by webrisor6 X 9: A Virtual Experience of Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement. It’s a term most of us are pretty familiar with. Yet due to its normalization via popular culture, the brutal and inhuman nature of this practice has been somewhat dulled. Lest we forget, solitary confinement (referred to as segregation in Canada) is the single most severe punishment an inmate can receive, with the exception of the death penalty. It involves complete isolation from the world for 23 hours a day. In theory, it should thus be a last resort. But in reality, it’s a common practice.
As reported by Vice:
“While rules and regulations around segregation can differ between federal and provincial corrections, some experts say that administrative segregation is being deliberately overused and has actually become the go-to choice because it’s easier to get away with […] It’s much easier to just put somebody in administrative segregation (isolation) than it is to go through the charging and the disciplinary process with punitive segregation.”
The United Nations considers segregation placements longer than 15 days to be cruel and inhuman punishment. Yet in a report by The Globe and Mail, of all inmates released from segregation in the 2015-16 fiscal year, nearly 250 had spent over 120 days in isolation. That’s over 1/3 of a year! And those figures are only for inmates serving time in federal prison. The numbers for provincial jails are even more staggering.
As reported by the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
“The extensive use of administrative segregation strongly suggests that segregation is not being used as a last resort, but rather, as a routine management strategy across Ontario’s correctional facilities […] It cannot be acceptable for the most restrictive and depriving form of incarceration legally administered in Canada—one which is otherwise imposed as a punishment—to be the default approach in situations where prisoners are sick or in need of protection.”
To be fair, correctional watchdogs have reported sharp declines in the use of solitary confinement as a whole in Canada. It’s been noted that the number of admissions to segregation dropped last year, and the trend has continued onto 2017. The average length of stay in solitary is down, from an average of 44 days in 2007-08 to 26 days in 2015-16. Baby steps, I suppose.
Think you could handle solitary confinement? Think you could spend 23 hours a day in a 6×9 cell for days, weeks, maybe months? See for yourself. The Guardian’s virtual reality experience places you right inside a U.S solitary confinement prison cell:
by webrisorHow a Tweet Can Become a Weapon
We all know cybercrime can cause serious damage. From plain online bullying to sophisticated mega-hacking, the results of cyber attacks can be disastrous, leading to emotional distress and significant financial loss. But generally speaking, no one imagines that online attacks could cause direct physical harm to someone, like a gun or a knife would. Well think again.
Through Twitter, a man in Maryland allegedly sent an animated image to Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald, which read “You deserve a seizure for your posts” in large letters with a blinding strobe light. Eichenwald, who was known to suffer from epilepsy, immediately suffered a seizure after seeing the image. The author of the tweet has since been arrested by the FBI and charged with cyberstalking with intent to kill or cause bodily harm, which could carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years. More importantly, a grand jury has deemed the seizure-inducing tweet to be a deadly weapon.
In the words of Vivek Krishnamurthy, assistant director at the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School:
“This is an interesting and unique case in that there are lots of online attacks that can have physical consequences, such as an attack on an electrical grid or the control of air traffic control. But this is distinguishable because it is a targeted physical attack that was personal, using a plain-Jane tool.”
Tor Ekeland, a New York defense attorney who specializes in federal cyber crimes, also chimed in on the issue, highlighting the novelty of this type of accusation :
It is, perhaps, the first time an animated image sent via Twitter has been legally defined as a “deadly weapon” […] I’m unaware of anybody being criminally prosecuted for this. If it’s not the first time, it’s one of the first times this has happened.”
Thus, something as seemingly harmless as a tweet could now be considered a deadly weapon. Oh how times have changed. This attack clearly highlights technology’s very harmful potential. While there are a number of provisions in the criminal code pertaining to cyber crime, it seems none truly deal with the notion of direct bodily harm. Once again we’re faced with a situation where the law needs to catch up to our ever-changing modern tech landscape.
by webrisorPolice Can’t Erase Your Phone’s Pictures
A recent Quebec Court decision has stated that police officers cannot ask citizens to erase photos on their phones which capture the officers on duty. This adds to the notion that, fundamentally speaking, filming police officers on duty is completely legal. I wrote about this in a previous post.
The officers may, under certain conditions, request that you put away your cell phone, but they simply cannot take your cell phone, without warrant, to verify its content and delete certain images.
In fact, the Commissaire à la déontologie policière has recently released a statement confirming this policy.
by webrisorWerner Herzog’s Into The Abyss
As far as documentaries on criminal justice go, Werner Herzog’s Into The Abyss is definitely one of my favorites. Known for his explorations of dark subject matter, the iconic German filmmaker tackles the very difficult issue of death through the lens of a triple homicide case in Texas. Shot within eight days of death row inmate Michael Perry’s scheduled execution, the film manages to remain completely impartial, casting no judgment and making no assumptions. Instead, it masterfully explores the human psyche in trying to understand not only why people kill, but also why the state kills. Through his candid and deadpan interviews with the various players in this sordid story, Herzog tries to find some reason behind the unreasonable, some logic behind the madness. But most importantly, he doesn’t give us any answers. That part is up to us.
In the words of movie critic Rene Rodriguez:
What is the abyss Herzog refers to in the title? Is it the small, horrible room with sickly green walls where grim-faced men carry out their death orders? Is it the jaded, fatalistic mindset that allows people like Perry and Burkett — both of whom are sane and eloquent and able-bodied — to commit three murders for the sake of a joy ride? Or is the abyss our country entire, with our gun-happy culture of violence and eye-for-an-eye sense of justice and tendency to condemn rural small towns and all who live there to the white-trash heap?
by webrisorAbolishing “Zombie Laws” in the Criminal Code
In a move that was many years in the making, the Liberal government has finally taken steps to remove a number of outdated laws from the Criminal Code, also known as zombie laws. Of course, the term has nothing to do with The Walking Dead. Rather, it refers to laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional by the courts and yet never scrubbed from the Criminal Code. They’re technically dead, but just like zombies, they still roam the land.
The truth is that our criminal code is a 125 year-old document which has been overhauled only once, and that was back in 1950! This means that many of the laws within this code simply don’t match with the reality of modern Canadian life.
The problem with these zombie laws is that as long as they’re still contained within the criminal code, people can be accused of breaking them. Case in point: Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould recently revealed that, between 2014 and 2015, 69 Canadians had been charged with section 159, which prohibits people under 18 years of age from having anal sex. Thus, archaic and unconstitutional laws are permitted to live on.
The recent and horribly botched murder verdict of a man named Travis Vader offers another very clear illustration of what’s wrong with outdated laws. In a publicly televised ruling, a judge declared Vader guilty of second-degree murder. Unfortunately for the judge, he used section 230 to do it. But here’s the kicker: this article, which pertains to committing a murder during the course of another crime, has been unconstitutional and of no force or effect since 1990! Apparently no one in government, for nearly 30 years, had thought to take action and actually remove it from the criminal code. In the end, Vader’s original conviction had to be reversed and he was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser charge.
Zombie laws can also refer to outdated and completely irrelevant practices, all of which are still found in the Criminal Code today. Some of these are actually quite amusing:
- Duelling – section 71
- Spreading false news – section 181
- Making crime comics – section 163 (1) b)
- Advertising Viagra – section 163 (2) d)
- Water-skiing at night – section 250 (2)
- Pretending to practice witchcraft – section 365
- Issuing trading stamps – section 427
- Clipping coins – section 451
Shoutout to Toronto-based designer Micheal Fazal for the awesome illustrations. Make sure to check out his work.
If you’ve been convicted of a crime, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
by webrisorTime: The Kalief Browder Story
Following the success of crime documentaries like Making A Murderer and The Jinx, comes yet another extremely powerful, socially poignant series. Time: The Kalief Browder Story is a six-part mini-documentary dealing with a tragic case of wrongful imprisonment and the profound impact it had on a Bronx teenager.
Arrested at 16 for allegedly stealing a backpack, unable to make bail, and held due to a prior offense, Browder spent three years at (the notoriously brutal) Rikers Island prison facility. Nearly two thirds of his time was spent in solitary confinement. He was violently beaten and abused by both inmates and guards. And the crazy part about all this is that the entirety of Bowder’s prison time was spent in “pre-trial detention”, meaning he never actually got a fair trial. His case was eventually dismissed, but the profound trauma he experience while incarcerated would remain with him until his final days. Only a few years after his release, he took his own life.
Browder’s tragic case has now garnered significant attention, from the U.S Supreme Court to Barack Obama himself. His story is emblematic of the United States’ broken criminal justice system. Directed by documentarian Jenner Furst and produced by Jay Z and the Weinstein Company, I can only hope this project continues to create conversation and bring on positive change. It’s stories like this that remind me why I practice criminal law.
If you’ve been convicted of a crime, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
by webrisorDistrict Attorney Fired by Trump for Upholding the Law
People who choose to work in the legal field usually have a very strong affinity for not only the law itself, but also for the rule of law. That is, they understand that our society functions on the basis of laws, rather than arbitrary power and chaos. Any attorney being sworn in to his provincial or state Bar must swear an oath to uphold this fundamental principle.
Sally Yates is a lawyer. And until very recently, she was the United States Attorney General. As acting D.A, her job was essentially to counsel the President on the legality of his orders through honest, independent and impartial advice. In what has turned out to be an incredibly prescient declaration from her confirmation hearing two years ago, Miss Yates had made perfectly clear that she was ready to defy the President should his orders be unlawful or unconstitutional.
SESSIONS: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you do to [sic] things you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: ‘Well, he appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that?’ But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?
YATES: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
SESSIONS: Well, that’s true. And like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that. Don’t do that. We’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it, please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that’s the duty on [sic] the attorney general’s office?
YATES: I do believe that that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office, to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.
So, what exactly did Sally Yates do to warrant her termination? Well, she simply advised Justice Department lawyers not to follow President Trump’s executive order which sought to ban immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Why? Because she believed, with good reason, that the order was unconstitutional.
She gave her legal opinion, she upheld the Constitution, and she dared to defy her boss. She did her JOB. And for all this, she got fired. It’s no wonder she was recently nominated for the JFK Profile in Courage award, which recognizes a public officials whose actions demonstrate the qualities of politically courageous leadership. Isn’t it kind of bizarre to call someone courageous for simply doing what they’re supposed to? While what she did was certainly a form of insubordination, ultimately she didn’t “betray” anyone. She upheld the law, period. Wouldn’t we all do the same?
Edit: And the courts seem to agree with her. Not only did a Federal judge suspend key parts of the order, but a Federal Appeals court even denied the US government’s emergency request to resume the ban.
by webrisorThe Textalyzer: a 21st century Breathalyzer
It’s no real secret, texting and driving has become almost as (if not even more) prevalent than drinking and driving. While similar in nature, they both seem to stand on opposite ends of a spectrum. Socially speaking, texting and driving is generally considered to be harmless and somewhat acceptable while drinking and driving is now almost unanimously stigmatized. And legally speaking, texting and driving has much less weight than drinking and driving does. In fact, it isn’t even a criminal infraction.
So while a standard DUI can land you up to 5 years in jail, here in Quebec texting and driving will only result in a fine of $80-$100 (lowest among all provinces), and 4 demerit points. Peanuts, right? No wonder this phenomenon is so prevalent. But it shouldn’t be. Distracted driving is as dangerous, if not even more dangerous than drunk driving. This has already been backed by numerous studies. (Edit: Due to a new U.K law enacted in march 2017, a single text could now cost young drivers their license)
Recent technological breakthroughs may help to curb the rate of accidents caused by texting on the road. The textalyzer is, for texting and driving, exactly what the breathalyzer is to drinking and driving. Simply put, this device is designed to help police figure if someone involved in a car accident was unlawfully distracted while driving. It is being developed by Cellebrite, an Israeli firm made famous for assisting the FBI in cracking the San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone.
It hasn’t been approved for use in the United States yet, and we probably won’t be seeing it in Canada for some time. Nonetheless, the textalyzer is a great illustration of how technological innovation and law can intersect in order to adapt to our tech-obsessed digital generation. For now though, we’ll just have to stick with what we have: section 439.1 of the Highway Safety Code:
No person may, while driving a road vehicle, use a hand-held device that includes a telephone function.For the purposes of this section, a driver who is holding a hand-held device that includes a telephone function is presumed to be using the device.
Check out the reactions of these young Belgians taking their “driving exam”. They were fooled into thinking that in order to pass, they had to prove they could successfully text and drive. The results, while hilarious, still prove a very serious point.
by webrisorNot Illegal to Film Police with Phone
In this digital age where cell phones are ubiquitous and everything is one snap away from being Youtube fodder, it’s only normal to wonder whether it’s legal to film police officers in action. The short answer is yes, you have the right to film or photograph police proceedings. As long as there’s no obvious safety concern, and you’re not tangibly obstructing the officers from doing their job, you can snap away.
As noted by Canadian Privacy Law Blog, an Ontario judge shed some light on this reality in a recent decision. Here are some pertinent passages from the ruling:
In the absence of an overarching and tangible safety concern, such as telling a photographer at a fire scene to back away if there is a danger that the building will collapse on him, telling people not to record these interactions, whether they be a bystander or the person the police are dealing with, is not a lawful exercise of police power. An officer who conducts himself reasonably has nothing to fear from an audio, video or photographic record of his interaction with the public.
The officer’s powers exist to allow him to protect the public and himself and to enforce the law; they do not extend to controlling the public record of what happened.
Section 129 of the Criminal Code prohibits one from “resisting or willfully obstructing” police officers in the execution of their duty, but this is a far cry from not being allowed to peacefully film from the sidelines!
by webrisorJudge Refuses $100,000 Lawyer Bonus
A Superior Court judge has recently ruled that a seasoned defense attorney, who sued a client for a $100,000 performance bonus after he was acquitted of drug charges, is entitled to only $20,000.
The client, unidentified, came from a very wealthy family with deep political ties. He had already shelled out $52,000 in legal fees, and was ready to pay an additional $12,000. But he drew the line when he saw the $100,000 bill. There was apparently some sort of agreement between the lawyer and client regarding a bonus, but no amount was specified beforehand. And this is what the judge took issue with.
In the judge’s words:
Le boni de 100 000 $ est un montant très important qui représente près du double des honoraires déjà facturés. Si Me D… le considérait raisonnable, il aurait dû le négocier avec Monsieur C…. Celui-ci aurait pu alors décider de l’accepter ou encore ne pas retenir les services de Me D… ou cesser de les retenir. Or, Monsieur C… a été placé devant un fait accompli. Il est informé du montant du boni une fois que le dossier est terminé. L’exemple donné à Monsieur C… du montant d’un boni pour des accusations de facultés affaiblies (5 000 $) ne lui permet pas de comprendre que Me D… lui réclamera un boni de 100 000 $. Cet exemple ne peut permettre à Me D… de raisonnablement présumer que son client est informé du montant du boni.
What this comes down to is simply the importance, and in fact the ethical obligation, for a lawyer to charge fees which are fair, reasonable, and correspond to the professional services rendered. Moreover, a lawyer should always ensure that his client has all the useful information regarding the nature and financial terms of the services, before agreeing to provide any services to the client. Transparency and communication are essential.
Before hiring a lawyer, always make sure to discuss financial terms. Don’t be shy, ask questions, and leave no room for confusion. A good lawyer will ensure that legal fees are outlined clearly.
If you’ve been convicted of a crime, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
Here’s a link to the decision, for those who wish to read it in detail.