Washington Post – dwkcommentaries

Washington Post Calls for Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison

In the following January 15 Editorial, the Washington Post called flor closing the U. S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[1]

“President Joe Biden is set to leave office Monday as the third president to try — and fail — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This ugly symbol of one of the most regrettable policies in recent American history will persist into another administration, and very likely beyond.”

“President George W. Bush opened Guantánamo at the height of the “war on terror” and quickly filled it with 780 men. After belatedly realizing that its existence had become a terrorist recruiting tool and a blight on America’s global standing as a beacon of justice, Bush wanted to close it but settled for reducing the population to 242 inmates. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to close the prison, but once elected he was stymied by Congress, managing only to reduce its population to 40. President Donald Trump, in his first term, pledged to keep the prison running and fill it with “some bad dudes,” but added no prisoners.”

“Biden deserves credit for bringing Guantánamo’s inmate population down to 15. This month, in the largest-ever transfer of detainees, 11 Yemeni men were sent to Oman. This followed the movement in December of two detainees to Malaysia and one to Kenya.”

“The remaining prisoners are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. There is also one Palestinian and one stateless Rohingya Muslim who was captured by Pakistani troops near the Afghanistan border in 2001.”

“The inmate population might have been reduced further in August, had Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin not stepped in at the last moment to nix a plea deal with three men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi had agreed to plead guilty before a military commission hearing their cases in exchange for the government taking the death penalty off the table. The men would have served life in prison instead. Austin’s decision to revoke the plea deal was inexplicable — he would have, or should have, known about it long before it became public — and can only be marked down to the political calendar; the presidential election was three months away, and the families of the 9/11 victims might have been outraged by a deal that spared the lives of some of the terror plot’s masterminds. Austin’s decision was overturned by a military judge, and the deal is now stalled.”

“Biden also could have moved more quickly early in his term if he had made emptying Guantánamo a higher priority — as might have been expected from a president who said “democracy promotion” was a core tenet of his foreign policy. Keeping inmates detained for decades in a parallel legal structure, without charges, after many were subjected to torture and denied basic due process (the presumption of innocence and speedy trials, for instance) contradicts core principles of American justice. For 23 years, Guantánamo’s dark stain has hampered America’s ability to honestly condemn other countries for using arbitrary detention and torture, and for denying basic human rights for the accused.”

“Opening Guantánamo was a mistake from the start, and presidents since Bush can be blamed for not correcting it. But Congress has thrown up obstacles. Biden and Obama were both hamstrung by foolish legislation that tightly restricted detainee transfers to other countries and altogether prohibited sending them to prisons on U.S. soil because of specious concerns about security. Federal prisons already hold convicted terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes called the 20th hijacker.”

“Leaving only 15 detainees in Guantánamo Bay at an estimated cost of about $500 million a year — $33 million per prisoner — exposes the absurdity of keeping the prison open at all.”

“Abuse of detainees during wars or periods of mass trauma is tragically common. Think of the forced relocation and imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. But it is left to future leaders to acknowledge and correct such wrongs. President-elect Trump, who signed an executive order in 2018 to keep Guantánamo open, has expressed no interest in closing it. But in 2019 he did acknowledge that the cost of maintaining the prison was “crazy.” If he is now serious about wanting to improve government efficiency, he should work toward transferring the remaining inmates to secure federal prisons.”

Conclusion. Give thanks to the Washington Post for this Editorial.

=========================

[1] Editorial, After 23 shameful years, close Guantanamo, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 2025).

Support for Immigration from Nicholas Eberstadt and George Will

Nicholas Eberstadt , the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.;’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has authored a penetrating 23-page article about the upcoming new era of history he calls “the age of depopulation.”[1]

Eberstadt “researches and writes extensively on demographics and economic development generally, and more specifically on international security in the Korean peninsula and Asia. Domestically, he focuses on poverty and social well-being.” The AEI is a “public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world [and advancing] ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.”[2]

George Will’s Endorsement of Eberstadt’s Article

George Will, the noted columnist for the Washington Post, has endorsed the importance of the Eberstadt article, in a two-page column that distills at least some of Eberstadt’s important points.[3]

Here are the key points of that distillation.

“Earth’s population is going to decline. A lot. This will create social hazards that will challenge political ingenuity. Still, it will be, primarily, a protracted reverberation of a relatively recent, and excellent, event in humanity’s story: the emancipation of women.”

Eberstadt “says a large excess of deaths over births will be driven not by a brute calamity like the bubonic plague but by choices: those regarding fertility, family structures and living arrangements, all reflecting ‘a worldwide reduction in the desire for children.’”

“Today, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries with below-replacement levels (2.1 births per woman) of fertility. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has had 17 million more deaths than births. The 27 European Union countries are, collectively, 30 percent below replacement. Last year, France had fewer births than in 1806, when Napoleon won the Battle of Jena. Italy had the fewest since its 1861 unification, Spain the fewest since it started keeping track of this in 1859. America’s “demographic exceptionalism” is despite its fertility rate (1.62 last year), thanks to immigration.”

“Eberstadt says, as the world has become richer, healthier, more educated and more urbanized, ‘the most powerful national fertility predictor’ has been something related to these changes: changes in ‘what women want.’ Volition shapes birth rates because now people everywhere are ‘aware of the possibility of very different ways of life from the ones that confined their parents.’”

“It is possible that ‘the pervasive graying of the population and protracted population decline will hobble economic growth and cripple social welfare systems in rich countries,’ Eberstadt writes. Also: ‘A coming wave of senescence,’ smaller family units, fewer people getting married, ‘high levels of voluntary childlessness,’ ‘dwindling workforces, reduced savings and investment, unsustainable social outlays, and budget deficits’ are the fate of developed nations — unless they make ‘sweeping changes.’”

“Eberstadt is, however, tentatively cheerful: ‘Steadily improving living standards and material and technological advances will still be possible.’ The Earth ‘is richer and better fed than ever before — and natural resources are more plentiful and less expensive (after adjusting for inflation), than ever before,’ and the global population is more ‘extensively schooled’ than ever. What is required is ‘a favorable business climate,’ which is Eberstadt’s shorthand for allowing market forces to wring maximum efficiency from fewer people: ‘Prosperity in a depopulating world will also depend on open economies: free trade in goods, services, and finance to counter the constraints that declining populations otherwise engender.’”

“The ‘demographic tides’ are, Eberstadt writes, running against the quartet of nations (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) that, oblivious of demography, are exaggerating their future powers. China’s next generation ‘is on track to be only half as large as the preceding one.’”

“Furthermore, ‘demographic trends are on course to augment American power.’”

“Although the United States is ‘a sub-replacement society, it has higher fertility levels than any East Asian country and almost all European states,’ Eberstadt says. Even more important, thanks to immigration, ‘the United States is on track to account for a growing share of the rich world’s labor force, youth, and highly educated talent.’”

“One issue in this year’s presidential campaign is germane to the convulsive demographic changes that are coming: immigration. Concerning this, Donald Trump is obtuse, and Kamala Harris has, as about most things, vagueness born of timidity.”

Conclusion

Many thanks to Eberstadt and Will for their illumination of these exceedingly important issues.

This blog has written many posts about the aging and declining population of the U.S. and many of its states and other countries in the world and the challenges that presents and to the importance of the U.S. continuing to develop policies that encourage and welcome immigrants.[4]

With some exceptions, most U.S. citizens should be glad to think and say “I am a proud descendant of immigrants to the U.S.” and support reforms of U.S. immigration law to welcome more immigrants.

=======================

[1] Eberstadt, The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray, Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2024)

[2] Nicolas Eberstadt, Bio & Experience; About {AEI}.

[3] Will, If demography is destiny, bring on immigration. We’re going to need it, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 2024)

[4] Here is a list of some of the posts to dwkcommentaries regarding the challenges to public policy presented by low birthrates for the U.S. and many other countries and hence the need for more immigrants: U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrants Labor (February 28, 2024); Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants (April 12, 2024); U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low (April 25, 2024); Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand? (May 15, 2024); Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, (June 1, 2024);“Economist” Magazine Also Predicts Lower World Population (June 3, 2024):Pew Research Center Proposes Framework for U.S. Immigration Reform (10/2/24);The Significance of the U.S. Low Birth Rate (10/7/24);.Government Difficulties in Raising Birthrates (10/14/24)..

Washington Post Editorial: Improving U.S. Asylum Law and Procedures

An editorial in the Washington Post starts by saying the obvious: the current U.S. asylum policies and procedures are not working and that this is due to lack of resources (insufficient number of immigration judges and facilities to house immigrant families).[1]

In addition, the editorial says “the best policies are those that open new doors. The offer of ‘humanitarian parole’ for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans applying from their home country radically cut border encounters.”

Thus, the editorial concludes, “A bipartisan agreement — more border resources and procedural reforms, in return for more avenues in — has the best shot of fixing the border.”

It, however, failed to address the more challenging issues of what resources in what amounts should be added and details on what new avenues into the U.S. should be adopted.

=========================

[1] Editorial, Here’s a deal to restore asylum and order, at the border, Wash Post (Nov. 27, 2023).

Reasonable Proposal for Solving U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

U.S. Representative Jared Golden, a pro-choice, pro-gun Democrat from a pro-Trump district in the backwoods of Maine, has proposed what a Washington Post columnist (Steven Pearlstein) calls “a reasonable plan to tame runaway budget deficits.”[1]

Golden’s letter to his constituents “starts by acknowledging the obvious political reality that in a deeply divided country with an evenly divided Congress, bipartisan compromise is inevitable. And this letter acknowledges the economic reality that running big deficits not only stokes inflation but risks triggering a debt spiral in which interest payments eventually consume the entire federal budget. The immediate challenge, he writes, is to stabilize deficits so the nation’s debt grows no faster than the nation’s income.”

To meet this challenge, “Golden sets a target of reducing borrowing by $250 billion a year in each of the next two years:”

“Half would come through spending caps such as those floated by Republicans: capping inflation-adjusted “discretionary” spending (everything other than Social Security and Medicare) at last year’s levels, along with rescinding student debt cancellation and recapturing unspent covid funding.”
“The other half would come from raising additional revenue in ways long favored by Democrats: raising the tax rate on big corporations to 25 percent, imposing a surtax on corporate stock buybacks, and rescinding the Trump tax cut for individuals making more than $400,000 a year.”

Reaction

Although this blogger has not studied the many details of the current debt ceiling crisis, I endorse Representative Golden’s proposal as a good place to start.

=========================

[1] Perlstein, Amid the debt ceiling madness, a lonely voice of sanity emerges, Wash. Post (April 24, 2023); Jared Golden, A letter from Congressman Golden (April 14, 2023).

Protections for U.S. Child Labor Need Improvement

After noting that Iowa and other states are reducing child-labor protections to 19^th century levels while U.S. child labor-law violations have been increasing, a Washington Post editorial says “lawmakers and other leaders at the state and federal levels should increase [such protections].Children, including migrant youths, should be in school. . . . The Labor Department needs to step up enforcement, and Congress should increase fines for companies that hire children. The maximum fine is currently $15,000 per occurrence — a pittance. It’s also not enough to raid one factory. Often, a crackdown at one leads young workers to move to another nearby.”[1]

In addition, “the Health and Human Services Department is responsible for releasing migrant children from detention centers to “guardians” in the United States. It’s become clear that a growing number of children are not being released to relatives and are in danger of being trafficked. The HHS process needs to change. Mr. Biden can also step up enforcement of anti-trafficking laws already on the books.”

“Most of all, people who see wrongdoing should be empowered to speak up. Teachers, especially those in English language learner classrooms, can see which students are falling asleep in class because they worked all night, or notice when someone suddenly drops out. Religious leaders also are often on the front lines. Whistleblowers in the community require clear places to report child labor, and agencies that receive the warnings must follow up.”

“Nearly a century [after the adoption of the 1938 U.S. child-labor protections], it should not take more adolescent deaths for lawmakers to once again protect children from dangerous jobs.”

==============================

[1] Editorial, Children don’t belong in factories or freezers—or on construction sites, Wash. Post (April 22, 2023). See also Dreier, As Migrant Children Were Put to Work, U.S. Ignored Warnings, N.Y. Times (April 17, 2023). But see Krugman, How Immigrants Are Saving the Economy, N.Y. Times (April 13, 2023) (“Recent immigrants are overwhelmingly working-age adults; according to census data, 79 percent of foreign-born residents who arrived after 2010 are between the ages of 18 and 64, compared with only 61 percent for the population at large. So the immigration surge has probably been a significant contributor to the economy’s ability to continue rapid job growth without runaway inflation.”).

Need To Improve U.S. Asylum System

The U.S. asylum and immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, so says a Washington Post editorial. [1]

It points out that the current system “was being rendered untenable by the sheer number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years, each with a legal right to press an asylum claim. Between those assigned to Justice Department immigration courts and Department of Homeland Security asylum officers, the backlog of cases has reached roughly 1.6 million, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. It can take years just to get a hearing in immigration court.”

“Instead of the selective, humanitarian adjunct to general immigration flows that the law intended, asylum is evolving into an open-ended parallel system. The backlog encourages people to make a dangerous and expensive trip to the U.S. border, knowing that — even if their asylum cases are weak — they can live and work in the United States for years pending a ruling. Even those whose claims are rejected, as they were in most final rulings over the past decade, seldom face prompt removal. Meanwhile, those with strong claims wait longer than they should.”

Given congressional inability to develop and enact a comprehensive reform statute, the Biden Administration has developed short-term fixes. One announced on January 5^th related to attempted border crossings by Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, resulting in a 97 percent decrease in attempted border crossings by these people. Another one from 2022 allowed asylum officers from the Department of Homeland Security to determine migrants eligibility for asylum, subject to potential appeals to an immigration judge, but DHS lacks personnel to handle many cases.

Conclusion

As a former pro bono asylum lawyer, this blogger has lamented these many problems with the U.S. immigration and asylum system and the inability and refusal of Congress to take action to address these problems, which now seems exacerbated with the Republicans barely controlling the House of Representatives.[2]

=============================

[1] Editorial, Asylum has become a parallel immigration system. Here’s how to fix that, Wash. Post (Jan. 31, 2023).

[2] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Need To Prod Congress To Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act (Dec. 17, 2022); Apparent Failure To Enact Bipartisan Immigration Bills (Dec. 18, 2022); Congress Fails to Adopt Important Immigration Legislation (Dec. 28, 2022); Department of Homeland Security Announces Important Proposed Rules To Improve Immigration Laws and Border Security (Jan. 5, 2023); President Biden’s Argument for New Asylum/Border Policy (Jan. 7, 2023); U.S. Adopts Confusing New Program for Resettling Certain Foreigners (Jan. 20, 2023). See also List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—TOPICAL: LAW (REFUGEE AND ASYLUM).

U.N. General Assembly Again Condemns U.S. Embargo (Blockade) of Cuba

On November 3, 2022, the U.N. General Assembly again condemned the U.S. embargo (blockade) of Cuba. The vote this time for the Cuban resolution was 185 to 2 (with the U.S. and Israel voting against the resolution) while two others abstained (Brazil and Ukraine).[1]

The resolution “reiterated its call on all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in the text’s preamble, in conformity with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and international law. It also urged States that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the steps necessary to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regimes.”

Cuba’s Argument for Its Resolution

Cuba alleged in support of its resolution that “only between August 2021 and February 2022 that unilateral policy caused Cuba losses in the order of 3,806.5 million dollars. The figure is 49% higher than that reported between January and July 2021 and a record in just seven months.”

“At current prices, [according to Cuba,] the accumulated damages during six decades of the blockade amount to 150,410.8 million dollars, with a great weight on sectors such as health and education, in addition to the damage to the national economy and the quality of life of Cuban families.”

“In the first 14 months of the Biden Administration alone, [said Cuba,] the losses caused by the blockade amounted to 6,364 million dollars, which is equivalent to an impact of more than 454 million dollars a month and more than 15 million dollars a day.”

Finally, Cuba claimed that “The extraterritorial impact of the blockade harms the sovereignty of the countries of the United Nations, sanctions their businessmen and impedes access to their ports for third party ships that dock in Cuba. It also prevents the importation into Cuba of articles produced in any country when they have 10% or more of U.S. components.”

Cuba’s foreign Minister, Rodriguez Parrilla, also said, “During the pandemic, the blockade was further tightened, causing more delays in the delivery of necessary medical equipment. But despite limited resources, Cuba cooperated with other countries, sending medical brigades to provide aid. Equally unceasing, he said, is the fraudulent inclusion of Cuba in the United States Department of State’s unilateral list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism. This forces Cuba to pay twice the usual price for commodities on the international market. Cuba has rejected all forms of terrorism.”

The Foreign Minister added, “The current United States Administration does not have a Cuba policy, he said. Rather it continues to exert the “maximum pressure” policy developed under the Donald Trump Administration. Over the last few months, it has taken positive steps to alleviate certain restrictions, but the blockade continues to be the central element defining Cuba-United States policy.”

Other Countries’ Support for the Resolution

During the General Assembly debate over the Cuba resolution, “Member States condemned the economic embargo against Cuba, calling it cruel, inhumane and punitive. They urged the United States to begin a dialogue with Cuba based on the equality of States and respect for sovereignty and independence.”

“Representatives of several developing States also thanked Cuba for providing them with much-needed medical aid, nurses and vaccines at the height of the pandemic. Nicaragua’s delegate said that Cuba, thanks to its revolutionary spirit and socialist conviction, has been able to stand alongside the developed countries that sanction it by producing vaccines and helping ‘our developing peoples.’”

“Speakers for several Caribbean countries pointed out also that the United States blockade has had widespread implications and consequences and was stifling not only Cuba’s growth but that of the entire region. Several delegates questioned how the world could commit to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development while locking out one country from fairly participating in its own socioeconomic development.”

“’No nation should be punished and exploited by another,’ Gabon’s representative said. ‘Cuba is peaceful and cooperative and deserves the continued support of the international community in calling for an end to the embargo.’”

“Member States also questioned how they could overwhelmingly call for an end to the embargo year after year for decades without any results. ‘Every year, we speak about the devastating impact of the embargo on the people of Cuba, but we see no effort to remove the restrictions,’ Zimbabwe’s delegate said.”

The U.S. Statement Against the Resolution[2]

The U.S. statement purportedly justifying its opposition to the resolution was provided during the debate by John Kelley, Political Counselor, who said the following:

“The United States remains committed to the Cuban people in their pursuit of freedom, prosperity, and a future with greater dignity. We are focused on the political and economic wellbeing of the Cuban people and center our efforts on democracy and human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
“Cubans of all walks of life are speaking out for fundamental freedoms, protesting Cuban government repression, and advocating for a better future. In July of 2021, the world witnessed tens of thousands of Cubans across the island take to the streets to peacefully demand freedom. The Cuban government responded to the demands of the Cuban people with crackdowns on peaceful protesters, journalists, and human rights defenders.”
“The Cuban government has used harsh prison sentences, even against minors, intimidation tactics, arrests, Internet interruptions, government-sponsored mobs, and horrendous prison conditions to try to prevent Cubans from exercising their human rights.”
“Cuban security officials have also forced into exile human rights activists and journalists who had been either detained or warned about their activities. We join international partners in urging the Cuban government to release political prisoners immediately and unconditionally and to protect the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly of all individuals in Cuba.”
“As we hold the Cuban government accountable, our support for the Cuban people is unwavering. The embargo includes exemptions and authorizations relating to exports of food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods to Cuba.”
“We recognize the challenges the Cuban people face. The people of the United States and U.S. organizations donate a significant amount of humanitarian goods to the Cuban people, and the United States is one of Cuba’s principal trading partners. Since 1992, the United States has authorized billions of dollars of exports to Cuba, including food and other agricultural commodities, medicines, medical devices, telecommunications equipment, consumer goods, and other items to support the Cuban people. In 2021 alone, U.S. companies exported over $295 million worth of agricultural goods to Cuba, including food, to help address the Cuban people’s basic needs.”
“Last month, following the devastating impact of Hurricane Ian, the United States announced it is providing to the Cuban people critical humanitarian aid through trusted international partners working directly with Cubans whose communities were devastated by the storm. The U.S. Agency for International Development will provide $2 million in funding for emergency relief to those in need in Cuba.”
“Mr. President, the United States opposes this resolution, but we stand with the Cuban people and will continue to seek ways to provide meaningful support to them. We encourage this body to urge the Cuban government to listen to the Cuban people and their demands to determine their own future.”

Conclusion

Amazingly none of the major U.S. sources of international news—New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal—had any articles about this U.N. General Assembly resolution.

In contrast, this blog by a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. without any family connections with Cuba, but with involvement in Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church’s partnership with a Presbyterian-Reformed Church on the island, has contained many blog posts opposing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.[3] The most recent such post had an abbreviated history of the embargo and discussed the last U.N. General Assembly resolution against the embargo that passed on June 23, 2021, by a vote of 184 to 2 (again the U.S. and Israel in opposition) with three abstentions (Colombia, Brazil and Ukraine).[4]

=====================================

[1] U.N., General Assembly: 28^th plenary meeting, 77^th session (Nov. 3, 2022); Rodriguez, Overwhelming Victory for Cuba at the UN: 185 countries vote against the blockade, Granma (Nov. 3, 2022); Cuba Foreign Minister Rodriguez Parrilla, The world would be better off without the blockade, Granma (Nov. 3, 2022); How little the United States respect the world by maintaining the blockade against Cuba!, Granma (Nov. 2, 2022) (Cuba President Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez’ Twitter statement); U.N. Secretary General, Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba (Jan. 20, 2022).

[2] U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Explanation of Vote After the Vote on a UN General Assembly Resolution on the Cuba Embargo (Nov. 3, 2022).

[3] See the posts listed in the “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20}.

[4] Criticism of President Biden’s “New Cuba Policy,” dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 1, 2022).

More Details on Jurors’ Comments on Derek Chauvin Trial

The blog previously has discussed the court’s decision last week to release on November 1 certain information about the jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial and the October 28^th Don Lemon program on CNN with seven of the 14 jurors (including two alternates). [1] Now additional details about this development have been reported by the Washington Post, New York Times and StarTribune. [2]

The Washington Post has reported the following:

Several jurors said their views on race did not factor into the verdict. According to Juror Nicole Deters, ““We got here because of systemic racism within the system, right, because of what’s been going on. That’s how we got to a courtroom in the first place. But when it came down to all three verdicts, it was based on the evidence and the facts one hundred percent.”
Several jurors said “they probably would have come to the same verdicts if Chauvin had testified in his defense, but they said they would have liked to hear what he was thinking. Videos of the killing, recorded by bystanders and others, factored into the jurors’ decision-making, they said.”
Juror Sheri Belton Hardeman said, “The camera doesn’t lie. And it was in slow motion at times while you were sitting there in court. … So it was hard. It played a huge role though. It truly did.”
Juror Jodi Doud told CNN the video “bothered me so much. How could somebody do that to someone else? And it was a slow death. It wasn’t just a gunshot and they’re dead.”

The New York Times added the following report:

Half of the 12 jurors declined to comment or could not be reached on November 1^st after their names had been publicly released. At the home of one of them, this sign was posted on the front door: “Please, no press no soliciting” while a “Black Lives Matter” poster was prominently displayed in a window.
Juror Brandon Mitchell, who previously had made public comments on the trial, said on November 1, , 2021, that all of the jurors have been keeping in touch on an email chain since the trial. “They’re scared of the unknown and of becoming a public figure instead of spending their lives in peace.”
Juror Jodi Doud had said on the CNN program, “This is not what he [Chauvin] did, but more or less what he didn’t do. He did not provide lifesaving measures for George Floyd when he knew that the guy was in pain or needed medical attention.”

The Times article also reported that the prospective jurors questionnaires “reveal a diverse range of opinions from the jurors, who were from throughout Hennepin County and ranged in age from their 20s to their 60s. Four of the jurors were Black, six were white and two were multiracial; seven of the 12 were women.”

The StarTribune noted that two jurors and an alternate previously had made the following public comments about the trial:

“25-year-old Journee Howard, of Minneapolis, said she was especially swayed by the testimony of Dr. Martin Tobin, who bolstered the prosecution’s contention that Floyd died from asphyxiation as a direct result of being pinned face down on the pavement at 38th and Chicago for more than nine minutes by Chauvin and two other officers.”
Brandon Mitchell said the jury deliberations were “smooth” with a strong focus on the evidence and the terminology of the law, but did not include discussions about race or the broader issue of police killing civilians.
Alternate Lisa Christensen, 56, of Brooklyn Center, said she was “sad and disappointed” when she was excused before deliberations began but agreed with the verdicts.

The StarTribune also added that a jury questionnaire disclosed that the jury foreperson was a 31-year-old man from Minneapolis, who was engaged at the time of the trial, has degrees in accounting from the University of St. Thomas, and works as an audit manager and that almost all of the responses to the questionnaire said the prospective jurors disagreed with the statement that “the police treated white and Black people equally” while all agreed that “Police in my community make me feel safe.”

=============================

[1] Judge Orders Release of Jurors Names in Derek Chauvin Trial, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 28, 2021); Discussion of Derek Chauvin Trial By Seven of Its Jurors, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 30, 2021).

[2] Shammas & lati, Race was not part of Chauvin jurors’ decision, they say, Wash. Post (Nov. 1, 2021); Bogel-Burroughs, Jurors Who Convicted Derek Chauvin Are Identified for First Time, N.Y. Times (Nov. 1, 2021); Walsh, More than 6 months after verdicts, court releases names of jurors in Derek Chauvin trial, StarTribune (Nov. 1, 2021).

Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment

On June 25, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill entered the following order, “ As to Count I, based on the verdict of the jury finding you guilty of unintentional second-degree murder while committing a felony under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.19, subd. 2(1), it is the judgment of the Court that you now stand convicted of that offense. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 609.04, Counts II and III remain unadjudicated as they are lesser offenses of Count I.”

Therefore, the “Court commits . . . [Derek Chauvin] to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for a period of 270 months [22.5 years]. You are granted credit for 199 days already served.”[1]

With this sentence, the Minnesota Department of Corrections has said that if Chauvin qualifies by good behavior in prison, he would be released from prison on December 10, 2035, which will be when Chauvin is 59 years old, followed by supervised parole until June 8, 2043.

Court’s Opinion Regarding This Sentence[2]

Judge Cahill first reviewed the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, which were promulgated “to establish rational and consistent sentencing standards the promote public safety, reduce sentencing disparity, and ensure that the sanctions imposed . . . are proportional to the severity of the . . . offense and the offender’s criminal history.” The Guidelines also establish “presumptive ranges” for the offenses and for most cases, the maximum sentence that may be imposed is at the top of that range.

However, the Guidelines also recognize that there are cases when the guidelines may not be appropriate and that a different sentence may be imposed for “substantial and compelling circumstances,” i.e., when the “defendant’s conduct in the offense . . . was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (Emphasis in original quotation of Minnesota Supreme Court case.)

Here, the presumptive range of a sentence for second-degree murder is 128 to 180 months with a presumptive sentence of 150 months (12.5 years). To deviate from these guidelines, the court (or jury) must find that there were one or more “aggravating factors” in the crime at issue. Here, the court determined that there were two such “aggravating factors”: Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority and Chauvin treated Mr. Floyd with particular cruelty.

Although the court previously had concluded there were two other aggravating factors–children were present during the commission of the crime and Chauvin committed the crime with the active participation of three other former Minneapolis policemen—Judge Cahill for various reasons declined to use them for determining the sentence.

Judge Cahill then sought “to effectuate the Minnesota guidelines policy of reducing sentencing disparity” by examining Minnesota sentences over that last ten years for murder in the second-degree. For all such sentences, 67% were within the presumptive guidelines range while 20% were upward departures and 13% were downward departures. Moreover, the most common aggravated sentence has been 240 months (20 years) while the average aggravated departure for defendants with a zero criminal history score [like Chauvin] was 278.2 month (23.2 years).

Therefore, the court concluded, “Mr. Chauvin, rather than pursuing the MPD mission [to give citizens ‘voice and respect’], treated Mr. Floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. In the Court’s view, 270 months, which amounts to an additional ten years over the presumptive 150-month sentence, is the appropriate sentence.” In other words, “In consideration of all the facts presented at trial, this Court’s experience, and the collective experience of the entire Court over the last ten years, the Court finds the appropriate prison sentence for Mr. Chauvin is 270 months.”

This opinion demonstrates Judge Cahill’s careful attention to factual and legal details. The only part that is questionable, in this blogger’s opinion, is his refusal to consider for sentencing his previous conclusion that another aggravating factors was the presence of children. Compare his previous conclusion on this factors with his stated rationale for not considering it for sentencing:

Sentencing conclusion. “Although four young women were present and observed portions of the nine and a half minutes restraint of Mr. Floyd, none was injured or threatened with physical injury so long as they did not interfere; none had been present during the previous police struggle to get Mr. Floyd into a squad car, were free to leave the scene at any time, they did not know any of the officers or Mr. Floyd and at trial did not present any objective indicia of trauma.”
Previous conclusion. “Children were present on the sidewalk adjoining Chicago Avenue standing only a few feet from where . . . [Chauvin] and the other officers were restraining George Floyd prone in the street and observed Mr. Floyd being asphyxiated as he begged for his life.. . . Although these four children did not observe all the events, they did observe a substantial portion of the . . .[Chauvin’s] use of force and witnesses the last moments of Mr. Floyd’s life.”

This sentencing conclusion, in this blogger’s opinion, is weak in light of the trial testimony of then 17-year-old Darnella Frazier: “When I look at George Floyd I look at my dad, I look at my brothers, I look at my cousins, my uncles because they are all Black,” she said. “I have a Black father, I have Black brothers, I have Black friends. I look at them and how it could have been one of them. It’s been nights I’ve stayed up apologizing to George Floyd for not doing more and not physically interacting and not saving his life, it’s not what I should have done it’s what he [Chauvin] should have done.” Another 17-year-old girl testified at trial, “It was difficult because I felt like there wasn’t really anything I could do. As a bystander I was powerless there, and I was failing to do anything.”

The court’s refusal to consider for sentencing the other aggravating factor of Chauvin’s committing the crime with the assistance of others, however, was justified given the statute’s requirement for sentencing that the others be “offenders,” which has not yet been established with their trial scheduled for this August

Sentencing Hearing[3]

At the June 25 hearing, before the Court imposed the above sentence, the Court heard victim impact statements from members of the Floyd family (seven-year-old daughter Gianna, brothers Terrance and Philonise and nephew Brandon Williams), and Chauvin’s mother (Carolyn Pawlenty).

Derek Chauvin also made the following statement. “At this time due to some additional legal matters at hand, I’m not able to give a full, formal statement at this time. Briefly though, I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family. There’s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and I hope things will give you some peace of mind. Thank you.” (Emphases added.)

No further information was provided as to what this future information will be, but the only thing this blogger can think of that would be of some comfort to the Floyd family would be an overall agreement among Chauvin and the federal and Minnesota prosecutors for Chauvin to plead guilty to all charges and to abandon any appeal from this guilty verdict and judgment in exchange for an agreed sentence to a federal detention facility.

In addition, at this hearing, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Matthew Frank and defense attorney Erik Nelson made short statements in support of their requested sentences (30 years by the State and probation and parole by the defense).

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Cahill said the sentence was “not based on public opinion. I am not basing it on any attempt to send any messages. The job of a trial judge is to apply the law to specific facts.”

Court’s Order Denying Two Defendant’s Motions[4]

On June 24 (the day before the hearing), the Court denied Chauvin’s motions for a new trial and for a Schwartz hearing to investigate the jury’s conduct during the trial. Those denials followed from the following findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court:

“Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Court abused its discretion or committed error that Defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
“Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct such that Defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
“Defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case of juror misconduct or that a juror gave false testimony during voir dire to warrant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Schwarz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. . . . [and] State v. Ussee. . . .”

Commentary About the Sentencing[5]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in a statement published by the Washington Post said, “Chauvin is one of the few police officers ever convicted of murder for a death on the job. Chauvin’s 22½-year sentence, announced Friday, is one of the longest any police officer in the United States has received in modern times for the death of a civilian.”

“But one exceptional case does not solve the problem. Can this conviction help us finally break the cycle of inaction once and for all?”

“It depends whether we act.”

“Prosecutors must act.”

“Prosecutors must commit to vigorous, visible and swift prosecutions of in-custody deaths when there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful. They should not be afraid to use all the tools the law puts at their disposal. The visibility of prosecutions, to restore and build credibility with the public, is as important as the vigor employed.”

“The Justice Department must also be a partner in prosecuting cases when local prosecutions fail to win convictions — or fail to act. The Biden administration’s return to conducting investigations into biased policing patterns and practices is also welcome.”

“Prosecutions must also be swift. Chauvin was convicted less than a year after he took Floyd’s life. By contrast, it took four years from the death of Laquan McDonald for Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke to be convicted. We cannot possibly build public trust if we allow prosecutions to take this long.”

“Lawmakers must act.”

“Congress must pass the strongest version of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act it can pass. Don’t wait for the perfect bill when a meaningful first step is within reach. Remember: the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 were passed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Enduring, systemic change takes time.”

“At the state level, legislatures should authorize attorneys general to conduct investigations into local law enforcement to bring to light any persistent patterns of misconduct within a given police department. State-based pattern-or-practice investigations — which critically involve both community members and police officers — have proved successful. If states don’t do that, Congress should make it possible for attorneys general to rely on federal authority to conduct these investigations.”

“City councils and county boards must support reform-minded law enforcement leaders and, if necessary, use the power of the purse to compel reform by directing money toward progressive training and holding leadership accountable for outcomes. We must also recognize that, too often, we ask police officers to solve problems they are neither trained nor intended to solve. We must provide people in crisis with comprehensive social services that law enforcement cannot provide, and we must also support officer wellness.”

“Law enforcement must act.”

“Police leadership must be empowered to take meaningful action. Rather than punishing good officers who call out their colleagues’ bad behavior, as sometimes occurs, police departments should celebrate them and commend their service.”

“The Chauvin trial produced some remarkable, even astonishing, moments, with multiple police officers testifying for the prosecution, and with the police chief, in full uniform, testifying that the defendant’s behavior was not a reasonable use of force in line with department policy. Such testimony should become commonplace, not remain a rarity.”’

“This isn’t about creating a culture of ‘snitching” — it’s about creating a culture of accountability that sets and enforces clear professional standards that protect both police officers and community members.”

“Finally, communities must act.”

“It is imperative that communities keep up the pressure for reform and accountability, and finally end the cycle of inaction. My office could not have led the prosecution of Chauvin without the help of ordinary people who courageously bore witness to Floyd’s death, and the pressure from a community that demanded accountability and action.”

President Joe Biden. At the White House on June 25, President Biden responded to a reporter’s question about the sentencing with this comment: “I don’t know all the circumstances that were considered but it seems to me, under the guidelines, that seems to be appropriate.”

Washington Post Editorial. An editorial in the Washington Post said Chauvin’s conviction and sentencing “should bring a measure of satisfaction that justice was served and assure Americans that the system is not hopelessly broken.”

But more broadly , “Policing in the United States could be more effective and less threatening to minority communities. Officers who commit wrongdoings could face more certain punishments. Floyd’s death last spring appeared to spur a reckoning on U.S. policing, but that momentum has slowed in recent months.”

For example, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill so far has failed to pass in the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives in March passed a sweeping police reform bill, but Republican opposition in the Senate appears to doom that bill.

Experts’ Reactions. Although the Chauvin case could lead to better police hiring and training, more trust between police and communities and make the public and future jurors more reception to complaints about police interactions with minorities, this case “ doesn’t address deep-rooted issues of race and violence affecting police interactions with minorities [and does not] . . . result in charges or convictions against officers, according to Sheila A.Bedi, a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, Director of its Community Justice & Civil Rights Clinic and an attorney in use-of-force lawsuits against the Chicago Police Department.

Another professor of criminal justice, Philip Stinson of Bowling Green State University, pointed out that since 2005 only 11 non-federal law officers, including Chauvin, have been convicted of murder for on-duty conduct, the nine who were sentenced before Chauvin received sentences ranging from six years to life behind bars with the median being 15 years.

Floyd Family Attorney’s Reaction. Ben Crump, the attorney for the Floyd family, called for a federal conviction of Chauvin that might lead to a longer sentence.

Conclusion

We now wait to see the results of any appeal of this conviction and sentencing by Chauvin; the results of the August trial of the other three ex-officers in state court and any subsequent appeals; developments in the federal court criminal cases against the four ex-policemen; and the details of any guilty plea agreements by any or all of the four men.[6]

=======================================

[1] Sentencing Order and Memorandum Opinion, State v. Chauvin, Hennepin County District Court, Dist. Ct. , File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (June 25, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Seven (Conviction), dwkcommentaries.com (April 21, 2021).

[2] Ibid; Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Four, dwkcommentaries.com (April 2, 2021). Derek Chauvin Trial: Court finds Aggravating Factors for Sentencing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 12, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Arguments About Sentencing of Chauvin, dwkcommentaries.com (June 7, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Issues for Sentencing, dwkcommentaries.com (June 18, 2021);

[3] Olson, Xioing & Walsh, Chauvin Sentenced to 22 ½ years for the murder of George Floyd, StarTribune (June 26, 2021).

[4] State v. Chauvin, Hennepin County District Court, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 (June 24, 2021); AP. Judge rejects Chauvin request for new trial in Floyd death, Wash. Post (June 25, 2021); Xiong, Former officer Derek Chauvin faces sentencing Friday afternoon; judge denies defense motion for new trial, StarTribune (June 25, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Defendant’s Motion for New Trial and Impeachment of Verdict, dwkcommentaries.com (May 5 2021).

[5] Ellison, Opinion: Derek Chauvin is going to prison. Let this be a turning point, Wash. Post (June 26, 2021); Goodnough, Biden calls long prison sentence for Derek Chauvin ‘appropriate,’ N.Y. Times (June 25, 2021); Editorial, Opinion: Derek Chauvin is headed to prison. But that is not enough, Wash. Post (June 25, 2021); Webber (AP), Experts: Impact of Chauvin case on policing yet to be seen, Wash. Post (June 26, 2021); Assoc. Press, Floyd family lawyer calls for federal conviction for Chauvin, Wash. Post (June 25, 2021).

[6] This blog has covered all of the details in these cases and intends to continue doing so. (See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter “Fratelli Tutti” (Brothers All)

On October 3, in Assisi (Italy) at the tomb of Saint Francis, Pope Francis released his lengthy (287 paragraphs) Encyclical Letter, “Fratelli Tutti” (Brothers All).”[1]

Here are this lay person’s overview of this important document and summary of the instantaneous reactions thereto from E.J. Dionne Jr., a Washington Post columnist on U.S. national politics and a Roman Catholic, and from other journalists.

Overview of the Letter

The title of the Encyclical– “Fratelli Tutti”—was used by Saint Francis to address “his brothers and sisters” and to propose “a way of life marked by the flavor of the Gospel.” The Letter’s guiding light is Saint Francis’ call “for a love that transcends the barriers of geography and distance, and declares blessed all those who love their brother ‘as much when he is far away from him as when he is with him.’”

The Letter has an introduction “Without Borders” before exploring the following eight chapters:

One: Dark Clouds Over a Closed World;
Two: A Stranger on the Road;
Three: Envisaging and Engendering an Open World;
Four: A Heart Open to the Whole World;
Five: A Better Kind of Politics;
Six: Dialogue and Friendship in Society;
Seven: Paths of Renewed Encounter; and
Eight: Religions at the Service of Fraternity in Our World.

The Letter concludes with the following two prayers:

A Prayer to the Creator:

“Lord, Father of our human family,
you created all human beings equal in dignity:
pour forth into our hearts a fraternal spirit
and inspire in us a dream of renewed encounter,
dialogue, justice and peace.
Move us to create healthier societies
and a more dignified world,
a world without hunger, poverty, violence and war.”
“May our hearts be open
to all the peoples and nations of the earth.
May we recognize the goodness and beauty
that you have sown in each of us,
and thus forge bonds of unity, common projects,
and shared dreams. Amen.”

An Ecumenical Christian Prayer:

“O God, Trinity of love,
from the profound communion of your divine life,
pour out upon us a torrent of fraternal love.
Grant us the love reflected in the actions of Jesus,
in his family of Nazareth,
and in the early Christian community.”
“Grant that we Christians may live the Gospel,
discovering Christ in each human being,
recognizing him crucified
in the sufferings of the abandoned
and forgotten of our world,
and risen in each brother or sister
who makes a new start.”
“Come, Holy Spirit, show us your beauty,
reflected in all the peoples of the earth,
so that we may discover anew
that all are important and all are necessary,
different faces of the one humanity
that God so loves. Amen.”

E.J. Dionne, Jr.’s Reactions [2]

E.J. Dionne Jr. published an intriguing column about this lengthy Papal Encyclical Letter, only one day after it was published.[2] Here is a summary of what Dionne had to say, which will probably spark this blogger’s comments after he carefully and prayerfully studies the Encyclical Letter.

According to Dionne, this Letter only a month before the U.S. presidential election criticizes many aspects of current politics that are found in the U.S. and other countries:

It criticizes persons who advocate “myopic, extremist, resentful and aggressive nationalism” and cast immigrants as “less worthy, less important, less human.”
It criticizes advocates of an ““every man for himself” worldview that “will rapidly degenerate into a free-for-all that would prove worse than any pandemic.”
“The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith. Whatever the challenge, this impoverished and repetitive school of thought always offers the same recipes … the magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle’ — without using the name.”
It denounces those who speak of “empty individualism,” a “narrow and violent nationalism, xenophobia and contempt, and even the mistreatment of those who are different,” and “a cool, comfortable and globalized indifference.”
The Pope “cited his earlier condemnations of “a ‘throwaway’ world” that lacks respect for the “poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ — like the unborn — or ‘no longer needed’ — like the elderly.” And he denounced human trafficking as a “perversion that exceeds all limits when it subjugates women and then forces them to abort.”
The Pope had 12 references to capital punishment as “inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice.”
The Pope criticized the world’s inability “to resolve problems that affect us all” like the COVID-19 pandemic and “Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality.” Moreover, ““God willing, after all this, we will think no longer in terms of ‘them’ and ‘those’, but only ‘us’. … If only we might keep in mind all those elderly persons who died for lack of respirators, partly as a result of the dismantling, year after year, of healthcare systems.”
“Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to improve people’s lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this craven exchange of charges and counter-charges, debate degenerates into a permanent state of disagreement and confrontation.” This is “a strategy of ridicule, suspicion and relentless criticism.”

Other Reactions [3]

Chico Harlan, the Washington Post’s Rome Bureau Chief, and Stefano Pitrelli of that Bureau who covers Italy and the Vatican, lead with this statement, “Humankind, Pope Francis says, is in the midst of a worrying regression. People are intensely polarized. Their debates, absent real listening, seem to have devolved into a ‘permanent state of disagreement and confrontation.’ In some countries, leaders are using a ‘strategy of ridicule’ and relentless criticism, spreading despair as a way to ‘dominate and gain control.’”

Harlan and Pitrelli believe that the encyclical “amounts to a papal stand against tribalism, xenophobia, and the dangers of the social media age.” They also point out that this is only the third encyclical by Pope Francis. The first was “Lumen Fidei” (the Light of Faith) which was issued in 2013 soon after he became pope and was written mostly by Benedict XVI. The second, “Laudarto Si” (On Care for Our Common Home) in 2015 addressed responsibility for the environment, climate change and development.

The New York Times’ Rome Bureau Chief, Jason Horowitz, opened with Pope Francis’ criticism of the world’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic as “exposing our false securities” and “inability to work together.” This was accerbated by the forces of “myopic, extremist, resentful and aggressive nationalism.” The document also “calls for closeness to the marginalized, support for migrants, resistance of nationalist and tribal populism, and the abolition of the death penalty.” Hindering “the development of universal fraternity” were economic inequality, sexism and racism.

The Wall Street Journal’s article on the encyclical is by Francis X. Rocca, who is its Vatican correspondent based in Rome. He says the document offered the Pope’s “prescription for a host of ills plaguing societies around the world, including poverty, terrorism and racism, and “echoes some of the major themes of his social teaching, including the rights of migrants and the poor, with a special urgency inspired by Covid-19.” He also notes for non-Catholics that papal encyclicals are “one of the most authoritative genres of papal writing.”

Conclusion

As a Protestant (Presbyterian) Christian, I plan to give this Encyclical Letter careful and prayerful study and then offer my reactions to the Letter and to the comments by Dionne and other journalists.

===============================

[1] The Holy See, Encyclical Letter: FRATELLI TUTTI of the Holy Father Francis on the Fraternity and Social Friendship (Oct. 3, 2020).

[2] Dionne, The Pope’s unexpected election message, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 2020).

[3] Harlan & Pitrelli, Pope Francis’s new encyclical is a papal warning about a world going bad, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 2020); Horowitz, Pope Criticizes Lack of Unity in World’s Response to Coronovirus, N.Y. Times (Oct. 4, 2020); Rocca, Pope Francis Says Covid-19 Pandemic Shows Limits of Market Economics, W.S.J. (Oct. 4, 2020). See also Pepinster, How Pope Francis’s encyclical could shake up the US election, Guardian (Oct. 6, 2020).

Click to access papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf