Get Informed

Subscribe to our newsletters for regular updates, analysis and context straight to your email.

Close Newsletter Signup

The Family Of An Unarmed High Schooler Shot By Police Begs For ‘Real Change’

The King County Sheriff's Office told reporters Tommy Le had a knife. He was actually holding a pen.

Tommy Le shortly before his death.
Provided by the Le family

The Family Of An Unarmed High Schooler Shot By Police Begs For ‘Real Change’

The King County Sheriff's Office told reporters Tommy Le had a knife. He was actually holding a pen.

For those who loved Tommy Le, the 12 months since he was killed by police on a suburban Seattle street have been what his aunt Uyen Le described last week as “a year of unending grief, shame, and humiliation.”

Le, the 20-year-old son of Vietnamese refugees, was hours away from graduating from high school when he was shot by a deputy sheriff on June 14, 2017. The young man’s family was heartbroken by his death, and Washington State’s large Vietnamese-American community shared a piece of their pain.

But Le’s family says their hurt was amplified by an allegation made by King County Sheriff’s Office officials hours after Le was killed. Officials with the sheriff’s office, which provides police services to many Seattle suburbs, released a statement indicating Le charged deputies with a knife. Nine days passed before the claim was corrected.

In fact, Le was carrying a black ink pen when he was shot, not a “knife or some sort of sharp object” described in a media release on the sheriff’s office Twitter feed. No knife was found.

Those statements were the subject of an independent review of the communications related to King County deputy-involved shootings. In a report released Tuesday, researchers with the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information noted the sheriff’s office misinformed the public and then didn’t correct the record. Le’s family addressed King County leaders during a Seattle hearing on the report.

Responding to the Brechner Center findings, King County Council Chair Joe McDermott blamed the sheriff’s office for the untrue statements.

“Tommy’s aunt spoke about a year of grief, shame, and humiliation,” McDermott said during the Tuesday hearing. “It strikes me that Tommy’s death alone would cause the grief. But the shame and humiliation were caused and compounded by inaccurate information that was disclosed in the first place and then wasn’t corrected.”

Le's mother and aunt address county officials at a hearing last week.

The night he was killed, Le was walking near his home in Burien, a racially diverse, economically mixed city abutting Seattle’s southern city limit. According to law enforcement, deputies rushed to the area just after midnight when a resident reported firing a warning shot at a ranting man brandishing a knife. The sheriff’s office contends Le was identified to deputies as the unstable, armed man.

Three deputies confronted Le, who, at 5’4, was significantly smaller than the man who killed him, identified by the sheriff’s office as Deputy Cesar Molina. According to the office, Molina and another deputy fired Tasers at Le twice before Molina shot Le, who was then handcuffed as he lay dying. An autopsy by the county medical examiner would later show Le’s liver, left kidney, and spleen had been shredded by two hollow-point bullets.

In a statement to The Appeal on Friday, King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht said her office may revisit its use-of-force policies once a review of Le’s shooting is complete. Johanknecht said she hopes the review will address questions the Le family has about Le’s death, while pledging to work on improving communication and transparency.

“No one wants to see a 911 call for assistance result in a death and I am saddened by the loss of any life,” said Johanknecht, who was elected to her first term as sheriff in November. “I am confident … the review processes in place will determine whether there is a need to revise the training or policies regarding the use of deadly force in unknown and potentially dangerous situations, such as this one.”

The initial sheriff’s office statement after the shooting asserted Le had a weapon in hand when he was shot.

“A homeowner fired a warning shot at a man running at him with a sharp object in his hand. When deputies responded to the scene, the suspect came at them as well,” last year’s statement reads.

Brechner Center researchers noted “the release did not specify Le’s weapon but stated that he was ‘holding a knife or some sort of sharp object.’ Much of the resulting press coverage seized on the idea that Le wielded a knife, and the Sheriff’s Office did not correct any of the inaccurate reports.”

Jeff Campiche, an attorney representing Le’s family in a civil lawsuit against King County, told The Appeal that the sheriff’s office “wanted to make themselves look better because they shot an unarmed, 120-pound high school student in the back.”

“Is it possible, after the young man is lying on the ground bleeding to death, that the sheriff’s office didn’t know he was unarmed?” Campiche asked.

Demanding Candor After Shootings

Johanknecht said her office “values transparency and the public’s trust.”

“It is not the policy of the KCSO to intentionally mislead the public, media or anyone regarding its interactions with the communities we serve,” she told The Appeal, referring to the King County Sheriff’s Office.

Despite heightened public interest in police violence, police practices vary widely when it comes to disclosure after officer-involved shootings.

As part of their review, Brechner Center researchers contrasted the Louisville Metro Police Department’s aggressive disclosure of reports related to police shootings with the Los Angeles Police Department’s approach, which they described as “reactive and restrictive.” Authors of the report, led by Brechner Center director Frank D. LoMonte, describe a national trend toward greater proactive disclosure and away from requiring the public to fight for access to information.

The new transparency is in part self-serving. Researchers noted that the Chicago Police Department compounded a public relations disaster after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by fighting the release of a dashcam video for more than a year. The apparent cover-up cost Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy his job, and the city paid millions of dollars to settle the McDonalds’ lawsuit. The officer who killed McDonald has since been charged with murder.

Deborah Jacobs, who was picked last year to head King County’s police oversight office after 13 years as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s New Jersey chapter, said Tuesday that communities around the country are demanding candor.

“The initial information released by law enforcement shapes the narrative and becomes the public understanding of an incident,” Jacobs said. “The release and perpetuation of inaccurate or misleading information about an incident has serious potential consequences for all involved.”

Jacobs advocates for what she characterized as small but critical moves toward disclosure suggested in the Brechner Center report. One key change would require the sheriff’s office to regularly update the public on high-profile incidents, including officer-involved shootings, through press briefings and social media. The office would also be required to immediately correct inaccurate or misleading information it publicized.

Calls for Accountability

Le’s death helped prompt an expansive review of another piece of King County’s response to officer-involved killings: the shooting inquest.

Inquests are fact-finding trials in which jurors rule on the facts of a contentious incident without awarding damages or assigning a punishment. Prosecutors call witnesses and present evidence to the jury, which then judges the legality of the shooting.

“Their basic function is to figure out, as best they can, the truth about how someone died and to explain that truth to the public,” Paul MacMahon, an assistant professor of law at the London School of Economics who has written extensively on inquest systems, wrote in an email to The Appeal.

“That process can be itself a form of accountability for those guilty of wrongdoing. … Inquests can help institutions and the public to learn from mistakes, and to help victims’ families and society at large come to terms with difficult events,” he continued.

But advocates for police reform often find little to like about state inquest systems. King County’s inquest process, derived from a 164-year-old state law, provides no opportunity for the public to challenge the law enforcement account of a shooting. Le’s family has pushed for reform of this process, which their attorney calls a one-sided “whitewash.”

County Executive Dow Constantine paused all inquests in King County, including Le’s, in December and initiated a review he pledged will “make inquests more transparent, fair, and meaningful for all those involved, and to provide greater confidence in our justice system to the entire community.”

Inquests have proved useful in examining deaths at the hands of police elsewhere. A Milwaukee inquest jury faulted several officers involved in the 2011 death of Derek Williams, who died in the backseat of a squad car after police failed to provide him medical attention. Leaders in Clark County, Nevada, recently crafted an inquest system as part of a larger accountability effort.

A task force that includes a retired police leader and two people whose loved ones were killed by police recommended reforms to King County’s inquest system in March, but the county has yet to enact them. A representative for Constantine said the executive expects to issue an order in the near future. A sheriff’s office review board is expected to examine Le’s shooting in coming weeks.

So, as Le’s family members end their first year of grief, they wait.

“We’re begging for more,” Uyen Le, who was raised with her nephew, said during Tuesday’s hearing. “Real action. Real change. Accountability. Only then will our family receive the justice that we and Tommy deserve.

“We are a strong Vietnamese family, a good family, and we’re supported by the greater community. We will not give up until the county decides to take responsibility for what happened to Tommy.”

'You Never Want to go to the Workhouse'

Activists launch a new campaign to close an infamous St. Louis jail.

Prisoners chant and wave shirts out of their windows during a protest at the St. Louis Medium Security Institution, also known as “the Workhouse," on July 21, 2017.
Daniel Shular

'You Never Want to go to the Workhouse'

Activists launch a new campaign to close an infamous St. Louis jail.

Two rows of barbed wire fencing can’t block the screams that escape from behind the barred windows at the jail. “Help us!” the men shout from inside. The sweltering sun beams down on the two-story brick building, heating its cells. “Let us out!” they beg. “We ain’t got no AC!”   

Their pleas were immortalized when Elliot Davis, a Fox2Now reporter, captured the moment on video last summer. The clip was widely circulated, igniting protests outside the St. Louis Medium Security Institution, also known as “the Workhouse.” Demonstrators faced pepper spray as they demanded air conditioning for prisoners left to roast in triple-digit temperatures during a dangerous heatwave. The protests and political pressure proved successful as city officials arranged for temporary, portable air conditioning units to be installed in portions of the jail, though there is still no permanent fix. 

Community organizers say the lack of air conditioning was only one of the facility’s many problems, which have sparked complaints for years but have been routinely ignored. But the activists say they have had enough. Since last July, the jail’s conditions have been the subject of numerous protests, complaints, a lawsuit, and now a new campaign calling for its closure. ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit law firm; Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, social justice organizationSaint Louis Action Council, a Black-led, multiracial activists collective; and The Bail Project, a national revolving bail fund, have together launched a new campaign called Close the Workhouse. They say the facility is inhumane and disproportionately incarcerates poor people and people of color who can’t afford to post bail.

“In St. Louis, everybody knows about the Workhouse,” says Inez Bordeaux, 37, a lead organizer in the campaign. “Everybody knows at least one person who’s been there, so we’ve all heard the stories about how bad it is.” The stories, she acknowledges, were not atypical for American jails: food not fit for animals and callous guards. Bordeaux says it wasn’t until she spent 30 days in the facility on a probation violation, unable to afford bail, that she realized, “It’s so much worse than everything that I have ever heard.”

Protesters outside the Workhouse last summer. Since then, the jail’s conditions have been the subject of numerous protests, complaints, a lawsuit, and now a new campaign calling for its closure.
Daniel Shular

Built in 1966, the Workhouse is one of two jails in St. Louis, and holds prisoners accused of less serious crimes. It can hold 1,138 people, and has an annual budget of around $16 million. In March, it housed 557 prisoners, according to the city Department of Public Safety’s monthly report. The jail’s nickname is said to come from an 1848 city ordinance ordering prisoners who could not pay their fines to be committed to the “Work House” to pay off their debts.

Nearly all the people held at the Workhouse have not been convicted of crimes; they are awaiting trial, and most cannot afford to post bail in the interim. There are seven times more Black detainees than there are white detainees, although only 47 percent of St. Louis’s population is Black.

The Workhouse is not new to scrutiny. In 2007, the Eastern Missouri branch of the American Civil Liberties Union investigated both St. Louis jails, and released a report detailing squalid conditions, policy violations, overcrowding, negligence, staff assaults on detainees, and systematic cover-up of incidents by staff and administrators.

Now, a decade later, ArchCity Defenders say many of the same problems persist. The firm has filed a federal lawsuit against the city alleging that conditions in the Workhouse are inhumane and violate prisoners’ civil rights. “On any given day, detainees in the jail must endure infestations of rats, snakes, cockroaches, and other insects; extreme temperatures ranging from stifling heat in the summers to frigid cold in the winters; inconsistent and inadequate provision of medical care and mental health treatment; poor air quality and proliferation of mold caused by the jail’s lack of ventilation and inadequate sanitation; overcrowding; insufficient staffing; and a culture of fear created by frequent violence and retaliation, including by jail staff,” it states.

Bordeaux says the lawsuit makes sense. “You’re not even treated with basic human decency,” she said. For her, the most dehumanizing incident came when a guard told her to roll up toilet paper as a makeshift sanitary napkin when supplies reportedly ran out. The slightest protest, she says, meant being locked in her cell for a day to teach her a lesson. “No one should have to deal with that. There’s nothing decent about the Workhouse,” said Bordeaux. “It’s a truly desperate place.”

Last year, state Representative Joshua Peters (D-St. Louis), whose district is home to the Workhouse, organized a bipartisan tour of the jail after receiving letters from his constituents complaining about its conditions. He concluded that some of St. Louis’s “poorest citizens are doomed to a hellish existence” while confined there pretrial. Echoing other Missourians, Peters says the Workhouse has loomed over the community for decades. “Since I was a little child, I remember people saying, ‘You never want to go to the Workhouse.’ It was the worst jail in the metropolitan area in the city of St. Louis.”

He said he witnessed sewage leaking from toilets and that the jail’s kitchen reeked of the stench of mold buildup. Prisoners had to take their food back to their dorms. One prisoner yelled he had been bitten by a rodent, lifting his pant leg to reveal a gaping hole. The prison also showed signs of structural damage in need of repair, Peters said. “I noticed that one of the cells, there may have been about 50 men who were in the infirmary waiting to be seen by a doctor; they only had one doctor on staff and one nurse’s aide.” 

After the protests go on for more than two hours, police come out in riot gear and call the demonstration an unlawful gathering. They give a 10-minute warning to protesters to disperse.
Daniel Shular

Corrections Commissioner Dale Glass and Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards said complaints of inhumane conditions were false and in March of this year invited members of the media into the jail, where a correspondent for Fox2News reported that “inmates appeared as content as one could be in a jail.” Edwards agreed the facility was old, but said it was functional. “We take great pride in making sure that it’s clean, that the inmates are treated humanely,” Glass said in an interview with the station. The commissioner did not respond to The Appeal’s requests for comment.

In addition to the jail conditions, lawyers and organizers say too many people spend too much time in the jail for minor offenses because they can’t afford bail. “The court is setting bail so high that people who are poor and do not have the money to pay it, are being incarcerated pretrial even though a significant number of the cases are resulting in dismissals by the state or not-guilty verdicts,” said Mary Fox, lead public defender in St. Louis. It’s not uncommon for her clients to be held on $1,000 bail and be required to pay 10 percent down, but unable to come up with the $100. Even more typically, Fox’s clients are held on $5,000 bail, making it impossible for them to come up with the 10 percent needed to get out.

Bordeaux was one of the hundreds of detainees unable to afford bail. While on probation for overdrawing on unemployment benefits, she was detained for failing to report to her probation officer and held in the Workhouse, with bail set at $25,000. Bordeaux, who had been living in transitional housing, says she didn’t have the 10 percent that was due; $2,500 was more than her monthly salary at that time. She waited, and on the 30th day, the judge released her. “So, I basically sat there 30 days for nothing.”

Fox says her office isn’t receiving evidence about her clients in a timely manner, which prolongs their jail stays. In April, she filed a petition for a writ of mandamus claiming that Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s prosecutors have been consistently violating a Missouri Supreme Court rule requiring the “timely” disclosure of evidence. Gardner’s office is seeking a dismissal of that complaint. “We just want them to follow the rules,” Fox told The Appeal. The St. Louis public defender’s office is overloaded with cases, she said, and poor people are waiting for representation, which means pretrial detainees who can’t afford bail sit in jail even longer.  

Organizers want the circuit attorney to do more than release evidence; they want her to stop locking people up for being poor and to follow through on her campaign promises. In 2017, with the support of social justice progressives, Gardner became St. Louis’s first Black circuit attorney, sending a wave of hope through the city. While some activists are still optimistic about her potential, others are disappointed that she hasn’t done more.

“She keeps sending people to the Workhouse. It’s her office that keeps requesting these high bails … it’s her!” Bordeaux said. “If she wanted to, she could literally decide to just stop sending people to the Workhouse … stop demanding these high, high bails that keep people locked up in the Workhouse, but she hasn’t done that.”

Kayla Reed of the St. Louis Action Council agreed that Gardner’s tenure has been disappointing. “What we’re hopeful for is that she’s been reflective of that and is making adjustments.” Her recent decision to dismiss some low-level drug possession cases is a good sign, Reed said. “Perhaps it’s her saying, ‘I feel comfortable in my position, I’m going to do more.’”

In a statement, Gardner said reducing incarceration rates is essential to creating a fairer criminal justice system in St. Louis. “People should not linger in jail simply because they are poor,” she wrote. “Being held in jail, even just for a few days, can have a devastating impact on a person’s life.” She says she has already undertaken the “enormous task” of reforming aspects of the criminal justice system she can influence and has partnered with organizations including the Vera Institute of Justice to research the use of bail and possible reforms.  She plans to announce new changes within the next two months.

Meanwhile, the Close the Workhouse campaign plans to hold its first big action in the next few weeks, calling for community reinvestment, the closure of the facility and decarceration in general. The organizers want to see a complete overhaul of the way the circuit attorney asks for bail, including the use of more precharge diversion programs for nonviolent crimes like trespassing, shoplifting and panhandling.

The city is spending all this money on a failing jail when there’s really no reason to keep any of these folks locked up pretrial,” says Janos Marton, a consultant on the campaign, who formerly managed the #CLOSErikers campaign for JustLeadershipUSA. Marton sees some parallels between the two campaigns, which he says are fueled by the energy of directly impacted people.

In both cases,” he said, “there is no argument that the jails are working, only a lack of imagination from certain elected officials about how to reduce the number of people they are jailing.”

More in Explainers

The Appeal Podcast Episode 4: How Prison Reform Was Co-Opted to Sell More Prisons

With journalists Raven Rakia and Ashoka Jegroo.

Demonstrators carry a symbolic coffin bearing the name of Kalief Browder as they march outside NYC's City Hall.
Albin Lohr-Jones / Getty

The Appeal Podcast Episode 4: How Prison Reform Was Co-Opted to Sell More Prisons

With journalists Raven Rakia and Ashoka Jegroo.

It’s a tension as old as activism itself: if all politics involves compromise, how do you tell the difference between healthy reform and reform that’s too watered down? Or worse: what do you do when reform efforts are co-opted for other ends entirely? Our guests on this episode, journalists Raven Rakia and Ashoka Jegroo, examine these debates among those working to close Rikers prison in New York and discuss the co-optation grassroots reform efforts often face.


Adam Johnson: Welcome to The Appeal Podcast. I’m your host Adam Johnson. This is a podcast on criminal justice reform, abolition and everything in between. Thanks for joining us. You can follow us on Twitter @TheAppealPod and on Facebook at The Appeal Podcast. You’ll see the little red and black logo and make sure to subscribe on iTunes if you can. Today’s show we are going to talk about difference between revolutionary reform and reformist reform, reform that actually improves people’s lives and lessens harm and leads to less people in prison versus reform that sounds really great, but when you scratch the surface is actually just more police, more prisons and longer jail sentences, but with a friendly face. Our guests today, Raven Rakia and Ash Jegroo wrote an excellent piece for The Appeal on May 29th called, “How the Push to Close Rikers Went From No Jails to New Jails.” It details with somewhat depressing precision, the degree to which a organic activist driven effort to close Rikers turned into a effort by big donors and democratic establishment politicians to simply move Rikers to another location.

[Begin Clip]

Raven Rakia: The Campaign to Shut Down Rikers as well as other abolitionist groups really try to focus on the root causes that lead to incarceration, which of course can include poverty, um, capitalism, etcetera, etcetera. And so instead of building new jails they would rather the city put money towards the things that lead to jails in the first place.

Ashoka Jegroo: For example, I mean, just to make a, to do a concrete example, Mayor de Blasio when he rolled out his plan didn’t address Broken Windows and hasn’t addressed Broken Windows. Broken Windows, which is one of the main reasons why black and brown people come in contact with the police and get sent to places like Rikers Island in the first place. So in order to just say, ‘Oh, we’re going to have more community facilities, we’re gonna put them in your neighborhood, these jails, but we’re still gonna arrest you for the same damn stuff.’ Doesn’t seem to be addressing root causes.

[End Clip]

Adam: Thanks so much for coming on Raven and Ash.

[Fade Music]

Raven Rakia: Yeah thanks for having us.

Ashoka Jegroo: Thanks for having us.

Adam: So, loved your piece. I guess I want to start by laying the groundwork here, setting the table for our listeners. Can you explain what the close Rikers campaign is, what Rikers is in general, and what the sort of present status of efforts to Close Rikers are so we can all sort of get up to speed?

Raven Rakia: Right yeah. So the Close Rikers campaign is one of the campaigns to get Rikers to shut down. Um, and it was, it was run by Just Leadership USA with over a hundred partner organizations. Um, so #CloseRikers is their specific campaign. There were campaigns before that, like the Campaign to Shut Down Rikers and these were two different groups or campaigns working towards the same goal basically. Um, so, Close Rikers was started by Glenn Martin, who was then the president of JLUSA, and they, they basically had rallies and were pressuring the mayor to close Rikers. Um, the Campaign to Shut Down Rikers, which happened before, um, did a lot of organizing as well and shut down, um, board of correction meetings and held rallies of their own. And their goal was to shut down Rikers without opening any new jails, um, which was different from the Close Rikers campaign. And in terms of what’s happening now, Just Leadership USA now has a Free New York campaign, which is them trying to push for more reforms in the justice system. Um, there are also other organizations like South Bronx Unite, which is fighting against the opening of the jail in the Bronx and there’s also the organization Critical Resistance, which is against all of the new jails, um, and has a No New Jails campaign.

Adam: And the general thesis of your piece, and it’s something that we struggle with a lot on, I know on this show and people on the left in general do, is that the push to close Rikers went from a campaign to have no jails and to have no specifically, no new jails, uh, not just shutting down Rikers, sort of like a, you know, when you were a kid and you would have vegetables and you know, kind of spread them across your plate to make it look like you ate them. This is sort of what some of these reformers are trying to do they’re sort of trying to just move people from one jail to the other.

Raven Rakia: Right.

Adam: Um like a sort of shell game instead of, and so they can say, ‘Oh, we closed Rikers,’ but if you just move people from Rikers to the Bronx or to Westchester or wherever it doesn’t really matter. So that there’s tension within that movement, can you talk to us about that tension and what are the competing forces at work here, both in terms of the more abolitionist activist side and the kind of liberal NGO side?

Ashoka Jegroo: Yeah. Um, so yeah. Um, to rewind a little bit, the Campaign to Shut Down Rikers was the more abolitionist campaign, which included members of Millions March NYC, the Jails Action Coalition, Kalief Browder’s brother, Akeem Browder. And basically they, uh, you know, approach from a far more abolitionist angle they wanted, they want to shut down all prisons and jails and pretty much abolish the police and prisons in general. And from the beginning they were very clear about that. The person we interviewed, Nabil Hassein, has been very outspoken about this, uh, pretty much every rally I’ve been to for their events. He even called out Close Rikers campaign at a few of these events saying that, you know, ‘We’re not like these people. We don’t want to make these jails nicer. We don’t want, you know, we’re, we’re not going to be wishy washy about this from the beginning. We’re going to. We were about, you know, fire to the prisons,’ pretty much. Whereas Close Rikers is the bigger, much more well funded campaign.

Adam: Right.

Ashoka Jegroo: They’ve been much more compromising, I guess would be the word from the beginning, uh, where they have been, I guess, tolerant of the idea of new jails and “community facilities” quote unquote. But they weren’t really clear about that from the beginning. As it’s gone on and as politicians have jumped on the bandwagon pretty much like Melissa Mark-Viverito, who was a former city council speaker and Mayor de Blasio of course, as they’ve come and co-opted it, the plan to close Rikers, and have been more upfront about, ‘Okay, we’re going to open new jails in order to be able to close down Rikers in the first place.’ It seems like only later on has the Close Rikers campaign been more open about saying, ‘Oh well matter of fact we don’t want new jails. That might not be such a good idea.’ But now that the politicians pretty much jumped on the bandwagon, the more abolitionist grassroots activists from Shut Down Rikers kind of fell by the wayside. They disbanded their group pretty much because you know, they, they didn’t see a reason to exist once the politicians jumped on the bandwagon. But now the only voices to speak up about the issue are the reformists pretty much the, the Close Rikers campaign. So yeah, now it’s pretty much between the reformists and the politicians going back and forth. Whereas the abolitionists, the grassroots activists, they don’t have their organizations anymore. They’re not doing events anymore and they don’t pretty much have the organizational infrastructure to really make statements like they used to.

Adam: Right.

Raven Rakia: Yeah, to clarify, the campaign to shut down Rikers disbanded, but Jails Action Coalition is still around as well as um, Critical Resistance who also spoke out against the jail. So there are still some grassroots organizations um looking at this, but um, yeah, it’s not a group dedicated to this like it was before.

Adam: Um yeah. So there’s a quote by Hassein in your piece where he says, “The only reason to build new jails is because the city is actively planning to incarcerate more people rather than actually addressing the issues that lead to incarceration.” What do you think he meant by that and what is the sort of general idea that when you build jails we’ll find ways of filling them? How much of that is sort of informing this abolitionist approach to just less prisons or no prisons?

Raven Rakia: Yeah, that’s a good question. So I can’t speak for Nabil, but in terms of that quote, the Campaign to Shut Down Rikers as well as other abolitionist groups really try to focus on the root causes that lead to incarceration, which of course can include poverty, um, capitalism, etcetera, etcetera. And so instead of building new jails they would rather the city put money towards the things that lead to jails in the first place.

Ashoka Jegroo: For example, I mean, just to make a, to do a concrete example, Mayor de Blasio when he rolled out his plan didn’t address Broken Windows and hasn’t addressed Broken Windows. Broken Windows, which is one of the main reasons why black and brown people come in contact with the police and get sent to places like Rikers Island in the first place. So in order to just say, ‘Oh, we’re going to have more community facilities, we’re gonna put them in your neighborhood, these jails, but we’re still gonna arrest you for the same damn stuff.’ Doesn’t seem to be addressing root causes. And I mean, one of the main ideas behind these abolitionist campaigns is the idea of, um, you know, divesting from prisons and police and investing in communities which is, you know, pretty much Nabil, and all a whole bunch of other abolitionists’ idea of know how you address the root causes of these, of these issues.

Adam: Ruth Wilson Gilmore has an interesting dichotomy that she advances in some of her writing, saying that that makes a distinction between what she calls revolutionary reform and reformist reform, which is to say non-reformist reform does not extend power or the reach of the prison industrial complex. Whereas we see all the time when this happened, especially in Chicago, Rahm Emanuel actually used reformist language to justify building a $95 million police academy that he was, that they were going to do training about racism. And this is, this is the sort of deeply cynical manifestation of liberalism I think someone called neo liberalism where it’s, it’s all just marketing and there’s a tension there and it’s not always easy to tell the difference. You know, I know that some of these big funders that are funding, the more, the more Democratic Party aligned, Mayor de Blasio aligned, you know, there’s always a tension there of, you know, is this something that’s good or something that’s just sort of putting a cap on it and it’s not always easy to tell what that is. And I, and I guess when you examine this specific problem, it seems like the general threat is just put no more money at the very least put no more money in prisons and jails and the police. Is that the sort of general criteria that you guys use when determining that?

Raven Rakia: That’s like the first thing we look at, is it going to give more money and or more power to cops or to the prison system or the DoC? And if the answer is yes, it’s probably, it might not be the best reform. But um, I also wanted to address when you were talking about Rahm Emanuel. I mean Mayor de Blasio does the same thing where he uses reformist language in order to put punitive measures into our jail system. And he’s been doing this for the past four years. So yeah, the, I mean that, that has been happening. And so that’s why we, we need to be careful when we’re talking about certain reforms and I think the very first question should be who is this giving money to? Who will, where will the money be going? And um, and then you go from there.

Ashoka Jegroo: And then one of the perverse things about Rahm Emanuel is I think he framed the new, the new cop academy as a community investment and stuff like that, which is really perverse as well. And it has its parallels with these, with this Rikers plan as well. Uh, one of the ideas is to, for these new community facilities, these new community jails is so, you know, put more soothing colors in the, in the jail, and to have more vocational education in these jails and to have a section for trans prisoners as well. Whereas the abolitionists obviously don’t want people in the jails to begin with. And I mean, for example, one of the people from Mayor de Blasio’s office, uh, Elizabeth Glazer from the Criminal Justice Office framed it as quote, “A critical part of that is thinking about jails not as a place that is on an island, hidden from all lives, but as part of the ebb and flow of neighborhoods and considered civic assets.” Unquote.

Adam: Wow.

Ashoka Jegroo: I mean, uh, yeah, I don’t think jail should be considered civic assets to begin with and I don’t think they should be part of the ebb and flow of the neighborhood and you know what kind of neighborhoods they’re going to put these jails in. And I don’t want uh-

Adam: Its just basically a Starbucks, you know, you just kind of go in there-

Ashoka Jegroo: Exactly, yeah. She’s literally advocating for a revolving door in front of the jails in black and brown neighborhoods. Um, and then framing it, as you know ‘This is a civic asset and you should be happy to have this.’

Adam: That’s next level cynical. I learned something new, when I think I’ve seen it all…

Raven Rakia: Yeah. I was just going say to address your question about the tensions that happened, um, with donors. And so there are some Close Rikers organizers who say they’re against jails, like Darren Mack has spoken out against the new jail. So there obviously is some tension and you really can’t tell from an outside perspective all the time how it’s working behind the scenes like who’s actually making the decisions and you know, who has the power in whatever organization. Um, I mean, so that’s just a question you always have to think about. I think yeah.

Ashoka Jegroo: And another organization needs to be called out is Perkins Eastman, which is an NYC firm who has been, um, pretty much contracted by the city to find new locations for these jails that are going to replace Rikers and allegedly known for their, you know, quote unquote “progressive” approaches to jail design or whatever. So this is really insidious stuff using faux progressive language in order to pretty much continue to perpetuate, uh, the same old nonsense that abolitionists and grassroots activists have been fighting against.

Adam: Yeah, I think it’s what a Neil Young calls “the kinder, gentler, machine gun hand.”

Ashoka Jegroo: Pretty much. Yeah. (Laughs)

Adam: Uh, this kind of segues to the next question, which is an equally, if not more sinister development, which is the expansion and the increased usage of electronic monitoring and house arrest as somehow an quote unquote “alternative” to cash bail and pretrial detention. We talked about Rikers. I know that Rikers is upwards of 90, 95 percent pretrial detention. Um like most county lockups they range between 80 and 95 percent pretrial. So these are people who are in prison who’ve done nothing, who have been convicted of nothing. People oftentimes will spend obviously years there. One gentleman has spent 30 years going in and out of Rikers and mental health facilities and he hasn’t been charged with anything. We’re going to talk about that in a later episode. Can we talk about why the siren song of electronic monitoring and house arrest is not an improvement and in many ways is actually more sinister because judges are more likely to sort of hand it out like candy and it creates a kind of moral hazard. Can we talk about that?

Raven Rakia: Yeah, for sure. So, um, to start, I think we, what we should say what’s happening now in New York, so in New York to determine whether you should go to jail or be released, um, when you’re charged with a nonviolent felony or misdemeanor, you’re given a risk assessment. And the risk assessment, um, goes over things like do you have an address where you can go to? Did someone show up to your court hearing and things like that to determine if you’re a flight risk, um, which, you know, has all sorts of issues. Obviously if you’re homeless and you don’t have an address, it kinda discriminates against you a little bit.

Adam: Right.

Raven Rakia: But um, so that determines whether people are released or not. And most people charged with misdemeanors are released. And so the Lippman Commission, which is the commission that was encouraging pretrial supervision, um, said it should be the default option for those who are charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. The problem with that is, right now the default option, at least for misdemeanors and some nonviolent felonies are being the least on your own, you know, so you don’t go to jail necessarily. It’s kind of hard to explain, but since people go in and out of Rikers so much the people in Rikers, a lot of them are on misdemeanors but a lot of people also do get released. So I think the, the biggest problem with advocating for pretrial supervision in place of money bail, is they’re now advocating it for people who usually don’t get bail right now. So it’s going to be more punitive in that sense.

Adam: Right.

Raven Rakia: And then so pretrial supervision can mean a whole bunch of things. Um, it can mean house arrest, it could mean curfews, it could just mean, um, required drug treatment. It could mean getting calls or getting someone to remind you of when your court hearing is. So the, the problem with it being so broad is the way it could be handed out, it will be, it won’t be very easy to discern who should get pretrial supervision or who shouldn’t. The power will be in the judges and the prosecutors in terms of who gets what. And so yeah, I think that’s the main reason why it should sound the alarm.

Ashoka Jegroo: And we should really try to avoid this dystopian future where we breakdown the physical prison walls, but we turn pretty much wider society into a big prison where, you know, we have to watch where we go and we have to be home by seven and we have to stay in our house all day long because we have a monitor on our leg or whatever. Um, I don’t think that’s much of an improvement over just throwing people in cages when he just turn our whole communities into cages pretty much.

Adam: Yeah, it seems like in 2013 I was at South by Southwest and I saw this panel that was talking about a future with wall-less prisons like where you don’t have prisons and it sort of seemed very warm and fuzzy and of course you read the fine print and what they want is basically just a massive surveillance state with varying degrees of, of who controls information and who were the ones being surveilled. So it’s, it’s, you know, it’s like, yes, you’ve taken the tiger out of the cage, but you’re, you look around and you’re still in the zoo.

Ashoka Jegroo: I mean just imagine whole community with just like large chunks of the, of the population being under this kind of outside of jail supervision where everyone has to watch where they’re going and what they’re doing and what they’re saying as well. I mean it would be a horribly unfree society we’d live in. And it would encourage more unfreedom in the wider society as well I think. So.

Adam: Yeah it’s super important to stress this because I think a lot of like right minded, good people are fooled by this notion of monitoring as an alternative to prison, but it’s really its super dangerous and if you talk to people who are, who are experts, who are have been on electric monitoring, yeah they’ll be the first to tell you that oftentimes it’s worse than prison and in many ways it usually makes it much easier to sort of trip up and go back to prison.

Raven Rakia: Right. Of course, if you stay out at eight and your curfew is at seven, they’re putting you back in jail. So.

Adam: Right. This kind of pivots to one major topic, which is another, again, I feel like we’re touching on a lot of these kind of Orwellian liberal sort of sensibly liberal positions, one of which is this idea of “pretrial services,” quote unquote. This has been another popular kind of buzzword, “pretrial services.” It sounds sort of good and warm and fuzzy, but it’s actually very punitive. Uh, the Chicago Community Bond Fund did a study in 2017 that found that these pretrial services, despite their kind of lofty veneer, are actually really punitive and mess up families. Full disclosure, my partner does work for them. Now that I live in Chicago, I will constantly be promoting Chicago. Um, and can we talk about what pretrial services is, how they’re packaged and what pretrial service actually means?

Raven Rakia: Yeah. So the problem is it could mean really anything.

Adam: Right.

Raven Rakia: And they don’t really specify, even in to the general public in court, it will be a specific thing. So it can mean anything from getting calls to when your next court date is to required drug treatment to drug tests, um, and if you fail the drug test, you’re probably going back to jail. So those are the three main ones I know about. And of course, as we’ve been talking about, it’s basically more surveillance over petty issues that shouldn’t be dealt with with the criminal justice system at all. So yeah, I think that’s the, the main issue with pretrial services and the fact that it’s so general, like they don’t say the specifics is a major problem as well.

Adam: So going back to Rikers, what is the present status of Rikers prison and where will Rikers such that it is, be in five years in your, in your estimation?

Raven Rakia: That’s a great question. So Rikers right now has eight open jails. They used to have ten and I believe two of them have been closed recently. Um, so Rikers is basically in the same position it’s been in for the past decade.

Ashoka Jegroo: There was a, there was a recent federal report by a monitor basically saying that even with new leadership and increased resources, Rikers is pretty much just as violent and horrible as it was as it always has been pretty much. So there hasn’t been much change except maybe, I’m not even sure, maybe reduced, I guess a slightly reduced population according to de Blasio.

Raven Rakia: Right. There is a slightly reduced population, but we also have to understand like when it comes to Rikers jail population, it usually expands in the summer and decreases in the winter. So we’ve seen de Blasio come out with numbers of a decreased population earlier this year and late last year. But it is possible that during the summer those numbers will increase again. So de Blasio for the past four years has been trying to push so called reforms on Rikers, which have mainly been more punitive units at Rikers. Like the enhanced supervision unit, I believe it’s called, where if you’ve been in a riot or you, they think you’re in a gang, um, they can put you in that unit indefinitely. So yeah, there are a little units like that happening on Rikers as well.

Ashoka Jegroo: And there’s the silly kind of liberal reforms I guess, well not, I guess not silly, but like missing the point. Like there’s a, there’s a housing unit for veterans now and there’s a housing unit for trans people now as well. I guess those are, they sound nice, but I don’t want veterans and trans people in the prison to begin with in such a horrible torture chamber that Rikers is to begin with. So.

Adam: Right. So you write quote, “These reforms mainly focus on speeding up the process of putting someone through the system and improving their experience–not stopping people from getting in contact with the system in the first place.” What do you mean by that?

Raven Rakia: Yeah, so the main way that people get to Rikers is they are first arrested by the NYPD. And so de Blasio’s plan to close Rikers does not mention policing or the NYPD whatsoever. It mentions ways to speed up people’s trial court dates. Um, it mentions ways to get parole violators more quickly to state prisons and out of Rikers. So it mentions things like this, but they don’t mention the aggressive policing the NYPD does on a daily basis and how that affects the numbers at Rikers. Um, so that’s basically what we were pointing out.

Ashoka Jegroo: Yeah, like, like I said before, um de Blasio hasn’t said a word about ending Broken Windows. And I think he has pretty much an interest in perpetuating Broken Windows because he’s the guy who hired, of course, Bill Bratton, who was a, you know, a big pioneer and big lobbyist for Broken Windows and the NYPD pretty much still kind of runs New York all they have to do is turn their back one time on Mayor de Blasio and they get what they want and they like Broken Windows. They like being able to arrest people for jumping the turnstile or you know, smoking some weed in public or whatever. I’m not sure I will see de Blasio ever really address that. All he’ll do is, you know, these kind of window dressing reforms.

Adam: Yeah. It also doesn’t help that the NYPD runs the security detail for the mayor.

Ashoka Jegroo: (Laughs) Yeah, that too.

Adam: There’s a very good historical reason why the US military doesn’t run security for the president because the person who runs your security, it’s hard for you to give them orders traditionally.

Raven Rakia: And to be specific, the reason why we keep bringing up Broken Windows is because it basically criminalizes poverty. It goes after people for low-level offenses and it’s mainly people who can’t afford to pay for the subway, etcetera, etcetera.

Adam: Yeah. For those who aren’t familiar with, with what Broken Windows is, it’s a general philosophy of heavily criminalizing what we would generally considered to be petty or trivial offenses. The science behind it has been totally debunked, but basically what it is is a kind of Upper Westside cocktail-party-friendly way of saying we’re just going to throw black and brown people in prison for arbitrary reasons.

Ashoka Jegroo: Exactly.

Adam: Because it had a bunch of pseudoscience attached to it. Now that pseudoscience has kind of fallen apart, but it doesn’t matter. It’s still policy because the goal is to just create a regime where you basically get people on the grid early and often.

Ashoka Jegroo: And the NYPD actively lobbies for Broken Windows as well. I mean, whenever it gets brought up, uh, you know, you’ll see, Bill Bratton used to always of course lobby for it and his, his handpicked successor James O’Neill always lobbies for being able to, you know, arrest people for these petty offenses.

Adam: Yeah. So before we go, can we talk about what organizations in ya’lls estimation are doing good work in this space, both in terms of Rikers and Broken Windows?

Raven Rakia: So there’s a coalition to end Broken Windows, which is a coalition of multiple organizations including Why Accountability, um, the Police Reform Organizing Project and many others and they do a swipe it forward campaign where they raise money to swipe people into the subways free of charge during rush hours. Um, so that’s a great organization working against Broken Windows. And then against Rikers Jails Action Coalition has been doing work for years. They’re, they’re part of the main group that push to limit punitive segregation, which is solitary confinement in Rikers even though de Blasio took credit for that, it was mainly done before he was even in office by the Jails Action Coalition.

Ashoka Jegroo: Um, and, and yeah, I mean there’s obviously the activist groups on the ground doing a lot of work. I mean like NYC Shut It Down is always out there protesting against these types of policies and against police murders of black and brown people.


Adam: Alright. Thank you so much guys. That was really great.

Ashoka Jegroo: Thanks.

Raven Rakia: Yeah, thank you.

Adam: Thank you to Ash Jegroo and Raven Rakia. That was exceptionally informative. Definitely check out their work if you can at Thank you so much for listening. You can find us on Twitter @TheAppealPod and on Facebook at The Appeal Podcast. The show is produced by Florence Barrau-Adams. The executive producer is Sarah Leonard. I’m your host Adam Johnson. Thank you so much for joining us.

More in Podcasts