The Pen Hustle With Brandy Cavalli

‘The Legend of Shorty’ Film to Document the Life of Mexican Drug Lord El Chapo Guzman

Will Mexican drug lord Joaquín El Chapo Guzmán become more famous now that he is behind bars than when he was hiding in secret tunnels and sewers? It’s hard to tell, but two weeks after his headline-grabbing arrest in Mexico, a new documentary about the life of this nearly mythical figure made its world premiere at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in Austin, Texas.

According to those who have watched The Legend Of Shorty, a 90 minute British documentary co-directed by British filmmaker Angus MacQueen and Peruvian journalist Guillermo Galdós, the film is a blend of mythology and hard facts. The Guardian’s film critic Henry Barnes wrote that The Legend of Shorty follows MacQueen and Galdós as they head out on their own investigation into the whereabouts of the world’s biggest drug dealer. “With extraordinary access to the cartel the pair travel to Mexico’s Golden Triangle, bear witness to the batch-loads of cocaine, meth and marijuana being prepared for transport and take part in long, often surreal meetings with Chapo’s inner circle, including a lunch date with his mum,” Barnes wrote.

McQueen told Spain’s Efe wire service that they didn’t think their lives were in danger when they were filming, because they are foreigners. There is a general belief that foreign nationals, whether tourists or otherwise, tend to be less physically vulnerable than Mexican nationals.

It is not clear if MacQueen and Galdós tried and failed to interview El Chapo before he was caught. In any event, the Mexican Navy and the DEA beat them to it when they found the drug lord still in bed at an oceanfront condominium in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, his home state, in the early hours of February 22. The arrest put an end to an international manhunt that has made a mockery of U.S. and Mexican law-enforcement over the past 13 years.

Barnes writes that the film’s directors recruited songwriter Jackson Scott to compose folk songs in English and Spanish telling tales about the past of one the world’s richest outlaws: “We hear how Chapo escaped from a maximum security prison by hiding in a laundry cart, we watch the film-makers compare the kingpin to Zorro, racing through the countryside, answering the call of the common man.”

In an effort to balance what appears to be a friendly portrait of the man responsible for introducing 25% of the illegal drugs into the U.S. market –including 50% of the heroine– the film discusses the bloody war on drugs and the 80,000 deaths that have resulted from it. Mexican journalist Anabel Hernández, author of Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and Their Godfathers, offers “a vital counter-point to the intoxicating legend”, as Barnes puts it, by accusing the Mexican government of protecting El Chapo while he turned his business into a word-wide criminal empire that has no precedent in history.

Barnes calls The Legend of Shorty “an impressive film” and says that El Chapo’s unexpected arrest does not annul its purpose: “To suggest so is to assume that El Chapo’s empire is locked up with the man. That a corporation shuts down because the CEO is absent.”

On that, Barnes has a point. There seems to be a wide consensus, both inside and outside Mexico, that El Chapo’s arrest will change little. “He will have a laptop, [his prison] will turn into a hotel, and he will return to running the cartel from there,” a senior DEA official told The Guardian last month. “That is not something he has to build – it is something he already has.”

Since 2009, El Chapo has been included in Forbes’ World’s Most Powerful People list.

Originally posted on Forbes.com

How Utah Solved Chronic Homelessness And Saved Millions

The story of how Utah solved chronic homelessness begins in 2003, inside a cavernous Las Vegas banquet hall populated by droves of suits. The problem at hand was seemingly intractable. The number of chronic homeless had surged since the early 1970s. And related costs were soaring. A University of Pennsylvania study had just showed New York City was dropping a staggering $40,500 in annual costs on every homeless person with mental problems, who account for many of the chronically homeless. So that day, as officials spit-balled ideas, a social researcher named Sam Tsemberis stood to deliver what he framed as a surprisingly simple, cost-effective method of ending chronic homelessness.

Give homes to the homeless.

Tsemberis’ research, conducted here in the District and in New York City, showed this wouldn’t just dramatically cut the number of chronically homeless on the streets. It would also slash spending in the long run. In the audience sat a Utah businessman named Lloyd Pendleton. He had just taken over the Utah Housing Task Force after a successful run in business. He was intrigued. “He came over to me and he said, ‘I finally just heard something that make sense to me,’” recalled Tsemberis in an interview. “‘Would you be willing to come to Utah and work with us?’”

That conversation spawned what has been perhaps the nation’s most successful — and radical — program to end chronic homelessness. Now, more than a decade later, chronic homelessness in one of the nation’s most conservative states may soon end. And all of it is thanks to a program that at first seems stripped from the bleeding-heart manual. In 2005, Utah had nearly 1,932 chronically homeless. By 2014, that number had dropped 72 percent to 539. Today, explained Gordon Walker, the director of the state Housing and Community Development Division, the state is “approaching a functional zero.” Next week, he said, they’re set to announce what he called “exciting news” that would guarantee an “even bigger headline,” but declined to elaborate further.

How Utah accomplished this didn’t require complex theorems or statistical models. But it did require the suspension of what had been conventional wisdom. For years, the thought of simply giving the homeless homes seemed absurd, constituting the height of government waste. Many chronically homeless, after all, are victims of severe trauma and significant mental health and addiction issues. Many more have spent thousands of nights on the streets and are no longer familiar with home-living. Who, in their right mind, would willingly give such folk brand new houses without any proof of marked improvement?

But that’s exactly what Utah did. “If you want to end homelessness, you put people in housing,” Walker said in an interview. “This is relatively simple.”

The nuts and bolts: First the state identified the homeless that experts would consider chronically homeless. That designation means they have a disabling condition and have been homeless for longer than a year, or four different times in the last three years. Among the many subgroups of the homeless community — such as homeless families or homeless children — the chronically homeless are both the most difficult to reabsorb into society and use the most public resources. They wind up in jail more often. They’re hospitalized more often. And they frequent shelters the most. In all, before instituting Housing First, Utah was spending on average $20,000 on each chronically homeless person.

So, to in part cut those costs — but also to “save lives,” Walker said — the state started setting up each chronically homeless person with his or her own house. Then it got them counseling to help with their demons. Such services, the thinking went, would afford them with safety and security that experts say is necessary to re-acclimate to modern life. Homelessness is stressful. It’s nearly impossible, most experts agree, to get off drugs or battle mental illness while undergoing such travails.

So in 2004, as part of trial run, the state housed 17 people throughout Salt Lake City. Then they checked back a year later. Fourteen were still in their homes. Three were dead. The success rate had topped 80 percent, which to Walker “sounded pretty good.”

It’s now years later. And these days, Walker says the state saves $8,000 per homeless person in annual expenses. “We’ve saved millions on this,” Walker said, though the state hasn’t tallied the exact amount.

He conceded, however, that “it’s not that simple” everywhere.

Like in the District, home to soaring rent prices and inhabited by 1,785 chronically homeless people. The city has dabbled in this program, which it calls permanent supportive housing, since 2008. And in the first three years, the District added more than 1,200 new units. In 2010 alone, nearly 600 were built. But since, that number has plummeted. In 2012, only 121 were built, though the Mayor Muriel Bowser’s new budget has made the program a larger priority. The budget would provide such permanent housing to 250 individuals and 110 families, said Kate Coventry of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

But according to Walker, a self-described fiscal conservative, inconsistency can kill something like Housing First. “We used the Housing First model, but we haven’t deviated from our focus.” he said. “When we started it back in ’04 and ‘o5, we didn’t know this would end, but we committed to it.”

And now, the chronic homeless are no longer tallied in numbers. They’re tallied by name. The last few are awaiting their houses. “One woman had been on the street for a long time, until we finally convinced her to come into our housing,” Walker said. “She didn’t trust it, and she put her collection of stuff on the bed. Then for the next two weeks, she slept on the floor. … But once she realized that we weren’t going to take this from her, that she had a lock, she had a mailbox, she started to reacclimate.”

Terrance McCoy see more on Washington Post

Most Americans Support The Death Penalty

A majority of Americans support the death penalty, even though that level of support has been dropping fairly consistently for about two decades.

However, while there are sizable differences in how various groups view capital punishment — with big gaps divided by gender, race and political views — Americans seem to agree on one thing: There is still some risk that an innocent person will be put to death.

A new Pew Research Center poll found that seven in 10 Americans feel this way, with just a quarter of people saying there are enough safeguards in the system to prevent the execution of an innocent person.

This feeling is remarkably consistent among every group of people, even as there are solid divides found in the way people of different races and with different political beliefs view the system.

Yet regardless of other disputes over the death penalty, everyone seems to agree that the country’s capital punishment system carries with it an inherent risk of executing the innocent. Majorities of every group polled by Pew agreed that there is a danger that this will happen.

Death penalty opponents point to this danger as one of the main reasons they object to the practice. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said earlier this year he opposes the death penalty because “the ultimate nightmare” is that someone will be executed in error. And because death sentences are handed out as part of a system that ultimately relies on the judgments of human beings — people can, and do, make mistakes — such a failure is “inevitable,” he said.

“There’s always the possibility that mistakes will be made,” Holder said. “Mistakes and determinations made by juries, mistakes in terms of the kind of representation somebody facing a capital offense receives….There is no ability to correct a mistake where somebody has, in fact, been executed.”

This concept — an innocent person who is still found guilty and given the most severe sentence possible — is obviously not theoretical. Since the early 1970s, more than 150 people sentenced to death have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Meanwhile, a record 125 people were exonerated in the United States last year, and six of those people had been sentenced to death, the National Registry of Exonerations said in its report.

In Louisiana last month, a former prosecutor publicly apologized for helping put a man who turned out to be innocent on death row. The prosecutor argued that the situation with Glenn Ford, the exonerated man who was eventually released, showed how easily the system could be manipulated by an eager prosecutor and questionable evidence.

“This case shows why the death penalty is just an abomination,” Marty Stroud, the former prosecutor, told The Post last month. “The system failed Mr. Ford, and I was part of the system.” He added: “All it is is state-assisted revenge. We can’t do it. It’s arbitrary, it’s capricious. And I believe that it’s barbaric.”

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by Texas in 2004, remains both in the news and in the court system. Willingham was put to death for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Yet fresh doubts linger in this particular case more than a decade later, as the jailhouse informant who testified against Willingham later said he lied on the witness stand to reduce his own prison sentence. The prosecutor in the case was formally accused of misconduct in court last month.

It may seem odd that so many people would support the death penalty while also acknowledging that innocent people could very well be put to death. Part of that may be accepting the inherent risk that accompanies something as irreversible as death, but a part of it may also simply be that people are not paying that much attention to capital punishment. Executions in this country are generally carried out at night inside heavily guarded prisons with just a small handful of witnesses, so the public rarely takes note of them.

Nearly half of Americans told Pew they think the number of people put to death has remained steady or increased over the last decade. In reality, the number of executions has fallen in recent years, dipping last year to the lowest number in two decades. As we noted last year, support for the death penalty did not really budge after high-profile botched executions, and it was unclear how many people paid much attention to these incidents or the people who were exonerated.

So why do people still support it? Well, most people — a little more than six in 10 — say that the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder. About half as many people say it is morally wrong. The same number of people who think it is morally justified also do not believe that the death penalty can deter serious crimes.

Among people who do support the death penalty, nine out of 10 of them say it is morally justified in cases like murder. That is far and away the largest gap among the four categories viewed in the graphic above, highlighting what would appear to be the biggest gulf between supporters and opponents.

As for who actually supports the death penalty and who is opposed to it: More men support it than women (64 percent to 49 percent), a gap that has grown significantly over just the last four years, as more women have turned against it.

There is also a considerable divide among people over whether or not the death penalty is racially imbalanced.

A majority of white people support the death penalty (63 percent support, 33 percent opposition), basically a flipped image of the way black people feel about the issue (34 percent support, 57 percent opposition). Hispanic people are more evenly split, but opposition (47 percent) narrowly edges out support (45 percent) among them; they aren’t as opposed to it as black people, but they are not nearly as supportive as white people.

Still, about half of people overall think minorities are more likely to get a death sentence than a white person who committed a similar crime. Death-penalty opponents are very likely to view the system as being racially unfair: Seven in 10 opponents say the sentencing is racially unfair, while about four in 10 supporters say the same thing.

Among black people, these opinions are even more pronounced, as more than three-quarters of black respondents told Pew white people are less likely to receive the death penalty. Meanwhile, white people are split between that opinion and seeing no racial disparity.

This is also the area where the biggest split can be seen based on a person’s level of formal education. While support for or opposition to the death penalty is not that dramatically different for people who have graduated from college versus those did not, college graduates are much more likely to think the death penalty is racially imbalanced (60 percent) than people who did not attend college (44 percent).

Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to think that white people are less likely to get a death sentence. This has accompanied a big overall shift in the way Democrats view the issue. In 2011, more Democrats said they supported the death penalty (49 percent) than opposed it (43 percent). Now, after a big swing in opinion, a majority of them oppose the death penalty (56 percent), while a smaller number support it (40 percent).

Opinions among Republicans are basically the same over the same period (a little more than three-quarters of them support it), while most independents still support it (a number that dipped to 57 percent now from 64 percent then).

Washington Post