Eesha Pandit

How Our Broken Bail System Punishes Domestic-Abuse Survivors - and Empowers Abusers

Last May, in Ohio, 14-year-old Bresha Meadows ran away from home. She told her relatives that she was scared for her life, “because her father was beating her mother and threatening to kill the whole family.” Her mother, she reported, had suffered many injuries at the hands of her father, including broken ribs, punctured blood vessels and black eyes. In July, Bresha allegedly shot her father, killing him. Bresha’s aunt, Sheri Latessa, told Democracy Now that Bresha was acting to protect her mother, telling her “Now, mom, you’re free.”

There’s a name for this kind of violence: it’s called “battered child syndrome” and it usually occurs in response to years of extreme physical or psychological abuse. In fact, studies show that 90 percent of all such violence is committed by children who have suffered abuse at the hands of the parent over a long period of time.

Bresha Meadows’ alleged actions fit the description of battered child syndrome down to the last detail. The parent is killed in a non-confrontational situation, often while sleeping, without a violent struggle. Prosecutors and outsiders, who don’t know about the abuse, interpret these actions as cold, calculating and amoral. But many of these children believe that killing the abusive parent is the only way to end the abuse and free themselves — and in Bresha’s case, her mother — from a life of constant fear.

Bresha is currently incarcerated for her actions, held at the Trumbull County Juvenile Detention Center in Ohio. A petition for her release has garnered more than 18,000 signatures. On Oct. 5, Bresha was put on suicide watch by detention center officials. Prosecutors are considering trying her as an adult, and she could face life in prison.

Now a second scenario. In August, in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Kevin Ewing cut off his ankle bracelet and took his wife hostage at gunpoint. Earlier in the summer, Ewing kidnapped, held and tortured his wife for 12 days, branding her with a metal rod, pistol-whipping her, and keeping her bound and tied in a closet. He repeatedly threatened to kill her, and then himself. The second time around, he did it.. Ewing shot his wife three times, and then shot himself — just as he had warned.

Records show years of abuse, with many instances documented by the police. Tierne Ewing, Kevin’s wife, secured a protection-from-abuse order in 2001, which Kevin repeatedly violated. Two criminal cases were filed against him, one of which put him in jail for seven months. Community members, including those in their church community, knew of the abuse and had tried to intervene. One of them told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the abuse and violence “had been going on her entire adult life.” Just three days before he killed his wife, Ewing was released on a $100,000 bond after spending three days in the Washington County Jail.

What are the laws and policies that make it possible for 47-year-old Kevin Ewing to be released long enough to make good on his threat against his wife, while 15-year-old Bresha Meadows is incarcerated and faces trial as an adult?

Joanne Smith, executive director of Girls for Gender Equity, a New York-based advocacy organization, argues for trauma-informed support for survivors of domestic violence like Bresha Meadows.

In an interview, Smith told Salon that the criminal justice system failed this young woman at multiple points. “The Bresha Meadows case teaches us that the very system set up to support survivors has failed them and is now punishing them for taking actions into their own hands,” she said. “The system is reactionary instead of preventive. When Bresha’s grades dropped in school, that was a sure sign that something was wrong. She then ran away from home and reported the abuse but was asked about the abuse in front of the abuser, her father.”

One key element of our criminal justice system is the way in which bail is determined and set. Bail practices are notoriously skewed toward punishing low-income people, who are disproportionately people of color. Cherise Fanno Burdeen, CEO of the Pretrial Justice Institute, notes some of the inherent challenges in a system that doesn’t take into account the risk faced by survivors of domestic violence.

In most places, Burdeen says, the bail-bond system overlooks previous instances of domestic violence. She and her organization advocate for a risk-assessment system in which a person’s risk to others is taken into consideration when setting bail. Victims are not necessarily notified, she says, when an accused abuser is being released from custody. Furthermore, she argues, “The setting of a money bond sometimes poses a false sense of security.”

Advocates like Burdeen are making the case that each arrested person who seeks to post bond should be assessed on the risks they pose to others, and that these risks should be measured by an actuarial risk assessment tool. This process would allow courts to decide whether or not to detain someone before trial. After two years of testing such a risk assessment formula, last year the Laura and John Arnold Foundation introduced its public safety assessment in 30 jurisdictions, including states like Arizona and New Jersey and cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh. This approach is supported by other nonprofit institutions, including the Open Society Foundation, which has has a pre-booking diversion program that promotes alternatives to jail for drug use, and the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, which has focused on changing the way jails are used in 20 key jurisdictions. These changes include strategies to reduce the number of arrested people who are sent to jail and increased use of evidence-based tools such as risk-assessment processes.

One significant question remains unanswered: Will such risk-assessment programs mitigate some of the racial bias, and other kinds of implicit bias, that disproportionately target poor people of color and result in increased incarceration and unfair bail and sentencing policies? Former Attorney General Eric Holder told the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in 2014 that while information gathered in some risk assessment tools, like education levels, socioeconomic backgrounds and neighborhood, can be useful in some areas of law enforcement, he cautioned against using such data to determine prison sentences. Such assessments, Holder said, “may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.” Whether this is true for bail-setting policies is a slightly different, but related question.

There is currently a robust debate about the impacts of these programs, and data is coming in from cities, states and municipalities around the country. The fact remains, however, that the criminal justice system as it stands has incarcerated Bresha Meadows and let Kevin Ewing walk out of jail.

Bresha’s case also draws attention to the damage that pretrial detention can cause. As noted in the Department of Justice’s Ferguson Report, some court systems fail to give credit for time served before trial. For a teenager like Bresha, the impact of that could be devastating.

Trina Greene Brown, founder of Parenting for Liberation, expressed concern in an interview that Bresha was “being re-traumatized while incarcerated.” If her case stays in juvenile court, Bresha could be remanded to detention until age 21 if she is convicted of murder. “If her case is moved to adult court,” Brown said, “she could face life behind bars.”

Bresha Meadows’ case goes a long way toward illuminating the disparities in the criminal justice system, showing us who is considered innocent until proven guilty and who is criminalized without due process. Brown observes that the system failed Bresha twice. “Bresha’s case reminds us that the criminal justice system is unjust when it comes to black girls. This system was never established to save and protect black girls. It has failed Bresha and many other survivors of color … who were not provided proper protection, forced to defend themselves, then punished.”

Keep reading...Show less

The Fate of Abortion Access in Texas Is in the Supreme Court's Hands

Many in Texas are playing a familiar and fraught waiting game. June is the month of Supreme Court decisions and this year the Court is considering the most important abortion case in decades, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

The case is about a Texas law, called HB2, which is a sweeping law that imposes restrictions on access to abortion. Two provisions of the law are before the court, one requires that doctors who provide abortion services must obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals no farther than 30 miles away from the clinic; and the other mandates that every health care facility offering abortion care must meet building specifications to essentially become mini-hospitals (also known as ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs).

If the law is upheld, these restrictions would mean that there would be 10 clinics left in Texas, a state of 27 million people, and leave more than 500 miles between San Antonio and the New Mexico border without a single clinic.

There are many nuances and complexities regarding the impacts of the law currently before the eight-member Supreme Court, but it all comes down to one crucial question: Do these regulations place an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion?

This concept of “undue burden” is the current legal standard to assess whether abortion laws violate Roe v. Wade. In 1992, the Court heard Planned Parenthood v. Casey and upheld the basic right to abortion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the decision in Casey, which said that, while states did have the right to regulate some aspects of abortion, their power to put restrictions on abortion had limits. O’Connor wrote, “Only where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability to make this decision does the power of the State reach into the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.”

In the past 15 years, 471 restrictions on abortion access were enacted. These restrictions include refusal to cover abortion care with federal funding, limits on private funding for the procedure, parental notification or consent requirements for minors, and a wide range of regulations on abortion facilities themselves. If the Supreme Court finds no evidence that HB2 creates an undue burden on people seeking abortion, they could open up the door for more states to pass copycat laws. Now, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt serves as a kind of a test of the “undue burden” standard applied by Casey in 1992.

Liza Fuentes is senior project manager at Ibis Reproductive Health and co-investigator at the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP). TxPEP is a five-year comprehensive effort to document and analyze the impact of the measures affecting reproductive health passed by the 82nd and 83rd Texas Legislatures, including the impact of HB2. Fuentes told Salon that their research shows that the impact in Texas will be significant. “Our research has shown that clinic closures after HB2 resulted longer wait times for an appointment, and women having to travel significantly farther spend more in out-of-pocket costs to obtain an abortion. For example, the average distance that women in our study traveled to a clinic if their nearest clinic had closed was 85 miles each way — nearly four times as far than the 22 miles that Texas women traveled when their nearest clinic remained open,” she said. In their research, TxPEP also interviewed women seeking abortions after all but one-third of the clinics in Texas closed practically

Fuentes told Salon that their research shows that the impact in Texas will be significant. “Our research has shown that clinic closures after HB2 resulted longer wait times for an appointment, and women having to travel significantly farther spend more in out-of-pocket costs to obtain an abortion. For example, the average distance that women in our study traveled to a clinic if their nearest clinic had closed was 85 miles each way — nearly four times as far than the 22 miles that Texas women traveled when their nearest clinic remained open,” she said. In their research, TxPEP also interviewed women seeking abortions after all but one-third of the clinics in Texas closed practically overnight, after HB2 went into effect. One of those women, a 23-year-old married mother of two from Waco, shared her experience:

“I called Dallas, I called San Antonio. I think in Austin and here in Waco they weren’t doing nothing, and they said they didn’t have a surgeon or a doctor for that here. They used to have one. I don’t know  what happened but they didn’t have one at the time. I also did look at ways that I could do it myself at home but it was like either you do it, you might hurt yourself or you might, you know, hurt the baby. I called back, and I think they told me that they weren’t doing [medical or surgical procedures], that the government had put a stop or something…I was pretty upset, but I just decided that I guess I′ll have to just ride it out. I didn’t know what else to do, who else to call.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made the GOP’s mission plain when he spoke at the Texas Capitol on the 40th anniversary of the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade this past January, “The ideal world is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure abortions are as rare as possible.”

So, as Republican lawmakers posit that laws like HB2 are about protecting women’s health, they’ve already shown us their hand. Nancy Northup, President of the Center For Reproductive Rights, the organization that argued the case before the Supreme Court in March, said, “veiled in misleading claims of protections for health and safety, the politicians behind the law set out to deny women their Constitutional right and access to safe and legal abortion care.” Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health and lead plaintiff in the case, said that we do, in fact, know the impact the law will have.  Miller pointed to the Fall of 2013, when HB2 went into full effect. The result, she says, was devastating for abortion access, “75 percent of the clinics in the state were immediately shut down and there was over a 3 to 4 week wait to get an appointment, even in places like Houston, Austin San Antonio and Dallas/Fort Worth.”

Stephanie Toti, the lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court said, that she made the case before the eight justices that “the undue burden standard requires meaningful scrutiny of laws that restrict access to abortion care… [and that] uncritical deference to legislative determinations is inconsistent with supreme court precedent.” She called for the Court to consider the impact on the millions of Texans, and possible many others around the country if this law is upheld, saying the provisions in the law “are not medically justified … these restrictions impose heavy burdens on abortion access… if they are allowed to fully implemented they will delay thousands of women access to abortion and prevent other women from accessing safe and legal abortion care at all.”

Now, a few things could happen. The Justices could vote to overturn the law, return a tie, or vote to uphold the law. If they allow the law to stand,

The stakes are high. All eyes are on the Supreme Court which is working without a full bench, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the refusal of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace Justice Scalia. There are few possible scenarios. They can uphold the law. They can deadlock in a 4-4 tie. They can rule against Texas’ law. They can ask for more information from the parties and delay ruling altogether.  Or they can split, and uphold one of the provisions of HB2 and reject the other.

If the law is upheld by the Supreme Court, all but nine of Texas’ abortion clinics will be forced to close. Some will have to drive hundreds of miles to reach a clinic. Wait times at those remaining clinics will lengthen, possibly stretching several weeks. Some people will be too discouraged by these hurdles to continue their search for a safe place to get an abortion. Undocumented women in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley will be hundreds of miles from a clinic and not able to drive to one without passing checkpoints, which dot the Texas highways.

If there’s a 4-4 tie, Texas would revert to the ruling of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided to uphold the law and all the same impacts, just described, would apply. Notably, the case could potentially come up to the Supreme Court again, when there’s a full 9-person bench.

If there’s a split with the provisions – though Ms. Toti and Ms. Northup have said they’re optimistic that the Court will strike them both down – the admitting privileges part of the law, which is partially enforced already, has already resulted in the closing of more than half of the 41 clinics in Texas. It could bring down the number of open clinics to about 16 or 17 (currently there are 19 clinics open, and the situation is dire). If the provision of the law requiring clinics to operate an ambulatory surgical center is upheld, all but nine clinics in the sate would close.

If the law is struck down, Amy Hagstrom Miller describes the potential impact on abortion providers and clinics, saying, “not only will we get relief from these onerous restrictions, but we would have the opportunity to reopen facilities that have had to close, we will have the opportunity to take a stand for clinics all across the country and for the women and families that they serve to say that we can put a stop to these bully politicians.” She notes that they can’t reopen clinics overnight, it will take time to rebuild the infrastructure that once existed. Leases have expired, buildings were sold, equipment was sold and providers and staff have had to find new jobs in the several years since HB2 passed.

As we are embroiled in the politicking of a presidential election year, it’s important to note that the court’s decision will surely bring the question of abortion rights onto the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton has a murky record on restrictions to abortion access, having at times supported them strongly and more recently spoken out against them, particularly those that would limit federal funding to cover abortion care. Bernie Sanders’ long career has been relatively straightforward — he’s opposed every restriction to abortion access, and has said as much when asked. For his part, Donald Trump has swung the farthest — at one time being expressly pro-choice and during his campaign for the Presidency going so far as to say that women who have abortions should be punished. The Supreme Court’s ruling on HB2 will certainly result in a fresh round of discussion on the subject, and each candidate’s trajectory on the issue. All while the fate of Texas hangs in the balance.

Keep reading...Show less

The Supreme Court’s Massive Abortion Case: Everything You Need to Know About Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt. This case challenges Texas’s notorious House Bill 2 (HB2), which would effectively close nearly all abortion clinics remaining in the state of Texas.

Keep reading...Show less

Hillary Clinton's Abortion Game-Changer

On the campaign trail this week, Hillary Clinton referenced her support of reproductive rights and mentioned a little-known federal policy that makes it very difficult for low-income women to get an abortion: The Hyde Amendment.

Keep reading...Show less

Inside the Struggle for Justice at the Texas Jailhouse Where Sandra Bland Died

It’s 105 degrees in the shade, which is scarce outside the Waller County Sheriff’s Office and Jail. The building is low, and in varying grades of disrepair. Pooling water. Dingy sideboards.

Keep reading...Show less

Planned Parenthood Hoax Is GOP’s Trojan Horse For More Insane Bullying

It’s a tale as old as time. Conservatives find themselves backed into a political corner, usually right before a contentious election season. In need of something to mobilize their anti-choice base, they launch an attack on reproductive health through another attempt to shut down the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The collateral damage: time, energy and resources spent responding to the attack, instead of focusing on the crisis of reproductive health care access in America.

Keep reading...Show less
BRAND NEW STORIES
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.