« September 24, 2017 - September 30, 2017 | Main | October 8, 2017 - October 14, 2017 »

October 6, 2017

"Access to Health Care and Criminal Behavior: Short-Run Evidence from the ACA Medicaid Expansions"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new empirical paper available via SSRN authored by Jacob Vogler. Here is the abstract:

I investigate the causal relationship between access to health care and criminal behavior following state decisions to expand Medicaid coverage after the Affordable Care Act. Many of the newly eligible individuals for Medicaid-provided health insurance are adults at high risk for crime.  I leverage variation in both insurance eligibility generated by state decisions to expand Medicaid and county-level treatment intensity measured by changes in insurance rates.

My findings indicate that the Medicaid expansions have resulted in significant decreases in annual rates of reported crime, including both property and violent crime, by between 3 to 5 percent per 100,000 people.  A within-state heterogeneity analysis suggests that crime impacts are more pronounced in counties that experienced larger gains in insurance rates among individuals newly eligible for Medicaid coverage.  The estimated decrease in reported crime amounts to an annual cost savings of nearly $400 million.

October 6, 2017 in National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (15)

US Sentencing Commission continues diving into issues surrounding synthetic drugs

A helpful reader reminded me today that, in the midst of busy times, I failed to spotlight this past week's US Sentencing Commission public hearings on October 4 concerning "synthetic cathinones."  This USSC webpage details that this Commission spent the morning hearing "testimony from experts on ... their chemical structure, pharmacological effects, trafficking patterns, and community impact."

The hearing agenda and written statements of the nine witnesses who testified are linked at this page, and I was hoping to fins some time in the coming days to review some of this testimony.  I would be grateful to hear from readers knowledgeable on these distinctive issues as to whether any of this testimony was surprising or could lead to major changes in applicable sentencing rules.

October 6, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Nearly 35 years after his double murder, Florida executes Michael Lambrix despite non-unanimous jury death recommendations

As reported in this local article, "Florida executed an inmate Thursday who was convicted of killing two people after a night of drinking decades ago."  Here is part of the extended backstory:

Michael Lambrix, 57, died by lethal injection at 10:10 p.m. at Florida State Prison in Bradford County. For his final words, Lambrix said, “I wish to say the Lord's Prayer.” He recited the words, ending on the line “deliver us from evil,” his voice breaking slightly at times.

When he finished and the drug cocktail began flowing through his veins, Lambrix's chest heaved and his lips fluttered. This continued for about five minutes, until his lips and eyelids turned silver-blue and he lay motionless. A doctor checked his chest with a stethoscope and shined a light in both of his eyes before pronouncing him dead.

Lambrix was the second inmate put to death by the state since it restarted executions in August. Before then, the state had stopped all executions for months after a Supreme Court ruling that found Florida's method of sentencing people to death was unconstitutional. In response, the state Legislature passed a new law requiring death sentences to have a unanimous jury vote.

Lambrix's attorney, William Hennis, argued in an appeal to the nation's high court that because his client's jury recommendations for death were not unanimous — the juries in his two trials voted 8-4 and 10-2 for death — they should be thrown out.  The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that Lambrix's case is too old to qualify for relief from the new sentencing system. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday night denied Lambrix's last-ditch appeal.

Lambrix was convicted of killing Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant in 1983 after a long night of partying in a small central Florida town, Labelle, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) northeast of Fort Meyers. Lambrix said he was innocent.

He and his roommate, Frances Smith, had met the victims at a bar, and returned to their trailer to eat spaghetti and continue the party, prosecutors said.  At some point after returning to the trailer, Lambrix asked Moore to go outside. He returned about 20 minutes later and asked Bryant to come out as well, according to Smith's testimony. Smith testified at trial that Lambrix returned to the trailer alone after the killings, his clothes covered in blood.  The two finished the spaghetti, buried the two bodies and then washed up, according to Smith's testimony cited in court documents.

Prosecutors said Lambrix choked Bryant, and used a tire iron to kill Moore. Investigators found the bodies, the tire iron and the bloody shirt.

Lambrix has claimed in previous appeals that it was Moore who killed Bryant, and that he killed Moore only in self-defense. “It won't be an execution,” he told reporters in an interview at the prison Tuesday, according to the Tampa Bay Times. “It's going to be an act of cold-blooded murder.”

Lambrix's first trial ended in a hung jury. The jury in the second trial found him guilty of both murders, and a majority of jurors recommended death.

He was originally scheduled to be executed in 2016, but that was postponed after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a case called Hurst v. Florida, which found Florida's system for sentencing people to death was unconstitutional because it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries. Florida's Supreme Court has ruled that the new death sentencing system only applies to cases back to 2002.

October 6, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (9)

October 5, 2017

AG Sessions announces new initiatives to address violent crime

As explained in this press release, the Attorney General today announced, as the title of the release puts it, the "Reinvigoration of Project Safe Neighborhoods and Other Actions to Reduce Rising Tide of Violent Crime." Here is the text of the press release:

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced several Department of Justice actions to reduce the rising tide of violent crime in America. Foremost of those actions is the reinvigoration of Project Safe Neighborhoods, a program that has been historically successful in bringing together all levels of law enforcement to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone.

In announcing this recommitment to Project Safe Neighborhoods, the Attorney General issued a memo directing United States Attorneys to implement an enhanced violent crime reduction program that incorporates the lessons learned since Project Safe Neighborhoods launched in 2001.

In a statement on the program, the Attorney General said: "According to the FBI, the violent crime rate has risen by nearly seven percent over the past two years, and the homicide rate has risen by more than 20 percent. We cannot be complacent or hope that this is just an anomaly: we have a duty to take action.

“Fortunately, we have a President who understands that and has directed his administration to reduce crime. The Department of Justice today announces the foundation of our plan to reduce crime: prioritizing Project Safe Neighborhoods, a program that has been proven to work.

“Let me be clear – Project Safe Neighborhoods is not just one policy idea among many. This is the centerpiece of our crime reduction strategy.

“Taking what we have learned since the program began in 2001, we have updated it and enhanced it, emphasizing the role of our U.S. Attorneys, the promise of new technologies, and above all, partnership with local communities. With these changes, I believe that this program will be more effective than ever and help us fulfill our mission to make America safer."

The Attorney General also announced the following Department of Justice initiatives to help reduce violent crime:

-Additional Assistant United States Attorney Positions to Focus on Violent Crime – The Department is allocating 40 prosecutors to approximately 20 United States Attorney’s Offices to focus on violent crime reduction.

-More Cops on the Streets (COPS Hiring Grants) – As part of our continuing commitment to crime prevention efforts, increased community policing, and the preservation of vital law enforcement jobs, the Department will be awarding approximately $98 million in FY 2017 COPS Hiring Grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.

-Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force’s (OCDETF) National Gang Strategic Initiative – The National Gang Strategic Initiative promotes creative enforcement strategies and best practices that will assist in developing investigations of violent criminal groups and gangs into enterprise-level OCDETF prosecutions. Under this initiative, OCDETF provides “seed money” to locally-focused gang investigations, giving state, local, and tribal investigators and prosecutors the resources and tools needed to identify connections between lower-level gangs and national-level drug trafficking organizations.

-Critical Training and Technical Assistance to State and Local Partners – The Department has a vast array of training and technical assistance resources available to state, local and tribal law enforcement, victims groups, and others. To ensure that agencies in need of assistance are able to find the training and materials they need, OJP will make available a Violence Reduction Response Center to serve as a “hot line” to connect people to these resources.

-Crime Gun Intelligence Centers (CGIC) – The Department has provided grant funding to support a comprehensive approach to identifying the most violent offenders in a jurisdiction, using new technologies such as gunshot detection systems combined with gun crime intelligence from NIBIN, eTrace, and investigative efforts. These FY 2017 grants were awarded to Phoenix, AZ, and Kansas City, MO.

-Expand ATF’s NIBIN Urgent Trace Program – The Department will expand ATF’s NIBIN Urgent Trace Program nationwide by the end of the year. Through this program, any firearm submitted for tracing that is associated with a NIBIN “hit” (which means it can be linked to a shooting incident) will be designated an “urgent” trace and the requestor will get information back about the firearm’s first retail purchaser within 24 hours, instead of five to six business days.

October 5, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5)

Notable new series in Teen Vogue on youth incarceration

I have to admit that I am not a regular reader of Teen Vogue, no doubt in part because it has been a long time since I have been either a teen or in any way vogue. But I may become a regular reader if the magazine keeps covering the issues of juvenile incarceration, as it has been doing in this "Kids Incarcerated" series of article:

October 5, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Gorsuch Joins Court’s Liberals Over Protections for Criminal Defendants"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Wall Street Journal article which is primarily focused on the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday in Class v. US.  Because Class is a quirky case dealing with appeal rights and because no formal opinions have been issued this Term for Justice Gorsuch to join (and because Justice Gorsuch also voted on Wednesday to vacate an injunction protecting from execution a death row defendant in Alabama), I think this WSJ headline is a bit overblown and perhaps even misleading.  But I still consider the headline revealing, as is its account of SCOTUS argument which prompted it.  Here are excerpts:

Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, joined liberal colleagues Wednesday in sharply questioning government arguments that criminal defendants forfeit all rights to appeal after entering a plea bargain.

Since his April appointment, Justice Gorsuch’s remarks and votes nearly always have placed him on the court’s right. This week’s arguments suggested, however, that like his late predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Gorsuch’s legal philosophy sometimes may lead him to split with fellow conservatives and back procedural protections for criminal defendants.

Wednesday’s case involved Ronald Class, a High Shoals, N.C., retiree who in May 2013 illegally parked his Jeep Wrangler in a U.S. Capitol lot. Police found the vehicle contained several loaded weapons, including a 9mm Ruger pistol, a .44-caliber Taurus pistol and a .44- caliber Henry rifle. Although he had a North Carolina concealed weapons permit, Mr. Class was arrested under a federal law prohibiting guns on the Capitol grounds.

According to the government’s brief, Mr. Class told Federal Bureau of Investigation agents that “he was a ‘Constitutional Bounty Hunter ’ and a ‘Private Attorney General’ who traveled the nation with guns and other weapons to enforce federal criminal law against judges whom he believed had acted unlawfully.” Mr. Class later reached a plea bargain with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 days’ imprisonment and a year of supervised release. Although plea bargains typically restrict appeals from defendants, Mr. Class then sought to have his conviction overturned on several grounds, including that he had a Second Amendment right to take his guns to the Capitol.

A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal in an unsigned order, noting that Mr. Class had told the trial judge he understood the plea bargain required him to forgo all but a few technical forms of appeal. But on Wednesday, an attorney for Mr. Class said that Supreme Court precedents established that defendants retained the right to raise constitutional claims even after pleading guilty.

A Justice Department attorney, Eric Feigin, argued that the government was entitled to assume Mr. Class had waived all appeals. “There’s a serious information imbalance here. Only the defendant knows what kinds of claims he might want to bring after a guilty plea and in what respects he doesn’t intend his guilty plea to be final,” he told the court.

Justice Gorsuch appeared incredulous. “Mr. Feigin, is this information asymmetry problem a suggestion that the government lacks sufficient bargaining power in the plea bargaining process?” he asked. “No, your honor,” Mr. Feigin said.

Federal and state prosecutors win more than 90% of criminal cases without persuading a jury; defendants nearly always agree to plead guilty under threat of harsher punishment should they be convicted after opting for a trial.

Picking up on a question by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Gorsuch suggested that a defendant who pleads guilty admits the factual allegations in an indictment — but not that those actions necessarily are illegal. “You’re admitting to what’s in the indictment. Isn’t that maybe the most natural and historically consistent understanding of what a guilty plea is?” Justice Gorsuch said.

Justice Gorsuch’s remarks Wednesday followed similar pro-defendant positions he took Monday. That case involved a Filipino with permanent U.S. residency who had been convicted of burglary and who argued that the criteria Congress adopted authorizing deportation of immigrants for committing violent crimes were unconstitutionally vague.

A few prior related posts:

October 5, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (10)

October 4, 2017

Via Fox News, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Lee and Whitehouse start a renewed pitch for their Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act

This new Fox News commentary, headlined "Bipartisan criminal justice reform is how Congress is supposed to work — the time is now to get it done," carries this notable byline: "Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse." And here is some of what these four Senators have to say:

In 2015, a diverse group of lawmakers set out to rethink our approach to federal prison sentences. Our goal: improve public safety and the rule of law by ensuring that penalties match their crime. Many months of thoughtful deliberation yielded a product that earned broad bipartisan support in Congress and from organizations around the country and across the political spectrum. And though the political winds in Washington have shifted, that broad support for comprehensive sentencing reform remains strong.

This week, we are reintroducing the “Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act” as we continue to build on the most sweeping criminal justice reform effort in a generation.

Crafted by Republican and Democratic leaders, this legislation aims to safely and sensibly reduce excessive sentences. It recalibrates prison sentences for certain drug offenders and gives judges greater sentencing flexibility while keeping stiff penalties in place for violent criminals. The bill preserves important law enforcement tools to take down large criminal organizations while expanding outlets to shield low-level nonviolent offenders from lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences. It eliminates mandatory life sentences for three-strike drug offenders and gives judges authority to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses involving crack and powder cocaine.  The bill also includes “back end” reforms to curb recidivism by helping inmates successfully re-enter society.

We believe this is the right mix of reforms to give nonviolent offenders who’ve done significant time for their crime a second chance to rejoin their families and contribute to our communities while also reducing taxpayer costs and empowering law enforcement to keep dangerous criminals off our streets.  Our bipartisan work represents hard-fought consensus to a long-established problem. In recent years a unique and growing chorus of voices from across the political spectrum prompted a number of proposals in Congress to reform sentencing laws.  However, until now, none garnered enough support to move forward. It became clear that if we wanted to truly make progress on this issue, we would have to come together, check our differences at the door, and focus on areas where we could reach agreement....

We are encouraged by engagement from the White House on this comprehensive criminal justice reform effort. Last Congress, our bill was supported by hundreds of organizations from a variety of industries and political perspectives, including the NAACP and the Charles Koch Institute. It was also endorsed by a broad range of faith-based organizations and law enforcement leaders. We continue to welcome input from stakeholders and our colleagues in government and the law enforcement community as we make additional improvements. This bill represents the way Congress is supposed to work, and is well-positioned to be one of the most significant bipartisan achievements of the 115th Congress. It also represents an important step in our nation’s ongoing quest for justice.

Our founders declared that Americans have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our criminal justice system needs to reflect these values. That means seeking justice for both the victim and the accused.  Our colleagues in Congress supporting these reforms may not always see eye to eye on every proposal, but we are committed to upholding America’s promise of justice for all.

UPDATE: I now see that the full text of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017 — all 168 pages! — is available at this link.

October 4, 2017 in Aspects and impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Drug Offense Sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS vacates by 6-3 vote lower federal court injunction which would have blocked planned Alabama execution

As reported in this local article, the "U.S. Supreme Court today cleared the way for Alabama's planned execution Thursday of inmate Jeffery Lynn Borden for the Christmas Eve 1993 shooting deaths of his estranged wife and her father in Gardendale." Here is more:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting the request of the Alabama Attorney General's Office to vacate the injunction blocking the execution that had been issued by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  The Attorney General's Office had appealed the 11th Circuit's order to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.  In today's order from the U.S. Supreme Court three justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonja Sotomayor — said they would have denied the Attorney General's request and kept the injunction blocking the execution in place.

The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore.

Over at Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger has this post noting that the issue that led to the injunction concerned efforts by the condemned to contest lethal injection methods based on Alabama use of midazolam in its execution protocol.   Over at SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe has this post with a few additional particulars.

October 4, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5)

Terrific series of postings looking at empirics of the drug war and mass incarceration

Over at Medium, Xenocrypt is working on "five-part series on the effects of 'The War On Drugs' on 'mass incarceration'." Two posts into this series makes it clear that serious folks should spend some serious time looking at this analysis. Here are links to the first two lengthy postings:

Why The War On Drugs Matters In Mass Incarceration, Part 1: Who Goes To Prison.

Why The War On Drugs Matters In Mass Incarceration, Part 2: The Two Dimensions Of Prison Populations.

Here is part of the conclusion of this second post:

Why do different offenses seem important when looking at “prison sentences” as when looking at “prison populations”? To try to understand that, visualize “prison populations” as two-dimensional figures. Different parts of the figure might grow in different ways — and looking at height might tell you something different than looking at area.

According to these visualizations, the 2011 state prison system had more prison terms for drugs, “public order/other”, and lower-level violent and property offenses than the 1980 state prison system, but these were mostly short. Some prison terms did grow longer, but on average mostly for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, rape/sexual assault, robbery, and burglary....

Decomposing prison population growth into admissions and time served isn’t just an intellectual or visualization exercise. As I keep saying in this series, focusing on one statistic glosses over real human consequences. Violent offenders serving longer prison terms, along with additional prison terms for “rape/sexual assault” and “other violent” offenses, really did contribute more to “the incarceration rate” per se than the War on Drugs did.

That doesn’t mean the War on Drugs didn’t happen, or that all those extra prison terms for drugs and other lower-level offenses had no effects.  By placing admissions and time served in different dimensions, we might make that distinction clearer, and more fully understand what mass incarceration has really meant.

October 4, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

After recent SCOTUS win, Duane Buck gets plea deal to avoid any possible return to death row

As reported in this local article, headlined "Condemned inmate Duane Buck escapes death penalty," a Texas murderer consolidated a recent Supreme Court victory assailing his death sentence with a plea deal that ensure he will not return to death row. Here are the details from the start of the article:

Duane Buck — wearing handcuffs, leg irons and the yellow jail uniform of a high-profile inmate — doubled over in his courtroom chair and sobbed. "I'm sorry," he said.

It was the last act of a decades-long battle to execute the 54-year-old convicted killer for a double murder, ending not with lethal injection but a plea deal in a Harris County court.

Buck's courthouse deal was the third Harris County death penalty case stemming from a successful appeal resolved with a plea bargain instead of a retrial under District Attorney Kim Ogg. Buck, whose case went to the U.S. Supreme Court and was sent back to Houston for a retrial because of concerns about racist testimony in his 1997 trial, escaped death row by admitting guilt in the shooting rampage that killed two and injured two others.

The family of Buck's victims, however, were having none of his contrition. "The boy is a cold-blooded murderer," Accie Smith told reporters after the brief hearing. "He is not a victim of racism. He's a cold-blood, calculating murderer."

Smith is one of the older sisters of Debra Gardner, Buck's girlfriend, whom he killed along with her friend Kenneth Butler. After a night of drugs, alcohol and arguing with Gardner in July 1995, Buck broke into her home and shot four people. The victims included his sister, Phyliss Taylor, and his friend Harold Ebenezer, who both survived.

After Tuesday's plea, the slain woman's daughter recounted how she hung from Buck's back as a 13-year-old and tried to keep him from attacking her mother. "You took my mom," said Shenell Gardner. "We both get to live with this. I know what I feel; you feel as well."

The battle to execute Buck began when he was sentenced to die for the slaying of his girlfriend and Butler. After 20 years on death row and several appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year granted Buck a new sentencing hearing because of testimony from an expert who told jurors that Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is black.

Gardner's family members, who are black, said they felt betrayed by the NAACP and black ministers who took up Buck's cause. "They threw us under the bus. What happened today is a travesty and it's a disgrace," Smith, the victim's sister, said. "I will never understand why his life is more important than her life."

On Tuesday, Ogg said she did not believe prosecutors could secure the death penalty again. The defense team would have shown that for 22 years, Buck has been a model prisoner, so he is unlikely to be a future danger. Also, his sister, whom he shot, has argued for leniency in his case.

Instead of going to trial, Ogg offered Buck the opportunity to admit guilt to two additional counts of attempted murder, hoping to stack the deck when the parole board reviews Buck's case in 2035. "A Harris County jury would likely not return a death penalty conviction today in a case that's forever been tainted by the specter of race," she said. The top prosecutor said she hopes the resolution of Buck's case will mark the end of race being used against defendants in capital cases. "Race is never evidence," Ogg said.

The dilemma with Buck getting a life sentence, by either a jury trial or a plea deal, is that he is sentenced according to the law at the time of the crime. Ogg said it was important to keep Buck behind bars for the rest of his life. A sentence of "life without parole" is not an option, even if both sides agreed to it, because that punishment did not exist in 1995.

Prior related posts on SCOTUS ruling:

October 4, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Race, Class, and Gender, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 3, 2017

"Most Women in Prison Are Victims of Domestic Violence. That's Nothing New."

The title of this post is the title of this new Time commentary authored by history Prof Karen Cox. Here are excerpts:

While the mass incarceration of men has dominated the discussion of policing and prisons over the past few years — and rightly so — there’s been a recent shift in thinking about incarcerated women, and not a moment too soon. According to a report by the Vera Institute, women’s incarceration has increased a startling 14-fold since 1970. Like their male counterparts, these women are also overwhelmingly women of color.

Despite the shocking increase in their numbers, however, the specific issues and needs of female prisoners have largely gone ignored. In particular, as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month begins in the U.S., it’s worth noting that the vast majority of women in prison are single mothers who have been victims of domestic and/or sexual violence.

These concerns have rarely been part of prison-reform discussions, and yet this fact is typical of the history of women’s incarceration in our country.... [T]hanks to a unique historical record created by women in a Mississippi prison in the 1930s, it’s possible to see that the similarities between women’s incarceration then and now is significant.  In both periods, women were more likely to be incarcerated for nonviolent crimes than for violent ones. Likewise, many of the incarcerated women in both cases were victims of domestic and sexual violence whose income was vital to their family household....

Nationally, as the Vera Institute Report shows, the overwhelming majority of female prisoners are held for nonviolent offenses and most are women of color. Among them, 86% are victims of sexual violence.

The difficulties faced by female prisoners are now attracting the attention of politicians.  On July 11 of this year, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, or the “Dignity Act,” on behalf of himself and Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Richard Durbin. The bill aims “To improve the treatment of Federal prisoners who are primary caretaker parents.” To that end, the Dignity Act calls for a more generous visitation policy for incarcerated mothers.  If passed, it would also prevent restraining pregnant women by shackling them or placing them in strait jackets, among other forms of restraint.  Prisons would provide parenting classes and trauma-informed care for those who need it, as well as make basic healthcare products like tampons available.  Gynecological care would also be mandatory.

Since July, the Dignity Act has only advanced as far as the Senate Judiciary Committee where no further action has been taken. Given the stark realities of life for incarcerated women, action cannot come soon enough. Our nation can and should do better than to allow Jim Crow-like prison policies to continue unchecked.

October 3, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender | Permalink | Comments (3)

Interesting comments from the new Justice during reargument of vagueness issues in Sessions v. Dimaya

The first week of oral argument in front of the Supreme Court in the 2017 Term includes reargument in two immigration cases, Sessions v. Dimaya and Jennings v. Rodriguez, that raise constitutional question that could have a range of implications for a range of criminal justice issue.  Dimaya is a follow-up on the (new?) doctrines the Supreme Court started developing in Johnson v. US finding a portion of the Armed Career Criminal Act void for vagueness, and Rodriguez involves broad issues of detention length and due process.

Dimaya was argued yesterday, and I have not yet had a chance to read this full argument transcript closely.  But a quick scan of the transcript with a focus on what the new Justice, Neil Gorsuch, had to say revealed that he is already showing a commitment to textualism and seems quite engaged with interesting issues at the intersection of civil and criminal sanctions.  For example, consider this passage at the start of a question a series of questions for the government's lawyer:

First, getting back to the standard of review and the distinction between criminal and civil, this Court seems to have drawn that line based on the severity of the consequences that follow to the individual, but that seems to me a tough line here to draw because I can easily imagine a misdemeanant who may be convicted of a crime for which the sentence is six months in jail or a $100 fine, and he wouldn't trade places in the world for someone who is deported -- deported from this country pursuant to a civil order or perhaps the subject of a civil forfeiture requirement and loses his home.

So how sound is that line that we've drawn in the past, especially when the civil/criminal divide itself is now a seven-part balancing test, not exclusive, so there may be more than seven factors as I understand it.  And I look at the text of the Constitution, always a good place to start, and the Due Process Clause speaks of the loss of life, liberty, or property.  It doesn't draw a civil/criminal line, and yet, elsewhere, even in the Fifth Amendment, I do see that line drawn, the right to self-incrimination, for example. So help me out with that.

Time will tell how this line of inquiry might find expression in opinions of Justice Gorsuch or other justices in the months ahead. Notably, elsewhere in the transcript, it appears the advocates and other Justices follow-up on points made by Justice Gorsuch in ways that provide further proof that the addition of a single new Justice does serve in some ways to change the entire Court.

UPDATE:  Not very long after this post went up, Kevin Johnson posted at SCOTUSblog this analysis of the Dimaya oral argument under the title "Faithful to Scalia, Gorsuch may be deciding vote for immigrant." Here is his final paragraph:

In sum, the oral argument suggests that Dimaya has a fair chance of prevailing in the Supreme Court.  Gorsuch, the possible deciding vote in the case, seemed willing to apply Scalia’s opinion in Johnson to Dimaya’s case -- maybe even more faithfully than Scalia himself would have done.  And Gorsuch had ready responses to line-drawing and other problems that might arise if the vagueness doctrine were held to invalidate the immigration statute’s residual clause.

October 3, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Vagueness in Johnson and thereafter, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5)

Five notable GOP Senators introduce Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017

Download (3)As reported in this press release, yesterday "Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), David Perdue (R-GA), and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation to strengthen criminal intent protections in federal law."  Here is more from the press release:

Their bill, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017, would set a default intent standard for all criminal laws and regulations that lack such a standard.  This legislation would ensure that courts and creative prosecutors do not take the absence of a criminal intent standard to mean that the government can obtain a conviction without any proof a guilty mind....

“Prosecutors should have to show a suspect had a guilty mind, not just that they committed an illegal act, before an American is put behind bars,” Sen. Lee said. “Unfortunately our federal laws contain far too many provisions that do not require prosecutors to prove a defendant intended to commit a crime.  The result is criminal justice system that over penalizes innocent acts which only undermines the rule of law."

“I’m proud to join Sen. Hatch in addressing one of the biggest flaws in our modern criminal justice system,”Sen. Cruz said. “Currently, the federal government can send men and women to prison without demonstrating criminal intent.  As Congress works to address criminal justice reform, the Mens Rea Reform Act needs to be enacted to protect the rights of all Americans.”

The press release includes "Statements of Support" from John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and David Patton of the Federal Defenders of New York.   And in conjunction with this bill introduction, Senator Hatch Senator Hatch yesterday delivered this speech on the Senate floor about the need for mens rea reform.  Here are excerpts from that speech:

Like many of my colleagues, I believe Congress has criminalized far too much conduct and has mandated overly harsh penalties for too many crimes. A number of my colleagues have sought to address these problems by cutting prison sentences, altering statutory minimums, or releasing prisoners earlier for good behavior. But as we seek to reform the criminal justice system, we must be careful not to overlook one of the major roots of the problem: the lack of adequate criminal intent requirements in federal criminal statutes....

Unfortunately, many of our current criminal laws and regulations contain inadequate mens rea requirements — and some contain no mens rea requirement at all. This leaves individuals vulnerable to prosecution for conduct they believed to be lawful.

In recent years, as Congress and federal agencies have criminalized more behavior, they have often been vague about mens rea requirements, or even silent about mens rea altogether. In a 2014 Tennessee Law Review article, Michael Cottone investigated how many federal criminal statutes there are in the US code. Mr. Cottone explained that “tellingly, no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given.” Most scholars agree there are approximately 5,000 federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions. But those criminal statutes do not include the nearly 300,000 federal regulations that also carry criminal penalties.

With so many criminal laws on the books, it’s far too easy for Americans to break federal laws unwittingly, with no understanding whatsoever that their behavior is illegal. For example, did you know it’s a federal crime to write a check for an amount less than $1 dollar? Or that it’s a federal crime to allow a pet to make a noise that frightens wildlife on federal land? Even more incredibly, did you know it’s a federal crime to keep a pet on a leash that exceeds six feet in length on federal land?

Mr. President, these are only a few examples of unlawful activities that reasonable people could not reasonably be expected to know. What’s worse, many of these unlawful activities are punishable by time in prison. This is not only ridiculous; it’s immoral. The lack of adequate mens rea requirements in our federal criminal code subjects innocent people to unjustified punishment....

Our bill sets a default intent requirement of willfulness for all federal criminal offenses that lack an intent requirement. Additionally, the bill defines willfulness to mean that the person acted with knowledge that his or her conduct was unlawful. Naturally, our bill does not apply to any offenses that Congress clearly intended to be strict liability offenses. Our proposal has garnered widespread support from a variety of organizations, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Koch Industries, the Federal Defenders, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Federal Defenders, and the Heritage Foundation, just to name a few. Importantly, our bill does not remove any crimes from the books, nor does it override any existing mens rea standards written in statute. Moreover, it does not limit Congress’s authority to create new criminal offenses—including strict liability offenses.

Mr. President, mens rea really is a simple issue. Individuals should not be threatened with prison time for accidently committing a crime or for engaging in an activity they did not know was wrong. If Congress wants to criminalize an activity, and does not want to include any sort of criminal intent requirement, Congress should have to specify in statute that it is creating a strict liability offense.

I believe this simple legislative solution will go a long way in reducing harsh sentences for morally innocent offenders. It will also push back against the overcriminalization of innocent behavior. As I’ve said many times, any consideration of criminal justice reform or sentencing reform is incomplete without reforms to mens rea requirements.

I cannot yet find the full text of the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017 on-line, but I suspect it is very similar if not identical to the previously introduced Mens Rea Reform Act of 2015 available here.  It does not seem that Senator Hatch was a cosponsor of the 2015 version of this bill, so I think it is a very good sign that Senator Hatch is now apparently leading the charge for this reform (and doing so by stressing that he believes Congress has "mandated overly harsh penalties for too many crimes").

As long-time readers recall (and as detailed in some prior posts below), there is reason to believe that misguided opposition to this kind of mens rea reform by the Obama Administration and some Democrats contributed to the failure of bipartisan sentencing reforms to make it through Congress.  I am hopeful (but not optimistic) that the current Administration is more supportive of this kind of mens rea reform; I am also hopeful that this bill might be linked to broader sentencing reform efforts and that both might get moving forward in the legislative process in the coming weeks and months.

Some recent and older related posts:

October 3, 2017 in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

"What’s Behind the Decline in the Death Penalty?"

The title of this post is the headline of this new Marshall Project Q&A with Prof Brandon Garrett inspired by his new book, "End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice."  Here is how the Q&A gets set up, along with the concluding Qs and As:

There are four men left on death row in Virginia, and only 31 people were sentenced to death in the entire U.S. last year, compared with more than 300 per year in the mid-1990s. The numbers are stark, but if you ask the experts — lawyers, scholars, activists, judges — why the death penalty has begun to fade in the U.S., you get all sorts of answers, many of them frustratingly vague.

The crime rate dropped, so there have been fewer murders to punish. A few states abolished the punishment outright. The cost of death penalty cases went up, and prosecutors grew worried about their budgets. States passed laws making life without parole an option for certain aggravated murders, meaning there was a sufficiently harsh alternative to the death penalty. All those DNA exonerations raised the specter of an innocent person being killed. In elections for district attorney, voters in Houston and Philadelphia replaced death-penalty champions with skeptics.

University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett’s new book, “End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice,” represents a major new effort to untangle these factors. He also analyzes the decline for lessons that might be applied to the criminal justice system as a whole. We discussed his findings by email....

If the crime rate goes back up, do you think there will be more death sentences, or have these standards of better lawyering changed the game enough to survive big political shifts?  What happens if there is a return to the murder rates of the 1980s?

The American death penalty has always been more about political posturing than a genuine attempt to make the punishment fit the crime. Meanwhile, crime continues to decline.  If murder rate trends do completely reverse, then there could be pressure to take more tough-on-crime approaches.  But I think people have learned the lesson the hard way that you can’t death-sentence or imprison your way out of crime.  We now know when jurors hear the whole story, even in death penalty cases, they are reluctant to impose death sentences.  Even if more prosecutors suddenly started seeking the death penalty, the results would likely not be good for them.

In your book, there is a tension about the future: On the one hand, the decline of death sentences has shown how “mercy” among jurors can triumph given the right conditions; on the other hand, the decline has led to a massive expansion of life-without-parole sentences, which Pope Francis has called "hidden death sentences."  How do you resolve that tension?  What do you think opponents of long sentences should do going forward to bring more mercy into the system?

Only about 2,800 prisoners sit on death row today, but over 50,000 prisoners are serving life without parole, and about 200,000 prisoners have life sentences, according to a Sentencing Project report.  I tell the story in my book of Joseph Sledge, who received two life sentences, and since he did not get a death sentence, he was not entitled to receive lawyers from the state once his appeals ran out.  For decades, he filed habeas petitions himself and wrote letters.  After almost 40 years in prison in North Carolina, a letter to an innocence project led to DNA tests that proved his innocence.

We need to do something about the explosion of these life sentences in America.  We have replaced the death penalty with the “other death penalty.”  Even juveniles can still get life-without-parole sentences, although the Supreme Court has said it cannot be mandatory.  To imprison people, sometimes very young people, with no hope of release or redemption is inhumane.

October 3, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 2, 2017

Anyone have any wise insights after latest and worst US mass shooting?

I am soon to go off-line to prepare and then teach my 1L Criminal Law class in which we are starting an in-depth discussion of homicide laws.  In the wake of horrific events in Las Vegas, which according to the latest reports, involved a gunman's murder of "at least 58 people" and hundreds more injured, I am eager to say something wise to my students before we get started with our regular programming.  But I am not sure I have much wisdom on this front. 

As some long-time readers may recall, after some recent past mass shooting, especially Sandy Hook, I talked up the possibility of smart gun technologies being at least a partial plausible "solution" to mass shootings and extensive gun violence.  (A bunch of those prior posts are linked below.)  But I am not sure such technology could have made any difference in this latest evil killing, and I am sure that the failure of the Obama Administration or progressive states to make any progress on the smart gun front in recent years likely signals that it would be foolish to hope or expect a technological remedy to our massive gun violence problem.

Notably, Nicholas Kristof already has this op-ed up at the New York Times headlined "Preventing Future Mass Shootings Like Las Vegas."  Here are some of his closing sentiments, which strike me as thoughtful, if not quite wise:

It’s too soon to know what, if anything, might have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas, and it may be that nothing could have prevented it. In some ways, these mass shootings are anomalies: Most gun deaths occur in ones or twos, usually with handguns (which kill far more people than assault rifles), and suicides outnumber murders.

But in every other sphere, we at least use safety regulations to try — however imperfectly — to reduce death and injury.  For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has seven pages of rules about ladders, which kill 300 people a year.  Yet the federal government doesn’t make a serious effort to reduce gun deaths, with a toll more than 100 times as high.

The best example of intelligent regulation is auto safety.  By my calculations, we’ve reduced the auto fatality rate per 100 million miles driven by more than 95 percent since 1921. There was no single solution but rather many incremental efforts: seatbelts, air bags, padded dashboards, better bumpers, lighted roads, highway guardrails, graduated licenses for young people, crackdowns on drunken driving, limits on left turns, and so on.  We haven’t banned automobiles, and we haven’t eliminated auto deaths, but we have learned to make them safer — and we should do the same with guns.

The analogy between driving/cars and guns does not quite work for a variety of reasons, but there is surely a kind of wisdom in the idea that we can and should try to improve gun safety in a variety of incremental ways without the political and practical problems posed by proposals involving prohibitions.  And, perhaps ironically, Prez Donald Trump may be better positioned than any recent president to navigate the challenging gun politics that often impeded efforts to improve gun safety.  Though I have little reason to believe Prez Trump will be eager to make improving gun safety a political priority, not long ago I had little reason to believe that there would ever be a Prez Trump.  

A few recent and older related posts:

October 2, 2017 in Gun policy and sentencing, Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (27)

"Plea Bargains Are a Travesty. There's Another Way."

I just noticed this recent Megan McArdle commentary at Bloomberg View which is summarized by its subheadline: "Better to apply fewer laws more consistently than to continue the U.S.’s current 'randomized draconianism'." Here are excerpts:

The justice system is no longer set up to provide an innocent man his day in court. It is a machine for producing plea bargains in industrial quantities.

It can operate no other way, because the volume of cases is far larger than the court system can actually handle.  So instead of trials that take a long time and cost a lot of money but ideally separate the guilty from the innocent, we have become dependent on an assembly line where the accused go in at one end and come out the other a (relatively) short time later -- as convicted criminals, regardless of their guilt or innocence, but with shorter sentences than they would have faced if convicted at trial and with smaller lawyers’ bills than they would have faced if they had gone to trial....

The most obvious way to begin repairing this broken system is to spend more money building courtrooms and hiring judges, so that defendants actually do have a chance at their constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial.  We should also take a long, hard look at the number of things that are crimes, and the sentencing laws that require many crimes be requited with very harsh penalties.

Most our mass incarceration problem is a sentencing problem, driven by both mandatory minimums and prosecutors who are rewarded for being “tough on crime.” These factors aggravate the flaws of the plea-bargaining system.  Prosecutors can threaten to prosecute on draconian charges, which carry draconian sentences -- and all but force a defendant, even an innocent one, to take a plea bargain, with a lesser charge and a lesser sentence.  Defendants (guilty and innocent alike) usually conclude that the risk of going to trial is simply too great.  And the plea bargains, in turn, keep the machine from choking on the volume of cases being run through it. Instead it grinds out a very poor substitute for justice.

Reducing the number of laws and reducing the ability (or requirement) for prosecutors to secure serious jail time for so many offenses would reduce mass incarceration and start to unclog our court system.  We should do these things.  Unfortunately, they won’t be enough.

While the popular picture among de-incarceration advocates is of prisons and courtrooms is of a system choked with nonviolent drug offenders, in fact, the system handles an immense amount of real, harmful crime.  We’re not going to decriminalize theft or assault or robbery, nor should we.  If we really want a justice system that is not too overwhelmed to provide justice, we are going to have to focus on reducing crime....

Mark Kleiman of NYU, who has taught me most of what I know about crime policy, wrote a brilliant book called “When Brute Force Fails,” on the ways we can retool the justice system to actually reduce crime, rather than simply punishing it more harshly.  Kleiman is liberal, but conservatives should have no fear: This is not a book about how we need loads more social spending and liberal policies to address the “root causes.”  This is a book about how we can police and punish more effectively.  The sort of proposals that should be welcomed by left and right alike.

Kleiman’s ideas and insights are too many to sum up in a column, so I’ll focus on a core observation: Bad policing, and bad prison policy, can create more crime. Our current justice system provides what Kleiman calls “randomized draconianism”: Your odds of getting caught and punished are not very high, but if you are caught, you’ll get treated very harshly.  The likelihood of punishment is so low that there is no deterrent effect to prevent crime, and the severity of punishment is so harsh that it may simply make those who are caught more likely to commit further crimes....

What’s the alternative?  Raise the odds of punishment, and lower the severity.  That means more police on the streets, focused on steadily reducing crime hot-spots and making it unattractive to take up a life of crime in the first place. It means probation and parole systems that provide much more intensive monitoring, but use lighter sanctions like a night or two in jail, rather than revoking someone’s parole and sending them back to prison for five years.  It means exploring new technologies that allow us to put people under “house arrest” of varying intensity.  In the short term, this will mean spending more money and effort on the system.  But there’s good news: Prison is so expensive that even many expensive programs can save money on net if they keep people out of long prison terms.

October 2, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (4)

First big SCOTUS order list has lots of big "cert denied" decisions in big sentencing cases

In prior posts here and here and here, I flagged a couple of commentaries that had flagged Supreme Court cert petitions to watch with the start of a new SCOTUS Term.  A lot of folks have been paying particular attention to two sex offender cases, Karsjens v. Piper (concerning the constitutionality of Minnesota Sex Offender Program), and Snyder v. Does (concerning retroactive application of Michigan's sex offender registry). 

This morning, the Supreme Court released this 75-page order list in which it denied cert on both of these closely-watched cases.  The order list also reveals SCOTUS also denied cert in a number of other cases of likely interest to sentencing fans, such as various cases concerning the application of the Eighth Amendment limit on LWOP juve sentences set out in Graham and Miller.  As detailed in this post last week, the Supreme Court already added a few criminal cases to its docket as it got back to work for the Term.  But none of the new cases it has taken up are likely blockbusters or possibly as consequential as the cases it now has officially decided not to review. 

For a variety of reasons, I am not too surprised by these denials of cert.  Despite my own wishful thinking that the addition of Justice Gorsuch might juice the parts of the docket I find most exciting, I am largely expecting a relatively quiet Term on the sentencing front.  That all said, hope springs eternal, and hope for some exciting grants might be renewed when the fine folks at SCOTUSblog figure out which cases are missing from this new order list and become hot prospects as "relisted" petitions.

October 2, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Sex Offender Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 1, 2017

Interesting look at what prison consultants advise as elites head to prison

This MarketWatch article, headlined "When the rich get sent to prison, they call these wise guys first," provides an interesting little looking into an interesting little segment of the "prison-industrial complex." Here is how the article gets started:

Former congressman Anthony Weiner cried when a judge sentenced him to 21 months in prison last week for sexting with a 15-year-old girl. Prison is tough and most felons have no idea what to expect. For a few thousand dollars, however, high-profile felons like Weiner can hire a “prison consultant” to help smooth the transition to life behind bars.

For non-violent criminals like Weiner and “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli — who’s now behind bars in a Brooklyn jail — prison “is a totally different environment than they’ve ever been, it’s crazy in there,” said Michael Frantz, director of Jail Time Consulting, who served 36 months in a federal facility for tax evasion.

“They come from a world where there’s order,” Frantz said. “They have people under them and tell them what to do. When you get into federal prison, you have no control whatsoever. In the real world, there’s order and rational thinking. In the Bureau of Prisons there’s absolutely no rational thinking.”

Weiner’s attorney didn’t respond to a question on whether he’s using a prison consultant, and neither did the lawyer for Shkreli, who was recently sent to a Brooklyn detention center while he awaits sentencing on fraud charges. But Weiner and Shkreli are just the type of convicts who typically use prison consultants. They’ve already helped the likes of Bernie Madoff and Martha Stewart.

What do these prison preppers do? A combination hand-holder, shoulder-to-cry-on, and red tape slicer, prison consultants prep future inmates for life behind bars, teach them how to make the best use of their time “on the inside,” and can even help inmates shave time off their sentences. Many of the consultants have been to prison themselves and know from personal experience how to navigate the Bureau of Prisons bureaucracy.

Prices for their services range from $500 for advocating for better medical care in prison to $20,000 for comprehensive post-prison consulting to help ex-inmates rebuild their lives by starting new businesses — in fields they’re not legally barred from working in — or writing books.

Marketwatch talked to prison consultants to find out how they would advise Weiner and Shkreli. The best part? Many of these tips work for non-criminals too.

For what it is worth, I think "absolutely no rational thinking" is big part of the reason Anthony Weiner is headed to prison.

October 1, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, White-collar sentencing | Permalink | Comments (2)

"South Dakota Swaps Lawyers for Tablets in Prisons"

The title of this post is the headline of this Courthouse News Service article that struck me as linguistically and conceptually amusing on a number of levels. Substantively, however, I am not sure anyone should be amused by what the body of the story reports:

Sometime in the next few days, inmates in South Dakota prisons will start counting on tablet computers – not a state-funded, in-prison attorney or paralegal – to help them with their cases.  The South Dakota Department of Corrections did not renew a contract for attorney Delmar “Sonny” Walter and his paralegals, who since the early 2000s have assisted the state’s prison population with research and filing of legal documents ranging from habeas petitions to child support documents.

Corrections secretary Denny Kaemingk told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader the move will save taxpayers money. But one prisoner’s rights attorney has concerns.  “What’s someone who can’t read or write or can’t do so fully effectively or without mental illness supposed to do with a tablet?” said David M. Shapiro, clinical assistant professor of law at Northwestern University’s Roderick MacArthur Justice Center. “It’s a pennywise, pound-foolish approach.”

This past May, the state announced every one South Dakota’s approximately 3,000 inmates would receive a free tablet computer.  This allows the inmates longer phone calls, subscriptions to online movies and music, and text messaging with loved ones. Inmates also now have access to law-references websites such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. It was a change supported by Walter, the on-site attorney, but he’s doubtful the technical upgrade is a substitute for legal insight from professionals.

“The things we did made the institution run smoother,” Walter said, noting his staff did everything to help inmates -- most legal novices unfamiliar with complex documents -- with everything from knowledgeably preparing appeals to making copies to helping inmates with medication requests.  “We helped the inmates get into court in a number of ways, and now they won’t have that stuff.”

In 1999, a state judge ruled the prisons must provide “legal assistance” for inmates.  The program -- which cost the state $276,000 in 2017 -- has never been luxurious.  “In Springfield (the Mike Durfee State Prison) we were basically in a closet,” Walter said. “These inmates had maybe two to four hours a week. They often had to choose between a doctor’s appointment or researching their case.”...

He predicts the state will soon see another access lawsuit. “A book isn’t going to make you a lawyer. These people need legal assistance.”...

In the past year, falling revenue has forced South Dakota to cut back on projects and revise spending goals. In part, providing inmates with tablets was an effort to lower re-offense rates and reduce taxpayers’ burden.  Shapiro, the Northwestern law professor, argues this nickel-and-dime cost-cutting distracts from a bigger problem.  “At the end of the day, America has more people locked up than any other country on earth,” he said in a phone interview. “A reduction in incarceration would lead to genuine savings.”

October 1, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)