Monday, June 24, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Life-Producing Phosphorus From Asteroids 3.5 Billion Years Ago Could Have Boosted Early Life On Earth, Study Finds
Researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) and the University of Washington suggest that life-producing phosphorus from asteroid impacts 3.5 billion years ago may have boosted early life on Earth.
Scientists have always been curious to solve the mystery behind how life on Earth can be linked to asteroids. Finally, researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) and the University of Washington may have found what scientists have been looking for all these years. According to them, life-producing phosphorus from asteroid impacts 3.5 billion years ago may have boosted early life on Earth.
The phosphorus may have incorporated themselves into prebiotic molecules when released in water. According to USF professor Matthew Pasek, this phosphorus is mostly found in asteroids and could have been brought to earth by meteoroids and comets and released the life-producing element on the planet after an impact.
Scientists of the study revealed that meteorites delivered phosphorus in minerals that are currently not seen on the surface of Earth. They focused on the early period of Earth and after examining core samples from Zimbabwe, Australia, Wyoming, West Virginia and Florida, they were able to determine the mineral's origin.
According to researchers, "the minerals likely corroded in water, releasing large amounts of phosphorus in a form only found during Earth's early formation. The phosphite would have likely resulted in an adjusting of the chemistry of Earth's early oceans, with its chemical signature later becoming trapped in marine carbonate where it was preserved."
Though there are a few natural sources of phosphite that are Earth-based, none of them are capable of producing the quantities of phosphite needed to be dissolved in early Earth oceans that gave rise to life
"The importance of this finding is that it provides the missing ingredient in the origin-of-life recipe: a form of phosphorus that can be readily incorporated into essential biological molecules," said Roger Buick, a co-author of the study.
Scientists have always been curious to solve the mystery behind how life on Earth can be linked to asteroids. Finally, researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) and the University of Washington may have found what scientists have been looking for all these years. According to them, life-producing phosphorus from asteroid impacts 3.5 billion years ago may have boosted early life on Earth.
The phosphorus may have incorporated themselves into prebiotic molecules when released in water. According to USF professor Matthew Pasek, this phosphorus is mostly found in asteroids and could have been brought to earth by meteoroids and comets and released the life-producing element on the planet after an impact.
Scientists of the study revealed that meteorites delivered phosphorus in minerals that are currently not seen on the surface of Earth. They focused on the early period of Earth and after examining core samples from Zimbabwe, Australia, Wyoming, West Virginia and Florida, they were able to determine the mineral's origin.
According to researchers, "the minerals likely corroded in water, releasing large amounts of phosphorus in a form only found during Earth's early formation. The phosphite would have likely resulted in an adjusting of the chemistry of Earth's early oceans, with its chemical signature later becoming trapped in marine carbonate where it was preserved."
Though there are a few natural sources of phosphite that are Earth-based, none of them are capable of producing the quantities of phosphite needed to be dissolved in early Earth oceans that gave rise to life
"The importance of this finding is that it provides the missing ingredient in the origin-of-life recipe: a form of phosphorus that can be readily incorporated into essential biological molecules," said Roger Buick, a co-author of the study.
Monday, April 15, 2013
For 3 Years After Killing, Evidence Fades as a Suspect Sits in Jail
They brought him into the Bronx courtroom late on that first day of the trial, his prisoner’s chains jingling.
But Chad Hooks, 23 years old and charged with murder, was used to waiting. He had been waiting for three years, seven months and three days at Rikers Island for a trial that never seemed to come.
“I hear the same excuse every time: ‘Not ready,’ or, ‘We’re doing something that’s more important,’ ” he had said at the jail. “I feel like I’ll die here.”
Melissa Lawyer had waited, too. Mr. Hooks was charged with shooting to death her 21-year-old son, Jevon, in a grimy hallway on Southern Boulevard near Hunts Point Avenue in the Bronx. For nearly four years, her hopes for justice had been choked by gnawing worry.
She had had nightmares in which Mr. Hooks was chasing her. She said it meant he would get away with murder.
This little-noticed case at the Bronx County Hall of Justice became a parable of the way delays infect trials with murkiness, mocking the very idea that courts do their best, when it matters most, to find out what really happened.
As the years passed, memories turned hazy. Detectives retired. One witness recanted. Two were lost and then found again. By the time the prosecutors said they were ready for trial on a September day in 2012, a fourth witness — the star witness — had been shot to death in the Bronx. What were left were contradicting claims and missing answers.
Sometimes it seemed that the lawyers and judges had forgotten about clocks altogether.
The defense said Mr. Hooks was an innocent man who had been tormented to the point of ruin by his wait for justice. The prosecution suggested he was a wily killer using the passage of time to silence the witnesses against him.
In other parts of the country, this case might be old enough to raise questions about whether the Constitution’s promise of a speedy trial had any meaning at all. But this was far from the oldest case in the Bronx, where court delays have compounded for decades, mounting a crisis severe enough to challenge the basic notion of justice.
But now, finally, in that courtroom on 161st Street, the assistant district attorney, April Cohen, rose. There was an expectant rustle in the mostly empty courtroom.
Chad Hooks’s mother listened on one side. Jevon Lawyer’s mother on the other.
The prosecutor’s first words, however, were not about the killing of Mr. Lawyer. They were a request for days off. She had three scheduled. And then she would need a day when her nephew was born and then a day to celebrate the birth.
The judge said he was confused about why a trial had to be put off because someone else was having a baby. “Maybe I’m missing something?” he asked, though eventually the prosecutor ended up getting the time off.
That first day of the trial was the 1,311th day of waiting for Mr. Hooks’s day in court.
But Chad Hooks, 23 years old and charged with murder, was used to waiting. He had been waiting for three years, seven months and three days at Rikers Island for a trial that never seemed to come.
“I hear the same excuse every time: ‘Not ready,’ or, ‘We’re doing something that’s more important,’ ” he had said at the jail. “I feel like I’ll die here.”
Melissa Lawyer had waited, too. Mr. Hooks was charged with shooting to death her 21-year-old son, Jevon, in a grimy hallway on Southern Boulevard near Hunts Point Avenue in the Bronx. For nearly four years, her hopes for justice had been choked by gnawing worry.
She had had nightmares in which Mr. Hooks was chasing her. She said it meant he would get away with murder.
This little-noticed case at the Bronx County Hall of Justice became a parable of the way delays infect trials with murkiness, mocking the very idea that courts do their best, when it matters most, to find out what really happened.
As the years passed, memories turned hazy. Detectives retired. One witness recanted. Two were lost and then found again. By the time the prosecutors said they were ready for trial on a September day in 2012, a fourth witness — the star witness — had been shot to death in the Bronx. What were left were contradicting claims and missing answers.
Sometimes it seemed that the lawyers and judges had forgotten about clocks altogether.
The defense said Mr. Hooks was an innocent man who had been tormented to the point of ruin by his wait for justice. The prosecution suggested he was a wily killer using the passage of time to silence the witnesses against him.
In other parts of the country, this case might be old enough to raise questions about whether the Constitution’s promise of a speedy trial had any meaning at all. But this was far from the oldest case in the Bronx, where court delays have compounded for decades, mounting a crisis severe enough to challenge the basic notion of justice.
But now, finally, in that courtroom on 161st Street, the assistant district attorney, April Cohen, rose. There was an expectant rustle in the mostly empty courtroom.
Chad Hooks’s mother listened on one side. Jevon Lawyer’s mother on the other.
The prosecutor’s first words, however, were not about the killing of Mr. Lawyer. They were a request for days off. She had three scheduled. And then she would need a day when her nephew was born and then a day to celebrate the birth.
The judge said he was confused about why a trial had to be put off because someone else was having a baby. “Maybe I’m missing something?” he asked, though eventually the prosecutor ended up getting the time off.
That first day of the trial was the 1,311th day of waiting for Mr. Hooks’s day in court.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Blindsided: The exoneration of Brian Banks
The news at CBS--or any other outlet--isn't supposed to be your personal PR machine. Bringing attention to the damaged lives that too many people have experienced because they were wrongly (rape victim misidentifies their attacker) or falsely (the accuser was never raped and are saying they were) accused is just as important as bringing attention to the damaged lives people experience because they've been sexually assaulted.
If rape is such a horrible crime that the innocent victim deserves anonymity because of the vile nature of the crime, so too does the person actually being accused of committing the crime. If the stigma attached to the crime is so overwhelming as to make the victim a pariah, how much worse is the stigma (and rightfully so) for the person responsible for the crime? Once the accusation is made the name of the accused is forever tied to the accusation, and for far too many people the accusation only is enough to confirm guilt. Even after the accused has been acquitted, the spectre of the accusation haunts them for the rest of their lives. The accused and the accuser should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is handed down and appeals are exhausted.
It's better that ten guilty men walk free than it is for one innocent man to be sent to jail (or worse)--or so it is said about justice in the western world. Unfortunately there are too many who would lower the burden of proof and deny the accused their right to a fair trial where they must be found "not guilty" if their guilt cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The internet is chock full of stories about men like Brian Banks who have been exonerated at a later date either by a new examination of physical evidence or by their accuser recanting their story.
Ours is not a society that in any way condones rape, despite what those who coin terms like "rape culture" would have you believe. The backlash against the city of Steubenville and its local school football team over recent rape allegations there is evidence that the vast majority of people in this country were/are deeply concerned with the consequences for the victim and want alleged abusers handled quickly and as severely as possible.
If rape is such a horrible crime that the innocent victim deserves anonymity because of the vile nature of the crime, so too does the person actually being accused of committing the crime. If the stigma attached to the crime is so overwhelming as to make the victim a pariah, how much worse is the stigma (and rightfully so) for the person responsible for the crime? Once the accusation is made the name of the accused is forever tied to the accusation, and for far too many people the accusation only is enough to confirm guilt. Even after the accused has been acquitted, the spectre of the accusation haunts them for the rest of their lives. The accused and the accuser should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is handed down and appeals are exhausted.
It's better that ten guilty men walk free than it is for one innocent man to be sent to jail (or worse)--or so it is said about justice in the western world. Unfortunately there are too many who would lower the burden of proof and deny the accused their right to a fair trial where they must be found "not guilty" if their guilt cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The internet is chock full of stories about men like Brian Banks who have been exonerated at a later date either by a new examination of physical evidence or by their accuser recanting their story.
Ours is not a society that in any way condones rape, despite what those who coin terms like "rape culture" would have you believe. The backlash against the city of Steubenville and its local school football team over recent rape allegations there is evidence that the vast majority of people in this country were/are deeply concerned with the consequences for the victim and want alleged abusers handled quickly and as severely as possible.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Innocent and locked up
When musician Bill Dillon takes to the stage Wednesday in the Genome Sciences Building for the distinguished speaker series on innocence, justice and the death penalty, he will share his story of the wrongful conviction that kept him locked up in a Florida prison for 27 years of his life.
His story of wrongful conviction and serving years of time for a crime he did not commit is all too common.
The Innocence Project, an organization that works to free wrongfully convicted prisoners through DNA testing, made Dillon’s exoneration possible.
And in North Carolina, organizations like the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence coordinate with law schools around the state to help prisoners appeal their convictions.
Since its inception in 1992, the Innocence Project and organizations like it have cleared the names, reputations and records of 302 prisoners.
Nearly 200 of those prisoners were African-American.
Amnesty International reports that in cases in which the victim is white, African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants.
According to the Equal Justice Institute, studies of jury selection processes in eight Southern states found that racial discrimination in jury selection still runs rampant in the South. And a study by the N.C. American Civil Liberties Union found that 40 percent of the defendants on death row in North Carolina were sentenced to die by juries with only one or no people of color.
The racial inequities that exist within not only the North Carolina justice system but also across the nation are plainly horrifying.
Jury trials and sentencing are based on the idealistic notion that the participants in the process hold no prejudices or biases. But based on numerous research studies, that idea is anything but realistic. The current system allows for racial disparities to occur and disregards the significant role race plays in jury selection and sentencing.
North Carolina aimed to redress racial discrimination in the state’s justice system in 2009 with the Racial Justice Act.
The act allows for the presentation of evidence that could prove that race was a significant factor in imposing the death penalty. If race is found to be a significant factor in sentencing, the defendant is resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The effectiveness of the act has been threatened by a 2012 revision to the act which limited the sort of data that would be admissible as proof of racial bias or discrimination.
The revision has essentially watered down the act’s intent by deeming statistical data about racial bias or the race of the victim insufficient in proving that race played a role in sentencing.
Acknowledgement of the racial disparity that exists in the North Carolina justice system is the starting point of a journey to correct a broken system.
His story of wrongful conviction and serving years of time for a crime he did not commit is all too common.
The Innocence Project, an organization that works to free wrongfully convicted prisoners through DNA testing, made Dillon’s exoneration possible.
And in North Carolina, organizations like the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence coordinate with law schools around the state to help prisoners appeal their convictions.
Since its inception in 1992, the Innocence Project and organizations like it have cleared the names, reputations and records of 302 prisoners.
Nearly 200 of those prisoners were African-American.
Amnesty International reports that in cases in which the victim is white, African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants.
According to the Equal Justice Institute, studies of jury selection processes in eight Southern states found that racial discrimination in jury selection still runs rampant in the South. And a study by the N.C. American Civil Liberties Union found that 40 percent of the defendants on death row in North Carolina were sentenced to die by juries with only one or no people of color.
The racial inequities that exist within not only the North Carolina justice system but also across the nation are plainly horrifying.
Jury trials and sentencing are based on the idealistic notion that the participants in the process hold no prejudices or biases. But based on numerous research studies, that idea is anything but realistic. The current system allows for racial disparities to occur and disregards the significant role race plays in jury selection and sentencing.
North Carolina aimed to redress racial discrimination in the state’s justice system in 2009 with the Racial Justice Act.
The act allows for the presentation of evidence that could prove that race was a significant factor in imposing the death penalty. If race is found to be a significant factor in sentencing, the defendant is resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The effectiveness of the act has been threatened by a 2012 revision to the act which limited the sort of data that would be admissible as proof of racial bias or discrimination.
The revision has essentially watered down the act’s intent by deeming statistical data about racial bias or the race of the victim insufficient in proving that race played a role in sentencing.
Acknowledgement of the racial disparity that exists in the North Carolina justice system is the starting point of a journey to correct a broken system.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Exposing Child Predators Without Defaming the Innocent
One Orthodox Jewish website exposes people accused of sex crimes against children, such as rape, even when no criminal charges have been filed. They do this in an effort to prevent sex offenders from evading the law by virtue of the statute of limitations, to fight years of institutional sex abuse cover-ups, to empower victims and to inform the public of potential dangers.
But is there a risk that an innocent person will be exposed in the fight to bring justice to victims?
Under its “Wall of Shame” Jewish Community Watch (JCW) lists convicted sex offenders, accused offenders with pending charges and others who have not been arrested and have had no formal charges filed against them. Thirty-two individuals are on the registry. JCW conducts its own investigations, including interviewing accusers, before listing un-arrested individuals on its “Wall of Shame.”
Last month, on the day Nechemya Weberman was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing a girl he was supposed to be mentoring, the Brooklyn DA office presented an award of excellence to JCW, praising the organizations efforts of exposing child predators and assisting survivors in recovery. DA Hynes remarked that JCW’s work “has been instrumental” in creating change in the tight-knit Hasidic community.
JCW’s work marks major progress in the Orthodox worlds willingness to openly confront sexual abuse. Since JCW’s inception in 2011, the Brooklyn Orthodox community has seen as many sexual abuse-related arrests and reports as there have been in the past 20 years.
There is a need to inform the public of suspected sex offenders and empower victims on the one hand but also a need to ensure that innocent people aren’t wrongly exposed. How do you balance those two interests when un-arrested individuals are accused of sex crimes? When there is a public record, such as an arrest or conviction, there is no issue with reporting that information, but what happens when there is no public record of the alleged crime?
JCW’s published criteria for deciding whether to put up un-arrested individuals on the “Wall of Shame” is vague and evasive. Under the “Our Criteria” section, they don’t list actual criteria but instead argue that “listing our criteria would make it far easier for false allegations to be made” and “would enable said child molester to ensure that he or she did not meet any of those criterions.”
Shrouding their criteria in a veil of secrecy needs reconsideration. The lack of clear guidelines and transparency diminishes the organization’s credibility, exposes them to further legal liability, and feeds into fears of a witch-hunt mentality. If processes are not revealed for fear that alleged offenders may outsmart the system, at least all supporting documentation should be disclosed in an open and apparent manner.
The media often publishes accusations of un-arrested individuals but the stories are adversarial in nature, present all the facts, and usually give the accused an opportunity to respond. But even the media gets it wrong sometimes as they did in the high-profile Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Greg Kelly cases where the allegations of rape were ultimately dropped, but the journalistic process still minimizes the risk of error.
JCW certainly has a right to exercise their freedom of speech and the press when it comes to informing the community about abuse. They have demonstrated a commitment to protecting children in the Jewish community and have given a voice to the voiceless victims of sex abuse. Ultimately, someone wrongly accused can always resort to a defamation claim, but considering the tight-knit nature of the community, that person’s reputation would be tarnished forever. Extreme caution needs to be taken before publicizing alleged offenders.
Perhaps JCW should adopt a more journalistic approach where for example they publish statements by the therapist of a survivor, detailing how their patient is a victim of sexual abuse and why they believe the person accused is the one responsible for their trauma (of course with the patients approval).
Only report individuals that have multiple independent victims corroborating the allegations of abuse, which JCW implies that it does.
Publish detailed accounts of the allegations from all of the accusers.
They should even give the alleged offender an opportunity to issue a published statement responding to the accusations, so the public is able to better judge a claim and the accused has a chance to publicly respond. They should clearly state that the accused is presumed innocent unless convicted.
JCW protecting the identity of the victims is a good policy but at the same time they need to provide more information to the public. Maintaining the anonymity of an accuser is vital in protecting them from retaliation, intimidation and threats. The media and courts often maintain victim anonymity in sensitive sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors.
Of course the most error free approach would be to only publish information that is already a matter of public record, such as adjudicated sex offenders, arrests and public investigations. But this approach would give free reign to the countless sex offenders that have evaded the statute of limitations.
There is no easy answer in the quest to balance the need to inform the public of potential danger with ensuring the innocent are not defamed in the zealous pursuit of justice, but a high standard of journalistic integrity should be required before someone is publicly outed as a sex offender.
Eliyahu Federman has written extensively on subjects ranging for sexual abuse awareness, gender equality and improving police-community relations. He graduated law school in NY, where he served as an executive editor of law review.
One Orthodox Jewish website exposes people accused of sex crimes against children, such as rape, even when no criminal charges have been filed. They do this in an effort to prevent sex offenders from evading the law by virtue of the statute of limitations, to fight years of institutional sex abuse cover-ups, to empower victims and to inform the public of potential dangers.
But is there a risk that an innocent person will be exposed in the fight to bring justice to victims?
Under its “Wall of Shame” Jewish Community Watch (JCW) lists convicted sex offenders, accused offenders with pending charges and others who have not been arrested and have had no formal charges filed against them. Thirty-two individuals are on the registry. JCW conducts its own investigations, including interviewing accusers, before listing un-arrested individuals on its “Wall of Shame.”
Last month, on the day Nechemya Weberman was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing a girl he was supposed to be mentoring, the Brooklyn DA office presented an award of excellence to JCW, praising the organizations efforts of exposing child predators and assisting survivors in recovery. DA Hynes remarked that JCW’s work “has been instrumental” in creating change in the tight-knit Hasidic community.
JCW’s work marks major progress in the Orthodox worlds willingness to openly confront sexual abuse. Since JCW’s inception in 2011, the Brooklyn Orthodox community has seen as many sexual abuse-related arrests and reports as there have been in the past 20 years.
There is a need to inform the public of suspected sex offenders and empower victims on the one hand but also a need to ensure that innocent people aren’t wrongly exposed. How do you balance those two interests when un-arrested individuals are accused of sex crimes? When there is a public record, such as an arrest or conviction, there is no issue with reporting that information, but what happens when there is no public record of the alleged crime?
JCW’s published criteria for deciding whether to put up un-arrested individuals on the “Wall of Shame” is vague and evasive. Under the “Our Criteria” section, they don’t list actual criteria but instead argue that “listing our criteria would make it far easier for false allegations to be made” and “would enable said child molester to ensure that he or she did not meet any of those criterions.”
Shrouding their criteria in a veil of secrecy needs reconsideration. The lack of clear guidelines and transparency diminishes the organization’s credibility, exposes them to further legal liability, and feeds into fears of a witch-hunt mentality. If processes are not revealed for fear that alleged offenders may outsmart the system, at least all supporting documentation should be disclosed in an open and apparent manner.
The media often publishes accusations of un-arrested individuals but the stories are adversarial in nature, present all the facts, and usually give the accused an opportunity to respond. But even the media gets it wrong sometimes as they did in the high-profile Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Greg Kelly cases where the allegations of rape were ultimately dropped, but the journalistic process still minimizes the risk of error.
JCW certainly has a right to exercise their freedom of speech and the press when it comes to informing the community about abuse. They have demonstrated a commitment to protecting children in the Jewish community and have given a voice to the voiceless victims of sex abuse. Ultimately, someone wrongly accused can always resort to a defamation claim, but considering the tight-knit nature of the community, that person’s reputation would be tarnished forever. Extreme caution needs to be taken before publicizing alleged offenders.
Perhaps JCW should adopt a more journalistic approach where for example they publish statements by the therapist of a survivor, detailing how their patient is a victim of sexual abuse and why they believe the person accused is the one responsible for their trauma (of course with the patients approval).
Only report individuals that have multiple independent victims corroborating the allegations of abuse, which JCW implies that it does.
Publish detailed accounts of the allegations from all of the accusers.
They should even give the alleged offender an opportunity to issue a published statement responding to the accusations, so the public is able to better judge a claim and the accused has a chance to publicly respond. They should clearly state that the accused is presumed innocent unless convicted.
JCW protecting the identity of the victims is a good policy but at the same time they need to provide more information to the public. Maintaining the anonymity of an accuser is vital in protecting them from retaliation, intimidation and threats. The media and courts often maintain victim anonymity in sensitive sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors.
Of course the most error free approach would be to only publish information that is already a matter of public record, such as adjudicated sex offenders, arrests and public investigations. But this approach would give free reign to the countless sex offenders that have evaded the statute of limitations.
There is no easy answer in the quest to balance the need to inform the public of potential danger with ensuring the innocent are not defamed in the zealous pursuit of justice, but a high standard of journalistic integrity should be required before someone is publicly outed as a sex offender.
But is there a risk that an innocent person will be exposed in the fight to bring justice to victims?
Under its “Wall of Shame” Jewish Community Watch (JCW) lists convicted sex offenders, accused offenders with pending charges and others who have not been arrested and have had no formal charges filed against them. Thirty-two individuals are on the registry. JCW conducts its own investigations, including interviewing accusers, before listing un-arrested individuals on its “Wall of Shame.”
Last month, on the day Nechemya Weberman was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing a girl he was supposed to be mentoring, the Brooklyn DA office presented an award of excellence to JCW, praising the organizations efforts of exposing child predators and assisting survivors in recovery. DA Hynes remarked that JCW’s work “has been instrumental” in creating change in the tight-knit Hasidic community.
JCW’s work marks major progress in the Orthodox worlds willingness to openly confront sexual abuse. Since JCW’s inception in 2011, the Brooklyn Orthodox community has seen as many sexual abuse-related arrests and reports as there have been in the past 20 years.
There is a need to inform the public of suspected sex offenders and empower victims on the one hand but also a need to ensure that innocent people aren’t wrongly exposed. How do you balance those two interests when un-arrested individuals are accused of sex crimes? When there is a public record, such as an arrest or conviction, there is no issue with reporting that information, but what happens when there is no public record of the alleged crime?
JCW’s published criteria for deciding whether to put up un-arrested individuals on the “Wall of Shame” is vague and evasive. Under the “Our Criteria” section, they don’t list actual criteria but instead argue that “listing our criteria would make it far easier for false allegations to be made” and “would enable said child molester to ensure that he or she did not meet any of those criterions.”
Shrouding their criteria in a veil of secrecy needs reconsideration. The lack of clear guidelines and transparency diminishes the organization’s credibility, exposes them to further legal liability, and feeds into fears of a witch-hunt mentality. If processes are not revealed for fear that alleged offenders may outsmart the system, at least all supporting documentation should be disclosed in an open and apparent manner.
The media often publishes accusations of un-arrested individuals but the stories are adversarial in nature, present all the facts, and usually give the accused an opportunity to respond. But even the media gets it wrong sometimes as they did in the high-profile Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Greg Kelly cases where the allegations of rape were ultimately dropped, but the journalistic process still minimizes the risk of error.
JCW certainly has a right to exercise their freedom of speech and the press when it comes to informing the community about abuse. They have demonstrated a commitment to protecting children in the Jewish community and have given a voice to the voiceless victims of sex abuse. Ultimately, someone wrongly accused can always resort to a defamation claim, but considering the tight-knit nature of the community, that person’s reputation would be tarnished forever. Extreme caution needs to be taken before publicizing alleged offenders.
Perhaps JCW should adopt a more journalistic approach where for example they publish statements by the therapist of a survivor, detailing how their patient is a victim of sexual abuse and why they believe the person accused is the one responsible for their trauma (of course with the patients approval).
Only report individuals that have multiple independent victims corroborating the allegations of abuse, which JCW implies that it does.
Publish detailed accounts of the allegations from all of the accusers.
They should even give the alleged offender an opportunity to issue a published statement responding to the accusations, so the public is able to better judge a claim and the accused has a chance to publicly respond. They should clearly state that the accused is presumed innocent unless convicted.
JCW protecting the identity of the victims is a good policy but at the same time they need to provide more information to the public. Maintaining the anonymity of an accuser is vital in protecting them from retaliation, intimidation and threats. The media and courts often maintain victim anonymity in sensitive sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors.
Of course the most error free approach would be to only publish information that is already a matter of public record, such as adjudicated sex offenders, arrests and public investigations. But this approach would give free reign to the countless sex offenders that have evaded the statute of limitations.
There is no easy answer in the quest to balance the need to inform the public of potential danger with ensuring the innocent are not defamed in the zealous pursuit of justice, but a high standard of journalistic integrity should be required before someone is publicly outed as a sex offender.
Eliyahu Federman has written extensively on subjects ranging for sexual abuse awareness, gender equality and improving police-community relations. He graduated law school in NY, where he served as an executive editor of law review.
One Orthodox Jewish website exposes people accused of sex crimes against children, such as rape, even when no criminal charges have been filed. They do this in an effort to prevent sex offenders from evading the law by virtue of the statute of limitations, to fight years of institutional sex abuse cover-ups, to empower victims and to inform the public of potential dangers.
But is there a risk that an innocent person will be exposed in the fight to bring justice to victims?
Under its “Wall of Shame” Jewish Community Watch (JCW) lists convicted sex offenders, accused offenders with pending charges and others who have not been arrested and have had no formal charges filed against them. Thirty-two individuals are on the registry. JCW conducts its own investigations, including interviewing accusers, before listing un-arrested individuals on its “Wall of Shame.”
Last month, on the day Nechemya Weberman was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing a girl he was supposed to be mentoring, the Brooklyn DA office presented an award of excellence to JCW, praising the organizations efforts of exposing child predators and assisting survivors in recovery. DA Hynes remarked that JCW’s work “has been instrumental” in creating change in the tight-knit Hasidic community.
JCW’s work marks major progress in the Orthodox worlds willingness to openly confront sexual abuse. Since JCW’s inception in 2011, the Brooklyn Orthodox community has seen as many sexual abuse-related arrests and reports as there have been in the past 20 years.
There is a need to inform the public of suspected sex offenders and empower victims on the one hand but also a need to ensure that innocent people aren’t wrongly exposed. How do you balance those two interests when un-arrested individuals are accused of sex crimes? When there is a public record, such as an arrest or conviction, there is no issue with reporting that information, but what happens when there is no public record of the alleged crime?
JCW’s published criteria for deciding whether to put up un-arrested individuals on the “Wall of Shame” is vague and evasive. Under the “Our Criteria” section, they don’t list actual criteria but instead argue that “listing our criteria would make it far easier for false allegations to be made” and “would enable said child molester to ensure that he or she did not meet any of those criterions.”
Shrouding their criteria in a veil of secrecy needs reconsideration. The lack of clear guidelines and transparency diminishes the organization’s credibility, exposes them to further legal liability, and feeds into fears of a witch-hunt mentality. If processes are not revealed for fear that alleged offenders may outsmart the system, at least all supporting documentation should be disclosed in an open and apparent manner.
The media often publishes accusations of un-arrested individuals but the stories are adversarial in nature, present all the facts, and usually give the accused an opportunity to respond. But even the media gets it wrong sometimes as they did in the high-profile Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Greg Kelly cases where the allegations of rape were ultimately dropped, but the journalistic process still minimizes the risk of error.
JCW certainly has a right to exercise their freedom of speech and the press when it comes to informing the community about abuse. They have demonstrated a commitment to protecting children in the Jewish community and have given a voice to the voiceless victims of sex abuse. Ultimately, someone wrongly accused can always resort to a defamation claim, but considering the tight-knit nature of the community, that person’s reputation would be tarnished forever. Extreme caution needs to be taken before publicizing alleged offenders.
Perhaps JCW should adopt a more journalistic approach where for example they publish statements by the therapist of a survivor, detailing how their patient is a victim of sexual abuse and why they believe the person accused is the one responsible for their trauma (of course with the patients approval).
Only report individuals that have multiple independent victims corroborating the allegations of abuse, which JCW implies that it does.
Publish detailed accounts of the allegations from all of the accusers.
They should even give the alleged offender an opportunity to issue a published statement responding to the accusations, so the public is able to better judge a claim and the accused has a chance to publicly respond. They should clearly state that the accused is presumed innocent unless convicted.
JCW protecting the identity of the victims is a good policy but at the same time they need to provide more information to the public. Maintaining the anonymity of an accuser is vital in protecting them from retaliation, intimidation and threats. The media and courts often maintain victim anonymity in sensitive sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors.
Of course the most error free approach would be to only publish information that is already a matter of public record, such as adjudicated sex offenders, arrests and public investigations. But this approach would give free reign to the countless sex offenders that have evaded the statute of limitations.
There is no easy answer in the quest to balance the need to inform the public of potential danger with ensuring the innocent are not defamed in the zealous pursuit of justice, but a high standard of journalistic integrity should be required before someone is publicly outed as a sex offender.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Civil society makes a ‘human shield’ of female kite makers
The civil society on Thursday urged the Punjab government to arrange
livelihood for female kite makers and acknowledge the industry as a
potential source of income through exports. To raise the issues of women
home-based kite makers, HomeNet Pakistan held an awareness-raising
meeting with government officials, policy makers, media personnel and
lawyers at a local hotel.
The objective of the meeting was to strengthen the kite making sector for creating their visibility, sensitising policy makers for legislation and raise their voices. The meeting was attended by social activist Mehnaz Rafi, SAP Pakistan Director Irfan Mufti, advocate Khalid Zafar, educationist Khalid Malik and Kite Flyers Association President Nadeem Wyne.
To highlight the issues of the kite makers, the speakers said that there was a need for imparting alternative skills to kite makers ensuring their better livelihood. The kite maker women on the occasion sought relaxation in the law regarding checks on twine makers. They said in the past they were earning handsome wages to support their families but now they do not have anything to eat. They also demanded for the provision of alternate skills and businesses.
Irfan Mufti said that these workers need to organise themselves in a group, an organisation or union to get their demands addressed. He further said that government should acknowledge this as an industry and potential for export. Absar Abdul Ali said, “Kite flying is our culture, but it must be safe to life. Human life is the most important thing. Yet these kite maker women should be provided alternate skills to earn their livelihood,” he added.
Civil society members also passed a resolution that government should do some legislation in favour of kite maker’s women workers livelihood and provide them alternate skills and earning opportunities.
The objective of the meeting was to strengthen the kite making sector for creating their visibility, sensitising policy makers for legislation and raise their voices. The meeting was attended by social activist Mehnaz Rafi, SAP Pakistan Director Irfan Mufti, advocate Khalid Zafar, educationist Khalid Malik and Kite Flyers Association President Nadeem Wyne.
To highlight the issues of the kite makers, the speakers said that there was a need for imparting alternative skills to kite makers ensuring their better livelihood. The kite maker women on the occasion sought relaxation in the law regarding checks on twine makers. They said in the past they were earning handsome wages to support their families but now they do not have anything to eat. They also demanded for the provision of alternate skills and businesses.
Irfan Mufti said that these workers need to organise themselves in a group, an organisation or union to get their demands addressed. He further said that government should acknowledge this as an industry and potential for export. Absar Abdul Ali said, “Kite flying is our culture, but it must be safe to life. Human life is the most important thing. Yet these kite maker women should be provided alternate skills to earn their livelihood,” he added.
Civil society members also passed a resolution that government should do some legislation in favour of kite maker’s women workers livelihood and provide them alternate skills and earning opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)