Hace un par de semanas, por iniciativa de la Profesora y amiga, Beatriz Kohen, directora del Programa de Género y Derecho, proyectamos en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo la película documental "Courting Justice" o "Cortejando a la Justicia". Contamos con la presencia de la realizadora del film, la encantadora Ruth Cowan. Ruth me pidió que escribiera algo sobre la película en línea con mis comentarios al finalizar la proyección. Esto es lo que escribí:
"Courting Justice helps us understand the huge challenge South Africa’s judges faced after the collapse of the apartheid regime. It is evident that they were aware of the enormous responsibility they had to advance the belief that the new constitution was not only ink on paper, but a reality that could improve their lives.
The opening scene of Courting Justice features the Constitutional Court building, the very architecture of which conveys the court’s:transparency and accessibility. It is open to all including the school children we see, who are curious about the work done there.
One among the many challenges for this Court was and continues to be establishing and maintaining its own legitimacy. Courts, as Alexander Bickel said, are the least dangerous branch of government. They lack the power of the purse and the sword. Their legitimacy is constructed through each of their decisions , the arguments they offer to justify them and the connections these decisions have with improving the lives of the country’s citizens . Its legitimacy is also rooted in the diversity and the reputation of its members, as well as in their life experiences and commitments to justice and democracy. With each decision , the future of the new democratic regime, the credibility of the constitution itself and the hope of people in a better future are at stake."
Para saber más sobre la película, pueden ver su website ACA
También pueden seguir las novedades en Facebook ACA
lunes, 28 de noviembre de 2011
viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2011
Día Internacional de la No Violencia Contra la Mujer
En 1999, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, aprobó por resolución, conmemorar el 25 de noviembre como el Día Internacional de la No Violencia hacia la Mujer.
En esa fecha, en el año 1960 se cometió el asesinato, violación y tortura de las tres hermanas Miraval, que lucharon por la liberación de su pueblo contra el dictador dominicano Trujillo.
Hacer CLICK ACA para ver un video divulgado por la Oficina de la Mujer de la Corte Suprema en el que la Dra. Carmen Argibay comparte un poema sobre el tema.
En esa fecha, en el año 1960 se cometió el asesinato, violación y tortura de las tres hermanas Miraval, que lucharon por la liberación de su pueblo contra el dictador dominicano Trujillo.
Hacer CLICK ACA para ver un video divulgado por la Oficina de la Mujer de la Corte Suprema en el que la Dra. Carmen Argibay comparte un poema sobre el tema.
domingo, 6 de noviembre de 2011
Mario Roberto Alvarez
Desayuno y tengo frente a mi, sobre la mesa del living, un ejemplar del libro “Cuaderno de Viajes” del arquitecto Mario Roberto Álvarez publicado por la Facultad de Arquitectura de la UP. La publicación que fue propuesta por la arquitecta Susana Ribichich y editada por la editorial Nobuko y Universidad de Palermo, recopila los viajes que realizó Álvarez por Europa al finalizar sus estudios a partir de 1938. Una delicia para los amantes del dibujo y los aficionados a la arquitectura.
En el libro, MRA describe y da énfasis a sus propias ideas a través de la fluidez de sus dibujos, que acompaña con sintéticas notas aclaratorias. Aunque utiliza este lenguaje gráfico como herramienta para la descripción de teorías y técnicas, sus croquis conceptuales, analíticos o perceptivos, representan un goce para cualquier lector.
Mario Roberto Álvarez, nació en Buenos Aires en 1913. Ya siendo estudiante recibió dos medallas de oro, una en el Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires en 1931 (otro ex-alumno del Colegio de quien sentirnos orgullosos!) y otra cuando egresó en 1936 de la Facultad de Arquitectura de Buenos Aires.
Miro el libro y miro el diario mientras desayuno. En este último me entero, con tristeza, que el maestro de 97 años se fue a descansar luego de darnos casi un siglo de su creativa existencia. Dejo el diario y me pongo a mirar su Diario de Viajes
sábado, 5 de noviembre de 2011
Courting Justice... Mujeres en la Justicia
| Cine debate: proyección del film Courting Justice | ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| En el marco del convenio entre la Asociación de Mujeres Juezas de la Argentina – AMJA- y el programa Género y Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo, el 11 de noviembre de 2011 a las 18:00 hs. se presentará el documental “Courting justice”. El argumento del film narra la historia de las mujeres juezas de la Corte Constitucional y otras importantes Cortes de Sudáfrica y su papel en la transición a la democracia y el establecimiento de una cultura de Derechos Humanos en ese país. Contaremos con la presencia de la directora Ruth Cowan, prestigiosa académica con investigaciones sobre los países en desarrollo, sistema de justicia, asuntos de género y raciales. También participarán el Dr. Roberto Saba, constitucionalista y Decano de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo, y la Dra. Beatriz Kohen, directora del programa Género y Derecho de la misma universidad. Asimismo, asistirán destacadas figuras de la justicia nacional. Posteriormente se realizará un debate abierto al público. Para más información sobre la película documental: http://www.courtingjustice.com/index.html | ||||
Juicio por Jurados
Jornada: Hacia el Juicio por Jurados en la Argentina |
sábado, 24 de septiembre de 2011
Me recomiendan la siguiente bibliografia sobre Secreto y Acceso a la Informacion (FOIA NET)
Tom Susman
Sissela Bok, Secrets: on the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (New York: Vintage Books, 1989). Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: the American Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).
Mary Graham, Democracy by Disclosure: the Rise of Technopopulism (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2002).
Ann Florini, ed., The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).
Fabrizio Scrollini
Peter Hennessy, The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War (London: Allen Lane, 2002).
Colin Darch
Heather Brooke, The Silent State: Secrets, Surveillance and the Myth of British Democracy (London: Heinemann, 2010)
Ben Worthy
Donald C. Rowat, ed., Administrative Secrecy in Developed Countries, (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1979)
David Vincent, The Culture of Secrecy: Britain, 1832-1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Ken G. Robertson, Public Secrets: a Study in the Development of Government Secrecy (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).
David Leigh, The Frontiers of Secrecy: Closed Government in Britain (London: Aletheia Books, 1982).Baxter, John D. 1990. State Secrecy, Privacy and Information. Harvester: London.
Bunyan, Tony. 1999. Secrecy and Openness in the European Union. Kogan Page: London. Also avaialble at the link below http://www.statewatch.org/secret/freeinfo/index.html
Charles Davis
Charles N. Davis and Sigman L. Splichal, Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000).
Nabiha Syed
Alasdair S Roberts, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Tom McClean
Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991).
Dennis F. Thompson, “Democratic Secrecy,” Political Science Quarterly 114, no. 2 (July 1999): 181-193
Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (New York: Transaction Publishers, 2009).
Itzhak Galnoor, “Government Secrecy: Exchanges, Intermediaries, and Middlemen,” Public Administration Review 35, no. 1 (January 1, 1975): 32-42.
Georg Simmel, “The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies,” American Journal of Sociology 11, no. 4 (January 1906): 441-498. Weber, Max (1978 [1922]).
Max Weber, Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978).
Sissela Bok, Secrets: on the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (New York: Vintage Books, 1989). Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: the American Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).
Mary Graham, Democracy by Disclosure: the Rise of Technopopulism (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2002).
Ann Florini, ed., The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).
Fabrizio Scrollini
Peter Hennessy, The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War (London: Allen Lane, 2002).
Colin Darch
Heather Brooke, The Silent State: Secrets, Surveillance and the Myth of British Democracy (London: Heinemann, 2010)
Ben Worthy
Donald C. Rowat, ed., Administrative Secrecy in Developed Countries, (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1979)
David Vincent, The Culture of Secrecy: Britain, 1832-1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Ken G. Robertson, Public Secrets: a Study in the Development of Government Secrecy (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).
David Leigh, The Frontiers of Secrecy: Closed Government in Britain (London: Aletheia Books, 1982).Baxter, John D. 1990. State Secrecy, Privacy and Information. Harvester: London.
Bunyan, Tony. 1999. Secrecy and Openness in the European Union. Kogan Page: London. Also avaialble at the link below http://www.statewatch.org/secret/freeinfo/index.html
Charles Davis
Charles N. Davis and Sigman L. Splichal, Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000).
Nabiha Syed
Alasdair S Roberts, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Tom McClean
Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991).
Dennis F. Thompson, “Democratic Secrecy,” Political Science Quarterly 114, no. 2 (July 1999): 181-193
Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (New York: Transaction Publishers, 2009).
Itzhak Galnoor, “Government Secrecy: Exchanges, Intermediaries, and Middlemen,” Public Administration Review 35, no. 1 (January 1, 1975): 32-42.
Georg Simmel, “The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies,” American Journal of Sociology 11, no. 4 (January 1906): 441-498. Weber, Max (1978 [1922]).
Max Weber, Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978).
miércoles, 21 de septiembre de 2011
Kindle y las bibliotecas
De ALT1040 (Gracias)
En esta ocasión han firmado un acuerdo con 11.000 bibliotecas de Estados Unidos para poner en marcha un servicio de préstamos de libros electrónicos a través del Kindle, es decir, emular el acto natural de retirar un libro de una biblioteca pública durante quince días pero trasladado al mundo del e-book.
La idea es que el usuario se conecte a la web de su biblioteca pública y si ésta utiliza los servicios de OverDrive (una plataforma, precisamente, de E-Books), conectarse a Amazon para descargarse el libro en el Kindle durante el tiempo de préstamo (que puede ser renovable y que, si el usuario lo desea, puede desembocar en la compra del libro manteniendo todas las anotaciones realizadas). Es decir que, gracias a este nuevo servicio, los usuarios podrán retirar libros sin tener que pisar la biblioteca y leerlos en su Kindle. Creo que este acuerdo de Amazon es un importante paso para el libro electrónico porque pone de manifiesto el hecho de que el libro es algo más que el papel, puesto que lo que importa realmente son los contenidos.
Amazon, precisamente, no es una novata en estos asuntos y lleva ya tiempo sorprendiéndonos con movimientos similares que reafirman este hecho. La pasada Navidad, Amazon comenzó a permitir (en Estados Unidos) que los usuarios pudiesen prestarse libros electrónicos, algo de lo más natural cuando el libro está impreso pero que, cuando hablamos de un libro electrónico, parece rozar (para algunos puristas) el sacrilegio y la piratería. Comprar un libro es, al fin y al cabo, adquirir derechos de acceso a unos contenidos, el formato más que un impedimento debería ser una ventaja a explotar y eso es lo que Amazon está haciendo.
De hecho, creo que lo ha demostrado muy bien con los libros de texto. Salvo libros de referencia, algunos libros de texto acaban en un desván o en una estantería de la que apenas se mueven pero, en su tiempo, tuvimos que adquirirlos para cursar nuestros estudios. Creo que todos hemos tenido libros que, tras aprobar la asignatura, no hemos vuelto a tocar y, sin embargo, tuvimos que pagarlos para tenerlos “de por vida”. El libro electrónico, realmente, no se degrada ni se estropea (únicamente puede quedarse desfasado) y aquí Amazon vio otra línea de negocio al alquilar los libros de texto en formato electrónico, de modo que se adquieren derechos de acceso durante la vigencia del préstamo y, luego, o bien renovamos o dejamos de tener acceso al libro pero, mientras dure, podemos usarlo a un precio mucho más bajo que comprarlo.
En esta ocasión han firmado un acuerdo con 11.000 bibliotecas de Estados Unidos para poner en marcha un servicio de préstamos de libros electrónicos a través del Kindle, es decir, emular el acto natural de retirar un libro de una biblioteca pública durante quince días pero trasladado al mundo del e-book.
La idea es que el usuario se conecte a la web de su biblioteca pública y si ésta utiliza los servicios de OverDrive (una plataforma, precisamente, de E-Books), conectarse a Amazon para descargarse el libro en el Kindle durante el tiempo de préstamo (que puede ser renovable y que, si el usuario lo desea, puede desembocar en la compra del libro manteniendo todas las anotaciones realizadas). Es decir que, gracias a este nuevo servicio, los usuarios podrán retirar libros sin tener que pisar la biblioteca y leerlos en su Kindle. Creo que este acuerdo de Amazon es un importante paso para el libro electrónico porque pone de manifiesto el hecho de que el libro es algo más que el papel, puesto que lo que importa realmente son los contenidos.
Amazon, precisamente, no es una novata en estos asuntos y lleva ya tiempo sorprendiéndonos con movimientos similares que reafirman este hecho. La pasada Navidad, Amazon comenzó a permitir (en Estados Unidos) que los usuarios pudiesen prestarse libros electrónicos, algo de lo más natural cuando el libro está impreso pero que, cuando hablamos de un libro electrónico, parece rozar (para algunos puristas) el sacrilegio y la piratería. Comprar un libro es, al fin y al cabo, adquirir derechos de acceso a unos contenidos, el formato más que un impedimento debería ser una ventaja a explotar y eso es lo que Amazon está haciendo.
De hecho, creo que lo ha demostrado muy bien con los libros de texto. Salvo libros de referencia, algunos libros de texto acaban en un desván o en una estantería de la que apenas se mueven pero, en su tiempo, tuvimos que adquirirlos para cursar nuestros estudios. Creo que todos hemos tenido libros que, tras aprobar la asignatura, no hemos vuelto a tocar y, sin embargo, tuvimos que pagarlos para tenerlos “de por vida”. El libro electrónico, realmente, no se degrada ni se estropea (únicamente puede quedarse desfasado) y aquí Amazon vio otra línea de negocio al alquilar los libros de texto en formato electrónico, de modo que se adquieren derechos de acceso durante la vigencia del préstamo y, luego, o bien renovamos o dejamos de tener acceso al libro pero, mientras dure, podemos usarlo a un precio mucho más bajo que comprarlo.
Pena de Muerte y Discriminación 4. Penado por error o racismo?
The New York Times
September 20, 2011
Georgia Pardons Board Denies Clemency for Death Row Inmate
By KIM SEVERSON
ATLANTA — Barring an unimaginable legal reversal, Troy Davis will be executed by lethal injection at a Georgia prison on Wednesday.
In the days that follow, Amnesty International and other groups that fight the death penalty will move on to other cases.
The family of Mark MacPhail, the Savannah police officer who was trying to break up a fight in a fast-food parking lot when Mr. Davis shot him in the face and the heart, will look for closure after 22 years of courtrooms, news coverage and three heart-ripping stays of execution.
Legal experts will debate whether a case built on a tiny amount of physical evidence and shifting witness testimony was enough to warrant execution, and whether death penalty politics in the United States have reached a tipping point.
But here, in this capital city of the Deep South, the case will continue to resonate as a barometer of racism in this country, many said.
Throughout Tuesday and into the evening, when a few hundred people gathered at the Capitol downtown, people spoke again and again of how Mr. Davis was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and now, in their minds, about to be wrongly executed by a legal system stacked against minorities.
“What am I supposed to tell my son? That we still live in a Jim Crow society?” said Mary Ross, 37, who attended a somber news conference inside Ebenezer Baptist Church in the neighborhood where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached.
There, members of the N.A.A.C.P. and Amnesty International and the church pastor outlined what are clearly Hail Mary efforts to stop the execution.
They pleaded publicly to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole, which earlier in the day denied Mr. Davis’s clemency after a daylong hearing Monday.
In a brief statement, the five-member board, which is appointed by the governor, said that its members “have not taken their responsibility lightly and certainly understand the emotions attached to a death penalty case.”
Mr. Davis’s supporters were reaching out to the prosecutor in the original case, asking that he persuade the original judge to rescind the death order. Benjamin Jealous, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who planned to visit Mr. Davis on Wednesday, was trying to ask President Obama for a reprieve.
The Innocence Project, which has had a hand in the exoneration of 17 death-row inmates through the use of DNA testing, sent a letter to the Chatham County district attorney, Larry Chisolm, urging him to withdraw the execution warrant against Mr. Davis, although there is no DNA evidence at issue in the case.
Regardless of whether those hope-against-hope efforts work, the N.A.A.C.P. and others said they would call for the Department of Justice to investigate the case as a civil rights violation, asking that the original police investigation and the legal process that led to Mr. Davis’s conviction be examined.
“It harkens back to some ugly days in the history of this state,” said the Rev. Raphael Warnock of Ebenezer Baptist Church, who visited Mr. Davis on Monday.
But for the family of the slain officer, and countless others who believe that two decades worth of legal appeals and Supreme Court intervention is more than enough to ensure justice, it is not an issue of race but of law.
Calling Mr. Davis a victim is ludicrous, said Mr. MacPhail’s widow, Joan MacPhail-Harris.
“We have lived this for 22 years,” she said Monday. “We are victims."
She added, “We have laws in this land so that there is not chaos. We are not killing Troy because we want to.”
Her daughter, Madison, 24, along with her brother, Mark, 22, will be at the execution Wednesday. The officer’s mother, Anneliese MacPhail, will not. But she welcomes it, saying: “I’m not for blood — I’m for justice. We have been through hell, my family.”
Mr. Davis’s family, who had gathered in an Atlanta hotel to await the decision, learned that he would be put to death from members of his legal team and Amnesty International. They immediately went to the state prison in Jackson, about an hour’s drive south of Atlanta, to be with him.
Mr. Davis, who has refused a last meal, was in good spirits and prayerful, said Wende Gozan Brown, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, who visited Mr. Davis on Tuesday.
He told her that his death was for all the Troy Davises who came before and after him.
“I will not stop fighting until I’ve taken my last breath,” he said in a conversation relayed by Ms. Brown. “Georgia is prepared to snuff out the life of an innocent man.”
The case has been a slow and convoluted exercise in legal maneuvering and death penalty politics.
This is the fourth time Mr. Davis has faced the death penalty. The state parole board granted him a stay in 2007 as he was preparing for his final hours, saying the execution should not proceed unless its members “are convinced that there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.” The board has since added three new members.
In 2008, his execution was about 90 minutes away when the Supreme Court stepped in. Although the court kept Mr. Davis from execution, it later declined to hear the case.
In the week before his third execution date, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a stay to consider his lawyer’s arguments that new testimony that could prove his innocence had not been considered.
The appeals court denied the claim but allowed time for Mr. Davis to take his argument directly to the Supreme Court, which ordered a federal court to once again examine new testimony.
But in June, a federal district judge in Savannah said Mr. Davis’s legal team had failed to demonstrate his innocence, setting the stage for the new date.
This time around, the case catapulted into the national consciousness with record numbers of petitions — more than 630,000 — delivered to the board to stay the execution, and a list of people asking for clemency included former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 51 members of Congress, entertainment figures like Cee Lo Green and even some death penalty supporters, including William S. Sessions, a former F.B.I. director.
Robbie Brown contributed reporting.
September 20, 2011
Georgia Pardons Board Denies Clemency for Death Row Inmate
By KIM SEVERSON
ATLANTA — Barring an unimaginable legal reversal, Troy Davis will be executed by lethal injection at a Georgia prison on Wednesday.
In the days that follow, Amnesty International and other groups that fight the death penalty will move on to other cases.
The family of Mark MacPhail, the Savannah police officer who was trying to break up a fight in a fast-food parking lot when Mr. Davis shot him in the face and the heart, will look for closure after 22 years of courtrooms, news coverage and three heart-ripping stays of execution.
Legal experts will debate whether a case built on a tiny amount of physical evidence and shifting witness testimony was enough to warrant execution, and whether death penalty politics in the United States have reached a tipping point.
But here, in this capital city of the Deep South, the case will continue to resonate as a barometer of racism in this country, many said.
Throughout Tuesday and into the evening, when a few hundred people gathered at the Capitol downtown, people spoke again and again of how Mr. Davis was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and now, in their minds, about to be wrongly executed by a legal system stacked against minorities.
“What am I supposed to tell my son? That we still live in a Jim Crow society?” said Mary Ross, 37, who attended a somber news conference inside Ebenezer Baptist Church in the neighborhood where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached.
There, members of the N.A.A.C.P. and Amnesty International and the church pastor outlined what are clearly Hail Mary efforts to stop the execution.
They pleaded publicly to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole, which earlier in the day denied Mr. Davis’s clemency after a daylong hearing Monday.
In a brief statement, the five-member board, which is appointed by the governor, said that its members “have not taken their responsibility lightly and certainly understand the emotions attached to a death penalty case.”
Mr. Davis’s supporters were reaching out to the prosecutor in the original case, asking that he persuade the original judge to rescind the death order. Benjamin Jealous, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who planned to visit Mr. Davis on Wednesday, was trying to ask President Obama for a reprieve.
The Innocence Project, which has had a hand in the exoneration of 17 death-row inmates through the use of DNA testing, sent a letter to the Chatham County district attorney, Larry Chisolm, urging him to withdraw the execution warrant against Mr. Davis, although there is no DNA evidence at issue in the case.
Regardless of whether those hope-against-hope efforts work, the N.A.A.C.P. and others said they would call for the Department of Justice to investigate the case as a civil rights violation, asking that the original police investigation and the legal process that led to Mr. Davis’s conviction be examined.
“It harkens back to some ugly days in the history of this state,” said the Rev. Raphael Warnock of Ebenezer Baptist Church, who visited Mr. Davis on Monday.
But for the family of the slain officer, and countless others who believe that two decades worth of legal appeals and Supreme Court intervention is more than enough to ensure justice, it is not an issue of race but of law.
Calling Mr. Davis a victim is ludicrous, said Mr. MacPhail’s widow, Joan MacPhail-Harris.
“We have lived this for 22 years,” she said Monday. “We are victims."
She added, “We have laws in this land so that there is not chaos. We are not killing Troy because we want to.”
Her daughter, Madison, 24, along with her brother, Mark, 22, will be at the execution Wednesday. The officer’s mother, Anneliese MacPhail, will not. But she welcomes it, saying: “I’m not for blood — I’m for justice. We have been through hell, my family.”
Mr. Davis’s family, who had gathered in an Atlanta hotel to await the decision, learned that he would be put to death from members of his legal team and Amnesty International. They immediately went to the state prison in Jackson, about an hour’s drive south of Atlanta, to be with him.
Mr. Davis, who has refused a last meal, was in good spirits and prayerful, said Wende Gozan Brown, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, who visited Mr. Davis on Tuesday.
He told her that his death was for all the Troy Davises who came before and after him.
“I will not stop fighting until I’ve taken my last breath,” he said in a conversation relayed by Ms. Brown. “Georgia is prepared to snuff out the life of an innocent man.”
The case has been a slow and convoluted exercise in legal maneuvering and death penalty politics.
This is the fourth time Mr. Davis has faced the death penalty. The state parole board granted him a stay in 2007 as he was preparing for his final hours, saying the execution should not proceed unless its members “are convinced that there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.” The board has since added three new members.
In 2008, his execution was about 90 minutes away when the Supreme Court stepped in. Although the court kept Mr. Davis from execution, it later declined to hear the case.
In the week before his third execution date, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a stay to consider his lawyer’s arguments that new testimony that could prove his innocence had not been considered.
The appeals court denied the claim but allowed time for Mr. Davis to take his argument directly to the Supreme Court, which ordered a federal court to once again examine new testimony.
But in June, a federal district judge in Savannah said Mr. Davis’s legal team had failed to demonstrate his innocence, setting the stage for the new date.
This time around, the case catapulted into the national consciousness with record numbers of petitions — more than 630,000 — delivered to the board to stay the execution, and a list of people asking for clemency included former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 51 members of Congress, entertainment figures like Cee Lo Green and even some death penalty supporters, including William S. Sessions, a former F.B.I. director.
Robbie Brown contributed reporting.
Pena de Muerte y Discriminación 3. Condenado por error?
The New York Times
September 20, 2011
A Grievous Wrong
Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday for the 1989 killing of a police officer in Savannah, Ga. The Georgia pardon and parole board’s refusal to grant him clemency is appalling in light of developments after his conviction: reports about police misconduct, the recantation of testimony by a string of eyewitnesses and reports from other witnesses that another person had confessed to the crime.
This case has attracted worldwide attention, but it is, in essence, no different from other capital cases. Across the country, the legal process for the death penalty has shown itself to be discriminatory, unjust and incapable of being fixed. Just last week, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Duane Buck, an African-American, hours before he was to die in Texas because a psychologist testified during his sentencing that Mr. Buck’s race increased the chances of future dangerousness. Case after case adds to the many reasons why the death penalty must be abolished.
The grievous errors in the Davis case were numerous, and many arose out of eyewitness identification. The Savannah police contaminated the memories of four witnesses by re-enacting the crime with them present so that their individual perceptions were turned into a group one. The police showed some of the witnesses Mr. Davis’s photograph even before the lineup. His lineup picture was set apart by a different background. The lineup was also administered by a police officer involved in the investigation, increasing the potential for influencing the witnesses.
In the decades since the Davis trial, science-based research has shown how unreliable and easily manipulated witness identification can be. Studies of the hundreds of felony cases overturned because of DNA evidence have found that misidentifications accounted for between 75 percent and 85 percent of the wrongful convictions. The Davis case offers egregious examples of this kind of error.
Under proper practices, no one should know who the suspect is, including the officer administering a lineup. Each witness should view the lineup separately, and the witnesses should not confer about the crime. A new study has found that even presenting photos sequentially (one by one) to witnesses reduced misidentifications — from 18 percent to 12 percent of the time — compared with lineups where photos were presented all at once, as in this case.
Seven of nine witnesses against Mr. Davis recanted after trial. Six said the police threatened them if they did not identify Mr. Davis. The man who first told the police that Mr. Davis was the shooter later confessed to the crime. There are other reasons to doubt Mr. Davis’s guilt: There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime introduced at trial, and new ballistics evidence broke the link between him and a previous shooting that provided the motive for his conviction.
More than 630,000 letters pleading for a stay of execution were delivered to the Georgia board last week. Those asking for clemency included President Jimmy Carter, 51 members of Congress and death penalty supporters, such as William Sessions, a former F.B.I. director. The board’s failure to commute Mr. Davis’s death sentence to life without parole was a tragic miscarriage of justice.
September 20, 2011
A Grievous Wrong
Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday for the 1989 killing of a police officer in Savannah, Ga. The Georgia pardon and parole board’s refusal to grant him clemency is appalling in light of developments after his conviction: reports about police misconduct, the recantation of testimony by a string of eyewitnesses and reports from other witnesses that another person had confessed to the crime.
This case has attracted worldwide attention, but it is, in essence, no different from other capital cases. Across the country, the legal process for the death penalty has shown itself to be discriminatory, unjust and incapable of being fixed. Just last week, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Duane Buck, an African-American, hours before he was to die in Texas because a psychologist testified during his sentencing that Mr. Buck’s race increased the chances of future dangerousness. Case after case adds to the many reasons why the death penalty must be abolished.
The grievous errors in the Davis case were numerous, and many arose out of eyewitness identification. The Savannah police contaminated the memories of four witnesses by re-enacting the crime with them present so that their individual perceptions were turned into a group one. The police showed some of the witnesses Mr. Davis’s photograph even before the lineup. His lineup picture was set apart by a different background. The lineup was also administered by a police officer involved in the investigation, increasing the potential for influencing the witnesses.
In the decades since the Davis trial, science-based research has shown how unreliable and easily manipulated witness identification can be. Studies of the hundreds of felony cases overturned because of DNA evidence have found that misidentifications accounted for between 75 percent and 85 percent of the wrongful convictions. The Davis case offers egregious examples of this kind of error.
Under proper practices, no one should know who the suspect is, including the officer administering a lineup. Each witness should view the lineup separately, and the witnesses should not confer about the crime. A new study has found that even presenting photos sequentially (one by one) to witnesses reduced misidentifications — from 18 percent to 12 percent of the time — compared with lineups where photos were presented all at once, as in this case.
Seven of nine witnesses against Mr. Davis recanted after trial. Six said the police threatened them if they did not identify Mr. Davis. The man who first told the police that Mr. Davis was the shooter later confessed to the crime. There are other reasons to doubt Mr. Davis’s guilt: There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime introduced at trial, and new ballistics evidence broke the link between him and a previous shooting that provided the motive for his conviction.
More than 630,000 letters pleading for a stay of execution were delivered to the Georgia board last week. Those asking for clemency included President Jimmy Carter, 51 members of Congress and death penalty supporters, such as William Sessions, a former F.B.I. director. The board’s failure to commute Mr. Davis’s death sentence to life without parole was a tragic miscarriage of justice.
lunes, 19 de septiembre de 2011
Pena de Muerte y Discriminacion 2
Reporta la ACLU:
Supreme Court Stays Duane Buck Execution
Great news! Last night, the Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay to Duane Buck, who was hours away from his scheduled execution in Texas. We now await a decision from the court as to whether it will review his case, and the claims that race played an improper role in his death sentence.
We think it's pretty clear that it did. The ACLU's Brian Stull blogged earlier this month about this case:
In Texas, imposing the death penalty in capital cases comes down to one question: is the defendant going to be a "future danger" if he or she is not executed? Mr. Buck was sentenced to die based on testimony by Dr. Walter Quijano, who told jurors that Mr. Buck was more likely to pose a future danger to society because he is black. Dr. Quijano's testimony came in 1997, more than 20 years after Texas promised the Supreme Court that "no correlation exists between the race/ethnic background of a defendant and the probability that he will be either convicted of capital murder or given the death penalty."
Buck's attorney, Kate Black of the Texas Defender Service, said in a statement last night:
"We are relieved that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the obvious injustice of allowing a defendant's race to factor into sentencing decisions and granted a stay of execution to Duane Buck. No one should be put to death based on the color of his or her skin. We are confident that the Court will agree that our client is entitled to a fair sentencing hearing that is untainted by considerations of his race."
Thank you to everyone who took action and sent a message to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry. We hope the Supreme Court will grant Duane Buck a new sentencing hearing. As Linda Geffin, who helped prosecute Buck in his 1997 trial wrote to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles last Friday: "No individual should be executed without being afforded a fair trial, untainted by considerations of race."
Supreme Court Stays Duane Buck Execution
Great news! Last night, the Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay to Duane Buck, who was hours away from his scheduled execution in Texas. We now await a decision from the court as to whether it will review his case, and the claims that race played an improper role in his death sentence.
We think it's pretty clear that it did. The ACLU's Brian Stull blogged earlier this month about this case:
In Texas, imposing the death penalty in capital cases comes down to one question: is the defendant going to be a "future danger" if he or she is not executed? Mr. Buck was sentenced to die based on testimony by Dr. Walter Quijano, who told jurors that Mr. Buck was more likely to pose a future danger to society because he is black. Dr. Quijano's testimony came in 1997, more than 20 years after Texas promised the Supreme Court that "no correlation exists between the race/ethnic background of a defendant and the probability that he will be either convicted of capital murder or given the death penalty."
Buck's attorney, Kate Black of the Texas Defender Service, said in a statement last night:
"We are relieved that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the obvious injustice of allowing a defendant's race to factor into sentencing decisions and granted a stay of execution to Duane Buck. No one should be put to death based on the color of his or her skin. We are confident that the Court will agree that our client is entitled to a fair sentencing hearing that is untainted by considerations of his race."
Thank you to everyone who took action and sent a message to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry. We hope the Supreme Court will grant Duane Buck a new sentencing hearing. As Linda Geffin, who helped prosecute Buck in his 1997 trial wrote to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles last Friday: "No individual should be executed without being afforded a fair trial, untainted by considerations of race."
sábado, 17 de septiembre de 2011
Pena de Muerte y Discriminación Racial Hoy en en New York Times
The New York Times
16 de Septiembre de 2011
Editorial
Estado de Ejecución
Después de declarar el “estado de ejecución de Duane Buck a sólo horas de ser ejecutado en Texas el Jueves, la Corte Suprema debe ahora revisar el caso o, por lo menos, ordenar que un tribunal federal inferior considere el pedido del Sr. Buck de una nueva audiencia antes de decidir su sentencia. El Tribunal no puede permitir que tenga lugar una terrible injusticia.
El Sr. Buck, un Afro-Americano, fue condenado a muerte en 1997. En la etapa de sentencia de su juicio, un psicólogo que participaba como perito experto dijo que “sí” cuando se le pregunto si “el factor raza, negra”, icrementaba las chances de que el Sr. Buck pudiera llevar a cabo de nuevo una conducta peligrosa.
En Texas, esta es una pregunta clave: si si el estado no prueba “la peligrosidad futura” más alla de la duda razonable, no puede sentenciar al imputado a muerte. La fiscalía obtuvo la respuesta que quería y urgió al jurado a basar la decisión en ese testimonio. El jurado sentenció al Sr. Buck a muerte.
En el año 2000, el Senador John Cornyn, que era entonces el Jefe de los Abogados del estado de Texas, solicitó nuevas audiencias de sentencia en seis casos en los que se había condenado a muerte –incluuido el Sr. Buck- porque la raza de los imputados se había utilizado inapropiadamente como un factor relevante para obtener esa sentencia.
El Sr. Buck es el único de ese grupo al que no se le concedió una nueva audiencia. El Abogado de Distrito a cargo del caso del Sr. Buck reusó admitir que el uso de la raza fue un error constitucional que requería una nueva audiciencia. Cuando el caso llegó al juzgado federal, había un nuevo Jefe de Abogados del Estado de Texas, y éste se reusó a obedecer el juicio del Sr. Cornyn.
El claro racismo que tuvo lugar en el caso del Sr. Buck es una nueva prueba de que la pena de muerte es cruel e inusual porque es arbitraria y discriminatoria, además de bárbara, y debe ser abolida.
La traducción es mía. El original en inglés sigue abajo.
The New York Times
September 16, 2011
Stay of Execution
After granting a stay of execution to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday, the Supreme Court must now review the case or, at the very least, order a lower federal court to consider Mr. Buck’s plea for a new sentencing hearing. It cannot allow a terrible injustice to stand.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would do something dangerous again.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future dangerousness” beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted and urged the jury to rely on this testimony. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
In 2000, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the Texas attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings for six men given the death penalty — including Mr. Buck — because race was improperly used as a factor in their sentencing.
Mr. Buck is the only one who has not been granted a new sentencing hearing. The state district attorney in charge in Mr. Buck’s case refused to admit that the use of race was a constitutional error that required a new hearing. By the time the case got to federal court, there was a new Texas attorney general who refused to abide by Mr. Cornyn’s judgment.
The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished.
16 de Septiembre de 2011
Editorial
Estado de Ejecución
Después de declarar el “estado de ejecución de Duane Buck a sólo horas de ser ejecutado en Texas el Jueves, la Corte Suprema debe ahora revisar el caso o, por lo menos, ordenar que un tribunal federal inferior considere el pedido del Sr. Buck de una nueva audiencia antes de decidir su sentencia. El Tribunal no puede permitir que tenga lugar una terrible injusticia.
El Sr. Buck, un Afro-Americano, fue condenado a muerte en 1997. En la etapa de sentencia de su juicio, un psicólogo que participaba como perito experto dijo que “sí” cuando se le pregunto si “el factor raza, negra”, icrementaba las chances de que el Sr. Buck pudiera llevar a cabo de nuevo una conducta peligrosa.
En Texas, esta es una pregunta clave: si si el estado no prueba “la peligrosidad futura” más alla de la duda razonable, no puede sentenciar al imputado a muerte. La fiscalía obtuvo la respuesta que quería y urgió al jurado a basar la decisión en ese testimonio. El jurado sentenció al Sr. Buck a muerte.
En el año 2000, el Senador John Cornyn, que era entonces el Jefe de los Abogados del estado de Texas, solicitó nuevas audiencias de sentencia en seis casos en los que se había condenado a muerte –incluuido el Sr. Buck- porque la raza de los imputados se había utilizado inapropiadamente como un factor relevante para obtener esa sentencia.
El Sr. Buck es el único de ese grupo al que no se le concedió una nueva audiencia. El Abogado de Distrito a cargo del caso del Sr. Buck reusó admitir que el uso de la raza fue un error constitucional que requería una nueva audiciencia. Cuando el caso llegó al juzgado federal, había un nuevo Jefe de Abogados del Estado de Texas, y éste se reusó a obedecer el juicio del Sr. Cornyn.
El claro racismo que tuvo lugar en el caso del Sr. Buck es una nueva prueba de que la pena de muerte es cruel e inusual porque es arbitraria y discriminatoria, además de bárbara, y debe ser abolida.
La traducción es mía. El original en inglés sigue abajo.
The New York Times
September 16, 2011
Stay of Execution
After granting a stay of execution to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday, the Supreme Court must now review the case or, at the very least, order a lower federal court to consider Mr. Buck’s plea for a new sentencing hearing. It cannot allow a terrible injustice to stand.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would do something dangerous again.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future dangerousness” beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted and urged the jury to rely on this testimony. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
In 2000, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the Texas attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings for six men given the death penalty — including Mr. Buck — because race was improperly used as a factor in their sentencing.
Mr. Buck is the only one who has not been granted a new sentencing hearing. The state district attorney in charge in Mr. Buck’s case refused to admit that the use of race was a constitutional error that required a new hearing. By the time the case got to federal court, there was a new Texas attorney general who refused to abide by Mr. Cornyn’s judgment.
The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished.
viernes, 2 de septiembre de 2011
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Caso Fontevecchia c. Argentina
Perfil publicó la transcripción completa de la audiencia acá
lunes, 29 de agosto de 2011
Nino, Alberdi y el Día del Abogado
¿Concidencias? En su novela El libro de las ilusiones, Paul Auster dice, a través de uno de sus personajes: "Yo me considero un realista en el sentido más estricto de la palabra. El azar es parte de la realidad; continuamente nos vemos transformados por las fuerzas de la coincidencia"...
Un día como hoy, en 1810, nacía Juan Bautista Alberdi. En su honor se celebra en nuestro país el día del abogado y de la abogada. A pesar de los llamados de los amigos, que siempre reconfortan, este día tiene para mí un sabor un tanto amargo, pues también un 29 de agosto, pero de 1993, nos dejaba físicamente, a los 49 años, mientras trataba de contribuir al proceso constituyente boliviano en La Paz, otro enorme maestro del derecho, alguien que para muchos fue y sigue siendo un modelo de abogado preocupado por la construcción de una democracia constitucional fuerte y estable, un intelectual público que sin descuidar jamás el objetivo de dedicar su vida a la más sofisticada labor académica, también compartió los últimos años de su increiblemente productiva existencia a trabajar desde el gobierno o desde la sociedad civil para contribuir al mejoramiento de las instituciones de nuestro país, un ser generoso sobre todo con los más jóvenes, con los estudiantes y con esos abogados recién recibidos que tenían la rara idea de dedicarse a la academia y a la cosa pública. Me refiero a Carlos S. Nino.
Quiso el azar, ese aspecto crucial de la realidad, que por siempre recordemos en este mismo día a dos de los más grandes arquitectos de nuestro derecho constitucional, cuyas ideas tuvieron la fuerza imparable necesaria para seguir influyendo en nuestras discusiones, en nuestras clases, en nuestros escritos y en nuestras decisiones públicas hasta el presente. Desde Sabático, este humilde homenaje a ambos.
A continuación, reproduzco palabras de algunos de los mayores pensadores de nuestro tiempo sobre el que me enorgullese llamar mi maestro y mentor, aquel que me condujo hasta las puertas de un mundo y que, a pesar de haberse ido, sigue acompañandonos cada día que alguna de sus ideas nos ayuda a salir del laberinto en el que nos metimos...
Carlos Nino was a publicly engaged intellectual of rare integrity and brilliance. In his dedication to human rights, the rule of law, and constitutional legitimacy he combined passion with wisdom and analytic clarity. His inexhaustible courage in fighting to restore decency to his nation provides a model for others working in the wake of dictatorship. We are fortunate to have in his writings a record of his remarkable thought and experience.
Thomas Nagel
Carlos Nino was an extraordinary combination of theoretical philosopher, practical statesman, and heroic patriot. His work engages and repays attention at all three levels.
Ronald Dworkin
Carlos Nino was a brave man and an admirable philosopher who did his country notable service on the basis of a robust belief in liberal political values and universal human rights. His philosophy argues clearly and strongly for a foundation of the values which were expressed in his life.
Bernard Williams
The untimely death of Carlos Nino has deprived Latin America of one of its leading activists for constitutionalism, and it has torn from the international community of constitutional scholars one of its best and brightest. Carlos Nino was notably not only for his political wisdom and courage, but also for the unusual sophistication and cosmopolitanism of his constitutional thinking.
Stanley N. Katz
Carlos Santiago Nino died in 1993 at age 49. He was an unusual combination of philosopher, lawyer, activist, and scholar whose passion for ideas was equalled only by his passion for life. That life was cut short, but Nino's ideas on human rights, ethics, justice, and democracy are still here to enrich discussions and stimulate debate.
Dorothy V. Jones
lunes, 20 de junio de 2011
La Corte Conservadora ataca de nuevo (recién) en USA
The New York Times
June 20, 2011
Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.
The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
In a broader question in the Wal-Mart case, the court divided 5-to-4 along ideological lines on whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class action rules that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the plaintiffs could not show that they would receive “a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” He noted that Wal-Mart operated some 3,400 stores, had an express policy forbidding discrimination and granted local managers substantial discretion.
“On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action,” Justice Scalia wrote. “It is a policy against having uniform employment practices.”
The plaintiffs sought to overcome the gap with testimony from William T. Bielby, a sociologist specializing in “social framework analysis.”
Professor Bielby told the trial court that he had collected general “scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes and the structure and dynamics of gender inequality in organizations.” He said he also reviewed extensive litigation materials gathered by the lawyers in the case.
He concluded that two aspects of Wal-Mart’s corporate culture might be to blame for pay and other disparities. One was a centralized personnel policy. The other was allowing subjective decisions by managers in the field. Together, he said, those factors allowed stereotypes to infect personnel choices, making “decisions about compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias.”
Justice Scalia rejected the testimony, which he called crucial to the plaintiffs’ case.
“It is worlds away,” he wrote, “from ‘significant proof’ that Wal-Mart ‘operated under a general policy of discrimination.’ ”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia’s majority opinion on that broader point.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling.
“The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,” she wrote. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware.”
June 20, 2011
Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.
The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
In a broader question in the Wal-Mart case, the court divided 5-to-4 along ideological lines on whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class action rules that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the plaintiffs could not show that they would receive “a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” He noted that Wal-Mart operated some 3,400 stores, had an express policy forbidding discrimination and granted local managers substantial discretion.
“On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action,” Justice Scalia wrote. “It is a policy against having uniform employment practices.”
The plaintiffs sought to overcome the gap with testimony from William T. Bielby, a sociologist specializing in “social framework analysis.”
Professor Bielby told the trial court that he had collected general “scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes and the structure and dynamics of gender inequality in organizations.” He said he also reviewed extensive litigation materials gathered by the lawyers in the case.
He concluded that two aspects of Wal-Mart’s corporate culture might be to blame for pay and other disparities. One was a centralized personnel policy. The other was allowing subjective decisions by managers in the field. Together, he said, those factors allowed stereotypes to infect personnel choices, making “decisions about compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias.”
Justice Scalia rejected the testimony, which he called crucial to the plaintiffs’ case.
“It is worlds away,” he wrote, “from ‘significant proof’ that Wal-Mart ‘operated under a general policy of discrimination.’ ”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia’s majority opinion on that broader point.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling.
“The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,” she wrote. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware.”
viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011
Democracia en Medio Oriente
He leído mucho sobre la situación desatada en Medio Oriente desde diciembre del año pasado, pero pocos artículos me parecieron tan claros como este escrito por mi amiga Randa Slim, en el Huffington Post. Randa estará bloggeando periódicamente en este medio.
The Making of a New Narrative in the Middle East
By Randa Slim
Both Tunisia and Egypt's populist revolutions are still in their infancy and it is too early to say whether they will succeed in revitalizing civic and political life and lead to democratic regimes in either country. However, their ripple effects on the political landscape of the Middle East are already being felt. While there are limits to transferring any model of political change across the different Arab countries, it is fair to say that the changes in Tunisia and Egypt have already dealt a heavy blow to old myths about democracy and political transformation in the region. A new political narrative is in the making. There are four themes in this emerging narrative.
Democracy is a universal human right , not a Western idea.
While Egyptians were staging disciplined and peaceful demonstrations demanding that Hosni Mubarak step down, Egypt's former vice president, Omar Suleiman, appeared on TV to announce that "Egypt was not ready for democracy." While totally out of touch with what was unfolding on everyone's TV screen and demeaning to all Egyptians courageously standing up for their rights, this statement reflected the beliefs of other Arab autocrats and monarchs. On January 31, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since 1971, was asked by the Wall Street Journal about the pace of political reform in his country. His reply: "... we have to wait for the next generation to bring this reform." In Syrian political code, this means "not on my watch." What these authoritarian rulers fail to appreciate are the stirrings of every human soul, be it Arab or Western. President Obama beautifully articulated this reality when he quoted Martin Luther King: "There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom."
Clearly, Egyptian democracy faces a bumpy ride. Whether the Egyptian military will live up to its promises and cede political power to civilian rule is still to be determined. However, we are already witnessing Egyptians and other Arabs debate what type of democracy Egypt should have. Until now, Arabs have been presented with a false choice between democracy as defined by the West (sometimes introduced by force as was the case in Iraq), and the lip-service democracies of most Arab governments that are, in fact, repressive and corrupt. Tunisia and Egypt have shown us that there is a third way -- an Arab way. To them, democracy in its essence is the right of the people to live their lives, and decide their fate without heavy-handed control by a police state. Democracy should be defined by the freedoms it guarantees to its citizens, including the freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to form political parties, and the freedom to establish a strong society that is free of fear.
Non-violence can work.
Countries such as Iran and Syria, militant movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas and extremist groups such as Al Qaeda have long espoused violence as the only means to achieve change and right historical wrongs. If non-violent protests were to lead to a democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia, this would seriously undermine this narrative. A democratic regime that emerges from a non-violent populist movement would have more authenticity and credibility than Iran's theocrats or Syria's autocrat or Hezbollah's militants in reframing the popular debate about the use of violence in bringing about internal change and redressing historical injustices. Democratically-elected regimes that include relatively moderate Islamist elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood would also gain more leverage in challenging the claims of extremists such as Al-Qaeda to act on behalf of Islam.
The Islamists are part of the solution, but Islam is not THE solution.
The Islamists did not instigate these protests in Tunisia or Egypt. In Tunisia, the agent provocateur was a young merchant who immolated himself in protest against the indignity and injustice meted out by local officials. In Egypt, it was a group of secular 20-30 year old internet-savvy Egyptians fed-up with the status quo in which Egyptians were treated as though they were servants to the pharaoh. They wanted to reclaim their role as citizens - that is, as owners of the land and of the public space. The slogan "Islam is the solution" was not the rallying cry in Tahrir Square. Rather, it was: "the people want to bring down the regime."
There is no doubt that the Islamists will have their place at the table in any future democratic Tunisia or Egypt. But they will be one stakeholder among many others including liberals, leftists, nationalists, and a host of other civic organizations. Upon his return to Tunisia after more than 20 years in exile in the UK, Rashed Al Ghanoushi, a Tunisian Islamist leader announced that there is no place for Shariah in Tunisia. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has already announced that it will neither field candidates in the next presidential elections nor seek to garner a majority of seats in the next parliament. It is quite telling that when Iranian leader Khamenei called on the Egyptian protesters to establish an Islamic regime, Mohamad Al-Katatni, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, replied: "We are not responsible for the statements and declarations made by external forces."
These developments in both Tunisia and Egypt clearly show that the Islamist movement in the Arab world is not the scarecrow that Arab authoritarian regimes have long claimed it to be. It is a movement that has undergone a long gestation period of internal deliberation and self-reflection, and by now has come to respect and espouse the democratic rules of the game.
It's about governance, stupid!
Both revolutionary movements have shown that the uprisings were spurred by corruption, unemployment, and poverty. Arab governments have long used the Arab-Palestinian conflict as an excuse to avoid reform and would often argue that political, economic and social reforms must be postponed until after the Palestinian issue has been solved. The protesters in the streets of Tunisia and in Tahrir Square were not mired in foreign policy debates. Rather, their demands centered around good governance defined by gaining a voice in the decision-making process, rule of law, respect for human rights, and transparent and accountable institutions of government whose purpose should be to achieve the welfare of all members of society. At the heart of good governance is human freedom. As economist Amartya Sen has long argued, "Expansion of freedom is viewed both as the primary end and as the principal means of development."
The wall of fear has been broken. The public space has been reclaimed. The citizens of Tunisia and Egypt now face the hard work of nation-building. It is in the West's interest to help make these two stories end well. Otherwise, the longest war will be with us for generations to come.
Randa Slim, a Lebanese-American political analyst, is a practitioner of dialogue and peace-building processes in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Y sobre Libia...
The Libyan situation is very different from what happened in Tunisia and Egypt partly due to the fact that in the two former cases, the army, a respected and cohesive institution, provided a buffer between the protesters and the pro-regime security services and hired goons and set the contours of the confrontation between the two parties. In both Tunisia and Egypt, the catalyst that compelled both presidents to step down, was the decision by the army chiefs not to fight their people in support of the president. In Libya, the army has been an instrument used by Muammar Qaddafi to consolidate his power. Fearing the development of any military network to unseat him from power, Qaddafi has over the years deliberately kept the armed forces weak and divided. The Libyan army lacks the discipline and professionalism we have seen displayed by their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt. It is divided along Libya's tribal lines. It does not enjoy widespread popular support. This does not bode well for Libya's long-term stability. If the army were to split along tribal lines with some units that belong to Qaddafi's tribe remaining loyal to him, we are facing the real prospect of Libya descending into a protracted civil war.
The Making of a New Narrative in the Middle East
By Randa Slim
Both Tunisia and Egypt's populist revolutions are still in their infancy and it is too early to say whether they will succeed in revitalizing civic and political life and lead to democratic regimes in either country. However, their ripple effects on the political landscape of the Middle East are already being felt. While there are limits to transferring any model of political change across the different Arab countries, it is fair to say that the changes in Tunisia and Egypt have already dealt a heavy blow to old myths about democracy and political transformation in the region. A new political narrative is in the making. There are four themes in this emerging narrative.
Democracy is a universal human right , not a Western idea.
While Egyptians were staging disciplined and peaceful demonstrations demanding that Hosni Mubarak step down, Egypt's former vice president, Omar Suleiman, appeared on TV to announce that "Egypt was not ready for democracy." While totally out of touch with what was unfolding on everyone's TV screen and demeaning to all Egyptians courageously standing up for their rights, this statement reflected the beliefs of other Arab autocrats and monarchs. On January 31, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since 1971, was asked by the Wall Street Journal about the pace of political reform in his country. His reply: "... we have to wait for the next generation to bring this reform." In Syrian political code, this means "not on my watch." What these authoritarian rulers fail to appreciate are the stirrings of every human soul, be it Arab or Western. President Obama beautifully articulated this reality when he quoted Martin Luther King: "There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom."
Clearly, Egyptian democracy faces a bumpy ride. Whether the Egyptian military will live up to its promises and cede political power to civilian rule is still to be determined. However, we are already witnessing Egyptians and other Arabs debate what type of democracy Egypt should have. Until now, Arabs have been presented with a false choice between democracy as defined by the West (sometimes introduced by force as was the case in Iraq), and the lip-service democracies of most Arab governments that are, in fact, repressive and corrupt. Tunisia and Egypt have shown us that there is a third way -- an Arab way. To them, democracy in its essence is the right of the people to live their lives, and decide their fate without heavy-handed control by a police state. Democracy should be defined by the freedoms it guarantees to its citizens, including the freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to form political parties, and the freedom to establish a strong society that is free of fear.
Non-violence can work.
Countries such as Iran and Syria, militant movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas and extremist groups such as Al Qaeda have long espoused violence as the only means to achieve change and right historical wrongs. If non-violent protests were to lead to a democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia, this would seriously undermine this narrative. A democratic regime that emerges from a non-violent populist movement would have more authenticity and credibility than Iran's theocrats or Syria's autocrat or Hezbollah's militants in reframing the popular debate about the use of violence in bringing about internal change and redressing historical injustices. Democratically-elected regimes that include relatively moderate Islamist elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood would also gain more leverage in challenging the claims of extremists such as Al-Qaeda to act on behalf of Islam.
The Islamists are part of the solution, but Islam is not THE solution.
The Islamists did not instigate these protests in Tunisia or Egypt. In Tunisia, the agent provocateur was a young merchant who immolated himself in protest against the indignity and injustice meted out by local officials. In Egypt, it was a group of secular 20-30 year old internet-savvy Egyptians fed-up with the status quo in which Egyptians were treated as though they were servants to the pharaoh. They wanted to reclaim their role as citizens - that is, as owners of the land and of the public space. The slogan "Islam is the solution" was not the rallying cry in Tahrir Square. Rather, it was: "the people want to bring down the regime."
There is no doubt that the Islamists will have their place at the table in any future democratic Tunisia or Egypt. But they will be one stakeholder among many others including liberals, leftists, nationalists, and a host of other civic organizations. Upon his return to Tunisia after more than 20 years in exile in the UK, Rashed Al Ghanoushi, a Tunisian Islamist leader announced that there is no place for Shariah in Tunisia. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has already announced that it will neither field candidates in the next presidential elections nor seek to garner a majority of seats in the next parliament. It is quite telling that when Iranian leader Khamenei called on the Egyptian protesters to establish an Islamic regime, Mohamad Al-Katatni, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, replied: "We are not responsible for the statements and declarations made by external forces."
These developments in both Tunisia and Egypt clearly show that the Islamist movement in the Arab world is not the scarecrow that Arab authoritarian regimes have long claimed it to be. It is a movement that has undergone a long gestation period of internal deliberation and self-reflection, and by now has come to respect and espouse the democratic rules of the game.
It's about governance, stupid!
Both revolutionary movements have shown that the uprisings were spurred by corruption, unemployment, and poverty. Arab governments have long used the Arab-Palestinian conflict as an excuse to avoid reform and would often argue that political, economic and social reforms must be postponed until after the Palestinian issue has been solved. The protesters in the streets of Tunisia and in Tahrir Square were not mired in foreign policy debates. Rather, their demands centered around good governance defined by gaining a voice in the decision-making process, rule of law, respect for human rights, and transparent and accountable institutions of government whose purpose should be to achieve the welfare of all members of society. At the heart of good governance is human freedom. As economist Amartya Sen has long argued, "Expansion of freedom is viewed both as the primary end and as the principal means of development."
The wall of fear has been broken. The public space has been reclaimed. The citizens of Tunisia and Egypt now face the hard work of nation-building. It is in the West's interest to help make these two stories end well. Otherwise, the longest war will be with us for generations to come.
Randa Slim, a Lebanese-American political analyst, is a practitioner of dialogue and peace-building processes in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Y sobre Libia...
The Libyan situation is very different from what happened in Tunisia and Egypt partly due to the fact that in the two former cases, the army, a respected and cohesive institution, provided a buffer between the protesters and the pro-regime security services and hired goons and set the contours of the confrontation between the two parties. In both Tunisia and Egypt, the catalyst that compelled both presidents to step down, was the decision by the army chiefs not to fight their people in support of the president. In Libya, the army has been an instrument used by Muammar Qaddafi to consolidate his power. Fearing the development of any military network to unseat him from power, Qaddafi has over the years deliberately kept the armed forces weak and divided. The Libyan army lacks the discipline and professionalism we have seen displayed by their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt. It is divided along Libya's tribal lines. It does not enjoy widespread popular support. This does not bode well for Libya's long-term stability. If the army were to split along tribal lines with some units that belong to Qaddafi's tribe remaining loyal to him, we are facing the real prospect of Libya descending into a protracted civil war.
martes, 11 de enero de 2011
Cesar Garavito sobre Vargas Llosa
elexpectador.com
http://www.elespectador.com/columna-240231-los-indigenas-de-vargas-llosa
Opinión |13 Dic 2010 - 10:20 pm
Los indígenas de Vargas Llosa
Por: César Rodríguez Garavito
GANAR UN PREMIO NOBEL ES MORIR un poco: se agotan las cumbres por conquistar y se adquiere esa aura de perfección beatífica que sólo se les reconoce a los finados.
Criticar a un Nobel es tan políticamente incorrecto como hablar mal de un muerto. Y el galardonado padece la muerte lenta de ver su obra convertida en lectura de moda para adular —aquellas cosas que “debes leer” en vacaciones o mencionar en un coctel.
Afortunadamente, el merecido premio literario a Vargas Llosa puede ser la excepción. Porque el autor peruano siempre ha entendido la escritura como una invitación a la crítica, a esa discusión abierta que florece sólo en las democracias que ha defendido toda la vida.
Pues bien: uno de los debates centrales de la obra reciente del peruano tiene que ver con los pueblos indígenas. Su última novela, El sueño del celta, reconstruye las atrocidades cometidas contra los indígenas amazónicos de Colombia y Perú. Y en su discurso del Nobel en Estocolmo sostuvo que “desde hace dos siglos la emancipación de los indígenas es una responsabilidad exclusivamente nuestra y la hemos incumplido. Ella sigue siendo una asignatura pendiente en toda América Latina. No hay una sola excepción a este oprobio y vergüenza”.
Atrocidades, oprobio, vergüenza: temas improbables para una lectura de playa. Por eso, antes de que la discusión naufrague en la lectura pop, vale la pena plantear algunas preguntas incómodas.
Por ejemplo, ¿qué ha sido de los huitotos y los demás indígenas que, como se cuenta en El sueño del celta, fueron asesinados, esclavizados, mutilados, violados, despojados y marcados como ganado por los cultivadores de caucho en el Putumayo hace un siglo? Hoy se sabe que el genocidio fue tal que, entre 1900 y 1912, la población nativa pasó de más de 50.000 a cerca de 8.000.
Lo que pocos saben es que los huitotos están hoy tan amenazados y desamparados como entonces. El riesgo ya no es el caucho, sino la coca, el boom minero y otras economías que han atraído a colonos, grupos armados y empresarios que están detrás de las tierras nativas. Por eso son uno de los 34 pueblos en riesgo para los que la Corte Constitucional pidió protección especial en 2009. Por eso su población no supera la que dejaron los caucheros, y hoy es diezmada por los desplazamientos forzados a Leticia, Florencia o Villavicencio. Y por eso siguen esperando respuestas estatales concretas a la orden de la Corte, o al plan de vida que presentaron al Gobierno hace unos años.
Así que los lectores que se horroricen con lo que Roger Casement, el celta de la novela, vio en Putumayo, tendrían que horrorizarse con lo que encontrarían hoy allí mismo, o con la situación de más del 60% de los pueblos indígenas colombianos que, según la ONIC, están en riesgo de extinción por la misma combinación de violencia, desplazamiento, minería y otros proyectos económicos que avanzan sin consultas adecuadas con los pueblos.
El problema es que hay un abismo entre la indignación sobre los errores pasados y la disposición para no repetirlos. Aquí es justamente donde se equivoca Vargas Llosa. Con la misma elocuencia que ha narrado los abusos históricos, ha criticado al movimiento indígena por oponerse a la explotación comercial de sus territorios. El año pasado se vino lanza en ristre contra los indígenas peruanos por detener la legislación que abría la Amazonia de su país a la minería. Y en 2003 pronunció aquel infortunado discurso en Bogotá, en el que comparó al movimiento indígena con colectivismos terroristas, basados en el “espíritu de la tribu”, que parecen “un anacronismo más bien ridículo” y obstaculizan “el desarrollo, la civilización y la modernidad”.
Así que la “emancipación” de la que habla el escribidor no es la que decidan los indígenas, sino la única que estima posible: la economía de mercado y la “civilización”. Lo mismo decían los caucheros que cazaban indígenas en el Putumayo.
* Miembro fundador de DeJuSticia (www.dejusticia.org)
http://www.elespectador.com/columna-240231-los-indigenas-de-vargas-llosa
Opinión |13 Dic 2010 - 10:20 pm
Los indígenas de Vargas Llosa
Por: César Rodríguez Garavito
GANAR UN PREMIO NOBEL ES MORIR un poco: se agotan las cumbres por conquistar y se adquiere esa aura de perfección beatífica que sólo se les reconoce a los finados.
Criticar a un Nobel es tan políticamente incorrecto como hablar mal de un muerto. Y el galardonado padece la muerte lenta de ver su obra convertida en lectura de moda para adular —aquellas cosas que “debes leer” en vacaciones o mencionar en un coctel.
Afortunadamente, el merecido premio literario a Vargas Llosa puede ser la excepción. Porque el autor peruano siempre ha entendido la escritura como una invitación a la crítica, a esa discusión abierta que florece sólo en las democracias que ha defendido toda la vida.
Pues bien: uno de los debates centrales de la obra reciente del peruano tiene que ver con los pueblos indígenas. Su última novela, El sueño del celta, reconstruye las atrocidades cometidas contra los indígenas amazónicos de Colombia y Perú. Y en su discurso del Nobel en Estocolmo sostuvo que “desde hace dos siglos la emancipación de los indígenas es una responsabilidad exclusivamente nuestra y la hemos incumplido. Ella sigue siendo una asignatura pendiente en toda América Latina. No hay una sola excepción a este oprobio y vergüenza”.
Atrocidades, oprobio, vergüenza: temas improbables para una lectura de playa. Por eso, antes de que la discusión naufrague en la lectura pop, vale la pena plantear algunas preguntas incómodas.
Por ejemplo, ¿qué ha sido de los huitotos y los demás indígenas que, como se cuenta en El sueño del celta, fueron asesinados, esclavizados, mutilados, violados, despojados y marcados como ganado por los cultivadores de caucho en el Putumayo hace un siglo? Hoy se sabe que el genocidio fue tal que, entre 1900 y 1912, la población nativa pasó de más de 50.000 a cerca de 8.000.
Lo que pocos saben es que los huitotos están hoy tan amenazados y desamparados como entonces. El riesgo ya no es el caucho, sino la coca, el boom minero y otras economías que han atraído a colonos, grupos armados y empresarios que están detrás de las tierras nativas. Por eso son uno de los 34 pueblos en riesgo para los que la Corte Constitucional pidió protección especial en 2009. Por eso su población no supera la que dejaron los caucheros, y hoy es diezmada por los desplazamientos forzados a Leticia, Florencia o Villavicencio. Y por eso siguen esperando respuestas estatales concretas a la orden de la Corte, o al plan de vida que presentaron al Gobierno hace unos años.
Así que los lectores que se horroricen con lo que Roger Casement, el celta de la novela, vio en Putumayo, tendrían que horrorizarse con lo que encontrarían hoy allí mismo, o con la situación de más del 60% de los pueblos indígenas colombianos que, según la ONIC, están en riesgo de extinción por la misma combinación de violencia, desplazamiento, minería y otros proyectos económicos que avanzan sin consultas adecuadas con los pueblos.
El problema es que hay un abismo entre la indignación sobre los errores pasados y la disposición para no repetirlos. Aquí es justamente donde se equivoca Vargas Llosa. Con la misma elocuencia que ha narrado los abusos históricos, ha criticado al movimiento indígena por oponerse a la explotación comercial de sus territorios. El año pasado se vino lanza en ristre contra los indígenas peruanos por detener la legislación que abría la Amazonia de su país a la minería. Y en 2003 pronunció aquel infortunado discurso en Bogotá, en el que comparó al movimiento indígena con colectivismos terroristas, basados en el “espíritu de la tribu”, que parecen “un anacronismo más bien ridículo” y obstaculizan “el desarrollo, la civilización y la modernidad”.
Así que la “emancipación” de la que habla el escribidor no es la que decidan los indígenas, sino la única que estima posible: la economía de mercado y la “civilización”. Lo mismo decían los caucheros que cazaban indígenas en el Putumayo.
* Miembro fundador de DeJuSticia (www.dejusticia.org)
domingo, 9 de enero de 2011
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
LinkWithin
