July 9, 2015. By Victoria Middleton.
As your June 28 article “Body camera issue pushed to the forefront” indicates, high-profile incidents, including in South Carolina, have led to a rush to record encounters with law enforcement.
A bill to require police to wear body cameras received overwhelming support in our legislature and was signed into law. The speed with which our elected officials acted was understandable in the wake of Walter Scott’s death in April and other controversial incidents documented on video that involved use of force by the police.
Your article correctly noted that the ACLU has taken a position in favor of body cameras despite our long-standing concern about widespread government surveillance of civilians. In May, the ACLU released a model bill that strikes a balance between protecting privacy and ensuring transparency in problematic encounters involving law enforcement
In the case of some videos that are particularly of significance to the public, transparency needs to trump privacy. Unfortunately, the South Carolina law does not ensure that. In a situation where a police officer uses deadly force against an unarmed citizen, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what took place and how the police officers behaved.
South Carolina’s law is not the only one that needs to strike a better balance between transparency and privacy. The L.A. Police Department policy undercuts transparency by hiding virtually all body camera footage from the public. And in Florida, even the best department-level body camera policies could conflict with a new state law blocking large classes of body camera footage from disclosure in the name of protecting privacy.
If body cameras aren’t merely a public relations tool used by law enforcement but a means to foster public confidence and trust, then we need to do more to guarantee transparency in controversial encounters between police and citizens.
June 1, 2015. Greenville News. By Victoria Middleton.
A new report from the Children’s Law Center reveals that Greenville is one of the harshest places in the state for children who skip school, miss curfew or who run away from home. These behaviors — known as “status offenses” — are unique to children. These offenses violate the law only because the person committing them is a minor.
South Carolina is one of a shrinking number of states that still incarcerates children in secure detention centers for status offenses. According to the report, South Carolina locks up a significant number of children charged with status offenses before their case is even heard in court. Research show that incarcerating children — even for very short periods of time — increases the likelihood they will have further involvement in the juvenile justice and adult prison system.
More than three-fourths of children detained for status offenses in South Carolina are from just four counties — Charleston, Richland, Berkeley and Greenville. The report cites Greenville’s easy access to a secure detention center as one reason for the county’s overuse of secure detention for status offenders. Unlike most counties that rely on a centralized state-run juvenile detention center in Columbia, Greenville opened its own brand-new juvenile detention facility in 2013. Notably, Greenville had the highest number of South Carolina youth admitted to detention in Fiscal Year 2013-14.
As we are an organization working to stop the unnecessary incarceration of children, these numbers concern us.
Youth who commit status offenses have often experienced severe traumatic experiences. For example, a child might run away or skip school or come home after curfew to avoid exposure to violence or sexual assault at home. A child might be truant because of family illness or social anxiety. We might find that a child labeled “incorrigible” is dealing with family substance abuse issues. Incarcerating a child who expresses these types of needs doesn’t help the young person get better. These behaviors may very well be normal responses to the issues a youth is dealing with — calls for help that we as adults should respond to with something better than punishment.
The report recommends that the state invest in community-based family services to reduce the incarceration of status offenders. In these programs, trained staff members work directly with families to address the underlying issues of why a child acts out. Greenville, like most communities, lacks an adequate crisis response system to support families that require immediate assistance. Currently, there is often a long wait period for families to receive services which may lead families to seek assistance through the juvenile court system, which in turn increases the likelihood of a police officer or a judge removing a child from the home.
Community-based programs can effectively work with children and their families for a fraction of what it costs South Carolinians to incarcerate a child in a secure detention center. According to the report, South Carolinians pay over $300 a day to incarcerate a child who is truant or runs away from home. That’s nearly $110,000 per child annually. Community-based-programs, like the Youth Advocate Program in Greenville, can effectively work with five to six young people and their families for that amount of money and help these youth and their families in ways that incarceration cannot.
Greenville can lead the state in reducing the number of young people it locks up for status offenses. To do this, we need to build up community-based supports that strengthen families. Incarcerating youth for status offenses does not help children in need and costs too much for no return — and in many cases, a negative return – on the investment.
We all want kids to stay in school, contribute to their families and communities, and be safe at home. To help achieve that for the county’s neediest young people, Greenville should implement policies to divert more status offense cases from court and prohibit children from being jailed. We should invest in community-based services that support families and provide effective alternatives to the court system.
By Victoria Middleton | Our state is hazardous to women’s health.
An extreme or alarmist statement? Not really.
Sometimes, we all just want more good news. There is some: S.C. teen pregnancy rates are dropping. Infant mortality rates are dropping. There’s some improvement on birth outcomes in recent years.
But there are facts we can’t sidestep, uncomfortable as they may be. We’re competing to be the worst state for women killed by men they know. If a criminal domestic violence bill passes, its supporters and victims’ advocates acknowledge that changing the climate of violence against women will take more than a piece of legislation.
We’re also in the bottom tier of states for women’s reproductive health. Eight of our state’s 46 counties lack an obstetrician. More than 25 percent of mothers of S.C. newborns who died last year received little, if any, prenatal care. In 2011, there were 76 live births to girls 10- to 14 years of age. Maternal mortality is still alarmingly, needlessly high.
Infant mortality is still high, as well, despite valiant efforts by the medical establishment to combat this. The second (in some years, the first) highest cause of death of babies in the first 30 days is “congenital malformation/deformation.” That does not mean the cause of death is low birth weight, extreme premature status or other factors. It means that approximately 35 newborns per year die within the first 24 hours because of fetal anomalies so severe that survival is impossible
At the same time, without regard to these facts, our legislature is on the verge of passing a bill (H. 3114) to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy – before the point in pregnancy when a woman may first learn of a severe chromosomal or other fetal anomaly diagnosis.
The Senate just passed a version of the 20-week ban that does allow for critical, limited exceptions. One exception involves cases of rape or incest, so that a traumatized or intimidated victim retains the right to decide whether to terminate such a pregnancy. Another exception concerns the health of the mother, so that a woman is not forced to carry a pregnancy to term if doing so puts her life in danger. The final exception, covering the vast majority of these rare later abortions, is in the case of diagnosis of severe fetal anomaly.
The Senate version has returned to the House for concurrence or non-concurrence. If the harsh House version – the extreme ban — is ultimately adopted, then we can add a new blow to the existing list of hazards to the health of a woman in South Carolina.
This bill has nothing to do with accepted science and everything to do with lessening a woman’s ability to make the best medical decision for herself and her family. If politicians continue to play doctor, the positive trends will be fewer and the health outcomes for women in South Carolina worse.
February 20, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The ACLU of South Carolina and South Carolina Equality oppose political interference with First Amendment freedoms and discrimination against the LGBT community in South Carolina, both of which are reflected in the SC House budget just passed by the House Ways and Means Committee.
According to press reports, the House budget-writing committee on Wednesday tentatively approved a spending plan for 2014-15 that would cut $52,000 from the College of Charleston and $17,142 from the University of South Carolina Upstate. The proposed reductions in the budget equal what the colleges spent on freshmen programs that including the reading of texts dealing with sexual orientation and gender in the freshmen curriculum. Some legislators reportedly objected to assigning literature for “promotion of an LGBT lifestyle.”
The function of education is to stimulate thought, to explore ideas, to engender intellectual exchanges. To ban books because they are controversial strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and the spirit of open discourse essential to public education in a democratic republic.
The following may be attributed to Victoria Middleton, Executive Director, ACLU of South Carolina: “This kind of censorship not only threatens the core of academic freedom but also inhibits the free exchange of ideas so important to progress. The First Amendment was intended to protect all speech – even speech we don’t agree with -- and politicians shouldn’t be in the business of dictating what we think.”
The following may be attributed to Ryan Wilson, Executive Director, SC Equality: "College students in South Carolina hope to graduate and join a global workforce where they will work alongside gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Any effort by the legislature to suppress the academic freedom of our state's colleges and universities to teach about LGBT topics will negatively impact students' ability to prepare for careers in a diverse workplace."