Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Bank Robberies On the Rise


After notorious bank robber Willie Sutton was released from prison, he filmed a commercial in 1970 for a Connecticut bank, touting the bank's new photo credit card, a security measure. Now three decades later, at a time when everybody else -- from airports to government agencies to office buildings - are emphasizing their metal detectors and scanners and beefed-up security personnel, banks seem to be taking the opposite tack: They apparently prefer to be seen as friendly rather than secure.

Is it a coincidence that, almost as soon as Commerce Bank opened 17 branches in New York City, 16 of them were robbed?

Commerce Bank has the distinction of being the most targeted bank for robberies in New York this year. But it is probably unfair to single it out for criticism. It is certainly not alone. Bank robberies have more than doubled in the city this year so far, compared to 1999. By the beginning of September, there were 312; in all of 1999 there were just 141.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has blamed the surge of robberies in New York banks on their lax security, and security experts agree. Tom Reppetto, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, says that many banks have cut down on the number of armed guards and do not have such standard security equipment as bullet-resistant barriers, closed circuit television, and "dye packs" - stacks of cash that explode with an ineradicable dye minutes after the robber leaves. Diana L. Taylor, the New York State Banking superintendent, has complained that many banks tell their employees to acquiesce to the robber's request. "This posture sends a clear message to the criminal that the institution is an easy and convenient mark for robbery," she wrote. And Robert McCrie, professor of security management at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, after analyzing the police department's latest bank robbery statistics, concluded: "Senior management in banking firms is blocking the imposition of needed controls They are resisting approving security measures that could make a difference."

Why Would New York Banks Be So Casual?

First, it is important to point out that few bank robberies in New York bear any resemblance to "Dog Day Afternoon" or "Bonnie and Clyde." The majority are committed without an actual weapon, just a note, and result in payoffs under $2,000. Most bank robbers nationwide, according to security consultant John Kennish, "do not case the bank prior to the attack, wear any kind of disguise to hide their identity, or have a post-attack plan in place prior to the attack." Violence is rare, though it does occur: In the course of 7,127 bank robberies committed nationwide in 2000-2001, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, eight people were killed.

This may help explain why, in an interview with Crain's New York Business, Vernon Hill, the chief executive officer of Commerce Bank, which is based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, could apply a cost-benefit analysis to such security measures as bullet-resistant partitions: "If we get 11 million customer visits and if we get robbed five to six times during the same period," he said, "am I going to design branches for the 11 million, or for the five to six robberies?"

Cost-consciousness is part of the equation. So is an apparent fatalism. The New York State Bankers Association says it encourages its members to implement what are called Best Practices strategies including dye packs and bullet-resistant barriers to reduce crime, but the association's general counsel Roberta Kotkin sounds less than confident about the efficacy of such a measure: "A study showed that 89 percent of banks that have bullet-resistant barriers were robbed," she says. Then why is it considered a best practice? "It's a deterrent," she replies, but no fail-safe antidote to robbery. "We have the best interests of our customer in mind. We do what we can. Bank robberies can't be eradicated."

This does not mean banks are completely indifferent. Some banks have strengthened individual branches where robberies have taken place, though, in order to keep costs down, have opted not to make wholesale improvements in their branch network. North Fork, which had 27 robberies in its 78 branches, upgraded its security by installing digital cameras that display the customer's photo on a flat screen as a deterrent. Still, Edward Hausdorf, the director of security at North Force Bank, said, "If someone is intent on robbing a bank, they're going to rob the bank."

But Commissioner Kelly and the others say there is plenty more that the banks could be doing. Kelly recently railed at a Chase Manhattan Bank manager who took 15 minutes to dial 911 after a robbery took place. "They don't get it," Kelly told the press. "They have a security guard, and he said he didn't see anything." Kelly wondered why Emigrant Savings Bank, which was robbed by the same perpetrator several times, did nothing to alter its security practices.

In Europe, banks have been installing "people traps" in which customers must enter the bank through an enclosure that includes a metal detector and takes considerably more time to exit. A security guard can press a button and trap the robber before he can escape.

In the absence of such obvious preventive measures by banks here, the police themselves are employing such strategies as stakeouts and special surveillance at branches that have been struck numerous times, according to Reppetto of the Citizens Crime Commission.

Meanwhile, Taylor, the New York State Banking superintendent, is trying to apply pressure on banks by informing them that bank examiners will be focusing on "safety and soundness" during their examinations. They will be looking to see that corrective action is taking place.

"If banks don't make the move toward better safety practices, they may find themselves on the road to a legislated solution," Taylor says, "whereby compliance with a set of standards is legally mandated by the New York City Council and/or the state legislature."

Gary M. Stern has written articles for the Daily News, NY Post, and NY Observer, and newsletters for JPMorgan Chase.

 

The Racial Profiling Settlement


More than four years after Amadou Diallo was gunned down by police, a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Diallo's parents seeking millions in damages nears trial, sure to re-ignite some public opinion against the department if it goes before a jury.

In contrast, few headlines were made last month when city officials settled a federal class-action suit accusing the police department of illegal racial profiling when stopping suspects. But the settlement, while downplayed by the department as merely formalizing changes that have already been made, requires department records to be turned over for outside review through 2007. This ensures that racial profiling - which is what police critics say killed Diallo -- will remain the subject of intense legal and judicial scrutiny for years to come. And, with data on race often subject to more than one interpretation, the settlement could wind up sparking future debates.

The Settlement

The police department will not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the non-profit group that filed the federal lawsuit one month after the Diallo shooting, naming as plaintiffs 10 black men who said they had unfairly been stopped by police because of their race. As part of the settlement, these men will receive a total payout of $167,500 from the city.

The settlement also includes a court order prohibiting the department from racial profiling (it is already against department policy). Once the agreement becomes final (which will likely happen during a November 25 “fairness hearing,” a standard practice in class-action suits that gives plaintiffs a chance to object to the settlement), police will also be obliged to begin conducting racial-bias "audits." The results of these "audits" must be turned over quarterly to the Center for review.

Along with these internal audits, the department must turn over every so-called "stop-and-frisk" report. Each time a New York police officer stops a potential suspect and pats them down, the officer must fill out a form, essentially answering why they stopped the person in the first place. To try and ensure fairness, another outside law firm will also review the reports. U. S. District Judge Shira Scheindlein would review anything found by the center to be questionable.

The police department and the plaintiffs have also agreed to conduct outreach programs in schools and elsewhere to inform citizens why the police make stops, how to respond when stopped, and the rights people have if they believe they have been unfairly stopped . Between 40 and 50 such programs will be held at various city high schools each year..

Path to Compromise

Much has changed since the lawsuit was filed. Lawyers targeted the police department's Street Crime Unit, citing a 1999 report (in pdf format) by the New York State Attorney General's Office that reviewed 175,000 stop-and-frisk forms and found that the unit stopped about 16 black potential suspects for every stop that resulted in an arrest. Diallo was shot by four officers from the unit who were patrolling for a suspected serial rapist. The Attorney General's report and a report by the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights in 2000 both found that the police department stopped a disproportionately large number of blacks and Hispanics.

But police brass disbanded the unit in April (it had already been de-emphasized much earlier), citing decreased numbers on the police force and a need to deploy officers elsewhere. And a month before that, Commissioner Ray Kelly issued an order against racial profiling, putting in writing that the department prohibited "the use of race, color, ethnicity or national origin as the determinative factor for initiating police action" Of course, Kelly was sure to emphasize that this had been policy all along, just unwritten.

The true reasons behind these changes may be more closely tied to the lawsuit than city officials will ever admit, but it was certainly logical for the police to downplay the settlement, especially considering the avalanche of civil claims that inundate the city every year. Many of these claims involve allegations of improper behavior by the police department. There were 1,796 new police action claims filed in fiscal year 2002, while $21.9 million was paid out by the city for such claims in the same year, according to the New York City Comptroller's Office.

Yet in fiscal year 2003, there were only 41 police action verdicts, according to the New York City Law Department (12 of which were for the plaintiffs). The Diallo lawsuit seeks $81 million in damages and pain and suffering (although numbers named in pending civil lawsuits can be substantially inflated; Abner Louima sued the city for $155 million after he was tortured by police at a stationhouse, and he wound up settling for $8.75 million in 2001).

Reactions and Repercussions

It certainly wasn't the money, then, that led the New York Post to label the settlement as an "obscene sellout" in a September 20th editorial. Rather, the paper was dubious of how the settlement will play out. Bill Goodman, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said that the Center for Constitutional Rights will be on alert for patterns of racial bias, rather than scrutinizing individual incidents.

But Goodman hesitated when asked whether data gathered from the police department will be released to the public. "We haven't decided that," Goodman finally said; as far as he knows, he added, nothing in the settlement would prohibit the center from doing so. While the Post is concerned that the center will somehow "come up with wholly different stats," data released by the New York City Council this summer already demonstrate how easily statistics can make the department look bad.

"Blacks Are Searched by Police At a Higher Rate, Data Show," read The New York Times headline from the summer. The data showed that 50.9 percent of. persons stopped and searched by police in the first six months of 2002 were black, about double the percentage of the black population of the city (24.5 percent, according to the 2000 Census). Police quickly defended the numbers, pointing out that 59 percent of suspects in violent crimes were black, as identified by victims.

One wonders if the stop-and-frisk forms will point to a true cause-and-effect relationship between those two numbers for the average cop out on the beat when scrutinized. In any case, the numbers, unless they change dramatically, will do little to calm those who already feel that something is systematically not right with the police department.

Regardless of how the settlement plays out, it seems unlikely to be the last word on race and the Diallo shooting. The New York Daily News, citing a law enforcement source, reported that Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jim Comey was continuing to investigate police stop-and-frisks for signs of racial bias.

Then, of course, there remains the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Diallo's parents. The four plainclothes police officers who shot their unarmed son outside of his Bronx apartment building were cleared of all criminal charges. The civil suit would appear to be their last legal recourse. Anthony Gair, lawyer for the Diallo family, offered no hints of an imminent settlement, saying he thinks the case will make it to trial in January or February. And while Gair said he plans to attack the police department for failing to adequately train the men who shot Diallo, he also said, "It's my position…that the only reason Amadou Diallo was confronted at all was because he was black."

Jaime Adame has written for Newsday, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Austin American-Statesman.

 

The Case Of The 17-Year-Old Anti-War Protester


"Dismissed in the interest of justice," are words rarely uttered in our legal system. But in the case of People v. Gragert, New York City Criminal Court Judge Matthew Cooper ordered exactly that.

Alisa Gragert, a 17-year old senior at Friends Seminary was arrested during an April 7, 2003 demonstration against the war in Iraq. She was accused of blocking the "normal flow of pedestrian traffic," by laying down in front of 712 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. The building houses the offices of the Carlyle Group, a major international investment firm, which antiwar protesters contended would profit from the war. According to the police, Gragert ignored an order to stand up when informed she was under arrest. She was charged with obstructing government administration, a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and two counts of disorderly conduct, each punishable by a maximum of fifteen days. About a dozen other protestors were arrested for the same conduct, but the prosecutions were separated and Judge Cooper's decision deals only with Gragert.

Following her arraignment, the defendant was released on her own recognizance and ordered to return to court on June 11. When she appeared on that day with counsel she was told to return a month later, on July 25. The court entry, however, mistakenly read July 23, and when Gragert failed to appear on the 23rd, a warrant was issued for her arrest. When she and her mother walked into Criminal Court at 100 Centre Street on the correct day, she was considered a fugitive, taken into custody handcuffed and chained to a bench in open court. Once the error in the date was acknowledged Gragert was again released.

Prior to preparing for trial, Gragert's pro bono attorney, David M. Stern, of the firm of Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Stern, submitted a 31 page motion asking Judge Cooper to dismiss the charges in the interest of justice without reaching the question of whether she was guilty or not. This procedure known as a Clayton motion based on a 30-year old New York case, People v. Clayton, is infrequently submitted to courts and even less often granted. However, according to the Criminal Procedure Law, a court may consider terminating a criminal case if the prosecution and possible conviction of the accused would "result in injustice."

Judge Cooper would have to consider the offense, the seriousness and circumstances, the extent of harm, evidence of guilt, the defendant's background, any police or prosecutorial misconduct, the purpose of punishing the defendant, how society would be affected by a dismissal and how dismissal would affect public confidence in the criminal justice system, input of any victim and "any other relevant fact indicating that...conviction would have no useful purpose."

He also had to distinguish Alisa Gragert's case from a 1996 case involving the arrest of 90 members of Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization (ILGO) protesting the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. In that case, a criminal court judge had dismissed disorderly conduct charges in the interests of justice but was reversed by the Appellate Term which hears appeals from Criminal Court and which ordered the charges reinstated. " Sincere beliefs are not an excuse for lawless conduct," the appellate court said. expressing concern that the conduct was "likely to keep recurring."

Still, Judge Cooper found that Gragert's case was one of those "rare" and "unusual" cases that "cries out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations." The judge cited the defendant's age, her lack of a criminal record and the fact that she was bound for college. (She now attends Oberlin College in Ohio.) Letters supporting dismissal were submitted by her high school principal and teachers, the coordinator of her volunteer work at the American Museum of Natural History, friends and neighbors. A United Nations advisor wrote "We have the deepest respect and admiration for the gifted students who exhibit a caring attitude toward their community and dare to dissent from its mainstream views when their concern for common good compels them to do so. Alisa is such a student and we need to encourage her to follow the dictates of her conscience." While the decision did not address the large number of teenagers in the criminal justice system in general, in pointing out Gragert's age, the judge emphasized that, "She is too young to vote in an election, drink alcoholic beverages, enlist in the armed forces, buy a laser pointer or a can of spray paint, marry without both parental and judicial consent, or enter into a legally binding contract."

Although according to Judge Cooper, Gragert's actions did constitute disorderly conduct, he found the harm of causing pedestrians to walk around her "decidedly minor," in contrast to the ILGO demonstration at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street "which snarled traffic for an hour and a half."

"It is difficult to envision New Yorkers, renown for their ability to cope in the face of adversity, being particularly disturbed by encountering the defendant lying on the sidewalk and having to sidestep her," he wrote. "Impediments to the free flow of pedestrian traffic are a hallmark of city life. What with street vendors, people distributing leaflets, newspaper vending machines, food carts, coffee wagons, sidewalk eating, scaffolding, construction barriers, pavement excavations and groups of smokers in front of smoke-free buildings, one hardly expects to walk along a busy midtown street with an uninterrupted stride. In this instance, people may very well have been inconvenienced by the defendant's actions, but it could not have been that much more than the routine inconvenience we endure in this city on a regular basis."

In granting the motion, the judge concluded, "Unlike many nations, we pride ourselves on our willingness to hear the voices of dissent. Protest, in its many forms, has a hallowed place in our democracy and is very much a part of our American spirit. It is one of the great strengths of our society. And certainly our society is strong enough to recognize the mitigating circumstances present here and forego the prosecution of this young woman."

According to Barbara A. Thompson, spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney, there will be no appeal.

Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court Justice.

 

Fear of Terrorism


 
Leaving New York
While some New Yorkers are leaving the city, citing bad schools, high housing costs or the daily stresses of urban life, analysts debate whether the exodus is anything alarming or unusual, and what to do about it.

Why New Yorkers Are Leaving:

The City Is Too Expensive
by E.J. McMahon

City Schools and Housing Are Inadequate
by David Kallick

New Yorkers Who Left:

Rondrae Hunter
A Frustrating Apartment Search

Allison Woods
Struggling with Strollers and Schools

Stefan Kochi
Bad for Business


About a month after 9/11, I decided that, after having lived in New York for 12 years, I wanted to move. Even though my wife recognized that my fear was somewhat legitimate, she thought we ought to just stick it out for a while and see what happened. And she was very attached to Park Slope, where we lived, and to our friends in the neighborhood. I was attached too, but more than that I was frightened by the risk to our children.

With two kids, I just did not want to be in New York. We were in the middle of the anthrax scare, and I was opening my mail with gloves and a mask on. I was nervous about taking my kids on the subway. I didn't want to put them at risk. Then we had the scare about a dirty bomb and radioactive material in Manhattan. My wife started coming over to my side.

To decide where we would move, we drew a circle with the radius of a one and a half hour drive from Manhattan. Anywhere within the circle was a prospect. Then we visited a friend in Connecticut. I took a drive to the Long Island Sound and fell in love with the shore. It was a beautiful place. We moved to Milford in July 2002.

Though 9/11 was the main reason we moved, it wasn't the only one. Another reason was the financial situation; the rent in our apartment had just increased 15 percent. In the nine years we had lived there, the rent had climbed a total of 70 percent. It was just too expensive.

Our nine-year-old sons were soon going to leave their elementary school, PS 321, and would have to enroll in a middle school. I wasn't worried that they wouldn't get into a good school, but I was worried about how far away it would be. They were going to have to take subways and buses to get to school rather than walk down the street as they used to. I didn't like the idea of them doing that, and we couldn't afford to send them to a private school.

It took my sons awhile -- six months or eight months -- to adjust to the move. My wife had trouble as well. We came back to Brooklyn occasionally, and walked around, and the kids hung out with their old friends. It helped them with the separation. My wife still visits women friends down there, and she's in a book club that meets once a month.

I try to stay away from the city. I am a painter and so I go down and met with my artist friends sometimes. We visit museums and galleries. But I am a little scared. I really don't want to be in the city at all.

I see myself being comfortable again in New York only if we solve the terrorist threat. If Al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein were brought to justice and there were no attacks for a year or two, then I would feel much better. But I will never move back to New York. For me, the move is irreversible.

David Bassine, a painter, left New York and moved to Connecticut.

Suing for Gun Control


Mean Streets
Othniel Askew used a handgun he purchased in North Carolina to kill City Councilmember James Davis inside City Hall. Two months later, during the West Indian American Day Parade, which takes place in the Brooklyn neighborhood where Davis served and which this year was dedicated to his memory, a man named Anthony Bartholomew was shot in the head and killed.

The shootings are just some of the latest, and most publicized, examples of gun violence in New York City. Vincent Rodriguez, an 18-year-old student at Martin Luther King High School, sneaked through a side door with a semi-automatic pistol in January 2002 and opened fire on two fellow students. Both were seriously injured, and one boy, Andrel Napper, still has a bullet lodged near his spine.

On a November afternoon in 2001, five-year-old Romel Jenkins, who was on a walk with his family, and 25-year-old Sergio Camargo were killed by stray bullets, caught in the middle of a Bronx gunfight. They were among the 353 who died from guns in the five boroughs that year, the latest for which statistics are available, according to the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. "There is no more serious public safety issue for New Yorkers than guns," said John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator.

The New York City Council, witness to Davis' shooting in council chambers, is now pushing a series of new gun control laws. But the initiatives don't only seek to tighten New York City's restrictions on gun sales, already some of the toughest in the country. They also would, controversially, provide a way for family members of people killed or injured by guns in New York City to sue the guns' manufacturers for damages.

NEW YORK CITY AND GUNS

Ideas about the best way to end gun violence in New York City have been debated for decades. Just last year, the city began a “Cash for Guns” program; over 2400 guns have been turned in so far. Since 1980, judges in New York state have been required to sentence people convicted of possessing a loaded, illegal gun to at least one year in jail. However, the law has a loophole, and judges who find that one year is “unduly harsh,” can give an alternative sentence; in 2001, less than half of those convicted were sentenced to a full year in jail. Some, like Feinblatt, the city’s justice coordinator, believe that the state government should work to close this loophole, which he said is so big “you could drive a Mack truck through it.”

Reading NYC
Geoffrey Canada's memoir, Fist Stick Knife Gun, is Gotham Gazette's Reading NYC Book Club selection for September -- join us at the Borders bookstore at 100 Broadway (across from Trinity Church) at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24 for a discussion of the book.
But many also see keeping guns from getting to the streets in the first place as a crucial way to stop the violence. "I listen with concern as one suggestion after another is proposed as the one cure-all for dealing with violence among the youth of America. One shot gun buy-backs, tougher sentencing for youth caught with guns, so called boot camp programs, quick-fix conflict meditation, metal detectors in schools - the ideas go on and on while the complexity of the issue of violence is ignored and the death toll continues to rise," writes Harlem Children's Zone director Geoffrey Canada in his memoir about growing up in the Bronx, Fist Stick Knife Gun, "Part of the problem is that most current policy makers fail to address the problem of the sheer availability of guns."

Canada's sentiments are not unusual in New York, where the gun industry wins no popularity contests. In 2000, when the National Rifle Association proposed building a theme restaurant, with grilled wild game and a skeet-shooting arcade in Times Square, residents and politicians slammed the plan, and the City Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning it.

That same year, New York state tightened gun laws, raising the minimum age to qualify for a handgun permit to 21, requiring new handguns to have trigger locks and establishing a database that tracks crime guns. The state requires anyone who buys a firearm to undergo a background check.

But despite these tough new laws, guns -- bought from gun dealers in states with looser restrictions -- continue to pour in to New York's streets. Some 80 percent of all guns used in crimes in New York were not purchased here. According to a 2000 report by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, most of the guns came from seven states in the South with weak gun laws. Many New York City crime guns are first bought by people called "straw buyers," who buy in bulk in states with looser gun laws and make a profit by selling guns illegally to northern buyers.

While Askew, councilmember Davis' killer, legally bought his own gun in a North Carolina store, he did not have a permit to carry the gun, a .40 caliber pistol, in New York.

SUING THE SOURCE

Because they cannot change the laws in other states and are doubtful that new federal gun sales restrictions will happen under the Bush administration, New York City gun control advocates and local politicians are now looking to the courts to try to change the way guns are distributed. They are inspired by the successful lawsuits against the tobacco industry and a recent case against the gun industry itself.

In Brooklyn this summer, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein threw out a major lawsuit against the gun industry, but at the same time found that gun manufacturers have been careless in how they distribute guns, and have put the public at risk.

In the suit, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People argued that 45 gun manufacturers and distributors, including Smith & Wesson Corp. and Glock Inc., know that certain gun dealers follow practices that make the guns they sell more likely to end up harming people in black and Latino neighborhoods, but do nothing to stop them. New York City itself has a case pending in federal court that makes a similar argument, saying that the illegal firearms that end up in New York City are a public nuisance.

The NAACP's lawyer, Elisa Barnes, built her case against the gun manufacturers on information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that showed the sales histories of guns recovered at crime scenes from 1995 to 2000. The information showed that a small percentage of gun dealers sold guns that quickly ended up in criminal hands; only seven percent of more than 200,000 U.S. gun dealers were responsible for selling all of the crime handguns that, within three years after their sale, were recovered throughout the country.

Barnes argued that the gun companies were aware of this information, and could have avoided selling to these dealers. "Small variations among manufacturers' practices could make a big difference," said Lucy Allen, an economist who analyzed the information for the NAACP. The suit did not ask for money in damages but sought a court injunction that would force manufacturers to change their practices and restrict the ways that they distribute guns.

Gun manufacturers and gun advocates say that companies should not be responsible for the illegal use of a legal product. "There are other things you do with a gun besides kill people," said Amy Heath, from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. But in the Brooklyn trial, the judge found that the companies indeed were responsible, and threw out the case only because the NAACP had not effectively argued that its members were uniquely harmed.

MAKING COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE IN NYC

On the first hearing of the council's public safety committee since the death of James Davis, who was one of the committee members, the council discussed six new gun control bills, including new restrictions on the sales of rifles and shotguns (handguns are controlled by the state legislature). But much of the debate was about turning to the courts to fight for gun control.

Councilmember David Yassky sponsored a bill designed to change how gun manufacturers distribute guns across the country. Intro 197 would make manufacturers whose guns are used to hurt or kill New Yorkers liable, unless they follow a code of conduct. "The gun industry knows exactly what they need to do to prevent these injuries and they ignore it," said Yassky.

The code of conduct includes not selling weapons to dealers whose guns repeatedly end up in criminal hands, and not selling weapons at gun shows where sellers don't use background checks. Yassky has also proposed having the New York Police Department only buy from gun companies that follow a similar code of conduct.

"The cure to the gun violence epidemic lays in making the gun industry liable for its irresponsible, unethical, reckless distribution of guns," said Sara Alcoff, who founded the Brooklyn chapter of the Million Mom March with Johnnymae Robinson, whose son was shot to death in 1999.

At the hearing, Alcoff read a statement from Robinson: "[I am the] mother of three sons, now minus one due to illegal guns running rapid on the streets of NYC... Please help to save a mother the pain of sitting with a person to decide what color coffin or what words need be said to tell the story of one whose life was taken so soon."

A panel of gun advocates said at the hearing that holding gun companies responsible for gun crimes is like saying that a car company is responsible for the deaths caused by a drunk driver. "I can't see how Kahr Arms can be responsible for criminal misuse of its product," said Randall Casseday, a spokesperson for the company, which sells guns to the city's police department.

STRICT LIABILITY

Saying that in New York "there is no safe way to use a handgun," Councilmember Eva Moscowitz introduced a bill that goes even further than Yassky's. Intro 487 would make gun companies strictly liable for damages caused by a gun in New York City, regardless of how the company distributes its guns.

John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, said that, as Moscowitz' law is now written, if a police officer's gun is stolen and used, the gun industry would be liable, as they would be if a gun is used in a suicide. "The threat [of lawsuits] would effectively prevent the gun industry from selling guns in New York City, even to the New York Police Department," said Feinblatt.

FEDERAL IMMUNITY

As the city council discusses making it easier to sue gun companies, lawmakers in Washington are pushing to make gun manufacturers immune from the types of lawsuits brought by the NAACP and New York City. The House of Representatives passed a bill this spring that would make companies immune, and a similar bill, with 54 sponsors, is now in the Senate.

Some gun control advocates worry that Moscowitz' bill, because it is so broad, could backfire. It may become something that supporters of immunity could site as an example of why companies should be protected, said Jim Kessler, director of Americans for Gun Safety. “The Moscowitz bill, I think, gives ammunition to the gun lobby, because it says [those suing the manufacturers] aren’t interested in better behavior, they are interested in putting gun manufacturers out of business,” he said.

The same morning that the mayor's criminal justice coordinator, Feinblatt, was giving his arguments against Moscowitz' bill in the City Council, Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent a letter, along with mayors from Chicago and Los Angeles, to the country's senators, calling on them to oppose the federal immunity legislation.

In his weekly radio show, the mayor said, "You should be able to sue [the manufacturers] and prove to a jury that they acted negligently or recklessly... Everybody wants the murder rate to come down. The only way you are going to get the murder rate down is to get the guns off the street."

 

A Report On Violent Teen Relationships


Children who witness violence between their parents are at the greatest risk for becoming victims of violence themselves in teenage and young adult romantic relationships, according to a 20-year studypublished in the August issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Witnessing violence between parents also increases the chances of a child being a perpetrator of violence in future relationships, and of having serious behavior problems (conduct disorders). And children who have been excessively punished are also significantly at risk for becoming perpetrators of violence against their partners.

 

According to Dr. Miriam K. Ehrensaft, who authored the study with other researchers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York State Psychiatric Institute, it is not surprising that witnessing violence shows up as an indicator on both the victim and perpetrator sides. "Being a perpetrator and being a victim are highly related phenomena," said Ehrensaft.

 

The link between excessive punishment and a tendency toward partner violence later on is a new finding for these researchers. "We knew that punishment was related to kids' aggression in general, and a host of bad outcomes later on," "said Ehrensaft, "but we didn't know the relationship with partner violence."

 

Another significant finding is the route that child abuse takes to show up in partner abuse statistics. "What we figured out from this study is that child abuse works through conduct disorder," explained Ehrensaft" "If a child is abused, they are more likely to develop conduct disorder, and that then puts them in line to be a violent partner."

 

In New York City, approximately 10 percent of domestic violence victims treated at New York City public hospitals are under the age of 20, according to Department of Health statisticsreleased by the Mayor's Office to Combat Domestic Violence.

 

The City's domestic violence hotline received 10,574 calls from teens in 2002, which was up 54 percent from 2001. As of July of this year, they already received 7080 calls, suggesting another spike for 2003.

 

This spike does not necessarily mean that there is more partner violence among teens in New York City than before. It may just be that more of them know where to call. According to the city's domestic violence commissioner Yolanda Jimenez, "Teen hotline calls increased after the City's 1997, 1998 and 2000 public education campaigns directed towards teens, which suggests that the campaign was successful in reaching our target audience."

 

Violent behavior by a partner is highly resistant to treatment, the new study reports, but author Ehrensaft recommends prevention programs for children prior to adolescence, before the use of violence and coercion as a means of resolving conflicts become totally ingrained in the child. These programs would target children exposed to various types of damaging environments.

 

"Most existing dating violence programs aim to change attitudes about violence from men to women," said Ehrensaft. "These are generally successful in changing attitudes but not in reducing actual levels of violence between young dating partners. Also, few programs have followed teens over time to test whether the programs had long term effects."

 

There are several existing programs provided for adolescents in New York City (see accompanying box) and the trend is to target younger and younger children.

 

" The Mayor's Office to Combat Domestic Violencebelieves that violence prevention programs should begin as early as possible and progress through high school so that abuse does not become an acceptable norm," commented Commissioner Jimenez. "Early violence prevention can break the cycle of violence that leads to teen dating violence and adult domestic violence."

Domestic violence research is still a young field, according to Ehrensaft. "A lot of interventions have gone on using clinical experience and common sense, but only recently are we bringing science into the picture. And we really need that science to go forward and help people, just like with any medical disorder that needs to be backed by science."

Ehrensaft's next research project will likely build on this work, using science to find out what exactly is the process that puts kids with conduct disorder at risk for partner violence "We figured out that child abuse links up to conduct disorder. But we still need to do more research to find out what that process is so we can help those kids--and prevent bad relationships."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NYC VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH

Adopt-A-School Relationship Abuse Prevention Program ("RAPP") (In pdf format)
In 20 city high schools to promote healthy relationships intervene in the cycle of teen relationship abuse, and work to prevent destructive patterns of relationship abuse from extending into adult relationships.

New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)
Funds organizations and programs to provide Violence Intervention and Prevention programs targeting youth who are at risk of becoming involved in violence or who have already exhibited violent behavior.

DYCD Youthline 1-800-246-4646
TTY 1-800-246-4699

Youthline is a toll-free 24-hour a day seven days a week confidential and anonymous crisis intervention and resource line for youth, their families and concerned service providers. Youthline has a paid staff of highly trained high school and college students.

The New York City schools have implemented violence prevention programs over the years in various elementary and middle schools. These programs include:

• Second Step developed by Committee for Children based in Seattle, WA

• Resolving Conflict Creatively developed by Educators for Social Responsibility Metro with the New York City Department of Education

• Safe Harbor developed by Safe Horizon

• Speak Your Peace developed by Center Against Domestic Violence (currently in the intermediate School for International Studies)

• Students Advocating Against Violence Initiative (SAAVI)

• Project Charlie

Mt. Sinai Adolescent Health Center
312 East 94th Street
New York, NY 10128
212-423-3000

STEPS to End Family Violence
1968 Second Avenue
New York NY 10029
212-410-4200
INCLUDES a group for teenage boys who have abused a girlfriend or mother.

Safe Horizon Youth Division
189 Montague Street, 6th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718-624-2111 ext. 22

Center Against Domestic Violence
25 Chapel Street, 9th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718-254-9143

Children's Aid Society Family Wellness Program
212-503-6837
Offers services for victims, perpetrators and children.

The Door
555 Broome Street
New York, NY 10013
212-941-9090
Serves domestic violence victims ages 12-21
Services in English, Spanish, Chinese

FACES
Maimonides Theater Network for Teens
Maimonides Medical Center
902 48th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11219
718 283 7861
This prevention program has been around for almost 20 years.

Yankee Rep Fork in the Road Players
157 East 3rd Street #D
New York, NY 10009
917 441 4171
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This is a theater group that performs a play on dating violence in high schools and teen centers.

The NiteStar Program
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center
St. Luke's Division
1111 Amsterdam Avenue, Scrymser 1
New York, NY 10025
212-523-3599

Hetrick-Martin Institute
2 Astor Place, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003
212-674-2400
Services for same sex relationships

Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services
120 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
212 582-9100
718-237-1337

Family Violence Hotline
NYU Child Study Center
Excellent program that works with parents of children who are at risk for developing behavior problem.

ART Programs

Additionally, there are organizations that do art with children affected by domestic violence who are in DV or homeless shelters:

  • Art Start Simon Fulford is the executive director 212-966-7807 ext. 1
  • Oyster Arts Caleb Jensen is the executive director 212 475-8900
  • Free Arts for Abused Children Corinne Arles is the Program Director 212 974-9092

(Our thanks to Christina Alex, Research Coordinator at the Mayor's Office to Combat Domestic Violencewho provided most of this program information.)

Lynda Crawford wrote the social services topic page for Gotham Gazette, and has written for City Limits, New York Woman, The New York Observer, and The New York Daily News.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summertime Unemployment. Also: Kinship Foster Care


For too many New Yorkers, the summer of 2003 has turned out to be the proverbial rainy day. Unemployment remains high, particularly among certain ethnic and age groups. There is a shortage of new jobs, which some unemployed workers blame on public priorities, such as giving federal funds meant for the recovery from 9/11 to residents of luxury housing in Battery Park City, rather using them to create jobs to replace those lost after the disaster.

In the coming year, unskilled job hunters will have fewer resources to help them compete with skilled workers for those vacancies that exist. Low-wage workers will face new hurdles in claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit, one of the few tax breaks targeted to the poor. And grandparents trying to raise grandchildren on Social Security checks or part-time paychecks may be better informed about their right to trade their privacy for government income assistance.

UNEMPLOYMENT PERSISTS

The New York State Comptroller’s Office estimates that New York City has lost nearly half of the jobs gained in the eight years of prosperity ending in December 2000. As of May 2003, the unemployment rate for the city had dropped to 8.1 percent, from its February high of 8.8 percent.

Some groups within the city are experiencing much higher unemployment rates. Among the city’s Hispanics, more than a quarter are unemployed, according to a recent poll by CBS and the New York Times. African-American men have lost the highest percentage of jobs since 2000, according to the Community Service Society. Out of every three city teenagers aged 16 to 19 who want to work, one is unemployed; this is almost double the national average. Of adults who have jobs, men aged 45 to 54 are the most likely to be laid off.

USE OF SEPTEMBER 11 FEDERAL AID IS PROTESTED

Unemployed workers protested repeatedly in downtown Manhattan during July and August, against the use of federal grants by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is distributing the funds to residents of lower Manhattan. The workers called for 60,000 new jobs to be created, using $1.2 billion in federal aid. The corporation has helped distribute $17 billion already to businesses, organizations and residents involved in the rebuilding effort, but has not directly funded job creation.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation controls about $280 million in federal rent subsidies and grants available to downtown residents in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center. Low-income Chinatown tenants can apply for grants, but many have been rejected because they lack formal written leases or their landlords have failed to repair building violations. The corporation has $50 million left over from these residential funds, with which it plans to subsidize middle-income housing units within future luxury housing developments in the downtown area.

DEEP CUTS MADE TO JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS

Last year, the city had a $151 million budget for job training and employment services. This sum included $57 million in federal Workforce Investment Act funds that the Giuliani administration had failed to spend. This year, the city has only $58 million for job training, and will have to sharply scale back its programs.

On July 16, Mayor Bloomberg formally transferred adult workforce programs from the city’s Department of Employment, which has been eliminated, to the Department of Small Business Services. The three programs transferred include the city’s three existing One-Stop job centers, and a fourth which has not yet been developed; these offer job hunting assistance to all New Yorkers, regardless of income. There is also the Individual Training Account program, which gives job hunters vouchers to pay for training at approved private providers; these have been put on hold until September. Third, the city holds contracts with 39 organizations offering job training and employment services to special populations and dislocated workers. Among others, “special populations” include former prison inmates, people with disabilities, and those with limited English language skills. The contractors have been told that their funds will be cut by two-thirds in the coming year.

THE WORKING POOR GET A SHORT BREATHER

Low-income working people -- such as childless adults earning less than $10,710 in 2002 -- are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which reduces their federal income tax obligations. The lowest-paid among them get a small check even though they owe, and pay, no taxes at all. The tax credit has become one of the largest sources of federal aid to the poor, with $32 billion in claims for last year. New York City households received $1.2 billion from the tax credit. Currently, one in 64 people who claims the Earned Income Tax Credit is audited.

The Internal Revenue Service believes that one in every three or four claims is not legitimate, often because children whose parents live in separate homes are claimed by both households. The agency announced in June 2002 that it would begin a pilot enforcement program in August 2003, under which 45,000 people would have to prove that their children lived with them for at least half of the year, before they could file claims for the tax credit. Opposition by advocates for the poor led the Internal Revenue Service to postpone the enforcement pilot until January 2004.

Eventually, anyone who files a claim for the Earned Income Tax Credit will have to provide such proof for each child listed as a dependent, except for married parents and single mothers. The requirement will affect grandparents, foster parents, stepparents, and single fathers.

The current application process requires 53 pages of instructions and worksheets. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs estimates that 230,000 eligible city residents are not claiming the tax credit each year, for a combined loss of nearly $500 million. Many more spend part of the tax credit on the services of tax preparers who fill out the forms.

RED TAPE HOBBLES NONTRADITIONAL FAMILIES

When children live with relatives other than two parents or a mother, their adult guardians face extra paperwork whenever they deal with authorities on behalf of the children. The forthcoming Earned Income Tax Credit demand for proof of the child’s residency, described above, is one such requirement.

Census data indicate that nearly one in four of the grandparents raising grandchildren in New York City is living in poverty. Many raise their children’s offspring with no support from the formal foster care system. Often they are not aware that they qualify for welfare, food stamps and services such as home care, day care, and counseling. Another option that grandparents may not know is that they—or any relative—can apply for formal foster parent status.

Child welfare workers will have to tell grandparents that they can become legal foster parents to their grandchildren, if Governor George Pataki signs a bill recently passed by the state legislature. Grandparents who choose this option receive a monthly stipend for each child, and the legal right to make decisions about the children’s schooling and medical care.

However, some grandparents who know about kinship foster care decide not to get involved with it. If they apply to be legal foster parents, the child welfare system will investigate their background and living situation, and gain the right to take the children away from them for breaking rules that natural parents do not have to follow. Once a child is in state custody—which must happen before grandparents can become foster parents—the system will seek to find a permanent home for him or her. The grandparents will be urged to adopt their grandchild, taking away their own children’s parental rights, or face losing the child to an unrelated adoptive family.

Linda Ostreicher, a former budget analyst for the New York City Council, is a freelance writer and consultant to nonprofits. She is currently on the staff of Bronx Independent Living Services.

Judges


 



Also in the series:

The Judges Game
Gotham Gazette's newest interactive game lets you see if you've got what it takes for the Brooklyn bench.

The Courts of New York Explained
An overview by Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman -- first published here three years ago, but nothing much has changed.
Rival candidates ShawnDya Simpson and Dawn Jimenez spent their summer collecting signatures on the streets of Brooklyn, raising money, passing out flyers at subway stops and getting endorsements from political clubs and elected officials.

The one thing they did not do is let voters know where they stand on any issues -- not on housing, not on crime, not on taxes.

That is because the two women are facing off for Civil Court judge, a job which is supposed to be non-political. "Judicial candidates are not allowed to take positions on issues," said Jacob Walthour, Simpson's campaign manager and her husband. "They must remain independent, objective and fair."

While the office itself is supposed to be removed from politics, getting into such an office in New York City could not be more political.

Simpson and her opponent, Jimenez, who is already a Housing Court judge, have hired political consultants, accused one another of "carpet bagging" since both recently moved to Brooklyn, and attacked each other in the press. (Electing Simpson would give Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman "a new lease on life," says one side; Jimenez has surrounded herself with "shady characters," charges the other.) In other words, they have acted like politicians.

But tough campaigning is the least of the problems in New York's judicial system.

In the last year, three Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judges have been removed from their seats for bribery and other illegal activity. Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is currently investigating Brooklyn Democratic Party Chairman Clarence Norman, looking into whether the party is selling judgeships.

Even if there were no scandals, the city's court system is so confusing and complex that it takes a New York State Supreme Court Justice to explain them (see "Guide to the Courts" by Justice Emily Jane Goodman).

Some say the system needs a complete overhaul. Others say that this will never happen, thanks to politics. Indeed, a plan created by the top judges of the state to reform and restructure the court system has been stuck in the state legislature for five years.

Meanwhile, the battles rage on.

BROOKLYN'S JUDICIAL MESS

"If you want to study how not to pick a judge," a recent editorial in the New York Times began, "the borough of Brooklyn is available."

Last year, former Supreme Court Justice Victor Barron pleaded guilty to taking bribes to fix divorce and child custody cases and is currently serving a sentence of three to nine years in prison. This summer, Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson was indicted on charges that he fixed a divorce case in return for money and gifts. And Justice Reynold Mason was removed from the State Supreme Court for illegally taking money from an escrow account on a rent-controlled apartment in Flatbush, and using the money to make child support payments and political contributions.

The Brooklyn D.A.'s investigation of Clarence Norman includes a look at allegations that Norman demanded money from candidates for office in return for his endorsement. Candidates have told prosecutors that the party bosses demanded cash payments and required them to hire specific consultants. Anyone who does not go through the process, the candidates allege, is almost assured of defeat.

Beyond the specific charges of illegal activity, many say the entire system of electing and selecting judges is a game of political patronage.

For example, in order to become a State Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn, a candidate must be selected by Chairman Norman. Those candidates are then referred to a screening panel that is also appointed by Chairman Norman. The 42 Democratic District leaders, who often have strong ties to the party, then screen the candidates. Finally, the judges are selected by a judicial convention, made up of various friends, relatives, business partners and employees of the party overseen by Chairman Norman.

Only after this process, does the voter, who often has no idea who the candidates are or how they were chosen, select a State Supreme Court Judge, who will serve on the bench for 14 years.

"There's a general feeling out there that the party has become a laughingstock of the state," Alan Fleishman, a Brooklyn Democratic district leader, told Newsday.

Brooklyn is not unique. Every borough runs in a similar fashion, which means that the city's judges are often selected more for their loyalty to the party than for their qualifications.

THE LONG RUNNING DEBATE -- APPOINTED VS. ELECTED

The "Tweed" County Courthouse that sits behind City Hall is a reminder of the historical links between corrupt politics and the courts in the city.

Built between 1862 and 1870, the old county courthouse with its arched windows and sunlit rotunda was supposed to cost $250,000. It ended up $13 million over budget, much of which was stolen by Tammany boss William M. Tweed and used for his Democratic political machine. (The building underwent another $100 million renovation beginning in 1999 and today houses offices for the Department of Education.)

The scandal surrounding the Tweed Courthouse helped spark two efforts for judicial reform in New York.

At the same time, citizens began to think that the system of elected judges, set out in the state's 1846 Constitution, wasn't such a good idea. The introduction of appointed judges became an attempt to keep the political parties out of the judicial system and streamline the system. In 1870, the Association of the Bar of New York City was founded to provide standards for lawyers and judges.

Today in New York City, judges are selected through a mix of elections and appointments. The mayor appoints local judges in Criminal and Family Courts. Elected judges serve on Civil, Surrogate's, and Supreme Courts.

But the fundamental argument is still unresolved. Should judges be appointed or elected by the people?

Advocates of appointment argue that judges cannot be independent if they are worried about raising campaign funds, presenting a public image, and are involved in a political process that is often corrupt. Most voters, they say, have little interest in or knowledge about judges running for seats.

Advocates of elections argue that judges should answer to the law and the people it sets out to protect, not the policymakers who appoint them. They criticize the mayor and the governor for using their political will in selections and say that appointed judges do not reflect the ethnic composition of the city.

And court positions still have plenty of connections to elected politicians, powerful lawyers, and local political parties vying for bragging rights. Although the starting salary of $125,600 a year for a Civil Court judge doesn't compare to what a lawyer can make in private practice, a local judgeship carries the prestige that can launch a career in politics or lead to promotions to higher courts.

With so much at stake, true reform is difficult.

NAVIGATING THE CITY SYSTEM

Jonathan Lippman, the Chief Administrator of State Courts, has called the New York City courts "the most complex, arcane court system in the country."

The city's court system, which produces about half of all the cases in the state, is a maze of trial divisions.

One example of how unwieldy the system can be is in how family issues are handled.

Child custody and visitation are handled in Family Court, but divorces can only be addressed in Supreme Court. So a family in a divorce can find itself bouncing back and forth between both courts, spending twice as much time and money than if it went through the same case living in the suburbs. Adoptions can be handled in either Family Court or Surrogate's Court depending on the conditions. If criminal charges such as abuse are involved in a domestic case, then it can spill over into Criminal Court.

THE LONG, HARD ROAD TO REFORM

In response to the Brooklyn judicial scandals, some changes have been made.

In July, the Brooklyn Democratic Party released the names of the 27 candidates running for State Supreme Court for the first time in the city's history; in the past these names were kept secret. And the party was also looking at new ways to appoint independent lawyers to the judicial screening panel.

But many legal reform groups say the whole system must be overhauled and favor a kind of third way known as merit or nomination systems.

A merit system uses nonpartisan commissions of lawyers and non-lawyers to find applicants for judgeships. The commission then submits the applicants to an appointing authority. For re-appointments, the judges are evaluated by commissions or voted on in an uncontested election.

In New York, judges in the Court of Appeals are selected through what its backers call a merit system, what its critics call a system of political appointment. But even proponents of a merit system concede that they won't be a widespread part of the New York courts anytime soon.

As far as the overall court structure, Chief Administrator of the State Courts, Jonathan Lippman and Chief Judge Judith Kaye first introduced a plan to reform the New York trial courts system in 1997. Numerous good government and judicial reform groups have supported the proposal.

Five years later, the proposal is still sitting in Albany.

"Judgeships are the last bastions of political patronage," said Barbara Reed of the Fund for Modern Courts. "They allow local party leaders to maintain control."

 

Murder in City Hall


In the short time since Councilmember James Davis was murdered July 23rd in the City Council's chambers on the second floor of City Hall, New Yorkers have struggled to make sense of this homicide, to little avail. Our bafflement is in part due to the historical peculiarity of the crime. Until Wednesday, City Hall was, and always had been, one of the safest places in New York. Davis's murder was unprecedented. Historians have been unable to find any record of any other murder in City Hall itself.

Just as puzzling as Davis's brutal murder is his public persona that combined charm and coercion. He was an affable, charming, conscientious official who had fought powerful establishment organizations--the Brooklyn Democratic machine and the City Council leadership--but maintained friendships with his opponents. Indeed, his two most influential antagonists, City Council president Gifford Miller and Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman, both praised him lavishly after his death. Even his killer, Othniel Askew, was a political rival whom he had befriended and, he believed, won over. Yet Askew's rage was so great that he emptied his gun into Davis's body, shooting all seven bullets, according to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Kelly also said Askew was carrying more bullets in his sock.

The only mayor ever gunned down while in office was William Gaynor, who was shot across the river from City Hall, in Hoboken, New Jersey, in August 1910. James Gallagher, a former city employee who had been laid off during Gaynor's fiscally stringent administration, leapt to the podium where Gaynor was speaking and shot him in the back of his neck, just below his right ear.

Gallagher had repeatedly written the mayor and other officials and shown up at City Hall, asking to be reinstated in his job. After he was wrestled to the ground by a mayoral bodyguard, he was found to be carrying in his pocket a letter from the mayor's secretary: "He can do nothing for you in the matter in which you write."

The city was stunned. A mayoral aide said that "public office is no longer safe." State legislators apparently agreed, and passed the Sullivan lawin 1911, which required that handgun owners apply for permits from the police department. This was the first step in the long process culminating in New York City's having the most stringent gun control procedures in the country--procedures that were not successful, however, in keeping a gun out of the hands of Davis's killer. In fact, Askew had followed the well-worn path of thousands before him by buying a handgun in North Carolina, which has almost no gun regulation, and transporting it to New York, probably by truck. Commissioner Kelly told New York One that "we're plagued by guns bought elsewhere," naming such Southern states as Georgia and Alabama.

Councilmember Davis was himself armed. As a former police officer, he held onto his service weapon and to the permit that came with it. Acquaintances said he was proud of the gun and would sometimes whip open his coat to show it. One of the most sensible recommendations subsequently implemented at City Hall is a ban on all guns other than those carried by police officers on duty. Most New Yorkers are surely amazed to have found out that procedures were ever otherwise. After all, a gun permit does not entitle the holder to carry a gun everywhere.

Mayor Gaynor survived his shooting for three more years, but in great pain, with the bullet permanently lodged beneath his right ear. Councilmember Davis was dead on arrival at the hospital that afternoon. Both were murdered by angry men, perhaps deranged men, in circumstances in which they should have been safe. Gallagher was found to be suffering from paresis and was confined to the New Jersey Hospital for the Insane, where he died, according to Gaynor biographer Lately Thomas. Askew's life is now being investigated by the NYPD, though his family expressed surprise and shock at the killing.

Ironically, during a July 17 interview with Brooklyn-based freelance writer Carla Thompson, the late council member spoke of the importance of psychological testing in the issuance of gun permits. "We are failing across the board in psychological testing. People who have gun permits need to be screened," said Davis. He recommended screening for potential foster parents and cops on the beat. "[Cops] are screened at first, but who's to say he or she doesn't get burned out? They need to be re-screened." He added, "You can't check enough. When you have a wait-and-see attitude, tragedies happen."

And a tragedy did happen, though we do not know yet whether Askew--like his predecessor Gallagher--was mentally unstable. What we do know is that the ancient principle of assassinations still stands--a killer who is willing to die cannot easily be deterred. Add to that the oddity of Davis's having let his murderer bypass the gun-detection machines and we have a new scenario for the future: everyone, including the mayor and visiting dignitaries, will be required to go through security machines.

What are we to conclude from this murder carried out in the very heart of City Hall? First, the NYPD performed flawlessly. A young plain-clothes officer shot and killed the assailant, without wounding any bystander. Second, the NYPD moved into a high terrorism alert, but calmly and methodically. As it uncovered the facts of the homicide, the department reopened the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges and Lower Manhattan.

This murder did not represent a lapse in police judgment requiring punishment or reform, but rather a lapse in judgment by the promising politician who waved his killer past police barriers.

Julia Vitullo-Martin, a long-time editor and writer on urban affairs, is the former director of the Citizens Jury Project at the Vera Institute of Justice. She is now writing a book entitled The Conscience of the American Jury.

When To End A Child's Life Support


Last New Year's Eve, a three-year-old child in Brooklyn suddenly collapsed, had a seizure and was rushed to Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. The doctors inserted a tube in her throat to breathe, and another tube through to her stomach for nourishment.

The child never regained consciousness.

Thus was the beginning of a case that has resulted in a humane decision by Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, one that would not have been necessary if the New York State Legislature would pass a bill called the Family Health Care Decisions Act.

The Case

The doctors diagnosed the child as having suffered "massive loss of brain functioning" from an abnormal rate of heart muscle contractions. The child, the doctors concluded, would remain permanently unconscious, totally unaware of her environment, without the ability to think or interact - a vegetative state..The child was kept alive by a mechanical ventilator and the feeding tube.

The child's mother visited the unconscious child every day. Unwilling to continue to watch her daughter suffer without hope of recovery, the mother consulted the doctors, the hospital's medical ethics team, her family, and the child's father on whether to terminate life support. All parties agreed that ending life support was in the best interest of the child and the mother was fully capable of making that decision.

But the Health and Hospitals Corporation, the city agency that oversees the hospital, refused the mother's request.

Why The City Refused

In denying the mother's request, the Health and Hospitals Corporation cited its policy that prohibits staff from withdrawing or withholding care without the individual's consent.

The policy is rooted in the legal recognition that competent adults may refuse treatment. Children, however, cannot make this decision because they are not old enough. The question then arises, who can make that determination on behalf of a child in a vegetative state?

Most states, recognizing the care and love of family members, have left this determination to the family. New York, however, has not.

In 1981 the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State, ruled that the state is responsible for making the determination on behalf of a child and can supersede the wishes of the family. That case, Matter of Storar, found that the state serves as the omniscient parent for the public and may supercede a family's refusal to treat an individual.

Throughout the 1980's and 1990's most states began to recognize a parent's right to refuse unwanted medical care on behalf of their child in consultation with doctors without receiving court approval. In 1993 the first proposal in New York for family decision making to terminate life support was introduced in the Assembly. Every time the bill passed the Assembly it languished in the Senate..

Currently, New York and Missouri stand alone as the only two states that do not recognize that responsible parents, in conjunction with doctors and medical staff, are in the best position to determine whether to end a child's life support.

Justice Ling-Cohan's Decision

Earlier this year the mother filed suit to prohibit the continued languishment of her child. The mother sought to have the Health and Hospitals Corporation's policy declared void.

At trial, several doctors testified that the child had no hope of recovering and that the mother was a caring, devoted and loving parent. In addition, the doctors and a guardian appointed for the child testified that the mother made a fully informed decision.

Then the mother testified. The record is sealed as to what she said.

In May in a strongly worded decision, Justice Ling- Cohan ruled that "[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances such as incapacity, conflict of interest, or disagreement between parents, a parent of a minor child with an established diagnosis of persistent vegetative state should have the right to decide whether to terminate life support in the best interest of the child, without the necessity of judicial intervention."

The decision, Justice Ling-Cohan concluded, "to end the dying process of a minor child is a personal decision for the parents, in consultation with the child's medical providers, as they bear the legal, moral and ethical responsibility for their child. . . . [There is no] State interest great enough to compel [the child] to remain subjected to this extraordinary life-sustaining measure."

Conclusion

While the image of a three-year-old child lying in a persistent vegetative state is horrendous, it is hard to imagine how much pain her mother suffered watching her own child in that state and then being forced to testify about it.

A bill now pending in the Senate, the Family Health Care Decisions Act, would rectify this by making judicial intervention unnecessary when numerous safeguards are met. It would be irresponsible, particularly in light of the existence of these laws in 48 other states, for the Senate not to move on this bill.

Matter of AB, Index No. 401184/03 (Ling-Cohan, J.) (N.Y.Cty.Sup.Ct.) May 20, 2003 (N.Y.Cty.Sup.Ct.) (Attorneys: Elisabeth Benjamin, Samuel Davol, for AB; Salvatore Russo, Stacey Mondschein, Kenneth R. Larywon, Michael Zhu, for HHC).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years