Viennese Journal 8.0 - Death Penalty and Children of Incarcerated Parents

We have been cramming as much substantive work on human rights with as much fun as has been humanly possible, and I am beginning to feel the effects. There is so much to do, and see, and to learn, that sleeping seems a waste of time. 

I began the day at a side-event on the progress on the international abolition of the death penalty. The emerging world trend and consensus is clearly on the side of the abolition of the death penalty.  The room was filled with delegates from many countries, and representatives of many NGOs, who are part of the majority of world governments who have abolished the death penalty and regard the death penalty as ineffective, unnecessary, error-prone, cruel and barbaric.  A good portion of my cases are murder cases, and I am a part of the legal community in North Carolina dedicated to saving the lives of people charged with capital murder.  I am used to attending meetings about the death penalty where we are the minority. We are the voice crying out of the wilderness that the death penalty is wrong.  It was an emotional realization to find myself among so many people from around the world who share our view that the death penalty should be abolished. Not just any majority, but a global majority.  One advocate even referred to those minority "killer states,” China and the United States" that persist in the killing.

“I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said, “I hold this position for a number of reasons: these include the fundamental nature of the right to life; the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people by mistake; the absence of proof that the death penalty serves as a deterrent; and what is, to my mind, the inappropriately vengeful character of the sentence.”

On 21 December 2010, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its third resolution on the “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” (A/RES/65/206), reaffirming its two previous resolutions on the same matter (A/RES/62/149 and 63/168). The General Assembly: calls upon States to respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and to progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed. It also calls upon States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, and requests States to make available relevant information with regard to their use of the death penalty, which can contribute to transparent national debates.

These statements reminded me of the Statement of French philosopher and writer Albert Camus on the death penalty:

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. "

I learned a great deal about the efforts of this abolitionist states to help encourage the complete abolition of the death penalty around the world.

In the afternoon, I attended an event sponsored by the Quaker UN office on the treatment of incarcerated children. My new friends Oliver Robertson and Rachel Brett from the Quaker UN office in Geneva gave an amazing presentation. This presentation highlighted the risks to children of incarcerated parents:

1. Risk of deprivation of basic necessities and opportunities

2. Risk of danger of secondary victimization and depersonalization
3. Risk of deterioration of overall situation of a children
4. Risk of distance from incarcerated parent
5. Risk of descent into antisocial behavior

More specifically, children may experience impacts including: physical and mental health impacts related to separation and other aspects of parental incarceration; risk of relationship breakdown; the possibility of having to move house or be taken into care; financial difficulties; problems at school (educational and behavioral); increased vulnerability to neglect, abuse and victimization; and difficulties in visiting. Children of incarcerated parents face serious mental health problems at three times the rate of their peers. Finally it increases the risk of a child’s own prospects, as they fear or distrust authority, fail to receive the help they need, live in impoverished and unstable circumstances, and begin to accept prison as “normal” – or as the only place they can be with their parent.  (See QUNO Publication by Oliver, Collateral Convicts: Children of Incarcerated Parents, http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/201203Analytical%20DGD%20Report-internet.pdf). Rachel and Oliver are interested in focusing their work more narrowly on the children of parents incarcerated on death row facing capital punishment.

Later in the day, I heard several good presentations on the violence against children in the criminal justice system. Panelists recognized that the criminal justice system has become a violent and detrimental substitute for a weak or non-existent child protection system in society.  Children become vulnerable as victims of poverty and abuse, and then they are re-victimized by punishment focused criminal justice system.  Children caught up in the juvenile justice system feel perceived as human beings who have no value to society, and have no values. They are stigmatized as citizens and have no opportunity to realize human dignity.  Panelists agreed that the juvenile systems should shift their focus away from punishment and use limited resources for prevent, treatment and reintegration. Children need protection from poverty, and exclusion from basic social services. They need protection from gang violence and family abuse. And the society needs to invest in the health and education of these children to make them less vulnerable to criminal behavior and getting caught in the criminal justice system.  The juvenile justice system is not a substitute to weak or non-extensive child protection. The juvenile justice system should not criminalize children and stigmatize them. The laws should not criminalize survival behavior or status offenses should be abolished. Deprivation of liberty should truly be used as a measure of last resort and should be imposed for the shortest possible terms. Children should have the opportunity to participate in restorative justice processes, and other alternatives to the deprivation of liberty. They are entitled to have a safe living environment where they can acquire life skills and the core of human dignity.  We need to monitor the criminal justice system and detention facilities by independent non-governmental agencies that can help protect children from victimization in the criminal justice system.   Along these lines there exists a

Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 November 1989) (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/547/84/IMG/NR054784.pdf?OpenElement)  Article 1 of this Convention defines children as anyone under the age of 18.  Because North Carolina treats 16 year olds as adults for the purposes of criminal law, our state is in substantial violation of this convention of the rights of the child.  There are also the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. (The Beijing Rules), (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/477/40/IMG/NR047740.pdf?OpenElement). We have a lot to learn from these international best practices in the improvement of our juvenile justice system.

More broadly, the discussions about children have made it clear to me that the most successful reform movements have begun their efforts with the treatment of children.  In my own Quaker Meeting, our commitment to our children have led us to help found a Quaker school and build our facilities around the belief that our children are our most precious assets.  Similarly, the civil rights court strategies began with a focus on children in schools. As Quakers in the UN we find ourselves pointing to the treatment of children in prisons. Drawing people's attention to the plight of children in our society helps us more clearly see the injustice in our community. When we look at injustice through the eyes of children, we are moved to action more quickly and the solutions are clearer. Even as I write this blog, i just received an email from the North Carolina Protect Families organization - the people trying to defeat the marriage amendment to the North Carolina Constitution. Their email states: "Protecting children is one of North Carolina’s core values. Our state has consistently advanced rights and protections for our children. Our state has always put our future first — we have invested in education and health care time and time again. After all of those investments how could we allow Amendment One to place the protections of many children in doubt? Health care could be stripped away from kids. You could even see a child lose the only family they have ever known due to complications from adoption procedures. That is why we simply must work to defeat the amendment every day between now and May 8."

Criminal justice is no different. The United Nations has given a great deal of attention to the treatment of children in society and in the criminal justice system. We have a lot to learn from experiences and best practices from around the world with respect to our children.

At the end of the day, I went out to eat the other NGOs and learned about victimology, the study of the factors which make people vulnerable to victmization, the process and methods of healing victims of crime. While at dinner, a catholic prison worker asked about the dove that I wear around my neck.  I told him the story of my encounter with a homeless vietnam vet when I was a teenager, and that I wear the dove as a reminder of him, and my dedication to victims of poverty and violence. 

For him, the dove reminded him of his belief that the holy spirit enters the body of a person at conception. He repeatedly and emphatically explained that the person began at conception and this was a simple matter of scientific biology. I had no opportunity to respond to his belief, but I felt that he was not open to hearing other thoughts about this matter. Somehow his view that the science of biology settled this contested spiritual belief, seemed to end discussion of the matter.  Later, I discussed with Oliver and Nick their views of his belief.

I have not given much thought to this idea that conception is the beginning of human life. These complicated spiritual, scientific, political questions do not "speak to my condition" as a Quaker, or weigh heavily upon me. These kinds of questions represent an absolute mystery that is beyond expression in words.  People seem to develop narratives to try to contain these kinds of massive miracles, and they hold tight to these narratives - whether they are scientific, theological, philosophical, ideological, or political narratives.  These narratives often say more about the person telling the story, than they help solve the mystery they are trying to contain. I am suspicious of this particular narrative about the beginning of life, because I have seen people use this narrative as a justification to oppress women by attacking their right to control their own health and life decisions.

One of the reasons I love Quakerism is that it embraces the mystical mystery of the Spirit. Our silent worship is the way we present ourselves to the Mystery with openness to its miracles. My friend Oliver commented, "Welcome to the Quakers, where all your answers are questioned."

After dinner,  I returned to our little apartment and found Kerry is still out traveling. She spent the day traveling to Salzburg to visit the birth place of Mozart.