« June 18, 2017 - June 24, 2017 | Main | July 2, 2017 - July 8, 2017 »

July 1, 2017

UK study finds greater recidivism among sex offenders who received treatment in prison

As reported in this BBC article, the "main sex offender treatment programme for England and Wales has been scrapped after a report found it led to more reoffending." Here is more:

Researchers found prisoners completing the programme were slightly more likely to offend than a control group.  The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) replaced the scheme in March after research confirmed evidence of its weaknesses. The main programme to psychologically treat the highest-risk offenders has also been replaced, the ministry said.

The MOJ confirmed the change in treating sex offenders following publication on Friday of its own study which suggested the Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) could be making the situation worse. The scheme, designed to challenge the behaviour of male sex offenders with psychological techniques to change their thinking, was first approved in 1992.

Researchers followed what happened to 2,562 prisoners who took part in the 180 hours of group sessions before their later release from prison. They then compared their behaviour over the following years with more than 13,000 comparable offenders.

"More treated sex offenders committed at least one sexual re-offence [excluding breach of conditions of release] during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (10% compared with 8%)," said the study. "More treated sex offenders committed at least one child image re-offence when compared with the matched comparison offenders (4.4% compared with 2.9 %).

"The results suggest that while Core SOTP in prisons is generally associated with little or no changes in sexual and non-sexual reoffending ... the small changes in the sexual reoffending rate suggest that either Core SOTP does not reduce sexual reoffending as it intends to do, or that the true impact of the programme was not detected.

"Group treatment may 'normalise' individuals' behaviour. When stories are shared, their behaviour may not be seen as wrong or different; or at worst, contacts and sources associated with sexual offending may be shared." An earlier version of the scheme, in place in 2000, had appeared to reduce the offending of medium-risk men. But a study seven years later, after Core SOTP had been expanded, suggested the sessions had become too generic and based around a "detailed manual", rather than tailored to each offender.

The full Ministry of Justice study is available at this link.

July 1, 2017 in Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (9)

Amish farmer sentenced to six year in federal prison for regulatory offenses and obstruction

GirodpictureThis local article reports on a notable federal sentencing that seemed driven, at least in part, by the defendant's disinclination to respect the federal government. The article is headlined "Amish farmer sold herbal health products. He’s going to prison for 6 years." Here are some of the details:

An Amish man was sentenced Friday to six years in prison for obstructing a federal agency and for making and selling herbal health products that were not adequately labeled as required by federal law. Samuel A. Girod of Bath County, a member of the Old Order Amish faith, was convicted in March on 13 charges, including threatening a person in an attempt to stop him from providing information to a grand jury.

U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves repeatedly asked Girod in court if he wished to make a statement but Girod refused. Girod, who represented himself, does not acknowledge that the court has jurisdiction. “I do not waive my immunity to this court,” Girod told the judge. “I do not consent.”

Girod has become a cause for some who see him as a victim of the federal government. More than 27,000 people have signed an online petition seeking to have him released from jail. About 75 supporters of Girod, including many Amish, gathered near the federal courthouse on Barr Street in downtown Lexington before and after the sentencing.

“We still have a country where people still come together to help each other,” said Emanuel Schlabach, 27, an Amish man from Logan County. As assistant U.S. attorneys left the courthouse after the sentencing, Girod supporters jeered them. “Shame on you!” shouted one supporter.

One non-Amish supporter, Richard Mack of Arizona, said after the sentencing that, “This is a national disgrace and outrage. ... He is being punished for being stubborn.” Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and political activist, said he and others will ask President Donald Trump to issue a pardon to Girod. Mack said he has used Girod’s chickweed salve with no ill effects.

Girod operated a business in Bath County that made products to be used for skin disorders, sinus infections and cancer. One product called TO-MOR-GONE contained an extract of bloodroot that had a caustic, corrosive effect on human skin, according to an indictment.

A federal court in Missouri had barred Girod from distributing the products until he met certain conditions, including letting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspect his business. But when two agents tried to inspect the plant in November 2013, Girod and others blocked them and made them leave, the indictment charged. Federal prosecutors said in a sentencing memorandum that Girod knowingly and intentionally sold misbranded products to customers and did not tell any of them about the injunction.

At trial, customers testified that they would not have purchased his products if they had known about the injunction. Girod argued that his products weren’t subject to Federal Drug Administration oversight because they were herbal remedies, not drugs. He also argued that requiring FDA approval of his products infringed on his religious freedom. Old Order Amish seek to insulate themselves from the modern world, including modern pharmaceuticals, he said.

Federal jurors rejected Girod’s defense, convicting him of conspiring to impede federal officers; obstructing a proceeding before a federal agency; failing to register with the FDA as required; tampering with a witness; failing to appear before a hearing; and distributing misbranded drugs....

In documents filed June 19, Girod argued that the charges in the indictment “do not apply to me.” “I am not a creation of state/government, as such I am not within its jurisdiction,” Girod wrote. He added later: “The proceedings of the ‘United States District Court’ cannot be applied within the jurisdiction of the ‘State of Kentucky.’”

Girod’s supporters outside the courthouse said his case is an example of overreach by the federal government. “I don’t need the FDA to protect me from an Amish farmer,” read a sign held by T.J. Roberts, a Transylvania University student from Boone County. “I feel what happened here is an example of judges making the law,” Roberts said. “What the FDA did here is an example of executive overreach in which they are choosing what Americans can put in or on their own bodies. I struggle to find where the victim is in this and where the crime was committed.”

But Judge Reeves said Girod brought the trouble on himself “because he steadfastly refused to follow the law.” To Girod, Reeves said, “You refused to follow anyone but yourself.”

I always have a negative reaction to any use of prison time in response to what seem like non-violent regulatory offenses by a person who would appear to present no genuine threat to public safety.  And this case especially caught my eye not only because a lot of federal prison time was imposed, but also because this critical report about the sentencing from a political blog indicates that the applicable federal guideline range here was 63-78 months.  In other words, the sentencing judge here though the defendant needed and deserved a sentence significantly above the bottom of the applicable guideline range in this case.  Also of note, the judge who decided a six year prison term was necessary in this case, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, happens to be the newest member of the US Sentencing Commission.

July 1, 2017 in Booker in district courts, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, White-collar sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (27)

June 30, 2017

"Examining Racial Disparities in Criminal Case Outcomes among Indigent Defendants in San Francisco"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting big new report published by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice.  This Crime Report piece about the report provides this overview of its findings:

An individual’s race and ethnic background determine how he is treated at the “front end” of the criminal justice system, according to a study published this week.  The study, which, focused on poor African-American, Latino and white defendants (all male) in San Francisco, found what it called “systematic differences” in outcomes during the preliminary steps of an individual’s involvement in the justice system, from arrest and booking to the pretrial phase.

“Defendants of color are more likely to be held in custody during their cases, which tend to take longer than the cases of White defendants,” said the study, published by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice.  “Their felony charges are less likely to be reduced, and misdemeanor charges (are) more likely to be increased during the plea bargaining process, meaning that they are convicted of more serious crimes than similarly situated White defendants.”

The study’s conclusions added a troubling dimension to existing research on racial disparities in the U.S. justice system which has largely concentrated on “final case outcomes,” such as conviction, incarceration and sentence length.  In California, for example, African-American men are incarcerated at 10 times the incarceration rate of white men, five times the incarceration rate of Latino men, and 100 times the incarceration rate of Asian men, according to figures cited by the study.

But the study authors’ examination of more than 10,000 records of cases between 2011 and 2014 provided by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office challenged the notion that the difference is explained simply by the fact that African-Americans or Hispanics commit more crimes than other groups.  Their findings suggest that whites are in fact treated more leniently when they are apprehended during the early stages of their involvement in the justice system, thus making them less likely to end up with prison terms in the first place.

The full report linked above runs more than 100 pages, but the Quattrone Center webisite has this shorter summary version.

June 30, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

Chicago now an even more fascinating study in federal criminal enforcement and gun crimes

The title of this post is my reaction to this new press release from the Department of Justice titled "Attorney General Jeff Sessions: We Cannot Accept these Levels of Violence in Chicago." Here is how it starts and ends:

Today Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the following statement on the unacceptable violence plaguing the City of Chicago and outlined steps that the Department of Justice is taking to increase public safety:

"No child in America should have to walk the streets of their neighborhood in fear of violent criminals, and yet in Chicago, thousands of children do every day. Last year, more than 4,300 Chicagoans were shot, and more than 700 were killed — the deadliest year in two decades.”

“The Trump Administration will not let the bloodshed go on; we cannot accept these levels of violence. That's why, under President Trump's strong leadership, we have created the Chicago Gun Strike Force and are sending 20 more permanent ATF agents to Chicago, reallocating federal prosecutors and prioritizing prosecutions to reduce gun violence, and working with our law enforcement partners to stop the lawlessness.”...

The Crime Gun Strike Force, a permanent team of special agents, task force officers, intelligence research specialists, and ATF Industry Operations investigators who are focused on the most violent offenders, in the areas of the city with the highest concentration of firearm violence.

The Strike Force became operational June 1, 2017, and consists of 20 additional permanent ATF special agents, 6 intelligence research specialists, 12 task force officers from the Chicago Police Department (CPD), 2 task force officers from the Illinois State Police, and 4 NIBIN specialists (National Integrated Ballistics Information Network).

I have noted in lots of posts in recent years how remarkable it is that the largest city in the US (New York) keeps having crime declines while the third largest city (Chicago) is struggling with increased crime.  This pattern has been in place for at least a half-decade (see this 2012 post), and I sure hope this new Chicago Gun Strike Force can help matters in Chicago.

June 30, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Gun policy and sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

Disconcerting data reminder of why drug use (and thus drug crime) is so hard to track and assess

Though told mostly as a public health data story, this new post at FiveThirtyEight also struck me as a criminal justice data story as well.  The lengthy piece by Kathryn Casteel is headlined "Data On Drug Use Is Disappearing Just When We Need It Most," and here is how it starts:

It’s no secret that heroin has become an epidemic in the United States. Heroin overdose deaths have risen more than sixfold in less than a decade and a half. Yet according to one of the most widely cited sources of data on drug use, the number of Americans using heroin has risen far more slowly, roughly doubling during the same time period.

Most major researchers believe that source, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, vastly understates the increase in heroin use. But many rely on the survey anyway for a simple reason: It’s the best data they have. Several other sources that researchers once relied on are no longer being updated or have become more difficult to access. The lack of data means researchers, policymakers and public health workers are facing the worst U.S. drug epidemic in a generation without essential information about the nature of the problem or its scale.

“We’re simply flying blind when it comes to data collection, and it’s costing lives,” said John Carnevale, a drug policy expert who served at the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations. There is anecdotal evidence of how patterns of drug use are changing, Carnevale said, and special studies conducted in various localities are identifying populations of drug users. “But the national data sets we have in place now really don’t give us the answers that we need,” he said.

June 30, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

June 29, 2017

The rest of SCOTUSblog's symposium on OT 2016 death penalty decisions

I noted in this post on Tuesday that the folks at SCOTUSblog had a new "Special Feature" in the form of a "Symposium on October Term 2016’s death-penalty decisions."  In the prior post I linked to the first four entries in this symposium, and here are now the last four:

June 29, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Two more notable recent criticisms of tough turn by AG Jeff Sessions

I have noted in a few prior posts various criticisms of the US Attorney General's new tough charging and sentencing guidance for federal prosecutors (which got an extra jolt of attention when AG Sessions took to the editorial pages of the Washington Post to make his case via this opinion piece).  This week I have notice these two more notable criticisms:

Via Real Clear Politics, "Trump Should Reject Sessions' Stance on Sentencing Reform" by Brett Tolman

Via The Washington Post, "Jeff Sessions isn’t making America safer. He might be making it more dangerous." By Inimai Chettiar and Ames C. Grawert

UPDATE: Here is one more notable new addition via Forbes, "What Sessions Doesn't Get: Narcotics Trafficking Is A Market" by Mark Osler

June 29, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

Murderers admit they went on prison murder spree in order to get death sentences

Regular readers know that I think one of the hardest conceptual and practical issues for death penalty abolitionists is what to do about killers already serving life without parole sentences who go on to kill again while in prison. If the death penalty is completely eliminated, these offenders may conclude there is no real punishment if they kill again.  But this recent AP article, headlined "Inmate: I Strangled Prisoners to Try to Land on Death Row," reports on the awful reality that a pair of killers serving LWOP in a South Carolina prison apparently were inspired to go on a murder spree because of the presence of the death penalty. Here is the start of a horrible story:

One by one, Denver Simmons recalled, he and his partner lured inmates into his cell. William Scruggs was promised cookies in exchange for doing some laundry; Jimmy Ham thought he was coming to snort some crushed pills.  Over the course of about a half-hour, four men accepted Simmons' hospitality.  None of them made it out alive.

Calmly, matter-of-factly, the 35-year-old inmate told The Associated Press how he and Jacob Philip strangled and beat their blockmates to death and hid their bodies to avoid spooking the next victims. They had nothing against the men; one of them was even a friend, Simmons admitted.

Why did they do it? Convicted in the cold-blooded shootings of a mother and her teenage son, Simmons knew he would never leave prison alive.  Tired of life behind bars, a failure at suicide, he hoped killing these criminals would land him on death row.

Officials say Philip and Simmons have confessed to the April 7 slayings of Ham, 56; Jason Kelley, 35; John King, 52; and Scruggs, 44. But until Simmons talked to the AP, no motive had been made public. The South Carolina Department of Corrections doesn't allow in-person interviews with inmates.  So the AP wrote letters to the two men. Philip's attorney responded with an email: "Jacob is a severely mentally ill young man who has been so adjudicated by the court. Accordingly, I would ask that you make no further efforts to interview him or contact him."

Simmons, though, called the AP three times, once using another inmate's time slot. And he described a twisted compact between two men who had "a whole lot in common" from the moment they met — most important, both despair and a willingness to kill again.

"I'd always joke with him — from back in August and September and October of 2015 — that if we weren't going to kill ourselves, that we could make a name for ourselves, so to speak, and get the death penalty," Simmons, told the AP. "The end of March of this year, he was willing to do it. So, we just planned to do it. And we did it."

Each man was serving life without the possibility of parole for a double murder....  Both men were sent to Kirkland Correctional Institution, a maximum security facility a few miles from the state capitol in Columbia. They were being housed in a unit for inmates who need significant mental health help but whose conditions aren't serious enough to require hospitalization.

Simmons said spending the rest of his life in prison would be a meaningless life of fear and boredom. Inmates are always scheming to take advantage or hurt fellow prisoners and guards only see the men behind bars as numbers. "It's just not a good place to live, you know, day in and day out," Simmons said.

June 29, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (9)

Pair of Senators introduce the "Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2017"

As reported in this article from The Hill, "Senate Democrats unveiled a proposal Wednesday to push back against Attorney General Jeff Sessions's 'tough on crime' policies." Here are the details:

Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) introduced the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act of 2017 to incentivize states through grant funding to decrease their prison populations.

It's intended to counter the 1994 Crime Bill, otherwise known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That law authorized $12.5 billion in grants to fund or offset the costs of incarceration, nearly 50 percent of which was earmarked for states that adopted tough “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, according to the Brennan Center for Justice....

The Booker-Blumenthal bill provides $20 billion in grant funding to be divvied up every three years among eligible states. States would only be considered eligible to apply if the total number of people in correctional or detention facilities in the state decreased by 7 percent or more in that three-year period. States must also keep crime rates from increasing by more than 3 percent.

The proposal is estimated to reduce the national prison population by 20 percent over 10 years. “State sentencing policies are the major drivers of skyrocketing incarceration rates, which is why we’ve introduced legislation to encourage change at the state level,” Booker said in a statement. “We need to change federal incentives so that we reward states that are addressing this crisis and improving community safety, instead of funneling more federal dollars into a broken system.”

The idea is based on a 2015 proposal from the Brennan Center for Justice. “The federal government has a long history of dangling money in front of state and local leaders to spur policy changes,” program Director Inimai Chettiar said in a statement. “We saw it with the 1994 Crime Bill, which helped put more people behind bars. This bold bill shifts the current flow of funding in the opposite direction. It is one of the single biggest steps we can take to reduce imprisonment.”

The full text of the Reverse Incarceration Act runs only about two pages and is available at this link.  I would be very surprised if this bill gets any traction in Congress, but even its formal introduction seemed notable.

June 29, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

June 28, 2017

Two very different (but perhaps similar) tales of prison sentencing from outpost Virginia in incarceration nation

I generally do not blog all that often or that much about individual sentencing cases unless they involve high-profile defendants or high-profile issues or result in high-profile rulings.  But this afternoon I just happen to come across two notable local sentencing stories back-to-back from the same local Virginia paper that for me highlighted the enduring tendency in the United States to use imprisonment, and then more imprisonment, in response to any and every social and legal problem.  Here are the headlines and essentials that caught my eye:

"JMU student gets jail time for registering dead people"

A 21-year-old man who pleaded guilty last week to filing 18 phony voter registration applications in Harrisonburg will spend 100 to 120 days in prison, according to federal prosecutors in the Western District of Virginia.

Andrew J. Spieles of Harrisonburg admitted to filing the fraudulent registrations in August while working with Democratic-affiliated groups as a student at James Madison University ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The fraud was discovered after local election officials noticed that some applications had been filed in the names of dead people, including the father of a Rockingham County judge.

The offense was punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison. Spieles told investigators that he fabricated the applications to help a co-worker hit a registration “quota,” according to court documents. There is no indication any fraudulent votes were cast in November’s election as a result of the improper registrations.

"Jury recommends 65-year sentence for Charlottesville heroin dealer"

A Henrico County jury has called for a 65-year sentence for a man convicted of purchasing heroin at Short Pump parking lots so the drugs could be resold in Charlottesville, where the defendant lived.  The jury recommended that decades-long sentence for Norell Sterling Ward, 46, last week after convicting him on a count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and on two counts of possessing heroin with the intent to distribute, said Matthew C. Ackley, a deputy Henrico commonwealth’s attorney.

Attorneys in the case could not say whether a 65-year term, if enacted, would set any type of record punishment for this type of crime, but all agreed it would represent a significant sentence. “I can tell you that this is a high sentence and likely reflective of the community awareness of the heroin problem in Henrico,” Ackley said.

Ward was identified as a midlevel heroin distributor who would travel from Charlottesville to Short Pump to buy heroin in parking lots so the drugs could be distributed back in Charlottesville, Ackley said. The prosecutor said it’s estimated Ward distributed 4 to 6 kilograms of heroin over a roughly 18-month period. The defendant would purchase the drugs from parking lots at Short Pump-area businesses including McDonald’s, Whole Foods, Target and 7-Eleven, Ackley said.

Henrico Circuit Judge Richard S. Wallerstein Jr. will now weigh whether to follow through on the jury’s recommendation and impose the full 65 years at a September sentencing....

Ackley said Ward bought his heroin from a drug organization run by Shawn Lamont Bailey, a 46-year-old Henrico man who pleaded guilty in January to two felony counts of distributing heroin near his West Broad Village home. Bailey is to be sentenced next month. Under a plea deal, Bailey agreed to plead guilty in return for spending between 8 to 10 years in prison.

Ward, who is going to be formally sentenced on Sept. 13, has a criminal history that includes convictions for two burglaries as well as a conviction for possessing heroin, Ackley said.

June 28, 2017 in Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2)

En banc Sixth Circuit reverses preliminary injunction that had been preventing Ohio from moving forward with executions

Unsurprisingly, the en banc Sixth Circuit today ruled for the State of Ohio in its appeal of a lower court stay issued earlier this year which blocked Ohio from using its latest three-drug protocol to execute condemned murderers.  Here is how the majority opinion (per Judge Kethledge, who wrote the dissent in the original panel ruling) in  In re: Ohio Execution Protocol, No. 17-3076 (6th Cir. June 28, 2017) (available here) gets started:

Roughly two decades have passed since the plaintiffs in this case murdered their victims. Ronald Phillips raped a three-year-old girl and beat her so badly that her internal organs ruptured. For two days she suffered intense abdominal pain and vomiting, until her heart collapsed. See State v. Phillips, 656 N.E.2d 643, 650-52 (Ohio 1995).  Gary Otte entered the home of an Ohio man, robbed him, and then shot him in the head.  Two nights later, Otte pushed his way into a woman’s home and did the same things to her. After each murder Otte went out partying. See State v. Otte, 660 N.E.2d 711, 715-16 (Ohio 1996).  Raymond Tibbetts killed an elderly man and his caretaker. Police found the man slumped in his chair with butcher knives protruding from his chest and back.  His caretaker lay on the floor in a pool of blood with her skull cracked open and its contents scattered nearby. See State v. Tibbetts, 749 N.E.2d 226, 237-39 (Ohio 2001).

Phillips, Otte, and Tibbetts now claim that Ohio’s Execution Protocol would cause them to suffer severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  In a sense the claim is unprecedented: the Supreme Court “has never invalidated a State’s chosen procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2732 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The State’s chosen procedure here is the same procedure (so far as the combination of drugs is concerned) that the Supreme Court upheld in Glossip.  Every other court of appeals to consider that procedure has likewise upheld it, including most recently the Eighth Circuit, which rejected a nearly identical challenge in a procedural posture identical to the one here.  See McGehee v. Hutchinson, 854 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (per curiam), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1275 (2017); Glossip, 135 S. Ct. at 2739-40 (collecting cases); Brooks v. Warden, 810 F.3d 812, 818-22 (11th Cir. 2016); cf. Jordan v. Fisher, 823 F.3d 805, 811-12 (5th Cir. 2016).  Yet here the district court thought the same procedure is likely invalid.  We respectfully disagree and reverse the court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.

The chief dissent was penned by Judge Moore (who wrote the majority decision for the original panel upholding the stay).  This dissent runs about twice as long as the majority opinion, and it gets started this way:

There is a narrow question before this court: Should Gary Otte, Ronald Phillips, and Raymond Tibbetts have a trial on their claim that Ohio’s execution protocol is a cruel and unusual punishment, or should Ohio execute them without such a trial?  The majority has concluded that there is no need for a trial on the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim. I disagree.

There is no dispute that the second and third drugs in Ohio’s execution protocol cause immense pain.  There is significant evidence that the first drug, midazolam, cannot prevent someone from feeling that pain.  After a five-day hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court determined that there should be a full trial on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim that Ohio’s use of midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug execution protocol creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain. Despite the deferential standard of review that this court should apply, the majority casts aside the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs should have a trial before the state executes them.  The majority also determines that despite Defendants’ unequivocal sworn testimony that they would no longer use pancuronium bromide or potassium chloride in executions, judicial estoppel does not prevent their renewed attempt to use those drugs. For the reasons discussed below, I would hold that Plaintiffs should have a trial on their Eighth Amendment and judicial-estoppel claims, and I respectfully dissent.

This Ohio DRC execution page details that Ohio is scheduled to execute Ronald Phillips on July 26 and has scheduled executions for more than two dozen other Ohio inmates running all the way through 2020. This Sixth Circuit will surely be appealed by Phillips to the US Supreme Court in the coming weeks, but I would be very surprised if SCOTUS takes up the case after it has recently allowed other midazolam executions to go forward. And if Ohio is able to to complete executions uneventfully with its current protocol, the state could now be on a path to having more executions in the next few years than perhaps any other state in the nation.

June 28, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (8)

Trump Administration says it "strongly supports" latest Kate’s Law to increase penalties on illegal reentry

The Trump Administration yesterday released this (unusual?) "statement of administration policy" concerning a bill in the House of Representatives known as Kate's Law. Here is its full text:

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3004, Kate’s Law. This bill commemorates Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco as she walked along a pier with her father. The alleged shooter, Francisco Sanchez, was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

H.R. 3004 would increase the penalties that may be imposed on criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry, deterring reentry and keeping criminal aliens off our streets. The bill is consistent with the Administration's broader efforts to strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws and improve the security of our Nation's borders.

If H.R. 3004 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law. 

Notably, as this White House statement indicates and as detailed in this recent Cato commentary by David Bier titled "Kate’s Law: A Waste of Federal Resources," the latest version of Kate's Law (H.R. 3004, available here) does not include the five-year mandatory minimum prison term that has appeared in some prior versions of "Kate's Law."  Rather, the version that the Trump Administration now "strongly supports" serves to raise the maximum prison term for various illegal reentry offenders with particular criminal histories.  Consequently, I do not think this version of Kate's Law would really have too much of an impact on too many illegal reentry cases.  In turn, advocates of federal sentencing reform who are justifiably concerned about great more use and reliance on federal mandatory minimum sentencing provisions should be pleased to see a version of Kate's Law apparently gaining steam that does not include any new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

One last cheeky comment combined with a final observation about this statement from the Trump Administration.  I was tempted to title this post, "Unlike Obama, Prez Trump formally expresses strong support for federal sentencing reform."  I decided not to use such a post title because, though I think it would be in many ways accurate, the phrasing would have a "fake news" quality to it.  Modern conversations about and references to "federal sentencing reform" are generally about lowering possible prison terms, not increasing them.  Moreover, the Obama Administration in various ways at various times over the course of the two terms did express support for federal sentencing reform.

That all said, I was tempted to title this post, "Unlike Obama, Prez Trump formally expresses strong support for federal sentencing reform," because this statement on Kate's Law showcases the kind of express and aggressive support that a White House can (and I think should) put behind criminal justice reform legislation it supports.  Though I am certain Prez Obama and his team worked behind the scenes in various ways and gave various speeches to support various sentencing reform efforts, I do not recall the Obama team ever issuing any formal "statement of administration policy" like this one from the Trump team in support of any particular sentencing reform proposal in Congress.  Of particular note, especially if we consider parallel points in a first Term, Prez Obama to my knowledge never formally expressed support from the White House as President in 2009 for bills in Congress that sought to completely equalize crack and powder cocaine sentencing (though the Holder DOJ did testify in support of complete equalization in front of the then Democratically controlled Congress).

UPDATE: I just now have seen that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is also adding his voice in support of Kate's Law via this official statement which includes these passages:

Countless families and communities have suffered as a result of these ‘sanctuary’ policies, which undermine federal law by safeguarding criminal illegal aliens from federal law enforcement. One victim of these policies was Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal alien who had been deported five times and yet still walked the streets freely. Her death was preventable, and she would still be alive today if only the City of San Francisco had put the public’s safety first. How many more Americans must die before we put an end to this madness?

Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would penalize criminal illegal aliens who break our laws and the jurisdictions that attempt to shield them from justice. These bills can restore sanity and common-sense to our system by ending abusive attempts to undermine federal law, and they can prevent future tragedies by empowering law enforcement.

June 28, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Obama Administration, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Offense Characteristics, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (11)

Impressive refreshment of Restoration of Rights Project

CcrcIn this post nearly five years ago, I noted the creation by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) of a terrific on-line resource profiling the law and practice in each US jurisdiction relating to relief from the numerous civil rights and other consequences of criminal conviction.  Now, as detailed in this news release, this resource has gotten an impressive new update. Here are the details via the release:

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center and its partner organizations, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the National HIRE Network, are pleased to announce the launch of the newly expanded and fully updated Restoration of Rights Project.

The Restoration of Rights Project is an online resource that offers state-by-state analyses of the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights and status following arrest or conviction.  Jurisdictional "profiles" cover areas such as loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, judicial and executive mechanisms for avoiding or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment and licensing. Each jurisdiction's information is separately summarized for quick reference.

In addition to the jurisdictional profiles, a set of 50-state comparison charts summarizes the law and illustrates national patterns in restoration laws and policies.  We expect to supplement these resources in weeks to come with jurisdiction-specific information about organizations that may be able to assist individuals in securing relief, and information on other third-party resources.

The resources that comprise the Restoration of Rights Project were originally published in 2006 by CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love, and the profiles and comparison charts have expanded over the years to broaden their scope and to account for the many changes in this complex area of the law.  The project has recently been hosted by CCRC and NACDL, and its resources have been published in the treatise on collateral consequences published jointly by NACDL and Thompson Reuters (West).

Project resources have now been re-organized into a unified online platform that makes them easier to access, use, and understand.  The short "postcard" summaries of the law in each state -- which serve as a gateway to more detailed information -- have also been reviewed and revised to provide a more current and accurate snapshot of applicable law in each state.

The Project is intended as a resource for practitioners in all phases of the criminal justice system, for courts, for civil practitioners assisting clients whose court-imposed sentence has exposed them to additional civil penalties, for policymakers and advocates interested in reentry and reintegration of convicted persons, and for the millions of Americans with a criminal record who are seeking to put their past behind them.

The Restoration of Rights Project is available now at: http://restoration.ccresourcecenter.org

June 28, 2017 in Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Cashing in on Convicts: Privatization, Punishment, and the People"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper by Laura Appleman available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

For-profit prisons, jails, and alternative corrections present a disturbing commodification of the criminal justice system. Though part of a modern trend, privatized corrections has well-established roots traceable to slavery, Jim Crow, and current racially-based inequities.  This monetizing of the physical incarceration and regulation of human bodies has had deleterious effects on offenders, communities, and the proper functioning of punishment in our society.  Criminal justice privatization severs an essential link between the people and criminal punishment.  When we remove the imposition of punishment from the people and delegate it to private actors, we sacrifice the core criminal justice values of expressive, restorative retribution, the voice and interests of the community, and systemic transparency and accountability.

This Article shows what we lose when we allow private, for-profit entities to take on the traditional community function of imposing and regulating punishment.  By banking on bondage, private prisons and jails remove the local community from criminal justice, and perpetuate the extreme inequities within the criminal system. 

June 28, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (4)

June 27, 2017

SCOTUSblog begins symposium on OT 2016 death penalty decisions

I will not likely remember the Supreme Court term just completed, October Term 2016, as especially notable for sentencing developments.  There were no big blockbuster sentencing cases, although the Beckles vagueness ruling was certainly consequential and a few other rulings will surely launch a few law review article.  And, of course, in the intricate and endlessly litigated world of the death penalty, a mixed bag of smaller SCOTUS rulings still add up to something worth watching (especially with the added bit of uncertainty that comes with Justice Gorsuch replacing Justice Scalia).

Helpfully for those who just cannot get enough of the SCOTUS capital docket, the folks over at SCOTUSblog have this new "Special Feature" in the form of a "Symposium on October Term 2016’s death-penalty decisions."   Here are links to the four pieces already up at SCOTUSblog, and I surmise more be coming:

June 27, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Will Trump Use Science to Fight Crime?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this notable new piece by Ted Gest at The Crime Report, which reports on what some criminologists had to say at a recent event about crime fighting in the Trump Administration.  Here are excerpts:

Leading criminologists expressed cautious optimism yesterday that President Trump will embrace evidence-based practices in his administration’s war on crime.

Laurie Robinson, who advocated the use of science in justice as an Assistant Attorney General in the Obama administration, declared, “I do not think the [criminal justice] field is turning back” on evidence-based programs. Robinson, now a member of the criminology faculty at George Mason University, said that officials “on the front line have to know what works, and how to pay for it.” She noted that bipartisan justice reform plans had been approved in recent years in such conservative states as Georgia, Louisiana and North Dakota.

Her comments came at the annual gathering sponsored by the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at the George Mason campus, in northern Virginia near Washington, D.C.. The session opened with a discussion on the “Progress of Evidence-Based Crime Policy in the Last Three Decades.”

Some critics have expressed doubt that the new administration will base policies on scientific evidence, noting Trump’s professed disbelief in global warming and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ advocacy of tough-on-crime practices that studies have found ineffective....

Denise O’Donnell, who headed the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance under Obama, said many U.S. policing leaders have concluded that “there is power in data.” She cited such developments as the use of public opinion surveys by police departments in formulating policies on officers’ body-worn cameras.

James Burch, a vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Police Foundation and a former Justice Department official, offered a “qualified yes” to the question of whether evidence-based criminal justice practices will continue under Trump. Burch said he detected a “different tone” in discussions among police chiefs and sheriffs at national conventions in recent years. Law enforcement officials are asking themselves “how do we hold ourselves accountable?” he said....

Speakers pointed out that in opening a national “summit” on crime reduction and public safety last week, Sessions said that in a new national “Public Safety Partnership” involving 12 localities, the Justice Department will provide “diagnostic teams” to “assess the local factors driving increased violent crime, and will help local leaders develop strategies to address those factors.”

June 27, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court issues major Miller ruling declaring presumption against the imposition of LWOP on juvenile killers

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday handed down a major ruling on the application and implementation of the Supreme Court's modern Miller Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The lengthy ruling in Pennsylvania v. Batts, No. 45 MAP 2016 (Pa. June 26, 2017 (available here), gets started this way:

Qu’eed Batts (“Batts”) was convicted of a first-degree murder that he committed when he was fourteen years old. His case returns for the second time on discretionary review for this Court to determine whether the sentencing court imposed an illegal sentence when it resentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. After careful review, we conclude, based on the findings made by the sentencing court and the evidence upon which it relied, that the sentence is illegal in light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, imposed upon a juvenile without consideration of the defendant’s age and the attendant characteristics of youth, is prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) (holding that the Miller decision announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively and clarifying the limited circumstances in which a life-without-parole sentence is permissible for a crime committed when the defendant was a juvenile).

Pursuant to our grant of allowance of appeal, we further conclude that to effectuate the mandate of Miller and Montgomery, procedural safeguards are required to ensure that life-without-parole sentences are meted out only to “the rarest of juvenile offenders” whose crimes reflect “permanent incorrigibility,” “irreparable corruption” and “irretrievable depravity,” as required by Miller and Montgomery.  Thus, as fully developed in this Opinion, we recognize a presumption against the imposition of a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender.  To rebut the presumption, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile offender is incapable of rehabilitation.

Because Pennsylvania has a large JLWOP population impacted by Miller and because proving rehabilitation incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt seem to be perhaps close to impossible, this Batts ruling strikes me as a  big deal jurisprudentially and practically.  (And, for any remaining Apprendi/Blakely fans, it bears noting that the Batts opinion expressly rejects the defendant's contention that a "jury must make the finding regarding a juvenile’s eligibility to be sentenced to life without parole.)

June 27, 2017 in Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

June 26, 2017

SCOTUS denies cert on Wisconsin case with defendant challenging risk-assessment sentencing

I had thought I had reported on all the blog-worthy action in the the Supreme Court on this busy day via prior posts here and here and here ... until one of my favorite colleagues alerted me to the fact that today's SCOTUS order list also included a denial of cert in Loomis V. Wisconsin.  This local press article discusses thie cert denial under the headline "Supreme Court refuses to hear Wisconsin predictive crime assessment case."

As some may recall from some prior postings, Loomis concerned a due process challenge to the use of risk-assessment instruments at sentencing.  And, as noted here, the Supreme Court was interested enough in this issue to invite the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.  But now it seems SCOTUS was not quite yet ready to take up this interesting and important issue in this case.

Some prior related posts on Loomis case:

June 26, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Should Ohio automatically release inmates if prisons too crowded?"

The question in title of this post is the headline of this Columbus Dispatch article which somewhat imperfectly describes one somewhat notable provision of a huge criminal justice revision proposal in the Buckeye State. Here is the context:

A proposed sweeping rewrite of Ohio’s criminal laws includes a provision that would allow the state to release hundreds of low-level, nonviolent inmates when the prison population hits 47,000. The state prison population last week stood at 50,093 — 3,093 above that threshold.

That change is among hundreds recommended by the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee, which on June 15 completed a two-year task of rewriting the entire state criminal code. The result is a 4,017-page bill submitted to the General Assembly. The committee composed of judges, legislators, prosecutors, law-enforcement officials and others voted 18-2 to recommend the overhaul.

Other changes include the return of a version of “bad time” for inmates who misbehave in prison, reduced add-on sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a gun, expanded opportunities for offenders to obtain drug treatment in lieu of prison, and an increase in the theft amount that triggers a felony charge to $2,500.

Created by the legislature, the committee was charged with “enhancing public safety and the administration of criminal justice.” The last time criminal laws were overhauled was 1974, although some statutes date to 1953 and have been “effectively superseded or contradicted” by new layers of laws. The committee’s recommendations need the approval of the legislature.

Judge Frederick D. Pepple of Auglaize County Common Pleas Court, chairman of the committee, said he’s pleased with the overall report. “These improvements make the system better and could save hundreds of millions of dollars. When I stand back and look at it, without getting into every nitty-gritty detail, I’m satisfied.”

Pepple said the rewrite cut down the length of the code by nearly 25 percent, mostly by condensing language. More important, Pepple said the changes would “significantly improve the quality of justice and better protect the people of Ohio ... We tried to make it readable and understandable so people know what is against the law.”

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien was one of two committee members, along with Clark County Prosecutor Andy Wilson, to vote against the package. O’Brien said that while he agreed with most of the recommendations, several were deal breakers, including the prison-release provision, which he said would be like “Bastille Day every day.” O’Brien said he disagreed with granting “unilateral authority to reduce prison population.”

The provision would be triggered when the total prison population exceeds 43,500 men and 3,500 women for at least 30 days in a row. At that point, the director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction would “direct the parole board to select from those who are eligible for overcrowding parole release a sufficient number of prisoners to be released within thirty days to maintain the inmate population at less than 43,500 for males and 3,500 for females. No more than five hundred male inmates and five hundred female inmates may be released per month pursuant to this section.” The board would select inmates for release “who present the least threat to the public, including the victims and their families,” and those who have committed nonviolent and non-sex-oriented crimes.

In a statement to The Dispatch, Gary Mohr, director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, said he voted for (but did not propose) the overcrowding release provision. However, he said he prefers a method built into the current state-budget proposal to divert nonviolent drug offenders to community treatment “to avoid the potentially lifelong collateral consequences of coming to prison.”...

Ohio Senate President Larry Obhof, R-Medina, praised the committee. “How this group of experts from varying political viewpoints worked together over the last two years speaks volumes about their commitment to pursuing reforms within Ohio’s criminal-justice system.” Holly Harris, executive director of the U.S. Justice Action Network, said that if the rewrite of criminal laws is adopted, “Ohio is ready to take another leap forward on reforming their justice system.”

June 26, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5)

House Oversight Committee schedules hearing this week on "Criminal Justice Reform and Efforts Reduce Recidivism"

Via a Twitter reference, I just saw that the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has now scheduled a hearing under the title "Criminal Justice Reform and Efforts Reduce Recidivism."  Other than this official calendar notice, I know nothing about this event or whether it suggests anything significant for any congressional criminal justice reform efforts.  But even without yet knowing more about what is leading to this House hearing, the very fact of a hearing with this "pro-reform" title provides some encouraging news for anyone concerned that Congress was not even going to keep discussing possible criminal justice reforms.

June 26, 2017 in Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

Narrow ruling on Bivens case and rearguments now coming on two notable others

The Supreme Court's action on litigation involving the President's travel ban and a ruling for a church are certain to dominate headlines and SCOTUS analysis for the days to come.  But sentencing fans will not want to entirely overlook some lower-profile developments that also unfolded at SCOTUS this morning on three cases with criminal justice components.  In order to cover a lot of ground quickly, I will borrow language from Crime & Consequences and SCOTUSblog concerning what the cases concerned and what SCOTUS did:

The three cases:  Jennings v. Rodriguez (involving bond hearings for aliens detained pending deportation); Sessions v. Dimaya (concerning whether provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague based on Johnson); Hernandez v. Mesa (civil case arising out of a shooting by a border patrol agent across the southern border) .

Today's action per SCOTUSblog: "Ordered reargument in cases involving immigrants' bond hearings and the vagueness of crime of violence in the immigration laws, and remanded for reconsideration of a cross-border shooting in light of an earlier decision."

This USA Today piece, headlined "Supreme Court punts on cross-border shooting, two immigration cases," provides more particulars and context.

June 26, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS rules IAC of appellate counsel in state postconviction proceedings does not excuse procedural default

Resolving a technical and important issue, the US Supreme Court this morning in Davila v. Davis, No. 16-6219 (S. Ct. June 26, 2017) (available here), refused to extend some inmate-friendly habeas jurisprudence. The opinion for the Court in the 5-4 ruling was authored by Justice Thomas and it begins this way:

Federal habeas courts reviewing convictions from state courts will not consider claims that a state court refused to hear based on an adequate and independent state procedural ground.  A state prisoner may be able to overcome this bar, however, if he can establish “cause” to excuse the procedural default and demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice from the alleged error.  An attorney error does not qualify as “cause” to excuse a procedural default unless the error amounted to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Because a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings, ineffective assistance in those proceedings does not qualify as cause to excuse a procedural default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991).

In Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U. S. 413 (2013), this Court announced a narrow exception to Coleman’s general rule.  That exception treats ineffective assistance by a prisoner’s state postconviction counsel as cause to overcome the default of a single claim — ineffective assistance of trial counsel — in a single context — where the State effectively requires a defendant to bring that claim in state postconviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal. The question in this case is whether we should extend that exception to allow federal courts to consider a different kind of defaulted claim — ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We decline to do so.

The dissent authored by Justice Breyer and joined by the other more liberal justces begins this way:

As the Court explains, normally a federal habeas court cannot hear a state prisoner’s claim that his trial lawyer was, constitutionally speaking, “ineffective” if the prisoner failed to assert that claim in state court at the appropriate time, that is, if he procedurally defaulted the claim.  See ante, at 1 (the prisoner’s failure to raise his federal claim at the initial-review state collateral proceeding amounts to an “adequate and independent state procedural ground” for denying habeas relief).

But there are equitable exceptions. In Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1 (2012), and later in Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U. S. 413 (2013), we held that, despite the presence of a procedural default, a federal court can nonetheless hear a prisoner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, where (1) the framework of state procedural law “makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal,” id., at 429; (2) in the state “‘initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective,’” ibid. (quoting Martinez, 566 U. S., at 17); and (3) “the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit,” id., at 14.

In my view, this same exception (with the same qualifications) should apply when a prisoner raises a constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See, e.g., Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387, 396 (1985) (Constitution guarantees a defendant an effective appellate counsel, just as it guarantees a defendant an effective trial counsel).

June 26, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

A bit of criminal justice interest in last big SCOTUS order list of Term

The last big Supreme Court order list of OT16 is available here, and an assortment of cert grants and denials, summary opinions and concurrences and dissents are notable.  For criminal justice fans in particular, the denial of a big Second Amendment case out of California and some discussion around the GVRs in a few cases seem especially noteworthy.  And the discussion around the (partial) reversal of an erroneous mandatory minimum crack sentence in Hicks v. US will merit its own posy later today because of some of the comments by the newest Justice.  But first we have some more merits opinions coming (and I have to catch a plane, so perhaps commentors can review anything I missed in transit).

June 26, 2017 in Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

June 25, 2017

"A Holistic Framework to Aid Responsible Plea-Bargaining By Prosecutors"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new note authored by Aditi Juneja now available via SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In our criminal justice system, ninety-four percent of cases are resolved through plea in state courts.  As Justice Kennedy recently observed: “the reality [is] that criminal justice today is, for the most part, a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”  This note is focused on expanding what prosecutors believe justice entails during the plea-bargaining process.  Unlike theories of plea-bargaining that state the goal to be the “highest deserved punishment the prosecutor could obtain on a plea,” this note focuses on how prosecutors can ensure that the lowest deserved punishment possible to achieve justice is imposed in order to preserve a defendant's right to liberty.

To achieve this goal, the note attempts to explain what factors individual prosecutors consider when plea bargaining. If provided a framework, prosecutors are capable of evaluating the multiple considerations that would be relevant in attempting to maximize the public good.  This note operates from the premise that it is possible, and perhaps preferable, to transform the culture of prosecutors’ offices from the ground up.  In order to contextualize the way these factors would be considered, it is important to understand the amount of prosecutorial discretion possessed by individual prosecutors.  As such, this note explores the scope of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining.  First, the note considers the scope of prosecutorial discretion possessed by individual prosecutors within the context of office customs, office policies, ethical obligations and laws. The note then outlines a framework of factors a prosecutor might consider in deciding what plea deal to offer including the completeness of information, purposes of punishment, the defense counsel, reasons a defendant might plead guilty besides factual guilt, and impacts of punishment on the legitimacy of law.  This is the first academic paper to suggest that line prosecutors themselves attempt to conduct a multi-factored analysis in determining what plea deal should be offered is necessary and that the plea deal should be distinct from the sentence that might be offered at trial given the lack of procedural safeguards.

June 25, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

Could mental illness be the next big battle-front in debates over capital punishment?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this lengthy Washington Post article headlined "He’s a killer set to die. But his mental illness has set off a new death penalty battle."  Here are excerpts:

Someone was trying to kill him. William C. Morva was certain of it.  He couldn’t breathe and he was withering away, he told his mother in a jailhouse call.

“Somebody wants me to die and I don’t know who it is,” he said.  “They know my health is dwindling, okay?” He sounded paranoid. His voice grew more frantic with each call over several months on the recorded lines.

“How much more time do you think my body has before it gives out?” he asked just months before he escaped from custody, killing an unarmed guard and later a sheriff’s deputy before his capture in woods near Virginia Tech’s campus.

Morva faces execution July 6 for the 2006 killings. With the date looming, Morva’s family, friends and lawyers are pressing for clemency from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in what has become a broader national push to eliminate capital punishment for people with severe mental illnesses such as Morva’s delusional disorder....

The Supreme Court in recent years has ruled that juveniles, whose brains are not fully developed, and people with intellectual disabilities are not eligible for the death penalty.  Lawmakers in eight states, including Virginia, Tennessee and Indiana, have introduced bills that would expand the prohibition to people with severe mental illnesses.

A vote on an Ohio measure pending in the state legislature is expected this fall.  It is backed by a coalition of providers of mental-health services, social justice groups, religious leaders, former state Supreme Court justices and former Republican governor Bob Taft.  The bills address punishment, not guilt or innocence.  If lawmakers in Columbus sign off on the measure, Ohio would become the first state to pass an exclusion for severe mental illness among the 31 that retain the death penalty....

Advocates for reform say the penalty was not intended for people who are incapable of distinguishing between delusions and reality, and that jurors often misunderstand mental illness.  The reformers’ efforts have met with resistance mostly from prosecutors and law enforcement officials who say jurors already can factor in mental illness at sentencing and that the exemptions are too broad.

June 25, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Offender Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (3)