John Prince – RI Future

April 4, 2016April 5, 2016

The experience of solitary confinement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The United Nations has called solitary confinement torture. President Obama recently condemned its use. In New York, a judge just resolved a class-action lawsuit by ensuring that there are legal limits on the amount of time a prisoner can be kept alone in a cell.

In Rhode Island, we call solitary confinement “segregated” confinement.

But what is solitary confinement, really? Can any of us who have not experienced it truly understand it?

Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary heard hours of testimony on solitary confinement in Rhode Island. Most of the time was taken up by prison officials and others explaining the present policy of “segregated” confinement to the Senators on the committee. But the most emotional, moving and disturbing testimony came from former inmates, people who have endured solitary confinement and who are still haunted by the experience.

Jessica Gonzalez was the first juvenile ever sentenced as an adult in Rhode Island. At the age of 14 she was sent to the ACI. Her story should not only make us question solitary confinement, it should make us rethink the entire way we deal with juvenile defendants.

John Prince, who I write about often because of his work with DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality), spent decades in prison. He speaks here about his experiences with solitary confinement.

JoseDavi Lamoso is an organizer with Black and Pink, one of the groups pushing for these legislative reforms. While serving his sentence in prison Lamoso was held in solitary “several times.” Lamoso bluntly states that “solitary confinement is torture.”

Osiris spent ten days naked and alone in a cold room with no mattress or toilet paper. This stint of solitary confinement was the worst thing to happen to him in his eleven and a half years in prison.

The General Assembly is considering bills that would curtail the use of solitary confinement in the Rhode Island prison system. Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senator Harold Metts‘ bill that would prohibit the use of solitary confinement for specific vulnerable populations (juveniles, elderly and the mentally ill), ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period. The videos above are all from that hearing.

A companion bill, submitted by Representative Aaron Regunberg, will be heard in House Judiciary this Wednesday, room 201, at 4:45pm.

February 5, 2016

Reps Regunberg and Metts seek to curb solitary confinement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Aaron Regunberg and Sen. Harold M. Metts have introduced legislation to reform the controversial use of solitary or “segregated” confinement in the Rhode Island prison system, saying the practice causes psychological damage and often exacerbates the very problems it is intended to address.

“The United Nations has condemned the use of solitary confinement, saying it can amount to torture,” said Representative Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence). “And the research is very clear that prolonged solitary confinement causes psychological problems that can damage inmates’ chances of rehabilitation. It’s a vicious cycle that is destructive rather than corrective, and it particularly impacts already vulnerable populations, including the very high proportion of our prison population affected by mental illness. Add this to the fact that segregation units are by far the most expensive facilities to operate, and it should be clear that we need to put responsible limits on, and devise humane alternatives to, the use of solitary confinement in the prison system.”

Said Senator Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence), “We cannot in good conscience call our prison a ‘corrections’ institute when the system relies on a punishment that is essentially designed to cause mental breakdown, particularly when so many of those subjected to it are already mentally ill. We have a moral imperative, as well as a constitutional mandate, to ensure we are not employing cruel or unusual punishment, and it is time we recognized that solitary confinement, in many cases, is cruel. Its use must be limited, and our prison system must stop using it on people who are particularly susceptible to the lasting effects it can have. We have to strive to find a better balance between rehabilitation and punishment.”

Many studies have found that long-term solitary confinement can produce psychological damage with symptoms such as hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise or touch, paranoia, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide risk and uncontrollable rage or fear. The risks are higher for juveniles, whose brains are still developing, and for those with mental illness.

Those effects can result in inmates having more difficulty complying with prison rules, defeating the purpose of solitary confinement. Even those who aren’t mentally ill when they enter solitary confinement can be left with lasting psychological effects that they take with them when they are released from prison into the community.

“Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment,” said S, a current inmate at the ACI who has asked to remain unidentified for fear of retribution. “I have seen people get years in segregation, and get locked in solitary for non-problematic reasons, like identifying as LGBTQ, filing lawsuits, or sharing political views. I have witnessed people in solitary confinement break down, start talking to themselves, become paranoid, play with their own feces, and worse. When you go to High Security [the solitary confinement facility] for causing a problem, they don’t help you, they don’t give you any mental health services, they just lock you in a cell for 23 hours a day. So when you go back to the normal facilities, you’re worse off.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of solitary confinement — also called “segregated confinement” — for specific vulnerable populations, ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period.

The bill (2016-H 7481) has support from a wide array of inmates’ rights activists, mental health advocates, civil rights groups and families of incarcerated individuals.

“Solitary is a very dehumanizing experience that leaves a person broken and unable to function,” said John Prince, a member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality with first-hand experience of solitary confinement in the ACI. “You hear nothing, see nothing, have nothing to think about almost 24 hours a day. You lose all perspective of time. Human beings are not meant to live like that for weeks or months on end. My experiences in solitary were extremely painful, and I have many friends who were left unable to relate to people, even their families, after prolonged segregation. There have to be limits that keep this from being used for long periods or on people who are likely to suffer lasting damage from it.”

“Even mentally healthy people lose their faculties in solitary confinement, but for people with mental illness, it is a particularly unhealthy situation that impairs an individual’s ability to maintain healthy relationships,” said Michael Cerullo, a psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system. “Without positive relationships in the community and with oneself, meaningful rehabilitation is significantly compromised. People with mental illness suffer serious trauma that cannot be undone when they are released either back into the prison population or back into the community, and that damage has ill effects on them and the people around them. We have to stop using this counterproductive approach with human beings challenged by mental illness for their sake and for the sake of the whole community.”

“Across the country, states are reducing their reliance on solitary confinement,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Long-term isolation costs too much, does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners, and exacerbates mental illness — even in those who were healthy when they entered solitary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court noted not only the extreme toll solitary confinement takes on those subjected to it, but that those who are affected may never recover well enough to reintegrate well into the community. Yet, the use of solitary confinement persists. States that once relied heavily on solitary confinement are now instead focusing on policies that promote safe communities and fair treatment — at the same time saving their states millions and reducing violence in the prisons. It’s time for us to do the same here in Rhode Island.”

The House bill has 38 cosponsors, including Representatives Scott A. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), Jean Philippe Barros (D-Dist. 59, Pawtucket), Raymond A. Hull (D-Dist. 6, Providence, North Providence) and David A. Bennett (D-Dist. 20, Warwick, Cranston).

[From the press release]

September 19, 2015

DARE challenges PVD Public Housing Authority on inmates’ right to fair housing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On Friday evening the Behind the Walls committee at Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) hosted the launch party for their Fair Housing campaign, which will challenge Providence Public Housing Authority (PHA) policies that uniformly exclude applicants based on past arrests and convictions.

The proposed policy would prohibit denial based on misdemeanors and arrests, protect applicants from long “look back” periods into their records, and would create a panel to review the qualifications of applicants with records. The Behind the Walls committee plans to present their proposed policy to the Housing Authority in the coming weeks. PHA Board member and city councilwoman Mary Kay Harris has written an official letter of endorsement for the campaign.

“Too many people have been denied a safe and stable home with their family because of something they did 10 or more years ago,” said John Prince, campaign organizer with Behind the Walls, in a statement. “Sometimes parents can’t go back and live with their kids because of an arrest, when they were never even convicted of the crime. That’s just wrong.”

According to Behind the Walls, “In 2014, 61 percent of all PHA denials were due to criminal record, and fewer than 1 percent of appeals were successful. Each year 1400 people are released from the ACI to Providence, 48 percent of which will return in their first 3 years home.”

“The idea that rehabilitation can work without a path to reintegration back into the community is a cruel and fraudulent hoax. One crucial way to help an individual return successfully to the community is to provide access to public housing,” said Judge Fortunato in a statement.

The launch event included soul food, spoken word performances by local poets including Franny Choi, Vatic Kuumbal and others. State Representatives Aaron Regunberg and Edith Ajello were in attendance as were Providence City Council Members Kevin Jackson and Mary Kay Harris.

Community members also celebrated the launch of the national community-driven report “Who Pays: The True Cost of Incarceration on Families” by the Ella Baker Center. John Prince, along with Sheila Wilhelm, were two members of DARE who traveled to Center in Oakland California to help develop the report. The report found that:

People with convictions are saddled with copious fees, fines, and debt at the same time that their economic opportunities are diminished, resulting in a lack of economic stability and mobility. 48 percent of families in our survey overall were unable to afford the costs associated with a conviction, while among poor families (making less than $15,000 per year), 58 percent were unable to afford these costs. Sixty-seven percent of formerly incarcerated individuals associated with our survey were still unemployed or underemployed five years after their release.

Many families lose income when a family member is removed from household wage earning and struggle to meet basic needs while paying fees, supporting their loved one financially, and bearing the costs of keeping in touch. Nearly 2 in 3 families (65 percent) with an incarcerated member were unable to meet their family’s basic needs. 49 percent struggled with meeting basic food needs and 48 percent had trouble meeting basic housing needs because of the financial costs of having an incarcerated loved one.

Women bear the brunt of the costs—both financial and emotional—of their loved one’s incarceration. In 63 percent of cases, family members on the outside were primarily responsible for court-related costs associated with conviction. Of the family members primarily responsible for these costs, 83 percent were women. In addition, families incur large sums of debt due to their experience with incarceration. Across respondents of all income brackets, the average debt incurred for court-related fines and fees alone was $13,607, almost one year’s entire annual income for respondents who earn less than $15,000 per year.

Despite their often-limited resources, families are the primary resource for housing, employment, and health needs of their formerly incarcerated loved ones, filling the gaps left by diminishing budgets for reentry services. Two-thirds (67 percent) of respondents’ families helped them find housing. Nearly one in five families (18 percent) involved in our survey faced eviction, were denied housing, or did not qualify for public housing once their formerly incarcerated family member returned. Reentry programs, nonprofits, and faith-based organizations combined did not provide housing and other support at the levels that families did.

Incarceration damages familial relationships and stability by separating people from their support systems, disrupting continuity of families, and causing lifelong health impacts that impede families from thriving. The high cost of maintaining contact with incarcerated family members led more than one in three families (34 percent) into debt to pay for phone calls and visits alone. Family members who were not able to talk or visit with their loved ones regularly were much more likely to report experiencing negative health impacts related to a family member’s incarceration.

The stigma, isolation, and trauma associated with incarceration have direct impacts across families and communities. Of the people surveyed, about one in every two formerly incarcerated persons and one in every two family members experienced negative health impacts related to their own or a loved one’s incarceration. Families, including their incarcerated loved ones, frequently reported Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, nightmares, hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Yet families have little institutional support for healing this trauma and becoming emotionally and financially stable during and post incarceration.

The report suggested three critical reforms:

Restructuring and Reinvesting: Following the lead of states like California, all states need to restructure their policies to reduce the number of people in jails and prisons and the sentences they serve. The money saved from reducing incarceration rates should be used instead to reinvest in services that work, such as substance abuse programs and stable housing, which have proven to reduce recidivism rates. Additionally, sentencing needs to shift focus to accountability, safety, and healing the people involved rather than punishing those convicted of crimes.

Removing Barriers: Upon release, formerly incarcerated individuals face significant barriers accessing critical resources like housing and employment that they need to survive and move forward. Many are denied public benefits like food stamps and most are unable to pursue training or education that would provide improved opportunities for the future. Families also suffer under these restrictions and risk losing support as a result of their loved one’s conviction. These barriers must be removed in order to help individuals have a chance at success, particularly the many substantial financial obligations that devastate individuals and their families. On the flip side, when incarcerated people maintain contact with their family members on the outside, their likelihood of successful reunification and reentry increases, and their chances of recidivating are reduced. For most families the cost of maintaining contact is too great to bear and must be lowered if families are to stay intact. Removing cost and other barriers to contact is essential.

Restoring Opportunities: Focusing energy on investing and supporting formerly incarcerated individuals, their families, and the communities from which they come can restore their opportunities for a brighter future and the ability to participate in society at large. Savings from criminal justice reforms should be combined with general budget allocations and invested in job training and subsidized employment services, for example, to provide the foundation necessary to help individuals and their families succeed prior to system involvement and upon reentry.

July 1, 2015July 3, 2015

Advocates beg lawmakers to save Good Samaritan Act

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The General Assembly’s recess last Thursday has shown to have tumultuous effects, leaving several bills in legislative limbo. But, today at the State House, protestors made it known that for the Good Samaritan bill and those it seeks to save, anything is better than dying a preventable death.

The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act, put into law in 2012, has three sections that help to protect those who have experienced a drug overdose. The first allows someone to admit an “opioid antagonist” to the victim. This antagonist helps to reverse the effects of an overdose, and can save lives. A popular drug that has been used under the Good Samaritan law is called Naloxone, or Narcan.

The second prevents those who have overdosed from being charged with a crime. Before the law, it was possible that someone could overdose, and nobody would call 911 out of fear of legal repercussion. The Good Samaritan Act makes it safer for them to seek medical assistance. The third portion of the act dictates that the Attorney General’s office will release a report each year that outlines the effects of the act on law enforcement.

Originally, law had a three-year sunset provision on it. But, with the abrupt recess of this year’s legislative session, the Good Samaritan Act could not be renewed, and expired today, July 1. Supporters of the act gathered on Smith Hill today to voice their concerns for Rhode Island if the bill is indeed allowed to expire, including Governor Gina Raimondo.

“Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in Rhode Island,” she said. “It’s a public health crisis and it’s time for greater action.”

Raimondo said that it is “unacceptable” that Rhode Island has the highest overdose rate in New England, and that everyone should be first and foremost focused on saving lives. Although there is not one solution, she said that the Good Samaritan Act is a step in the right direction for an “all hands on deck effort.”

“As a mother, with two little kids, I want my kids to be protected, and every kid to be protected,” she said.

Raimondo also expressed how discouraged she was with the General Assembly for simply letting the law pass them by this session, imploring that they “get to work.”

The theme of protecting families was a resounding one as supporters continued to speak, citing that nobody should fear calling 911 to save someone they love.

“We’re here today to address the need to protect families,” Holly Cekala, the executive director of Rhode Island Communities for Addiction Recovery Efforts, said. “All families have the right to protect their family members from any illness.”

Cekala said addicts can, and do, recover. The Good Samaritan Act will not only save an addict’s life, but put them on that path to recovery as well.

“We have a feeling that families matter. You can’t get to recovery if you’re not alive,” she said.

John Prince, an organizer for the Behind the Walls Prison Committee, as well as Direct Action for Rights and Equality, related that many in his community are on parole or probation, and that they will not call 911 if they have a police record, and especially if they know they can get arrested for it.

“The General Assembly is basically saying our lives don’t matter,” he said. “The governor needs to sign an executive order to protect all victims and save lives. They need to get this thing right to have protections for all men and women. And they need to do it now.”

Rebecca Nieves McGoldrick, the executive director of Protect Families First, put the blame on Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for the act’s expiration, along with the General Assembly.

“Their actions right now, speak louder than their words,” she said. McGoldrick added that for the opinions of Kilmartin to outweigh the Good Samaritan act’s support simply isn’t right.

“To have families suffer through the loss of a loved one so that the Attorney General could add another notch to his belt of drug arrests is frankly unconscionable,” she said.

Not all members of the General Assembly wanted to see this legislation die, though. Representative Aaron Regunberg (D- District 4), said that he would like to see the body reconvene and put the bill through as soon as possible. If that were to happen, Regunberg said that he would try to rally support for the act.

“I’m certainly going to be reaching out and making sure folks up there understand how urgent it is,” he said.

The odds of a special session in September are split right now. House leadership would like to reconvene at that time, but on the Senate side they don’t. Many have urged Governor Raimondo to issue an executive order, but her office has not indicated any such plans. Either way, supporters all agree that something, anything, must be done.

April 3, 2015

Press conference against police brutality at Providence City Hall

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

John Prince was not the only person to successfully file a complaint against the Providence Police Department in recent months.

At a press conference held outside Mayor Jorge Elorza‘s offices in the Providence City Hall, Morgan Victor told the story of her and her friend’s verbal harassment by Providence police officers in November 2014. With the help of Shannah Kurland, the lawyer representing John Prince in his complaint, Victor endured the long complaint and hearing process to a successful conclusion. “Ultimately they were found guilty for what they did to us,” said Victor.

Monica Huertas took the microphone to tell the emotional story of her complaint against the Providence Police, still in process. When her brother, a veteran suffering from PTSD, was in need of medical help, she called 911. When the police arrived, instead of attempting to deescalate the situation, they tased him.

The event was emceed by a sword wielding Victoria Ruiz, dressed as Justice. Steven Dy, lead organizer at PrYSM, spoke about the Community Safety Act, which Mayor Elorza promised to support when he was a candidate, but has not moved on since taking office.

The only elected official in attendance was Providence City Councillor Mary Kay Harris. At least five Providence Police Officers kept a watchful eye on the proceedings from a respectful distance.

The press conference ended with a plea to those who have endured abuse at the hands of the police to come forward and lodge formal complaints. Community groups such as DARE and PrYSM will be happy to help you through the process. A hashtag, #AllEyesonProPo, has been created to publicize the effort.

You can watch the full press conference below:

March 30, 2015March 31, 2015

Internal affairs: 2 PVD police officers erred in treatment of John Prince

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

An internal affairs investigation found two of three Providence police officers guilty of violating department rules and regulations when they took John Prince‘s camera phone from him, according to Police chief Hugh Clements.

In September, 2014, Prince observed three police officers outside his home and used his phone to video the officers. They had detained two women and were asking “intimidating” questions while going through their handbags. The officers objected to being recorded, chased Prince inside his home, took his cellphone, deleted the video and threw the phone into the bushes, an egregious violation of Prince’s constitutionally guaranteed rights.

After San Lucas issued his finding, Colonel Hugh Clements, chief of the Providence Police, concurred and issued appropriate sanctions, he said in this letter. The supervising officer, Sgt. Roger Aspinal, was suspended for one day without pay, and must attend retraining. Officer Louis Gianfrancesco was not suspended but must attend retraining.

Prince and his lawyer, Shannah Kurland, will be holding a press conference Thursday at Providence City Hall to talk about the case. You can hear Prince tell his story in the video below.

December 17, 2014December 18, 2014

Video: PUC protesters call for radical solutions to energy prices

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As economic inequality grows in Rhode Island, the messages being conveyed to our leadership in government is becoming simultaneously more radical and more pragmatic. People are beginning to make the connection between economic, social and climate justice, and the changes they are calling for are nothing short of revolutionary.

At yesterday’s PUC (Public Utilities Commission) hearing on a proposed 24% rate hike by National Grid, state regulators heard testimony from 25 individuals, the vast majority of whom were outraged by the proposal. More than one speaker called the increase “unconscionable.”

Many pointed out the record profits scored by National Grid last year, or the $7 million plus salary paid to National Grid CEO Steve Holliday, as proof that such an increase is unnecessary. Others talked about the effect this rate increase will have on the poor, the elderly and other at risk individuals. Virginia Gonsalves asked if the PUC regulators were comfortable making people “have to choose between eating and paying their utility bills.”

John Prince, speaking on behalf of DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) wondered if the PUC was simply a rubber stamp agency for whatever National Grid demands. “There’s no justice in this facility. I hope this doesn’t turn into a dog and pony show where we’re all here and you’ll just do what you’ll do anyway.”

Chris Rotondo, also from DARE, told the regulators that they are “being asked to subsidize National Grid profits,” a theme amplified by Robert Malin of the Sierra Club, who said that in the current economic atmosphere, “We socialize the risk and privatize the profits.”

The idea that this is already a done deal was a frequent refrain. “Why do you think National Grid has the balls, pardon my French, to ask for such an increase if they didn’t think you would approve it?” asked one woman with the George Wiley Center.

It was Jann Campbell of North Smithfield who brought the revolutionary fire.

“We’re facing a real spiritual and economic crisis in this country,” she said, before demanding that the PUC subpena National Grid CEO Steve Holliday so that he might defend this outrageous price increase in person.

In response to the call for a subpena, the PUC board replied, lamely,”We don’t have the power to.”

Undeterred, Campbell said, “People can only take so much until they can’t take anymore.” And she added, “The day people feel there is no redress will be a very scary day in Rhode Island.”

The PUC will vote on the increase on Tuesday, December 23rd, at 9:30am in an open meeting at the RI PUC, 89 Jefferson Blvd, Warwick, RI. Think about attending, and let your voice be heard and presence be known.

You can watch Jann Campbell’s full testimony below:

Catherine Orloff asked why, if National Grid needs this rate increase, they are still able to contribute to charitable events like Waterfire. As much as we all love Waterfire, she asks, should our utility bills be indirectly subsidizing such efforts? Orloff then went on to compare National Grid to PayDay loan companies.

An expert on the psychological impacts of poverty on children.

“I consider myself to be low income,” said this speaker, “When this increase was suggested, I was terrified.” She went to point out that “very rich people never have enough money.”

“We need the opportunity to breathe.”

One elder care facility will see an an annual increase of $90,000 in their electricity bill, another, in Portsmouth, will see an increase of $72,000, Kathleen Kelly. These are people on fixed incomes, in need of continuous care.

Some of the testimony was filled with righteous anger.

And of course, Santa Claus testified.

Robert Malin, of the Sierra Club

Support Steve Ahlquist!

November 25, 2014November 25, 2014

Providence Police accused of assaulting man who filmed them

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This is John Prince’s story of the night he filmed the Providence Police, and was assaulted by them. It’s based on the complaint Prince gave to Internal Affairs.

Between 9:30 and 9:45pm on Wednesday, September 10th, Prince, a Providence resident, heard “hollering” outside his first floor window. Investigating, he stepped outside and saw two plainclothes police officers detaining two women and asking “intimidating” questions while going through their handbags. (A third officer was in a nearby car.)

Prince didn’t like the officers’ tone in dealing with the women. He thought they were being disrespectful, and said, “You don’t need to talk to them like that.”

The police officer told Prince to mind his own business, and then asked him to identify himself. Prince did not identify himself. Instead, he went back into his house for his cellphone, and came out to record the officers.

The officer in charge wanted to know why Prince was filming him, stating that he was was an undercover officer, and was “not supposed” to be filmed. According to Prince, “He proceeded to ask me where I was going to send the film, and demanded that I give him my ID.”

Prince said, “I refuse to surrender my ID to you,” and asked why the officer wanted it.

“I want to know who’s filming me,” said the the officer.

John Prince is well known as an activist for his work with DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality). He works with Behind the Walls, an effort to reform prisons, and has been working to pass the “Community Safety Act,” which proponents maintain would be “a comprehensive city ordinance to ban racial profiling and change the way that police interact with members of our community” and “a strong first step toward shifting the focus from criminalizing people of color to addressing the root causes that perpetuate violence in our communities.”

So the police officers, knowingly or not, were dealing with a man who knew his rights and was not afraid to stick up for them. Instead of giving his name, Prince asked the officers to identify themselves.

“My name is Obama,” said the first officer, referring to the name on the hat Prince was wearing.

“My name is John Doe,” said the second officer.

As the cops laughed at their attempted humor, Prince decided to go back into his home.

This was when the first officer ordered the second one to, “Get that phone!”

Concerned for his safety, Prince ran back to his apartment. The second officer leaped the fence, and chased Prince through the door and into the hallway. The officer grabbed Prince and pushed him into the wall. As Prince reached for the doorknob of his apartment, the officer took him down, sending him “crashing to the floor.”

The officer got the phone, then left the building. Prince followed him out and saw the first officer was now deleting the video.

“That’s what you get for interfering with the police,” said the officer who had just tackled Prince inside his own home. Prince had hurt both his ankle and his neck in the scuffle.

After deleting the video, the first officer threw Prince’s phone into the bushes outside his house.

Yesterday Prince testified at an Internal Affairs hearing at the Providence Public Safety Complex on Washington St. He held a press conference to talk about his ordeal.

In the complaint Prince filed, he named Sgt. Roger Aspinall, Detective Francisco Guerra and Detective Louis Gianfrancesco as the officers involved.

According to Shannah Kurland, Prince’s lawyer, it may take a month for Internal affairs to issue any kind of report.

Here’s John Prince telling his story:

Here’s the full press conference, unedited:

July 28, 2011January 22, 2012

At the “Civil Rights Under Attack” Forum

The RI Mobilization Committee sponsored an interesting array of speakers Wednesday night at the Beneficent Church in downtown Providence centered around the theme of Civil Rights. First up was Iman Ikram Ul-Haq, from Masjid Al-islam mosque, North Smithfield, who talked about Islamophobia. The Iman made some interesting observations about the recent attacks in Norway and the rush to judgement by the media in identifying the attacker as a Muslim terrorist when in fact the man was a white Christian militant. The audience in attendance split during the question and answer session over the idea of free speech. Some felt that free speech includes the right not to be offended, but others maintained that offensive speech needs to be protected. The Iman was very courteous but personally I feel that he should have given more thought as to how to confront Islamophobia in a constructive way.

Next up was Onna Moniz-John, of the NAACP and the Urban League, a tireless advocate for the elimination of racial profiling. She related her ongoing struggle to deal with this issue legislatively, and her disappointment that a bill in the recent legislative session was scuttled at the behest of the police chiefs from the various RI communities. (One of many disappointing outcomes in the latest session.) Racial profiling exists, and needs to be dealt with, and Ms. Moniz-John offered us a real route towards dealing with this problem. She is a very affecting speaker.

Next up was Will Lambek of the Olneyville Neighborhood Association and Marlon Cifuentes, talking about Secure Communities, an Orwellian-named government program that puts people from south of the border on the fast track to deportation without any hint of due process. This program had been ostensibly instituted to deal with the very worst violent offenders, but in practice has been used as a means by which to deport anyone for any reason. Efforts to dissociate states from this program have been successful in some states, including New York, but Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and Governor Lincoln Chafee have both ignored requests to meet on this issue.

Last to speak was John Prince of DARE, who spoke about the Prison Industrial Complex, and his own dealings with it. After serving more than his fair share of time for his youthful indiscretions, Prince has become a tireless fighter for prison reform. I feel that the way a society treats its prisoners is the metric by which the society should be judged. On this count, the United States is not doing so well.

One of the eeriest things revealed this night is how all these various problems are related in such a way as to lead a person of color directly from his malfunctioning school directly into the Prison Industrial Complex. A person may be racially profiled, pulled over, arrested on some pretense, run through the court system, and wind up in jail, beginning a life cycle that may result in years of incarceration. It was pointed out by an audience member that the privatization of prisons and the continuance of the failed war on drugs has created a real profit motive to continue the failing schools and the building of more prisons.

Over all it was a very informative evening of refreshing and positive activism within our community. There is much to be done, and I came away feeling that though the situation is dire, it is far from hopeless if we continue to work on these issues.