March 14, 2009
Seeking help and input from would-be "Bookerologists"
As all sports fans know, this is the time of year in which so-called "bracketology" becomes the key to fame and happiness, and in which so-called "bracketologists" can shine as a result of their ability to sort through obscure data about college basketball teams to assess the past and predict the future. With this spirit in mind, I want to encourage sentencing fans to consider getting interested in "Bookerology" and put out this call for help and input from would-be "Bookerologists."
Specifically, with the US Sentencing Commission's recent release of all its 2008 federal sentencing statistics (details here), I would like folks to help me sort through obscure data about federal sentencing patterns to assess the Booker past and predict the post-Booker future. In other words, I am eager and would be grateful for folks to use the comments or send me e-mail with analyses of what the 2008 federal sentencing data really tells us about what is really going on (and what should be going on) in modern federal sentencing.
March 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seeking help and input from would-be "Bookerologists":
The crime victimization rate dropped 40% within a few years of the guidelines. Scalia could not tolerate the loss of lawyer jobs. In a couple of years, we will experience the full effect of the Scalia Bounce with 1000's of excessive murder victims and millions of battery victims.
The report says, about 60% of sentences are within guidelines. Of the rest, 3% are over the guidelines, 37% below. That is the way it has been for the past couple of years.
These statistics are meaningless. The big unanswered question is the effect of these rent seeking SC decisions on deterring prosecutors in their plea bargains. Only about 3% of defendants go to trial. They are less likely to be guilty than those accepting pleas. This report is useless garbage even if accurate.
The question is, have state and federal pleas become more lenient since this series of catastrophic criminal lover, lawyer rent seeking decisions? Several cities have experienced the Scalia Bounce in murder. These rate bounces have the foreseeability of planetary orbits. Does the sun set in the West? You can bet that releasing criminals from prison will cause victimization increases with the same certainty.
An amendment should forbid lawyers from all benches, legislative seats and responsible policy positions in the Executive.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 14, 2009 1:18:10 PM
What is the Scalia bounce?
Posted by: mpb | Mar 15, 2009 11:51:24 AM
Does the guy above endorse a Constitutional Amendment? Perhaps an Amendment barring doctors from practicing medicine would be an appropriate corrolary amendment. Then one barring journalists from being journalists. Firemen from being firmen. Cops from being cops. Women from being mothers.
Posted by: mpb | Mar 15, 2009 11:56:00 AM
Why not prohibit doctors from practicing medicine? Cops from being cops? Women from being mothers?
Posted by: mpb | Mar 15, 2009 11:59:46 AM
The Scalia Bounce is the increase in the murder rate of several cities, so far. Scalia led the attack on sentencing guidelines. The coming big increase in the general crime rate must bear his name. A 40% drop in the general crime victimization rate followed the percolation of the guidelines to the states then to the street. As the sun is likely to set in the West, so the release of violent criminals will result in an increase in the crime rate.
If doctors were in utter failure in every goal of every specialty, they should be banned from doing medicine. If there were a 100% chance of getting worse after every one of their procedures, they should be banned as a threat to the public safety.
The lawyer has dealt itself nearly total immunity in torts. So torts is not a remedy to their total, ubiquitous failures. If the sole success of doctors were rent seeking, they should be banned, since rent seeking is a fancy term for armed robbery (literally - if you do not pay your taxes or pretextual settlements that are then transferred to the rent seekers, armed people come around to help you do so).
Sovereign immunity itself violates the Establishment Clause. Its sole justification is that the Sovereign speaks with the voice of God, and cannot be held accountable. Immunity spells growth. Anyone wishing to limit the growth of incompetent, destructive government should support the reversal of Hans, the ending of all self-dealt immunities in legal malpractice claims by the adverse third party, and eventually the repeal of the Eleventh Amendment.
Lawyers sued manufacturers. They are gone. They are suing drug makers. They will soon be gone. Why not start allowing the suing of lawyers, judges, and legislators. These are cult criminals committing mass intentional torts for profit. If torts has a goal of deterrence, they need it more than anyone else. Hopefully over-reaching government can be slowed by torts and defunding. If a lawyer made a $trillion and brought down a government, no one would resent it.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 16, 2009 7:07:48 AM
Supremacy Claus is one of those who want to "Lock em up and throw away the key." He doesn't even want a defense attorney. This nation has gone that way for many years now, and now they can't pay for it. People like SC will soon be saying "death penalty to save money" even if the crime was the offender smoked a joint.
Posted by: Donna | Mar 16, 2009 6:01:25 PM
Donna: Lawyer and judge test. Say the V Word out loud. Do it while alone, so no one hears you say it. Victim. No lawyer can say that word out loud, even if alone.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 16, 2009 8:47:58 PM
I found interesting that the government won on appeal (sentencing issues) about 4 times more often than defendants in 2008. See here: http://ontheballlegalblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Dane Ball | Mar 21, 2009 11:22:22 AM