(This guest column originally appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera. It was written by a Boulder County ACLU Chapter Board member.)

By John Carlson

Homelessness is not a crime. It's a status, the product of poverty. Or mental illness. Or sudden misfortune, like a big medical bill that leads to a foreclosure. It's generally acquired innocently or involuntarily, and sleeping on streets or parks is its inevitable consequence. That's because human beings are biologically compelled to rest, whether by sitting, lying, or sleeping. And given that shelter is unavailable to many of the homeless — the Boulder shelter currently offers just 60 beds in the summer, more in the winter but still fewer than needed — it's not clear what choice homeless people have but to sleep in parks or streets.
Yet in response to this involuntary act, Boulder, like other cities, has turned many of the homeless into criminals, including those who have been denied beds at public shelters. The city's no-camping law, as it is known, is as absurd as it is cruel. It prohibits sleeping outside with "shelter," defined as any protection from the elements other than clothing. So merely sleeping outside is not "camping," but sleeping while using a blanket or sleeping bag is a crime. A few years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear a case brought by the ACLU challenging the ordinance. David Madison was charged as an illegal "camper" after he slept outside in a sleeping bag, on a night when temperatures dropped to 11 degrees.
Madison had sought refuge at a homeless shelter earlier that evening, but there was no space for him. He was found guilty based on the trial court's ruling that his frost-covered sleeping bag constituted shelter. Had he jettisoned the sleeping bag he would have suffered frostbite or hypothermia, or worse, but he wouldn't have been a criminal.
A bill wending its way through the Colorado legislature aims at repealing no-camping ordinances like Boulder's. Dubbed the Right to Rest Act (House Bill 15-1264), it is set for a hearing on April 15 before the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. It would protect the right of all people to rest or sleep in public places without discrimination; to eat and share food there; to have privacy in one's belongings; and to occupy one's legally parked vehicle. It would not stop police from intervening to prevent criminal activity, like trespassing, obstructing sidewalks, or aggressive panhandling.
The bill's sponsors point to data showing that significant numbers of homeless people in Colorado have been ticketed or arrested for sleeping, sitting, or lying down in public areas. The sponsors also highlight the illusory appeal of criminal laws targeting the homeless. Jailing a few illegal campers doesn't make them disappear. They just migrate to other cities, which in turn enact and enforce their own criminal bans.
The Boulder County ACLU supports the Right to Rest Act. It's a protest against the immorality of criminalizing rather than confronting the problems of homelessness. If enacted, and we hope it is, it will tell cities struggling to deal with their homeless populations to do more than simply shift the problem from streets to jails. If it is defeated, the punitive approach favored by Boulder will continue to expand, eventually spreading criminal bans to all regions of the state and beyond, at which point a public that has steadfastly refused to build housing for its homeless populations will be forced to build new jails for all the criminals it has created.
If anything, the Right to Rest Act does not go far enough. It does not specifically repeal local laws banning sleeping in public places. Instead it guarantees the right to rest in public spaces "without discrimination based on housing status," defining "discrimination" as any action resulting in disproportionate effects on the homeless. We fear that cities bent on defending their punitive policies will not bow to the clear intent of the law, convinced they don't discriminate against anybody (who thinks otherwise?) and confident they can resist a legal test requiring proof of disproportionate effects. We want a state law that encourages clever solutions to the crisis of homelessness, not one that encourages clever legal arguments.
Granted, there may be valid environmental and sanitary reasons for a municipality to balk at an unqualified right to camp in all public spaces. The ACLU would not oppose reasonable restraints on that right. But these restrictions should be narrow in scope and should never be used to target, harass, and criminalize people who have no other options and nowhere else to go.
John Carlson is on the board of the Boulder County chapter of the ACLU.

The verdict is in for the Boston marathon bombing trial.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty.  Because the prosecution is seeking death, they will now move onto the penalty phase of the trial.
Death penalty trials are different than other first degree murder trials.  When death is not a sentencing option the jury will come to a verdict and then the judge will hand down a sentence.  However, with a death penalty trial the jury then moves into the penalty phase.
In this phase it is no longer about the facts of the case, but instead about the juror’s own personal moral judgment about what the appropriate penalty should be.  The jurors will be given information by the prosecution on aggravating factors having to do with the crime, which allow them to consider the death penalty.  These aggravators are determined by the state’s statute and could include things like murdering a witness or killing more than one person.   The defense will provide mitigating factors, which could be anything they find relevant which could possibly lessen the severity of the punishment.  Mitigating factors could include the defendant’s mental illness or age at the time of the crime. The jury’s job then is to decide whether the mitigation outweighs the aggravation and whether to issue a death sentence.  In most states the jury has to be unanimous in its decision.
Here in Colorado we have our own high profile death penalty trial about to begin on April 27.  I had the opportunity to sit in on jury selection, also known as voir dire, this past week.  It is a fascinating, calculated process honed and perfected by attorneys.  The prosecution, defense and judge are trying to choose jurors who can be impartial.  They must be able to put aside anything they have heard about the crime or the defendant and any preconceived notions or biases they may have about guilt or innocence as well as whether the death penalty should be applied or not.
In the Holmes trial 9,000 people received jury summons.  The initial pool was so big because of the high profile nature of the crime and the judge’s desire to have the most robust starting point before dismissals began.  Jury selection was divided into phases which included a questionnaire, individual interviews and a group questioning phase.
As I sat in the gallery I watched the judge give instructions and explain the best he could about what it will mean to be a juror in a capital case.  He asked and answered questions and then the defense and prosecution were allowed their turn.  The process for the attorneys is very strategic.  They study and practice, carefully wording each question they ask to each potential juror.  For the Holmes trial the whole process will have taken three months to complete.
I couldn’t help but think how the enormity of  jury selection and the trial yet to come could have all been avoided if the prosecution had accepted Holmes’ plea of guilty for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.  According to the Associated Press, pretrial costs have already reached $2.2 million dollars.  However, the trial proceeds and jury selection continues.
Some may ask why such a long process is necessary, but many may argue that putting together the best possible jury is one of the most important parts of a trial, especially when the death penalty is being sought.  Ultimately, it is the jury who will make the decision of guilt or innocence and then if found guilty, they will decide whether the defendant will receive a punishment of life or death.

(This entry also appears on the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-woodliffstanley-/a-tale-of-two-cakes-the-r_b_7029284.html)

Colorado has been ground zero for the "cake wars," a seemingly trivial conflict with some serious principles at stake. Since the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defends religious liberty, freedom of speech, marriage equality and equal protection from discrimination, we care about the distinctions that these two recent high profile cake cases in Colorado illustrate between genuine religious liberty and discrimination in the name of religion.
It all began when David Mullins and Charlie Craig entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012 to order a cake for their wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends in Colorado. Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused service to the couple based on his opposition to same-sex marriage, citing his religious beliefs. David and Charlie filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division under long-established public accommodations laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in May 2014 that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David and Charlie.
Shortly before the Commission ruling in that case, Bill Jack of Castle Rock approached Azucar Bakery in Denver with a different request: a Bible-shaped cake with anti-gay messages and symbols on it. Bakery owner Marjorie Silva was willing to make the cake but not to write offensive messages on it. She offered frosting and pastry tubes so that Mr. Jack could write on it himself, but he declined. Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of Ms. Silva that she had not unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Jack.
Are these two cases the same? Not at all. David and Charlie were legitimate customers who experienced discrimination based on who they were. They were turned down before there was any discussion of the design of the cake, and it is clear that Masterpiece Cakeshop would deny wedding cakes to any same-sex couple while providing them to heterosexual couples, an obvious violation of public accommodation laws.
Bill Jack, however, was only engaged in a stunt to make a point, apparently hoping to be turned down. Ms. Silva attempted to accommodate his request while refusing to add offensive messages that she would refuse no matter who requested them. It is worth note that Azucar Bakery frequently makes cakes for Christian religious ceremonies, with no pattern or policy of discrimination.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided both cases correctly and consistently.
Mr. Jack has gone on to claim that all he wanted was Bible verses on a cake, which is both false and ironic. According to even his own most recent account, none his requests actually consisted solely of accurate quotations from the Bible. For example, one verse he claims to have requested, "Homosexuality is a detestable sin," doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the term homosexual didn't exist for hundreds of years after the Bible was written.
Regardless of their source, the words and accompanying drawing that Bill Jack requested were clearly intended to offend the baker, who turned down only the purposely offensive message, not the customer for being Christian. Irresponsible voices in the media have intentionally attempted to confuse the two cake cases, and at least one commentator has targeted the ACLU for its stand as supposedly anti-religion or anti-Bible. In reality, the ACLU has a nearly 100-year history of defending the freedom of belief and worship (or not) for everyone, including Christians. No organization in the country fights harder for true religious liberty as it was intended by the First Amendment, including freedom from religious tests, government-sponsored religion or discrimination on the basis of religion in the public square.
Those who would use the cake cases to promote legislation allowing businesses to discriminate in the name of religion should be careful what they ask for. These laws have the potential to open the door to all kinds of discrimination, including actual discrimination against Christians if businesses don't want to serve them. If that happens, they may need the ACLU, and if so, we'll be here.