« October 1, 2017 - October 7, 2017 | Main | October 15, 2017 - October 21, 2017 »

October 13, 2017

"Financing the War on Drugs: The Impact of Law Enforcement Grants on Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests"

The title of this post is the title of this notable paper authored by Robynn Cox and Jamein Cunningham that I just noticed on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

We estimate the effectiveness of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a grant program authorized under the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act to combat illicit drug abuse and to improve the criminal justice system, on racial bias in policing. Funds for the Byrne Grant program could be used for a variety of purposes to combat drug crimes, as well as violent and other drug related crimes.

The event-study analysis suggests that implementation of this grant resulted in an increase in police hiring and an increase in arrests for drug trafficking. Post-treatment effect implies a 107 percent increase in white arrests for drug sales compared to a 44 percent increase for blacks 6 years after the first grant is received.  However, due to historical racial differences in drug arrests, the substantial increase in white drug arrest still results in large racial disparities in drug arrests.  This is supported by weighted least squares regression estimates that show, for every $100 increase in Byrne Grant funding, arrests for drug trafficking increased by roughly 22 per 100,000 white residents and by 101 arrests per 100,000 black residents.

The results provide strong evidence that federal involvement in narcotic control and trafficking lead to an increase in drug arrests; disproportionally affecting blacks.

October 13, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Just a handful of headlines from the various front-lines of the opioid epidemic

I could readily fill this blog multiple times a day with tales of the opioid epidemic given the size and reach of the problem and the attention it is getting from many quarters.  In my view, the epidemic is, first and foremost, a public health issue.  But, as I say often on in this space and elsewhere, every major issues of public policy is a criminal justice/sentencing issue in some way.  These recent stories/headlined highlight these realities in various ways: 

October 13, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (5)

"The Federal Rules of Inmate Appeals"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper by Catherine Struve now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure turn fifty in 2018. During the Rules’ half-century of existence, the number of federal appeals by self-represented, incarcerated litigants has grown dramatically.  This article surveys ways in which the procedure for inmate appeals has evolved over the past 50 years, and examines the challenges of designing procedures with confined litigants in mind. 

In the initial decades under the Appellate Rules, the most visible developments concerning the procedure for inmate appeals arose from the interplay between court decisions and the federal rulemaking process. But, as court dockets swelled, the circuits also developed local case management practices that significantly affect inmate appeals.  And, in the 1990s, Congress enacted legislation that produced major changes in inmate litigation, including inmate appeals.

In the coming years, the most notable new driver of change in the procedure for inmate appeals may be the advent of opportunities for electronic court filing within prisons. That nascent development illustrates the ways in which the particulars of procedure in inmate appeals are shaped by systems in prisons, jails, and other facilities -- and underscores the salience of local court practices and institutional partnerships.

October 13, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 12, 2017

Texas carries out 20th execution in US in 2017

With only 20 executions carried out in the United States in 2016, last year saw the fewest total nationwide executions in a quarter century.  The national execution pace in 2017 is not much quicker, but an execution completed tonight in Texas means the US will not in 2017 see a decline in total executions for the first time in a number of years.   The Texas execution is number 20 for the US in 2017, and this AP article reports on its particulars:

A Texas inmate convicted in the death of a prison guard has been put to death after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his lawyer's attempts to halt the execution.

Robert Pruett was given a lethal injection Thursday evening for the December 1999 death of corrections officer Daniel Nagle at a prison southeast of San Antonio. Nagle was repeatedly stabbed with a tape-wrapped metal rod, though an autopsy showed he died from a heart attack that the assault caused. Prosecutors have said the attack stemmed from a dispute over a peanut butter sandwich that Pruett wanted to take into a recreation yard against prison rules.

The 38-year-old Pruett was already serving a 99-year sentence for a neighbor's killing near Houston when he was convicted in Nagle's death. Pruett's execution is the sixth this year in Texas.

This Death Penalty Information Center page indicates that there are nine more serious execution dates in 2017. Even if all these executions are completed (which seems a bit unlikely), there would still be fewer executions in the US in 2017 than in every single year between 1992 and 2014.

October 12, 2017 in Data on sentencing, Death Penalty Reforms | Permalink | Comments (18)

Big new report provides state-by-state guide to expungement and rights restoration

Report-coverAs detailed in this new post over at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, the folks at CCRC have just published this big new report on state expungement and rights restoration practices under the title "Forgiving and Forgetting in American Justice: A 50-State Guide to Expungement and Restoration of Rights." This CCRC post provides this account of the new report's coverage and goals:

This report catalogues and analyzes the various provisions for relief from the collateral consequences of conviction that are now operating in each state, including judicial record-sealing and certificates of relief, executive pardon, and administrative nondiscrimination statutes. Its goal is to facilitate a national conversation about how those who have a criminal record may best regain their legal rights and social status.

Given the millions of Americans who have a criminal record, and the proliferation of laws and policies excluding them from a wide range of opportunities and benefits, there is a critical need for reliable and accessible relief provisions to maximize the chances that these individuals can live productive and law-abiding lives after completion of their court-imposed sentences. Whatever their form, relief provisions must reckon with the easy availability of criminal records, and the pervasive discrimination that frustrates the rehabilitative goals of the justice system.

It is not the report’s purpose to recommend any specific approach to relief. Rather, our goal is simply to survey the present legal landscape for the benefit of the policy discussions now underway in legislatures across the country. We are mindful of the fact that very little empirical research has been done to measure outcomes of the various schemes described, many of which are still in their infancy. It is therefore hard to say with any degree of certainty which approach works best to reintegrate individuals with a record into their communities. At the same time, we hope that our description of state relief mechanisms will inform the work of lawyers and other advocates currently working to assist affected individuals in dealing with the lingering burdens imposed by an adverse encounter with the justice system.

The title of the report provides a framework for analyzing different types of relief provisions. For most of our history, executive pardon constituted the principal way that persons convicted of a felony could “pay their debt to society” and regain their rights as citizens. This traditional symbol of official forgiveness was considered ineffective by mid-20th century reformers, who sought to shift responsibility for restoration to the courts. The reforms they proposed took two quite different approaches: One authorized judges to limit public access to an individual’s record through expungement or sealing, and the other assigned judges something akin to the executive’s pardoning role, through deferred dispositions and certificates of relief. These two approaches to restoration have existed side by side for more than half a century and have never been fully reconciled.

Today, with a new focus on reentry and rehabilitation, policy-makers are again debating whether it is more effective to forgive a person’s past crimes (through pardon or judicial dispensation) or to forget them (through record-sealing or expungement). Despite technological advances and now-pervasive background-checking practices, many states have continued to endorse the forgetting approach, at least for less serious offenses and records not resulting in conviction. At the same time, national law reform organizations have proposed more transparent judicial forgiving or dispensing mechanisms. While the analytical model of “forgiving v. forgetting” is necessarily imperfect given the wide variety of relief provisions operating in the states, it seems to capture the basic distinction between an approach that would mitigate or avoid the adverse consequences of past crimes, and an approach that would limit access to information about those crimes.

The report organizes relief provisions into six categories: executive pardon, judicial record-closing, deferred adjudication, certificates of relief, fair employment and licensing laws, and restoration of voting rights. The judgments made about the availability of each form of relief, reflected in color-coded maps, are in many cases necessarily subjective, and we have done our best to explain our approach in each case.

More detailed information about different forms of relief is available from the state-by-state summaries that are the heart of the report. Citations to relevant laws and comparisons of the laws of each state are included in the 50-state charts in Appendices A & B. Up-to-date summaries and charts are available from the Restoration of Rights Project, which additionally includes in-depth discussions of the law and policy in its state-by-state “profiles.” This information is updated by the authors on a real-time basis, and we expect to republish this report from time to time when warranted by changes in the law.

October 12, 2017 in Clemency and Pardons, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Can Republicans get sentencing reform past Trump and his base?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this new Salon article.  Here is how it gets started:

With the presidential election in the rearview mirror, a genuinely bipartisan group of senators, led by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, are hoping for real movement on the issue of criminal justice reform.  Last week, Grassley and Durbin introduced a new version of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a bill Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell killed off during the campaign season, seemingly for political reasons.

This coalition that supports reduced sentences for nonviolent offenses even has an audience in the White House: Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, hosted a bipartisan dinner with prominent senators to discuss the issue.

But even though it's not an election year, there's real reason to believe that this move towards criminal justice reform is opening up fissures in the conservative coalition.  Bluntly put, the more racist forces in the party — the ones that got Trump nominated and elected in the first place — don't like the idea of criminal justice reform and aren't afraid to kick up an intra-party fights in order to maintain the staggeringly high imprisonment levels in the United States.

"Most of the mainstream Republican party, traditional Republican leaders like Chuck Grassley, are very invested in the criminal justice debate. They want to see it done," Ames Grawert, counsel for the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, explained to Salon.  "It’s this insurgency alt-right side, of which I think Jeff Sessions is one iteration, that is opposing sentencing reform to any extent."

The fight against mass incarceration has been largely associated with the left and the Democrats — Hillary Clinton's campaign platform promoted policies aimed at ending the era of mass incarceration, for example — but there's actually been a surprising amount of leadership from Republicans on this issue over the past few years.  Republican-controlled state governments such as those in Texas, Georgia and Kentucky have made real progress in trying to reduce their prison populations through surprisingly progressive reforms.  And most people familiar with the issue say that Republican senators like Grassley, Mike Lee of Utah and Tim Scott of South Carolina are really dedicated to reducing long prison sentences, especially for nonviolent, drug-related offenses.

The reasons for this shift are both moral and pragmatic. "When the fiscal crisis hit," said Inimai Chettiar, director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program said, conservatives "were much more focused on this fiscal angle," but added that a growing church-based effort to reach out to imprisoned populations has also led many Republicans to come to this "from a moral angle and a religious angle."

“When faced with the need to save costs, they couldn’t help but notice the burdens that departments of corrections were creating,” added Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives for the Sentencing Project, in discussing why state-level Republicans have taken the lead on this issue.  Gotsch also feels that mass incarceration is such a widespread problem that it's "hard for anyone not to know someone who’s been touched by the criminal justice system."  This, she feels, is also provoking more compassion from some Republicans.

October 12, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

New Sentencing Project fact sheets on disparities in youth incarceration and comments to USSC on incarceration alternatives

Via email I learned of these two new fact sheets from The Sentencing Project highlighting incarceration disparities among youth of color:

In addition, the folks at the Sentencing Project have recently posted here public comment submitted to the US Sentencing Commission on the USSC's "First Offenders/Alternatives to Incarceration" proposed amendment.  The comments to the USSC starts this way:

The undersigned applaud the Sentencing Commission’s consideration of an amendment to increase the availability of sentences of alternatives to incarceration within the federal sentencing guidelines.  The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which created the guideline system wisely recognized the appropriateness of non-incarceration sentences in certain cases.  Since that time criminological research has underscored Congress’s assumptions, and evidence suggests that a broader cohort of people than at present could be sentenced within the federal system more efficiently without incarceration. Doing so would not compromise public safety, but would save tax dollars, preserve families and enhance rehabilitation.

October 12, 2017 in Data on sentencing, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 11, 2017

"Is Having Too Many Aggravating Factors the Same as Having None at All?: A Comment on the Hidalgo Cert. Petition"

The title of this post is the title of this short commentary authored by Chad Flanders that a helpful reader alerted me to.  Here is a paragraph from the introduction:

[This] paper proceeds in three short parts.  The first part sets out the argument in the Hidalgo petition and explains its claim that having too many aggravating factors is as ineffective as having no aggravating factors.  The second part provides a straightforward critique of the Hidalgo argument along the lines detailed above — that the fact that aggravating factors may cover a large number of actual murders does not say much (indeed, practically nothing in the abstract) about whether those aggravating factors “narrow” the class of the death eligible.  In the third part, I suggest that the “multiple aggravators” argument is in essence a version of the original worry about broad and amorphous aggravating factors.  But this critique means analyzing how aggravators work (individually and together) as a conceptual matter, rather than analyzing whether all murders committed in the state happen to fit under one of the aggravating factors.

October 11, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

"Justice for Veterans: Does Theory Matter?"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Kristine Huskey and now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Veterans Treatment Court (“VTC”) movement is sweeping the nation.  In 2008, there were approximately five courts. Currently, there are over 350 VTCs and veteran-oriented tracks in the United States. Most view this rapid proliferation as a positive phenomenon.  VTC growth, however, has occurred haphazardly and most often without deliberate foundational underpinnings.

While most scholars assume that a therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ”) modality is the paradigm for VTCs, there has been little examination of other theories of justice as appropriate for veterans and the courts that treat them.  This Article addresses whether an alternative theory of justice — specifically, restorative justice (“RJ”) — can inform the theoretical foundation of a VTC to enhance its beneficial impact on veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), or substance abuse issues.  A primary feature of the RJ philosophy is that it is community-driven: it involves the victim, offender, and “community of interests” in the solution, process of restoration, and prevention of future misconduct.  These principles are well suited for a VTC, which is also collaborative, community-based, and places extreme importance on the reintegration of the veteran back into society.  These characteristics stem from an evolved theory that the community is ultimately responsible for the misconduct that was caused by the defendant’s military service.  A hypothetical criminal case common in a VTC illustrates that RJ principles and framework may enhance the beneficial impact of VTCs.  RJ may be just the theory of justice that brings to bear Sebastian Junger’s notion of a tribe as a means for the successful reintegration of veterans back into the community.

October 11, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Judge Kozinski, in dissent, laments the "cruel and expensive hoax" of the death penalty in California

A divided Ninth Circuit panel issued an extended opinion yesterday in Kirkpatrick v. Chappell, No. 14-99001 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2017) (available here), that keeps alive a habeas claim that of a California murderer trying to stay alive decades after being sentenced to death for a double murder committed in 1983. The bulk of the ruling, with a majority ruling by Judge Reinhardt and a dissent by Judge Kozinski, concerns the intricacies of appellate and habeas procedure. But the last four pages of Judge Kozinski's dissent are what make the opinion blog-worthy, and here is a taste from its start and end (without the copious cites):

But none of this matters because California doesn’t have a death penalty.  Sure, there’s a death row in California — the biggest in the Western Hemisphere. But there have been only thirteen executions since 1976, the most recent over ten years ago.  Death row inmates in California are far more likely to die from natural causes or suicide than execution....

Meanwhile, the people of California labor under the delusion that they live in a death penalty state.  They may want capital punishment to save innocent lives by deterring murders.  But executions must actually be carried out if they’re to have any deterrent effect.  Maybe death penalty supporters believe in just retribution; that goal, too, is frustrated if there’s no active execution chamber.  Or perhaps the point is closure for victims’ families, but these are surely false hopes.  Kirkpatrick murdered Rose Falconio’s sixteen-year-old son more than thirty years ago, and her finality is nowhere near.  If the death penalty is to serve whatever purpose its proponents envision, it must actually be carried out. A phantom death penalty is a cruel and expensive hoax.

Which is why it doesn’t matter what we hold today.  One way or the other, Kirkpatrick will go on to live a long life “driv[ing] everybody else crazy,” while copious tax dollars are spent litigating his claims.  And my colleagues and I will continue to waste countless hours disputing obscure points of law that have no relevance to the heinous crimes for which Kirkpatrick and his 746 housemates continue to evade their lawful punishment.  It’s as if we’re all performers in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.  We make exaggerated gestures and generate much fanfare. But in the end it amounts to nothing.

October 11, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (25)

"'Cooking Them to Death': The Lethal Toll of Hot Prisons"

The title of this post is the headline of this remarkable new Marshall Project reporting discussing the modern practical problems one finds at the intersection of climate change and modern incarceration practices. The reporting includes this 20-minute documentary put together by the Weather Channel, the Marshall Project and Divided Films. And here is a bit of the written piece:

Most Americans have felt the effects of an increasingly hotter planet. In recent decades, changes in climate have brought higher average temperatures and longer heat waves. But few are as vulnerable to weather trends as incarcerated people, a point underscored in August when thousands were evacuated from Texas prisons ahead of Hurricane Harvey. While some state prison systems — plus federal prisons and military detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay — keep temperatures within a liveable range, many do not, according to a 2015 Columbia Law School report. Prisoners often live without air-conditioning in areas where temperatures exceed 100 degrees for days at a time and the heat index, which records how hot it feels with humidity, has hit 150 degrees.

The human body is built to cool itself by sweating and dilating blood vessels, but those self-cooling mechanisms can break down. “When the humidity is really high, the sweat can’t evaporate,” said Susi Vassallo, M.D., a New York University professor in emergency medicine who studies thermoregulation. “It just rolls off your body, without cooling it.” Heat stroke victims may become delirious and start seizing and convulsing. “The cells of the body start to cook and fall apart,” said Vassallo, who has testified against prison agencies in lawsuits over heat conditions.

Although there are no national figures on how many prisoners die of heat illness, horror stories emerge every summer: inmates screaming “Help us!” out of the windows of a St. Louis jail; New Hampshire men flooding their scorching cells to cool them down; Arizona prisoners whose shoes melt in the sun.  A growing segment of the incarcerated population is especially heat-sensitive. Jails and prisons house an increasing number of people with mental illness; as many as one in five Texas prisoners are prescribed psychotropic medications, which make the body more vulnerable to heat. A similar number receive blood pressure drugs, which can cause the same problem. And the rise of longer sentences in the 1980s and 90s has produced a surge of older prisoners, who are particularly susceptible to heat illnesses.

There is a way to prevent heat stroke in prison, of course: cooling the facilities during the hottest months. But in most states, there’s little political will to do so.  On its corrections department website, Florida lists the availability of air-conditioning as one of many “misconceptions” about its prison system, along with cable television. “We couldn’t afford to do it if we wanted to,” State Sen. John Whitmire, who chairs the Texas Senate’s criminal justice committee, told an interviewer in 2011 about air-conditioning in prisons. “But number one we just don’t want to.”  Whitmire, a Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment.

Among roughly 150,000 people in Texas prisons, about four in five have no access to air-conditioning in their cells. “The retort was always that if our soldiers in Iraq could manage in un-air conditioned tents, that was good enough for prisoners,” recalls Michele Deitch, former general counsel for the state senate’s criminal justice committee. (The military now provides air-conditioning in many tents in Iraq and Afghanistan.)  But unlike soldiers, prisoners have limited ability to adapt to heat; they can’t always catch a breeze outside or access cool water.

Unable to sway policymakers or corrections officials, inmates and their families are taking their complaints to the courtroom. In the past several years, courts in Arizona, Mississippi, and Wisconsin have sided with prisoners suing officials over extreme heat. In 2012, a federal judge ordered the Louisiana State Penitentiary to lower temperatures on death row to 88 degrees; at times, the heat index had reached 109.

But Texas is the center of the legal battle.  More than 20 state prisoners have died from the heat since 1998. It’s unknown how many more succumbed to heart attacks and other ailments in which heat was a contributing factor.  The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is facing numerous wrongful death lawsuits, one of them mounted by Robert Allen Webb’s family, along with a class action suit to force cooler conditions at the Wallace Pack Unit in Navasota, about 70 miles northwest of Houston.

October 11, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (3)

Could poor health help save the live of Ohio's "poster child for the death penalty”?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this Columbus Dispatch article headlined "Ohio killer says he’s too ill to be put to death."  Here are excerpts:

Death-row inmate Alva Campbell, once dubbed “the poster child for the death penalty” for a deadly carjacking outside the Franklin County Courthouse 20 years ago, is now too sick to be put to death, his attorneys and advocates say.

The convicted killer is slated for execution Nov. 15, but Campbell has so much fluid in his lungs that he can’t lie flat on the execution table for a lethal injection, one of his attorneys, David Stebbins, said Tuesday. “He’ll start gasping and choking,” Stebbins said. Stebbins said that for Campbell to sleep in prison, “he has to prop himself up on his side. It’s not very good.”

Stebbins said he has communicated his concerns to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, which didn’t immediately respond to questions about how to deal with Campbell’s condition.

Campbell, 69, has twice been convicted of murder, most recently in the 1997 execution-style slaying of 18-year-old Charles Dials behind a K-Mart store on South High Street.

Long before that, Campbell had cardiopulmonary issues that in the past few years have become debilitating, his attorneys say. Most of his right lung has been removed, and he has emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and possibly cancer in much of his remaining lung tissue, Campbell’s application for executive clemency says. In addition, his prostate gland has been removed, as has a gangrenous colon. A broken hip last year has confined him to a walker. “The severity of these combined illnesses have left Alva debilitated and fragile,” Campbell’s clemency application says. “Alva’s deteriorating physical condition further militates in favor of clemency.”

The health claims are only one reason why Campbell and his attorneys are asking that his sentence be commuted to life in prison without parole. They also cite the “nightmare” childhood that Campbell suffered at the hands of an alcoholic father who was both physically and sexually abusive.

If Gov. John Kasich doesn’t want to commute Campbell’s sentence, delaying his sentence would have the same effect because the inmate will die soon, advocates said. “He’s probably in the poorest health of any living death-row inmate in the country,” said Kevin Werner of Ohioans to Stop Executions....

Campbell is scheduled for a clemency hearing Thursday. A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said that, in advance of the hearing, his office will file a response rebutting the claims made in Campbell’s application.

Campbell argues that poor health is one reason he shouldn’t be put to death, but he used an earlier, false health claim to commit the crime that put him on death row. Campbell feigned paralysis from a glancing bullet wound suffered during a robbery arrest. As Campbell was being taken to the Franklin County Courthouse for a hearing on April 2, 1997, he sprang from his wheelchair, overpowered a deputy sheriff, took her gun and fled. He then carjacked Dials, who was at the courthouse to pay a traffic ticket. After driving Dials around for hours, Campbell ordered him onto the floor of his truck and shot him twice.

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien, who at the time of Campbell’s trial called him “the poster child for the death penalty,” couldn’t be reached Tuesday for comment.

October 11, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms, Offender Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

October 10, 2017

"Inside Private Prisons: An American Dilemma in the Age of Mass Incarceration"

9780231179706The title of this post is the title of this notable new book about to be published and authored by Lauren-Brooke Eisen.  Here is the book description from the press's webpage:

When the tough-on-crime politics of the 1980s overcrowded state prisons, private companies saw potential profit in building and operating correctional facilities.  Today more than a hundred thousand of the 1.5 million incarcerated Americans are held in private prisons in twenty-nine states and federal corrections.  Private prisons are criticized for making money off mass incarceration — to the tune of $5 billion in annual revenue.  Based on Lauren-Brooke Eisen’s work as a prosecutor, journalist, and attorney at policy think tanks, Inside Private Prisons blends investigative reportage and quantitative and historical research to analyze privatized corrections in America.

From divestment campaigns to boardrooms to private immigration-detention centers across the Southwest, Eisen examines private prisons through the eyes of inmates, their families, correctional staff, policymakers, activists, Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, undocumented immigrants, and the executives of America’s largest private prison corporations. Private prisons have become ground zero in the anti-mass-incarceration movement.  Universities have divested from these companies, political candidates hesitate to accept their campaign donations, and the Department of Justice tried to phase out its contracts with them.  On the other side, impoverished rural towns often try to lure the for-profit prison industry to build facilities and create new jobs. 

Neither an endorsement or a demonization, Inside Private Prisons details the complicated and perverse incentives rooted in the industry, from mandatory bed occupancy to vested interests in mass incarceration. If private prisons are here to stay, how can we fix them?  This book is a blueprint for policymakers to reform practices and for concerned citizens to understand our changing carceral landscape.

October 10, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Making the case against the death penalty on the 15th "World Day against the Death Penalty"

Bill Richardson, the former New Mexico Gov and US ambassador to the United Nations, has this lengthy new Hill commentary headlined "Death penalty — a fatal, inhuman practice that discriminates against the poor." Here are excerpts:

We celebrate today the 15th World Day against the Death Penalty.  As of today, 105 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In the past 25 years, 60 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and the number of states that carry out executions has fallen by nearly half.

But it is still not enough: the world’s most populated countries — China, India, United States of America and Indonesia still retain capital punishment along with countries like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia and Singapore.  Around half of the world’s population, who live in these countries, is not guaranteed the right to life, as prescribed in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hundreds of executions are carried out every year and thousands are under sentence of death.

Worryingly, the death penalty has been carried out arbitrarily and in a manner that discriminates against the poor and the marginalized sections of society including minority groups and migrant workers.

When I was the Governor of New Mexico, I changed my mind from being a believer of capital punishment as I saw this discriminatory aspect of the death penalty. Besides, there is always the possibility of executing an innocent and so I abolished the death penalty in New Mexico in 2009.  My convictions have only strengthened as 159 persons facing capital punishment in the USA have been reportedly found to be innocent since 1973.

In the USA, most persons facing the death penalty even today cannot afford their own attorney at trial and most court-appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid or lacked the experience necessary to defend capital punishment trials.

Moreover, prosecutors tended to seek the death penalty more often when the victim was white than when the victim was African-American or of another racial or ethnic origin. These factors have contributed to the arbitrariness of the death penalty. By doing so, the death penalty violates the right to equal dignity and this discrimination condemns them to further marginalization.

This discrimination against the poor and minority communities occurs not just in USA but in practically every country applying the death penalty.  Because of their limited economic means, because of their lack of knowledge of the legal systems and their rights, because of poor legal defense support, because of systemic bias that they face from law enforcement authorities, they are under greater risk of being sentenced to death.

In India, almost 75 per cent of the persons sentenced to death, and in Malaysia, nearly 90 per cent, reportedly belonged to economically vulnerable groups.  In Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan hundreds are executed every year, most of whom are poor or from minority communities; in addition, there are concerns that these three countries carry out executions of those who were juveniles when they allegedly committed the crimes for which they faced the death penalty.

In China, the number of executions carried out is a state secret and reportedly, those executed, feared to be in the thousands, include those belonging marginalized communities including unskilled workers who have little means of defense.  In Indonesia, 13 of the 16 persons executed in the last two years were foreign nationals and there were questions of fair trials in several of these cases.

October 10, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentencing around the world, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

Big fine and community service, but no prison time, for law firm CFO convicted of fraud in NY state court

This Reuters article, headlined "Ex-Dewey & LeBoeuf executive avoids prison time after fraud conviction," report on the alternative sentence a notable lawyer received after a conviction for his law firm's notable problems. Here are the details:

The former chief financial officer of defunct law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, whose collapse five years ago was the largest failure of a law firm in U.S. history, has avoided prison time after being convicted of defrauding the firm’s investors. Joel Sanders, 59, was sentenced on Tuesday by Justice Robert Stolz in Manhattan Supreme Court to pay a $1 million fine and perform 750 hours of community service.

The sentence was handed down five months after the firm’s former executive director, Stephen DiCarmine, was acquitted of the same charges, and 19 months after prosecutors dropped charges against its former chairman, Steven Davis.

“I‘m deeply sorry for anything I did or didn’t do that caused anybody harm,” Sanders said in court before being sentenced. His lawyer, Andrew Frisch, declined to comment on the sentence. Frisch said in May that he planned to appeal Sanders’ conviction.

The office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance had sought up to four years in prison for Sanders. The criminal case against Dewey & LeBoeuf’s executives was one of the most significant white-collar prosecutions brought by Vance since he took office in 2010. “This case demonstrates the Office’s commitment to prosecuting those who sacrifice professional integrity for financial gain,” Vance said in a statement on Tuesday.

The law firm, which once had close to 1,400 lawyers, went bankrupt in May 2012, unable to pay for the lavish compensation packages it had promised to recruit star partners. Prosecutors said the executives used illegal accounting adjustments between 2008 and 2012 to conceal the firm’s financial difficulties from investors in its bonds, including Bank of America Corp and HSBC Holdings Plc.

Seven lower-level employees pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with Vance’s investigation.

The first trial for the three executives ended in a mistrial in October 2015 when jurors, after four months of testimony and a month of deliberations, declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked on most counts.

After that trial, Davis struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid a second trial, agreeing to a five-year ban from practicing law in New York. Justice Robert Stolz dismissed the most serious charge, grand larceny, against the other two men. The second trial for Sanders and DiCarmine began in February 2017 and lasted about three months.

October 10, 2017 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offense Characteristics, White-collar sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1)

"The Idea of 'the Criminal Justice System'"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting-looking new paper authored by Sara Mayeux now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The phrase “the criminal justice system” is ubiquitous in discussions of criminal law, policy, and punishment in the United States — so ubiquitous that almost no one thinks to question the phrase. However, this way of describing and thinking about police, courts, jails, and prisons, as a holistic “system,” dates only to the 1960s.  This essay contextualizes the idea of “the criminal justice system” within the rise of systems theories more generally within intellectual history and the history of science.

The essay first recounts that more general history of systems thinking and then reconstructs how it converged, in 1967, with the career of a young systems engineer working for President Johnson’s Crime Commission, whose contributions to the 1967 report The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society launched the modern and now pervasive idea of “the criminal justice system.”  Throughout, the essay reflects upon the assumptions and premises that go along with thinking about any complex phenomenon as a “system” and asks whether, in the age of mass incarceration, it is perhaps time to discard the idea, or at least to reflect more carefully upon its uses and limitations.  For instance, one pernicious consequence of “criminal justice system” thinking may to be distort appellate judges’ interpretations of Fourth Amendment doctrine, because they imagine their rulings to be hydraulically connected in a “system” with crime rates.

October 10, 2017 in Recommended reading, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 9, 2017

Reviewing the backstory of the Supreme Court's recent capital cert grant

As noted in this post a couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court recently added a capital case to its docket. Adam Liptak's latest New York Times "Sidebar" column is focused on that new case.  This piece, headlined "Facing the Death Penalty With a Disloyal Lawyer," includes these passages:

Two weeks before Robert McCoy was to be tried for a triple murder, his lawyer paid him a visit.  It was the summer of 2011, and the two men met in a holding cell in a Louisiana courthouse.  Mr. McCoy, who was facing the death penalty, told his lawyer he was innocent. Mr. McCoy was adamant. Others had committed the crimes, he said, and he wanted to clear his name.

The lawyer, Larry English, said he had a different strategy. “I met with Robert at the courthouse and explained to him that I intended to concede that he had killed the three victims,” Mr. English recalled in a sworn statement.  “Robert was furious and it was a very intense meeting. He told me not to make that concession, but I told him that I was going to do so.”...

Conceding guilt in a capital case is sometimes the right play.  Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether it is permissible even if the man whose life is at stake objects.

Mr. McCoy was accused of killing Christine Colston Young, Willie Young and Gregory Colston, who were the mother, stepfather and son of Mr. McCoy’s estranged wife. There was substantial evidence that he had done so. There was also reason to think that Mr. McCoy’s belief in his innocence was both earnest and delusional.

There was no ambiguity in Mr. McCoy’s position, Mr. English recalled. “I know that Robert was completely opposed to me telling the jury that he was guilty of killing the three victims,” Mr. English said. “But I believed that this was the only way to save his life.”

After the meeting, Mr. McCoy tried to fire his lawyer, saying he would rather represent himself. Judge Jeff Cox, of the Bossier Parish District Court, turned him down. “Mr. English is your attorney, and he will be representing you,” the judge said....

During his opening statement at the trial, Mr. English did what he had promised to do. “I’m telling you,” he told the jury, “Mr. McCoy committed these crimes.” Mr. McCoy objected. “Judge Cox,” he said, “Mr. English is simply selling me out.”

“I did not murder my family, your honor,” Mr. McCoy said. “I had alibis of me being out of state. Your honor, this is unconstitutional for you to keep an attorney on my case when this attorney is completely selling me out.”

Whatever its wisdom, Mr. English’s trial strategy failed. Mr. McCoy was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, saying his lawyer had betrayed him. The court ruled against him. “Given the circumstances of this crime and the overwhelming evidence incriminating the defendant,” the court said, “admitting guilt in an attempt to avoid the imposition of the death penalty appears to constitute reasonable trial strategy.”

The decision relied on a unanimous 2004 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Nixon, which said lawyers need not obtain their clients’ express consent before conceding guilt in a capital case. But the ruling did not address whether it was permissible for a lawyer to disregard a client’s explicit instruction to the contrary.

That is the question in the new case, McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255.  The right answer, Louisiana prosecutors told the justices, is that lawyers may ignore their clients’ wishes. “Counsel’s strategic choices should not be impeded by a rigid blanket rule demanding the defendant’s consent,” they wrote in a brief urging the court not to hear the case.

In a brief supporting Mr. McCoy, the Ethics Bureau at Yale, a law school clinic, said Mr. English had essentially switched sides. “Far from testing the prosecution’s case,” the brief said, “Mr. English seemed downright eager to advance it.”

Mr. McCoy’s situation is not particularly unusual, according to a second supporting brief, this one filed by the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Promise of Justice Initiative, a nonprofit group. “In Louisiana,” the brief said, “a capital defendant has no right to a lawyer who will insist on his innocence.” Since 2000, the brief said, the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed defense lawyers to concede their clients’ guilt in four other capital cases over the clients’ express objections.

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

"Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Christopher Slobogin. Even more than the title, the paper's abstract suggests it is a must-read for sentencing fans:

Most scholars who have written about the role of neuroscience in determining criminal liability and punishment take a stance somewhere between those who assert that neuroscience has virtually nothing to say about such determinations and those that claim it will upend the assumption that most choices to commit crime are blameworthy.  At the same time, those who take this intermediate position have seldom clarified how they think neuroscience can help. This article tries to answer that question more precisely than most works in this vein.  It identifies five types of neuroscience evidence that might be presented by the defense and discusses when that evidence is material under accepted legal doctrine.  It concludes that, even on the assumption that the data presented are accurate, much commonly proffered neuroscientific evidence is immaterial or only weakly material, not only at trial but also at sentencing. At the same time, it recognizes that certain types of neuroscience evidence can be very useful in criminal adjudication, especially at sentencing.

October 9, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 8, 2017

New California law limits reach of registry for lower-level sex offenders

As reported in this local article, headlined "California will soon end lifetime registration of some sex offenders under bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown," some significant changes are now in the works for the sex offender registry in the Golden State.  Here are the details:

Thousands of Californians will be allowed to take their names off the state’s registry of sex offenders as a result of action Friday by Gov. Jerry Brown.  Brown signed legislation that, when it takes effect Jan. 1, will end lifetime listings for lower-level offenders judged to be at little risk of committing new crimes.

The measure was introduced at the request of Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and other law enforcement officials who said the registry, which has grown to more than 105,000 names, is less useful to detectives investigating new sex crimes because it is so bulky.

“California's sex offender registry is broken, which undermines public safety,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the bill.  “SB 384 refocuses the sex offender registry on high-risk offenders and treats low-level offenders more fairly.”

The registry currently requires law enforcement officials to spend hours on paperwork for annual evaluations of every offender, including those who are low risk and have not committed a crime for decades, Wiener said.

Brown declined to comment Friday, but his office referred to a statement put out last month. “SB 384 proposes thoughtful and balanced reforms that allow prosecutors and law enforcement to focus their resources on tracking sex offenders who pose a real risk to public safety, rather than burying officers in paperwork that has little public benefit,” said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for the governor, last month.

The measure was opposed by many Republican lawmakers and Erin Runnion, who in 2002 founded the Joyful Child Foundation, an Orange County advocacy group for victims, after the abduction, molestation and murder of her 5-year-old daughter, Samantha.  Runnion said parents should be able to check a comprehensive registry to see if a potential teacher, youth league coach or babysitter for their children has ever been convicted of a sex crime.

California is one of only four states that require lifetime registration of sex offenders. The others are Alabama, South Carolina and Florida.

The new law signed by the governor creates a tiered registry, with high-risk offenders on the registry for life and others able to petition to be removed after either 10 or 20 years without re-offending, depending on the offense.  Offenses for which registrants can be removed from the list after 20 years include include rape by deception and lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 14.

Offenders who petition for removal after 10 or 20 years will be assessed by a judge — with input from the local district attorney — who can grant or deny the petition.

October 8, 2017 in Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sentences Reconsidered, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (9)

Smarter Sentencing Act reintroduced in Senate with lots of support from both parties

In prior posts here and here, I noted the introduction this past week of two notable federal statutory criminal justice reform bills in the US Senate.  But this press release from the office of Senator Mike Lee details that a third notable bill, the Smarter Sentencing Act, was also formally introduced. Here are the basics from the press release:

[A] bipartisan group of U.S. Senators led by Mike Lee (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) reintroduced the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2017. This legislation would modernize federal drug sentencing policies by giving federal judges more discretion in sentencing those convicted of non-violent drug offenses. Senators Lee and Durbin were joined in this effort by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Angus King (I-ME), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

“Our current federal sentencing laws are out of date, they are often counterproductive, and in far too many cases they are unjust,” said Senator Lee. “The Smarter Sentencing Act is a commonsense solution that will greatly reduce the financial and, more importantly, the human cost imposed on society by the broken status quo. The SSA will give judges the flexibility and discretion they need to impose stiff sentences on the most serious drug lords and cartel bosses while enabling nonviolent offenders to return more quickly to their families and communities.”

Speaking of criminal justice reform generally, Senator Lee said, “over the past week, I’ve introduced or cosponsored three criminal justice reform bills—the Smarter Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, and the Mens Rea Reform Act. I would proudly vote for these bills, individually or with one or more of them packaged together, because I think reforming our criminal justice system is a moral and policy imperative. Any step forward will make a real difference. I look forward to continuing to work on these bills and on criminal justice reform issues more broadly, which will always remain a priority for me.”

The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody since 1980, and almost 50 percent of those federal inmates are serving sentences for drug offenses. Mandatory sentences, particularly drug sentences, can force a judge to impose a one-size-fits-all sentence without taking into account the details of an individual case. Many of these sentences have disproportionately affected minority populations and helped foster distrust of the criminal justice system.

I cannot yet find the text of the 2017 version of the Smarter Sentencing Act, but I presume it is similar to the 2015 version at this link.

A few prior related posts:

October 8, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)