Monthly Archives: March 2017

In honor of Womens History Month this March, we are highlighting books featuring the numerous contributions and achievements of women, past and present.

The A.K. Smiley Public Library has a great selection of books to choose from portraying women from many countries and distinct backgrounds who have each made a mark on history, through talent, hard work and determination to make life better. Here are just a few suggestions to consider.

Born in 1865, growing up on the Omaha Indian reservation, Susan La Flesche, at age 24, became the first Native American woman doctor in U.S. history. A Warrior of the People: How Susan La Flesche Overcame Racial and Gender Inequality to Become Americas First Indian Doctor by Joe Starita tells the story of this remarkable woman.

Although experiencing countless obstacles, like government oppression, prejudice and balancing white and Native cultures, La Flesche chose to pursue a medical career. She was accepted at the Womens Medical College of Pennsylvania, graduated at the top of her class in 1889 and returned to the reservation as a physician, providing a much-needed service to her community.

La Flesche spent her life dedicated to treating more than 1,200 patients with a range of health issues, such as tuberculosis and smallpox. She also worked on educating her community about hygiene, food contamination and alcoholism, improving quality of life for her people. In 1913, two years before her death, she fulfilled her dream of opening a hospital on the reservation.

La Flesche was a trailblazer and a role model and her contributions to the Native American people were immeasurable.

A memoir that puts you in direct range of air battle, Danger Close: My Epic Journey as a Combat Helicopter Pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan by Amber Smith, is a gripping read. Coming from a family in which both parents and sisters were pilots and where the family farm had a grass airstrip in the backyard, Smith knew that aviation was in her future.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks and with various family members having served their country, Smith was compelled to sign up with the military. To become a pilot, all of the branches required a college degree, which she was still working on, with one exception the Army. They would allow her to continue working on her degree while training.

But there was one caveat shed be joining as a helicopter pilot and the only experience she had so far had been flying fixed-winged aircraft.

This is the story of her time as a U.S. Army Kiowa helicopter pilot, her training, deployments and combats. She describes her service in the 101st Airborne Division, the Screaming Eagles, as a reconnaissance pilot, assisting and supporting ground forces and flying close to the enemy while under fire. Enjoy this inspiring book of a patriotic and courageous woman.

Advertisement

Growing up in Pakistan in the 90s, in a village where girls were expected to stay indoors and not participate in sports, Maria, at a young age was determined to pursue her love of the outdoors. So, at age 4, she cut her hair, wore shorts and eventually starting living as a boy.

A Different Kind of Daughter: The Girl Who Hid from the Taliban in Plain Sight by Maria Toorpakai tells the story a girl who, despite the threats and danger involved, disguised herself as a boy to be able to follow her passion of playing sports. She initially trained and competed in weightlifting, later becoming enthralled with the sport of squash.

Ultimately, the truth of her gender became known, causing trouble and considerable harassment, even death threats.

Read the story of a woman who, despite adversity, became a professional athlete, rising to No. 1 as a female squash player from Pakistan.

Jill Martinson is a library specialist at the A.K. Smiley Public Library in Redlands.

Read the original here:

What's New at the AK Smiley Public Library: Check out books about women's achievements - Redlands Daily Facts

The Oregon legislature is considering a bill that could re-enshrine juries to the their former place as the last line of defense against legalized despotism.

Senate Bill 924, introduced by state Senator Kim Thatcher, mandates that judges must provide very particular instructions to juries in felony cases. Prior to giving a case to a jury for their consideration, judges must issue them the following instruction:

As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty even if you find that the state has proven the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should a judge fail to provide the requisite instruction, the bill provides that such failure constitutes a mistrial.

Before one is able to understand why jury nullification is a good idea, one must understand the importance of a trial by jury. Our Founding Fathers universally considered it to be a powerful weapon in the war against tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

InThe Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that trial by jury was the very palladium of free government and a valuable check upon corruption.

Hamiltons fellowFederalist author and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay informed a jury in a 1794 case that:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

Given the strength of these opinions, then, it is no surprise that the denial of trials by jury was one of the foremost acts of despotism listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

As for the concept that juries have not only the power but the obligation to nullify unjust rulings of a judge, John Adams wrote, It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

And Hamilton, again from The Federalist Papers, described the jurys check on the judge as a double security that tends to preserve the purity of both judge and jury.

Obviously, the idea that juries may act contrary to the will of a judge is nothing new in American law, and in fact it is an act of resistance to government oppression that our Founders believed to be fundamental in a Republic that was to remain free under the rule of law, rather than enslaved according to the rule of men.

As indicated by the statements provided above, our Founding Fathers zealously defended this right and recognized that only an informed and empowered jury could effectively protect a defendant from the potentially harmful effects of autocratic judges.

Such staunch opposition to official overreach is to be expected from our Founding Fathers, but even during the hedonistic days of Summer of Love the U.S. Supreme Court held that undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. (U.S. v. Moylan, 1969).

Only a year ago, during a speech she delivered at New York University, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor came out in favor of encouraging juries to exercise the demands of their consciences in refusing to accept a judges interpretation of a law.

There is a place, I think, for jury nullification finding the balance in that and the role judges should play, Sotomayor said, commenting on the Second Circuits decision to excuse a juror based on a suspicion that he was practicing jury nullification by refusing to find a suspect guilty.In its ruling, the Second Circuit wrote, We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.

The Second Circuits statement notwithstanding, support for this layer of protection from systematic despotism is strengthening. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is an organization devoted to educating Americans on the benefits of jury nullification. On their website, FIJA explains why jury nullification is not only a good idea, but one supported by constitutional principles of freedom from tyranny:

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.

Despite all this, theWashington Times reported in 2013 that jury nullification proponents in Florida and New Jersey have been arrested and charged with jury tampering for distributing handbills at the courthouse that essentially publish the text of the New Hampshire law.

In an editorial, the Times sees such persecution as a prime example of the need for jury nullification in the fight against government oppression:

This demonstrates clearly the responsibility of juries to serve as a check against judges and prosecutors who may think theyre the last word in all matters of the law. Respect for the law and the courts is necessary for the good of all in a free society, and sometimes, as the number of frivolous and oppressive laws multiply, a little nullification can be a tonic, and a reminder to the lawyers, including judges, of whos really the boss.

Naysayers notwithstanding, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury. This means that the government must bring its case before a jury of the people if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. In defense of those unalienable rights, indeed, as the last line of defense, jurors can reject government tyranny by refusing to convict those subjected to prosecution for violating unjust laws.

Americans should be especially zealous proponents of any method of dismantling institutional abuse of authority, as this is the precise spark rejection of royal usurpation of power where none was granted by the people that set off the powder keg of war in 1775.

As of press time, the Oregon bill awaits consideration by the state Senates Judiciary Committee.

Read more here:

Oregon Bill Would Restore Power of Juries to Vote Their Consciences - The New American