济南早泄治疗最好药(济南中药治疗阳痿早泄) (今日更新中)

Amid the political gridlock in Washington, it’s one of the rare instances of a bill getting marshaled forward in a bipartisan fashion.It’s called “The Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry Act of 2020,” which recently passed the U.S. Senate. At its core, it would help provide mental health services for people in the criminal justice system who don’t usually get it.“It tries to deal with a fundamental problem we have in this country, that too many people with mental illness end up in jails and prisons,” said Chuck Ingoglia, CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health. “I've had the opportunity to go around the country and to talk to local sheriffs and they understand that people with mental illness don't belong in their facilities, don’t do well in their facilities.”In fact, from 2006 to 2016, in jails around the country, suicide was the leading single cause of death. Yet, the problem goes beyond prison walls.It can be a lonely road for inmates after they have served their time and are released back into the community. Part of what the bill hopes to address is what happens with their mental health since many of them report they don’t have health insurance to get their needed medication.About 80 percent of inmates released lack health insurance, and those that do have it, often wait an average of 48 days to get an appointment at a behavioral clinic.To fill in that gap, among other things, the bill would allocate million a year for five years towards programs that strengthen the link between law enforcement and community mental health providers.“Unfortunately, in many places, there is no alternative,” Ingoglia said. “This bill, these new grant programs that it's seeking to create, would try to give more options to communities.”It’s a bill whose future now lies in the hands of the U.S. House of Representatives. 1861

As America comes to grips with the nation’s handling of race relations, the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins have both said that now is the time to reevaluate their respective team monikers.But the Chicago Blackhawks said they will not follow suit.The National Congress of American Indians have long criticized the name. Activists say these team nicknames play up harmful racial stereotypes."The professional sports industry, specifically the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and the National Hockey League (NHL) and the leagues’ team owners have failed to address the racist origins of deplorable race based marketing strategies of the past," the report read. "Often citing a long held myth by non-Native people that 'Indian' mascots 'honor Native people,' American sports businesses such as the NFL’s Washington 'Redsk*ns' and Kansas City 'Chiefs,' MLB’s Cleveland 'Indians' and Atlanta 'Braves,' and the NHL’s Chicago Black Hawks, continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place."Each of these professional sports businesses attempt to establish a story of honoring Native peoples through the names or mascots; however, each one—be it through logos or traditions (e.g., fight songs, mascots, human impersonators, and fan culture)—diminishes the place, status, and humanity of contemporary Native citizens. What is true about many of the brand origin stories is that team owners during the birth of these brands hoped to gain financially from mocking Native identity. As a result, these businesses perpetuated racial and political inequity. Those who have kept their logos and brands, continue to do so."The Blackhawks say their team name is different as it honors a specific Native American. Black Hawk was a leader of the Sauk Native American Tribe in the early 19th century. Black Hawk served as an ally to the British during the War of 1812 in hopes of pushing the US from Sauk land."The Chicago Blackhawks' name and logo symbolizes an important and historic person, Black Hawk of Illinois' Sac & Fox Nation, whose leadership and life has inspired generations of Native Americans, veterans and the public," the team said in a statement."We celebrate Black Hawk's legacy by offering ongoing reverent examples of Native American culture, traditions and contributions, providing a platform for genuine dialogue with local and national Native American groups. As the team's popularity grew over the past decade, so did that platform and our work with these important organizations."The team said it would “raise awareness” of Black Hawk and Native American people. 2693

As Americans protest racial inequality and the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police, their pleas are being heard in the chambers of the U.S. Capitol. Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation to reform policing in America, but they diverge on some issues.The far-reaching legislative proposal from Democrats, the Justice in Policing Act, would limit legal protections for police, create a national database of excessive-force encounters and ban police chokeholds, among other changes.Republicans say their bill, known as the Justice Act -- one of the most ambitious GOP policing proposals in years -- “will maintain the constitutionally-limited role the federal government plays in local law enforcement decisions while still effecting significant change.” It calls for an enhanced use-of-force database, restrictions on chokeholds and new commissions to study law enforcement and race.Here’s a side-by-side look at some proposals:POLICE MISCONDUCT & USE-OF-FORCE DATABASESMany officers who wind up involved in fatal shootings have a history of misconduct, including Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer charged with murder in Floyd’s death. He had at least a dozen complaints made against him, according to records.But those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if officers have such a record.President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week requiring the attorney general to create a database tracking terminations, criminal convictions and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for excessive use of force. It encourages participation by providing certain grants only to those agencies that submit the required information.— Democrats’ bill: Calls for a national registry including complaints, disciplinary records and termination records. It also would require states to report to the Justice Department any incident in which force is used against a civilian or law enforcement officer. The proposal would require the agencies to report the reason force was used and the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency and housing status of each civilian against whom a law enforcement officer used force.— Republicans’ bill: Would require state and local governments to report all use-of-force incidents that result in serious injuries or death to the FBI on an annual basis. Municipalities that fail to comply could see a reduction in federal funding.CHOKEHOLDSThere’s a notable difference. The Democrats’ bill would specifically ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level, while the Republican bill incentivizes police departments to ban the practice through grant funding. Trump’s executive order also encourages such bans through financial incentives.— Democrats’ bill: Would ban chokeholds and carotid holds and would condition law enforcement funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on establishing a law to prohibit the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.— Republicans’ bill: Would condition certain Justice Department funds on a police department having specific policies restricting the use of chokeholds, except in situations in which deadly force is authorized.NO-KNOCK WARRANTSThere has been a growing call to ban no-knock warrants since 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville, Kentucky, home by officers in March. Democrats have proposed a ban on the practice, typically executed in some of the most dangerous investigations conducted by police departments. A no-knock warrant, as its name implies, is an order from a judge that allows police to enter a home without ringing a doorbell or banging on the door. Critics have said the use has increased dramatically, and some departments use them routinely in cases that don’t merit such an exception.— Democrats’ bill: Would specifically ban no-knock warrants for all federal drug cases and would require local and state law enforcement agencies to prohibit their use to qualify for some federal funding. Oregon and Florida are the only states that have outlawed such warrants.— Republicans’ bill: GOP senators argue there is no conclusive data on how, why and how often no-knock search warrants are used and have proposed requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report specific data to the Department of Justice each year. The department would then be required to make a public report.FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW— Democrats’ bill: Would amend the federal civil rights law that governs police misconduct to no longer require prosecutors to prove that an officer’s actions were willful, a high burden of proof. The law would allow an officer to be charged for acting with reckless disregard for someone’s life, causing that person’s death.— Republicans’ bill: Would not amend that section of the law.QUALIFIED IMMUNITYPolice officers are generally not held personally liable for anything that happens on the job, including when someone dies. The concept of qualified immunity has long been a way to protect police from unnecessary lawsuits and to give them the freedom to police without fear of unnecessary retribution.— Democrats’ bill: Would amend federal misconduct statutes to make it easier for courts to find officers personally liable for the violation of civil rights. Officers might think twice before abusing their power, but it could make it more difficult to recruit police nationwide. It could also potentially lead to officers being held financially liable.— Republicans’ bill: They say this is a step too far. As an alternative, the lead senator on the bill, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.The president’s executive order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified. Under the order, Justice would ensure a department could only be credentialed if its use-of-force policies adhered to federal, state, and local laws.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday the qualified immunity provision in the House Democrats’ bill “is a total and complete nonstarter.” 6166

Apparently, the mysterious monolith in a remote area of southeast Utah wasn't that hard to find for at least one person and his crew.Dave Sparks, star of the Discovery Channel show "Diesel Brothers," was able to find the tall and shiny object earlier this week, days after officials in Utah announced its discovery.Sparks posted videos on his Instagram account from the undisclosed location.Sparks says the monolith is an "insanely creative piece of metal art." He also described how the monolith was most likely constructed in an Instagram video. 555

As Americans protest racial inequality and the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police, their pleas are being heard in the chambers of the U.S. Capitol. Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation to reform policing in America, but they diverge on some issues.The far-reaching legislative proposal from Democrats, the Justice in Policing Act, would limit legal protections for police, create a national database of excessive-force encounters and ban police chokeholds, among other changes.Republicans say their bill, known as the Justice Act -- one of the most ambitious GOP policing proposals in years -- “will maintain the constitutionally-limited role the federal government plays in local law enforcement decisions while still effecting significant change.” It calls for an enhanced use-of-force database, restrictions on chokeholds and new commissions to study law enforcement and race.Here’s a side-by-side look at some proposals:POLICE MISCONDUCT & USE-OF-FORCE DATABASESMany officers who wind up involved in fatal shootings have a history of misconduct, including Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer charged with murder in Floyd’s death. He had at least a dozen complaints made against him, according to records.But those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if officers have such a record.President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week requiring the attorney general to create a database tracking terminations, criminal convictions and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for excessive use of force. It encourages participation by providing certain grants only to those agencies that submit the required information.— Democrats’ bill: Calls for a national registry including complaints, disciplinary records and termination records. It also would require states to report to the Justice Department any incident in which force is used against a civilian or law enforcement officer. The proposal would require the agencies to report the reason force was used and the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency and housing status of each civilian against whom a law enforcement officer used force.— Republicans’ bill: Would require state and local governments to report all use-of-force incidents that result in serious injuries or death to the FBI on an annual basis. Municipalities that fail to comply could see a reduction in federal funding.CHOKEHOLDSThere’s a notable difference. The Democrats’ bill would specifically ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level, while the Republican bill incentivizes police departments to ban the practice through grant funding. Trump’s executive order also encourages such bans through financial incentives.— Democrats’ bill: Would ban chokeholds and carotid holds and would condition law enforcement funding for state and local law enforcement agencies on establishing a law to prohibit the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.— Republicans’ bill: Would condition certain Justice Department funds on a police department having specific policies restricting the use of chokeholds, except in situations in which deadly force is authorized.NO-KNOCK WARRANTSThere has been a growing call to ban no-knock warrants since 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville, Kentucky, home by officers in March. Democrats have proposed a ban on the practice, typically executed in some of the most dangerous investigations conducted by police departments. A no-knock warrant, as its name implies, is an order from a judge that allows police to enter a home without ringing a doorbell or banging on the door. Critics have said the use has increased dramatically, and some departments use them routinely in cases that don’t merit such an exception.— Democrats’ bill: Would specifically ban no-knock warrants for all federal drug cases and would require local and state law enforcement agencies to prohibit their use to qualify for some federal funding. Oregon and Florida are the only states that have outlawed such warrants.— Republicans’ bill: GOP senators argue there is no conclusive data on how, why and how often no-knock search warrants are used and have proposed requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report specific data to the Department of Justice each year. The department would then be required to make a public report.FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW— Democrats’ bill: Would amend the federal civil rights law that governs police misconduct to no longer require prosecutors to prove that an officer’s actions were willful, a high burden of proof. The law would allow an officer to be charged for acting with reckless disregard for someone’s life, causing that person’s death.— Republicans’ bill: Would not amend that section of the law.QUALIFIED IMMUNITYPolice officers are generally not held personally liable for anything that happens on the job, including when someone dies. The concept of qualified immunity has long been a way to protect police from unnecessary lawsuits and to give them the freedom to police without fear of unnecessary retribution.— Democrats’ bill: Would amend federal misconduct statutes to make it easier for courts to find officers personally liable for the violation of civil rights. Officers might think twice before abusing their power, but it could make it more difficult to recruit police nationwide. It could also potentially lead to officers being held financially liable.— Republicans’ bill: They say this is a step too far. As an alternative, the lead senator on the bill, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.The president’s executive order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified. Under the order, Justice would ensure a department could only be credentialed if its use-of-force policies adhered to federal, state, and local laws.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday the qualified immunity provision in the House Democrats’ bill “is a total and complete nonstarter.” 6166

来源：资阳报