Close To Home: Measuring US Respect For The Human Right To Life (Part 2 of 2)
Close To Home: Measuring US Respect For The Human Right To Life
In Part One we looked at the US standard in reporting on the human rights practices of its friends and enemies. Now let's see how the US human rights record measures under its own standards. 4. The US Record US Killings by Police: Statistics and Selected Cases How many people die in police custody each year? How many are killed by police? Of those killed, how many are found to be unlawful? There is no authoritative answer for these questions in the US. Previously, the US did not track national data on police-related deaths at all. That changed with the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000, which uses grant money to encourage (but not require) states to report police-related deaths. [26] On October 11, 2007, the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released the first national measurement of all types of deaths that occurred "in the process of arrest" (see [57] for definition of this term). It was the first time most states made a comprehensive count of these deaths. California and Texas were the only States that compiled data on all arrest-related deaths before the collection began. But the BJS figures are only a lower bound. Three states, Georgia, Maryland and Montana, failed to submit data. In addition, federal agencies are not required to report such deaths. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia reported 2,002 arrest-related deaths during the three years from 2003 through 2005. Homicides by state and local law enforcement officers (i.e., killings by police or security forces, to use the language of the human rights reports) were the leading cause of such deaths during this period (1,095 deaths or 55 percent). [27] Killing by police was reported over four times more often than any other cause of arrest-related death. BJS figures for 2006 are not yet available at this time (Jan. 2008). The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tracks "justifiable" killings by police and security forces, where "justifiable homicide" by police is defined as, and limited to, "the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty". [28] (Presumably, the FBI means "the killing of a suspected felon...", since the person may be executed before conviction, trial, or arrest.) Thus it excludes killings of people:
These statistics are disturbing. But the stories behind the numbers are frightening. Following the format of US State Dept. country reports, some 2006 killings ruled as lawful (yet raised considerable controversy) are highlighted here.
These highly publicized 2006 cases were not ruled justifiable, and are still open:
US Killings by Police: Analysis If the State Dept. reports that Cuba's "human rights record remained poor", while at the same time it reports that there were no unlawful killings by Cuba's government forces, and lists the 5 killings by UK police as one of the "human rights problems" of the UK, then how should 376 killings by US police forces be reported? With 1 out of 4 countries (25%) reported as free from killings by government forces, as noted above, the State Dept. would certainly be forced to cite the US record as a "human rights problem". To determine the severity of the problem, the tables below compare the US record with that of other countries that were reported to be suffering from killings by government forces, where data could be obtained. For consistency, non-US figures are all from the Country Reports, or the sources cited in the reports. No claim is being made about the reliability of Country Report sources (e.g. the Malaysia report cites unnamed "Local NGOs"). The first table compares deaths in custody (from all causes) to population in Australia, India (from two sources), Malaysia, UK, and US. [49] Note that the US custodial death rate is consistently higher than that of its allies, Australia and UK.
The next table compares number of killings by police to population in Australia, Malaysia, Portugal, UK, and US. [58] Here the US record stands out dramatically, to a degree that can't be attributed to differences in statistical reporting, and (despite the admitted crudeness of this statistical analysis) can't be disregarded.
The high killing rate by US police could be reported as a cost of battling the high incidence of violent crime in the US, using the argument provided by Amnesty International in a report on Jamaica, which has one of the world's highest murder rates: [60] Law enforcement officers policing societies with high recorded rates of violent crime may justifiably be expected to face a correspondingly greater number of confrontations with armed individuals, which may result in more police killings. But, regardless of the associated circumstances, rampant extrajudicial killing is a human rights problem. Even in Jamaica, which has one of the highest per capita police killing rates in the world, there's been acknowledgment of this: the Court of Appeals president, Justice Seymour Panton, has called for an end to the 'appallingly high rate of extra-judicial killings'. [61] Moreover, the data below shows that the US, compared to its allies, Australia and UK, police kill at an increased rate that exceeds the increase in the murder rate.
Summary:
US Killings by Police: Accountability or Impunity? The US State Dept. report on Malaysia [53] cited that government's lack of police oversight: The government maintained no independent body to investigate deaths that occurred during apprehension by police or while in police custody. Those words describe the situation in the US as well. While the UK has its Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), mandated by law to be entirely independent of police [69], there is no comparable body in the US - even though 2006 marked the 25th anniversary of Who is Guarding the Guardians, a report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that advocated joint efforts by local officials and the federal government for effective prosecution of police misconduct cases. [70] In the US, oversight of law enforcement is organized locally (if it exists), with no requirements, standards, or consistency. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, a peer networking organization for citizen review professionals, claims 71 of the nation's 100 largest cities have citizen review mechanisms. [71] That means over 1 in 4 of the nation's 100 largest cities have no external monitoring of police at all. And US citizen review is of questionable value, as reported in the 2000 update to Who is Guarding the Guardians: "Despite the Commission's recommendations, most civilian review boards remain without disciplinary power or meaningful authority over internal investigations into police misconduct". [70] As mentioned earlier, there is no federal requirement that police-related deaths be reported. Furthermore, even if deaths are reported, investigations are not required by the US. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice hints at how rarely it investigates, when it states: Often, local authorities will take the lead in prosecuting violent conduct under state statutes even though such conduct also constitutes a violation of federal criminal civil rights laws. In such cases, the local prosecutive effort is presumed to vindicate federal interests. [72] Moreover the federal investigative body, the FBI, cannot claim independence since it works with local police in tactical training and joint investigations. Meanwhile, "the local prosecutive effort" serves only to vindicate accused police, as widely reported in the local press:
In fact, the US government bureaucracy is itself split on the need for independent investigation. The findings of the 2000 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights dispute the presumption of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice that the "local prosecutive effort" vindicates federal interests: State prosecution of police misconduct cases remains an ineffective means of correcting the problem. Most district or county attorneys rely heavily on the support and cooperation of the police departments in their jurisdictions, and as such, they are reluctant to pursue criminal charges against them. [70] US Executions Recall that the Cuba report established that the US considers death sentences as extrajudicial killings. Amnesty International reports: [78] In 2006, 53 people were executed in 14 states, bringing to 1,057 the total number of prisoners put to death since executions resumed in 1977...People with serious mental illness continued to be subjected to the death penalty. Amnesty International also reported that the United Nations Human Rights Committee called for a moratorium on executions in the US. [78] US Extraterritorial killings Amnesty International reports: [78] There were a number of incidents of alleged extrajudicial executions or unlawful killings of civilians by US soldiers in Iraq.
In Dec. 2006, four enlisted US Marines were charged with murder in the slaughter of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilian men, women, and children in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. Four Marine officers were charged for alleged failures in investigating and reporting the slayings. [79] By Jan. 2008, charges were dropped against two of the enlisted Marines. The remaining two had charges lowered from murder to manslaughter. [80] In Jan. 2006 a military jury found Army Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer guilty of negligent homicide and dereliction of duty for using an "aggressive" interrogation technique on Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died while undergoing questioning. Welshofer had the Iraqi general -- who already had been beaten repeatedly by Iraqi captors -- bound, gagged and placed headfirst inside a sleeping bag before the 19-year Army veteran sat atop the general's chest. The autopsy report said he suffocated. Welshofer was acquitted of murder, a charge that carries a sentence of life in prison if convicted. He faced a sentence of 39 months in prison for the charge of negligent homicide. Instead the military jury issued a reprimand, ordered Welshofer to forfeit $6,000 of his military pay and confined him to his barracks and place of worship for 60 days. [81] [82] In June 2006 Ilario Pantano returned to the media spotlight promoting his autobiography, Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy, and was celebrated as "an extraordinary American hero" by his supporters. [83] A 2005 military hearing charged Pantano, a Wall Street trader and media entrepreneur who became a US Marine lieutenant, with the premeditated murder of two unarmed Iraqi civilians. Two weeks after the killing and mutilation of four US mercenaries in Fallujah in 2004, Pantano had the handcuffs removed from the two detained Iraqi men after searching them, then ordered the two US soldiers present to look away. Almost immediately, he then shot the Iraqis - emptying his M-16 in them, reloading and emptying again - firing a total of 60 times. Pantano said he acted in self-defense, thinking the Iraqis were charging him. One of the US soldiers who was ordered to look away thought he saw the Iraqis trying to flee. Pantano explained the excessive firepower: "I had made a decision that when I was firing I was going to send a message to these Iraqis and others that when we say, 'No better friend, No worse enemy,' we mean it. " [84] Pantano admitted he then wrote a sign and hung it over the bullet-ridden bodies: "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy". [85], [86] Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, where Pantano's unit was based, urged President Bush to intervene and dismiss charges. [87] The military officer presiding over the hearing recommended that murder charges be dropped, but that Pantano receive nonjudicial punishment (possibly 30 days' arrest in quarters and forfeiture of half a month's pay for two months) for "conduct unbecoming an officer" for hanging the sign, which the presiding officer described as a desecration, and for excessive shooting: "Shooting 30 extra rounds of ammunition into two bodies to send a message [to the enemy] is not moral and just," he wrote. "Once we allow ourselves to traverse down that slope, we become no better than the insurgents we are fighting." [88] Pantano's commander ruled that Pantano would face no punishment for any of his actions. [89] Later that year Pantano resigned from the military. But in Feb. 2007 he returned to uniform as a North Carolina deputy sheriff, working as a guard at a county jail. [90] US Torture by Security Forces Amnesty International reports: [78] In June, three detainees died in Guantanamo, apparently as a result of suicide. They included Abdullah Yahia al-Zahrani who was reportedly aged 17 when he was taken into custody. The deaths heightened concerns about the severe psychological impact of the indefinite detention regime. To measure the fatal impact of the detention regime within the US, we must look to BJS figures for 2003-05: [91]
Among the seven listed causes of arrest-related death, suicide and death by other/unknown causes stand out for their rising numbers. Even if the 2006 suicide figure fell back to the 2003 level, the US still would average over one arrest-related suicide per week. In November 2007, the United Nations Committee against Torture stated at the conclusion of its 39th session: [92] The Committee was worried that the use of TaserX26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use. This suggests that death following Taser electroshock is a human rights problem that needs to be reported under the grouping "death in detention following torture", as in the case of Syria. Amnesty International reports that in 2006 more than 70 people died in the US after being shocked with Tasers. [78] The 376 justifiable homicides recorded by the FBI were all firearms deaths. The 70+ Taser-related deaths are not included in those FBI figures. 5. Summary Of US Respect For The Right To Life With the US official death in custody rate comparable to the higher rate cited for India, it seems appropriate to use the State Dept.'s report on India [52] as a template for describing the severity of deaths under US government forces. Incorporating a summary of the above data in that template produced this State Dept-style summary on the US record in respecting the human right to life: The government has numerous, serious problems in its record of respecting the human right to life. Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto impunity and the government made little attempt to combat the problem, except for a few instances highlighted by the media. The lack of firm accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and punishment of police was rare. The following additional human rights problems were reported: extrajudicial killings and killings of persons in custody, executions, extraterritorial killing, torture by security forces. 6. Lessons Learned Human rights monitors overlook violations of the right to life in the US The message of the US State Dept. Country Reports is explicitly propagated to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that monitor human rights and use the State Dept. reports as their primary source of data. For example, the Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Project claims: Covering 24 years (i.e., 1981-present), 13 separate human rights practices, and 193 countries, the CIRI Human Rights Project is the largest human rights data set in the world. [93] But the project's FAQ reveals: The primary source of information about human rights practices is obtained from a careful reading of the annual United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Coders are instructed to use this source for all variables. For a group of four rights known as "Physical Integrity Rights" (the rights to freedom from extrajudicial killing, disappearance, torture, and political imprisonment) coders also use a second source, Amnesty International's Annual Report. Both reports can be found online for recent years. If there are discrepancies between the two sources, coders are instructed to treat the Amnesty International evaluation as authoritative. Some scholars believe that this step is necessary to remove a potential bias in favor of US allies, although Poe, et al, (2001) have found evidence of great agreement between these reports. Reference: Poe, Steven P., Sabine C. Carey, and Tanya C. Vazquez. 2001. "How are these pictures Different? A quantitative comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International human rights reports, 1976-1995." Human Rights Quarterly 23.3: 650-677. [94] Another widely-used source of human rights data is the Political Terror Scale (PTS): The PTS measures levels of political violence and terror that a country experiences in a particular year based on a 5-level "terror scale" originally developed by Freedom House. The data used in compiling this index comes from two different sources: the yearly country reports of Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. [95] These two data sources, CIRI and PTS, then form the basis for other influential works used to compare and rank countries by respect for human rights, like the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators [96] and Simon Fraser University's The Human Security Report Project [97]. Although the US positions itself as a human rights champion, we've seen that the State Dept. reports do not examine or report on the US human rights record. Because of this void, critical discussion of the US human rights record is monopolized by Amnesty International's Annual Report. While Amnesty's contribution to the dialogue on human rights has been exemplary, and it has led the probe into the effect of Tasers on human rights in the US and elsewhere, there are glaring shortcomings in Amnesty's Annual Report on the US, evident in the introductory summary: [78] Thousands of detainees continued to be held in US custody without charge or trial in Iraq, Afghanistan and the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In June, the US Supreme Court struck down the military commissions established by President Bush and reversed the presidential decision not to apply Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions to detainees suspected of links with the Taleban or al-Qa'ida. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act stripping the US federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus appeals from such detainees, providing for trials by military commission, and amending the US War Crimes Act. In September, President Bush confirmed the existence of a programme of secret detentions run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). There were reports of possible extrajudicial executions by US soldiers in Iraq, with a number of soldiers facing prosecution. There was a continued failure to hold senior government officials accountable for torture and other ill-treatment of "war on terror" detainees despite evidence that abuses had been systematic. There were reports of police brutality and ill-treatment in detention facilities in the USA. More than 70 people died after being struck by police tasers. Fifty-three people were executed in 14 states.
There is an obvious disparity. Moreover, the standard terms of human rights discourse are used to discuss the US human rights record in its global conflicts, e.g.: There were a number of incidents of alleged extrajudicial executions or unlawful killings of civilians by US soldiers in Iraq. But what about incidents involving US domestic security forces? No mention of alleged extrajudicial executions (Sean Bell on his wedding day) or unlawful killings (92-year-old Kathryn Johnson). In Amnesty's US report, the abundance of evidence of US domestic violations of the right to life - ethnic discrimination in the use of lethal force, excessive force against the mentally ill, unjustified use of heavily armed paramilitary forces and tactics - is cloaked in the vague term "police brutality". But is Amnesty to be blamed for their monopoly? Workers in the human rights field could draw from additional sources. The Human Rights Watch World Report 2007 reports on the 2006 human rights record of the US. But, in the area of US domestic respect for the right to life, it is even more flawed than the Amnesty report: there is no mention of US police at all. [98] A more complete source is Beijing's answer to the US State Dept.'s unfavorable report on China: The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2006, [99] which includes a section titled "On Human Rights Violations by Law Enforcement and Judicial Departments". [100] In addition, there is no lack of evidence of domestic US human rights abuses. Researchers in human rights could compile their own reports. What is the justification for continuing the blackout on the deplorable US domestic human rights record? When the world sees no mention of the US in the State Dept.'s country reports, and scarce mention of US domestic human rights abuses in Amnesty's annual report, the message is clear: human rights abuses happen elsewhere, not in the US. US human rights record abroad and at home are linked The link between the US human rights record in its global conflicts and the US domestic human rights record was well established by Abu Ghraib:
US arrest-related deaths need to be seen from the perspective of the universal right to life Framing the issue of US killings by police and deaths in custody within the larger perspective of the universal human right to life provides alternative approaches:
As the US finds itself in the abhorrent position of discussing how much torture to allow and which methods are acceptable, it is useful to ask how the self-proclaimed monitor of human rights got to such a state. We can answer with another question: who's been monitoring the monitor? As long as the US is not held to its own standards there are no safeguards, no limit to the depths of horror US human rights practice can descend to. George Bush received a reply to his claim, quoted at the beginning of this report, nearly 50 years before he stated it:
Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places,
close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any
maps of the world ... . Unless these rights have meaning there, they
have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to
uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the
larger world. But to uphold their rights, such concerned citizens need first to know them. "Progress in the larger world," must start with human rights education in just those "small places, close to home." 7. Notes References
[1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
[2] Appendix A: Notes on Preparation of the Country Reports and Explanatory Notes
[3] U.S. Human Rights and Democracy Strategy
[4] Nguyen Tat Thanh ( Viet Nam) at the Sixty-first United Nations General Assembly, Third Committee
[5] "The Right To Life In International Law",
[6] Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights [7] See [2]
[8] The U.S. Human Rights Report -- Its Evolution
[9] Background Note: Canada
[10] Background Note: New Zealand
[11] Background Note: United Kingdom
[12] Background Note: Australia
[13] Appendix E: Country Assistance FY2006
[14] Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance", Issue Brief for Congress
[15] The United States in the General Assembly
[16] Israel and the occupied territories: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[17] Palestinians who died following an infringement of the right to
medical treatment
[18] President Delivers State of the Union Address
[19] State Sponsors of Terror Overview
[20] Background Note: North Korea
[21] Background Note: Libya
[22] Australia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[23] United Kingdom: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[24] Syria: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[25] Cuba: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[26] To encourage States to report such deaths to the Attorney General, the Act declared that, in order for a State to be eligible to receive a grant for correctional facilities, its grant application must include assurances that the State will follow the guidelines established by the Attorney General in reporting, on a quarterly basis, data on deaths that occur in two primary stages of the criminal justice system: first, deaths that occur "in the process of arrest" or during transfer after arrest; and, second, deaths in any municipal or county jail, State prison, or other local or State correctional facility.
Data collection from local jails began in 2000, State prisons were added in 2001, State juvenile correctional agencies were added in 2002, and coverage of arrest-process deaths began in 2003.
[27] Press release
[28] Justifiable Homicide: by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2002-2006
[29] Uniform Crime Reports- Frequently Asked Questions [30] See table at [28]
[31] Photos online brew trouble, The News & Observer, 15 Jul. 2007
[32] Reservist Due for Iraq Is Killed in Standoff With Police, Washington Post, 27 Dec. 2006
[33] Fatal Shooting of Veteran Justified, State's Attorney Finds, Washington Post, 11 April 2007
[34] Did Police execute Antonio Bryant?, The Hudson Valley Press, Vol. 24, No.2
[35] How Newburgh's two worlds collide, Times Herald-Record, 1 Nov. 2006
[36] Witness Rejects Police Account of Fatal Shooting, Washington Post, 28 Sep. 2006
[37] What Happened To James ChasseMental Health Association of Portland
[38] Leniency in Fairfax, Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2006
[39] Death raises concern at police tactics, BBC News, 21 Mar. 2006
[40] Va. Officer Might Be Suspended For Fatality, Washington Post, 25 Nov. 2006
[41] Potter fires cop, citing 10 mistakes, The Oregonian, 17 Aug. 2007
[42] Shooting Review Board Review Completed Regarding Fouad Kaady, Press Release from: Clackamas Co. Sheriff's Office, 21 Jan. 2006
[43] Transcript of Taped Interview of Willard and Bergin
[44] 28 seconds: The Killing of Fouad Kaady (Video: Part 1 of 5)
[45] NY police in manslaughter charges, BBC News, 19 Mar. 2007
[46] Family of Woman Killed by Police Sues, New York Times, 22 Nov. 2007
[47] May 2, 2007: Rep. John Lewis on Kathryn Johnston Murder
[48] Conyers Calls on Justice Department to Seek Answers for Wrongful Death of 92-year-old Woman in Drug Raid, Press Release, 3 May 2007
[49] South Africa data found for 4/2005-3/2006 omitted: the custodial death rate of 14.0 skewed the range. Source: South Africa: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 [50] CIA World Factbook
[51] Australia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005
[52] India: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 From January 2005 through July of the year, the Home Ministry reported 139 deaths in police custody. However, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) confirmed 1,730 deaths in police and judicial custody during the same time period. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78871.htm
[53] Malaysia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
[54]Deaths during or following police contact: Statistics for England and Wales 2006/7
[55]Deaths during or following police contact: Statistics for England and Wales 2005/06
[56] United Kingdom: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 [57] "Death in custody" does not have a standard definition. For the US, this report assumes the BJS term "arrest-related death" is roughly equivalent. To be clear about the term's definition, its's worthwhile to fully quote the BJS report:
Defining deaths "in the process of arrest" State contacts were instructed to include all deaths resulting from use of force by law enforcement officers. Arrest-related suicides were also included in this collection, provided that law enforcement officers were in some type of contact with the arrest subject prior to the suicide. For example, if an armed suspect was surrounded by officers and chose to take his own life rather than surrender, the death would be included. However, if an offender was actively sought by police but committed suicide before the police located him, the death would be excluded. The reason for the exclusion is that no officers were present at the time of death to attempt an arrest. Vehicular accident de |
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.