People with Felony Records Approved to Serve on Juries in CA

KTVU reports:

The California Legislature approved “The Right to a Jury of Your Peers,” allowing people with a prior felony conviction to serve on juries in California for the first time. 

Current California law excludes from jury service people who may have had a graffiti conviction when they were 18 or a marijuana conviction from high school.  

Under SB 310, those with a felony record would be eligible to serve on a jury, unless the person is on parole or probation, or a registered sex offender for a felony conviction.

Here’s the text of SB 310, which suggests that there’s now an overlap between voting and serving on juries–with the exception of registered sex offenders.

CA Divests from Private Prisons: Realistic? A Good Thing?

Hailed, and partly for good reasons, as a positive development, the Guardian today announces:

The private prison industry is set to be upended after California lawmakers passed a bill on Wednesday banning the facilities from operating in the state. The move will probably also close down four large immigration detention facilities that can hold up to 4,500 people at a time. 

The legislation is being hailed as a major victory for criminal justice reform because it removes the profit motive from incarceration. It also marks a dramatic departure from California’s past, when private prisons were relied on to reduce crowding in state-run facilities. 

Private prison companies used to view California as one of their fastest-growing markets. As recently as 2016, private prisons locked up approximately 7,000 Californians, about 5% of the state’s total prison population, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. But in recent years, thousands of inmates have been transferred from private prisons back into state-run facilities. As of June, private prisons held 2,222 of California’s total inmate population.

What does this mean, exactly? Keep in mind that there are no actual private prisons on California soil–and yet, California is one of the private prison industry’s best clients, as it houses thousands of its inmates in Arizona and other states that have a flourishing array of private facilities (mostly owned by CoreCivic, formerly the CCA, and the Geo Group.) The bill, AB 32, changes this relationship by barring the state from contracting with private providers outside the state. This includes, importantly, the use of private prisons for holding undocumented immigrants: “Detention facility” is defined in the bill as “any facility in which persons are incarcerated or otherwise involuntarily confined for purposes of execution of a punitive sentence imposed by a court or detention pending a trial, hearing, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.”

Is it realistic for CA legislature to divest from private prisons? It is, to the extent that “private prison” is, as defined in the bill, “a detention facility that is operated by a private, nongovernmental, for-profit entity, and operating pursuant to a contract or agreement with a governmental entity.” But what about the many functions provided inside so-called governmental prisons in CA through private subcontractors? This interesting magazine article about prison food in Chino depicts what is an atypically good reality; prison food is hard to provide without recurring to private contracting, and is awful whether provided through public or private means. Similarly, the much-maligned CA prison healthcare system, which has been for years in the hands of a federal receiver, extensively contracts with private health care providers. This stuff is not the alternative to a public prison economy: it *is* the economy. How do we make sure that prisoners have beds to sleep on, doctors and nurses to take care of them, and two or three (meager, yucky) meals a day? In the neoliberal capitalist world, there aren’t a lot of options out there. So divesting from private prisons completely is not a particularly realistic premise, nor is it particularly desirable (private providers are not categorically worse for the inmates than public providers, and everyone is motivated by greed, as I explain here.) It does have one important, unqualified positive effect: we are not building new public prisons, and we are not housing people in private prisons anymore, so we should incarcerate less people, period. That in itself will be a success.

But there’s something else I find somewhat fishy here, and that’s the supposed divestment of CA from private detention of immigrants. The picture here is much more complicated, because undocumented immigrants are primarily the responsibility of DHS and ICE, the latter of which incarcerates and prepares people for removal as the federal arm of law enforcement (Richard Boswell explains this separation of powers very well here.) What the feds do is contract with states such as CA to house undocumented immigrants, over whom Congress has plenary power and ICE has enforcement prerogatives. Some CA cities house immigrants in their public jails; others contract with private subcontractor providers to meet ICE’s demand. CA’s complicity with awful federal policies is not so much in the fact that they deal with private contractors; its in the awful conditions in both private and public facilities and in poorly supervising the conditions in these places. To be fair, it’s not all CA’s fault – their inability to supervise more effectively stems largely from the general chaos in immigration detention and from hurdles placed by ICE. But I’m unclear on whether these undocumented minors are worse off in private facilities than they are in post-Plata public jails, which do a notoriously poor job distinguishing between immigrants and “real criminals” (whatever the heck that means.)

In short, before dancing a jig about divestment from the public industry, let’s ask ourselves some hard questions about the market itself and how it incentivizes public and private institutions alike to do a poor job locking people up (including people whose only supposed “crime” is saving themselves and their families from the conditions in Central America.)

Politics and Penality

In addition to being engrossed in my animal rights/criminal justice project, I have the happy and challenging obligation of writing an encyclopedia entry for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice on “politics and penality.” This is a daunting project because it calls for a preliminary working definition of what current scholarship means by “politics” and what it means by “penality.” Critical writings on punishment and society, especially on the macro level and especially recently, tend to examine punishment within a reality of political priorities, and particularly in the context of power and inequality in their many forms. This calls for a loose, broad definition of “politics”. Moreover, scholarship has come to understand penality as a broad regime, beyond obvious and visible representations of penal power such as criminal courtrooms and prisons.

I’m still thinking about how to conceptualize the project (this post is part of that reflection), but it seems to me like there are at least three trends in recent literature on politics and penality that are particularly interesting:

1. The Separation and Overlap of Politics and Penality and the Importance of Neoliberalism as an Explanatory Factor

As I mentioned, one of the major novelties of the literature is observing and reporting on manifestations of penality outside the prison. In that respect, the work of critical geographers, economists, and public policy scholars has been most instructive. The notion of “million dollar blocks” has brought prison planning and expense out of the prison and into neighborhoods. The work on the impact of incarceration on families expands the circle affected by mass incarceration beyond the prison. The work on the conflation of ghetto and prison shows not only exclusion and confinement operating in and out of the prison, but also the inexorable link between the decline in welfare and the rise in incarceration as economic factors. Work that sees the hand of incarceration in landscape and industry; this “carceral term” is especially linked to the overall rise in importance of neoliberalism in explaining penality. It seems like neoliberalism is now at the heart of any macroanalysis of politics, and penality is no exception: what emerges from the literature is the sense that the tyranny of capitalism, miserly manifestations of shrinking welfare, and in general, the lack of care for the bottom 15% (20%? 50%? 99%?) of the population is what drives penality. This school of thought, which sees penality as the product of a grander political program, manifests itself not only in the context of class, but also race (particularly in North American writings that see punishment as part of a “racial project”). These big picture analyses tend to suggest a grand and sinister plan, in which punishment serves as a tool for a larger political economy scheme (echoing radical Marxist criminology) and has been criticized by some as imposing current notions of neoliberalism and capitalism rather than taking historical or contemporary actors on their own terms. There are also big questions as to the extent to which grand political trends (such as managerialism/actuarial justice) trickle down to actual actors. Neoliberalism also means that, popular progressive calls for abolitionism aside, it’s hard to imagine what abolitionism would actually look like, though some try.

2. The Association of Punitivism with Particular Political Positions

Critical literature of the 1970s through the 1990s that looked at the emergence of mass incarceration in the United States tended to associate classic association with conservatism, and with good reason. The classic bogeymen of this period are Nixon and Reagan–both associated with one of the major bogeymen of mass incarceration, the war on drugs. But more recent literature tends to view Nixon and Reagan not as aberrations, but rather as a continuation of trends that involved pathologization, criminalization, and marginalization, particularly of young black men. This literature ranges from arguments that particular liberal groups unwittingly contributed to disastrous circumstances (including opponents of harsh punishment) to arguments that see liberals as having “built prison America”, including welfare-minded professionals espousing paternalism toward the “pathologies of the black family.” These new writings are not unrelated to agonistic perspectives on criminal justice, which show that, rather than “seismic shifts” to and away from punitivism, criminal justice policy is the product of constant negotiation between political forces and movements.

Most recently, literature has drawn attention to the fact that punitivism is alive and well even within progressive and radical movements. Most of this literature looks at carceral feminism, in the context of human trafficking,  violence against women, and #metoo campaigns (see here and here), as indivisible from the overall neoliberal frame; but some literature links it to other progressive movements’ inconsistent calls to dismantle the carceral state while applying its logic to enemies of the movement (see also here and here).

3. Geopolitical Penality, Penality and Protection, Penality and National Security

New literature sees penality beyond the context of the domestic, as a manifestation of growing nationalism and security trends in a variety of countries around the world. The idea of border criminologies looks at how penality, xenophobia, and national security intersect, as does the relatively new field of crimmigration. As recession-era politics in the global north curbed incarceration, they affected a shift in resources and private investment toward immigration enforcement, the use of criminal logics in the immigration context, and the introduction of criminal technologies in managing immigration. Also important is the penal manifestation of political shifts in postcolonial and developing settings.

Please, let me know if there are other hot topics in politics and penality that you think are relevant!

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part V: The Meaning of Doing Time for the Animals

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

There are lots of interesting cases involving animal welfare, animal rights, and the complicated terrain of animal personhood. But what is unique to the criminal process is that at the center of the proceeding is a human defendant facing a possible incarceration sentence. An interesting aspect of this project involves the way activists perceive, and make meaning, of this prospect, and one possible way to think about this is to rely on Idit Kostiner’s typology of legal mobilization schemas.

Kostiner, who interviewed social justice activists, found that they related to what the law could do for their movement in three primary ways: instrumentally (whether they might “win” their rights through an effort to legislate or through impact litigation), politically (whether the very effort of participating in a mobilization project will bring the movement together, give it a political direction, galvanize it), and culturally (whether constructing the struggle in a rights perspective offers avenues of change in thought and perception.) While Kostiner found evidence of all three schemas in her interviews, she also hypothesized that there’s a progression from one to the other – that people move from the instrumental to the political to the cultural.

I found Kostiner’s work helpful in 2004, when I started working on the opposite question: why the polyamorous community in the Bay Area was not mobilizing for legal recognition of nonmonogamous relationships. Like Kostiner, my interviewees were influenced by considerations belonging in the three schemas. The instrumental perspective was served by the fact that many activists had found other ways to secure their rights, such as contracts, power of attorney documents, wills and trusts, and others found that keeping their relationships under the legal radar served them well in terms of rights. Politically, some of my interviewees were averse to the notion of damaging the LGBT marriage equality struggle, which was nascent at the time, by association, and wanted to give their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters their moment in the sun (my later work with Gwendolyn Leachman showed the wisdom of this approach, as well as how poorly it paid off for the poly activists later.) And culturally, many interviewees were averse to the idea that they would have to appeal to the mainstream, to be digested into “normality”, to appear bourgeois, to eschew their interests in sacred sexuality and BDSM, all of which seemed too dear a price to pay for legal recognition.

Studying animal rights activists using the same framework is useful in the sense that the three schemas can reflect attitudes toward a prospective conviction and jail time. Instrumentally, activists may work toward an acquittal in the hopes of preventing conviction and incarceration. Such a victory, whether through a jury acquittal or through an appellate reversal, would be a double win: for the human defendant, who won’t be going to prison, and for the nonhuman animals, if the win will be interpreted as some legal recognition of the value and moral weight of animal suffering (if not an acceptance of a weak or strong theory of animal personhood.)

But short of such an instrumental win, the prospect of incarceration could carry some important political implication. A normative, principled, ideological young person behind bars is a powerful motivator for movements to unite. There are some serious fractures within the animal rights movement, not only regarding strategies and action but also regarding activist styles, dispute resolution, and questions of intersectionality that have arisen in a variety of progressive movements and communities in the last few years. Some of these may heal in the face of a person unjustly incarcerated for bringing animal cruelty to light.

Incarceration also has a powerful cultural symbolism. It creates an important analogy between the animals, for whose conditions incarceration might be even regarded a euphemism, and their human protectors, now behind bars. In my years of studying and advocating about prison conditions, I’ve often heard the conditions described as “like animals.” Since here, helping animals is the point, there is something very powerful about analogizing incarceration. There is also a sense of cultural continuity with other movements for civil rights, particularly with incarcerated nonviolent activists fighting for compassion and equality. This is particularly important for movements building their action program around concept of Kingian nonviolent resistance. 

There’s plenty more to say, but this should give you an idea of the project – and now, I’ll get to work!

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part IV: Planning Legal Strategy

Image result for animal activists in court
Australian animal rights activists protesting during a criminal
trial of an activist for trespassing an animal culling operation.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Trials of animal rights activists can be seen as the site of convergence for two very different legal events: a criminal process against an individual charged with a crime, in which the individual faces the prospect of conviction and punishment (and the dilemmas involved in going to trial vs. pleading guilty), and a landmark case for animal rights. By contrast to impact litigation on issues of animal cruelty, though, the latter meaning is a bit more indirect: the accused are pointing the finger at their own accusers as lawbreakers (of anti-cruelty laws), perpetuators of illegalities (through the pursuit of ag-gag laws that might be struck down as unconstitutional), and moral transgressors (through engaging in cruelty.) This duality in the function of the trial has complicated implications as to the legal strategy employed by the activists.

To begin, there is the choice of legal representation. Cases pursued as impact litigation might attract the attention and services of organizations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) or animal law clinics at law schools (such as the program here at Harvard.) As Bruce Wagman explains here, there’s often a crossover between the litigation and the academic world in this field (Also see this great piece by Kathy Hessler). But most of what these organizations do is litigate with the animals as clients, as it were (now there’s an interesting issue of animal personhood), against factory farms, laboratories, zoos, amusement parks, etc., and they might find it difficult to litigate with a human lawbreaker as a client. This problem might reflect a more general rift in the animal rights community between the “moderates” and the “radicals”: Taimie Bryant writes about this rift, and the hesitation of the former to get behind the latter to provide legal representation, in this piece. There is also the more mundane issue of legal specialization: is it best to hire a criminal lawyer, or an animal rights advocate, for a criminal case involving animal rights advocacy? And how might the choice of representation inform the issues to highlight at the trial? This might also bring out interesting attorney-client conversations (and potentially disputes) as to the value of provocative strategies. 

The activists on trial seek support, financial and otherwise, and the emphasis on one aspect of the case over another might impact the sources of said support. Presenting oneself as an idealistic, otherwise normative person in risk of a considerable prison sentence might be a persuasive strategy in obtaining support on a personal basis from sympathetic people, but it also centers the person, rather than the suffering animals, in the debate. Presenting the criminal case as an effort to produce a landmark outcome is also fairly complicated. If the activists are seeking a jury trial, even in the happy event that they are acquitted, they will not obtain a reasoned, written decision supporting animal personhood and rights (or even animal welfare), and it might be anyone’s guess whether the acquitting verdict is the product of legal analysis or jury nullification due to sympathy for the defendants. So, is the desired outcome a conviction, followed by a reversal on appeal with a written judicial opinion? And if so, how might that affect the ways in which support is sought? 
Image may contain: 24 people, including Almira Tanner, Matt Johnson and Jon Frohnmayer, people smiling, people standing
Activists packing the court at Rachel Ziegler and Jon Frohnmayer’s
trial for open rescue activities, Sep. 9, 2019.
Photo credit: Paul Picklesimer on Facebook.
And what about behavior during the criminal trial? Is filling the courtroom with supporters wearing animal rights t-shirts a winning strategy, or might it prove a turnoff to a jury, especially in a rural farming area? Again, the answer might lie in the question what the activists are trying to achieve at trial.

And then there is the legal strategy itself. The endgame for some (albeit not all) animal liberationists is some recognition of animal personhood. There are fierce debates in the literature about how to conceptualize animal personhood, of course. The granddaddy of animal liberation theory, Peter Singer, seemed revolutionary when the book came out, but in light of later writings on the topic, his writing on food and medical experimentation does allow for some exceptions. Tom Regan’s take on animal personhood relies on the animals’ cognition. In their provocative comparison of the animal rights and pro-life movements, Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf rely on the concept of sentience. And  perhaps the most radical formulation of animal personhood is Gary Francione‘s abolitionist theory, which finds no exceptions to the prohibition against using animals for any purpose. And against these philosophical theorists, whose views are, perhaps best articulated as biocentric, we have the ecocentric views of environmental ethical thinkers, for whom the perpetuation of a species or an ecosystem might be more valuable than the protection of individual animals (see more about this debate in a post I wrote a while ago in my oft-neglected cooking blog, of all places.) The big question is – to what extent would prospective jurors need to “buy” any of these formulations of animal personhood, be they strong or weak, to find that the necessity defense applies and the activists were justified in saving the animals? Since the necessity defense requires a balance of harms, is it necessary that the harm be suffered by someone who has some sort of legal status, some sort of claim to rights? Or are rights and suffering fundamentally different? And to what extent will the activists’ lawyers expect jurors to parse out these different theories? Again, Helena Silverstein’s wonderful Unleashing Rights is relevant here: as she points out in other legal contexts, “lawyers in the movement rarely speak of animal rights in the courtroom.” But importantly, “rights talk itself is not out of bounds in the courtroom. When rights talk is used, however, it is not in the form of animal rights but in the form of human rights. . . lawyers and movement organizations advance human rights claims such as the First Amendment right to freedom of speech in order to promote animal rights.” Is this true in the criminal context as well?
Finally, given the jury’s power to nullify (big debates here about what jurors should do when confronted with unjust laws or their application), there is the question of whether the activists’ lawyers should invest in crafting their arguments within existing law (that is, arguing that the necessity defense, as currently framed, applies to open rescue) or changing the law (that is, arguing that the necessity defense should change because the current conceptualization of animal suffering/rights/personhood in law is insufficient or unjust.) What the lawyers choose to do is also a question of jurisdiction: there might be some states in which it is easier to work within the interpretation of the necessity defense, and those might, ironically, be places in which the defense is not codified, which might create a first-impression situation that gives the lawyers an interesting blank canvas to argue rights and personhood. 
But underlying these important considerations is an important feature of the criminal process: pursuing animal rights through the criminal process means that there is a human individual who might face conviction, and even incarceration, at the end of the day. My last blog post on the project discusses that.

Part V

Facing Criminal Charges to Save Animals, Part III: Planning Open Rescue in the Shadow of the Law

Image result for dxe arrested
Arrest during a protest in Petaluma. Photo credit: DxE.

Whether or not the necessity defense applies, or should apply, to open rescue, is a doctrinal legal question. As a law and society scholar, I ask myself questions about the interaction of the law with people, institutions, and movements. Because I have a special interest in social movements, I ask myself: How do animal rights activists understand and perceive the role of the criminal process in their lives? The extent to which the law is present in people’s lives is its own field of study, known as legal consciousness. 

Part I
Part II

In their classic book The Common Place of Law Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey present three schemas of relating to the law in everyday lives: before the law, with the law, and against the law. People’s experience of the law extends farther than their involvement in official legal institutions, such as calling the police on someone, visiting a courtroom, or hiring a lawyer. While some scholars have supported the idea that the law is present everywhere in everyday lives (see Austin Sarat’s study of the welfare poor) others have found people so busy surviving that they are not even conscious of the law or so skilled and privileged that they can structure even oppressive legal experiences, such as incarceration, as “games”, “experiments”, or “educational experiences”, outside of the legal framework.

But what about social movements? An entire area of study is devoted to this question, looking at the way advocates and activists perceive the law. Idit Kostiner, who studied social justice activists, found that they see the law’s value through three main schemas: instrumental (obtaining rights), political (galvanizing activists and organizing) and cultural (relying on the law to change perceptions.) In expanding the understanding of legal consciousness beyond merely obtaining rights, she follows Michael McCann, who argues that legal mobilization helps social movements even if they don’t get exactly what they advocate for, because it provides them with a framework that is helpful for advancing their cause.

How do animal rights activists map onto all this? The animal rights movement operates within the constraints of a legal order that completely ignores, or negates, what the movement believes in. The law sees animals as property, and much of our economic system is structured around the exploitation of animals (often in conjunction with the exploitation of others.) This could make the activists very cynical about the law. Indeed, a beautiful interview-based study conducted by Erik Fritsvold found that radical environmental activists tend to perceive their relationship to the law as “under the law” and their primary engagement with it through lawbreaking.

Fritsvold’s subjects and mine are not that different from each other. The activists he studies also define their actions as direct action, which, according to Noel Sturgeon, is “a series of ‘actions’ engaged in by groups that organize themselves in a decentralized, nonhierarchical manner . . . which use a participatory, democratic, decision-making process . . . and which prefer direct action to institutionalized, electoral, or interest-group politics. Frequently, such groups are involved in civil disobedience, that is, the principled breaking of the law in the process of political protest.”

For direct action environmentalists, the law is an instrument of injustice to fight against. This schema differs from Ewick and Silbey’s category of “against the law”, because to the activists, “the law veils the illegitimacy of the existing social order and actively represses dissent. Against the Law observes that the law often fails as an asset to achieve justice; Under the Law views this failing as intentional and perceives law as an active agent of injustice.”

Nonetheless, it seems that animal rights activists in general, and DxE activists in particular, somewhat differ from Fritsvold’s interviewees. Helena Silverstein’s wonderful 1996 book Unleashing Rights about animal rights activism shows that, despite thorny philosophical difficulties with the concept of “rights”, which activists saw as anthropocentric, they did not shy from employing this concept when it served their purpose–or from hiding it from sight when it did not. Indeed, my own subjects, when planning open rescues, display some important markers of legal sophistication. Until fairly recently, DxE was led by Wayne Hsiung, an attorney and former legal academic, who is very well-versed in the legal status of animal rights nationally and internationally. Other members of DxE are lawyers, law students, or aspiring law students, and very well aware of the role the law plays in their activism.

Important questions regarding DxE’s legal consciousness involve how open rescue operations are planned. In anticipation of a direct action, do activists reach out to legal authorities to report animal cruelty? Do they expect the authorities to intervene, and on whose behalf? When entering the facility, do activists try to seek detection, avoid detection, or a mix of both? If and when they encounter the facility owners or workers, do they attempt to alert the media or resolve things quietly? When encountering law enforcement in the field, how do they interact with them?

Answers to these questions are strategically tricky, because there are two different legal outcomes looming ahead: the short-term one consists of a possible arrest of the activists, perhaps followed later by a court case. The long-term outcome consists of changing the laws of the animal products industry and, perhaps in our lifetime, even eradicating it. What activists might do to promote one of these outcomes could harm the other, and requires careful thinking ahead. It is also the case that, even with carefully planned actions, unexpected circumstances can change the nature of the encounter and enhance, or diminish, the clash with law enforcement. I plan to look at these questions as well.

The next post in the series will address preparations and strategies for criminal trials, involving both strategic and tactical considerations.

Part IV
Part V

Facing Criminal Charges for Saving Animals, Part II: The Necessity Defense

Image result for activists rescuing chicken
Activist rescuing pigs. Photo courtesy DxE.

Part I here

The necessity defense is recognized in common law as a situation in which a person violates the law in order to prevent or mitigate harm. One way to understand the principle behind necessity is to think of a car swerving off the road to avoid an accident and then running into someone’s fence. Ordinarily, the driver would be responsible for the damage to property, but because she caused it in order to avoid a greater harm, we do not hold her responsible. Necessity belongs to a family of affirmative defenses known as “justifications”: rather than merely excusing an individual for a particular set of circumstances that absolve them of responsibility (because they are insane, too young, or intoxicated, for example), a justification applies more universally, and might be regarded as a legal statement that, when faced with these circumstances, the law wants people to choose the lesser harm.

As Jenni James explains in this excellent article, the necessity defense can be elusive, because over the years judges have narrowed its scope. Most states do not even have it codified into their penal code: for example, to find California’s necessity defense, you’d have to recur to the California jury instructions. The elements vary somewhat across jurisdictions, but for the most part they conform to some general principles:

  1. Serious harm (in CA, defendants have to prove that they acted “in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else)”
  2. No adequate legal alternative.
  3. Proportionality between the harm committed and the harm avoided ( in CA, “[t]he defendant’s acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided). In other words, the opposite of what the Cowboy Fireman did in this terrific Faith Petric song.
  4. A genuine, subjective belief that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil.
  5. Objective support for the subjective belief: In other words, that “a reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances.
  6. Lack of culpability on the part of the defendant for the emergency in the first place (CA law requires that the defendant “did not substantially contribute to the emergency.”)

As James argues in her article, the ability to even present the necessity defense in court depends on judicial discretion (typically exercised in the context of a motion in limine to prevent the presentation of the defense.) In one decision, U.S. v. Schoon, the Ninth Circuit held that the necessity defense will only be available to activists who engage in “direct civil disobedience”–that is, directly challenging the rules they protest–and not “indirect civil disobedience” activists, who violate a law that is “not, in itself, the object of protest.” As James explains, open rescuers engage in both forms of civil disobedience, because they challenge both the exploitation and cruelty of the animal industry (indirect) AND ag-gag laws (direct.) But the upshot of the decision was that protesters, by definition, were to be denied the necessity defense–even though lower courts sill allow it on occasion. And of course, as James points out, the necessity defense can be a poor fit for these premeditated and planned operations, because by its very nature it is designed to address emergencies.

This means that activists encounter some serious hurdles in presenting the defense. The first and foremost issue that might come up is the big question whether the suffering of animals constitutes “serious harm,” and also, a harm that is proportional to the harm they cause when they enter the facility or remove an animal. Part of this debate is factual: the activists would have to prove the imminent harm to the animals, and to come up with a way to show that this harm is equal or greater to the harm that their actions caused to the farmers. Video evidence showing sick or dying animals might prove their marginal monetary worth to the farmers as well as the harm and suffering to them (but requires, of course, that activists engage with the legal framework that sees animals as property.) As to how harm and suffering are to be measured, one thing I plan to look at is the extent to which potential jurors are open to considering evidence of animal emotions and theories of animal personhood.

I’m reading Frans de Waal’s Mama’s Last Hug, whose point of departure is the animal behaviorist’s skepticism about proof. De Waal argues that we can, and should, be able to assess and measure animal emotions, which human and nonhuman animals can both exhibit and control. The examples he provides show nonhuman animals as imbued with a sophisticated understanding of their social world, as well as a sense of justice, as well as fairness. Larry Carbone’s interesting What Animals Want, which is set at a lab, raises important questions about assessing physical suffering of animals held in labs for experimentation. My hope is to expand my reading on animal emotion, feelings, and suffering, and think about which theory of animal agency would be persuasive to a jury.

Then, there are questions about the subjective and objective intents of the activists, as well as the extent to which they recurred to legal means before taking illegal action (reports to the police, etc.) – this element can be difficult to handle, because often one can know of the specific harms that are occurring only via illegal means. In short, as James argues in her article, “[j]udges seldom have to overtly pit commercial privacy interests against an animal’s right not to suffer. Instead, judges often assume the practice causing the animal’s suffering was legal and thus not harmful for purposes of the necessity defense balancing of harms. Rescuers who wish to remove animals from industrial facilities, then, should be careful to select only animals suffering from clearly illegal activity, which, ideally, should also be documented. However, to avoid the appearance of vigilantism, rescuers might consider using this documentation sparingly and perhaps even sharing it with law enforcement promptly.”

But that raises other questions, which are a proper subject for ethnographic research: How do animal rights activists relate to the law, and to the prospect of criminal justice in their activities? More on that in Part III.

Part III
Part IV
Part V

Facing Criminal Charges for Saving Animals, Part I: Open Rescue

Image result for dxe rescues bird
DxE activists with rescued birds. Image courtesy Indybay.

Hello, friends! I’m writing this from the Harvard Animal Law Policy Program, where I am a Visiting Fellow this fall. My plan for this fellowship is to examine the intersection of criminal justice, social movements, and animal rights–in other words, what happens when animal rights activists engaging in open rescue are criminally charged for their actions?

A brief primer: the conditions of confinement experienced by animals–cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and others–in factory farms are beyond atrocious, and this is true not only for conventional farms, but also for so-called “humane” or “cage-free” facilities. I have seen footage that has torn my heart apart. In one video, from a chicken farm, I saw emaciated and sick chickens, some of which were barely moving and clearly close to death. The animals trampled upon each other to breathe and carcasses of trampled chickens were clearly visible on the ground. Parts of the animals’ bodies were torn, likely by other animals trying to push through to obtain food and air. There were some indications that the animals, starving and parched, had turned to cannibalizing each other.

These are difficult things to see and experience, partly because opening our eyes and hearts to animal suffering requires seriously reconsidering our consumption habits that contribute to this cruelty. But the first step is, of course, to raise public awareness to these conditions, and there are very few legal avenues to doing so. Because of that, activist organizations turn to a technique called open rescue.

The Animals and Society Institute defines open rescue as “[t]he process of giving aid, rescue, and veterinary treatment to animals confined in typical factory farm living conditions. The immediate aim of the rescuers, who identify themselves even when trespass is necessary, is to save lives, while documenting the animal suffering inherent in large-scale industrialized food production.” This definition has several important components.

First, it is a “rescue” mission, and therefore often involves not only documenting conditions at the farm, but also removing sick and endangered animals. The activists I spoke to explained that they seek to identify animals that might imminently die or suffer irreparable harm unless they are removed from the facility (this, in itself, requires them to do some selection, because all animals subject to factory farm lives are in dire circumstances.) They also do this because working for animal rights can be emotionally devastating and demoralizing, and rescuing animals provides an optimistic element to the experience.

Second, open rescue is “open”. In an article about the need for solidarity and cooperation in the animal rights movement, Taimie Bryant quotes Paul Shapiro, formerly of Compassion over Killing, who explains that, by contrast to other animal liberation actions in which participants “go to great lengths to conceal their identities”, the point of open rescue is to rescue the animals “completely openly… you videotape yourself doing it, you take full responsibility for the fact that you did it and you openly publicize the fact that you did it.” Shapiro argues that the overt nature of the action garners much more sympathy for the activists and focuses attention away from the morality of their own actions (“should we treat them like orderly criminals, or like political prisoners?”) and toward the conditions suffered by the animals.
–> But, as it turns out, you can’t really avoid the question of how to treat the people, even in the face of the serious question how to treat the animals. Entering factory farms to document conditions does not only violate garden-variety penal code provisions against trespass (and, if animals are rescued, larceny), but also a slew of ag-gag laws–laws lobbied for by the agricultural industry prohibiting entry to, and documentation of, animal factory farms.

As an aside, saving animals turns out to be a fairly dangerous proposition in general. During Hurricane Katrina, the Animal Legal Defense Fund composed a memo offering legal guidance for the brave people who broke into abandoned, flooded homes to rescue animals left behind. Even in the face of the heartbreaking story of Snowball— reportedly, the inspiration behind legislation requiring states to come up with animal rescue planning as a condition for FEMA assistance–the law offered (and still offers) little to no protection even for people who rescue the most sympathetic animals of all: domestic pets. Good Samaritan Laws, which protect emergency rescuers from criminal and/or civil liability, either do not refer explicitly to animals or explicitly use the term “person.” Local animal cruelty laws do not go as far as offer coverage for rescuers.

This is especially true for farmed animals: as reported by the Animal Welfare Institute, several states explicitly exclude farmed animals from the definition of “animal” in their animal cruelty laws, so that these laws do not apply to them. Moreover, the aforementioned ag-gag laws were designed specifically to protect agricultural interests, as exemplified in this Intercept story by Glenn Greenwald. So, from the perspective of the farmers, the legislature, and the prosecutors, open rescuers are trespassers (when they step on the premises) and thieves (when they remove animals from the premises.)

My project involves a study of an organization called Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) which, among other avenues, pursues open rescue and documentations. DxE activists use sophisticated technology–drones, virtual reality filming–to present the horrors of factory farms to the public. And, the organization often rescues animals, whom they name and care for with the help of vets and sanctuaries. Such acts have resulted in several criminal cases against activists. Some of these have been dismissed (such as the case against a woman who gave water to thirsty pigs on their way to slaughter) but some are still pending, in California (Sonoma County), Utah, and North Carolina.

The activists facing trial have, so far, declined plea bargains in favor of jury trials, and they plan to argue for a necessity defense.

The next installment in this blog post series will examine the elements and feasibility of relying on a necessity defense in open rescue cases.

Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Film Review: Once Upon a Time in. . . Hollywood

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I just came out of a screening of Quentin Tarantino’s new movie Once Upon a Time in. . . Hollywood, which I somewhat dreaded watching as an expert on the cases. My own forthcoming book about the Manson family, Yesterday’s Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole, has made me somewhat leery of Mansonsploitation, of which there is plenty as far as the eye can see. Because of the tendency to turn the tragedy of the murders (and the tragedy of five decades of incarceration that followed) into a spectacle, I decided early on I don’t want to make a cent off of the book – all royalties are going to an organization that provides parole representation for indigent lifers – and commercial enterprises centered on the story of the murders give me the creeps.

But Tarantino’s movie is not a spectacular recreation of the murders; in fact, it is a wise, almost lyrical, reflection on their cultural legacy. The main protagonists of his story, actor Rick Dalton and his stuntman Cliff Booth, live a reality adjacent to that of Polanski and Tate, Dalton’s next-door neighbors We see both men confronted with turning points in their professional lives: aging out of acting, aging out of stunts, the importance of career, what does excelling in one’s trade/art mean, big questions for thoughtful and flawed people. DiCaprio and Pitt are at the top of their game, both painting human, sympathetic, charismatic characters, and the movie is full of poignant, moving, and important glimpses into their inner worlds without becoming heavyhanded. The gentleness and nuance with which the two act their roles, and with which Tarantino paints their inner feelings, stands in contrast to the Spaghetti Western world that Tarantino has picked as a foil for the story. Truly a masterpiece.

But I watched the movie not just as a movie, but as an American phenomenon – a commentary on events that changed the course of American history, politics, and criminal justice. The movie is set around two axes of real history: the weekend in February in which Manson stops by the Polanski/Tate residence looking for Terry Melcher (the previous occupant) and the infamous weekend in August. Because we all know what happened in real life, a sense of malaise and foreboding accompanies our glimpses of Sharon Tate, wonderfully portrayed by Margot Robbie, as she lives out a hopeful, sunny existence expecting her child.

Much has been made of Robbie’s few speaking lines; I don’t see her role as diminished because she is not fully fleshed out as a character. Rather, her portrayal looks at her as the symbol she would come to embody – the quintessential California victim: a beautiful, famous, white woman about to give birth to a beautiful, famous, white child. Her joie-de-vivre around town–buying a book for her husband, watching herself on film and enjoying the joy she inspires in her fellow moviegoers, her delight in her friends–is palpable. Even Steve McQueen’s commentary about her and Sebring–their enduring friendship after their breakup–does not taint her wholesomeness. We watch and dread, because we know the only thing that can kill pure, untainted good is pure, uncompromising evil. And we brace ourselves.

In Yesterday’s Monsters I go into the way the narrative of the murders has shaped the California correctional landscape: because the crimes came to be seen as sui generis evil, they were the catalyst for the return of the death penalty; for the creation of life without parole; and for the dramatic changes in parole proceedings, including the gubernatorial veto right. In doing so, California fashioned what I call in the book the “extreme punishment trifecta” – its three most extreme punishments have come to be virtually indistinguishable from each other, creating a regime of interminable incarceration.

The reason these crimes were so instrumental as a rhetorical device in these developments is that the narrative around them was largely shaped by Vincent Bugliosi in his classic book Helter Skelter. As many of Bugliosi’s readers will attest, the book very intently and aggressively promotes a narrative of the crimes as bizarre and apocalyptic, focusing on Manson’s indoctrination of his followers into believing in a race war and helping jump-start it. While this story is not wrong, it is a truth that obscures other truths. The Manson family was a cult, though it was not understood as such until the mid-1970s, when our awareness of brainwashing and cults arose in the context of similar groups. And as a cult, it exploited–physically, psychologically, and sexually–its members, most of them adolescent girls. The crime also had the markings of an “ordinary criminals” crime, with a drug-deal-gone-wrong background (the narrative that Jeff Guinn exposes in his excellent Manson biography). For legal reasons, Bugliosi had to highlight the bizarre and obscure the ordinary. It’s quite possible that a similar crime tried today, through the prism of #metoo sensibilities, would see the girls as victims, not as perpetrators.

What is unique about Tarantino’s portrayal of the Manson family is that he manages to pack into the movie complexity and ambiguity. Manson appears in a brief scene in the middle of the movie, and is unremarkable, almost pathetic. We meet the rest of the family through the eyes of Cliff, the stuntman, who gives one of the girls a ride to Spahn Ranch. There, he encounters a scene that is at once pathetic and menacing. That not all is well at the ranch is obvious to Cliff, and he proceeds to check whether his old friend from his moviemaking days, George Spahn, is well. He is not entirely convinced that is the case, and has some disturbing run-ins with the scrawny, suspicious teenagers around him. The only violent incident happens with “Clem” (Steve Grogan), who is portrayed as small change. Tex Watson is portrayed as menacing and dangerous, but strikes out with Cliff. And throughout the whole scene, Tarantino creates a wonderful sense of duality between the young hippies’ quasi-military readiness and guardedness against the stranger and the obvious squalor in which they live. You are left with the feeling that Tarantino, as opposed to Bugliosi, knows that you are an adult, and let’s you form your own mind about these people and the danger they portend.

Even the eventual depiction of the disturbing night packs some surprises. It’s hard to fully describe them without ruining some classic Tarantino moments, which I might get to at a later time, after many more of you will have seen the film. But I will mention that, even in the most threatening and scary moments leading up to the home invasion, there are moments of “ordinary criminals”, moments of “cult”, and moments of “Helter Skelter”, though the latter are subdued and barely hinted at. Again, the viewers are treated with respect, left with autonomy to form their own impressions of the group, and free to comprehend the murders through the eyes of complex, adult fictional characters. Laudable choices all around.

Finally, Tarantino and the entire crew is to be congratulated for making a movie that creates a perfect sense of time and place. The songs, the design, the cars, the atomsphere, are so alive around the characters that they provide a solid presence for understanding the crimes. The chaos of the sixties, the class clashes, the unrealness of the movie industry and its dark underbelly, do not, of course, justify violence, but they place it in the context of the late sixties–a time and place so fundamental to the real and fictional events and so lacking from the parole hearings I analyze in Yesterday’s Monsters. As I explain in the book, any effort by the inmates (by now people in their sixties, seventies, and eighties, very different from the squalid teenagers in the movie) to place their actions in the context of time and place is disparaged by the parole board as an effort to “minimize” accountability and as “lack of insight” about their culpability; Tarantino’s movie is a reminder that these particular crimes could only have happened in this particular time and place. It is not an excuse; it is a deep understanding that matters for a culture still obsessed with the crimes and their aftermath.

In his book about the cultural impact of the Manson murders, Jeffrey Melnick critically analyzes the assertion that Manson “killed the Sixties”. Tarantino has brought the Sixties back to life as never before, and you will not know exactly how until you watch this gem of a movie. And after you see it, let’s talk about it.

Assessing the Dangerousness of Redball Criminals: Two Israel Examples

My forthcoming book Yesterday’s Monsters examines the parole hearings of the Manson Family, who have been consistently denied parole for decades. A key issue in the book is the notoriety of the murders and the prevalence of a narrative about them, which I call “the Helter Skelter narrative”, that portrays the crimes as bizarre, sui generis occurrences. You’ll have to read the book to see how the Board of Parole Hearings handles these cases. For now, since I’m visiting Israel for a few weeks, here are two stories of local “redball criminals” and how their requests for parole and vacation have been handled.

A few words about prison sentences for murder in Israel: Until a recent amendment, the only sentence possible for murder was life in prison. The court did not announce a minimum time like in the U.S. (such as “twenty-five to life”); it merely announced “life”. The authority to decide how long “life” lay solely in the hands of the President of Israel–a role he inherited from the British High Commissioner prior to Israeli independence. Life prisoners submitted a request to set the length of their prison sentence, and a special department at the President’s office made a recommendation. From then on the sentence would be treated as a finite sentence for release purposes, whose clock starts ticking after the inmate has served two thirds of the sentence; for example, if the President set the sentence at, say, thirty years, the prisoner would come up for parole after twenty years. There’s been a recent amendment that Americanizes the scheme of homicide offenses in Israel, but it’s not particularly relevant to this post.[1]

Another important note pertains to vacations. Under the Prison Ordinance and relevant regulations, prisoners are eligible for short vacations from prison. These depend on the prisoner’s level of dangerousness, the purpose for the vacation (an important family event, such as a funeral or an important birthday), and the time the prisoner has spent behind bars. Some of my lifer clients from the late 1990s have been receiving vacations regularly.

In 1995, as not only Israeli readers know, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by political assassin Yigal Amir. The murder shook the country to the core, and as we all know, irrevocably changed the course of history by derailing the peace process, assisting Netanyahu in ascending to the Prime Minister role, and legitimizing hate campaigns against Israeli Arab citizens, Palestinian residents, and the Israeli left-wing. But closer to the events themselves, there was still some horror and shock about the crime, which led the Knesset to legislate a special personal law, colloquially known as the “Yigal Amir Law”: a law that binds the discretion of the parole board in cases of people who murder the Prime Minister for political-ideological reasons. There’s only one such person (so far), and the law was specifically tailored to address his particular case. The President may theoretically disregard the Board’s legally-mandated “recommendation” not to release Amir, and in these times it’s not completely farfetched to imagine a President who might do so, but disincentives abound (the committee is chaired by a Justice of the Israel Supreme Court.)

Interestingly, some members of Meretz, the left-wing, civil-rights political party, abstained from the vote. They explained that creating a special, personal law for just one person was a violation of the principle of legality, no matter who the person was. Others expressed similar trepidation, but thought this was such a rare and unique case that there was no concern about a snowball effect (things have gone so seriously awry in the civil rights arena in Israel to the point that I’m no longer sure this is true.)

Another famous case involved the horrific murder of Asaf Shtierman in 1996, which remained unsolved until 2000. When a woman named Sandrine Ben-David reported severe domestic violence incidents to the police, the investigation revealed that her young husband, Rei Horev, and two young women, Sigalit Heimovitch and Lihi Gluzman, were responsible for the murder. Horev, the main instigator (for psychopathic reasons that are very hard to undestand – Shtierman was a stranger to him), received life in prison, and has been behind bars for nearly twenty years. He is, according to reports, a model prisoner with a clean disciplinary record, entrusted with responsibilities such as working on a computer. When Horev’s son with Ben-David turned 13, Horev received a short vacation from prison to attend his Bar Mitzvah (under heavy Prison Authority guard.) However, when Horev’s son enlisted in the army, Horev’s request for a vacation was denied. The judge who chaired the committee wrote a decision that reminded me a lot of the Californian equivalent Board’s vague justifications to keep the Manson Family behind bars: “According to his employers in prison, he is a responsible, essential prisoner, devoted to work, contributing, serious, and meaningful. . . he participates in educational activities and has successfully completed several therapeutic group. His psychological assessment diagnosed a significant tendency to avoid negative feelings, aggressive urges, and to see the world in an overly optimistic way. This mechanism serves him now, but might make things difficult for him when he confronts situations that evoke strong feelings. Despite a high level of insight about his past, he is lacking a deep understanding about the destructive dynamics of his past close relationships, which could be a source of difficulty in the future.”

A couple of days ago I posted about convicted rapist-murderer Shlomo Haliwa, who gets out in 2024; Horev, if he receives the customary reduction of a third of his sentence ,gets out in 2025. Who is to say which of these men is or is not dangerous? Anyone who’s heard Haliwa on tape explaining to crime documentary producers that he “likes to fuck” and that all his “relationships” were consensual with girls who “wanted them” can conclude that this is not someone who’s shown a smidgeon of insight. When he gets out, he will be 75 years old, and is still a strong, healthy man, probably as easily capable of overpowering and coercing a woman as he did in his thirties. Horev, on the other hand, has expressed remorse for his horrific crime; the extent to which he can be believed is debatable.

These cases raise the same difficulties that Yesterday’s Monsters raise about the Manson Family inmates. To what extent does the notoriety of a case impact decisions to release? And is it a legitimate consideration? Is it legitimate to factor the public’s distaste for a particular murderer in decisions to deny parole or vacations? And is there a proper measure of whether the distaste is justified? Redball crimes matter a lot in creating public policy and fueling the public’s imagination about crime, but they also feature real victims and real perpetrators who are, after all, just people.

Yesterday’s Monsters comes out early 2020 from UC Press.

————————————

[1] It is, however, relevant to some of my other work: I’ve been studying American influences on Israeli criminal justice.