California Prison Population Decision Releases Inmates Early: Human Rights

Yesterday When The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That California Must Reduce Its Prison Population Via Early Release Of More Than 30,000 Inmates I'm Sure Many Citizens Nationwide Gasped With Horror.

You See To The Average U.S. Citizen Prisoners Most of Whom Are Black & Hispanics, Are Guilty Thugs Who Deserve To Be Thrown In Jail And Housed There Forever!

No One Seems To Care That Those Inmates Are STILL Human Beings Created In God's Image & That Many Of Them Are Actually Innocent And Did NOT Receive A Fair Trial Based Upon Their Race.

There Are More White People Who Commit Felonious Crimes But Are NEVER Sentenced To Prison Vs. Black & Hispanic People Who Do NOT Commit Felonious Crimes And Are Sentenced To Prison. Many Times Life In Prison For Non-Drug Related, Non-Homicidal Crimes.

So Do I Believe Inmates Should Still Receive Proper Medical Care While In Prison?

Yes!

Do I Believe Jails & Prisons Should NOT Be Privatized Because It Encourages The Imprisonment Of Blacks & Hispanics Just To Increase State Revenue?

They Should NOT!

Do I Believe Inmates Should NOT Be Crowded Into Jails & Prisons Like Sardines?

They Should NOT!

Do I Believe Inmates Should Still Be Allowed To Vote?

Yes!

Do I Believe Inmates Should Be Properly Educated & Rehabilitated As To STOP The Cycle Of Recidivism In Our Nation?

Yes!

Do I Believe That Every Major Metropolitan City Should Have An Ex-Offender Re-entry Program In Place Like The One Established By Newark's Mayor Cory Booker To Also Help Stop The Cycle Of Recidivism In Our Nation?

Yes!

However Most Of All I Believe Every U.S. Citizen Accused Of A Serious Crime Should Receive A FAIR Trial Regardless Of Their Ethnicity Or Socio-Economic Status.

NOTE:

If You Have A Loved In Prison Who You Believe Was Wrongly Convicted Or Did NOT Receive Fair Trial, Please Contact The Innocence Project.










Calif. ordered to cut its inmate population

The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly endorsed reducing California's cramped prison population by more than 30,000 inmates to fix sometimes deadly problems in medical care, ruling that federal judges retain enormous power to oversee troubled state prisons.

The court's 5-4 decision means California may have to release tens of thousands of inmates or take other unprecedented steps to ease overcrowding in its prisons.

The reduction is "required by the Constitution" to correct longstanding violations of inmates' rights to adequate care for their mental and physical health, the court said. In 2009, the state's prisons averaged nearly a death a week that might have been prevented or delayed with better medical care.

The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the 80,000 the system was designed to hold.

There were more than 143,000 inmates in California's 33 adult prisons as of May 11, so roughly 33,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.

"The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected," Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, wrote for the court. The lawsuit challenging the adequacy of mental health care was filed in 1990.

To emphasize the conditions, Kennedy took the unusual step of including photos of overcrowding, including cages where mentally ill inmates were held while they awaited a bed.

The court's four Democratic appointees joined with Kennedy in upholding a court order issued by three federal judges in California, all appointees of President Jimmy Carter.

Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent that the court order is "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and that it did not comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a 15-year-old law intended to limit the discretion of judges in lawsuits over prison conditions.

Scalia, reading his dissent aloud Monday, said it would require the release of "the staggering number of 46,000 convicted felons."

Scalia's number, cited in legal filings, comes from a period in which the prison population was even higher.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's opinion, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate dissent for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Michael Bien, one of the lawyers representing inmates in the case, said, "The Supreme Court upheld an extraordinary remedy because conditions were so terrible."

Donald Specter, an attorney for the inmates, hailed the ruling.

"This landmark decision will not only help prevent prisoners from dying of malpractice and neglect but it will make the prisons safer for the staff, improve public safety and save the taxpayers billions of dollars," he said.

The ruling comes amid efforts in many states, accelerated by budget gaps, to send fewer people to prison in the first place. Proposals vary by state, but include ways to reduce sentences for lower-level offenders, direct some offenders to alternative sentencing programs and give judges more discretion in sentencing.

"There's a growing consensus that there are better ways to run criminal justice systems," said Michael Mushlin, an expert on prisoners' rights at Pace Law School in White Plains, N.Y.

Eighteen other states joined California in urging the justices to reject the population order as overreaching. They argued that it poses a threat to public safety. State attorneys general said they could face similar legal challenges.

Alito said he, too, feared that the decision, "like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see."

Kennedy acknowledged the concern, but said the judges gave state officials flexibility in complying with the court order, including offering "early release only to those prisoners who pose the least risk of reoffending."

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he "will take all steps necessary to protect public safety."

The California dispute is the first high court case that reviewed a prisoner release order under the 1996 federal law, which also made it much harder for inmates to challenge prison conditions.

The state has protested a court order to cut the population to around 110,000 inmates within two years, but also has taken steps to meet, if not exceed, that target. Kennedy said the state also could ask the lower court for more time to reach the goal.

Earlier this year, Brown signed a bill that would reduce the prison population by about 40,000 inmates by transferring many low-level offenders to county jurisdiction. The state legislature has yet to authorize any money for the transfer.

A person appointed by federal judges now oversees prison medical operations, but the judges have said the key to improving health care is to reduce the number of inmates.

At the peak of the overcrowding, nearly 20,000 inmates were living in makeshift housing in gymnasiums and other common areas, often sleeping in bunks stacked three high. Another 10,000 inmates were in firefighting camps or private lockups within California.

In 2006, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used his emergency powers to begin shipping inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. More than 10,000 California inmates are now housed in private prisons out of state.

Schwarzenegger also sought to reduce the inmate population by signing legislation that increased early release credits and made it more difficult to send ex-convicts back to prison for parole violations. Another law rewards county probation departments for keeping criminals out of state prisons.

One result of those changes is that the state has been able to do away with nearly two-thirds of its makeshift beds, although more than 7,000 inmates remain in temporary housing.

Posted by Laurel at 3:53 PM 0 comments

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Keeps Ban On Gays From Openly Serving In The Military


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that a controversial law prohibiting homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces can remain in place while the government appeals a Federal Judge's decision striking down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act.

A gay rights group asked the high court to overturn a stay order from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals keeping the law in effect while that court reviews the case. The petition from the Log Cabin Republicans was presented to Justice Anthony Kennedy who is responsible for handling emergency requests out of the Ninth Circuit.

Kennedy's order simply said, "the application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 1, 2010, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied." The order also noted that Justice Elena Kagan, who until this summer was Solicitor General, didn't take part in the case.

In September, Judge Virginia Phillips said the law was unconstitutional because it infringes on the fundamental rights of gay service members and concluded that the policy does not improve military readiness or unit cohesion. More than 13,000 people have been forced out since the law took effect in 1993.

Judge Phillips then ordered that the military immediately stop enforcing the law but her ruling was enjoined by the Ninth Circuit on November 1. Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit's decision to maintain the status quo while the government appeals the initial judgment invalidating the law.

The Obama Administration has defended the law in every court proceeding even though it has publically voiced its opposition to it and its desire to have Congress repeal the measure. It's unclear what impact the recent election results will have on that pursuit.







Why Obama Pushed To Reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

A Federal Appeals Court has, at the urging of the White House, granted a temporary stay on an Oct. 12 order by a district court judge to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell," which bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Many observers are surprised to see the Obama administration, which has opposed the policy and sought its repeal through Congress, lobbying the appeals court to keep the ban in place.

The stay is temporary and is designed to maintain the status quo until the appeal court can formally review the policy. The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that it would begin allowing openly gay recruits; the New York Times reports that this court stay "almost certainly means the government will go back to enforcing" don't ask, don't tell. Here's what people are saying about this development and what it means for the controversial policy.


Obama Explains the Move.

The Associated Press's Lisa Leff reports, "President Barack Obama said last week that the Clinton-era law 'will end on my watch' but added that 'It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now.'

He said he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress. ... Government lawyers argue that striking down the policy and ordering the Pentagon to immediately allow openly gay service members could harm troop morale and unit cohesion when the military is fighting two wars."

The Department of Justice issues a statement:

“Proper implementation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s’ repeal cannot occur overnight,” the Justice Department filing says, indicating that the amount of time needed to end the policy is the subject of a Pentagon working group review due out on December 1.

“An abrupt, court-ordered end to the statute would pretermit (sic) the Working Group’s efforts to ensure that the military completes development of the necessary policies and regulations for a successful and orderly implementation of any repeal of § 654. The significant impairment of the Department’s efforts to devise an orderly end to the statute would cause irreparable harm,” the Justice Department wrote.


Legal Complications if DADT Repealed Too Quickly.

The New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise and John Schwartz write, "Military officers have argued that if the change is made too quickly, it will place the military on a collision course with federal statutes. Families and spouses of soldiers have access to benefits like housing, health care and education through marriage, which the federal government does not recognize for same-sex couples."

Now Obama Owns a Policy He Opposes.

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer warned before the White House secured its sought-after stay, "if the administration successfully appeals Judge Phillips's decision, it will find itself obligated to enforce a policy the president himself says he opposes and that he says undermines national security, a policy with no empirical, legal, or moral basis.

The administration will have effectively instituted its own Proposition 8, retroactively denying rights to individuals who already have them. That will be significantly harder to explain or justify than simply maintaining the status quo. After having promised to repeal DADT, Obama would be responsible for its ongoing survival."


Obama Is Losing Control.

Liberal blogger Joe Sudbay fumes, "Well, DADT is the law of the land again -- at least for now. This has gotten absurd. The White House has lost control of this situation and it looks bad. I hope whoever concocted the Obama administration's strategy on DADT (and those who enabled it, meaning HRC and Winnie Stachelberg at CAP) grasp the magnitude of how screwed up this is. The people who are suffering here are the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Atlantic Wire, CNN, Democracy Now, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Chicago's Gun-Gang Crisis On The Rise In 2010

Six Wounded In Shootings On South, West Sides


At least six men were shot -- four on the West Side -- Friday night and early Saturday.

At 8:24 p.m. Saturday, a 23-year-old man standing in the 4800 block of West Jackson Boulevard was shot in the upper arm and taken in good condition to Loretto Hospital, police said.

At 9:54 p.m. Saturday, a man was shot in the leg during a robbery in the 4000 block of West Lexington Street, police said.

On the South Side, two gunmen exited a dark colored van and shot a 25-year-old man standing in the street in the 8300 block of South Justine Street about 10:15 p.m., police said. He was taken in stable condition to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn.

At 11:08 p.m., a man was shot in the 11100 block of South Racine Avenue, police said. He was taken in good condition to Christ Medical Center.

The shooting continued on the West Side early Saturday. At 2:21 a.m., a man in his 30s was shot multiple times in the 4800 block of West Gladys Avenue and was taken in serious condition to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, police said.

Ten minutes later, a 25-year-old man was shot in the 2200 block of West Race Avenue and was taken in an unidentified condition to Stroger Hospital with a gunshot wound to the abdomen area, police said.

Nobody is in custody for any of the shootings.






One dead, Two Wounded In West Side Shootings


One man was killed and two other people critically wounded in shootings on the West Side on Wednesday morning.

At 8:22 a.m. Fire Department personnel took two people to hospitals in serious to critical condition from a shooting at Polk and Pulaski, according to Fire Media Affairs spokesman Richard Rosado. One was taken to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County and the other to Mount Sinai Hospital.

At 8:30 a.m. paramedics took one person, also listed in serious to critical condition, to Mount Sinai from a shooting on the 4000 block of West Lexington, Rosado said.

Police News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan said three people were shot near Polk and Pulaski.

One of the victims taken to Mount Sinai, a 50-year-old man, died at the hospital at 8:44 a.m., according to a spokesman for the Cook County Medical Examiner's office.

The two shooting scenes are less than a block apart, the first about a half-block from Daniel Webster Elementary School at 4055 W. Arthington.

Harrison Area detectives are investigating.


View Larger Map


Sources: Chicago Sun Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Chicago's New Hand Gun Ordinance Violates 2nd Amendment Or No??

Chicago Approves New Handgun Restrictions


The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

— Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

— Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

— Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

— Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Though Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not specifically strike down Chicago's handgun ban, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

Mayor Richard Daley moved quickly to get a new ordinance in place and has indicated that he expects legal challenges to the new restrictions.

Meanwhile, a northwestern Wisconsin prosecutor said he won't prosecute a range of state weapon violations in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute people for carrying uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying concealed weapons, carrying firearms in public buildings or taverns or carrying switchblades and butterfly knives.

Fox said the Supreme Court ruling invalidated Wisconsin's laws against those practices.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Fox is inviting crime into Jackson County and if he won't enforce the state's laws he should be removed from office.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Chicago Handgun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, NRA Celebrates

High Court Strikes Down Chicago Handgun Ban


In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

At issue was whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question had remained unanswered for decades, and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.

A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

The justices two years ago affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gun rights groups applauded the decision.

"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. "It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."

Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion.

"There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly.

The Justice Department estimates that as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.

One part ensures that states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion, and to homosexual sex.

But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case was whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when considering a variety of state laws.

McDonald's lawyer, Alan Gura, promoted a new reading of the clause, in his lead role representing gun owners.

The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars had said that if the high court embraced this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, like property rights and gay marriage.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."

The current case was McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Carolinas Medical Center Faces Possible Negligence Lawsuit (Kenneth Jermaine Chapman)

According to North Carolina General Statute Chapter § 122C-55 Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Act of 1985...

Carolinas Medical Center staff had a Legal Duty to cooperate and warn other coordinating agencies about Kenneth Jermaine Chapman's reports of desiring to harm himself and others, however they INTENTIONALLY didn't.

In addition as illustrated in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas v Bush, 122 S.W. 3d 835 (Tex. 2003), "following orders" may not protect Nurses and other Non-Physicians from Liability when committing Negligent acts.

Relying on Vicarious Liability or Direct Corporate Negligence, claims may also be brought against hospitals, clinics, managed care organizations or medical corporations for the mistakes of their employees.

Doesn't this all amount to a clear case of Medical Malpractice and Negligence?

Uh-oh! I believe it does.

I smell a FAT lawsuit with a HUGE settlement for Kenneth Chapman's surviving relatives, especially his Child and Mother.

Ching! Ching!

To Kenneth Jermaine Chapman's surviving relatives I suggest you hire a New York lawyer who is also licensed to practice in North Carolina, than SUE Carolinas Medical Center and Charlotte-Mecklenburg County for Medical Malpractice, Gross Negligence & Racial Discrimination!

Charlotte I guess it doesn't pay to continue practicing Racial Discrimination.

I told you Charlotte-Mecklenburg is an Extremely Racist region with "Leaders" who don't know what the heck they are doing.

Check out the articles below and learn what Licensed Psychiatrists from across the country had to say about how CMC staff bungled Chapman's care.




CMC Psychiatrists Claim More Help Was In order Before Chapman Family Killings


Kenneth Jermaine Chapman should have been hospitalized when he showed up at a local emergency room saying he wanted to kill his wife and displaying obvious signs of mental illness, four psychiatrists told the Observer.

Psychiatrists from around the country say they probably would have hospitalized Chapman - even against his will - if they had been called on to treat him.

Chapman twice sought help at CMC-Randolph, once in February and once on March 16 - the same day he killed his wife and two of his children.

Chapman told CMC Clinicians at the Billingsley Road psychiatric hospital that he had access to firearms and wanted to kill his wife, according to records obtained by the Observer.

He later backed away from his threat, saying he would not hurt his wife, Nateesha. But he also told staff he was hallucinating, had a history of alcohol abuse and depression, and had a volatile relationship with his wife.

Both times, CMC Clinicians released Chapman from the emergency room within hours, giving him prescriptions and instructions to call back for an appointment.

CMC Records show no attempt to hospitalize him.

"There's no question" that Chapman should have been hospitalized, says Dr. Janet Taylor, a New York psychiatrist and former clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harlem Hospital. "He's definitely a danger to himself and others."

Officials at Carolinas Medical Center, which runs the Psychiatric hospital for the county under a $16 million contract, say confidentiality laws prohibit them from discussing Chapman's case.

But hospital officials are reviewing how staff at CMC-Randolph handled Chapman's treatment.

The 33-year-old Fed-Ex package handler ultimately killed himself, two weeks after the initial killings.

Chapman's mother, Ruby Cosby, says she's outraged that her son was allowed to leave the hospital when he needed help.

"I lost my son and granddaughter, and other lives were taken because the hospital was Negligent," she says.

"That Negligence cost a lot of lives. What do you have to do or say before anyone pays attention to you crying out?"

Psychiatrists nationally say the decision about hospitalization hinges on whether they believe a patient is dangerous to himself or others. They use a variety of tools to evaluate the risk - including interviews and observation of the patient, consultation with family, and a review of patient medical and behavioral history.

But doctors say they can't be certain who will turn violent, and the decision is ultimately a judgment call.

Five psychiatrists interviewed by the Observer said they couldn't determine whether Chapman should have been hospitalized because they didn't personally evaluate him.

But four other Psychiatrists, recommended by professional associations and well-known medical schools, agreed they would have hospitalized Chapman, based on a detailed description of his hospital visits.

The Doctors did not review Chapman's medical records. And, to avoid influencing their answers, the Observer didn't mention Chapman's eventual killings until they had offered opinions.

The four Psychiatrists agreed that the toxic combination of risks in Chapman's case - Depression, Alcohol Abuse, Threats of Violence and Access to guns - suggested a need for immediate Intervention.

"If the person is depressed, angry with his wife and wanting to kill her, and has access to firearms, I'd certainly be inclined to hospitalize," said Dr. Bernadette Cullen, director of the Johns Hopkins Community Psychiatry Program.

It's not unusual for patients to threaten suicide, psychiatrists say, but explicit homicidal threats are rare and always get their attention.

Dr. Anil Godbole, chairman of Psychiatry at Chicago's Advocate Illinois Medical Center, says patients threaten homicide two or three times a month at his psychiatric emergency department, which sees about 250 patients monthly.

Godbole, who served on President George W. Bush's Commission on Mental Health, said if a patient like Chapman refused to enter the hospital voluntarily, "I would insist ... if he likes it or doesn't like it."

Growing calls for help

Like other mental health facilities in North Carolina, Charlotte's Psychiatric hospital is under stress. With calls and visits steadily climbing, the hospital's 44-bed adult inpatient unit has been above capacity for more than a year.

It's unclear whether any beds were available on March 16. CMC couldn't provide a daily patient count last week. But the occupancy rate for March overall was 105 percent.

Area Mental Health Director Grayce Crockett won't discuss Chapman's treatment. Her department manages the county's mental health care providers, including CMC-Randolph, although the hospital has its own leadership team.

Crockett says even when all of the hospital beds are filled, patient care isn't compromised. If a patient needs to be admitted, she has said, the hospital can transfer him to the state Psychiatric facility in Morganton.

CMC also can send patients to the psychiatric units of general hospitals.

But experts nationally say psychiatrists may hesitate to order an admission if a hospital's beds are full.

"It undoubtedly casts a shadow on the decision-making," says Dr. William Sledge, medical director of the Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital.

The number of psychiatric beds nationally has declined, experts say, and insurance companies increasingly refuse to cover inpatient care except in the most severe cases.

Chapman first went to CMC-Randolph's emergency room on Feb. 28. During the two-hour evaluation, he told clinicians he had been fighting with his wife and thinking about harming her, records show. It was a "chronically volatile" relationship with "verbal and physical conflicts," a doctor wrote. He was previously treated for depression, and had a history of alcohol abuse.

He also had guns.

But Chapman later told staff he wouldn't hurt anyone. Clinicians sent him home with a prescription for medication to treat anxiety and depression. Those medications probably would have taken effect on Chapman within a few days or weeks, psychiatrists say.

Two weeks later, on the morning of March 16, Chapman again appeared at the emergency room.

He had a shouting match with his wife, and he told staff he wanted to kill her, records show. He also reported seeing "shadows of people every day." But later in the visit, Chapman told a nurse and a doctor he wouldn't harm anyone.

A doctor thought Chapman had a "Depressive Disorder" and increased the dosage of Anti-Anxiety medication, records show.

The hospital released Chapman around 6 a.m.

Later that day, police say, Chapman suffocated his wife and 1-year-old daughter and fatally stabbed his 13-year-old stepdaughter.

He spent the next two weeks living in his south Charlotte home with his two surviving children, ages 10 and 2 - while the bodies of his two dead daughters were locked in a bedroom.

When police came to Chapman's home on March 29, they say he shot at them and then took his own life.

'Recipe for disaster'

Under N.C. law, doctors can involuntarily commit mentally ill patients they judge to be a threat to themselves or others.

Chapman's professed change of heart about killing his wife would have complicated a doctor's decision on whether to hospitalize him, Psychiatrists say.

Dr. Marvin Swartz, interim chair of Duke University's psychiatry department, says he couldn't judge whether Chapman should have been admitted without evaluating him.

But he says Clinicians may have concluded they had adequately addressed Chapman's problems in the emergency room.

"If you feel you've turned it around during that visit, sometimes you have to take that risk," he says, "because you can't admit them all."

But Taylor, the New York psychiatrist, says she puts more weight on a patient's initial statements because later comments can be influenced by fears of being committed.

"People start getting nervous about what's going to happen, and they change their tune," she says.

S.C. psychiatrist Gariane Gunter called Chapman's risk factors "a recipe for disaster." A resident at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Gunter says she would not have been persuaded by Chapman's later claims that he wouldn't hurt anyone.

"I don't know what else you need to be really scared for his wife," she says.
"He was reaching out".

It's unclear whether hospital staff made any effort to warn Chapman's wife. But the records show no indication that contact was made.

Several of the Psychiatrists interviewed say Clinicians, often by state law, have a duty to warn the targets of such threats. North Carolina has no such law.

Chapman's parents say they wish the hospital had alerted them about their son's troubles. The hospital failed their family, they say.

"He was reaching out," says Chapman's mother, Ruby Cosby, "and they didn't reach back."

The two surviving children are in the custody of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department of Social Services, temporarily placed with relatives until officials assign the kids a permanent home - or possibly separate homes.

Chapman's 10-year-old daughter keeps in touch with her grandparents with a cell phone the Cosbys gave her when she went to New Jersey for her father's funeral.
Chapman's 2-year-old son doesn't yet understand death, says Chapman's stepfather, James Cosby.

"All he knows is that he misses his mother and father."






Kenneth Jermaine Chapman's Death vs Carolinas Medical Center's Racist System


Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System has been previously sued on numerous occasions by several African-American families for Racist Medical practices leading to premature, medically preventable deaths.

Many of those lawsuits were quietly settled with families of those Black patients who died due to intentional improper care or NEGLIGENCE.

Such lawsuits and bad reputation is the reason why Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System now exist instead of Charlotte Memorial Hospital, the old CMC.

Thus its safe to say Carolinas Medical Center and Charlotte Memorial Hospital are one in the same.

How do I know this?

I always do my research and I talk to people personally affected by what I post on my Blog.

People will tell me things they might not disclose to the Charlotte Observer because the Charlotte Observer has a history of practicing Biased reporting and Discrimination in its publication of articles.

Kenneth Jermaine Chapman was an African-American Charlotte citizen who recently killed three members of his family and later himself.

Prior to his destructive actions he desperately sought Mental Health Care assistance from Charlotte's Carolinas Medical Center.

In fact he sent out an S.O.S. which was intentionally ignored.

Mr. Chapman clearly, verbally expressed to CMC Staff he had thoughts of hurting others and killing himself.

Did CMC Staff report his thoughts to Charlotte DSS even though they knew this man had minor children in the home?

NO!

They didn't give a darn because Ken Chapman was Black and wasn't an affluent citizen.

Now if Ken Chapman had connections with an Affluent, Politically-connected Black Charlotte citizen, than of course they may have taken Mr. Chapman's situation more seriously, but because he was just a poor Black man they didn't give a darn!

The result?

A Black Man who killed his wife, two of his children and than later himself.

If you think Jennifer Roberts (board chair) and the other Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Commissioners are seriously concerned about this matter or seriously concerned about investigating Mr. Chapman's case...DON'T BET ON IT!

If you think Charlotte's weak, scared Black Leaders are going to speak up...DON'T BET ON IT!

The only two Charlotte-Meck. County Commissioners who do really care, Harold Cogdell Jr. & Vilma Leak (both African-Americans) will be blocked from doing anything constructive by Jennifer Roberts (board chair), "Ms. N.C. Corruption" herself.

This tragic incident helps to further demonstrate how Racism is deeply woven into all facets and levels of Charlotte, NC's community, including the Health Care System.

Charlotte's other main Medical Center, Presbyterian Hospital isn't much better.

Its a private facility where Blacks go in but don't come out.

Presbyterian Hospital also has a long history of Black Patients needlessly dying but that's a story for another day.

As I was saying Carolinas Medical Center's staff intentionally did NOT prevent Mr. Chapman's death, nor did they help protect his family however.....

I'll bet Mr. Chapman's surviving relatives receive a huge bill for his so-called "treatment".

In fact thousands upon thousands of African-Americans within the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region have Carolinas Medical Center Medical Bills on their Credit Reports.

Many of those bills are decades old.

Many of those bills are due to Billing errors from Carolinas Medical Center.

Many of those bills are due to Carolinas Medical Center INTENTIONALLY overbilling Black patients.

How does Carolinas Medical Center skirt Federal Law as it relates to Medical Bills which are older than 7 years old?

Carolinas Medical Center pays Equifax, Experian and Trans Union Credit Reporting agencies to sell those old Medical bill accounts to Debt Collectors, who create new account numbers for those decades old bills and continue screwing up the Credit Ratings for hundreds of thousands of North Carolina's Black citizens.

Is this really Racism you ask??

Yes!

For White Patients treated by Carolinas Medical Center staff everything is handled entirely different.

White Patients who visit Carolinas Medical Center for treatment receive proper care regardless of their situation and...

They aren't intentionally overcharged, neither are their Credit Reports damaged even if they don't possess Medical Insurance because NOT every White patient has Private Medical Insurance, just like there are many Black patients treated at CMC who DO possess Private Medical Insurance.

I'd say its time for the Federal Gov't including the FTC, to take a look at how Carolina Medical Center intentionally provides inadequate treatment to its Black patients, how they consistently & intentionally overbill Black patients and how they are paying big bucks to 3 major Credit Reporting agencies (mainly Equifax) for the sole purpose of selling Medical Bill Accounts which are decades old to Debt Collectors.

Just watch the Levine Family, old Charlotte money and one of Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System largest contributors, use their big bucks to help defend CMC in any possible lawsuit.

The Levine Family is Charlotte's "Savior".

They often come to Charlotte's aid in a crisis however ONLY after the crisis occurs.

They run Charlotte's so-called Leaders including Jennifer Roberts and Anthony Foxx.

The Levines are most likely indirectly involved in most of Charlotte's Racist activities being carried out however, because they are super rich everyone is afraid of them.

If Ken Chapman were a White Man residing in Charlotte, NC neither he nor his family members would be dead today.

Or at least his family members would be alive today.

Both Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System, Charlotte DSS and quite possibly the Levine Family are ALL legally Responsible for the Chapman Family's death stemming from total NEGLIGENCE.

If I were related to Mr. Chapman's family I would most definitely SUE and demand a Federal Probe to be conducted.

Sadly enough Kenneth Jermaine Chapman's relatives are probably uneducated or too afraid of Charlotte's Racist, Unfair systems to take legal action.

Charlotte's Racist, Scared Leaders know this which is why nothing will probably change.



View Larger Map


Sources: Carolinas Medical Center, McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Wikipedia, Google Maps

GOP Prepares For SCOTUS Court Battle, Targets Liberal Dems

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Right Gears For SCOTUS Court Fight, Not Filibuster


Conservative Judicial Activists say they won’t ask their Republican allies to go to the mat over President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens by pressing for the ultimate weapon in a court fight – a Filibuster.

Instead, they say the nomination of a Democrat to the court will be an opportunity to cement the support of the tea party movement, broaden their base, and motivate supporters to turn out to support Republicans in the mid-term elections in November.

The measured strategy is a tacit acknowledgement of political reality: Conservatives would find it difficult, if not impossible, to play the filibuster card.

The reason for that dates back to the epic battles of 2005 over President George W. Bush’s nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

At the time, members of the Senate’s Democratic minority threatened to Filibuster both nominees, as they had with other Bush court nominees. The Republican majority countered by threatening to exercise the so-called “nuclear option,” using its clout to change Senate rules to ban filibusters

The GOP rallying cry, led by the Bush White House, was that such rare and high-level presidential nominees deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Both sides were forced to stand down when seven Democrats and seven Republicans formed the “Gang of 14,” and vowed not to support their party leadership in either strategy unless extraordinary conditions arose. None did, and both Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

Today, the “Gang of 14” is a depleted group. One of the Democrats left the Senate. Three of the seven Republicans who were founding members are no longer in office – two by way of election defeats and one by resignation.

Of the four remaining GOP members, one is Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), who is facing a tough primary challenge based in part on arguments that he moved too far to the center.

That could put extra pressure on the three remaining members – Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine – if they were isolated.

But the impassioned calls for up-or-down votes for Roberts and Alito still resonate among conservatives, and that has left most of the movement unwilling to endorse the tactic and be vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.

“The Judicial Crisis Network is opposed to a filibuster,” said Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

And Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, concedes that “Republicans just have no history of filibustering to prevent an up-or-down vote and I think the last place they’d do it is the Supreme Court.

To be sure, even without an outright filibuster, the nominee and the Obama White House won’t get a pass.

At a minimum, Senate Republicans will use the Judiciary Committee’s hearing as “a teaching moment” to lay out the distinctions between conservative and liberal judicial philosophies and focus attention on any controversial or liberal bent in the nominee’s background, said one conservative legal activist.

In addition, the depressed approval ratings of both Congress and Obama has emboldened conservatives and their Republican Senate allies to be more aggressive with this nominee than they were when the president nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year.

Conservative groups have been meeting for weeks plotting strategies for opposing the prospective nominees whose names are circulating on short lists in Washington, according to Levey.

They’ve also debated the best junctures in the nominating process to launch television ads and mobilize a grassroots network that Marks said has grown to exceed 4 million since the nomination showdowns over Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor.

Their targets would be same set of be-sieged, moderate Democrats who joined the “Gang of 14” and who came under withering pressure during the health care debate.

Among them: Arkansas’ Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

The primary objective of the campaigns would be to drive down favorable votes for Obama’s pick, if not defeat his nominee. Either way, conservatives say they will come out with a winning issue for the fall.

“If they oppose the nominee, then you have used the election to impact the confirmation process,” said Levey. “And if they support the nominee, then you’re basically using the confirmation fight to impact their election chances.”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) suggested the possibility of a filibuster even before Stevens’s retirement. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday” last week he said Republicans would consider it if Obama nominated “an overly ideological person.”

Appearing on the same show, Specter, the Republican turned Democrat from Pennsylvania, said he hoped Stevens didn’t retire this year because “gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster.”

With that road blocked, conservatives hope to score their real victories in the voting booths, and by engaging tea party activists, whose main issue has been the deficit and federal spending, is critical to that goal.

The conservative interest groups that engage in court fights have been quietly reaching out to leaders of the movement to encourage them to incorporate the issue of the court and judges in their rallies and join them in the fight.

“Now that there are questions about whether health care is constitutional, and that will be a court case that goes to the Supreme Court, the Tea Party movement has a direct reason to pay attention to the Third Branch,” said Gary Marks, the Judicial Crisis Network’s executive director.

It’s a sensitive courtship. The tea party movement is loosely organized and difficult to define even by its own members. It’s also become particularly prickly about being viewed as part of any establishment, including the political parties.

Still, any tea party rally offers ample evidence of what could become a natural alliance with the judicial activists, including homemade signs calling for allegiance to the Constitution and fierce objections to mandatory health care coverage.

“We don’t want to impose how we do things on them. We just began reaching out to them to say that we want to be a resource to you,” said Marks.

Those entreaties haven’t produced a major shift yet, but tea party activists agree there could be an easy symmetry between the two causes.

Karin Hoffman, founder of a South Florida tea party group called DC Works For Us, said the emerging confirmation fight hasn’t been a primary topic of conversation in tea party circles.

But she said it would a logical focus, given that many activists have turned their attention to supporting state-level lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Democratic healthcare overhaul Obama signed into law last month.

“It is fundamentally unconstitutional. You cannot require people to buy something,” said Hoffman, predicting the challenge would wind up before the Supreme Court – an assessment with which most legal experts disagree.

Tea party activists “would inundate the Senate with calls and emails if there was a case coming up or if there was a nominee that was just awful,” she said, explaining she has “no confidence whatsoever” that Obama would tap a nominee who adheres to the strict Constitutionalist perspective embraced by tea partiers.


Sources: MSNBC, Politico