August 23, 2011
Rick Perry's death penalty record already a topic of press coverage inside the Beltway
I pondered in this post last week whether and when the GOP might start debating Texas crime and punishment now that Governor Rick Perry is in the 2012 Presidential race. Though Texas justice is not yet a topic of conversation on the GOP campaign trial, this new Washington Post article, headlined "Rick Perry holds the record on executions," reveals that the media inside the Beltway is already buzzing about Perry's death penalty record. Here are excerpts from the extended piece:
Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry brings to the presidential race a law-and-order credential that none of his competitors can match — even if they wanted to. In his nearly 11 years as chief executive, Perry, now running for the GOP presidential nomination, has overseen more executions than any governor in modern history: 234 and counting. That’s more than the combined total in next two states — Oklahoma and Virginia — since the death penalty was restored 35 years ago.
The number is partly explained by sheer longevity at the helm of a huge state that has mastered the complicated legal maze of carrying out capital punishment. But Perry has hardly shrunk from the task.
As the 2012 presidential race unfolds, Perry’s record will inevitably become part of the debate in a country where the number of death sentences handed down continues to fall, and some states are renouncing executions. Polls show that capital punishment remains both popular and controversial. And although all of Perry’s main competitors, including President Obama, support the death penalty, Perry’s role stands out.
He vetoed a bill that would have spared the mentally retarded and sharply criticized a Supreme Court ruling that juveniles were not eligible for death. He has found during his tenure only one inmate on Texas’s crowded death row he thought should receive the lesser sentence of life in prison.
And Perry’s role in the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham — who supporters said should have been at least temporarily spared when experts warned that faulty forensic science led to his conviction — is still the subject of investigation in Texas.
Perry has been unapologetic. “If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” he wrote in his book lauding states’ rights, “Fed Up!”
It is a bipartisan tradition. The annual rate of executions was actually higher when George W. Bush was the state’s governor, and Democratic Gov. Ann Richards oversaw 50 executions during her four-year term without ever granting clemency. “In the big picture, it is hard to see how Perry is much different from Bush or Richards,” said Jordan Steiker, co-director of the University of Texas Law School’s Capital Punishment Center.
That’s partly because Texans and their representatives give governors little room to slow down the process. Decisions to seek the death penalty are made by local prosecutors. Unlike in some states, the governor does not sign death warrants or set execution dates. The state constitution forbids the governor from calling a moratorium on executions and allows clemency only when the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it. Which is rarely.
Texas’s relatively streamlined process for death penalty appeals is overseen by an elected court not known for reversals. Federal lawsuits go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, which has the same reputation.
“In many states, executions are blocked because the state courts, the federal courts or both are intensely hostile to capital punishment and look for any excuse to overturn convictions,” said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in California. “So the short answer to why Texas has the most executions is (1) size, and (2) not being obstructed by hostile courts.”...
Perry’s lone clemency decision — aside from halting executions of the mentally retarded and juveniles dictated by the Supreme Court — came in the case of a man who drove the getaway car and was not the triggerman in a murder. Perry called for the legislature to reexamine the law, but it has not been changed.
After Perry signed a law offering life without the possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty, the total number of death sentences in Texas dropped, as it has in other states, from 23 in 2004 to eight in 2010, according to the anti-capital punishment Death Penalty Information Center....
On the campaign trail last week, Perry was asked how he defended the cost and inefficiency of the death penalty. He said it was a decision to be made by states, and “in the state of Texas, our citizens have clearly said that they support by overwhelming majority capital punishment.”
If others disagree, he said, they should try to pass a constitutional amendment to halt the death penalty. “I just lay it out there as an issue for Americans,” he said. “I will suggest to you that I’m going to work a whole lot harder on a balanced budget amendment to the United States constitution than I am for an amendment that will ban capital punishment.”
Some related posts:
- Might GOP start debating Texas crime and punishment with Rick Perry in the 2012 race?
- Willingham case and Texas Gov continuing to make headlines
- Texas Governor commutes death sentence
"Court orders resentencing of ex-Pennsylvania state senator"
The title of this post is the headline of this Reuters piece reporting on a high-profile Third Circuit ruling today in a high-profile corruption case. Here are the details:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered the resentencing of a former Pennsylvania state senator, saying the trial judge erred in his sentencing of the once powerful former politician.
Former State Senator Vincent Fumo was sentenced to 55 months in a minimum-security federal prison after he was convicted in March 2009 of 137 charges of fraud, tax evasion and obstruction of justice.
The Democrat's conviction was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, which ordered the resentencing. In an unusual move, prosecutors in May argued that Fumo should be resentenced to up to 27 years in prison, saying U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter had been too lenient and did not explain why he sentenced Fumo to below federal sentencing guidelines.
In a statement, U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger said: "We are pleased with the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and will prepare for the next step in the process."...
Fumo's lawyers had argued that the sentencing judge committed "no significant procedural error" and noted the court had ordered Fumo to pay a fine of $411,000 and more than $2.3 million in restitution. His attorneys also added that Buckwalter found Fumo had worked hard for the public, warranting a departure from sentencing guidelines.
The full opinion in US v. Fumo, No. 09-3390 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2011) (available here), runs 84 pages, though the last 22-pages is made up by a dissent by Judge Nygaard on the sentencing issues. I hope to have more comments on these opinions when I get to consume them fully.
Peculiar(?) concurrence in Eighth Circuit panel's affirmance of top-of-guideline sentence
The Eighth Circuit has an intriguing little reasonableness ruling today in US v. Wohlman, No.10-2967 (8th Cir. Aug. 23, 2011) (available here), which gets started this way:
Thomas Wohlman pleaded guilty to one count of attempted enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court sentenced Wohlman to 121 months' imprisonment, the top of the Guidelines range. On appeal, Wohlman argues that the district court committed several procedural errors and imposed an unreasonable sentence. He also argues that his sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(A). We affirm Wohlman's sentence and decline to reach the merits of Wohlman's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
The opinion covers a lot of modern sentencing review ground, but the ruling seemed to me especially blog-worthy because of Judge Bright's brief concurrence. Here is the full text of that concurrence:
I can find no error in the sentencing process or the actual sentence of ten years and one month, the top of the guidelines. Accordingly, I concur.
Yet, I write to note that no molestation of any young person actually occurred. The conversations Wohlman had about sex with minor females took place with government agents who posed as minor females.
Wohlman has no felony convictions and operates an apparently successful business. A qualified expert witness testified that Wohlman was unlikely to reoffend and that he was not a predator. The district judge, however, gave little weight to testimony. Although the sentence at the top of the guidelines stands approved, this judge suggests that this sentence is harsh considering the entire record and defendant’s background.
Notwithstanding Judge Bright's initial assertion that he could find no error in the sentence, he seems to be saying with the rest of his brief opinion that he views the top-of-guideline prison term to be "greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth" in federal sentencing law in 18 USC 3553(a)(2). To me that amounts to a judgment, in Judge Bright's view, that there is error in the sentence as being substantively unreasonable.
To the extent that the Supreme Court has indicated that substantive reasonableness review remains important and distinct from procedural reasonableness review after Booker, this form of review would seem to be precisely about circuit judges making judgments that district court imposed too harsh (or too lenient) a sentence in light of congressional sentencing purposes. In other words, I see Judge Bright's concurrence to be peculiar because he seems to be expressing a strong substantive disagreement with the sentence below and yet also seems of the view that this substantive judgment is not a proper part of reasonableness review.
Is "decision fatigue" a big problem in sentencing decision-making? If so, what should be done?
The question in the title of this post are prompted by this fascinating piece that appeared in this past weekend's New York Times magazine discussing the problems posed by "decision fatigue." Notably, the piece began with a compelling sentencing story:
Three men doing time in Israeli prisons recently appeared before a parole board consisting of a judge, a criminologist and a social worker. The three prisoners had completed at least two-thirds of their sentences, but the parole board granted freedom to only one of them. Guess which one:
Case 1 (heard at 8:50 a.m.): An Arab Israeli serving a 30-month sentence for fraud.
Case 2 (heard at 3:10 p.m.): A Jewish Israeli serving a 16-month sentence for assault.
Case 3 (heard at 4:25 p.m.): An Arab Israeli serving a 30-month sentence for fraud.
There was a pattern to the parole board’s decisions, but it wasn’t related to the men’s ethnic backgrounds, crimes or sentences. It was all about timing, as researchers discovered by analyzing more than 1,100 decisions over the course of a year. Judges, who would hear the prisoners’ appeals and then get advice from the other members of the board, approved parole in about a third of the cases, but the probability of being paroled fluctuated wildly throughout the day. Prisoners who appeared early in the morning received parole about 70 percent of the time, while those who appeared late in the day were paroled less than 10 percent of the time.
The odds favored the prisoner who appeared at 8:50 a.m. — and he did in fact receive parole. But even though the other Arab Israeli prisoner was serving the same sentence for the same crime — fraud — the odds were against him when he appeared (on a different day) at 4:25 in the afternoon. He was denied parole, as was the Jewish Israeli prisoner at 3:10 p.m, whose sentence was shorter than that of the man who was released. They were just asking for parole at the wrong time of day.
There was nothing malicious or even unusual about the judges’ behavior, which was reported earlier this year by Jonathan Levav of Stanford and Shai Danziger of Ben-Gurion University. The judges’ erratic judgment was due to the occupational hazard of being, as George W. Bush once put it, “the decider.” The mental work of ruling on case after case, whatever the individual merits, wore them down. This sort of decision fatigue can make quarterbacks prone to dubious choices late in the game and C.F.O.’s prone to disastrous dalliances late in the evening. It routinely warps the judgment of everyone, executive and nonexecutive, rich and poor — in fact, it can take a special toll on the poor. Yet few people are even aware of it, and researchers are only beginning to understand why it happens and how to counteract it.
Decision fatigue helps explain why ordinarily sensible people get angry at colleagues and families, splurge on clothes, buy junk food at the supermarket and can’t resist the dealer’s offer to rustproof their new car. No matter how rational and high-minded you try to be, you can’t make decision after decision without paying a biological price. It’s different from ordinary physical fatigue — you’re not consciously aware of being tired — but you’re low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing. Instead of agonizing over decisions, avoid any choice. Ducking a decision often creates bigger problems in the long run, but for the moment, it eases the mental strain. You start to resist any change, any potentially risky move — like releasing a prisoner who might commit a crime. So the fatigued judge on a parole board takes the easy way out, and the prisoner keeps doing time.
August 22, 2011
Former drug chain CEO gets 3-year (way-below-guideline) prison term
This Bloomberg news report, headlined "Ex-Duane Reade CEO Cuti Gets Three Years in Prison for Inflating Earnings," can be spun lots of different ways because the white-collar defendant received a significant, but way-below-guideline, prison term for corporate fraud. Here are the interesting details:
Former Duane Reade Inc. Chief Executive Officer Anthony Cuti was sentenced to three years in prison for falsely inflating income and misleading investors. Cuti, 65, of Saddle River, New Jersey, was convicted in June 2010 of conspiracy and securities fraud after a federal jury trial in Manhattan. U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts also ordered Cuti today to pay a $5 million fine.
Batts called Cuti “a gifted, arrogant, driven, entitled individual” who “bullied people into committing fraudulent acts to make the company look better than it actually was” to increase his pay.
Batts said Cuti was also guilty of “the height of hubris” for re-writing his employee compensation plan that would allow him to double his compensation even if he was fired for cause, which later occurred, she said.
Cuti didn’t admit any wrongdoing when he spoke in court before the sentence was imposed. “I’ve always led my life with integrity,” Cuti said as his wife, adult daughter and brother sat in the courtroom.... “I always thought I acted for the shareholders first and foremost,” he said. “I’d like to say I’ve had a good career. It was a good run. The conviction is so at odds with what I’ve tried to be.”
Cuti’s lawyer, Reid Weingarten, today asked Batts to impose no jail time and allow his client to remain free to perform public service. “It will be devastating if he’s sent away,” he said. “He was not a guy motivated by greed and driven to line his pockets,” said Weingarten. Investors weren’t harmed, he argued, saying they’d profited from Cuti’s transformation of Duane Reade from “a sleepy nearly-bankrupt drug store on a Manhattan street corner to being a force to be reckoned with.”
Former Duane Reade Chief Financial Officer William Tennant, who was tried with Cuti and convicted of one count of securities fraud, is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 29. The U.S. said both men engaged in a scheme to falsely increase revenue and lower expenses from 2000 to 2005.
U.S. Probation Department officials calculated that Cuti had faced a term from 17 1/2 years to as long as 21 years and eight months in prison. The agency recommended an unspecified lesser prison term be imposed, court records show....
“The offenses here were very serious, they went on for four and a half years and involved continuous, almost daily conduct by the defendant to inflate earnings of the company,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Streeter said today. “It was ongoing, it was continuous, it was deliberate and it was calculated.”
Batts directed Cuti to surrender to U.S. Bureau of Prisons officials on Jan. 31. She denied a bid by Weingarten to allow him to remain free on bond pending his appeal....
Cuti received more than $50 million from Duane Reade and Oak Hill from 2000 through 2005, including $25 million from the 2004 acquisition by Oak Hill, prosecutors said. Cuti left the company in 2005.
The feds can now surely crow a bit about having "crime in the suites" result in serious prison time here, as they do in this press release. And yet, in light of the apparently severe guideline calculation, Cuti and his counsel have to be somewhat thankful he is looking at only about 31 months in club fed after time off for good behavior.
NYC prosecutors now seeking to dismiss rape charges against DSK
This new AP story, headlined "Prosecutors seek to dismiss Strauss-Kahn charges," provides the latest notable twist on a high-profile (and now soon to be over) state criminal prosecution. Here is how the story starts:
New York City prosecutors filed court papers Monday recommending dismissal of sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was accused of attacking a hotel maid in May in a globally sensational case that eventually dissolved amid questions about the woman's credibility.
The accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, and her attorney, Kenneth Thompson, met briefly with representatives of the Manhattan district attorney's office to discuss the decision not to proceed with the prosecution. Thompson didn't say what had happened inside or reveal what his client was told, but he recited a short statement condemning prosecutors for their handling of the case.
"Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has denied the right of a woman to get justice in a rape case," he said. "He has not only turned his back on this innocent victim. But he has also turned his back on the forensic, medical and other physical evidence in this case."
A person familiar with the case earlier told The Associated Press that prosecutors had concerns about Diallo's credibility and insufficient evidence of forced sexual encounter. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity. Diallo is also suing Strauss-Kahn, seeking to make him pay financially if not with his freedom, a move that the diplomat's lawyers said also eroded her credibility.
Prosecutors filed paperwork with the court Monday recommending that the charges be dismissed. The document was not immediately made available to the public, so the district attorney's reasons for asking for the dismissal were not known.
Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to go before a judge Tuesday. His lawyers, William Taylor and Benjamin Brafman, issued a statement saying that he and his family were grateful for the decision.
Among other lessons, this case now becomes a significant example of how merely an arrest and a criminal charge can have profound social and personal consequences, especially in high-profile settings involving high-profile people.
Prior posts on DSK charges:
- IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn denied bail in NYC sex assault case as alibi talk emerges
- DSK formally indicted, though gets bail with lots of conditions
- DSK to be freed from house arrest as victim's rape story being questioned
- Accuser tells Newsweek she wants to see DSK in jail
WSJ takes note of the mess that is Florida's (now unconstitutional) criminal drug laws
I have been a bit surprised to have not yet seen much mainstream discussion of the mess unfolding in Florida where a federal district judge (blogged here) and a state circuit judge (blogged here) have recently declared the state's criminal drug laws facially unconstitutional. I am now pleased to see this new Wall Street Journal article and WSJ Law Blog entry showing that some folks in the MSM are paying attention. Here are the basics of the story via the blog post:
To win a conviction under the drug laws of most states, a prosecutor has to convince a jury that the defendant knew he owned or sold an illicit substance. But in 2002, Florida became the only state in the country to do away with the “knowledge requirement” in its main drug law.
A federal judge in Orlando was the first to strike a blow to the law late last month, ruling that a central part of Florida’s Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Then, last week, a state judge in Miami cited Judge Scriven’s opinion in overturning the drug-distribution convictions of 39 defendants....
The office of the Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has filed notices of appeals in both cases. “This decision conflicts with binding state court precedent upholding Florida’s drug law,” said Bondi, shortly after Judge Hirsch issued his ruling on Wednesday. “This decision is flawed and it unduly hinders prosecutors’ efforts to keep criminals off our streets.”
The issue will likely be settled by a higher court — the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unlikely that Florida will see a mass exodus of its prison population until then. But if the key part of the law is ultimately struck down, “it could get pretty chaotic,” said James Felman, the lawyer for Mackle Vincent Shelton, whose conviction Judge Scriven overturned.
According to the Florida Department of Corrections, nearly 94,000 people have been sent to state prisons for drug crimes since the start of 2002.
Recent related posts:
- "Federal Judge Rules Florida’s Drug Laws Unconstitutional"
- State judge finds Florida drug law unconstitutional
Texas man gets 220-year state sentence for kiddie porn possession (and uncharged child rapes)
This local piece, headlined "220 years handed out in porn case; Stacked sentences are among longest in memory," discussing a (record-long?) Texas sentence has many interesting (and sad) elements concerning modern sentencing discretion and the justification for extremely long prison terms. Here are the details:
A San Antonio man convicted by a jury in June of downloading hardcore prepubescent child pornography was ordered Friday to serve 220 years in stacked sentences — one of the longest punishments prosecutors said they could recall, locally or elsewhere.
Paul Joseph Lamarre, 43, initially faced up to 10 years in prison for each of the 22 counts of possession of child porn. But convictions related to child exploitation and molestation are among the few crimes in Texas that judges are allowed to stack.
Prosecutors in Bexar County tend to ask for consecutive sentences only in “extraordinary” circumstances, and this one qualified as such, Assistant District Attorneys Patrick Ballantyne and Stephen Ahl said after state District Judge Maria Teresa Herr announced her decision. “This is not a man exploring the outer bounds of his sexuality,” Ballantyne said during closing arguments to the judge. “He is an active sexual predator.”
Prosecutors called two women to the stand who each tearfully recalled Lamarre molesting them between the ages of 5 and 13. “It's pretty much ruined my life,” one of the women said, explaining that, among other things, Lamarre would put cash and lingerie in her drawer for her to wear during the rapes. “I suffer from severe, severe depression. I can't hold a stable relationship.”
The other woman recalled Lamarre filming her in the bathtub and waking up in the middle of the night with him on top of her, naked and with a video camera. “He stole my innocence from me,” she said.
But Lamarre had a lot of time to think about his actions while in jail, defense attorneys Richard Langlois and William Brooks countered, adding that he never got in trouble while free on bond. Prosecutors initially offered Lamarre a five-year prison sentence as part of a plea agreement he rejected, Langlois pointed out. That offer was made before child molestation allegations surfaced, prosecutors said.
Given the revelations during the punishment hearing, it was an “ideal time” to seek what amounts to life in prison without parole, District Attorney Susan Reed said. “It's not just possessing an image,” she said. “It's victimizing someone, and that leads to other things which we saw in this particular incidence where he's abusing young children.”
It seems to me that Lamarre did not really get 220 years as a sentence for possessing 22 images of child porn, nor that prosecutors sought stacked sentences because of his kiddie porn downloading. Rather, it seem pretty clear based on this news report that Lamarre (deservedly) received an extremely long sentence because he molested two girls for nearly a decade.
As reported here, I am not all that troubled that Lamarre will rot the rest of his life away in a Texas prison. But I wonder if others are troubled by the reality that his sentencing fate was really the result of crimes for which he was not formally charged and convicted. I also wonder just (1) why prosecutors were willing to offer a plea deal of only five years without having investigated Lamarre's history, (2) why Lamarre decided to turn down such a deal given his history, and (3) whether this evidence of prior extreme molestation would have ever been unearched if Lamarre had taken the deal.
"Can Schools Punish Students for Posting Racy Photos Online?"
The question in the title of this post is the headline of this new Time column. Here are excerpts:
Two Indiana girls — one 16, one 15 — took racy photos of themselves at a slumber party and posted them online. When their high school found out, it suspended the girls from participating in a certain amount of their extracurricular activities. Can the school legally do that?
A federal district court in Fort Wayne, Ind., recently ruled that it cannot — because the punishment violated the girls' First Amendment rights. The legal question of what rights students have to post provocative material on the Internet, and what rights schools have to restrict such postings, is still unsettled. But the Indiana decision is the second important ruling in recent months to strike a blow for students' online speech rights....
The Indiana ruling follows a June decision from the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, which held that a student could not be disciplined for posting a crude parody of her middle-school principal on MySpace. In that case, the court said that even if the parody was offensive — it presented the principal as a bisexual named M-Hoe with a sexual addiction and a child who looked like a gorilla — there was no reason to believe it would cause substantial disruption.
Taken together, the back-to-back Indiana and Pennsylvania rulings suggest two things. First, with the rise of the Internet, students are posting a lot of "crass foolishness," as the Indiana court tartly put it. And second, that courts are correctly determining that, except in the most extraordinary cases, students have a constitutional right to do so.
Obviously, these cases have more to do with the First Amendment than with sentencing. That said, I often view school discipline efforts as an example of kids getting "sentenced" by school officials. Moreover, in the severity of federal kiddie porn sentencing, any ruling finding constitutional rights in the posting racy photos of underage persons seems noteworthy.
Why Iowa is a state to watch for sentencing fans and researchers (as well as political junkies)
From straw polls to caucuses, political junkies know that Iowa is a special state in the election season. But this recent article from the Des Moines Register, which is headlined "Hundreds of Iowa inmates could be released on ruling," highlights why sentencing fans also should be watching the state closely in the months ahead:
The Iowa Department of Corrections will have to parole or discharge hundreds and possibly thousands of Iowa inmates early - some of them dangerous - because of a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling, a state official confirmed Thursday night.
Fred Scaletta, a spokesman for the department, said the department is recalculating the sentences of roughly 3,200 convicts whose time under corrections supervision is affected by the ruling last month. Officials plan to inform the Board of Corrections today at a meeting in Fort Dodge about the effects of the court decision.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously in July that state law mandated that a convicted sex offender should receive credit for time served while under home supervision, even though he violated probation while at home....
Scaletta said that decision now applies to all defendants whose probation was revoked, regardless of their crime. "We just don't know how many there will be. We're having to do each defendant by hand," he said. "We're on it. We want to get this done as quickly as we possibly can." The department also must notify the defendants' victims.
A helpful reader altered me to this story and provided these follow-up statistics about the import and impact of what the Iowa Supreme Court has wrought:
The headline [of ther Register article] understates what is going to happen. The Iowa Department of Corrections is going to have to release the following (this is clipped from an email Iowa DOC sent to all County Attorneys last week):Currently in Prison = 2,152Currently in Prison and there are civil commitment issues needing addressed = 117Currently on Work Release = 165Currently on Parole = 1010Total = 3,444
They have said this will happen “immediately or within a short time.” [Because the Iowa] inmate count is 8775 ... within a short time the Iowa prison system is going to release approximately one quarter of the inmates ... [and] the parole rolls are going to drop by about 33%."
In other words, Iowa is about to have a court-ordered rapid experience with decarceration. I think all persons concerned with both mass incarceration and crime rates ought to be keeping a very close watch on how all this new freedom in Iowa plays out.
UPDATE: Thanks to commentor Robert for tracking down the Iowa Supreme Court opinion causing the commotion in the Hawkeye State. The unanimous opinion in Anderson v. Iowa, No. 09-0507 (Iowa July 29, 2011) (available here), gets started this way:
“Ours not to reason why, ours but to read, and apply. It is our duty to accept the law as the legislative body enacts it.” Holland v. State, 253 Iowa 1006, 1011, 115 N.W.2d 161, 164 (1962) (Thompson, J.). In this case we must decide whether a convicted sex offender incarcerated after revocation of his probation is entitled to credit against his prison sentence for time spent living at home under supervised probation wearing an electronic monitoring device on his ankle. The district court denied the credit, and a divided court of appeals affirmed. Although it is counterintuitive to count days living at home against a state prison sentence, we conclude the plain language of Iowa Code section 907.3(3) (2007), requires credit for the time Anderson was committed to electronic monitoring and home supervision during his probation. We therefore vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the district court ruling, and remand for entry of an order providing that sentencing credit.
August 22, 2011 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Data on sentencing, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, State Sentencing Guidelines | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 21, 2011
"Sentencing disparities in child-sex-assault cases point to double standard"
The title of this post is the headline of this intriguing piece appearing today in the Denver Post. Here are excerpts:
Women in Colorado convicted of sexually assaulting a child in their care are far less likely to go to prison than men sentenced for the same crime.
A Denver Post analysis of sentencing data provided by the Colorado Judicial Branch shows that of the 2,128 men convicted of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust from 2006 through 2010, more than 50 percent were sent to prison. Of the 79 women convicted of the same felony offense, 38 percent went to prison. A little more than 39 percent of female defendants in that same period — 31 — were put on intensive supervised probation. Less than 35 percent of men were given the same sentence.
Experts who have studied the issue say those statistics are mirrored nationwide and show a clear disparity between how male and female teachers, coaches and babysitters are treated when they are convicted of sexually abusing a child....
With women, the victim is often a young or teen male in her charge, and too often the abuse is seen as less traumatic and almost a badge of honor for the boy, said forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland.... Ramsland and others who track sexual-assault cases involving both men and women say prosecutors are starting to understand that women caught preying on teens — both boys and girls — can do just as much damage as men and are pushing for judges to treat offenders of both genders equally....
Several studies show that males molested by female caregivers run a huge risk of becoming sex offenders in adulthood. Also, 80 percent of male victims of female sexual abuse have been divorced, according to a study done by Stephanie Reidlinger, a law student at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Va.
Her study says that women who molest boys are most likely victims of abuse themselves. Reidlinger also says that many cases of woman-on-boy crimes are not reported at all, due in part to the media. "Media outlets rarely use language to convey this type of sexual abuse as a traumatic crime," Reidlinger said. "While reports about male offenders quite often include words like 'predator' or 'monster,' reports of female crimes refer to the perpetrators as 'bombshells' or the conduct as a 'romp.' "...
To be sure, women who abuse children and who are also teachers, coaches and babysitters are a significant minority. In fact, only eight women either had their teaching credentials revoked or denied by the Colorado Department of Education from 2006 to the present because of sexual misconduct. During that same period, 32 male educators were disciplined for the same reason, according to the department.
Prosecutors and defense lawyers also contend that the sentencing disparity between the genders could result from multiple factors, including prior history and likelihood of recidivism. A 2005 study shows that females convicted of a sexual offense repeat the same offense only about 1 percent of the time. The recidivism rate for male sex offenders is 13.4 percent.
That could play a role in determining whether a female offender should be sent to prison and, if she is, how long she should stay, said Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson. "You look at the charges, you look at the level of threat that individual is causing the community and if that person is subjecting the victim to pretty significant trauma. You have to look at all of those factors," Abrahamson said.
Sex offenders also are subject to intense psycho-sexual evaluations that weigh whether that person is likely to recommit a sex crime, he said. "Those responses can determine what kind of punishment level you are seeking," Abrahamson said.
Might California follow Texas and abolish all forms of juve LWOP?
As detailed in this recent CNN piece, this coming week the California legislature is to consider again a bill to eliminate life without parole for any and all juvenile offenders. Here are the basics:
A controversial bill headed for a vote in California has stirred up conversation again about whether life sentences for juveniles need to be re-examined. Under the state bill, which received a key vote [last] Wednesday to allow it to head to the Assembly floor for a vote, some juvenile offenders would get the opportunity for release.
At the heart of the bill is a question that's been pondered by legal scholars, law enforcement and even the Supreme Court: Should juveniles who have committed crimes that led to a life prison sentence be given a second chance?
The bill, introduced by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would allow juveniles to ask a court to re-examine their sentences after they have served 15 years for their crime. Yee, who is also a child psychologist, argues that at certain ages, kids don't have the full capacity to understand their crimes, and locking juveniles up without giving them a chance to show they have gained that capacity isn't the right answer.
This weekend brings editorials from some California papers vocally endorsing this bill to eliminate juve LWOP in the Golden State:
- From the Los Angeles Times here, "For juvenile lifers, a chance"
- From the Ventura County Star here, "Giving young lifers a chance at redemption"
But this op-ed commetary from the Sacramento Bee has a different take, as evidenced by its headline: "Bill that would allow resentencing in heinous juvenile crimes is flawed."
"Bill for tough riot sentencing runs into millions"
The title of this post is the headline of this piece from The Independent discussing some consequences and costs of the legal responses to some of the recent rioting across the pond. Here is how the piece starts:
The tough sentencing in the aftermath of the riots has led to outbreaks of unrest in prisons across the country, as new research for The Independent on Sunday reveals that the courts' approach to riot-related offences has piled millions of pounds on to the bill for running overcrowded prisons.
Figures show that some two-thirds of the 1,300 arrested following the disturbances were remanded in custody, at a total cost of almost £2m, according to figures provided by the Institute for Public Policy Research. The IPPR calculates the average cost of an under three-month sentence is £2,245 per offender.
On top of this, research for The Guardian showed riot sentences were on average 25 per cent longer than for the same offences last year, meaning the 30 people so far given custodial sentences for theft or handling stolen goods were sent to prison for 5.1 rather than 4.1 months.
The IPPR figures suggest the difference would add over £20,000 to the cost of jailing these prisoners. However, with the rate of imprisonment for rioting offences running at 70 per cent, compared with the 3.5 per cent of defendants remanded by magistrates in the whole of last year, the cost is expected to climb dramatically.
Concerns have also been expressed about the number of children arrested following the riots. The latest figures suggest 17% of defendants facing riot-related charges in court were aged between 11 and 17 -- and, in some areas, up to a third of these were in council care.
Steve Gillan, general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said: "We warned [the Government] about this potential, that the prison population could take off at any time, and we were ignored. Our prisons can't be continually overcrowded, because when they are, our officers can't do the rehabilitation work they're employed to do; it just becomes warehousing."
You make the call: should the feds be out in the Clemens case after one strike?
I am very interested in hearing the thoughts of commentors concerning whether Roger Clemens should be subject to trial again after federal prosecutors caused a mistrial through their misconduct at the start of his first trial. This AP article, headlined "Prosecutors want another shot at Clemens trial," sets out the basic background:
Prosecutors pursing a perjury conviction against baseball star Roger Clemens acknowledge they made a critical error that ultimately doomed their high-profile trial but asked a judge for another chance to convict the pitching standout of lying about using performance-enhancing drugs.
The U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia filed arguments Friday disputing Clemens' position that a second trial would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy by making him face the same charges twice. The filing is the prosecutors' first public admission of fault in the mistrial and first explanation of what went wrong.
The prosecutors wrote it was their duty to make sure that evidence was not included in their exhibits. "The government accepts responsibility for its oversight, and regrets the burdens that error has placed on this court and defendant," they wrote, but argued the mistake was due to the press of other trial matters and was not intentional....
Clemens had argued the showing of the evidence was a deliberate ploy to invoke a mistrial because the prosecutors' case was going badly. But the prosecutors say their case remains strong and Clemens wants to "gain an unwarranted windfall from this inadvertent error."... "It is impossible to credibly assert that the government had a motive for derailing defendant's prosecution because it believed the case was going badly when the case was barely going," the prosecutors said.
Friday's filing was signed by assistant U.S. attorneys Steven Durham and Daniel Butler, the two prosecutors who conducted the trial, along with their boss, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen Jr. and a colleague from the office's appellate division. That suggests there has been no change in the prosecution team despite the error.