c.1997 San Francisco Examiner
SAN FRANCISCO—Glenn Guesa took a last look around theencampment that the state is forcing him to leave and spoke of howpeaceful life is under the droning of cars on the Bay Bridge.
``When you finally find a place you can go to, where you cansleep and you don't get hassled, you like to stay,'' said Guesa,31, who's been living on a patch of dirt under the Fremont Streetoff-ramp for about a year. ``I'd like to stay.''
He's not likely to get his wish. On Tuesday, the stateDepartment of Transportation was to begin clearing out Guesa andthe encampment's half-dozen other homeless denizens.
The department has launched what it promises will be a citywidesweep of its property, breaking up homeless encampments that itsays have created safety and cleanliness problems.
``The amount of complaints we've had about homeless encampmentsand the problems we've had have reached a threshold where we'llhave to do something about it in a more systematic way,''Department of Transportation spokesman Jeff Weiss said Monday.
City Health Department officials say the campaign could force500 people from their makeshift homes. And homeless advocatesmaintain that driving people out of from under freeway ramps willonly force them into other public places and overcrowded shelters.
``It doesn't make sense,'' said Judy Appel, staff attorney forthe Coalition on Homelessness. ``If you move 500 people out, whereare they going to go? They're going to go to city parks and citystreets. That's not going to solve anything.''
City officials say the sweep is a result of complaints frommotorists, city residents and transportation workers abouteverything from litter at encampments to indecent exposure alongroadways.
The department says some homeless people on its property havedestroyed vegetation, damaged fences, removed traffic signs andharassed maintenance workers.
``Some members of the encampments can be very aggressive,''Weiss said. ``We've had to curtail some maintenance projectsbecause of some aggressive inhabitants.''
In some areas, Weiss said, homeless have been known to pushtheir shopping carts onto streets, endangering motorists andthemselves.
``It's just not safe to have people jaywalking on freewayoff-ramps,'' Weiss said. ``It's pushing our liability too far.''
The department has a hit list of 13 sites. Weiss did notdisclose all of them, but said three would be cleaned out in thenext few weeks.
The department announced its intentions at a meeting Monday ofhomeless advocates, public health officials and representatives ofMayor Brown.
Brown aides say they've been working as a buffer between thedepartment and homeless advocates, but that they don't have muchsay in the department's decision.
``If it's their land, it's their land,'' spokesman P.J. Johnstonsaid. ``If they want to invoke their property rights, they can dothat.''
Johnston said that instead of fighting the decision, the mayorwould push to make sure the homeless get adequate notice and haveplaces to go when they're displaced. He admits it won't be easy.
``Obviously, there is a shortage of beds (in the city) as thereis in virtually every city in the country,'' Johnston said. ``Thatwill be a challenge.''
Homeless in the city already face waiting lists of six monthsfor some shelter beds and of one to several years for single roomsand affordable apartments. Given the shortage of beds, homelessadvocates say, freeway underpasses aren't the worst option.
``Living under a bridge isn't a long-term solution, but giventhat we don't have enough housing, moving them out just magnifiesthe problem,'' Appel said.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano criticized the department'sdecision-making process, saying the department failed to look atthe long-term implications of its campaign.
``Is Caltrans (the Department of Transportation) making thisdecision in a vacuum?'' Ammiano asked. ``Do they have places torelocate these people? Do they know how many of these homeless arewomen and children?''
Health Department officials, who have been making regular housecalls at the camps, said the move could complicate their job.
``If they disperse them, we lose our ability to work with thehomeless to address their medical needs,'' said Marian Pena,director of the Homeless Death Prevention Project. ``If theydisappear, it will wind up costing more because they'll wind up inemergency rooms.''
Pena said the best way to get the homeless to clean up theirencampments is simply to ask them to do so.
``The people who are there are willing to help out,'' she said.``We're willing to help out. The Department of Public Works iswilling to help address these issues.''
Charles, a homeless resident of the Rincon Hill area for severalyears, said he doubted the crackdown would change much.
``The cops will come and move and everyone out,'' he said. ``Amonth later, it will go back to the way it was before.''
c.1997 The Boston Globe
<
A day after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled thatpersons accused of crimes against children must confront theirvictims in a courtroom, prosecutors said the ruling could have a``chilling effect'' on child abuse cases.
But they also said that the SJC's decision in the Amirault casewasn't a big surprise.
Since 1991 or 1992, prosecutors have anticipated the ruling andno longer shield child witnesses in the courtroom, said MarthaCoakley, former chief of the child abuse unit in the districtattorney's office.
As a result, the appellate decision probably won't directlyderail any pending criminal cases. Local prosecutors said theyhave, for most of this decade, used standard courtroom seatingarrangments when victims called to testify are children.
On Monday, the court ruled 6-1 to reinstate the trials of73-year-old Violet Amirault, her son Gerald^@``Tooky'' Amirault,42, and daughter Cheryl Amirault LeFave, 38.
The SJC said their trials were constitututionally flawed becausethey could not confront their young accusers in the courtroom.Special seating arrangements spared the children from facing theAmiraults on the witness stand.
But the court upheld the Amiraults' convictions and prisonsentences because they effectively waived their right to have thechildren face them by not raising the issue at trial.
The Amiraults were convicted of abusing children at their FellsAcres Day School in Malden, Mass. in the mid-1980s. The childrensaid the family sexually abused them, then slaughtered live animalsto scare them into silence.
Supporters of the Amiraults say police never found evidence ofabuse, and that authorities and parents may have influenced thechildren.
The impact of Monday's decision is likely to be felt for years.
According to a national study last September by the USDepartment of Health and Human Services, the number of children whowere sexually abused has increased by 83 percent. In 1986, 119,200children were reported sexually abused, but by 1993 the total hadgrown to 217,700.
The national study also found that girls are three times morelikely to be sexually abused than boys, and that the danger beginsfor children at age three.
The Massachusetts Department of Social Services statistics showa steady decline in the number of sexual abuse cases which theagency uncovers, then reports to law enforcement. In 1991, the DSSreported 1,978 referrals, compared with 1,017 cases referred lastyear.
Still, several district attorneys interviewed Tuesday agreedthat the number of child abuse cases reported from sources otherthan DSS was up or holding steady
Essex District Attorney Kevin M. Burke said it's been yearssince prosecutors in his office have used special seatingarrangement for child witnesses. Most prosecutors want ``a witnessto sit in jury box and tell a story,'' Burke said.
Only a small percentage of abuse cases reach trial, he said,because children often aren't effective witnesses. They're tooyoung, too immature or emotionally traumatized, and in some cases,``the big problem is getting (the kids) to cooperate,'' Burke said.
District Attorney Jeffrey A. Locke said the court's ruling willhave little effect on his office because prosecutors have not triedany cases where the witnesses didn't face the accused.
Still, the ruling ``does have some chilling effect on childrenthat cannot deal with having to look the person who has abused themthe eye,'' Locke said. ``That is a lot to ask of a child. Thosecases case will have to go by the wayside.''
District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr. was more vehement. He calledthe SJC ruling on courtroom seating arrangements ``hairsplitting''and ``nitpicking.''
Carried to its logical extreme, ``the chief justice of theSupreme Judicial Court would be coming down into the courtroomarranging the the seats,'' Walsh said. Seating and protecting avulnerable witness ``should be left to the discretion of the trialjudge.''
^@District Attorney Ralph C. Martin 2d said the SJC haseffectively raised the standard of prosecuting child abuse.
The ruling ``will give us another factor to weigh very seriouslywhen we make the ultimate decision about whether or not a child canwithstand the rigors of a trial.''
Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page
If you have any questions or comments please email: