The Barrios Blog

Things the Commonwealth can do to get illegal guns out of the hands of kids

Thank you to everyone who submitted comments. Look for the final version of the report to be released on Thursday, April 12.

Gentle readers,

It's been quite a week in Boston, and with all the recent shootings, many have asked about the work of the Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee--particularly in light of our hearing on youth gun violence last November.  Earlier this week, I described some of the ideas we have been thinking about, and today I am posting the report I have written, with staff, including all recommended legislative actions.  I am also attaching a re-drafted version of a gun trafficking bill I have filed with Senator Montigny, Representative Canessa and Representative St. Fleur. 

This is my current "best" thinking on the subject and I am sure that there is still much more to be done at the federal level, and local level.  But if you have ideas for state action, please give feedback which--if it seems consistent with these objectives-- I may be able to include in the final report. I will be accepting comments until the end of the day Monday, April 9.

Jarrett

Gun Violence

As the polls closed on Election Day, Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 17-year-old Hakeem Horton died from a gunshot wound to the head on Hamlet Street in Dorchester, Massachusetts.  It was Boston’s 66th homicide of the year.   Hakeem was one of 55 people in the Boston area that died as a result of a gun shot in 2006.   His death also represented the growing needs of a community in crisis. 
In 2005, there were 340 victims of shootings in Boston, 50 of whom died.   That total represents the city’s highest number of shootings since the height of gang violence in 1996.  In 2006, Boston finished the year with 74 homicides, 55 by a gun, only to have the first gun death of 2007 occur six hours into the new year. Greater Boston is at a Code Red with youth gun violence.  In the last year, the number of gunfire victims actually tripled.
At the federal level, we have moved in the wrong direction.  COPS monies have been slashed and the NRA has successfully protected gun manufacturers and killed the assault weapon ban.  Unbelievably, the NRA successfully inserted an amendment in the 2004 federal budget, through Congressman Todd Tiehrt (R-KS) that actually prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from providing gun tracing data to any local or state law enforcement agency.  This NRA-sponsored amendment effectively takes away a major tool of law enforcement to stop the trafficking of illegal guns.  But it does more than that:  it is the poster-boy for bad laws that stop good police practices because of an overly-powerful special interest lobby.
The real question is how we can get the powers that be motivated to remove these types of barriers.  At the state level, there is much that we can do to help police and prosecutors and to promote prevention.  Local and state law enforcement entities must have the all tools reasonably available to investigate crimes and cases.  There are many tools, including:

 Enhancing the gun and licensing registries by allowing database information sharing networks to be utilized by both state and local law enforcement entities;

 Targeting low compliance of secondary market sales including facilitating the registrations and enforcing the registration requirements with both buyers and sellers;

 With the improved database, begin to charge persons found to sell or “lose” guns to unlicensed persons;

 Design interstate compacts with surrounding states to utilize gun registry and ballistics information to circumvent the NRA restrictions on gun tracing data sharing; and

 Close the Illegal Gun in the House Loophole so that traffickers are no longer protected because the guns are discovered in their homes or places of business.

These are some commonsense ideas I have found from my research on the gun market and state laws.  I will be releasing the full report of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, along with my Committee colleagues, in the coming week.  This report will contain the full set of recommendations which will, of course, be posted on the blog.

So why all the fuss over the Medical Examiner’s office?

So why all the fuss over the Medical Examiner’s office?  I guess the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) issue goes straight to the governor’s central campaign theme of gimmick-free government—that government is suppose to work for all of us in a transparent way for us to work together to improve.

Some background:  In the wake of a Boston Herald series on lost body parts and misidentified bodies at the OCME, the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security held an oversight hearing in December 2003.  We had whistleblowers testify from the OCME who spoke about the administrative and budgetary problems of the office, as well as District Attorneys who testified about the problems they encountered in prosecuting cases--problems including long turnaround times for autopsy reports.

The OCME’s office was in disarray due to administrative failures and budget deficiencies.   At the hearing, it was revealed that a federal investigation on the misuse of grant money had commenced and only two OCME facilities, one full-time and one part-time, were operating in the state after the facilities in Worcester and Pocasset were closed due to their respective deteriorating conditions.  The Committee also found inadequate administrative procedures that led to backlogs of cases, the loss of body parts, and other problems that challenged the integrity of the OCME’s office. 

Out of the hearing stemmed a movement to find a new Chief Medical Examiner to lead the OCME’s office in a new direction.  In April 2005, Dr. Mark Flomenbaum was hired to direct the agency.  The Legislature also appropriated additional monies -- $3.6 million in FY 2005 to $7.7 million in FY 2007 -- for the OCME’s office which increased the overall salaries of the office’s professional medical examiners and allowed Dr. Flomenbaum to hire new staff, including a team of new Medico-Legal Investigators to process medical evidence from death scenes and provide a more detailed and professional analysis of all unattended deaths in the state.  He expedited the streamlining of the autopsy rate and lessened turnaround time for reports and toxicology reports. He has also increased the number of autopsies in the office dramatically from 2694 in 2005 to 3552 in 2006. 

So how is he the one criticized when he’s done the job he was hired to do?  It is fair criticism of the OCME to observe that there are bodies stacking up on Albany Street, and that the equipment there is dated to say the least (the X-ray machine is from 1974!)  however, this is the result of closing two other full-time offices and sending their cases to this single office.  The poor ventilation at the Albany Street facility, the lack of vehicles, and the lack of sufficient refrigeration have all been identified as needs in writing to the House and Senate Ways and Means committees, as well as to the Public Safety committee. 

At the end of last week, the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) announced they were directing the chief of the OCME to begin to ‘move the bodies’ quicker.  In other words, shorten the time allotted to search for next-of-kin of unidentified bodies before sending them to the Potter’s Field cemetery in Dorchester for deceased indigents.  The EOPS answer to the problem was not to recognize that the reason for this overcrowding was systemic and that the answer needs to be systemic—like re-opening the other OCME offices.  Rather, the EOPS prescription was to abandon the humane policies of the current OCME to accommodate the coarse realities of governing in the 21st century, where it always seems to pay dividends to be penny-wise and pound foolish. 

As for Flomenbaum, I have met him only twice in his tenure here, and I do not know him personally at all, but I take my hat off to him for entering this most-political of environments to do an important job, especially on behalf of families with missing loved ones.  The Globe’s editorial today has it right….there is much to be done at the OCME, but not much more it’s chief can do without all of our help.

Reducing Gang Violence

Two years ago, I filed a bill to give police, prosecutors and youth violence prevention workers more tools to stop gang-related youth violence.  The bill became law last year, and included Massachusetts’ first witness protection program [see herald article: http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=187904], tougher laws on illegal gun possession and witness intimidation, and a grant program which aimed to keep young people out of trouble by recognizing that community-based programs seeking to involve them in activities could effectively reduce their likelihood to become involved in gangs, and also provide them with role models connected to a community of service providers intent on keeping them safe. 

As we begin the new FY2008 budget cycle, we find ourselves in danger of losing the $11 million in funding for this grant program—just as it has enjoyed its first successful season. 
These funds have helped to support community-based outreach programs, summer jobs programs, reentry programs, after-school programs and community policing initiatives targeting gangs and youth violence. 

Few issues are more important keeping our neighborhoods safe and providing alternatives for at-risk youth who need guidance.  However, last’s years grant program was funded through a supplemental budget, and unless the Administration changes its mind, and the Legislature renews its commitment to this kind of innovative, multi-disciplinary approach, communities with gang problems will be forced to discontinue their efforts this summer.

There are obviously many needs that should be addressed and limited revenue in FY2008.  However, investing in strategies to combat youth violence is a budget priority that we believe deserves special attention in FY2008.  Our communities need the resources to prevent youth and gang violence through both prevention and enforcement means, and the Shannon Community Safety Initiative is a unique program that coordinates and balances both important approaches.

http://www.senatorbarrios.org/news/2005/Joint_Committee_PS_Gang_Report.pdf

ID Theft and Victim's Bill of Rights Fact Sheet

Fact Sheet of An Act Regarding Public Safety and Policing Practices to Prevent Identity Theft

Due to the increasing amounts of financial information banks and businesses are collecting from consumers, it is becoming easier for identity thieves to gain access to people’s personal information. 9.9 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2003, including almost 10,000 people in Massachusetts.

An Act to Prevent Regarding Public Safety and Police Practices To Prevent Identity Theft will protect consumers from identity theft and help victims. The bill by State Sen. Jarrett Barrios, State Rep. Michael Costello and State Rep. William Strauss includes:

1. Security Freezes - Prohibits consumer reporting agencies from releasing a consumer’s credit report without authorization of the consumer.
2. Notification of Security Breaches - This requires a procedure of notice and response in the event that personal data has been breached.
3. Police Reports - Entitling a consumer to file a local police report if he/she suspects identity theft.
4. Penalties - Increases the penalties for convicted identity thieves.
5. EOPS Study – Requires that the Executive Office of Public Safety form a commission to study the problem of identity theft in the Commonwealth and the resources available to citizens to combat identity theft.
6. Social Security Number Protection - No data collector can release an individual’s Social Security Number to the public.

It's Time to Act on ID Theft

I’m mystified that we’re still wondering about the problem of ID theft. Another week, another slew of identity theft victims. This week it’s a scam preying on Stop and Shop customers in Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. While ingenious in its criminality, the data breach was, from the consumer’s perspective, less dangerous than the breach at TJX Companies last month. Here, it appears that only credit card data was compromised. This is much less dangerous to consumers because credit cards can be canceled and consumers are limited to $50 in liability under federal law.

On the other hand, data stolen from TJX was personally-identifiable, that is, unique to consumers and therefore far more valuable to thieves. Social security numbers and birthdates, when lost, mean that a consumer can have credit opened up in their name, without their knowledge, and suffer significant—sometimes permanent—damage. What’s more, because these numbers don’t change for the life of the consumer – the damage could happen any time, even many years after the data has been stolen.

The breach at TJX mystified me because it seemed so preventable. But it was hardly unprecedented: the Boston Globe, Citigroup, Bank of America, Lexis/Nexis, and Fidelity, to name few, have all experienced serious breaches in the last couple of years that have compromised customer security. Last week, the state disclosed that a former employee of the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) retrieved workers’ compensation claimants’ personal information and used that information to commit identity theft.

Given the slowness of both public and private sector data aggregators to adopt secure aggregation and storage policies, the importance of legal protections for consumers can’t be overstated. Two provisions are critical to any legislation trying to protect consumers from financial identity theft.

One of the most important protections needed is the so-called “notice provision.” If a private or public entity storing your personally-identifiable information suffers a loss or theft, this requirement assures that you will be notified, along with the type of information lost or stolen. Without notice, you won’t know that you need to take protective action. It’s important to note that there is no mandatory notice provision in Massachusetts right now. Stop & Shop, the Boston Globe, TJX, and other companies who have been breached never had to notify Massachusetts consumers about their compromised systems. It is commendable that they did, because at least consumers will be on notice about the threat to their personal information.

Unfortunately, right now there is little a Massachusetts consumer can do upon learning of such a breach of their personal data. Federal law allows consumers to notify the three national credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion—see below for more info) and have a fraud alert “flag” placed on their report for ninety days. This does not stop anyone from opening credit in your name; it is a mere notice to those checking the credit that suspicious activity may have occurred. Upon seeing this, a creditor is supposed to double-check the person’s identity, by asking additional questions or requesting to see their ID. How often this happens, we will never know, because it is not mandatory that creditors do this.

Great law, no? Protects you from theft after you’ve been a victim of theft—something akin to closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. And if you haven’t yet been a victim, what can you do? Not much.

In addition to notice, consumers need a real right to a “security freeze.” A security freeze allows us to limit third party access to our credit histories, in essence requiring our consent before the agency can share our history with a third party. In practical terms, this means we’ll have the right to limit thieves from opening accounts in our names by ending the open-door policy towards credit approvals currently in place. No longer will a thief be able to apply for credit in your name and have the credit reporting agency enable this crime by unquestioningly supplying key information that the third party creditor needs before opening a line of credit.

Twenty-three states now require companies and government agencies to notify consumers and law enforcement immediately of any data security breach. Fourteen states now give consumers the right to put a security freeze on their credit reports. These are the only tool proven to stop identity theft in its tracks, blocking would-be thieves from getting credit in the victim's name. With a security freeze, a consumer can block access to his or her credit report through the use of a password or personal identification number. A security freeze does not hamper a consumer's ability to use existing credit, or seek new credit, as a consumer can temporarily remove the freeze by using their PIN.

Notice requirements and security freezes—along with other protections—are part of legislation I have authored with MASSPIRG and Representatives Mike Costello of Newburyport and Representative Bill Straus of Mattapoisett on Beacon Hill. Please let your legislators know of your own support for the bill by calling the State House at (617) 722-2000.

Useful Information: How to contact the Three Credit Reporting Agencies There are three national credit reporting agencies. Currently, you can have each place a ‘fraud alert’ on your account if you have been a victim of ID theft. This is not a freeze: you cannot, as a resident of Massachusetts, place a freeze on who can access your credit—unlike a majority of other states.

You can order your free annual credit report (one from each of the reporting agencies) at www.annualcreditreport.com.  You can also contact each of the agencies to dispute information on your credit report:

• Equifax: 1-800-525-6285, www.equifax.com, P.O Box 740241, Atlanta, GA 30374-0241
• Experian: 1-888-EXPERIAN (397-3742), www.experian.com, P.O Box 9532, Allen, TX 75013
• TransUnion:1-800-680-7289, www.transunion.com, Fraud Victim Assistance Division, P.O. Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92834-6790

He should leave, not her: Restoring Liberty and Equality to Battered Women

Domestic violence kills.  It maims.  It terrorizes.  Concern for the scourge of domestic violence means thinking actively about how it can be prevented – not just prosecuted.  Prevention efforts historically focus on sheltering victims, an implicit acknowledgment that we are unable to protect a battered partner’s liberty in the face of violence.  I believe new policy efforts must move to shift the burden from “her” to “him”.  Let me explain what I mean with an example:  the case of Newburyport resident Dorothy Guinta-Cotter.

After Dorothy Guinta-Cotter obtained an emergency order of protection against her abusive husband Bill, he staked out her home, waited for her to arrive, sneaked up behind her in the garage and strangled her with a wire he wrapped around her neck. He didn’t kill her that time.  That was just a punishment for appealing to the criminal justice system for help, disobeying his warning never to seek an order of protection.

Police were unable to track him down after that violation of the emergency order of protection, although he had called the police station. They didn't see or hear from him again until the night before Dorothy was scheduled to go to court for her permanent restraining order hearing. That night he barged past their daughter in the house he was forbidden to enter, held Dorothy hostage at gunpoint, and then shot her several times when the police responded to the young daughter's desperate 911 call.

Whenever I hear about a horrific tragedy like this, I ask myself what might have been done to prevent it. In Dorothy's case, she had advocacy services, a lawyer, and police who were taking seriously her very real danger. But when Kelly Dunne, her Women's Crisis Center advocate, heard there had been a murder, she knew right away it was Dorothy. She knew because, while pieces of the system had worked for Dorothy, the system itself is not currently set up to protect endangered women (and men) from the abuse of their intimate partners.

In 2006, when a battered partner faces repeated attacks from her batterer, we still ask "Why doesn't she leave?" Why not flip this question, and instead ask, "Why doesn't he leave?" I believe it's time to start asking questions about domestic violence that place the responsibility where it belongs - on the offender - rather than continuing to blame the victim for "staying". It is time for endangered persons - and all who stand with them - to expect better from our justice system.

            

What does it mean that the criminal justice system tells a woman who has been battered by her intimate partner in her own home that it will give her an order of protection while at the same time it advises her to go into hiding at a shelter?   Law enforcement departments will advise women to seek protective orders, and simultaneously provide information on battered women’s shelters — an implicit admission that restraining orders neither guarantee safety, nor leave her free to live without fear.  More troubling is the implicit message of this seemingly ‘redundant’ referral to a shelter: violence will escalate if her partner is allowed contact with her (“get a restraining order”), it says, but it is her responsibility – not theirs -- to provide for her own safety (“seeking a shelter is recommended”).

Whether through direct action or a failure to act, the state is implicated in almost all aspects of domestic violence. The present-day delivery of state services in response to domestic violence is rife with state action that may exacerbate and intensify the problem, rather than addressing it effectively. Here are some of my ideas about what can be done by the state to reduce violence over the long term:

Lethality Assessments by Law Enforcement: Domestic homicides and murder-suicides almost always involve previous incidents of physical assaults accompanied by threats of murder. Every time law enforcement is called in, there exists the opportunity to assess her risk at her abuser's hands. Domestic violence cases must all be treated as potentially lethal crimes. This does not mean immediate arrest of all alleged assailants; it means immediate danger assessment by police can screen out those cases where lethal violence threatens to kill or maim.

A lethality assessment by the responding officer involves a standardized series of questions to the victim. First, a short series of questions concerning imminent fear of violence or death; affirmative responses to these questions prompt a more comprehensive battery pf questions from the officer. This assessment is attached to the police report, and must be reviewed by victim witness advocates, assistant district attorneys and judges before any disposition in the case. I have filed legislation with Representative Jamie Eldrige of Acton to require such assessments, and I believe Governor Patrick's pledge for "1,000 police" offers the perfect opportunity to use the carrot of funding to encourage best practices like this one in police departments.

Pretrial Detention of Partners Assessed to be "Lethal": The lethality assessment can be used to the Commonwealth to assist in determining whether to seek pretrial detention of a defendant as provided for in current law. Lethality assessments provide judges with a vast array of information which might not otherwise be available for their consideration. Evaluation criteria would include, but not be limited to, the alleged batterer's family history, his criminal record, his attitude toward control within an intimate relationship, his attitude toward and previous use of violence in intimate relationships, his history of substance and alcohol abuse, his propensity for violence outside the home, his level of contrition for the attack, his level of denial of the seriousness of the assault, whether children are involved as witnesses or as victims, and other information relevant to the batterer's propensity to commit violence against his intimate partner. The information gathered in the lethality assessment would provide useful guidance in constructing a detention program, as well as coordinating safety measures with the victim's liaison.

"Liberty Zones": GPS technology exists and laws explicitly require state officials - including probation officers - to track violent sex offenders who are judged to be dangers to society. The promise of this technology in the context of domestic violence goes straight to the failures of the current system. While not foolproof, recent legislation I wrote and passed with Kerry Healey and others means that GPS tracking technology can be imposed by a judge on a battering partner with specific "liberty zones" or areas the batterer may not go. These areas might include the battered partner's domicile or workplace, the children's school, and extended family members' homes at certain times of the week. This technology gives the battered partner the liberty to feel safer in her home or at work that restraining orders cannot: stalking and other forms of terror are now impossible - or at least far more difficult to succeed in terrorizing - without alerting state officials of the criminal breach of the order, and warning the battered partner to flee.

Batterer Detention Facilities: Proactive policy must expand to include offender management and accountability. In the typical cycle of domestic violence, separation is the most dangerous time for a battered woman. Batterer detention facilities allow law enforcement to safely separate the parties and defuse more successfully the violence - without reducing support for the shelter safety net.

Today, the judge has two choices for a person judged to have battered his intimate partner: incarceration or freedom (sometimes with probationary conditions). A batterer's detention facility represents a third way; it works within the criminal justice system under active judicial oversight, and includes a well-planned intake evaluation process, a work release program using electronic monitoring, state-of-the-art batterer intervention therapy, and coordination between the facility and victim services.

Active judicial management and oversight of domestic violence cases have been shown to decrease re-assault rates, and to increase batterer compliance with orders of protection and attendance at court-mandated batterer intervention programs. Work-release has real-life economic impacts important tot he battered woman and judges. Economic pressures are one of the most oft-cited reasons why battered women resist prosecution of perpetrators, especially if it means that their children may go hungry. The work-release option removes this impediment.

With the spectre of domestic violence looming large over every community, new ideas in apprehension, treatment, and prosecution are essential to move us forward toward a world less-plagued by intimate violence. These initiatives represent the start of something different, an approach that will move us further towards a true valuing of her liberty interests, not just his. It is so important to make sure that our justice system is protecting the victims of crimes, not placing additional burdens on them.

Gentle readers, I am interested in your thoughts, ideas and suggestions. There are some who have raised legitimate questions concerning the civil liberties "burden" this system imposes upon batterers who have not yet been convicted; I recognize these burdens but believe they are outweighed by the present-case burden upon the battered partner whose liberty is so often lost.

I have invited Diane Rosenfeld, Lecturer of Law at Harvard Law School to make some comments which follow herein.