May 9, 2009
"A new Texas? Ohio's death penalty examined"
The title of this post is the title of this article in The Ohio State University's campus newspaper, The Lantern. The article interviews the author of a new book on Ohio's death penalty, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, who will be the featured speaker at an even in which I will be participating later today. Here are the basics and one of the Q&A passages:
The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity will be hosting a panel discussion titled "Perspectives on Ohio's Death Penalty," Saturday. The event will be in Saxbe Auditorium in Drinko Hall from 2 to 4 p.m. One of the panelists, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, recently published a book on the death penalty in Ohio, called "No Winners Here Tonight: Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States." He took some time to be interviewed by The Lantern....
TL: The subtitle of your book, "Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States," may be a surprising title for many readers, as it is not widely realized that Ohio has one of the most active death chambers in the U.S. Can you tell us how Ohio's use of the death penalty compares with other states?
AWH: What took people by surprise was that Ohio executed seven people in 2004, making us the second-highest executor that year, only after Texas, the perennial leader. In the next few years, Ohio often had the second or third busiest death chambers and seems to always be in the top five. Right now there are already four people scheduled to die.
More information about this death penalty event can be accessed in this news release from the Kirwan Institute. More information about the book "No Winners Here Tonight: Race, Politics, and Geography in One of the Country's Busiest Death Penalty States" can be accessed at this publisher webpage.
Long prison term in Peoria for child porn "librarian"
This local story, headlined "Peoria man gets 19 years for child pornography library," provides an effective account of another notable federal sentencing for a child porn downloader. Here are some details:
Michael D. Dupoy ... was sentenced to 220 months in federal prison Friday. U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm said the term was necessary because of Dupoy's extensive criminal record and remarks Dupoy posted online urging others with whom he traded illicit images to think of ways to avoid being caught.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Schoenbein cited the library of 26,000 child pornography images and hundreds of videos Dupoy had amassed on his computer. Saying Dupoy had "sold his soul," Schoenbein asked Mihm for the maximum 20-year sentence. "He didn't dabble in this, he immersed himself in it," Schoenbein said. "He's not going to change."
Attorney Robert Alvarado of the federal defender's office argued for a 10-year sentence, attacking the federal sentencing guidelines that would put his client behind bars for longer than if he had actually molested a child.
Mihm said he would have considered that argument had it been made for a different defendant, one with a lesser criminal history. But Dupoy, who has been convicted of a litany of property crimes and spent most of his life since the age of 13 in correctional centers, was not the right defendant. Mihm also scuttled the idea that Dupoy's crime was less hurtful than if he had physically touched children: "The fact that these things are shared encourages people to do this."
Dupoy expressed remorse to the court during a brief statement in which he revealed had been physically and sexually abused by his father and asked for leniency. "I have lived with what my dad did to me all my life, and I prayed to God to help me stop looking at children," he said. "I know I have done wrong and I am deeply sorry for what I have done."
A closer look at the pros and cons of GPS tracking for abusers
As regular readers know, I believe GPS tracking and other forms of technocorrections are certain to be a larger and larger component of the criminal justice future. I was thus pleased and intrigued to see this new piece in the New York Times, headlined "More States Using GPS to Track Abusers and Stalkers." Here are a few excerpts:
In Massachusetts, where about one-quarter of restraining orders are violated each year, according to the state’s probation office, a recent law has expanded the use of global positioning devices to include domestic abusers and stalkers who have violated orders of protection....
Twelve other states have passed similar legislation — most recently, Indiana this week — and about 5,000 domestic abusers are being tracked nationwide, said George Drake, who oversees Colorado’s Electronic Monitoring Resource Center, which gathers data from equipment vendors.
But the path to the system’s widespread use has been bumpy. It is still hard to protect families who live in rural areas or where there are not enough police officers to respond quickly. With the economic downturn, states have cut money for training the police and judges in GPS use, and some places with legislation in place say they cannot afford it.
It is up to a judge, in cases of extreme violence, to decide whether to order its use before trial, as a condition of bail or as a sentence. That has led to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union and others of too much leeway for judges. “Until they know how GPS can be used and how successful it can be, judges are reluctant to order it because it’s unfamiliar,” said Judge Peter Doyle of Newburyport District Court. “Without seminars and convincing presentations, I wouldn’t have been comfortable ordering it.”...
Often the only way victims can prove that they are being stalked, experts say, is through new technologies like GPS.... Experts say the program can help save lives. Domestic-violence-related homicides increased 300 percent in Massachusetts from 2005 to 2007, according to Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, while in Newburyport, where a High Risk Team was in place, there were no such homicides in that period.
“Using GPS monitoring to enforce an order of protection makes the order more than just a piece of paper,” said Diane Rosenfeld, a lecturer at Harvard Law School and a longtime advocate of using GPS in domestic abuse cases. “It’s a way of making the criminal justice system treat domestic violence as potentially serious. By detecting any escalation in the behavior of a batterer, GPS can prevent these unnecessary tragedies.” Ms. Rosenfeld’s research found that about one quarter of women who were killed by their domestic abusers already had restraining orders.
Some older posts on GPS tracking and related technocorrections:
- Is the future parole with GPS and other techno-reentry devices?
- The inevitability of GPS tracking and cost-saving technocorrections
- Another reason to believe GPS technocorrections are inevitable
- Why tight budget times will speed path to technocorrections
- Are microchip implants for offenders inevitable?
- UK getting serious about GPS through microchip implants
- Are we willing to pay the costs of (effective?) technocorrections like GPS tracking?
- The devil's in the details of GPS tracking of sex offenders
- More on the pros and cons of GPS tracking
- New article examining incapacitation innovations
May 8, 2009
"Marvin Frankel’s Mistakes and the Need to Rethink Federal Sentencing"
The title of this post is the title of a new article by Judge Lynn Adelman and Jon Deitrich, which will soon appear in the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. I am pleased and hornor to have permission to post the piece on the blog, and here is a paragraph from the introduction to further whet a sentencing guru's appetite for great weekend reading:
We agree that Frankel was a brilliant professor and a distinguished judge and that Congress and the Commission implemented his ideas poorly. We also agree that he wanted sentencing to be more humane. However, we believe that Frankel’s analysis of sentencing was deeply flawed, and that the guidelines failed in substantial part because of the flaws in his approach. We also believe that discussing Frankel’s ideas is timely, both because of the recent Supreme Court decisions returning sentencing discretion to district judges and because of the recent interest in the problem of mass incarceration to which the guidelines have contributed. In this article, we discuss Frankel’s ideas, the problems with them, and their effects. We conclude with several recommendations as to how to improve federal sentencing.
Human Rights Watch calls for federal legislation to eliminate juve LWOP
I was intrigued and pleased to see this press release from Human Rights Watch discussing its efforts to convince Congress (rather than just the Supreme Court) to eliminate LWOP sentences for juveniles in the United States. Here are some of the interesting details:
The US Congress should pass a proposed law to end the sentencing of youth offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee. At least 2,574 individuals in the United States are serving these sentences for crimes they committed before they were 18 years old. The United States is the only country that uses such sentences for crimes committed by juveniles.
On May 6, 2009, Representatives Robert "Bobby" Scott and John Conyers introduced H.R. 2289, the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, in the US House of Representatives. The bill would require states and the federal government to offer youth offenders meaningful opportunities for parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence....
The introduction of the bill coincided with Human Rights Watch's release of new figures showing that there are currently at least 2,574 persons in US prisons who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 18, an increase of 90 from May 2008.
The higher number is due primarily to improvements in data reporting rather than significant increases in the number of youth sentenced to life without parole. Increases were most dramatic in California (250 total, an increase of 23), Michigan (346 total, an increase of 30), and the federal Bureau of Prisons (37 total, an increase of 35). Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas also saw increases in juvenile life without parole. The states with the largest numbers of prisoners serving this sentence are Pennsylvania (444), Michigan (346), Louisiana (335), Florida (266), and California (250).
Researchby Human Rights Watch found that nationwide, 59 percent of youth serving life without parole sentences received the sentence for their first criminal conviction, and 16 percent were 15 or younger at the time of their offense. An estimated 26 percent were convicted on the basis of accomplice liability or felony murder. These are crimes in which a teenager who commits a non-homicide felony such as a robbery is held responsible for a codefendant's act of murder during the course of the crime. State laws often do not require the person convicted on this charge to know that a murder was planned or even that the codefendant was armed....
Human Rights Watch has also found substantial racial disparities in life without parole sentences given to juveniles. On average across the country, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate that is 10 times that of white youth. In Pennsylvania, which has the largest number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole, black youth are 21 times as likely to be serving the sentence as white youth....
On May 4, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide whether life without parole for juveniles who have committed only non-homicide crimes violates the US Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which begins in October.
Other posts on juve LWOP and on recent SCOTUS grants:
- SCOTUS grants cert in Sullivan, juve LWOP case
- The (unpreserved?) procedural issues in Graham juve LWOP case
"Ice cream man awaits sentencing"
The title of this post is the headline of this local articlethat I thought might provide the basis for a little friday tomfoolery. Here are the basics:
An ice cream truck driver that admitted to exposing himself in front of a toddler in Sugar Grove is expected to be sentenced later this month. Douglas R. Jones, 48, of Aurora, has pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child, a class four felony.
He faces between one and three years in prison, or could receive probation. He is expected to be sentenced May 21 by Circuit Judge Robert Spence, according to prosecutors.
Jones was arrested in June 2007 after police say a 3-year-old saw Jones exposing himself inside his ice cream truck.
At the time, Jones also was a substitute teacher in the Aurora East school district but was not allowed to continue his role following the arrest, according to district officials. Jones also had been elected to the Kane County Regional School Board.
I will get the silliness started by wondering if the new neighborhood chant is "You scream, I scream, we all scream, for the ice cream man to be lock up." Or, maybe we should talk about possible alternative sentences: e.g., perhaps the defendant here should be ordered to keep a popsicle in his shorts for the duration of his sentencing term.
May 7, 2009
A (third-hand hearsay) report on how DOJ is now dealing with crack sentencings
In prior posts, I have been wondering how local federal prosecutors would approach crack sentencings in the wake of advocacy from the new Justice Department last week in Congress urging the complete elimination of any crack/powder disparity. This afternoon, I got a partial (third-hand hearsay) answer when I received from a friend of the blog via e-mail what purports to be part of a letter from a federal prosecutor to defense counsel in one federal district. Here is the key section of that letter:
United States Attorney’s Offices were provided with new guidance concerning sentencing for crack cocaine offenses. This guidance provides that United States Attorney’s Offices should inform courts that the Department of Justice believes Congress and the United States Sentencing Commission should eliminate the crack/powder cocaine disparity. Congress has not yet determined whether or how to achieve a more appropriate sentencing scheme for crack and powder offenses. Until Congress acts, the Department of Justice recognizes courts must exercise their discretion under existing case law to fashion a sentence that is consistent with the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Department of Justice’s position with respect to variance motions in crack cocaine cases is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Justice will continue to charge provable threshold quantities of crack cocaine triggering mandatory minimums.
Some recent related posts:
- With the new DOJ advocating completely eliminating crack/powder disparity, now what?
- Watching the webcast of the Senate crack disparity hearing
- Is the new DOJ about to crack the stalemate over fixing the crack disparity?
- DOJ's basic game-plan while urging crack sentencing reform from Congress
- Eager to hear and post reports on courtroom ripples of new DOJ crack/powder policy
- Has there been any in-court impact from DOJ's new crack sentencing policy?
Stanford Law Review issue on "Media, Justice, and the Law"
This past January I had the pleasure of participating as a panelist at the Stanford Law Review's symposium titled "Media, Justice, and the Law." The major papers presented at the live event were all distinctive and fascinating, and they are now available on-line at this link as published in SLR's April 2009 issue. Here are the specifics with links to individual pieces:
Symposium: Media, Justice, and the Law
Simon A. Cole & Rachel Dioso-Villa, Investigating the 'CSI Effect' Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1335 (2009).
Russell D. Covey, Criminal Madness: Cultural Iconography and Insanity, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1375 (2009).
William R. Montross & Patrick Mulvaney, Virtue and Vice: Who Will Report on the Failings of the American Criminal Justice System?, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1429 (2009).
Russell K. Robinson, Racing the Closet, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1463 (2009).
Rachel C. Lee, Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1535 (2009).
NJ Supreme Court finds local residency restrictions preempted by state's Megan's law
As detailed in this press coverage, "The New Jersey Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling invalidating ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway Township that severely restricted where registered sex offenders could live." Here is how the brief ruling in G.H. v. Township of Galloway, No. A-64/65 (NJ May 7, 2009) (available here), gets started:
We granted certification in this consolidated appeal to review an Appellate Division determination that Megan’s Law, see N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -19, preempted and required the invalidation of municipal ordinances enacted by Cherry Hill Township and Galloway Township. The challenged ordinances each operated to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within a designated distance of any school, park, playground, public library, or daycare center in its respective municipal jurisdiction. We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Lisa’s comprehensive opinion. G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 401 N.J. Super. 392 (2008). Accordingly, we hold that Cherry Hill Township’s and Galloway Township’s ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan’s Law. It is that language which controls.
An op-ed call for a district judge to become a Justice
Echoing a point I made in this 2005 post and this 2008 post, US District Judge Ann Aldrich and her law clerks call for President Obama to nominate a trial judge for SCOTUS in this New York Times op-ed, headlined "A Deep Bench." Here are snippets, which not surprisingly make reference to sentencing jurisprudence:
To succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, President Obama should select a nominee with experience that no other sitting justice has — service as a trial judge on a federal district court.
Only 11 of the 110 justices in our history have been federal trial court judges. Since the creation of the modern federal courts of appeals in 1891, only four federal trial court judges have been elevated to the high court....
Why is this an issue? Most Supreme Court cases are initiated in district courts, and many end up back there when they are remanded for proceedings that are consistent with the high court’s ruling.
While the court’s opinions affect the day-to-day operations and decisions of the district courts, many of the justices lack the practical experience that is necessary for providing district courts with clear and workable directives.
For example, in 2005, the court declared in United States v. Booker that the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines followed by district judges in criminal cases were no longer mandatory, but advisory. “Advisory” means that the guidelines must still be considered, yet the court did not say how much weight district court judges must give to them. Since Booker, therefore, district court judges have struggled to impose sentences consistent with that vague decision and the piecemeal clarifications that followed from the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court.
It is hard to imagine that this lack of clarity would have occurred had there been a former federal district court judge on the bench — someone who had practical experience with handing down a sentence in federal court....
The nomination of a district court judge would bring much practical knowledge and understanding to the Supreme Court when providing answers and instructions to the lower courts. After a 50-year absence of district court judges on the high court, the president would do well to replace Justice Souter with a young and promising nominee with experience on the federal district court bench — this judge excluded.
Some prior posts on SCOTUS personnel:
- Insider myopia and the diverse benefits of a short bench
- Does SCOTUS need a trial judge?
- Brave New Justice and sentencing issues
UPDATE: In this post at Volokh, Jonathan Adler concurs with the sentiments expressed in this op-ed and goes on to add these further thoughts with which I heartily concur:
I also think it would be valuable if someone on the court had been a criminal defense attorney and litigator (as opposed to an appellate advocate). Appellate experience is important -- it's good seasoning for a potential Supreme Court justice -- but so is experiences with how the legal system operates at the ground level.
May 6, 2009
Very different sentencing recommendations in the Lori Drew cyberbullying case
Thanks to posts at Wired.com, I see that the upcoming sentencing in the Lori Drew case could be very interesting. The basic debate is revealed in the titled of these posts:
- Probation and $5,000 Fine Recommended for Lori Drew
- Prosecutors Seek 3 Years in Prison for Lori Drew
Helpfully, these posts also provide links to the parties sentencing submissions:
As the Wired posts note, there is still a pending motion to dismiss that needs to be resolved before the scheduled May 18 sentencing. In light of all these developments, I would guess that the district judge will deny the motion to dismiss, but then impose a sentence of probation. But this is just a guess (and done before reading the parties' papers linked above) based on my instinct that the district judge will want to find a viable way to "split the baby" in this high-profile case.
Procedural reasonableness reversal leads to big substantive sentence reduction
Thanks to a reader, I noticed a local article updating the interesting sentencing story of US v. Maynor. As detailed in this February post, the Fourth Circuit (in an unpublished opinion!) found an above-guideline sentence given to a former local sheriff to be procedurally unreasonable. This local article now provides, in the words of Paul Harvey, the rest of the story:
Former Robeson County Sheriff Glenn Maynor’s federal prison sentence was cut to two years on Tuesday, according a newspaper report. The Robesonianreported Tuesday evening that Maynor’s six-year sentence was dropped to 24 months....
In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Glenn Maynor’s six-year sentence was too harsh in light of sentencing guidelines and the facts that the judge cited in issuing the sentence. The recommended range was 18 to 24 months....
Maynor was the highest-ranking lawman swept up in Operation Tarnished Badge, a six-year probe into corruption in the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office. Twenty-three people, mostly deputies, pleaded guilty to crimes that included kidnapping, money laundering, racketeering, theft of federal money and satellite piracy. Their sentences ranged from a few months to 34 years in prison.
Maynor pleaded guilty to lying to a grand jury and to allowing deputies to get paid for working at his home and at his election campaign’s golf tournament. He was sheriff from 1994 to 2004.
"Wal-Mart pays $2M to avoid charges in death probe"
The title of this post is the headline of this new AP article. Here are some of the details of an interesting story that raises interesting issues related to corporate criminal liability, the purposes of punishment and prosecutorial discretion:
Wal-Mart agreed Wednesday to pay nearly $2 million and improve safety at its 92 New York stores as part of a deal with prosecutors that avoids criminal charges in the trampling death of a temporary worker.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, who began a criminal investigation shortly after last November's customer stampede at Wal-Mart's Valley Stream store, said that if she had brought criminal charges against the retailer in the worker's death, the company would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine if convicted. Rice declined to say what charges were considered against Wal-Mart, citing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
Instead, she said, the company has agreed to implement an improved crowd-management plan for post-Thanksgiving Day sales, set up a $400,000 victims' compensation and remuneration fund, and give a $1.5 million grant to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups.... "Rather than bringing the world's largest retailer to court and imposing a small fine against them, I felt it was important to require significant safety changes that will affect the whole state," Rice said. "Our goal is for the protocols that are set up to be the gold standard for crowd management in this industry."...
The community grant money includes $1.2 million for Nassau County's Youth Board, which helps nonprofit agencies provide career development, employment training and other opportunities. The retailer also will donate $300,000 to the United Way of Long Island's Youth Build Program in Nassau County. The deal also calls for Wal-Mart to hire 50 high school students annually to work in its five stores in the county.
Anyone inclined to raise a stink about this outcome? Anyone troubled by the Nassau County DA's use of the threat of criminal prosecution to compell Wal-Mart into this kind of unusual settlement?
Should pending legislation worry federalist and Supremacy Claus?
This new postat the "Threat Level" blog at Wired.com, which is titled "Prison Awaiting Hostile Bloggers," might give pause to some of this blog's most frequent commentors. Here are the details:
Proposed congressional legislation would demand up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.” Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag.
The proposal by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles, would never pass First Amendment muster, unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing. So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal, are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.
The meaasure, H.R. 1966, is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. It’s designed to target the behavior that led to last year’s suicide of the 13-year-old Meier....
Sanchez’s bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the internet or use the telephone. The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.
We can’t say what we think of Sanchez’s proposal. Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Because they often stir up good debates, I am genuinely grateful for the engagement of federalist and Supremacy Claus and other commentors who harass me (at least when they make a genuine effort to be thoughtful and on-topic). But, as this Wired post and my own post title are meant to highlight, the line between cyberbullying and robust on-line debate can be hard to draw; I especially do not like the idea of any legislation that would require federal prosecutors to be in the business of drawing this line.
Who will get the first e-book into the law school classroom?
Thanks to this post by Jonathan Alder at Volokh, I see from this article that Case Western Reserve University will soon have students in certain classes getting their their textbooks via the Amazon Kindles. This Wall Street Journal report explains that Amazon "on Wednesday plans to unveil a new version of its Kindle e-book reader with a larger screen and other features designed to appeal to periodical and academic textbook publishers." Here's more:
Beginning this fall, some students at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland will be given large-screen Kindles with textbooks for chemistry, computer science and a freshman seminar already installed, said Lev Gonick, the school's chief information officer. The university plans to compare the experiences of students who get the Kindles and those who use traditional textbooks, he said.
The new device will also feature a more fully functional Web browser, he said. The Kindle's current model, which debuted in February, includes a Web browser that is classified as "experimental." Five other universities are involved in the Kindle project, according to people briefed on the matter. They are Pace, Princeton, Reed, Darden School at the University of Virginia, and Arizona State.
Over at Law School Innovation, we have been talking about Kindle and other e-readers in the law school classroom for almost two years already (see 2007 posts here and here and here). From the get go, I have never doubt that e-books would eventually take over the law-school classroom. Because of the extraordinary costs and inconveniences of traditional law school casebooks, the issue in my view has always been, not whether e-books become common, but rather just when and exactly how they will enter the law school classroom.
Cross-posted at LSI
UPDATE: The new Kindle, known as the Kindle DX, can be seen in the picture above, and this report on its launch highlights why e-books are the future and also has a great quote from my former OSU College of Law colleague (who is now a tech rock-star):
Bezos reminded the assembled journalists at this week's launch event that the Amazon Kindle will soon be able to offer "every book ever printed, in any language, all available in less than 60 seconds."
"Eighteen months ago, we launched Kindle, and at the time we had 90,000 books available for Kindle. (We had) 230,000 books just three months ago when we launched Kindle 2," Bezos said. "We've added another 45,000 books in just the last three months. We're actually accelerating."
"The display is 2 and a half times the size of the Kindle 2," added Bezos, adding that with the "Built in PDF reader, you never have to pan, you never have to zoom, you never have to scroll. You just read." Also, rather niftily (just as with Apple's iPhone), "You just rotate the device and you go to widescreen mode."...
"Textbooks shine with this display," Bezos continued, telling the assembled crowd in NYC that he was "excited to announce today that we've reached an agreement with three leading textbook publishers."
As for students, Bezos confirmed that they already have five universities involved in piloting the Kindle DX this autumn, welcoming in Barbara Snyder, President of Case Western Reserve to give her own opinions on the new electronic textbook.
"We believe this will revolutionize learning," said Snyder. "As a research university, we're bound to test our hypothesis -- will the Kindle change how students work? We're going to look at these questions. To all the reporters here, can you imagine what it would be like to craft your story using paper, a typewriter, white out?"
Republican governor signals openness to legalizing marijuana
Coincidentally, on the same day that I engendered a robust debate when suggesting that the GOP might start considering a new set of approaches to crime and punishment, a prominent Republican governor has indicated a willingness to consider legalizing and taxing marijuana. Of course, as this Reuters piece details, this suggestion is coming from a non-traditional member of the GOP:
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Tuesday he welcomes a public debate on proposals to legalize and tax marijuana, which some suggest could provide a lucrative new revenue source for the cash-strapped state. The Republican governor, whose term in office expires at the end of next year, was asked about the idea of treating pot like alcohol at an appearance in northern California to promote wildfire preparedness.
"No, I don't think it's time for that, but I think it's time for a debate," he said. "And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what affect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision."... He said a decision to legalize marijuana, which has been outlawed in the United States since 1937, should not be made on the basis of raising revenues alone.
Schwarzenegger's comments come days after a statewide Field Poll found that 56 percent of California voters support the idea of legalizing cannabis for recreational use and taxing its proceeds.
Another example of victim calling for a reduced sentence
Regular readers know I like to spotlight cases in which a crime victim has been a voice for sentencing leniency rather than toughness. This new article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, headlined "Victim's forgiveness keeps embezzler out of prison," provides another example. Here are the deatils from the start of the article:
Elizabeth "Betty" Greenawalt embezzled more than $900,000 from her long-time employer and neighbor, robbing him of money that he could have taken into his retirement. Ralph Bucci went to Delaware County Court yesterday for Greenawalt's sentencing. Instead of seeking revenge, he offered forgiveness. "I do not seek a prison sentence on my behalf," Bucci told Judge James F. Nilon Jr.
Joan Bucci, his wife, called it a difficult day for her. She mentioned Greenawalt's gambling addiction and said Greenawalt's actions had hurt the family emotionally and financially. The Buccis' two daughters and son also testified that they had no desire to see Greenawalt go to prison, and that they also forgave her.
Greenawalt, who turned 66 yesterday, is in remission from Stage IV ovarian cancer. She was sentenced to nine months of house arrest and more than 19 years of probation, and ordered to pay approximately $636,000 in restitution and serve 300 hours of community service.
"Why Neuroscience Matters for a Rational Drug Policy"
The title of this post is the title of this interesting new piece I found via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Drug addiction reflects abnormal operation of normal neural circuitry. More than physical dependence, addiction represents changes in the brain that lead to increased craving and diminished capacity for the control of impulses. Given the growing biological understanding of addiction, it is critical for scientists to play an active role in drug policy because, as neuroscientific understanding develops, we will, to a much greater degree, be able to target specific behavioral, pharmaceutical, and neurological treatments for specific addictions. It is important to emphasize that biological explanations will not become equivalent to exculpation. Instead, the goal of explanation is to introduce rational sentencing and the opportunity for customized rehabilitation. This approach is likely to show more utility and less cost than incarceration. The neuroscientific community should continue to develop rehabilitative strategies so that the legal community can take advantage of those strategies for a rational, customized approach to drug addiction.
Some recent related posts:
- "America Should Decriminalize Drugs":
- Talk of drug courts, but not major policy changes, in drug war from Obama team
- Thoughtful academic thoughts on ending marijuana prohibitions
- "Time For Marijuana Legalization?"
- Terrific commentary and assessment of the war on drugs
- Renewing a lawyerly pitch for ending drug prohibition
- More calls for an end to the drug war and legalization of marijuana
Michael McConnell leaving Tenth Circuit to return to academy
As detail in this post at The BLT and in this official announcement, "Michael McConnell, one of the most influential federal appeals court judges in the nation, is stepping down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit [in order to] become director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School."
In recent years, Judge McConnell has authored some influential sentencing opinions and articles (including one entitled simply "The Booker Mess" discussed here). I am pleased that the judiciary's loss is the ivory tower's gain (and I hope Professor McConnell keeps up his sentencing interests in his new gig).
May 5, 2009
Chief district judges press AG Holder on various sentencing fronts
The National Law Journal has this interesting new piece headlined "Attorney General Promises Judges a New Day at DOJ." Here are some of the notable sentencing-related highlights:
In his first confab with the nation's chief federal district judges, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. pledged to raise the bar of professionalism in the U.S. Department of Justice and acknowledged that the current procedure for reviewing complaints against attorneys was too slow and opaque.
Nine chief judges described the April 21 meeting on the condition of anonymity because it was closed to the public. Holder's words held the promise of reform for the approximately 90 judges who attended the annual meeting at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington as discovery abuses and other prosecutorial misconduct, new and old, have come under increased scrutiny in the aftermath of the Ted Stevens case....
Holder also said his department would take steps to eliminate the vast disparities in federal sentencing for possession of crack versus powdered cocaine and expressed his commitment to look into alternative courts to deal with drug-related offenses, the judges said. Last week, Holder's new Criminal Division chief, Lanny Breuer, told a congressional panel that the department would support legislation to put crack and powder cocaine offenses on equal footing.
Several judges advocated for uniformity in sentencing and charging policies. One judge asked whether the Justice Department would, in some cases, continue stacking gun charges, which carry consecutive mandatory minimums sentences that can lead to lengthy sentences. Holder said he and his staff were reviewing the practice.
Another judge pressed Holder about inconsistencies among the U.S. attorneys offices in crediting defendants who provide substantial assistance to the government. In some jurisdictions, substantial assistance, such as wearing a wiretap, can earn a defendant a 50 percent sentence reduction, while in others, it might earn them only a 10 percent reduction.
Holder said the these issues were under review. He has tapped Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to chair a working group to examine federal sentencing and corrections policy and possibly make recommendations to Congress and the president.
I think it is both telling and significant that chief federal district judges care a lot about key sentencing issues impacted greatly by the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is also encouraging that AG Holder indicated that all these important issues are under review. It would be nice, however, if DOJ would be even more transparent and proactive in advising the federal judicial system and the public about possible timelines for these reviews and potential policy changes.
Some related posts:
- Will AG Holder really lead a "new birth of freedom" in prison nation?
- Is the new DOJ about to crack the stalemate over fixing the crack disparity?
- With the new DOJ advocating completely eliminating crack/powder disparity, now what?
- DOJ's basic game-plan while urging crack sentencing reform from Congress