October 31, 2015
Might California get two completing capital punishment propositions to consider in 2016?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable new Los Angeles Times article headlined "Voters may weigh competing death penalty measures on 2016 ballot." Here are excerpts:
A pro-death penalty group unveiled a ballot measure Friday that would require death row inmates to work in prison and provide new deadlines intended to expedite appeals. The measure, which would appear on the November 2016 ballot, is aimed at speeding up executions in California. The state has executed 13 inmates since 1978, but nearly 750 remain on death row, the largest in the nation. Most condemned inmates die of suicide or illness.
A proposed anti-death penalty initiative also has been submitted for state review, creating the possibility that voters next year will weigh competing initiatives on capital punishment. Both measures would require current death row inmates to work and pay restitution to victims, but one would keep the death penalty, and the other scrap it for life without parole.
Backers of the death penalty estimate their new measure would reduce the time from conviction to execution from as long as 30 years to 10 to 15 years. San Bernardino County Dist. Atty. Mike Ramos, one of several supporters who spoke about the measure at a Los Angeles news conference, said it would honor the more than 1,000 victims — including 229 children and 43 peace officers — who have been murdered by inmates on California’s death row.
Neither side in the death penalty debate has yet raised the commanding sums needed to assure ballot placement. The pro-death penalty group said it has raised $1 million so far. The opposition has raised $350,000. An estimated $2 million is probably needed to gather the required signatures.
Friday's news conference came a few days before the state plans to release a revised method of execution. The new protocol will involve a single drug rather than the three-drug cocktail previously used. Court rulings have prevented the state from executing anyone since 2006. A federal judge ruled that the former method exposed inmates to inhumane suffering if one of the three drugs failed to work....
The measure announced Friday is similar to one that death penalty supporters launched more than a year ago. The earlier proposal did not get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. A key difference is that the former was a proposed constitutional amendment, which requires more signatures than a mere change in state law.
Like the earlier measure, the newest one would allow the revised lethal injection method to take effect without exhaustive public comment. Death row inmates would be housed throughout the prison system.
The state’s voters narrowly defeated a ballot measure in 2012 that would have abolished the death penalty. Eight states have rescinded capital punishment laws since 2000.
Ana Zamora, the criminal justice policy director for the ACLU of Northern California, which sponsored the 2012 initiative to end the death penalty, said Friday’s proposal would just cause more delays. “The only solution is to keep murderers in prison until they die,” she said.
But Kermit Alexander, whose mother, sister and two young nephews were killed in 1984, said families deserve the execution of those who killed their loved ones. Choking back tears, the former football star said the killer, now on death row, had mistakenly gone to the wrong house when he killed Alexander’s family. “If you prey upon the elderly or massacre our children,” Alexander said, “you should be required to pay the ultimate price. It's the law. … Justice isn't easy. Justice isn't gentle. But justice denied isn't justice.”
As some readers may know, I am a huge fan of direct democracy and thus I am always generally support of any and all efforts to bring important issues directly to voters through the initiative process. In addition, because I generally view the death penalty to be an issue that can be effectively and soundly addressed through the initiative process, I am now rooting for both capital reform proposals to make it to California voters. (Indeed, I have of late been thinking/hoping someone might have the resources and inclination to bring some kind of initiative reform concerning the death penalty to Buckeye voters in my own state of Ohio.)
"Is Halloween Really More Dangerous for Kids?: A lack of evidence doesn’t stop cities from rounding up sexual offenders on the holiday."
The title of this post is the headline of this recent Marshall Project piece that seems fitting to spotlight on October 31. Here is an excerpt (with links from the original):
Despite research showing no evidence that children are at greater risk of experiencing sex abuse on Halloween than on any other day, states and localities around the country impose severe restrictions on registered sex offenders during the holiday.
Some, including parts of Virginia, Georgia, Delaware and Texas, require sex offenders on probation or parole report to designated locations. O thers, such as Missouri, Florida and Nevada, direct some offenders to post signs on their doors that say, “No candy or treats at this residence.” Broader restrictions in most states direct people on the registry to keep their lights off to deter trick-or-treaters and stay away from children in costumes in their neighborhood or at the local mall.
Before a 2014 ACLU complaint, the Plaquemines Parish Sheriffs Office in Louisiana required all registered sex offenders post this sign on their front lawn on Halloween.
For more than six years, the Gaston County Sheriff’s Department in North Carolina has ordered sex offenders who are still on parole to report to the courthouse on Halloween, said Capt. Mike Radford, who helps to oversee the program. “We keep them in one big courtroom and call people in and out to do random drug testing and vehicle searches, and we have guest speakers,” he said. “If they don’t show up, we pick them up and arrest them.” Radford said he doesn’t know why the program began but believes it is because Halloween presents “easy accessibility to a minor.”
The laws began to proliferate nationwide in the 1990s, when the fear of a predator who lures young children into his home with candy arose amid other concerns, such as poisoned treats and razor blades in apples. “Going back decades, there is this sense that there are these dangers to children on Halloween,” said Jill Levenson, a clinical social worker and associate professor at Barry University in Florida.
But studies have shown that more than 90 percent of children who are sexually abused know their abuser, who is often a family member or close acquaintance. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report showed that only 7 percent of those who sexually abused juveniles were strangers to their victims.
Levenson co-authored a study that examined the Halloween effect by looking at sex crimes against children between 1997 to 2005. The researchers analyzed more than 67,000 crimes in which the perpetrators were strangers, acquaintances, and neighbors.
In a year-by-year comparison that zeroed in on Halloween, the researchers found no variation in number or types of crimes committed, even as more laws were added. But that’s not the message families hear in the weeks before Oct. 31, when articles with headlines such as “Homes to Watch Out for This Halloween,”which run the addresses of local registered sex offenders, are common.
October 30, 2015
SCOTUS grants cert on quirky aspect of federal gun prohibition case
As reported in this SCOTUSblog post, headlined "Court grants review in firearm-possession case," the Supreme Court decided today to take up a federal criminal case involving gun rights. But, interestingly, as Amy Howe explains in the post, the Court did not accept for review the Second Amendment issue lurking in the case:
This afternoon the Court issued an initial group of orders from its October 30 Conference, adding one new case to its merits docket for the Term. The Justices had considered Voisine v. United States at two earlier Conferences before granting review today.
At issue are the convictions of two Maine men, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, for violating a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by individuals who have previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Both men allege that their convictions under Maine law for simple assault and misdemeanor domestic violence assault, respectively, do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for purposes of the federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), because both provisions of Maine law can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless, rather than intentional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that argument, and the federal government urged the Court to deny review, but the Justices today disregarded that recommendation.
Notably, however, the Court agreed to review only the recklessness question; it declined to review a second question presented by the petition, which asked the Justices to rule on whether the ban on possession of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence violated their rights under the Second Amendment.
"IQ, Intelligence Testing, Ethnic Adjustments and Atkins"
The title of this post is the title of this intriguing new paper authored by Robert M. Sanger and available via Bepress. Here is the abstract:
In Atkins v. Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court declared that executing the intellectually disabled violated the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In Atkins, the Court relied heavily on medical standards, which indicated that individuals with an IQ of approximately or below seventy and who met the other criteria for intellectual disability were ineligible for the death penalty. Twelve years later, in Hall v. Florida, the Court evaluated a Florida statute that created a bright line rule, making anyone whose IQ was above seventy eligible for execution, regardless of other factors suggesting the defendant was, despite his IQ score, intellectually disabled. Finding the statute violated the Constitution, the Court stated that the Florida statute’s bright line rule made the possibility too great that an intellectually disabled person would be executed.
Since Atkins, some prosecution experts have begun using so-called “ethnic adjustments” to artificially raise minority defendants’ IQ scores, making defendants who would have been protected by Atkins and its progeny eligible for the death penalty. This Article details this practice, looking at several cases in which prosecutors successfully adjusted a defendant’s IQ score upward, based on his or her race. The Article then turns to the arguments put forth by these prosecutors for increasing minority defendants’ IQ scores, namely that it would be improper not to adjust the scores. Statistically, some minority cohorts tend to perform worse on tests than White cohorts; prosecutors argue that this discrepancy is not based on intellectual inferiority, but rather that there are testing biases and behavioral factors that cause minority test-takers to underperform. Thus, the argument goes, minority IQ scores should be increased to control for these biases and behavioral factors.
Evaluating the merits of these arguments, this Article concludes that ethnic adjustments are not logically or clinically appropriate when computing a person’s IQ score for Atkins purposes. This Article looks at epigenetics to explain the discrepancies in IQ scores, concluding that environmental factors — such as childhood abuse, poverty, stress, and trauma — can cause decreases in actual IQ scores and which can be passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, given that individuals who suffered these environmental factors disproportionately populate death row, ethnic adjustments make it more likely that individuals who are actually intellectually disabled will be put to death. Ultimately, after looking at the Supreme Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence, this Article concludes that the practice of ethnic adjustments for the purpose of determining eligibility for the death penalty violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and would not survive strict scrutiny.
Prez candidate Hillary Clinton now talking abut equalizing crack and powder federal sentences
Long-time readers with a very good memory and those who have followed the debates over crack/powder federal sentencing for a very long time may recall that earliy in the 2008 Prez campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton came out opposed to retroactive implementation of the small reduction in crack guideline sentences that the US Sentencing Commission completed in 2007. Here are a few posts from eight years ago on this blog on that topic:
- A retroactive litmus test on leading Democratic candidates
- Seeking to clear up Clintonian confusion on crack retroactivity
- More questions about Clinton's opposition to crack guideline retroactivity
- Cracked history: How Hillary Clinton really "played the race card" and Sean Wilentz failed to notice
- Exposing the (racist?) hypocrisy of Clintonian speeches without solutions
I raise this notable federal crack sentencing history concerning Hillary Clinton because of this notable new Wall Street Journal article headlined "Hillary Clinton Calls for Equal Treatment in Cocaine Sentencing." Here are excerpts:
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is calling for equal treatment in sentencing drug offenders who use crack and powder cocaine, part of her agenda for overhauling the criminal justice system. She’s also reiterating her support for a ban on racial profiling by law enforcement officials.
A Clinton aide said she would announce the proposals on her trip Friday to Atlanta, where she plans to address a Rainbow PUSH Ministers’ lunch hosted by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and where she will appear at a rally to launch African Americans for Hillary, a group supporting her campaign.
Mrs. Clinton’s support among African-Americans is strong and has remained so even through a rocky summer that saw her poll numbers fall with many other voters. Black voters play a significant role in certain Democratic primary states, including South Carolina, which hosts the third nominating contest, and throughout the South, where primaries are set for March 1....
Her approach to criminal justice issues in this campaign is notably different from the tone she took both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and reflects a growing political consensus that the crackdown on crime that was in full force when Bill Clinton was president has gone too far....
On Friday, she will lay out two specific ideas, with more proposals coming next week, the campaign aide said. First, she’ll propose eliminating disparities in sentencing for people caught with crack and powder cocaine. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed legislation that reduced the sentencing disparity. Until then, to be charged with a felony, crack users had to possess just five grams of the drug, but powder cocaine users needed to be found with 500 grams, a 100-to-1 disparity.
A majority of crack offenders are black, whereas whites are more likely to be caught with powdered cocaine, leading to a dramatic racial disparity in punishment. The gap dropped to 18-to-1 under the 2010 legislation, with the threshold for crack rising to 28 grams. But advocates say that isn’t enough.
The ACLU called the 2010 legislation a “step toward fairness” but said more was needed. “Because crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, there should not be any disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses—the only truly fair ratio is 1:1,” the group said.
The campaign aide said Mrs. Clinton would support further increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the existing powder cocaine guidelines.
As a senator, Mrs. Clinton supported reducing the disparities between sentencing for crack and powder cocaine. But as a presidential candidate in 2007, she opposed making shorter sentences for crack offenders retroactive, a position that put her to the right of other Democratic candidates. This time, she supports making the change retroactive.
October 30, 2015 in Campaign 2016 and sentencing issues, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, New crack statute and the FSA's impact, New USSC crack guidelines and report, Race, Class, and Gender, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (15)
Florida finally completes execution three decades after triple murderer sentenced to death (nonunanimously)
As reported in this local article, headlined "Orlando man on death row executed for 1985 murders," Florida carried out a notable death sentence last night. Here are the basics, which highlight that the case involved issues that the Supreme Court has taken up in recent years:
Though it took 30 years for Jerry Correll to receive his death sentence, the process to kill him took 10 minutes. Correll, one of Orange County's most notorious killers, was pronounced dead at 7:36 p.m. Thursday at Florida State Prison after receiving a lethal injection that included the controversial sedative midazolam.
About two dozen witnesses watched as the 59-year-old Orlando man lay on a gurney covered with a white sheet from the neck down, his hands covered in bandages, his wrists strapped down and IVs in his arms. When the curtain surrounding him rose, Correll looked to his right and mouthed the words, "Thank you," to a man wearing a cross in the front row. Asked whether he wanted to say any last words, Correll responded to the leader of the execution team, "No, sir."
Correll had been on death row for three decades after stabbing to death his ex-wife, Susan; their 5-year-old daughter, Tuesday; and Susan's mother and sister in 1985. Police and prosecutors described the murders at the Conway-area home as among the most bloody and gory they had ever seen....
The victims' family members released a statement saying they were "at peace in knowing justice had finally been served." "Jerry Correll chose to take the lives of four beautiful, innocent people on June 30, 1985," the statement said. "People who are still loved and missed by their family and friends 30 years later. The consequences of those actions should be no less than death itself."...
The execution was the first in the nation since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allowed the use of midazolam, a sedative that is part of the three-drug protocol used in Florida executions.... Correll becomes the second inmate executed in Florida this year and the 91st since 1979, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
A U.S. Supreme Court case regarding whether all death-penalty decisions should require a unanimous jury verdict in sentencing death ... is pending.... A jury of 10 women and two men, selected in Sarasota because of the publicity locally, convicted Correll of four counts of first-degree murder after a weeklong trial. Jurors voted 10-2 that he should die.
October 29, 2015
More notable comments from Deputy AG Yates about "how badly we need" sentencing reforms
Earlier today Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates spoke at Columbia Law School about criminal justice reform. Her full speech, available at this link, merits a full read. Here are excerpts:
These days, there’s a lot of talk about criminal justice reform. We are at a unique moment in our history, where a bipartisan consensus is emerging around the critical need to improve our current system. About a month ago, a coalition of republican and democratic senators unveiled a bill — called the sentencing reform and corrections act — to address proportionality in sentencing, particularly for lower level, non-violent drug offenders. In short, we need to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. Last week, I had the privilege of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the many promising pieces of that legislation.
And I know how badly we need reform. As the Deputy Attorney General, I oversee day-to-day operations for the Justice Department, which includes not just our nation’s federal prosecutors, but also the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service and the federal prison system. I see all sides of our criminal justice system and I can tell you confidently: the status quo needs to change.
We need a new approach and we need a better approach. We need to be willing to step back, look at how we’ve managed criminal justice in the past and be willing to adjust our way of thinking....
We need to think differently. We need to look beyond our own experiences and accept that there may be new and better, ways of doing things. I saw one example of that just this morning. I visited a drug court in federal court in Brooklyn that focuses on giving offenders a chance to escape the grip of drugs. Instead of lengthy prison sentences, the program is designed to hold the defendants accountable, but to do it in a way that offers support, drug treatment and job opportunities. While it’s true that there are dangerous defendants from whom society needs to be protected, there are others, like the defendants I saw today, for whom alternatives to incarceration make a lot more sense.
This new way of thinking is beginning to resonate in federal and state systems all across the country. At the Justice Department, to achieve more proportional sentencing, we have directed prosecutors to stop charging mandatory minimum offenses for certain low-level, non-violent drug crimes. The president has granted clemency to scores of individuals who received sentences longer than necessary under our harshest drug laws — with more to come in the months ahead. Twenty-nine red states and blue states across the country have passed innovative reforms. Even Congress — which doesn’t agree on much these days — is on the cusp of significant sentencing reform legislation.
But if we are really serious about building safe communities, if we are really committed to justice, as a country, we have to be willing to invest in stopping crime before it starts. We have to be willing to invest in breaking the cycle of generational lack of access to educational opportunity and resulting illiteracy and poverty. We have to be willing to invest in real prevention and prisoner reentry opportunities and do it in a big systemic way, not just a smattering of pilot programs. We all know that we can’t simply jail our way into safer communities. But until we are willing to invest in preventing crime the same way we are willing to invest in sending people to prison, our communities will not be as safe nor will our system be as just as it should be.
When we talk about prevention, we need to include in that rehabilitation. Because prisoner rehabilitation is crime prevention. The fact is, more than 95 percent of all prisoners will eventually be released from prison. And we know that as things currently stand, about 40 percent of federal prisoners and two-thirds of those released from state prisons will reoffend within three years. We have to break that cycle.
We also know that the best way to reduce recidivism is to reintegrate ex-offenders into our communities — they need stability, support and social ties to turn away from the errors of their past. They need jobs and homes; friends and family. Yet so many people in our society want nothing to do with anyone with a rap sheet. There are too many people willing to pin a scarlet letter on those who have spent time in prison. The irony, of course, is that this view is self-defeating — that by ostracizing this class of citizens, we only increase the risk of recidivism and we make our country less safe, not more.
It is up to all of us to reject this way of thinking. Rather than creating even greater distance between ex-offenders and the communities they’re re-joining, we should be focusing our energy on developing more effective paths for reentry....
Achieving meaningful criminal justice reform will not be easy. And we must all participate in this process, government and private citizens alike. Three decades ago, when our country was focused just on being “tough on crime,” it was impossible to imagine that we would ever find a way to return proportionality to our sentencing laws. But we are closer than ever, thanks to the sustained efforts of those willing to call out injustices and demand meaningful change. It’s time that we collectively discard old assumptions and embrace new ideas. In other words, it’s time we all collectively put two fingers to our temples. Our nation and our fellow citizens deserve nothing less.
Final reminder about "Marijuana Politics and Policy: As Goes Ohio, so Goes the Nation...?"
As noted in this post last week, some of my students at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law have put together a terrific event for tomorrow afternoon (Friday, October 30) to discuss what next week's vote on an Ohio marijuana initiative might mean for both the politics and policy of marijuana reform. This link leads to even details and registration for this (free) event, and there you can also find this summary description:
National leaders in Marijuana Politics and Policy will gather at Moritz to discuss what we have learned from reform movements in states like Colorado, Washington and others, and how these movements relate to the impending Ohio Election. In addition to discussing the impact of marijuana reform on a variety of broader criminal justice and social reform movements, the event will include a discussion of what effects reform in Ohio would have both within the state and nationally.
Participants will include Professors Douglas Berman and Dan Tokaji from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, as well as John Hudak and Philip Wallach from the Brookings Institute.
Why this event is so timely and exciting can be readily understood just from these four most recent posts from my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform blog:
- Highting how Ohio initiative has deeply split traditional marijuana reform groups
- Has candidate Bernie Sanders already produced "big political moment" for marijuana reform?
- Unsurprisingly, MPP and SAM have very different marijuana grades for Prez candidates
- Spotlighting how, in bellwether Ohio, "Corporations, Activists Clash Over Legal Pot"
"Saving the United States from Lurching to Another Sentencing Crisis: Taking Proportionaltiy Seriously and Implementing Fair Fixed Penalties"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Mirko Bagaric and Sandeep Gopalan now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Unabated tough-on-crime policies in the United States for the past two decades in response to a crime problem have now produced another crisis: too many prisoners. Prison gates are currently literally being opened to release prisoners in a bid to ameliorate the unsustainable cost of detaining more than two million Americans. More than 40,000 drug offenders may be released early from prison pursuant to retrospective sentence reductions which have been implemented for no greater reason than the prison walls are crumbling from overuse. Sentencing is the sharp end of the criminal law. It is the domain where the State acts in its most coercive manner against citizens. The cardinal interests at stake are too important for it to continue to be dictated by reflexive legislative hunches. Yet, it is the area of law where there is the biggest gap between what is implemented and what theory informs us is achievable.
This Article attempts to correct that failing and in the process makes concrete proposals to prevent the United States making another macro-political and social error by over-reacting to the present crisis. Mandatory harsh penalties have caused the incarceration crisis. The solution to the problem involves maintaining the overarching architecture of this approach but fundamentally alerting its content. The core problem with the current approach to sentencing in United States is not its prescriptive nature. It is that the sanctions are generally too severe; devoid of any attempt to match the gravity of the crime to the harshness of the penalty. Proportionality is the missing component in United States sentencing. Drug traffickers, for example, deserve punishment, but any system that treats them as severely as murderers is afflicted with a fundamental doctrinal deformity.
This Article proposes a model to remedy such flaws. It gives meaning and content to proportionality. As a result, it is suggested that most non-violent and non-sexual offenses should be dealt with less harshly. This is especially because the cost and burden of imprisonment to the community needs to be factored into the sentencing calculus. Moreover, prison should be principally reserved for offenders who are a threat to public safety; not those whom we simply dislike. This will result in a rapid emptying of many prisons, but it will be principled -- not reflexive. To illustrate the manner in which our recommendations should operate we develop a sentencing grid which, if implemented, would make United States sentencing fair, efficient and profoundly less expensive to the taxpayer.
US Sentencing Commission provides estimates on likely impact of sentencing reforms in SRCA 2015
I have been remiss for failing to highlight in this space the notable analysis recently done by the US Sentencing Commission in conjunction with the Senate's work on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (basics of SRCA 2015, S. 2123, here). That analysis appears in full form in this extended statement by USSC Chair Patti Saris to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it appears in summary form in this USSC news release praising the Committee's passage of SRCA 2015 through to the full Senate. Here are the key data appearing in short form in the press release:
According to the Commission’s analysis, key provisions of S. 2123 would:
• Provide retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which could allow 5,826 offenders currently in prison to receive an approximate 20 percent reduction in sentence.
• Permit certain offenders who are currently subject to the 10-year mandatory minimum penalty to be subject to the 5-year mandatory minimum instead, which would reduce the sentence of 550 offenders annually by approximately 19.3 percent.
• Broaden the safety valve to provide greater relief to more low-level, non-violent offenders, which would reduce the sentence of 3,314 offenders annually by nearly 20 percent and save 1,593 federal prison beds within 5 years of enactment.
• Reduce mandatory minimum penalties for recidivist drug offenders with prior drug felony convictions from 20 years to 15 years, and reducing the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for certain offenders to 25 years while both narrowing and expanding the types of prior offenses that could trigger a mandatory minimum.
• Reduce the mandatory minimum sentencing enhancement for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime or drug offense from 25 years to 15 years, and narrow the circumstances in which multiple sentencing enhancements apply, which would reduce the sentence of 62 offenders annually by 30.4 percent.
• Reduces the mandatory minimum penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act from 15 to 10 years, which would reduce the sentence of 277 offenders each year by approximately 21.6 percent. The bill would apply this provision retroactively, which, if granted, could result in a sentence reduction for 2,317 offender currently in federal prison.
Recent prior related posts on SRCA 2015:
- Bipartisan federal sentencing reform bill due to emerge from Senate today
- Basic elements of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015
- Leading distinct GOP Senators make the case for federal sentencing reform via SRCA 2015
- Senate Judiciary Committee moving forward next week on Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015
- Submitted testimony from witnesses at SRCA 2015 hearing (and member statements) now available
- SRCA 2015 passes through Senate Judiciary Committee by vote of 15-5
- Noting the potential sentencing reform benefit from the latest budget deal
October 29, 2015 in Aspects and impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Offense Characteristics, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)
NY Times debates "Will Crime Rise If More People Are Kept Out of Prison?"
The Room for Debate section of the New York Times has this new set of pieces exploring the potential crime impact of reduced use of incarceration. Here is the section's set up (with links from the source):
Even many of the nation’s police chiefs have called for reducing the number of people, particularly minorities, sent to prison. But the news that a man suspected of murdering a New York City police officer had been given break after break, and was free because he had been allowed to enter a diversion program rather than be jailed on drug charges, have led even supporters of such programs to raise questions about them.
With some already saying that crime may be rising, are we moving too fast to embrace limits on incarceration, such as diversion programs and drug courts? Could such measures actually increase the risk of crime?
Here are the contributions, with links via the commentary titles:
"Safety and Justice Complement Each Other" by Glenn E. Martin,
"Prison Alternatives Have Been Tried and Found Wanting" by Heather MacDonald
"Don’t Let a Hero’s Death End a Vital Program" by P. David Soares
"Incarceration Helped Bring Crime Down" by Michael Rushford
"Mass Incarceration Is a Horrible Failure" by Allegra M. McLeod
Did former House Speaker Hastert get a sweetheart sentencing deal from federal prosecutors?
The question in this post is prompted by this lengthy new Politico article headlined "Hastert's sweet deal: Lawyers question whether federal prosecutors are following guidelines." Here are excerpts:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s guilty plea in a hush-money case has some lawyers asking whether the former speaker is getting a sweetheart deal.
At a court hearing in Chicago Wednesday, the prosecution and defense unveiled Hastert’s plea bargain under which he admitted to a felony charge of structuring $952,000 into 106 separate bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements. The two sides agreed that sentencing guidelines call for Hastert to receive between zero and six months in jail.
But legal experts say those guidelines arguably call for a much longer sentence—closer to two to three years or more, including a potential enhancement for obstruction of justice. And some lawyers say they’re baffled that prosecutors would buy into a calculation that opens the door to Hastert getting a sentence of probation. “It seems like a sweet deal,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said. “It’s just hard to understand.”
The indictment in the case also charged Hastert with lying to the FBI about what he did with the money, concealing that he paid it to a longtime associate in an effort to hide past misconduct. In the plea deal, Hastert admitted to misleading the FBI, but prosecutors agreed to drop the false statement charge....
The agreement between prosecutors and Hastert’s defense that the zero-to-six-month sentencing range is applicable to his case is not the end of the matter. A probation officer will also calculate the range and could disagree with the parties. Durkin will ultimately decide what the guidelines call for. Under the plea deal, Hastert retains the right to appeal the sentence to the 7th Circuit.
Under a 2005 Supreme Court decision, the judge is required to consult the guidelines but he can impose a more or less severe sentence. Experts in structuring cases say judges often sentence below the guidelines, especially in so-called “clean money” cases where the government does not allege that the funds were the product of illegal activity like drug dealing or were being used to avoid taxes.
"The sentencing guidelines for clean-source money cases are totally out of whack," the ex-prosecutor said. "It's insane to sentence someone for a purely regulatory violation as severely if not more severely than someone who defrauded someone out of $952,000. Having said that, there are a good measure of bad acts here, so maybe there would be some rough justice in it."
Prosecutors have alleged that Hastert paid the $952,000 in illegally structured withdrawals to a longtime associate because of Hastert’s past misconduct against that person, identified in court filings only as “Individual A.” Sources have alleged the behavior involved sexual contact with a male student while Hastert was a coach and high school teacher several decades ago, but the indictment does not mention any sexual aspect to the charges.
Experts say Hastert could not be charged or sued today over such acts years ago because the relevant statutes of limitations have expired. Lawyers say a key factor in Hastert's ultimate sentence could be whether Durkin decides Hastert's underlying misconduct is relevant for the purpose of sentencing on the bank reporting charge.
Criminal defense attorney Michael Monico, who co-authored a handbook on federal court practices in Illinois and the greater Midwest, said Durkin will want to know Hastert's motivation for paying out the $3.5 million and the exact nature of the behavior he was trying to hide.
"If I were the judge I would ask about it, I would want to know. I would want to know, what was he hiding?" Monico said. "I think that’s the number one question in the case: Is it relevant to his sentencing what Hastert did to this fellow decades ago? If it isn’t relevant, then probation is OK. If the conduct was despicable then it’s not an appropriate sentence. It seems to me that’s a question the judge has to answer."
October 29, 2015 in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, White-collar sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (8)
States find (unsurprisingly) that civil commitment for sex offenders not a simple solution
This lengthy New York Times article, headlined "States Struggle With What to Do With Sex Offenders After Prison," documents some of the difficulties states have had with sex offender civil commitment programs. Here are excerpts:
Minnesota’s civil commitment program — which detains more people per capita than any other state — is facing an overhaul. Earlier this year, a federal judge found it unconstitutional, calling it “a punitive system that segregates and indefinitely detains a class of potentially dangerous individuals without the safeguards of the criminal justice system.” The judge, Donovan W. Frank, of Federal District Court in St. Paul, is expected to order changes to the program as soon as this week.
Minnesota is not alone in revisiting its policies. In Missouri, a federal judge last month found that state’s program violated people’s right to due process, potentially imposing “lifetime detention on individuals who have completed their prison sentences and who no longer pose a danger to the public, no matter how heinous their past conduct.” Of about 250 people held since Missouri began committing people in 1999, state officials say seven have been granted what the state considers release with courtordered restrictions, though some of those men remain in a group-home-like setting behind razor wire at a state facility.
In Texas, which previously had a unique outpatient method for treating sex offenders civilly committed after their prison sentences, the Republican-dominated State Legislature this year revamped the program after a Houston Chronicle investigation found that none of the hundreds committed to the program had ever graduated from it. The investigation also found that nearly half of the men detained for treatment while living in halfway houses and other facilities were actually sent back to prison for breaking the program’s rules.
“My sense was that we had to make changes or a federal court is going to strike down the whole program, and we need this program — some of these people would scare the hell out of you,” said State Senator John Whitmire, a Democrat who helped push through the overhaul, which included opening a former prison in remote Littlefield to house the detainees. “The way it was, it just looked like incarceration with double jeopardy,” Mr. Whitmire said. “This at least holds out a pathway to graduate.”
Civil commitment gained support in the 1990s amid reports of heinous sex crimes by repeat offenders. Today, 20 states, along with the federal government, detain some sex criminals for treatment beyond their prison time. But not all have been as sharply criticized as Minnesota’s program. In Wisconsin, 118 offenders have been fully discharged from commitment since 1994, and about 135 people have been given supervised release, according to Judge Frank. New York had sent home 30 people and moved 64 people out of secure facilities for the civilly committed and into strict supervision and treatment, Judge Frank wrote.
But the picture in Minnesota looks far different. Since the current program was created in the mid-1990s, civil commitments have soared. The abduction, rape and murder in 2003 of Dru Sjodin, a North Dakota college student, by a sex offender who had been released six months earlier enraged residents and set off a wave of efforts by county attorneys to call on judges to hold such offenders after their prison terms. Minnesota now has the highest population of civilly committed offenders per capita — nearly all men — in the nation, Judge Frank found, and the lowest rate of release. And costs have soared — to about $125,000 per resident per year, at least three times the cost of an ordinary prison inmate in Minnesota, the judge said.
Yet even in a state that is often seen as liberal-leaning, changing the policy is politically fraught. Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, faced intense criticism before his last election over whether to release from commitment — with strict conditions — a serial rapist who had admitted attacking at least 60 women. And proposals aimed at paying for regular risk evaluations for committed people, as well as other changes, have stalled in the State Legislature. “It’s really a stalemate now because the House Republicans have made it clear that anybody who supports any kind of step forward is going to be castigated in the 2016 elections,” Mr. Dayton said.
"The Corporation as Snitch: The New DOJ Guidelines on Prosecuting White Collar Crime"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new essay by Elizabeth Joh and Thomas Joo available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Volkswagen, the world’s largest auto maker, acknowledged in September 2015 that it had equipped its cars with software designed to cheat diesel emissions tests. The VW scandal may become the first major test of the Department of Justice’s recently announced guidelines that focus on individual accountability in white collar criminal investigations. Criminal investigations into safety defects at two other leading car makers, General Motors and Toyota, yielded no criminal charges against any individuals.
But in a recent speech announcing the new guidelines, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates stated, “Crime is crime,” whether it takes place “on the street corner or in the boardroom.” “The rules have just changed.” We raise questions about this new approach and some of its possible implications. The new cooperation policy’s emphasis on individual prosecutions could itself result in leniency: prosecutors may award excessively generous credit to corporations in order to build cases against individuals.
Noting the potential sentencing reform benefit from the latest budget deal
This notable new BuzzFeed article highlights an interesting link between the new budget deal and on-going sentencing reform efforts inside the Beltway. The extended headline of the article tells the basic story: "Criminal Justice Advocates Get A Gift From The Budget Deal: More Time: Lawmakers think they will now have time early in 2016 to pursue the bipartisan criminal justice package that would reduce some federal mandatory minimum sentences." Here are excerpts:
Efforts to change the nation’s criminal justice system got a major boost Tuesday. Congressional leaders began pushing a budget deal Tuesday to raise the debt limit and avert a shutdown until 2017. Although the funding bill is completely separate from the criminal justice legislation lawmakers have been working on, if approved, it would give Congress more breathing room to focus on criminal justice changes before the 2016 election heats up.
With funding for the government set to expire in mid-December, advocates had been concerned that fiscal issues would dominate Congress through this year and potentially into next year, delaying the measure which has bipartisan support and took more than three years to negotiate.
But if the budget deal is signed into law, it could add to the momentum building in favor of the criminal justice legislation, which would reduce some federal mandatory minimum sentencing. “This is the best possible scenario for us that the budget stuff is working itself out,” said Holly Harris, executive director of the bipartisan U.S. Justice Action Network. “This has cleared the way for our legislation.”
Republican leaders in the Senate even addressed the issue in their weekly press conference Tuesday afternoon, which in itself was a major victory, Harris said. “Just the fact that leadership is talking about this bill is monumental,” she said. “A year ago, many thought this wasn’t possible. In fact, two months ago no one thought this was possible.”...
During the Senate GOP leadership’s weekly press conference Tuesday, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn urged the Senate to take up the issue as soon as possible. “The president’s in Chicago today talking about criminal justice reform, and as you know, there’s a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill, one composed of sentencing reforms and also prison reforms,” Cornyn told reporters.
“This is one area where I’ve told the majority leader that with that kind of broad bipartisan support, hopefully after we get through the rest of this year’s business, this is something we could take up,” he said. “The House is considering a similar bill. And with the president’s support of the idea of criminal justice reform, it’s seems like the time is right. “
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed support for bringing up the legislation to the floor for a vote, but did not give a timeline. “It’s certainly going to get floor time in this Congress, but I can’t give you an exact time at this point,” he told reporters.
Senate GOP aides believe it will be hard to take up the issue before next year even if the budget is taken care of in the coming days. But it does give senators who are supporting the measure the time and energy needed to lobby their colleagues and gear up for a vote when Congress returns in January. “I’m just encouraged by the momentum on criminal justice reform overall,” New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker told BuzzFeed News. “This bipartisan, bicameral energy is encouraging. It shows that we can come together and get things done.”
Leading Dems stake out notable positions on death penalty and marijuana reform
For sentencing and criminal justice fans, last night's GOP Prez debate was a big snooze. But, as the two articles linked below highlight, the leading Prez candidates for the Democrats made headlines in this arena yesterday:
October 29, 2015 in Campaign 2016 and sentencing issues, Death Penalty Reforms, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Marijuana Legalization in the States, Pot Prohibition Issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)
October 28, 2015
"Why California's Second-Degree Felony-Murder Rule Is Now Void for Vagueness"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Evan Tsen Lee now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
For years, justices on the California Supreme Court (CSC) have engaged in public soul-searching about whether to overrule the state’s second-degree felony-murder doctrine. Now there is a powerful external reason for the CSC to revisit the question: The United States Supreme Court (USSC) has just struck down the so-called “residual clause” of the federal three-strikes statute as unconstitutionally vague.
Although the immediate intuition of experienced judges and lawyers will be to deny that this decision has any application to the felony-murder rule, this Article will show that, from the standpoint of vagueness, the two provisions are materially indistinguishable.
Prez Obama talking up (yet again) sentencing reform
As reported in this New York Times piece, "President Obama made his case on Tuesday for an overhaul of the nation’s sentencing laws, telling a gathering of top law enforcement officials here that putting large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders in prison was neither fair nor an effective way of combating crime." Here is more:
While insisting that he did not harbor a “bleedingheart attitude toward crime and justice,” Mr. Obama said the country should face up to the fact that policing priorities needed to shift away from locking up millions of nonviolent drug offenders — especially young black and Latino men. “That’s not a sustainable situation,” Mr. Obama said. “It is possible for us to come up with strategies that effectively reduce the damage of the drug trade without relying solely on incarceration.”...
The president received a warm response from the law enforcement officials in the crowd, many of whom have said that more robust gun control measures would help keep police officers safe. On Monday, many police leaders at the conference called on Congress to pass universal background checks for firearm purposes, one of many proposals that failed to pass after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn. “It’s too easy for criminals to buy guns, and that makes your already dangerous job far more dangerous than it should be,” Mr. Obama said. “And it makes the communities so fearful that it’s harder for them to be a good partner for you.”
October 27, 2015
"Automatic Justice? Technology, Crime and Social Control"
The title of this post is the title of this intriguing new paper authored by Amber Marks, Ben Bowling and Colman Keenan. Here is the abstract:
This paper examines how forensic science and technology are reshaping crime investigation, prosecution and the administration of criminal justice. It illustrates the profound effect of new scientific techniques, data collection devices and mathematical analytical procedures on the traditional criminal justice system. These blur the boundary between the innocent person, the suspect, the accused and the convicted. They also blur the boundary between evidence collection, testing its veracity and probative value, the adjudication of guilt and punishment. The entire process is being automated and temporally and procedurally compressed. At the same time, the start and finish of the criminal justice process are now indefinite and indistinct as a result of the introduction of mass surveillance and the erosion against ‘double jeopardy’ protections caused by scientific advances that make it possible to revisit conclusions reached in the distant past.
This, we argue, indicates a move towards a system of ‘automatic justice’ that is mediated by technology in ways that minimise human agency and undercuts the due process safeguards built into the traditional criminal justice model. The paper concludes that in order to re-balance the relationship between state and citizen in an automatic criminal justice system, we may need to accept the limitations of the existing criminal procedure framework and deploy privacy and data protection law which are now highly relevant to criminal justice.
Lots of good (old and new) media analysis of modern crime and punishment
I am on the road much of the next few weeks, and it often seems when I have less time on-line there is more really good stuff written by others I wish I had more time to highlight on the blog. But with my time limited, I will here have to be content with a link-fest to a bunch of good pieces I recommend reading in full:
From Above the Law here, "Criminally Yours: Is Sentencing Reform Really a Sea Change or Just a Drop in the Bucket"
- From Huffington Post here, "For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man"
From Salon here, "'Non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual': Fixing our mass incarceration problem means getting past the easy steps"
From Simple Justice here, "Short And Ugly: Sentencing Still Isn’t Simple"
From Vox here, "Prison sentences are getting shorter. But racial disparities are getting worse."
From the Washington Post Wonkblog here, "The big paradox of criminal justice in America"
October 26, 2015
"Culture as a Structural Problem in Indigent Defense"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper by Eve Brensike Primus available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Indigent defense lawyers today are routinely overwhelmed by excessive caseloads, underpaid, inadequately supported, poorly trained, and left essentially unsupervised. They face an avalanche of hostility every time they walk into court as judges, prosecutors, and court personnel pressure them to process their clients through the criminal justice system. Many zealous defenders simply burn out and leave the job. Of those who remain, many perform valiantly. But the sheer reality of the difficult task that these lawyers are expected to do is often overwhelming. Especially in contexts where indigent defense lawyers lack institutional support, even lawyers who wish to take their obligations seriously sometimes find themselves overwhelmed and gradually become less sensitive to the routine injustices of the system. Others become cynical and depressed and unhappily continue in the job — aware of the problems, but feeling powerless to effectuate change.
The result is a serious cultural problem in indigent defense, especially in jurisdictions where such defense is handled by lawyers lacking the community and institutional reinforcement that strong public-defender offices can provide. Consequently, many indigent defendants who go through the criminal justice system (as well as the friends and families of defendants who suffer through these ordeals with them) often feel confused, angry, and ignored. They have no faith in the system or in the legitimacy of their convictions. Rather, they experience the criminal justice system as an assembly line to prison for poor people of color.
In this essay, I will argue that attempts at reform should focus on changing this cultural problem in indigent defense delivery systems. As was true in 1961 (when the symposium that this essay celebrates was published), there is now a feeling that change is coming. Countless commissions have issued reports documenting excessive defender caseloads, a lack of independence, and blatant violations of the constitutional right to counsel across jurisdictions and making recommendations for improvement. Many states have developed bipartisan Indigent Defense Commissions to investigate best practices and implement more effective and efficient delivery systems going forward. Legislators have convened working groups and have proposed legislation to address the crisis. President Obama created the Office for Access to Justice, an initiative designed to analyze and think about how to improve indigent defense delivery systems. And symposia abound detailing the problems with indigent defense delivery systems and recommending potential solutions.
A focus on improving the culture of indigent defense delivery systems can and should infuse current reform proposals and inform change going forward. Perhaps this time, we can learn from some of our past mistakes and move toward accomplishing some of the laudable goals that many have been advocating for over fifty years.
Interesting takes on California developments since passage of Prop 47
I have long asserted that California has long been among the most interesting states to watch closely when it comes to crime and punishments. The latest round of developments involve the state's passage of an initiative, Proposition 47, reducing the severity of many offenses and subsequent reactions thereto. This new Los Angeles Times op-ed, authored by Robert Greene and headlined "California's Prop. 47 revolution: Were the voters duped?," provides a notable take on all this and a preview of more to commentary come. Here are exerpts:
Police and prosecutors have lately attempted to link increases in crime to last year's Proposition 47. Based on their overwrought statements, it would be understandable for Californians to start wondering whether they had been duped into completely decriminalizing drug possession and petty theft....
As is the case with all large bureaucracies, it is difficult for courts and for city and county agencies — police departments, sheriff's departments, district attorneys, probation officers, county supervisors — to understand and constructively respond to changed circumstances. And Proposition 47 no doubt brought change, by converting six felonies to misdemeanors and allowing many people serving sentences for those crimes, and those who served their time long ago, to be resentenced and have their rap sheets adjusted....
Crime in Los Angeles and some other communities throughout the state has increased this year after many years of decline. But is that because of Proposition 47? Other American cities, where Proposition 47 has no effect, have seen similar increases.
If the ballot measure is connected to rising crime, that's probably because public officials have been too slow to recognize the options that the measure gives them. And it's likely that their decisions — a deputy's decision not to arrest, for example, or the sheriff's not to make room in the jail for a recidivist offender pending trial, or county supervisors' not to use any of the hundreds of millions of dollars currently available for non-jail alternatives — are based on suppositions about how the other links in the public safety chain will react....
The gist of the reaction against Proposition 47 is that we as a society simply have no choice but to make possession of drugs and petty theft into felonies punishable by more than a year in prison if we want to control more serious crime. Similar warnings were issued about the consequences of modifying the three-strikes law, yet recidivism among strikers released from prison after voters adopted Proposition 36 is astonishingly low. And similar arguments were made against redirecting some felons from state prison and state parole to county jail and county probation, yet crime rates after realignment continued to fall.
In the coming week, The Times' Opinion section — the Opinion L.A. blog, the editorial board and the Op-Ed page — will explore the repercussions of Proposition 47, and compare this episode in criminal justice history with similar recent changes that also produced periods of adjustment. The goal is not to defend the voters' decision but rather to seek some honest talk, some accountability and some effective action on the part of public officials who are responsible for providing public safety, justice and wise and effective spending.
These follow-up opinion pieces provide, as their headlines suggest, pro and con views of the pros and cons of Prop 47:
October 25, 2015
FCC finally puts limits on (over)charging inmates for all phone calls
A helpful reader reminded me that I ought not let go unmentioned the valuable work (finally!) completed by the Federal Communications Commission to place some limits on the oftn-extreme prices charged by phone companies to a truly captured consumer group. This AP piece, headlined "FCC Votes to Further Cut Cost of Calls for Inmates," provides the basic details:
A federal commission's decision Thursday to further reduce the cost of jail and prison phone calls led some to hail it as a money saver for inmates' families, but immediately prompted phone companies to threaten legal action. Mignon Clyburn, a Democratic commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission who voted in favor of the additional cutting, said the cost of the calls have placed "incredible burdens" on the family members of the more than 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S.
Among them is Dorothee Warner, who said she has spent more than $2,000 over the past year so she and her family can talk to her jailed son. "It is a very predatory system that is unfair," the Overland Park, Kansas, woman said. "People who are incarcerated, it is very difficult on their families. It is almost like the family is being punished as well."
Over the years, defense attorneys also have joined in the fight for lower rates. But phone companies have defended the costs, saying some of the money generated is used for things like activities for the incarcerated and that the calls require costly security features. The FCC has countered that the cost of security features was built into the rate structure.
Securus Technologies Inc. CEO Richard Smith said in a written statement that the FCC's decision is a "colossal error" that threatens the financial stability of his company and other inmate phone providers. He said Securus, one of the largest providers of inmate phone services, would join other companies in a request for court intervention.
Two years ago, the FCC voted to restrict rates on inmate calls made from one state to another. The new changes go further, capping rates on all local, in-state long distance, interstate and international calls. The vast majority of inmate calls will cost no more than $1.65 for 15 minutes, although slightly higher rates will be allowed in some smaller institutions. And fees and other costs, which in some cases have boosted calls to $17 to $25 for 15 minutes, also would be limited. The changes will take effect in prisons early next year and in jails by midyear.
Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, both Republicans, dissented, saying they believed they didn't have the authority to take such action. Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs' Association, said the group is "very disappointed."
"We believe also that inmates should have this capability to call, but unfortunately these new rates in all likelihood will mean that inmates will go without the ability to call and talk to their family members," he said. "How many, we don't know."
The changes don't ban profit-sharing commissions that have benefited jail and prison operators and in some cases made calls costlier, although the amount of money coming in will likely be lower. Even before Thursday's vote in Washington, however, some states had voluntarily moved to reduce or ban the commissions.
Federal judge makes extended pitch for individuals to receive deferred-prosecutions agreements from DOJ
This new CNN story, headlined "Judge: Prosecutors should give drug offenders same break as companies," reports on the remarkable coda that appears at the end of a remarkable federal district court opinion handed down this past week. The start of the CNN story provides a link to the opinion and its highlights:
Some defendants charged with drug crimes should be offered a second chance the way corporations often are. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan proposed this in an 84-page opinion in cases against two corporations this week.
Sullivan approved a settlement that will allow the companies, each facing allegations of bribery to win government contracts, to settle criminal charges. They won't have to plead guilty and won't face trial as long as they stay out of trouble in the future.But he used the opinion to make a broader point about what he sees as a disparity in how the legal system treats corporations and nonviolent offenders.
"Drug conspiracy defendants are no less deserving of a second chance than bribery conspiracy defendants," Sullivan wrote. "And society is harmed at least as much by the devastating effect that felony convictions have on the lives of its citizens as it is by the effect of criminal convictions on corporations."Sullivan, who is in Washington, D.C., asked why companies get a shot at "rehabilitation" when many individuals do not.
Here are just a couple of notable paragraphs from the remarkable closing sections of US v. Saena Tech Corp. penned by Judge Sullivan:
Although the Court approves the two deferred-prosecution agreements in these cases, the Court observes that the current use of deferred-prosecution agreements for corporations rather than individual defendants strays from Congress’s intent when it created an exclusion from the speedy trial calculation for the use of such agreements. The Court is of the opinion that increasing the use of deferred-prosecution agreements and other similar tools for individuals charged with certain non-violent criminal offenses could be a viable means to achieve reforms in our criminal justice system....
The Court respectfully requests the Department of Justice to consider expanding the use of deferred-prosecution agreements and other similar tools to use in appropriate circumstances when an individual who might not be a banker or business owner nonetheless shows all of the hallmarks of significant rehabilitation potential. The harm to society of refusing such individuals the chance to demonstrate their true character and avoid the catastrophic consequences of felony convictions is, in this Court’s view, greater than the harm the government seeks to avoid by providing corporations a path to avoid criminal convictions. If the Department of Justice is sincere in its expressed desire to reduce over-incarceration and bolster rehabilitation, it will increase the use of deferred-prosecution agreements for individuals as well as increase the use of other available resources as discussed in this Opinion.
Extraordinary tales of extraordinary government dsyfunctionality in execution business
In this recent post I spotlighted the remarkable reporting by BuzzFeed News about the peculiar fellow in India who has become a central figure in some states' efforts to get their machinery of death up and running again. Continuing their great investigavtive journalism in this space, BuzzFeed now has up two additional reports documenting how a trio of states apparently violated federal laws in order to try to import lethal injection drugs from this fellow. Here are links to the two pieces with their extended headlines:
"Arizona, Texas Purchased Execution Drugs Illegally Overseas, But FDA Halts The Import: Both Arizona and Texas attempted to illegally import sodium thiopental in July, but the shipments are still being held at the airports. Nebraska also attempted to import the same drug illegally this summer, as previously reported."
"Three States Bought Illegal Execution Drugs From Supplier In India: Chris Harris, the execution drug salesman who has been the focus of ongoing reporting by BuzzFeed News, sold drugs to Texas, Arizona, and Nebraska."
Here is how the second of these two articles concludes:
The FDA has consistently maintained that importing sodium thiopental would be illegal, but the states proceeded regardless. FDA records first reported on Thursday by BuzzFeed News show that two shipments of sodium thiopental made their way to the Phoenix and Houston airports in late July.
On Friday, TDCJ’s Clark told BuzzFeed News that, after obtaining an import license from the DEA prior to the shipment, TDCJ filed the required notice with the agency of the anticipated shipment.
After the shipments were held upon arrival, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan wrote to the FDA in August, asking them to release the drugs. “The Department will not use, or attempt to use, the cargo until it is either unconditionally released by FDA or the Department is otherwise permitted to do so by a Court Order, whichever comes first,” Ryan wrote. “I am writing to advise you that we need to take possession of the shipment.”
The FDA was not persuaded. Domenic Veneziano, who heads the FDA division that handles imports, replied, “FDA has determined that this shipment should not be allowed to move to destination at this time and thus will not be requesting that CBP lift its detention.”
For its part, Texas isn’t giving up yet, with TDCJ’s Clark telling BuzzFeed News on Friday that it “is going through internal proceedings set up for addressing the lawful status of imports with the Food and Drug Administration and is awaiting their decision.”
The FDA confirmed to BuzzFeed News on Friday that it was still holding the shipments. “Courts have concluded that sodium thiopental for the injection in humans is an unapproved drug and may not be imported into the country for this purpose. FDA has notified the state correctional facilities of the status of their respective shipments,” spokesperson Jeff Ventura wrote.
Asked whether, given the FDA’s repeated statements that such importation of sodium thiopental would not be allowed, TDCJ is challenging that position, TDCJ’s Clark responded, “We disagree with your characterization of the FDA’s statement as to the legality of importing sodium thiopental, we are appealing the detention of the drugs through the FDA’s internal proceedings.”
As if this story of government dysfunctionality was not ugly enough on its own terms, this post by Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequences contends that the federal government is the one really acting outside the rightful reach of the law. His post is titled "FDA Blocks Execution Drug Importation Based on Erroneous Court of Appeals Decision," and it makes the case (as was made in a slightly different way by Ohio officials) that the FDA is off-base and over-reaching in this arena.
In addition to wanting to note that my expertise on the death penalty comes up short when the issues is federal and state squabbles over federal drug and import laws, I am now especially eager to stress that I have been calling for Congress for nearly a decade to conduct hearings and investigate all the difficulties states have been facing with lethal injections protocols and securing executions drugs. But, as one commentors suggested in response to my post on this topic in May 2014, perhaps the only way we woud get hearing on this topic in short order would be if there was some link to Benghazi.
Some prior related posts:
- Investigating the international drug dealer working with some death penalty states
- "FDA warns Ohio not to illegally import execution drugs"
- Ohio tells FDA it can be legal to import sodium thiopental to carry out death sentences
- How could (and should) Congress clean up the lethal injection mess? (from April 2006)
- A lethal hearing (in the wrong place?) (from Sept 2006)
- Shouldn't Congress be holding hearings to explore federal and state execution methods? (from April 2014)
Great Hastings Law Journal coverage of federal sentencing circa 2015
Earlier this year, I had the honor of participating in a Hastings Law Journal symposium on federal sentencing reform a decade after Booker. During the live event back in February, I thought that the written product of the symposium would be terrific if it captured even just a small piece of the many ideas developed during the live event. This current issue of Hastings Law Journal has these resulting articles, and they are all terrific:
Keynote Address: Federal Sentencing Reform Ten Years After United States v. Booker by Hon. Charles Breyer