Connect with us

Op-Ed

Legalized Torture of Prisoners

Published

on

Julianne Malveaux

By Julianne Malveaux
NNPA Columnist

 

Freddie Gray is neither the first, nor will he be the last person to die in police custody. According to a 2011 report from the Department of Justice, 4,813 people died in police custody between 2003 and 2009 (the most recent data, reported in 2011). However, not every state reports their data, so the number is probably higher. A new report is scheduled to be released this year or next.

Many of those who die in police custody are bipolar or have other mental health challenges. Too many officers of the law have not been trained to deal with people with mental health problems. The mentally ill need help, not a fatal bullet.

Tanisha Anderson had a heart condition and bipolar disorder. When she was detained in Cleveland, she was pushed and forced into a prone position, which led to her death. Anthony Hall, unarmed and bipolar, was an Air Force veteran. He was running through an Atlanta street. Instead of being calmed down and clothed, he was killed. Robert Saylor had Down’s Syndrome. He was killed at the Regal Cinema Westview Stadium in Frederick, Md. over a $13 movie ticket. He was handcuffed, made to lay face down on the ground, and was asphyxiated.

Police officers need more training to deal with the mentally ill, and those with Down’s syndrome. Unless these “violators” are flashing a weapon, they should be talked down, not shot down. Instead, those officers think they have a license to shoot and kill harmless and helpless people? These deaths are should be classified as police misconduct, but these “officers of the law” rarely pay a price for their behavior.

There are exceptions. In Chatham County, Georgia, Matthew Ajebade, 21, had bipolar disorder. He was placed in a restraining chair, and held in isolation. After being put in the restraining chair, he was tasered; that action ultimately led to his death. All nine of the sheriff’s deputies who detained him were fired. In Oakland, Calif., Johannes Mehserle spent a few months in jail before he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Oscar Grant. He was sentenced to two years in jail, but served only 11 months because he received time off for good behavior.

There is other abuse that too frequently goes unpunished – rape.  In fact, inmates are so frequently raped when they are imprisoned that Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. This legislation mandated that the Department of Justice collect data on sexual victimization. They measured more than 80,000 reports of sexual activity in the 2011-2012 year.

Some of these sexual encounters were described as “consensual” but an imprisoned person hardly has the means to withhold sex from a jailer. Some trade sex for more food, a blanket, or a better cell. Whether consensual or not, it is illegal for guards to engage in sexual activity with prisoners. These guards are often neither disciplined nor fired. What is a prisoner to do? Report the violation and subject themselves to additional abuse?

In addition to sexual abuse, prisoners are subject to the loss of their dignity and their physical safety in many instances. Prisoners in San Francisco were forced to fight each other (as if they were Mandingos during slavery), for the entertainment of deputy sheriffs. According to the San Francisco Examiner, these fights were described by some as “little more than horseplay.” But who wants to be thrashed in the name of horseplay?” Further, this so-called horseplay reduces inmates to gladiators, to people who are perceived as less than human.

Many “law enforcement officers” in San Francisco, Ferguson, Mo. and other places reveal their attitudes through text messages they send to one another. They refer to African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans using crude language to show contempt for these populations. They treat people of color as far less than human, and their text messages reflect that.

These killings, rapes, arranged fights and other forms of oppressive harassment are just the tip of the iceberg. Few officers will tell the truth about legalized human rights violations because they are protecting their colleagues. In covering up these violations, they contribute in the erosion of trust in some communities.

To be sure, only a small percentage of police officers violate the human rights of prisoners. A far greater number are silent in the face of evil. Inhumane attacks on the lives and liberties of prisoners will stop when silent officers open their mouths and put and put and end to the legalized killing and torture of prisoners.

 

Julianne Malveaux is an author and economist based economist in Washington, DC. She can be contacted at www.juliannemalveaux.com.

###

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

Published

on

Photo: iStockphoto / NNPA.

Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

I call BS!

The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

Where is Congress?

Its silence has become deafening.

Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

This is not military reform.  It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

That is not meritocracy.  It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

Their records speak for themselves.

The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Diversity is not a concession.  It is a strategic advantage.

The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

That weakens morale.  It weakens recruitment.  It weakens retention.

And ultimately, it weakens national security.

Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

America deserves better.  The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better.  The Constitution deserves better.

And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

Jim Crow did not strengthen America.  Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military.  It will only diminish it

Wade Henderson
Strategic Advisor
Civil and Human Rights
wade@wadejhenderson.com

Continue Reading

Activism

Alameda County Makes History: Board of Supervisors Unanimously Adopts Reparations Action Plan

The Final Action Plan addresses disparities in housing, economic opportunity, education, health, environmental justice, public safety, arts and culture, land use, and other areas where historical government policies have contributed to inequitable outcomes for Black residents.

Published

on

The Reparations Commission members and Alameda County Board of Supervisors celebrated the approval of its report on June 30. Present were (first row, l. to r.) Dee Johnson, Supervisor Elisa Marquez, Supervisor Lena Tam, Debra Gore, Artavia Berry, Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas, Jennifer Gayden, and Supervisor David Haubert; Second row (l. to r.) Supervisor Nate Miley, Larry McClendon, Brandon T. Sass, Phil Gardiner, Shadrick A. Small, and James Knowles. Photo by Ashley Sturgis, Supervisor’s Assistant from the Office of Supervisor Lena Tam.
The Reparations Commission members and Alameda County Board of Supervisors celebrated the approval of its report on June 30. Present were (first row, l. to r.) Dee Johnson, Supervisor Elisa Marquez, Supervisor Lena Tam, Debra Gore, Artavia Berry, Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas, Jennifer Gayden, and Supervisor David Haubert; Second row (l. to r.) Supervisor Nate Miley, Larry McClendon, Brandon T. Sass, Phil Gardiner, Shadrick A. Small, and James Knowles. Photo by Ashley Sturgis, Supervisor’s Assistant from the Office of Supervisor Lena Tam.

Landmark 5–0 Vote Advances One of the Nation’s Most Comprehensive County-Led Reparative Justice Efforts

Special to The Post

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted 5–0 on Tuesday to adopt the Final Action Plan of the Alameda County Reparations Commission, marking a historic milestone in the County’s commitment to advancing reparative justice for Black residents.

The vote follows nearly three years of work by the Alameda County Reparations Commission, which was seated in July 2023. Through extensive historical research, analysis of County data, public listening sessions, expert testimony, and community engagement, the Commission developed a comprehensive roadmap for addressing documented harms and expanding opportunity for future generations.

The Final Action Plan addresses disparities in housing, economic opportunity, education, health, environmental justice, public safety, arts and culture, land use, and other areas where historical government policies have contributed to inequitable outcomes for Black residents.

“This vote represents more than the adoption of a report,” said Debra Gore, Chair of the Alameda County Reparations Commission. “It is a commitment to truth, accountability, and action. Reparations are not about guilt or charity. They are about government’s responsibility to address documented harms created by its own policies and to build a more just future.”

During the Board meeting, Gore delivered a keynote address entitled “Redress as Constitutional First Principle,” presenting reparations as a constitutional principle rooted in the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Her remarks connected the nation’s founding ideals with Alameda County’s own data documenting continuing racial disparities.

At the conclusion of her address, Gore received a standing ovation from all five members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, recognizing both the Commission’s work and the significance of the Board’s action.

Grounded in County data and community testimony, the Commission’s recommendations reflect nearly three years of research and engagement with residents, historians, policy experts, advocates, and County staff. Together, they offer a roadmap for repairing documented harms while strengthening opportunity, accountability, and equity for future generations.

The Board’s action also includes a commitment to establish a standing committee to oversee implementation of the Action Plan, signaling that reparative justice will remain an ongoing County priority.

“History will remember this moment not because Alameda County acknowledged injustice,” Gore said. “History will remember that our County chose action. This vote demonstrates that government can confront difficult truths, listen to its residents, and take meaningful steps toward repair.”

Reached in an interview on July 1, Gore said she felt a sense of “joyfulness and reverence” for the ancestors and survivors of the harms of slavery through Jim Crow. “We might be the first in the country to pass an action plan with the commitment to ‘operationalize’ reparations.”

Gore is grateful to former Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson, who asked her to serve on the commission, and current Supervisor Nate Miley, who asked her to be the chairperson.

Among the many who helped create and inspire the report, Gore pointed to former Oakland City Councilmember Leo Bazile, who has been calling for reparations since the 1960s, and the late Reparations Committee member Jesse Clyde Burleson, who provided insight on incarceration as an ongoing harm to the Black community. The report was dedicated to the memory of Burleson, who passed away on March 6 and who had been imprisoned from 1987-2018.

Gore also pointed to their avenue of approach on reparations, which was as much about the impact of slavery as it was about constitutional rights that had been systematically denied to Black people.

Members of the committee were: Cathy Adams, president and CEO of the Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce (OAAOCC) issued a statement supporting the reparations milestone.
OAACC “is grateful to former Supervisor Keith Carson, Supervisor Nate Miley, and the entire Alameda County Reparations Commission for their tireless efforts to develop a comprehensive action plan to address and repair the documented harms experienced by our local Black community,” Adams said.

“As an organization deeply committed to advancing workforce development, expanding access to capital, and creating opportunities for Black-owned businesses in Oakland and throughout Alameda County, we look forward to working alongside the steering committee to help deliver meaningful economic justice to those impacted by generations of systemic inequities.”

The Alameda County Reparations Commission extends its gratitude to the hundreds of residents who shared their experiences, the Commissioners who dedicated nearly three years of service, County staff, researchers, historians, and community partners whose work made this milestone possible.

With adoption of the Final Action Plan, Alameda County now begins the next phase of implementation in partnership with County leadership, community organizations, and residents. The commission will be dissolved, Gore says, and she looks forward to the next steps, one of which is the appointment of committee members.

Besides, Burleson, Gore and Bazile, members of the commission included: Natasha Triplett, Shenita Hurskin, Brandon T. Sass, Artavia Berry, Tiega N. Varlack, James Knowles, Vickie Stephens, Dr. Philip S. Gardiner, Dee Johnson, Larry McClendon (vice chair) , Carolyn (CJ) Johnson, Alan E. Dones, Jennifer A. Gayden, Lori Cox (vice chair), and Shadrick A. Small.

About the Alameda County Reparations Commission

Established by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in July 2023, the Alameda County Reparations Commission was charged with examining the historical and ongoing harms experienced by Black residents resulting from government policies and practices and developing recommendations for repair. The Commission’s Final Action Plan provides a comprehensive framework for advancing equity, accountability, and opportunity throughout Alameda County.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Unfair Media Attacks on OUSD Leadership for Not Closing Schools

Dr. Denise Saddler is a respected educator who leads with integrity, honesty, and decades of experience in service to OUSD. Since stepping into the role of interim superintendent, she has worked tirelessly alongside the Senior Leadership Team and fiscal consultants to address one of the most difficult financial situations our district has faced.

Published

on

The school district has achieved ‘significant milestones that reflect disciplined leadership and a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility,’ said Board President Jennifer Brouhard

By Jennifer Brouhard, Special to The Post

I am not going to directly respond to or amplify the personal attacks on the Oakland Unified School District’s dedicated leaders who are working every day on behalf of Oakland’s students.

Dr. Denise Saddler is a respected educator who leads with integrity, honesty, and decades of experience in service to OUSD. Since stepping into the role of interim superintendent, she has worked tirelessly alongside the Senior Leadership Team and fiscal consultants to address one of the most difficult financial situations our district has faced.

In December, the Board gave clear direction: bring forward a budget proposal that did not include a state loan and did not include school closures. Saddler and her team did exactly what the Board asked them to do.

There were differing opinions about how to address the district’s fiscal challenges. The two former employees referenced in a news article supported a different approach that included pursuing a state loan and exploring school closures. Those proposals were presented to the Board alongside Saddler’s proposal.

The Board adopted Saddler’s recommendation because it reflected the direction we had established. Since I joined the Board in 2023, the majority of the Board has consistently opposed school closures and has worked to preserve local control by avoiding a state loan whenever possible.

The public records cited in the article demonstrate the countless hours Saddler, the Senior Leadership Team, and our consultants devoted to developing a responsible financial plan. Difficult decisions were made, ideas were debated, and ultimately the Board selected the proposal that best aligned with our priorities.

As a result of that collaborative work, OUSD has adopted its first balanced budget in 22 years, achieved a qualified Second Interim Certification, and submitted a positive Third Interim Report.

These are significant milestones that reflect disciplined leadership and a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility.

While there is still important work ahead, I believe the relationship between the Board, Dr. Saddler, and the Senior Leadership Team has become stronger and more collaborative throughout this process. We are moving in the right direction—with honesty, integrity, and a focus on the needs of OUSD’s 34,000 students.

Jennifer Brouhard, a retired OUSD teacher was elected in 2023 to represent District 2 and has been Board president since 2025.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.