Cullman Times. March 21, 2024.

Editorial: Important new Alabama tool helps track convicted offenders of violent crimes

Coping with trauma after a violent incident can trigger long-lasting effects. This is true even when the perpetrator has been convicted and sentenced to prison. Years in the making, a new state one-stop website now offers a measure of security and information to those who have been victims of violent and other crimes and wish to keep track of their offender.

Developed in conjunction with input from law, legal and court task forces, and entities such as VOCAL and MADD, the Alabama Victim Notification System is a new tool that will allow crime victims to receive notice of parole hearings and other changes in an inmate’s status or custody. That information will include such things as an upcoming parole or pardon hearing; or an Alabama Department of Correction inmate’s participation in work release, furlough, leave or mandatory supervised release.

A two-week soft launch in March saw thousands of Alabamians utilizing the new portal with success. Now, the site is being made to all crime victims and the public who can choose how they wish to be notified, either by text or email. In an important addition, the site can also eschew computer or phone notifications and send the information to a registered user by the US mail.

Although there are currently other monitoring sites available, the VNS will serve as Alabama’s automated notification system so that victims don’t have to register with multiple state agencies. Notifications will not include specific information about the inmate, but instead will provide a link to that to the official notice on the website.

It’s important to note that VNS is only for offenders who have been convicted and sentenced to ADOC custody, but if this applies to your situation you can register now at victims.alabama.gov.

___

Decatur Daily. March 23, 2024.

Editorial: Alabama’s anti-DEI law may be impossible to enforce

Reining in the excesses of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be called for, but Alabama’s newly signed law banning DEI programs in state institutions — including schools — seems like a case of legislating with a hammer when perhaps a scalpel is the more appropriate tool.

The bill passed by the state Legislature and signed into law this week by Gov. Kay Ivey will, as summarized by The Associated Press, “prohibit universities, K-12 school systems and state agencies from sponsoring DEI programs, defined under the bill as classes, training, programs and events where attendance is based on a person’s race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation.”

Already, this seems confusing. If indeed biological sex is a real thing, as opponents of “gender identity” ideology often stress, might there not be situations where certain programs are best geared toward one or the other sex? For example, sexual harassment training?

The bill also bans any training session “that advocates for or requires assent” to any of eight “divisive concepts,” including, according to the text of the bill, the idea that “any individual should accept, acknowledge, affirm, or assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”

This seems straightforward enough. Original sin, after all, is a religious concept, and state institutions shouldn’t be in the business of promoting a secularized version of it.

Other concepts banned as divisive, however, seem open to debate. One is the idea people might be “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”

Agree or disagree with that claim, it is at least an empirical statement: It’s either true or it’s not, which sets it apart from the idea people deserve either blame or praise for the actions of their ancestors. Not all things lumped under the umbrella of DEI are created equal.

Some things included in the DEI ban law don’t have anything to do with DEI at all, but instead press other culture war buttons.

The law contains a bathroom provision, requiring that colleges and universities ensure people use restroom facilities that correspond with their biological sex at birth and not simply their present gender identity. How would this even be enforced? Will officers be stationed outside restroom facilities and be empowered to peek inside the pants of anyone who needs to go? What about transgender people who have undergone reassignment surgery?

This seems like a provision that will mostly lead to lawsuits and/or punitive measures taken against the state’s colleges.

Just because it seems an easy matter — and a no-brainer — to keep biological males from participating in girls school sports, doesn’t mean it’s just as easy to monitor restroom use.

In substance, the anti-DEI law seems a mixed bag. In practice, it may be impossible to enforce. Ultimately, the state Legislature seems ill-equipped to fight most of these cultural battles.

END