Monday, June 18, 2018

Ailing "ice pick killer" in Texas, seeking to halt his scheduled execution, points to failed efforts in Alabama and Ohio

As reported in this Reuters piece, headlined "Too frail for death row? Texas inmate seeks execution reprieve," a notorious capital defendant has a notable new claim in federal court in an effort to avoid execution. Here are the details:

After two recent botched U.S. executions of inmates with compromised veins, a convicted murderer and rapist is arguing he is too ill to be put to death by lethal injection in Texas later this month.  Lawyers for Danny Bible, a 66-year-old inmate set to be executed on June 27, said in a federal court filing in June that his health and vein access were worse than inmates in Alabama and Ohio whose executions were called off after IV placements failed.

The cases have capital punishment critics questioning whether justice is served by executing a person convicted of horrific crimes but who is now too weak or sick to be considered a threat....  Some death penalty proponents counter that sympathy should not be shown to inmates who they accuse of trying to game the system by filing appeals that take decades to wind through the courts, denying justice to the victims’ families.

The average age of death row inmates has increased in the United States as the number of executions has trended downward, as fewer states conduct lethal injections and appeals take more time.  More than 40 percent of U.S. death row inmates are 50 years of age or older, according to U.S. data and the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center.

In recent years, death row inmates were just as likely to die awaiting execution as they were to be executed.  Last year, 24 death row inmates across the country died in prison awaiting execution, mostly due to natural causes, while 23 inmates were executed, according to data compiled by Reuters.

Of the first group, six of those inmates died awaiting executions in California, which has the largest death row of 746 inmates but has not conducted an execution since 2006.

In 2016, there were 19 non-execution deaths and 20 executions in the United States, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bible was sentenced to death in Texas for a string of rapes and murders that started in the Houston area in 1979 and earned him the nickname “ice pick killer” for the weapon he used.

His lawyers now are seeking to halt his execution, saying he is confined to a wheelchair after he fractured his spine in a prison bus crash in 2003 and has coronary artery disease, diabetes and hypertension.  “Under the current circumstances, attempts to place IVs in Mr. Bible would be futile and likely result in significant pain and suffering,” his lawyer wrote in their court filing.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a request for a comment, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said it had full confidence in its ability to complete Bible’s execution.

Lawyers for the inmates whose lethal injections were aborted in the past year say those cases offer a cautionary tale. The execution of convicted murderer Doyle Hamm, 61 and suffering from terminal cancer and chronic illnesses, was called off in February after medical personnel tried for 2-1/2 hours to place an intravenous line. The effort left Hamm with more than a dozen puncture wounds, court records showed, and came after his lawyers argued that any lethal injection attempt would be futile due to his compromised veins.

Ohio also called off the execution of convicted murder Campbell, 69, because death chamber personnel could not find a suitable vein in the inmate, frail from cancer and other diseases. Campbell died about four months later in prison.

Recent prior related posts:

June 18, 2018 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Attorney General Sessions laments state recidivism data and impact of Johnson ACCA ruling

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today delivered these remarks to the National Sheriffs' Association Annual Conference, and his comments covered lots of criminal justice ground that I do not recall him previously speaking about directly. The speech is worth reading in full because of all it reveals about how AG Sessions' looks at crime and criminals, and here are just some of the comments that caught my attention:

This is a difficult job, but when rules are fairly and consistently enforced, life is better for all — particularly for our poor and minority communities.  Most people obey the law. They just want to live their lives. They’re not going to go out and commit violent crimes or felonies.

As my former boss, President Reagan used to say, “Most serious crimes are the work of a relatively small group of hardened criminals.”  That is just as true today as it was back then.  That’s why we’ve got to be smart and fair about how we identify criminals and who we put behind bars and for how long....

I want to call your attention to something important.  A few weeks ago, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a new report on the recidivism rate of inmates released from state prisons in 30 states.  This is the longest-term study that BJS has ever done on recidivism and perhaps the largest.  It was designed by the previous administration. The results are clear and very important. The results are of historic importance.  The reality is grim indeed.

The study found that 83 percent of 60,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested again within nine years.  That’s five out of every six.  The study shows that two-thirds of those — a full 68 percent — were arrested within the first three years. Almost half were arrested within a year — one year — of being released.

The study estimates that the 400,000 state prisoners released in 2005 were arrested nearly 2 million times during the nine-year period — an average of five arrests each.  Virtually none of these released prisoners were arrested merely for probation or parole violations: 99 percent of those arrested during the 9-year follow-up period were arrested for something other than a probation or parole violation.

In many cases, former inmates were arrested for an offense at least as serious — if not more so — as the crime that got them in jail in the first place. It will not surprise you that this is often true for drug offenders.

Many have thought that most drug offenders are young experimenters or persons who made a mistake.  But the study shows a deeper concern.  Seventy-seven percent of all released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within nine years.  Presumably, many were arrested for drug crimes also.  Importantly, nearly half of those arrests were for a violent crime. We can’t give up....

This tells us that recidivism is no little matter.  It is a fact of life that must be understood.  But overall, the good news is that the professionals in law enforcement know what works in crime.  We’ve been studying this and working on this for 40 years.

From 1964 to 1980, the overall violent crime rate tripled.  Robbery tripled. Rape tripled.  Aggravated assault nearly tripled. Murder doubled.  And then, from 1991 to 2014, violent crime dropped by half. Murder dropped by half.  So did aggravated assault.  Rape decreased by more than a third, and robbery plummeted by nearly two-thirds.

That wasn’t a coincidence.  Between that big rise in crime and that big decline in crime, President Reagan and the great Attorney General Ed Meese went to work.  There was the elimination of parole, the Speedy Trial Act, the elimination of bail on appeal, increased bail for dangerous criminals before trial, the issuing of sentencing guidelines, and in certain cases, mandatory minimum sentences.

We increased funding for the DEA, FBI, ATF, and federal prosecutors. And most states and cities followed Reagan’s lead.  Professionalism and training dramatically increased in local law enforcement.  These were the biggest changes in law enforcement since the founding of this country.  These laws were critical to re-establishing public safety.

When a criminal knows with certainty that he is facing hard time, he is a lot more willing to confess and cooperate with prosecutors.  On the other hand, when the sentence is uncertain and up to the whims of the judge, criminals are a lot more willing to take a chance....

The certainty of a significant and fixed sentence helps us get criminals to hand over their bosses, the kingpins and the cartel leaders — and helps remove entire gangs and criminals from the street.  Left unaddressed these organizations only get richer, stronger, more arrogant and violent placing whole neighborhoods in fear.

Law enforcement officers understand that. Sheriff Eavenson and NSA have been critical allies in the fight to preserve mandatory minimums for a long time — and I want to thank you for your strong advocacy.  Many doubt their value.  Maybe this is obvious, but a recidivist can’t hurt the community if he is incarcerated.  A lot of people who would have committed crimes in the 1990s and 2000s didn’t because they were locked up.  Murders were cut in half after 1980....

Look, our goal is not to fill up the prisons.  Our goal is to reduce crime and to keep every American safe.  We should not as a policy keep persons in prison longer than necessary. But clear and certain punishment does in fact make America safer....

One of the most important laws that President Reagan signed into law was the Armed Career Criminal Act.  That’s the law that requires a minimum 15- year sentence for felons caught with a firearm after their third robbery or burglary conviction.

These are not so-called “low-level, nonviolent drug offenders” who are being picked on.  These are criminals who have committed multiple serious offenses.  In 2015 — after 30 years on the books — one critical line of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court as being too vague.

But because of this impactful ruling, every federal prosecutor lost one of their most valuable tools and they ask me for help regularly.  Just one example is Jeffrey Giddings of Oregon.  He had more than 20 convictions since 1991. He was let out of jail after the Court ruling and only 18 days later shot a police officer and held two fast food employees hostage.  He has now been sentenced to another 30 years in prison.  And the last thing he did before being put back in jail was to lash out in a tirade of profanity at police....

More than 1,400 criminals — each convicted of three felonies — have been let out of jail in the three years since the Court ruling.  And so far, more than 600 have been arrested again.

On average, these 600 criminals have been arrested three times since 2015.  A majority of those who have been out of prison for two years have already been arrested again. Here in Louisiana, nearly half of the released ACCA offenders released because of this court ruling have already been rearrested or returned to federal custody....

In this noble calling, all of us in this room are leaders. The NSA is fulfilling its responsibility in this regard. We must communicate sound principles to our policy leaders and to the American people when it comes to reducing crime:

  • A small number of people commit most of the crimes;
  • Those who are jailed for crimes are very likely to commit more crimes—often escalating to violent crimes — after their release; and
  • Congress and our legislatures must consider legislation that protects the public by ensuring that we incapacitate those criminals and deter others

And so the point is this: we should always be looking for effective and proven ways to reduce recidivism, but we must also recognize that simply reducing sentences without reducing recidivism unfairly creates more victims.

This Department of Justice under President Trump is committed to working with you to deliver justice for crime victims and consequences to criminals. We want to be a force multiplier for you.

The President has ordered us to back the women and men in blue and to reduce crime in America. And that’s what we intend to do. We embrace that mission and enforce the law with you.

There is a bit of rich irony to the Attorney General extolling the importance and value of "clear and certain punishment" just before lamenting a SCOTUS ruling that struck down a punishment as too vague to be clear or certain in any way.  That irony aside, I am not at all surprised to see him highlight the depressing new data, first blogged in this prior post, revealing terrible recidivism numbers among those released from state prisons in 2005.  I am not sure from where the ACCA-post-Johnson-release recidivism data comes, but I am sure all these numbers fuel the AG's belief that we should always be inclined to (over-)incarcerate in efforts to improve public safety.

June 18, 2018 in Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Split SCOTUS outcomes for federal defendants: a plain error win in Rosales-Mireles and an explanation loss in Chavez-Meza

The Supreme Court has handed down this morning its last two sentencing cases, Rosales-Mireles v. United States and Chavez-Meza v. United States, and they are split decisions in every sense. 

In Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16–9493 (S. Ct. June 18, 2018) (available here), Justice Sotomayor writes for the Court ruling in favor of the federal defendant, with Justice Thomas writing the chief dissent joined by Justice Alito.  In Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17–5639 (S. Ct. June 18, 2018) (available here), Justice Breyer writes for the Court ruling in favor of the federal government, with Justice Kennedy writing the chief dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Here is the Court's opening paragraph in Rosales-Mireles:

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) provides that a court of appeals may consider errors that are plain and affect substantial rights, even though they are raised for the first time on appeal.  This case concerns the bounds of that discretion, and whether a miscalculation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range, that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights, calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Rule 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence.  The Court holds that such an error will in the ordinary case, as here, seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and thus will warrant relief.

Here is the Court's opening paragraph in Chavez-Meza:

This case concerns a criminal drug offender originally sentenced in accordance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  Subsequently, the Sentencing Commission lowered the applicable Guidelines sentencing range; the offender asked for a sentence reduction in light of the lowered range; and the District Judge reduced his original sentence from 135 months’ imprisonment to 114 months’.  The offender, believing he should have obtained a yet greater reduction, argues that the District Judge did not adequately explain why he imposed a sentence of 114 months rather than a lower sentence.  The Court of Appeals held that the judge’s explanation was adequate.  And we agree with the Court of Appeals.

As regular readers should now come to expect, sentencing cases have a way of producing notable voting patters. Criminal defendants and defense attorneys should be intrigued and encouraged by that both Chief Justice Roberts and the new Justice Gorsuch signed on to the majority opinion in Rosales-Mireles. But defendants and defense attorneys surely will also be troubled that the Chief along with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were all willing to embrace the "close enough for government work" approach in Chavez-Meza.

June 18, 2018 in Booker in district courts, Booker in the Circuits, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS finally grants cert on new cases, including two criminal justice cases

Last Monday, because the Supreme Court issued an order list and opinions with little of interest for criminal justice fans, I sought to keep up my end-of-Term excitement by blogging here about the five remaining SCOTUS criminal cases to be decided in this coming weeks.  Some of those cases are likely to be decided today or later list week, but we already have something exciting from the Justices via this new order list granting cert on five new cases, including two criminal cases (links and descriptions via SCOTUSblog):

Garza v. Idaho: "Whether the 'presumption of prejudice' recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies when a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver."

Timbs v. Indiana: "Whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment."

The order list also includes a short dissent from the denial of cert in a Florida capital cases in which Justice Sotomayor laments yet again the Court's failure to take up a claim that Florida's jury instructions "impermissibly diminished the jurors’ sense of responsibility as to the ultimate determination of death, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985)."

Especially during a time in which financial sanctions are (finally) getting a lot more attention and there is a ever-growing libertarian/conservative concern about fines and forfeitures, the Timbs case if very interesting and is now my favorite "what to watch" case going into the next Term.

UPDATE: Over at Crime & Consequences here, Kent Scheidegger has a bit of an early preview of Garza in a post titled "Clients, Lawyers, and Appeals."  And this second C&C post, titled "Excessive Fines and Incorporation," takes a quick look at Timbs.

MORE:  SCOTUSblog has more on Timbs and Garza (and the other grants) in this post by Amy Howe.

June 18, 2018 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (7)

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Focus on fathers behind bars on Father's Day

Last month, to mark Mother's Day, I collected in this post a lot of commentary about mothers in prison.  I have noticed far less comparable commentary to mark  Father's Day (perhaps because everyone is busy debating what Phil Mickelson did yesterday).  But I have seen these two new pieces authored by Pat Nolan:

June 17, 2018 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)

"What Tocqueville Would Think of Today’s Criminal Justice Reforms"

The title of this post is the headline of this interesting commentary authored by Emily Ferkaluk which leans on a historic figure while advocating for the FIRST STEP Act.  Here are excerpts:

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat who toured American penitentiaries at the height of the 19th-century penal debate in order to help guide French penal reform, would commend us for the reform measures contained in the First Step Act.

In his report, “On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application to France,” Tocqueville stressed that any criminal justice reform must moderately balance two goals: preserving the rights of society, and preserving the rights of prisoners.  Society, he argued, has a right to promote and protect public safety and order by punishing those who break the law—and to regain at least some of the money it spends in doing so.  On the other hand, the prisoner has a right to an education that prepares him to re-enter society as a productive citizen.

Both rights are preserved through the right application of corrective justice — a balance of proportional retribution and rehabilitation.  The First Step Act protects both of these rights—the rights of society and of the prisoner — by proposing a recidivism program that conducts risk assessments of prisoners.  These assessments would weigh the likelihood of individual prisoners recommitting a crime....

Furthermore, time credit programs that are joined to a risk assessment system work because they let wardens and prison administrators determine whether a prisoner presents a low risk to the community.  Tocqueville would have approved of this kind of localized authority.  In fact, during his visit to America, he was pleasantly surprised at the amount of authority the superintendent of prisons wielded over prison discipline.  He believed superintendents were best suited to make those decisions, being the closest to prisoners and having observed their behavior and reformation.

Tocqueville also identified certain types of incentives that truly rehabilitate prisoners — particularly family-oriented incentives. His interviews with prisoners in solitary confinement in the Philadelphia Penitentiary led him to remark that “memories of their family have an extreme power over their souls,” thus disposing them to rehabilitation.

These very incentives are present in the First Step Act. One incentive is to be relocated to a facility closer to home. Another is to enroll prisoners in a program that gives them “family relationship building, structured parent-child interaction, and parenting skills.”  A third option is to allow certain prisoners to go home for pre-release custody.  All of these cohere with Tocqueville’s findings....

When Tocqueville was first inspecting American penitentiaries, only a handful of states (predominantly New York and Pennsylvania) had begun to implement new prison disciplines such as solitary confinement and prison labor.  These penal disciplines proved effective, and despite their relative newness, Tocqueville recommended the French adopt the same disciplines.

Tocqueville preferred democratic politics to theory, and action in one direction over endless debate.  Commenting on the penal reforms made by the people through their state legislatures, he said, “Perhaps this prudent and reserved reform, effected by an entire people, whose entire habits are practical, will be better than the hasty trials that would result from the enthusiasm of ardent minds and the seduction of theories.”

Tocqueville’s words of wisdom should encourage us to pass the proposed recidivism reform measures without fear of killing any future criminal justice reform.  This first step toward penal reform is not our last.

Some of many prior related posts:

June 17, 2018 in Aspects and impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Paul Manifort has bail revoked ... and has not (yet) gotten rescued from jail by Prez Trump's clemency pen

As detailed in this CNN piece, a very prominent federal defendant grew the number of Americans incarcerated yesterday when he had his bail revoked and was taken immediately to jail:

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort will await his trial for foreign lobbying charges from jail.  Two weeks after special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors dropped new accusations of witness tampering on him, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Friday revoked Manafort's bail, which had allowed him to live in his Alexandria, Virginia, apartment under house arrest.

The order marked an end to almost eight months of attempts by Manafort to lighten his house arrest restrictions after he was charged and pleaded not guilty to foreign lobbying violations. "The harm in this case is harm to the administration of justice and harm to the integrity of the court's system," Berman Jackson told Manafort in court.

The judge emphasized to Manafort how she could not make enough rulings to keep him from speaking improperly with witnesses, after he had used multiple text messaging apps and called a potential witness on an Italian cellphone.  "This is not middle school. I can't take his cellphone," she said of Manafort.  "I thought about this long and hard, Mr. Manafort. I have no appetite for this."

Manafort also entered a not guilty plea to two additional charges levied against him last week, of witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice. In total, he faces seven criminal charges in DC federal court. Three US marshals led Manafort out of the packed courtroom into the prisoner holding area immediately after the judge's ruling. He was not placed in handcuffs. Before he disappeared through the door, he turned toward his wife and supporters and gave a stilted wave.

Minutes later, a marshal returned to give Manafort's wife, Kathleen, still standing in the courtroom's front row, his wallet, belt and the burgundy tie he wore Friday. Court marshals held Manafort in the bowels of the courthouse for several hours following the hearing as they considered how to keep him protected from other inmates behind bars. He arrived about 8 p.m. at the Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, 90 miles south of Washington.

In a tweet, President Donald Trump said the decision to revoke Manafort's bail was "tough," although he referred to it as a "sentence."

I cannot help but recall in this context the decision by Prez George W. Bush, made just under 11 years ago as reported here, to commute the entire prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to spare him from having to serve his 30 month prison term after his conviction in the CIA leak case.  Notably, Prez Bush's clemency grant came down just a few hours after the DC Circuit refused to allow Libby to remain free on bail during the appeal of his conviction and sentence.  In other words, as soon as Libby was subject to spending even an hour incarcerated, Prez Bush was moved to act to keep him free.  Paul Manafort, notably, has not (yet) gotten the presidential consideration as he has now already spent one (of likely many) nights in jail without even yet having been convicted of anything.  

June 16, 2018 in Clemency and Pardons, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, White-collar sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (7)

"Disclosing Prosecutorial Misconduct"

I just came across this article authored by Jason Kreag available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

Prosecutorial misconduct in the form of Brady violations continues to plague the criminal justice system.  Brady misconduct represents a fundamental breakdown in the adversarial process, denying defendants a fair trial and undermining the legitimacy of the system.  Commentators have responded by proposing a range of reforms to increase Brady compliance going forward.  Yet these reforms have largely ignored the need to remedy the harms from past Brady violations.  Furthermore, these proposals focus almost entirely on the harms defendants face from prosecutors’ Brady misconduct, ignoring the harms victims, jurors, witnesses, and others endure.

This Article proposes a new remedy to supplement the current responses to Brady misconduct: the Brady Violation Disclosure Letter.  It proposes sending a concise letter documenting the misconduct to the relevant stakeholders who participated in the initial trial that was corrupted by a Brady violation.  This disclosure is a partial remedy for the range of harms Brady violations create.  It also promises to increase Brady compliance and to promote transparency in a criminal justice system that is increasingly opaque. Importantly, this proposal can be implemented immediately without adopting new rules or statutes and without expanding Brady’s exiting constitutional protections.

June 16, 2018 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, June 15, 2018

Some state highlights from Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

It has been nearly two months since I did a full round-up of posts of note from the blogging I do over at Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform, but I have this week highlighted a few of many recent posts on federal marijuana reform developments and on marijuana expungement activities.  Because I am likely to be off line for all of Friday, I will head into the weekend by here doing a round-up of recent state marijuana reform postings from MLP&R (in alphabetical order):

June 15, 2018 in Marijuana Legalization in the States, Pot Prohibition Issues | Permalink | Comments (1)

Any predictions on sentencing day for Senator Rand Paul's attacker? UPDATE: Boucher got 30 days in jail and 100 hours community service

Friday finally brings judgment day for Dr. Rene Boucher, the neighbor of Senator Rand Paul, who strangely decided to violently tackle Senator Paul while he was mowing his lawn last fall.  As reported in this local article, headlined "Defense attorney in Paul tackling case makes pitch for probation," the defendant is hoping to avoid any period of incarceration:

Dr. Rene Boucher, who admitted guilt to a federal crime in a case involving the tackling of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul outside the lawmaker’s home, has formally requested to be placed on probation. Attorney Matt Baker, representing Boucher, filed a 10-page memorandum [last] Friday in U.S. District Court arguing that incarceration for the retired physician would serve no useful purpose.

Boucher, 60, pleaded guilty in March to a count of assaulting a member of Congress resulting in personal injury. His sentencing, before Special Judge Marianne Battani, is set for June 15.

Special Prosecutor Bradley Shepard has recommended a 21-month prison sentence for Boucher, but Baker argues probation is more appropriate “based upon the rather unique nature of the offense” and several extenuating circumstances. “Other than the isolated incident that is in issue, Dr. Boucher has been a pillar of his community, a solid citizen, a family man and a devout Christian,” Baker stated in his memorandum, which also stressed Boucher’s lack of a criminal history and his service in the U.S. Army and in the community as a physician.

A neck injury sustained in a bicycle accident forced Boucher, a specialist in pain management and anesthesiology, to retire from practicing medicine, according to court records. Accompanying the sentencing memorandum are 14 letters supporting Boucher and extolling his character.

Baker’s filing offers context into what led to the Nov. 3 incident in the Rivergreen subdivision, where Paul and Boucher are neighbors. On that date, Paul was tackled outside his residence while doing yardwork. Boucher told law enforcement that he ran onto the senator’s property and tackled Paul after he witnessed Paul stack brush on top of a pile near Boucher’s property.

Baker’s filing makes the case that the roots of the tackling incident could be traced to summer 2017, when Boucher trimmed the limbs on a few maple trees on the property line dividing the Boucher and Paul properties....

The memorandum filed Friday quotes what Baker said is a victim impact statement from Paul filed May 21 in which the senator says he “can only assume that (Boucher’s) deep-seated anger towards me co-mingles with his hatred of my political policies” and states that Boucher must be suffering from a “personality disorder, substance abuse, intense political hatred or all of the above.”

Baker called those allegations “completely unfounded.” “Dr. Boucher has adamantly denied any such political motivations throughout, as even the suggestion of them is completely unfounded and simply not true,” Baker said.

In an emailed statement to the Daily News on Tuesday, Paul's communications director, Kelsey Cooper, took issue with some of Baker's characterizations of the neighbors' relationship. "Before Senator Paul was violently attacked from behind, he had no conversations or discussions with the attacker," Cooper wrote. "There was no 'longstanding dispute.' This description is untrue. It is impossible to have a dispute when no words of disagreement were ever spoken – neither immediately nor at any other time before the attack occurred. In the decade prior to the attack, Senator Paul had no contact with the attacker.

"The attack was a pre-meditated assault that broke six of the Senator’s ribs and was complicated by fluid and blood around the lung and recurrent pneumonia. Any description of this attack that implies a 'yard dispute' justifies such violence and misses the point."

I am inclined to predict that Boucher will get some period of incarceration, but less than the 21 months sought by federal prosecutors.  I will guess the term will be somewhere between six months and a year-and-a-day.  But this really a guess, especially given that I have not been able to find a copy of the sentencing filings available on-line, nor have I seen any guideline calculations.

In this prior post about this case, I encouraged readers to suggest what sentence they thought fitting for Senator Rand Paul's attacker. I welcome additional comments on what folks think Boucher will and should get.

Prior related post:

UPDATE: This press piece reports on the sentencing outcome, and starts this way:

The neighbor who admitted to attacking U.S. Senator Rand Paul outside his home last fall was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court in Bowling Green to 30 days in jail. Rene Boucher was also ordered to serve one year of supervised release, perform 100 hours of community service, and have no intentional contact with the Paul family.

Boucher addressed the court and offered an apology to the Republican lawmaker who sustained broken ribs and other injuries after being tackled from behind while mowing his lawn on November 3. "What I did was wrong and I hope he and his family can one day accept my apology," Boucher said.

Boucher, who pleaded guilty to assaulting a member of Congress, expressed embarrassment and described the last seven months as a "nightmare." The 60-year-old retired anesthesiologist said he lost his temper over repeated piles of debris on the property line between his home and Paul's in the upscale Rivergreen subdivision in Bowling Green.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brad Shepherd asked the judge for a 21-month prison term, arguing that Boucher didn't simply lose his temper. "This was a vicious, unprovoked assault," Shepherd said.

June 15, 2018 in Booker in district courts, Celebrity sentencings | Permalink | Comments (7)

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Kentucky Supreme Court finds state's statute for assessing intellectually disability in capital cases does not comply with Eighth Amendment

As reported in this local article, the "Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's practice for determining if someone is intellectually disabled and not eligible to receive the death penalty is “unconstitutional” and has established new guidelines."  Here is more about the ruling:

The order changing Kentucky’s rules on capital punishment came in the case of Robert Keith Woodall, who was sentenced to death for raping and killing a 16-year-old girl in Greenville two decades ago. The high court ordered a lower court to hold a hearing to determine if Woodall is intellectually disabled, preventing him from being executed.

It is unconstitutional to sentence a mentally disabled person to death – which has been defined in Kentucky as someone with an IQ below 70. However, Kentucky's high court ruled a person cannot be found intellectually disabled simply because they have an IQ of 71 or above. Instead, the justices determined defendants must undergo a “totality of the circumstances test,” including whether they have the ability to learn basic skills and adjust their behavior to circumstances, among other guidelines.

Those standards are in line with guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court that take other factors into account, according to the ruling. The federal court, for example, bars states from using a single, strict IQ standard to determine a prisoner's death penalty status.

In its ruling, the Kentucky high court found the state's current law to be “an outdated test for ascertaining intellectually disability." Kentucky was one of only a few states still using the fixed score cutoff to determine mental disability.

The full ruling from the Kentucky Supreme Court is available at this link, and here are few key paragraphs from the majority opinion:

Admittedly, the U.S. Supreme-Court has not provided crystal-clear guidance as to what exactly constitutes a constitutional violation regarding the determination of whether a defendant is intellectually disabled to preclude the imposition of the death penalty.  It is also true that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to suggest that a defendant's IQ score, after adjusting for statistical error, acts as the preliminary inquiry that could foreclose consideration of other evidence of intellectual disability, depending on the score.

Two things are clear, however: 1) regardless of some of the statements the U.S. Supreme Court has made, the prevailing tone of the U.S. Supreme Court's examination of this issue suggests that a determination based solely on IQ score, even after proper statistical-error adjustments have been made, is highly suspect; and 2) prevailing medical standards should be the basis for a determination as to a defendant's intellectual disability to preclude the imposition of the death penalty.

June 14, 2018 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sixth Circuit panel struggles to figure out Tennessee law to assess Miller challenge in high-profile case

As reported in this local article, headlined "While considering Cyntoia Brown's case, appeals court scrutinizes conflicting sentencing laws," an interesting federal circuit panel struggled during oral argument today to sort through applicable state sentencing law in an interesting Eighth Amendment habeas case. Here are the details:

A federal appeals court seems poised to consult the Tennessee Supreme Court before they rule on the case of Cyntoia Brown, a Nashville woman serving a life sentence in prison for a murder she committed at 16.  Brown's attorneys this year appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, arguing her life sentence was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that giving juveniles life sentences without parole was cruel and unusual in most cases.

Brown, now 30, has been locked up since 2004, when she was convicted of shooting 43-year-old Nashville real estate agent Johnny Allen. Allen had picked her up at an East Nashville fast food restaurant and drove her to his home.  Prosecutors said she committed a cold blooded murder, then robbed Allen before she fled with his car. Advocates for Brown say she was a victim of child sex trafficking who feared for her life, and that her age and fetal alcohol syndrome made it impossible for her to consider the full ramifications of her actions.

Attorneys representing the state have argued the 2012 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court does not apply in Brown's case because she is not serving a true life sentence. They cite parts of Tennessee law that suggest Brown could be eligible for release after 51 years behind bars.  The three-judge panel in Cincinnati suggested at multiple points that if she was serving a 51-year sentence, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling might not apply.

But Brown's attorneys pushed back, citing another section of the law that says "there shall be no release eligibility" for offenders convicted of first degree murder, like she was. Thorny questions on sentencing law in Tennessee dominated the debate on both sides of the oral arguments Thursday morning, which lasted less than an hour....

At multiple points, the judges read directly from contradictory passages in Tennessee code, as they tried to decipher what portions applied to Brown's case. They suggested that they might seek clarification from the Tennessee Supreme Court before moving forward.  Judge Joan L. Larsen, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, asked multiple questions about the proper way to do so.

Judge Amul Thapar, another Trump appointee, aggressively questioned the argument from state attorneys that case law had established a way to cherry pick parts of Tennessee sentencing law to apply to Brown while ignoring other parts. Thapar rubbed his face and shook his head while questioning attorneys on dueling sections of the law. "We're trying to guess what Tennessee is doing here," Thapar said, later adding, "The way I read this statute is that she's got life without the possibility of parole."

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has already sided with the state on this issue, saying that Brown's sentence is not entirely for life.  But Brown's attorneys say the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a conflicting ruling.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said she couldn't believe a Tennessee court hadn't issued a definitive ruling on the appropriate reading of the sentencing law.  Gibbons said Brown's case "raises some interesting, tricky issues."

If the panel does ask the Tennessee Supreme Court to clarify sentencing in this case, that court could decide whether or not it would offer an answer. The appeals court would then take the response into consideration while ruling on the broader case.  "Can we certify that to the Tennessee Supreme Court and ask them?" Thapar said.  "If they're ever going to answer one question that's the one to answer."...

The judges did not address the argument from Brown's attorneys that she should not be held responsible for a premeditated murder at 16 because fetal alcohol syndrome had slowed her mental development.

The pending federal appeal is one of multiple tracks Brown's attorneys are pursuing in their high-profile attempt to get her out of prison.  Brown also is asking Gov. Bill Haslam for clemency; the state parole board made conflicting recommendations to the governor after a hearing in May. Brown's previous appeals have been denied.  But a surge of interest from news outlets, celebrities and national legal groups has galvanized efforts that are unusual for a case like hers.

Brown was featured in the documentary "Me Facing Life: Cyntoia's Story" by filmmaker Dan Birman. In 2016, a joint reporting project on juvenile sentencing laws by the USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee, Dan H. Birman Productions and "Independent Lens" explored Brown's trial and conviction in depth.  Then, in 2017, celebrities including Rihanna and Kim Kardashian West called for Brown's release, dramatically increasing the scrutiny of the case.  On social media, the hashtag #FreeCyntoiaBrown went viral.

June 14, 2018 in Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Kim Kardashian West pushes White House for more drug sentence commutations"

Because the Supreme Court decided this morning not to decided any of the five remaining criminal law cases on its docket for this Term, I am left to blogging some more about clemency developments.  On that front, the breaking news came through the Today show, which led to this NBC News article with the headline that I have used for the title of this post.  Here are excerpts from the article (with emphasis added):

Kim Kardashian West has given the White House reports on several other nonviolent criminal offenders for possible commutation after she persuaded President Donald Trump to commute the sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, she told "Today" in an exclusive joint interview with Johnson.

Kardashian West said she "saw compassion" when she met with Trump, who as recently as March promised to "seek the death penalty against drug traffickers, where appropriate under current law." "I saw a different side," Kardashian West said Wednesday. "And I think that this is just the beginning of something greater. ... The reality is people change their mind."...

Kardashian West, the star of several reality TV shows and the wife of music superstar Kanye West, visited Trump at the White House with her attorney in late May to plead for Johnson's release, pointing to corrections officers' assessment of her as a model prisoner who became an ordained minister...

In the interview — during which the two women met in person for the first time — Kardashian West said she had assembled a large legal team and was pursuing clemency for several other nonviolent offenders — whose cases she said she has forwarded to the White House for review. "This is like, 'OK, we did this,'" Kardashian West said. "Let's open up this conversation."

Johnson said that because of Kardashian West's advocacy, "the Red Sea has opened" for possible leniency for nonviolent drug offenders, a campaign she said she intends to be part of. "I plan on continuing to magnify this issue," Johnson said. "I'm just an example, but I'm not the only one.

"There are so many others like me whose faces are not here, who are not sitting next to a war angel, who deserve clemency as much as I did and who deserve another chance in life," she said. "And I can't stop. I can't stop."

Regular readers are likely tired of seeing me recall that, way back in 2010, I urged Prez Obama to structurally change the federal clemency system in this law review article.  At the end of that article, I urged the President "to seriously consider creating some form of a 'Clemency Commission' headed by a 'clemency czar' ... [in the form of] an expert body, headed by a special designated official, who is primarily tasked with helping federal officials (and perhaps also state officials) improve the functioning, transparency, and public respect for executive clemency. "  I will be the first one to say that I could never have expected, eight years later during a Donald Trump presidency, that we would have a  Kim Kardashian West emerging as a de facto "clemency czar" serving with a "large legal team" operating as a de facto "Clemency Commission."

Simply put, we live in interesting times.

A few of many recent related posts about recent Trumpian clemency activity:

June 14, 2018 in Clemency and Pardons, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

"The New Dynamics of Mass Incarceration"

Download (15)The title of this post is the title of this notable new publication from The Vera Institute of Justice.   Here is much of its introduction:

After decades of continuous growth, the United States’ prison population began to plateau in the new millennium as the nation entered an era of criminal justice reform aimed at lowering the footprint of incarceration.  This seemed to herald the beginning of the end for mass incarceration.  Since 2007, when the country hit a peak of nearly 800 people in prison per 100,000 working age adults — over 1.6 million people total — overall prison incarceration has declined by about 1 percent on average each year.  The new downward trajectory of incarceration in the United States has paralleled a reckoning with the mounting costs of confinement and a growing awareness that incarceration in America was — in the words of a 2014 National Research Council report — “historically unprecedented and internationally unique,” and did not have the promised impact on public safety. (See “A brief history of mass incarceration: From unified growth to an era of reform” at page 8.)

Legislative and policy reforms have not brought a swift reversal of mass incarceration, however.  Even prison population trends — long used as convenient barometer of criminal justice reform’s progress — show that unwinding the nation’s overreliance on incarceration will be a longterm endeavor.  At the current pace, it will be 149 years until U.S. prison incarceration rates are as low as they were in 1970. (See Figure 1 at page 6.)

At the same time, while aggregated national prison population data indicates slow decline, it cannot be the sole indicator used to measure the progress made in the nation’s recent efforts to reduce incarceration.  Prison populations are slow to change after the implementation of most policy or practice changes, and thus provide an inadequate metric by which to measure and adjust the immediate impact of reforms — or regressive legislation.  Furthermore, a reliance on aggregate prison data fails to acknowledge or measure the tremendous variation in incarceration trends from state to state and within states, and ignores a significant locus of incarceration: local jails — county- or municipally-run facilities that primarily hold people arrested but not yet convicted of a crime.  For example, while much of the country is locking fewer people in jails and prisons, Kentucky is doing the opposite. If jails and prisons continue to grow in Kentucky as they have since 2000, everyone in the state will be incarcerated in 113 years. A comprehensive look at disparately reported metrics for the nation’s 50 state prison systems and 2,872 local jail jurisdictions is necessary to more accurately account for the headway made thus far in reversing mass incarceration.

To accomplish this goal, this report proposes a wider set of metrics by which to analyze incarceration trends to supplement the old standard of state prison population: 1) prison admissions; 2) jail admissions, 3) pretrial jail populations and 4) sentenced jail populations.  When considered together, this combination of metrics better captures the complexity of contemporary incarceration trends at the state and local level, makes the patterns that underlie national statistics discernable, and provides a starting point for deeper investigation into the particular context of individual counties’ justice systems....

As this report will discuss, studying all the moving parts of the incarceration system reveals a more messy truth: that there is no single way to characterize the current state of mass incarceration. A single trend of unified growth across states and counties, and in both prison and jail incarceration, characterized mass incarceration’s rise. But that has fragmented into four distinct incarceration trends, depending on how and where incarceration is measured:

  • some jurisdictions have seen meaningful overall declines in both prison and jail incarceration; 
  • others have seen stagnation at high incarceration rates; 
  • still others have seen shifts between prisons and jails in place of real reductions to the footprint of incarceration; and 
  • some have seen unchecked growth.
Ultimately, unwinding mass incarceration will require the particular alchemy of data-driven policy and political will, sustained by pressure from grassroots advocates and litigation. But only by acknowledging the realities in thousands of jurisdictions across the country can researchers, policymakers, and the public identify where reform is still only a promise and target attention and resources to drive change. Without understanding how local jail populations and county-level prison admissions have evolved over time, it will be difficult to have a real sense of how state and local systems are interacting, which problems to solve, or if progress is being made at all.

This new Mother Jones article about this new Vera report sums up its takeway via its extended headline: "The Era of Mass Incarceration Isn’t Over. This New Report Shows Why. 'Mass incarceration has a different face.'"

June 14, 2018 in Prisons and prisoners, Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2)

Lamenting the ripples of Judge Persky's recall

John Pfaff has authored this recent Washington Post commentary under the full headline "California ousts an elected judge. Everybody loses. The recall of Aaron Persky in the Stanford swimmer sexual assault case will make judges harsher, and thwart progress on perils of mass incarceration."  Here are excerpts (and readers should click through to the original for the multitude of links supporting the various points presented):

California voters last week recalled a judge for the first time in more than 85 years.  The politics of punishment are already pathological; the recall will make them worse.... As an academic who studies criminal justice, I have opposed the recall effort since I first heard about it because of potential consequences that reach well past Persky’s now-former courtroom: The recall will make judges more punitive, thwart progress toward scaling back mass incarceration and — though Turner and Persky are both white — hurt minorities disproportionately.

A central reason the United States punishes its citizens more than any other country is that actors in our criminal justice system face more political pressure than they do elsewhere.  Only this country allows judges to be elected, which 39 states choose to do. It’s a consistent theme: We are also the only country that elects its prosecutors. While a concern in the Andrew Jackson era about corrupt appointment processes drove the decision to elect judges, more recent concerns about the costs of a politicized judiciary have led to increasing calls to return to appointing them.

In criminal justice, the costs of politicization are unambiguous: They make judges more punitive.  The empirical studies on judges and crime tell a consistent story.  Judges sentence more aggressively as their election dates near and as their elections become more contested.  Elections make judges nervous, and nervous judges are harsh judges.

This harshness is entirely logical.  Judges are harsh because the costs of mistakes are asymmetric.  There is little downside to harsh sanctions, because the error costs are invisible: How do you show that someone would not have reoffended had they left prison sooner?  The costs of being overly lenient, however, are inescapable.  That sort of failure produces an identifiable victim for political opponents to capitalize upon.

The recall turned on a slightly different asymmetry but one that equally pushes judges toward severity. An overly lenient sentence will be seen as insulting the victim, while an overly harsh one will be seen as unfair to the defendant.  The former error, as the Persky recall demonstrates, is costlier (unless, perhaps, the defendant is politically powerful).

Defenders of the recall dismiss this concern by pointing out that recalls are rare. But the lesson here isn’t only about recalls.  The Persky case makes clear to judges and their detractors alike that judges can lose their jobs — in a recall, in a primary, in a general election — if just one or two decisions anger someone with sufficient political capital to oppose them.  The Persky recall campaign highlighted only five decisions out of thousands that the judge handed down.  Persky was cleared of any wrongdoing by California’s Commission on Judicial Performance, and public defenders in Santa Clara were quick to argue that he was a fair judge.  Even the prosecutor in Santa Clara opposed the recall. [Professor Michele] Dauber, however, is a politically well-connected professor at a nationally acclaimed law school with strong media ties.  The success of her campaign tells judges, and the politically powerful who are unhappy with their decisions, that these campaigns can work even with little evidence, as long as there are one or two bad cases to point to.

The recall’s political costs are already apparent.  Not only did Democratic legislators pass new mandatory minimum sentences for sex offenses in response to the recall to make sure they looked tough enough on crime, but public defenders in California also report that judges seem harsher now, out of fear of being targeted next.

Some defenders of the recall concede that it may make judges harsher, but only regarding sex crimes.  The judges, they say, are smart enough to limit what they have learned to the facts of the recall. But this is overly optimistic. Judges have no idea what issue will trigger the next recall or primary challenge, only that such campaigns can work....

The recall will make judges more aggressive, and in ways that will never be neatly confined to the issues in the Turner and Persky cases.  More people will be sent to prison, and that increase won’t make us safer. And since a majority of people in prison are black or Hispanic, the impact of this toughness will fall disproportionately on minorities.  For those hoping to see the United States become a less punitive place, the recall’s success is disappointing.

A few of many prior posts on the Persky recall:

June 14, 2018 in Scope of Imprisonment, Sentences Reconsidered, Sex Offender Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Another notable report on clemency suggesting Prez Trump will be "pardoning a lot of people — pardons that even Obama wouldn’t do"

Vanity Fair is not usually my go-to source for sentencing news, but this new piece includes both White House gossip and a closing paragraph that suggest a lot of sentence news with be forthcoming from that building. The full headline of the piece reveals some of the gossip: "“He Hate, Hate, Hates It”: Sessions Fumes As Kushner Gets Pardon Fever; With Kim Kardashian and liberals like Van Jones, the princely Trump son-in-law is trying to reset his reputation. But not everyone in the administration is happy about it."   And here are the most sentencing-specific parts of the piece:

In recent months, Kushner has cultivated a close relationship with CNN host and criminal-justice reform advocate Van Jones. “Jared is obsessed with Van,” one Trump adviser said. Kushner invited Jones to the White House multiple times and the two communicate frequently, Jones told me. “Jared and I have 99 problems but prison ain’t one,” Jones said. “I’ve found him to be effective, straightforward, and dogged.” Jones has lavished praise on Kushner publicly. In January, Jones wrote a CNN op-ed headlined, “Kushner’s effort to sway Trump on prison reform is smart.”

The Kushner-Jones alliance has infuriated some Republican members of the administration, especially Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “He hate, hate, hates it,” a person close to Sessions said. But Sessions, who is hanging on for survival amidst frequent Trump attacks, has no power to move against Kushner. Sources say Trump may even like that Sessions is outraged because Trump is looking for anything that will get Sessions to quit so he can appoint an attorney general who isn’t recused in the Russia investigation. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)

Jones told me Trump liked the positive media coverage that followed his pardon of Alice Johnson at the urging of Kardashian and Kushner. “Trump was pleasantly surprised,” Jones said. “I hope the president feels encouraged to do more.”

One person who recently spoke with Kushner said the president’s son-in-law is gearing up for a big pardon push. The source said Kardashian gave Kushner a list of people to pardon, some of whom are hip-hop artists. “They’re going to be pardoning a lot of people—pardons that even Obama wouldn’t do,” the person said.

A few of many recent related posts about recent Trumpian clemency activity:

June 13, 2018 in Clemency and Pardons, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Notable new analysis of US incarceration levels and recent (modest) changes

Ted Gest over at The Crime Report has this details summary of an even more detailed analysis of US incarceration levels and their changes in recent years. The summary is headlined "Incarceration Decrease? Drop in Prison Numbers Called ‘Anemic’," and here are excerpts:

Although the US prison population has declined over six years, after increasing for nearly four decades, a new analysis by researcher Malcolm C. Young, published by the Center for Community Alternatives, concludes that the nation is not reducing prison populations at a pace that would end mass incarceration in the foreseeable future.

A report issued in January by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of data through 2016 found that prison populations decreased in 33 states that year — more states than had experienced decreases in any recent year. The average decrease was three percent. In 42 states, prison populations were lower than they had been recently.  Just eight states increased their prison populations to record high numbers.

The downturn it documented, while perhaps marking the beginning of an end to three-and-a-half decades of increases, “is anemic to the point of listlessness,” says Young, a longtime advocate of cutting prison populations. If the numbers of inmates continue to decrease only at the rate they did between 2014 and2016, there will still be more than a million people incarcerated in prison in 2042. The nation wouldn’t reach the goal of groups like #Cut50.org to reduce prison populations to half of what they are today for another 50 years, until 2068.

Moreover, the current rate of decrease may not hold, according to Young. The prospects for a more rapid de-incarceration are poor unless and until many more states use strategies that have been effective in the handful of states that are significantly reducing prison numbers, Young believes....

Young found that prospects that most of the 13 states responsible for much of the national decrease will continue to reduce their prison populations are good. For example, Massachusetts has the second-lowest incarceration rate in the nation (after Maine), and the Vera Institute of Justice predicts further decreases. New Jersey will likely continue to reduce its prison population as a result of pretrial reforms signed by Gov. Chris Christie that took effect last year. In New York State, further decreases are likely if officials can encourage fewer prison commitments from areas outside of New York City.

On the other hand, California, which decreased its prison population by 40,926 in six years to comply with a US Supreme Court ruling, increased its prison population in 2016 by 0.9 percent. California corrections officials predict an annual 0.8 percent increase in coming years. In Illinois, Gov. Bruce Rauner cut the prison population, incurring little opposition from the same Republicans who savaged his Democratic predecessor’s more modest efforts. Were he to lose his bid for reelection, it is not a given that a Democratic administration would carry his plan forward.

Since 2010, Texas decreased its prison population by 6,749 (4.1 percent). Prospects that the trend will continue are iffy because state legislators have been considering new sentencing enhancements.

Young found that decreases in the 14 states that have demonstrated a capacity to reduce prison populations have been “episodic.” Recently enacted reforms have encountered opposition. In Louisiana, advocates have been concerned that legislators will roll back recently enacted reforms designed to reduce incarceration. In Utah, reforms that relied on treatment and housing programs are at risk because of a lack of funding for alternative programs. In Florida, legislative reforms have not led to the reductions in prison populations for which advocates hoped....

Young calls for reexamining the effectiveness of prison-reduction strategies. “[Hopes to] to end mass incarceration can’t be grounded in a fiction that an annual one percent reduction in prisoners will get us anywhere, or that limited successes in a few jurisdictions will end mass incarceration in the country as whole.”

His report contends that national, state and local officials should turn for guidance to states that have achieved significant, lasting reductions in prison incarceration and steer clear of approaches that have failed to produce results.

Malcolm Young's full report, which is titled Prisoners in 2016 and the Prospects for an End to Mass Incarceration, is available at this link.

June 13, 2018 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism"

ImagesThe title of this post is the title of this notable new report from the Public Policy Institute of California. Here is the report's conclusion:

Proposition 47 continues to be the subject of much debate.  The reform — which reduced penalties for certain lower-level drug and property offenses — has undoubtedly played a significant role in California’s recent efforts to prioritize the state’s prison and jail space for higher-level offenders. Prison and jail incarceration levels declined substantially under Prop 47.  We also observe sudden drops in arrests and jail bookings.

The reduced reliance on incarceration raised concerns among some observers about Prop 47’s impact on public safety. We find no convincing evidence that violent crime increased as a result of Prop 47.  Though there has been a recent uptick in violent crime, this trend appears to have started prior to the reform. Additional factors unrelated to criminal activity — a change by the FBI in 2014 that expanded the definition of rape, and significant under-reporting of violent crimes from 2008 to 2014 by the LAPD — contributed to the observed increase.  Excluding violent crime data from the LAPD shows that recent increases in violent crime rates in California were comparable to those of similar states.

Our analysis does find some evidence of Prop 47’s impact on property crime rates, which went up immediately after the law was implemented.  This increase has been primarily driven by larceny thefts, particularly thefts from motor vehicles and shoplifting.  We find the increase in the larceny theft rate in California to be nearly 9 percent higher than that of similar states. In 2016, reported shoplifting decreased notably, but we do not see signs of a reduction in thefts from motor vehicles. Considering the high costs of incarceration in California, this highlights the need for alternative crime-reducing strategies, consistent with our earlier research assessing the impact of realignment on crime (see Lofstrom and Raphael 2013).

The policy goals of Prop 47 are to reduce contact with the criminal justice system and to reduce recidivism for lower-level drug and property offenders.  Our analysis, using detailed data from 12 California counties, shows declines in jail bookings as well as rearrest and reconviction rates under Prop 47.  We find the policy change reduced jail bookings for Prop 47 offenses by more than one-third.  Prop 47 also lowered the number of people booked into jail by nearly 50,000 in these counties during the year following its passage.

Lower rearrest rates for individuals released after serving sentences for Prop 47 offenses were driven by a reduction in rearrests for drug possession, while lower reconviction rates were driven by a drop in reconvictions for both Prop 47 property and drug offenses.  We find evidence that Prop 47 reduced both arrests by law enforcement and convictions resulting from prosecutions by district attorneys.  Reduced levels of correctional contact — which may allow for better continuity of employment and improved family and community stability — could be a factor in these lower recidivism rates.  However, given the sudden and noticeable decline in arrests after the reform, we are not able to separate the effects of Prop 47 on individual reoffending behavior from its effects on the practices of criminal justice agencies.

Prop 47 aimed to reduce recidivism rates by shifting resources from incarceration to mental health and substance-use treatment for lower-level drug and property offenders.  This redirection of state correctional savings to treatment interventions has only recently been allocated, and thus our recidivism analysis does not capture individuals released after the implementation of these programs.  A complete assessment of the impacts of Prop 47 will need to account for how increased interventions may affect crime, criminal justice contact, and recidivism, as well as responses by law enforcement to the reform.

Substantial reductions in reoffending as a result of the treatment programs funded by Prop 47 savings seem unlikely as this funding represents a very small share of corrections spending in California.  However, the initiative offers opportunities for local agencies to create or expand promising programs.  It also requires that these programs be objectively evaluated, in hopes of identifying and scaling up successful interventions. As local agencies and the state learn more about which programs are effective in reducing recidivism, Prop 47 could provide a path toward the use of more cost-effective, evidence-based strategies within the criminal justice system.

One of several far-reaching corrections reforms, Prop 47 further decreased California’s reliance on incarceration: the state’s incarceration rate is now at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  Importantly, crime rates remain historically low, comparable to those in the 1960s.  While research so far has not revealed convincing evidence that violent crime has risen as a result of reforms, some property crimes have increased.  And though Prop 47 reduced recidivism rates for lower-level drug and property offenses, it is not clear to what extent this is driven by reduced reoffending, as law enforcement and prosecutorial changes likely contributed to the declines.  To counteract the increases in property crimes like shoplifting and thefts from motor vehicles — and to improve reentry outcomes of released offenders — policymakers and practitioners will need to work together to identify effective programs and policies that will reduce recidivism and maintain public safety

June 13, 2018 in National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

"When Tribal Disenrollment Becomes Cruel and Unusual"

The title of this post is the title of this new article available on SSRN authored by Judith Stinson. Here is the abstract:

In the past two decades, Native American tribes have disenrolled — permanently removed from tribal citizenship — thousands of tribal members, mainly because of lineage concerns or for political reasons.  In these instances, scholars generally decry disenrollment.  But there is a growing trend to disenroll tribal citizens for criminal conduct, and scholars (and even tribal members themselves) assume this is proper.  This paper argues that tribal disenrollment for criminal conduct violates the Indian Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court held that denationalization as a result of criminal conduct is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  Congress applied that same prohibition to Native American tribes in the Indian Civil Rights Act.  And traditionally, tribes, who had the inherent power to impose any sanction necessary, focused on restoring harmony rather than punishing offenders; permanent expulsion was almost never imposed.  Tribes are nations, and tribal membership is a voluntary compact equivalent in all meaningful respects to United States citizenship — hence, tribes cannot disenroll members for criminal behavior.  Yet Congress also severely limited tribes’ ability to punish criminal defendants by capping incarceration at one year, and crime in Indian country is a significant problem.  To allow tribes to battle crime and yet protect against cruel and unusual punishment, Congress should remove the limit on incarceration and individual tribal members can decide whether they are willing to submit to their tribe’s inherent power — and greater sentences — or voluntarily renounce their tribal citizenship.

June 13, 2018 in Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (3)

Brennan Center provides a "Final Analysis" of crime in big cities in 2017

The Brennan Center for Justice has released this short document titled "Crime in 2017: Final Analysis" reporting on the  rates of violent crime, murder, and overall crime in the 30 largest American cities.  Here is the start of the document: 

In this final analysis of crime rates in 2017, the Brennan Center finds an overall decline in rates of violent crime, murder, and overall crime in the 30 largest American cities, though homicide rates in some cities remain above 2015 levels.

The data reported here refine an initial report released in September, Crime in 2017: A Preliminary Analysis, which concluded by noting that “these findings directly undercut any claim that the nation is experiencing a crime wave.”  A December update reached the same conclusion, showing rates of crime, violent crime, and homicide all declining. 

Updated Tables 1 and 2 show conclusions similar to the Brennan Center’s September and December reports, with slightly different percentages:

    •  The overall crime rate in the 30 largest cities in 2017 declined slightly from the previous year, falling by 2.1 percent to remain at historic lows.

    •  The violent crime rate declined as well, falling by 1 percent from 2016, essentially remaining stable. Violent crime remains near the bottom of the nation’s 30-year downward trend.

    •  The 2017 murder rate in the 30 largest cities declined by 3.4 percent year-over-year.  Large decreases in Chicago and Houston, as well as small decreases in other cities, contributed to this decline.  The murder rate in Chicago, which increased significantly in 2015 and 2016, declined by 12.3 percent in 2017, but remains more than 60 percent above 2014 levels.  The murder rate in Houston fell by nearly 17 percent.  New York City’s murder rate also declined again, to 3.4 killings per 100,000 people.

    •  Some cities saw their murder rates rise in 2017, such as Baltimore (7.8 percent) and Philadelphia (13.1 percent).  These increases suggest a need to better understand how and why murder is increasing in some cities.  While Las Vegas saw its murder rate rise significantly, by 23.5 percent, this was due to the mass shooting at Mandalay Bay on Oct. 1, 2017.

June 13, 2018 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (1)