The Salvation Army will find somewhere for them to stay, but the city is finding that many of them will not accept the help.

The homeless problem will get worse, if it persists. Sarasota needs to talk to other hard hit areas around the country that have a lot of homeless. They need to make more shelters, camps or some place for them to sleep, eat and get back to work and life.

27May

Justice Department Challenges N.C. Transgender Law

May 27, 2016 by Derek Byrd

In 2016, the North Carolina Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, commonly referred to as House Bill 2, was challenged in court by the U.S. Justice Department.

Among other things, House Bill 2 eliminated anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and stated that in government buildings, individuals could only use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates.
After the Justice Department notified North Carolina’s governor and leaders of the University of North Carolina (UNC) system that the law violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act, suit was filed on May 9, 2016.

According to the Justice Department website, www.justice.gov, the complaint alleged that the defendants, as a result of the bathroom and changing facility provisions of House Bill 2, discriminated against transgender public employees and applicants in violation of Title VII. Title VII makes sex discrimination in employment unlawful. The Justice Department claimed that access to restrooms was a basic condition of employment and that denying transgender access to restrooms and changing facilities constituted unlawful sex discrimination.

The complaint also alleged that, under House Bill 2, the defendants were violating the non-discrimination provision of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity and Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The Justice Department asserted that these laws applied to recipients of federal funding.

The complaint sought a federal court order prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the ban under House Bill 2.
That same day, North Carolina’s governor and secretary of public safety sued the Justice Department in a different federal court.

According to the New York Times, that decision was narrow in scope, The judge’s decision applied only to the parties who brought the challenge and found that they had shown that they were likely to succeed in proving that the House Bill 2 access restriction violated Title IX.
“In sum, the court has no reason to believe that an injunction returning to the state of affairs as it existed before March 2016 would pose a privacy or safety risk for North Carolinians, transgender or otherwise,” the opinion stated. “It is in the public interest to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws in a fashion that also maintains longstanding state laws designed to promote privacy and safety.”

12May

Will the US Public Defense System Be Up for Major Reforms?

May 12, 2016 by Derek Byrd

The U.S. Public Defense System is an integral part of the United States criminal justice system. This aspect of the government is based off the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It provides the right for criminals to receive counsel in a federal criminal prosecution case. This is important because not everyone has the means to hire a lawyer in their defense. This Amendment also stops people from being wrongly or unduly incarcerated.

While the U.S. justice system does not work 100% of the time it is far from being ineffective. However, many people within the U.S. (and the criminal justice system in particular) wants major reform to take place. Some people want the U.S. Public Defense System to do a better job with representing defendants in court.

Currently, the U.S. justice system utilizes public defenders, community defender organizations and panel attorneys to provide assistance for defendants. Miranda Rights notices points out how people can receive assistance from the courts if they cannot afford one.

This is very important in terms of ensuring that a person’s Sixth Amendment Rights are not being violated. This kind of violation could allow a truly “guilty” person to go free. So, courts and the U.S. Justice System must ensure that they are on track with providing defense attorneys for people who need this service.

The U.S. Public Defense System is not going to be changed from how it is set up. In other words, any reforms to the system on a federal level will not deviate too much from established procedures. Remember, the U.S. Justice System is streamlined and efficient.

It has been designed to work this way. Even if it seems as if it is bogged down with bureaucracy. The point is that the system works. Once again, the main thing that the system does not want to do is to violate a person’s rights. Whatever reforms that do take place must not strip away these basic tenants of American citizenship.

To make any major reforms to the Constitution would require a reorganization to the U.S. Constitution. That will not happen. If a person tries to do this, they will do so in vein. There are too many governmental checks for any person, group or organization to violate a person’s Constitutional Rights.

So, the type of changes that will more than likely take place to the U.S. Public Defense System will be in terms of how attorney’s serve their pro bono clients. They can be required to provide more time on cases or to provide better representation in the courtroom. However, the Public Defense System will not be altered in terms of how people will receive representation in court. You can find out more information about this process at the Bureau of Justice Statitics Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Guardian.

04Feb

UN Panel to Say Assange Has Been Held Arbitrarily

February 4, 2016 by Derek Byrd

In 2010, the world was rocked over and over again as confidential diplomatic cables from the US government were leaked to the press and the world at large. Behind it all was a man named Julian Assange and the organization that he started for this express purpose, Wikileaks (an organization that publishes information from whistleblowers who wish to stay anonymous). Since then, Wikileaks has continued its mission even as Assange has been hounded by governments from both Europe and the United States of America. This comes from two sexual assault allegations and at least allegation of rape that occurred in Sweden that has had Assange on the run and hiding out.

For the past few years, Assange has been locked away and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom due to the lack of an extradition treaty between the two countries. He has been holed up and unable to leave due to the fact that he would immediately be arrested by the police that have been watching the embassy waiting for that very occurrence to happen. The UK police have been staking out the embassy since Assange took refuge there and have cost taxpayers millions of pounds since it started.

Now a UN panel is expected to rule that Assange has been arbitrarily held captive in the embassy and recommend that he be freed. While the panel isn’t legally binding, it will certainly put pressure on the Swedish government, the UK government, and the EU as a whole when it comes to this manner. Assange first complained to the UN about his arbitrary detention in the embassy in 2014 due to the fact that he couldn’t leave since he would be arrested. The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is going to announce its verdict on Friday but all signs point to them siding with Assange. That being said, Assange has also announced that he will be leaving the embassy regardless of the verdict and will accept arrest if that is what is going to happen due to the fact that he feels that there are no more courses for appeal.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

03Feb

Trump Says Cruz Broke Law to Win in Iowa

February 3, 2016 by Derek Byrd

Since he first burst on to the political scene in the republican race for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump has been confusing pundits and throwing polls askew as he has gained more and more support above his actual politician rivals. Even with an increasingly inflammatory rhetoric that has shocked and disturbed many of the more terrified citizens of these United States of America, Trump has managed to stay ahead of establishment candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush while also outpacing renegade outsider Ted Cruz in both the polls and in vocal support. That is, he had been outpacing Cruz until recently.

Taken from http://gawker.com/donald-trump-says-ted-cruz-broke-the-law-to-win-iowa-1756820310

When the Iowa caucuses rolled around, everyone thought that the polls would hold true and that Trump would win with Cruz coming in second. However when the numbers came through, Donald Trump had come in second and Ted Cruz had taken first place, much to the surprise of all involved. While many other candidates would have accepted these results in stride and started to focus on the next primary, Trump decided to do what he does and complain about how he was robbed. Not only that, but he floated that Cruz very well may have broken the law in the process of stealing Trump’s caucus.

So what laws did Cruz break when “stealing” Trump’s win away from him? There is no answer and the original tweet saying so was quickly deleted and edited, removing the word “illegally”. While there is a chance that Cruz did break a law, it wouldn’t be up to Trump to bring him to justice. There’s no denying that Cruz may have engaged in some shady behavior in regards to helping sink Ben Carson’s already dismal chances at victory (staffers and supporters somewhat spread rumors that Carson had dropped out). That being said, there is no evidence as of now that Cruz broke any laws and a presidential candidate getting caught engaged in libel would be a bad move. With Trump liking to call himself a winner who never loses, this lose clearly stung and he’s lashing out once again.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

03Feb

Florida Needs to Fix it’s Death Penalty Law

February 3, 2016 by Derek Byrd

The death penalty has caused controversy since it was first made a legal possibility and this controversy has only increased every year as more and more people come out against it. While the death penalty is legal under federal law, various states have made it illegal over time. It is currently legal in 32 states with prisoners in 35 states currently on death row (the death penalty is illegal in Connecticut, Maryland, and New Mexico but isn’t retroactive so prisoners who were on death row will still be executed). Now it seems as though the Supreme Court is being called in to look at certain state’s death penalty laws.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the way Florida handed down its death penalty rulings is unconstitutional and needed to be changed. This is a big deal for a number of reasons, one of which is that Florida currently has one of the country’s most crowded death row systems and seems to hand out the death penalty with more ease than other states in which it’s legal. With the Florida lawmaking session ending in six weeks and prosecutions for cases that have capital punishment as a possible sentence currently stalled, lawmakers in Florida are rushing to create new legislation that will answer the concerns of the court while simultaneously keeping constituents happy.

Up until now, Florida’s death penalty only required a simple majority of a 12-person jury to recommend a death sentence to a judge who would then decide on the punishment — most other states require unanimous jury recommendations. With the 2nd largest number of inmates on death row (behind only California) but the highest execution rate in the country, Florida’s court system is now in turmoil as it tries to figure out a fix. The Supreme Court ruled that the current law gave too much power to judges and not enough to juries, flying in the face of the Sixth Amendment and becoming unconstitutional in the process. While there is no set fix to the ruling yet, it will be interesting to see whether the laws change on a grand scale or simply on a smaller scale targeted to this specific ruling.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

18Dec

Han Shot First and the Law is Ok With It

December 18, 2015 by Derek Byrd

There’s no denying that stand-your-ground laws cause controversy and concern in our country. However, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, the use of force to defend yourself when you feel as though your life is threatened is respected throughout all states in the union, regardless of whether or not the state has a stand-your-ground law. People in our country are allowed to defend themselves to the death (either theirs or that of their opponent) if they feel as though there is a legitimate threat to their wellbeing.

If we were to take this law and apply it to all planets in the universe (both fictional and non-fictional), we would inevitably come to the classic Star Wars question of who shot first, Han or Greedo? It turns out that Han did shoot first (this was learned a while ago) and it was only in later versions of the movie that it was edited so the Greedo shot first, therefore preserving Han’s legacy as a hero. However, if we apply the law of the United States of America to Tatooine, it wouldn’t have mattered if Han shot first. Under US law, he felt as though his life was in danger and therefore his shooting of Greedo before Greedo shot wouldn’t sentence him to a murder charge.

When George Lucas changed the original scene in the re-release of the movie, he earned the ire and anger of Star Wars fans across the world. Now it seems as though those edits wouldn’t have mattered. Thanks to an article by University of Alabama School of Law professor John Gross, fans can rest easy in the fact that their anger was righteous and Han’s shooting first wouldn’t have changed the essence of his character. Lucas said that he changed the scene because he didn’t want Solo to be seen as a cold-blooded killer. As Gross’ article clearly states, Han’s shooting first wouldn’t have made him a murderer because his actions were totally justified.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

18Dec

Florida Dog Bite Law is Overturned After Review

December 18, 2015 by Derek Byrd

Recently, I wrote a post about a law that is being challenged in my hometown of Sarasota, Florida. The law I spoke about has been a source of controversy since it was enacted and says that any dog who bites a person hard enough to require stitches or reconstructive surgery, regardless of the reason behind the bite, has to be euthanized due to it being a danger to people. As you can expect, there are a number of reasons that this law has faced the amount of criticism that it has — the law is very cut and dry and unless there are concerted efforts at appeals, the law ignores any context behind the dog bite (even if the dog was biting an intruder during a home invasion).

The law was finally brought under legal review when a dog named Padi bit a child’s ear after allegedly being instigated. What is agreed is that the dog moved to a corner to escape the child only to have the child follow it, leading to the eventual bite. Padi’s owner, Dr. Paul Gartenberg, brought the case to court where a judge ended up reviewing the law as a whole. Judge Andrew Owens ended up throwing both the case against Padi out of court, as well as declaring the law “arbitrary and unduly oppressive.”

This overturning of the law and it being struck down is with no doubt a huge weight off of the shoulders of all dog owners in the state of Florida. Dogs are animals and even the best trained dog will lash out either in fear or panic when it is backed into a corner with no chance of escape. Just like you wouldn’t punish a human as fully for hurting someone in self-defence, the same should goes for dogs because they’re just animals. Hopefully this law will lead to less needless deaths for pets that are honestly more than just pets, they’re family members.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

13Oct

Sarasota Sheriff’s Office to Receive Heroin Medication

October 13, 2015 by Derek Byrd

More and more reports seem to be flooding the news regarding the ongoing fight against the heroin epidemic that has struck much of the country. Heroin is becoming a larger and larger issue in the United States due to the easy access (and frequently unnecessary prescriptions from doctors), the high chance for addiction and abuse, and the high price involved in getting pills. As heroin becomes more and more prevalent, and rates of addiction go up, governments across the board (both at the state and federal level) are working hard to both stem the tide of addiction, as well as provide the necessary treatment and guidance for those who need it.

The Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office announced Friday that they received a donation of 800 doses of naloxone, a drug that stops the effects of an opioid overdose and saves victims from death. KATE IRBY/Bradenton Herald

The Sarasota Sheriff’s Office is going to be the first law enforcement agency in Florida to receive funding from a new law that is aiming to fight heroin on a series of levels. This new law will allow officers to administer medication to people who are overdosing on heroin and other opioids and drugs. The officers have received 800 doses of EVZIO — an auto-injector of naloxone, which immediately stops the effects of a heroin or opioid overdose upon injection — in a donation from the manufacturer of the drug, Kaléo. The donations amount to about $320,000 and the drug is both easy to use and provides no harmful side-effects to people who aren’t overdosing but have been injected by accident.

With 99 deaths due to opiate overdose in 2014 and a much higher number expected for 2015, these drugs and the training officers will receive will be truly life-saving. While the drug won’t cure addiction (it will only help fight overdoses), it will allow victims to survive, recover, and give them more time with their family and loved ones, increasing the chance that they will enter a treatment program. This is the perfect example of laws cutting through bureaucracy and finding bipartisan support for a cause that is obviously in need of tackling. Hopefully the price for individual doses of this medicine will decrease (it’s still high and preventing other counties from taking advantage of this law) so that more doses can be used to save more lives.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

08Oct

Australian Data Retention Law Begins

October 8, 2015 by Derek Byrd

We live in a world where both people and governments are becoming more and more paranoid about each other and their neighbors every day. Over the past few years, we’ve seen how the international political community has been rocked by the leaking of intelligence data regarding the NSA and the US government spying on both friends, its own civilians, and foes. While it’s an unspoken acknowledgement that all countries spy on each other regardless of relations, the US broke the cardinal rule of not getting caught. Now, as this sense of technological paranoia continues to grow, a new Australian law aimed at data retention and surveillance has begun today.

This newest law is proving to be controversial to say the least. It requires telecommunication companies to to hold on to metadata for 2 years, allowing the Australian government to access said data for security purposes. The companies would hold on to data including who called or texted, the amount of data sent/time spent on a call, the locations, the device used, the email IP data, and more. Holding on to this information would allow the government to access it easier and use it to pursue national security interests and concerns. With the rise of extremism and terrorism in all aspects of society, this sort of data can be used to learn about and prevent attacks of any sort before they begin.

As anyone can expect, this new law has been proving very controversial in Australia since it was first brought up. While the government claims that the law is necessary for protection from terrorism, both domestic and external, privacy activists and other citizens are claiming a breach of privacy and the possibility for racial and religious profiling. Along with claims of the law demanding too much information for crimes that are both major and minor, another concern is that a warrant is no longer needed to request any of this information.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.