By Mark-Anthony Johnson, @FlyEgret

%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22allowfullscreen%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22360%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FnNWnAMjlCnY%3Frel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20width%3D%22640%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

In 2014, the use of force has gone up in the Los Angeles County jails. The Coalition to End Sheriff Violence, a group of 16 community organizations including the ACLU of Southern California, has expressed concerns about discrepancy between the stories of sheriff abuse from people released from jail and the lack of clarity from the L.A. Sheriffs Department as to whether or not this increase in force is due to more thorough reporting or a factual increase in use of force by personnel. Regardless, our conclusion remains: civilian oversight is necessary to ensure long-lasting protections for our loved ones incarcerated in L.A. County.

Last August, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted down (3-2) a civilian oversight committee of LASD, leaving the largest jails system in the world without community-based oversight. The board cited it would not have "teeth," or legal power.

Other counties, however, like San Diego and San Francisco, have successfully implemented civilian oversight with subpoena power. There's no excuse.

We have the potential to create the most comprehensive oversight body in L.A. – one that doesn't rely solely on the sheriff's department's figures or interpretation of data. With independent investigative power, subpoena power and consistent lines of contact with community members, those who have experienced the jails can provide the clearest picture of the improvement and deterioration of the conditions within. Incarcerated people and their loved ones have been exposing the state of our jails for years, and it is time to institute an independent review board that has teeth.

As two new supervisors are poised to take seats on the board this December, both candidates Sheila Kuehl and Bobby Shriver—vying for District 3 Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy's seat—have stated that they support civilian oversight of LASD. Hilda Solis has yet to take a stance on the issue publicly.

With support from District 3 and from Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, come January, the board will have another chance to vote for civilian oversight with two yes votes from the gate.

Learn more about the importance of civilian oversight this Saturday at our Off the Cuff: Criminal Justice Teach-in and Roundtable. Register today.

Mark-Anthony Johnson is interim director at Dignity and Power Now. The Coalition to End Sheriff Violence is a project of Dignity and Power Now. Follow ACLU SoCal on Twitter.

By Dan McKibben

"Stop resisting, fag!" the five deputies barked at the inmate while they beat him, leaving him bruised from head to toe and immobile for days.

This is life for gay, bisexual and transgender (GBT) people incarcerated at West Valley Detention Center. In the mere two months I served there, I witnessed six occasions of an unprovoked inmate beating by deputies while uttering bigoted slurs.

Inmates who identify as GBT are not only punished for what we've done, but are also dealt an extra layer of punishment because of who we are. Because I am gay, I had to serve more time and under much worse conditions than those inmates who identified otherwise.

GBT inmates at West Valley are housed in the so-called "Alternative Lifestyle Tank" (ALT). The tank is meant to keep us safe from potential harm, but instead we suffered a different type of harm.

On average, I was only allowed to leave my cell for 30 minutes a day. Most other people in the jail are out all day or, at worst, three hours a day. I was not allowed to work or participate in the rehab or educational programs that others had the chance to access. People in the work program not only learn skills and get special privileges but also earn credits that count toward reducing the length of their sentences. I repeatedly asked jail officials if I could work and each time I was told I was not allowed because I was housed in the ALT.

I knew of others who hoped to kick their drug habits through rehab programs, but we are not provided access to the rehab facility. And others wanted to do the vocational programs – like the culinary program – or get their GED, but were told that GBT inmates are not allowed.

As a former deputy sheriff and a private investigator for nearly 25 years, I know that justice must be served to those convicted, but the system is supposed to be (or at least, try to be) fair.

Dan McKibben (right) and his partner Sean

 

So, today, I joined ACLU SoCal and Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP in a lawsuit against the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department for discriminating against me, and all other GBT people who are imprisoned in the ALT at West Valley.

It is wholly unfair and un-American to make us serve longer sentences or harass or abuse us because of our sexual orientation or gender identity. What's more, by denying inmates any rehabilitation programs, the county strips us of the chance to better ourselves while in jail and gain skills that will help us reenter our communities on solid footing and reduce the chances we'll ever find ourselves back in jail again.

Dan McKibben is a plaintiff in McKibben v. McMahon, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Southern California and Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP against the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department over discriminatory policies at the West Valley Detention Center that deny gay, bisexual and transgender inmates equal access to work, recreation and rehabilitative programs solely based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.​

By Beth Werlin, American Immigration Council & Kristin Macleod-Ball, American Immigration Council

Each week, in immigration courts across the United States, hundreds of children, some as young as a few months old, come before immigration judges and are called upon to defend themselves against deportation. Among them is Arturo,* a three year old who arrived at the United States border in April 2014 because family members feared for his life in El Salvador. Although he is only a toddler, the government has put Arturo into deportation proceedings on his own. He has no attorney to help him explain to the court why he should not be deported.

Arturo's case is not unusual. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, less than a third of children with immigration cases pending in June 2014 had legal representation.

On Tuesday, the child plaintiffs in J.E.F.M. v. Holder, a nationwide class action seeking to ensure that all children in immigration court have legal representation, asked the federal court presiding over the case to add Arturo and two other children to the lawsuit. In J.E.F.M., the plaintiffs are challenging the government's long-standing failure to provide counsel to children in immigration court and asking the court to order the government to appoint legal representation for unrepresented children facing deportation.

The government has moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that none of the children has been harmed by the lack of representation. But the new plaintiffs and countless other children across the country are being deprived a fair immigration court hearing and are suffering real harm from the government's failure to provide them legal representation.

Arturo was conceived when his mother was raped when she was only 15 years old. After she faced continuing threats from her rapist, Arturo's mother fled El Salvador and left her son in the care of his aunt. However, because his family continued to fear for his safety in El Salvador, Arturo was brought to the border in Texas, taken into custody by the government, and put into deportation proceedings. He is now in the care of his mother in Los Angeles, who is a lawful permanent resident. Without legal assistance, Arturo has no way to explain to the immigration court whether he may be eligible for protection in the United States.

Arturo and other children bringing the case illustrate just how critical it is that children have legal representation in their immigration court proceedings. And yet, in recent months, the government has instituted policies that actually exacerbate the problem. Over the summer, the government announced that it would prioritize the immigration cases of children over those of most adults, creating new "rocket dockets"that give children even less opportunity to find legal help.

Although the government claims that immigration judges have authority to provide children with time to find legal assistance, attorneys and court observers around the country report that children are receiving less time to find attorneys. The problem is made worse because the government is initiating deportation cases against increasing numbers of children, severely straining the limited pro bono legal services available. Moreover, court observers report that immigration judges are asking children to complete complex forms like asylum applications, which must be completed in English, not their native language.

As plaintiffs in J.E.F.M. argue, children simply cannot adequately prepare for these cases on their own. An immigration court system that requires them to do so is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

The J.E.F.M. child plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP.

*Name changed to protect our client's identity

Blog post adapted and cross-posted from Immigration Impact.