Legislative Memo: Civil Remedy for Bias Incidents

Subject: A.529/ Destito et al. (AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to providing a civil remedy for victims of bias-related violence or intimidations) Position: SUPPORT This bill would provide the missing legal mechanism for victims of bias-related violence or intimidation to initiate a civil action against the perpetrator. It would also provide for the reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees. Bias crimes/incidents are acts motivated by prejudice and hatred. These acts affect the fundamental rights of the victim, as well as the group of which the victim is, or is perceived to be, a member. The consequences of bias crime reach beyond the harm inflicted on an individual. Such acts also provoke fear and suspicion among the members of similarly situated minority groups. Bias crimes/incidents, therefore, pose a unique danger to society. In New York, where diversity is regarded as one of our greatest strengths, these acts undermine the very fabric of our pluralistic society and diminish our collective strength. Bias crimes/incidents cannot be condoned or ignored.

Legislative Memo: Human Rights Complaints

A.3252/ Peoples et al. (AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to time for filing a complaint with the state division of human rights) Position: SUPPORT This bill amends the executive law to increase the time for filing a complaint with the Division of Human Rights from one to three years. The Human Rights Law allots victims of discrimination two methods of seeking recourse: they may either file an administrative complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, or pursue a civil cause of action. An administrative complaint must be made within one year after the discrimination occurred; however the filing time for the institution of a civil cause of action to recover damages for unlawful discriminatory practices is three years. Many victims of discrimination do not immediately file complaints due to fear of retaliation from the person they are filing against (employer, landlord, etc.) or are simply unaware that legal recourse is available.

Legislative Memo: Cameras in the Courtroom

A.3950 / Weprin et al. S.2067 / DeFrancisco et al. (AN ACT to amend the judiciary law, in relation to audio-visual coverage of judicial proceedings and to repeal section 218 of such law relating to audio-visual coverage of judicial proceedings) Position: QUALIFIED OPPOSITION Fifteen years ago, the Board of Directors of the New York Civil Liberties Union voted to modify its policy on cameras in the courtroom from one of support, to the current position of qualified opposition. The shift in policy reflected a balancing of competing constitutional rights – the rights related to freedom of the press and a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial – and resulted in what the NYCLU considers a fair and equitable solution to the potential conflict. Under the proposed legislative scheme, this balancing of rights and interests requires that a criminal defendant must be afforded the right to preclude the recording of court room proceedings. We urge the legislature to reject the proposed legislation absent such an amendment.

Legislative Memo: Letter to Gov. Spitzer: Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders

February 13, 2007 Governor Eliot Spitzer The Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Re: Proposed legislation regarding civil commitment of sex offenders Dear Governor Spitzer: It is our understanding that you and representatives of your office are negotiating legislation that would broaden significantly the state’s authority to incarcerate, subject to civil commitment proceedings, individuals who have completed serving a sentence for a sex offense. The NYCLU has recently completed an analysis of the demographics of persons designated Level 3 sex offenders in New York State. These data reveal stark racial and ethnic disparities in the population of persons designated Level 3 offenders relative to their representation in the general population.

Legislative Memo: Expansion of the DNA Database

Governor Errs in Proposing Massive Expansion of DNA Data Bank May 16, 2007 -- Governor Spitzer earlier this week proposed a massive expansion of New York State's DNA data bank, stating that use of DNA evidence to identify criminals is “decisive, reliable, and even handed.” Experience in jurisdictions throughout the country, including New York, contradicts this statement. DNA evidence is not infallible. It has been well documented that human error, fraud and abuse enters into the collection, analysis and reporting of DNA evidence. Prof. William C. Thompson (University of California, Irvine) has documented widespread problems in the use of DNA evidence -- including cross contamination and mislabeling of samples, fabrication of test results, and bias in the analysis and interpretation of DNA samples. New York does not have a regulatory system that can ensure the integrity of the DNA database or the use of DNA samples.

Legislative Memo: Mandatory Pre-Conviction HIV Testing

A.4861-B / Mayersohn, et al. S.3740-A / Saland, et al. (AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the testing of certain criminal defendants for human immunodeficiency virus) Position: OPPOSED It is perplexing that in light of the grave public health challenges facing NY State, the legislature has been unduly preoccupied with this bill (A.4861-B/S.3740-A), which not only lacks a demonstrable public health benefit but may, if enacted, pose a health risk to sex crime victims, who may be encouraged to depart from NYS Department of Health protocols.

Legislative Memo: Regarding legislative proposals related to sex offenses (2005)

Both the Senate and Assembly have recently introduced a raft of legislative proposals that would further sanction or regulate persons who have served sentences for sex offenses. Unfortunately, many of the public comments regarding this issue have been characterized by gross distortions of fact and by apparent ignorance of behavioral science and law enforcement practices. In advance of the recently introduced legislation, there has been no searching inquiry as to the nature of the risk to public safety posed by sex offenders. Nor has there been serious deliberation regarding the most effective measures the government can take to protect our children and our communities from those risks.

Legislative Memo: DNA Databanking

NYCLU Opposes Expanding DNA Databank; Urges Destruction of Original Physical Sample After DNA ID Obtained and Tougher Penalties for Misuse of Information Position: Opposed It started with peas. In 1865, Augustine monk Gregor Mendel was experimenting with growing and crossing different strains of peas in his small monastery garden in Brunn, Moravia, when he discovered the basic principles of heredity. In his experiments crossing peas with different characteristics, such as height and color, Mendel developed the theory that each parent contributed a set of characteristics to their offspring. Thus, the science of genetics was born.

Legislative Memo: DNA Databanking

Subject: S.7982/McGee et al. (at request of the Governor) -- AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to the DNA identification index Position: Opposed This bill, which has passed the Senate, would massively expand the reach of New York State’s DNA database to require that all persons convicted and sentenced for any felony or any misdemeanor would be required to provide a sample for DNA testing. The bill applies retroactively to encompass anyone convicted in the past who is still serving a sentence. The bill would also make a class E felon of anyone who “knowingly fails” to provide a sample within thirty days of notice. Such failure would also be cause for revocation of probation or parole.

Legislative Memo: NYCLU Strongly Supports Reform of Rockefeller Drug Laws

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. “Off with his head!” she said, without even looking round. -Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland May 2000 The Rockefeller drug laws, when they were enacted in 1973, were intended to combat drug abuse by providing such harsh sentences for drug offenses that users and dealers would be deterred from continued involvement in drugs. It didn’t work. John Dunne, one of the original sponsors of the laws, has admitted “beyond any shadow of a doubt that these laws are not working.”1 Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals has called for reform. The New York State Catholic Conference has issued a statement calling for more effective policies focusing on treatment. The newspapers, including The New York Times, Newsday and the Times Union have printed numerous articles, editorials and letters calling for the legislature to recognize the obvious: that these laws don’t work, they result in serious injustices and they need to be changed.