Friday, June 16, 2017

Historic criminal justice reform signed into law in Louisiana, which has historically been highest incarcerating state

As reported in this local article, "bills signed into law Thursday morning by Gov. John Bel Edwards aim to change Louisiana's reputation as the most imprisoned state in the country." Here are some the sentencing details from the press article (though the folks should be sure to check out this summary of the full package of bills which covers an array of other issues including victim services and reentry concerns):

"With this ambitious package, Louisiana is projected to reduce the prison population by 10 percent and save $262 million over the next decade," according to the bills' package summary [available here]. "Seventy percent of these savings — an estimated $184 million — will be reinvested into programs and policies proven to reduce recidivism and support victims of crime."

The legislation signed into law includes:

Senate Bill 139 [which provides] alternatives to incarceration like drug rehabilitation. Expands probation eligibility to third-time nonviolent offenders, as well as first-time, lower-level violent offenders. It also gives opportunities for release. Consolidates eligibility for parole consideration for prisoners convicted of nonviolent, non-sex offenses at 25 percent of sentence served....

Senate Bill 220 [which alters sentencing rules to make sure law] focuses prison space on serious and violent offenders. It does this by removing less serious crimes to the violent crimes list and merging redundant theft and burglary offenses.

Senate Bill 221 [which addresses] repeat offenders by lowering the mandatory minimum sentence for second and third offenses.

Senate Bill 16 [which provides that] most people sentenced to life as juveniles receive an opportunity for parole consideration after serving a minimum of 25 years in prison.

June 16, 2017 in Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Scope of Imprisonment, State Sentencing Guidelines, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Collateral Consequences Resource Center creates Compilation of Federal Collateral Consequences

Cfcc-logo-1As detailed via this new post at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, titled "Introducing the Compilation of Federal Collateral Consequences," the folks at CCRC have launched another terrific new resource. Here is more background about this important work via the CCRC posting:

The CCRC is pleased to announce the launch of its Compilation of Federal Collateral Consequences (CFCC), a searchable online database of the restrictions and disqualifications imposed by federal statutes and regulations because of an individual’s criminal record. Included in the CFCC are laws authorizing or requiring criminal background checks as a condition of accessing specific federal benefits or opportunities.

This newly developed tool allows individuals to identify federal collateral consequences based on the people, activities or rights affected; to access complete and current statutory and regulatory text detailing the operation of each consequence; and, to explore the relationship between consequences and their implementing regulations, and among different consequences.  This is a product that has been many months in the making, and we hope it will serve as an important resource for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, as well as individuals with criminal records. 

The CFCC data is derived from the National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction (NICCC), a database originally compiled by the American Bar Association under a grant from the National Institute of Justice pursuant to the Court Security Act of 2007.  The NICCC itself is currently hosted by the Council of State Governments on the website of the National Reentry Resource Center.

In developing the CFCC we streamlined and restructured the NICCC data, reorganizing it into keyword categories for easier user access, and combining overlapping and duplicative entries. We omitted potentially misleading interpretations and lengthy textual excerpts in favor of links to the full current version of the law or rule.  At the same time, we updated the NICCC data to reflect laws enacted and rules adopted in the past two years.

The most important new feature of the CFCC is the addition of a comprehensive set of searchable “Keywords” that allow users to zero in on consequences of interest with a high degree of precision and accuracy.

The result is a tool for practitioners and researchers that we believe will be more useful, easier to operate and understand, and more current and reliable.

The CFCC represents just the beginning of what we envision as a much larger project.  We are currently developing state-specific compilations using the same platform and will be rolling those out as they are completed.  Our Wisconsin compilation is already available through the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s website.  A similar database developed for the Vermont Attorney General is scheduled to launch this summer. 

June 15, 2017 in Collateral consequences | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Support Grows for Civil Commitment of Opioid Users"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Stateline article.  Here is how it gets started:

Amid an opioid addiction epidemic that is killing more than 90 Americans every day, there is a growing movement to make it easier for relatives and health care providers to quickly secure court orders to forcibly confine and treat people who are addicted to drugs.  Most states have civil commitment laws primarily designed to protect people with mental illness from themselves and others.  Many of the laws include drug addiction and alcoholism as a justification for temporary confinement, or at least don’t preclude it.

But in practice, most commitment laws have been ineffective when it comes to people who use heroin and other opioids, in part because some judges have been leery of taking away a person’s civil liberties for what society has long perceived as a moral failing.  Unlike people with severe mental illness, people who are addicted to drugs typically retain the mental capacity to take care of their basic needs, even though the chronic disease alters the brain, making the person eventually value drug use above all else.

New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington are considering new civil commitment laws specifically designed for opioid use.  Kentucky has gone back to the drawing board after failing to enact a commitment law for opioid addiction last year.

And in Massachusetts, the one state where civil commitment has been used extensively for opioid addiction, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker wants to make it even more common....

Historically, confining people against their will has been fraught with moral and legal ambiguities and haunted by reports of abuse.  But the parents of young adults who use opioids are pushing state lawmakers and governors to make intervention easier, even as physicians and state health officials search for ways to break the cycle of repeated overdoses.

Addiction professionals generally agree that civil commitment can save lives. But they argue that without effective treatment, confining people with an addiction may do more harm than good.  “People who use substances and have addictions still have civil rights,” said Dr. Alex Walley, director of an addiction medicine fellowship at Boston Medical Center.  “The real question is whether effective treatment is available, which in the case of opioids, is going to be medication. And it’s not OK to limit it to just one medicine,” Walley said.  Another concern is whether the state can ensure that continued treatment will be available once the person is released, he said.

June 15, 2017 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Drug Offense Sentencing, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

DC Circuit strikes down FCC rules placing caps on payphone rates in prisons

Earlier this week, as reported in the AP article, a DC Circuit panel "struck down regulations intended to cap the price of some calls to prison inmates."  The full ruling in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, No. 15-1461 (DC Cir. June 13, 2017) (available here), has a lengthy introduction that includes these excerpts:

Due to a variety of market failures in the prison and jail payphone industry, ... inmates in correctional facilities, or those to whom they placed calls, incurred prohibitive per-minute charges and ancillary fees for payphone calls. In the face of this problem, the Commission decided to change its approach to the regulation of ICS providers. In 2015, in the Order under review, the Commission set permanent rate caps and ancillary fee caps for interstate ICS calls and, for the first time, imposed those caps on intrastate ICS calls. The Commission also proposed to expand the reach of its ICS regulations by banning or limiting fees for billing and collection services — so-called “ancillary fees” — and by regulating video services and other advanced services in addition to traditional calling services.

Five inmate payphone providers, joined by state and local authorities, now challenge the Order’s design to expand the FCC’s regulatory authority.  In particular, the Petitioners challenge the Order’s proposed caps on intrastate rates, the exclusion of “site commissions” as costs in the agency’s ratemaking methodology, the use of industry-averaged cost data in the FCC’s calculation of rate caps, the imposition of ancillary fee caps, and reporting requirements. And one ICS provider separately challenges the Commission’s failure to preempt inconsistent state rates and raises a due process challenge....

  • We hold that the Order’s proposed caps on intrastate rates exceed the FCC’s statutory authority under the 1996 Act. We therefore vacate this provision.

  • We further hold that the use of industry-averaged cost data as proposed in the Order is arbitrary and capricious because it lacks justification in the record and is not supported by reasoned decisionmaking. We therefore vacate this provision.

  • We additionally hold that the Order’s imposition of video visitation reporting requirements is beyond the statutory authority of the Commission. We therefore vacate this provision.

  • We find that the Order’s proposed wholesale exclusion of site commission payments from the FCC’s cost calculus is devoid of reasoned decisionmaking and thus arbitrary and capricious.  This provision cannot stand as presently proposed in the Order under review; we therefore vacate this provision and remand for further proceedings on the matter.

  • We deny the petitions for review of the Order’s site commission reporting requirements.

  • We remand the challenge to the Order’s imposition of ancillary fee caps to allow the Commission to determine whether it can segregate proposed caps on interstate calls (which are permissible) and the proposed caps on intrastate calls (which are impermissible).

  • Finally, we dismiss the preemption and due process claims as moot.

June 15, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

A Call for Papers: "Is It Time for Truth & Reconciliation in Post-Ferguson America?"

I am always happy, indeed eager, for this blog to be a forum for making calls for papers and/or for promoting events of interest to criminal justice academics and advocates.  To that end, I am happy to be able to post this item as requested recently via email:

Call for Papers: "Is It Time for Truth & Reconciliation in Post-Ferguson America?"

Sponsored by Michigan State University College of Law

Ever since Europeans first settled the continent over four hundred years ago, racial injustice has existed in North America. Human bondage was formally recognized in the United States for nearly a century following the Nation's birth in 1776.  While the Thirteenth Amendment officially abolished slavery in 1865 and the Fourteenth Amendment mandated equal protection in 1868, nearly another century passed before "separate but equal" was repudiated and some progress was made.  Today we still see persistent racial inequities throughout American society.   The criminal justice/prison complex disproportionately targets, captures and incarcerates persons of color; and police shootings of unarmed black victims — such as of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in Aug. 2014 — are grimly commonplace. It is difficult to deny, in light of this history, that America has a major problem of race.

What can be done?  Truth and Reconciliation is a process that has been used effectively in other nations and cultures (e.g., South Africa; native nations) following times of deep racial discord/violence.  The idea is that true healing can begin only when past atrocities and injustices are first acknowledged and addressed.

The Symposium Committee, in conjunction with the University's administration, seeks to convene leading activists, scholars, policymakers, and thought-makers for 1-2 days of discussions and conversations on the topic of the Nation's responsibility to account for the history of racial injustice in America.  Selected submissions will be presented at the Law Review Symposium in March 2018, and published in a special symposium issue of Michigan State Law Review.

To be considered, please send an abstract (300 – 500 words) outlining your proposed paper to Professor Catherine Grosso at grosso @ law.msu.edu and Marie Gordon at mgordon @ law.msu.edu by August 15, 2017.  Don’t hesitate to contact us if more information would be helpful.

Faculty Co-Sponsors: Tiffani Darden; Matthew Fletcher (Director of Indigenous Law & Policy Center); Kate Fort (Director of Indian Law Clinic); Brian Gilmore (Director of the Housing Clinic); Catherine Grosso; Michael Lawrence (Foster Swift Professor of Constitutional Law); Barbara O'Brien (Editor, National Registry of Exonerations); Wenona Singel (Assoc. Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center)

June 14, 2017 in Recap posts, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (18)

Fair Punishment Project starts "In Justice Today" to look closely at work of prosecutors

Via email I was alerted to the creation of "In Justice Today," a new publication of the Fair Punishment Project at Harvard Law School.  This introductory post explains the vision and goals of this notable new resource:

Ask yourself who are the most powerful people in the community in which you live and many might think of the mayor, the city council president, the owner of the local sports team, maybe the superintendent of schools.

But in many ways all of those people are trumped by the local elected prosecutor. The mayor and superintendent cannot send cops into your home and march you downtown in handcuffs, the prosecutor can do that.  They have the power to put people in jail, to choose not to bring charges, to seek the maximum sentence for one person while letting someone else off with a warning while determining which type of crimes will be prioritized while others will be ignored.

That’s an awesome and terrifying power, and how prosecutors wield that power can impact numerous lives and determine what type of community we all live in.  But in most communities, the prosecutor is an unknown figure.  Until recently most prosecutors enjoyed something close to a lifetime appointment. Rarely getting much attention or scrutiny....

Our goal is simple, we want to hold actors in the criminal justice system accountable for their actions.  Whether it’s a prosecutor putting a rape victim in jail when she doesn’t want to testify, a judge sentencing a young kid to 63 years in jail for driving with a suspended license, a DA charging a 12-year-old with a crime and putting them in the adult prison system, or continuing the prop up a death penalty system that becomes more ridiculous and cruel every day this blog will be looking for injustice and pointing the finger at the person who is most responsible.

June 14, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (8)

New Sentencing Project policy brief on "Federal Prisons at a Crossroads"

The Sentencing Project has this notable new six-page policy brief titled "Federal Prisons at a Crossroads."  Here is how the data-rich little publication gets started:

The number of people incarcerated in federal prisons has declined substantially in recent years.  In fact, while most states enacted reforms to reduce their prison populations over the past decade, the federal prison system has downsized at twice the nationwide rate.  But recently enacted policy changes at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain Congressional proposals appear poised to reverse this progress.

Congress, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC), and the DOJ reduced the federal prison population by reforming sentencing laws, revising sentencing guidelines, and modifying charging directives, respectively.  But the DOJ’s budget proposal for 2018 forecasts a 2% increase in the federal prison population.

The policy changes contributing to this reversal include:

• Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ directive instructing federal prosecutors to increase their reliance on mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug convictions.

• The Attorney General’s instruction to federal prosecutors to increasingly pursue criminal convictions for immigration law violations and his memorandum paving the way for greater use of private prisons.

• Congressional proposals to create new mandatory minimum sentences or increase existing ones for a range of drug, immigration, and violent crimes.

These policy shifts run counter to research and practice on effective crime policy.  This brief explains why increasing the use and length of prison terms for people with drug convictions in particular — who account for half of the federal prison population — will produce little public safety benefit while carrying heavy fiscal, social, and human costs. Experience with criminal justice policy changes at the federal and state levels shows it is possible to substantially cut reliance on prisons without any adverse effects on public safety.

June 14, 2017 in Data on sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Might judicial estoppel continue to preclude Ohio from moving forward with a three-drug lethal injection protocol?

As previously noted here, today is the day for the Sixth Circuit oral argument in its rehearing en banc of the State of Ohio's appeal of a lower court stay blocking Ohio from using its latest three-drug protocol to execute condemned murderers.  One basis for stay, as reported here, was the plan for Ohio to use midazolam as the first drug in its three-drug execution protocol.  But some recent uneventful executions by other states using midazolam may serve to make this foundation for the stay weaker than it was earlier this year.  So another issue sure to come up in this argument is the capital defendants' claim, also adopted in the initial stay order, that Ohio is judicially estopped from using a three-drug execution protocol after having years ago forsworn such a plan in favor of one-drug execution plans.

In this recent post at the ACS blog, titled "Ohio’s Lethal Flip Flop: Court Should Hold State To Consistent Legal Position on How To Execute," Virginia Sloan makes the case for the judicial estoppel arguments to block Ohio's execution plans.  Here are excerpts:

Outside of the legal profession, judicial estoppel, or the doctrine that prevents a party to a lawsuit from taking inconsistent positions about the same issue at different phases of the legal proceeding, is not particularly well-known. However, it speaks to the core value of integrity in the judicial system, preventing misuse of the courts and promoting equity among litigants. Non-attorneys unfamiliar with the legal doctrine of judicial estoppel need look no further than pending lethal injection litigation in Ohio to understand its crucial importance in our system.

In a remarkable series of losses and appeals, Ohio state officials are currently attempting to convince yet another federal court to allow them to use a lethal injection protocol which is in direct violation of representations state officials made eight years ago in order to prevail at an earlier phase of the ongoing litigation....

After [a] failed execution, and facing an imminent trial in July 2010 on the prisoners’ challenges to Ohio’s three-drug lethal injection method, Ohio announced in November 2009 that it would never again use the paralytic drug pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride in executions. State officials represented they would use a one-drug, barbiturate-only method instead. The same day Ohio announced this change, it filed a motion for summary judgment in the pending litigation, asking the federal court to dismiss all challenges to the three-drug protocol because, as the State argued, the change in execution drugs meant the claims about the two painful drugs were “moot.” The State’s filing unequivocally declared “there is no possibility here that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct will reoccur.” The federal courts accepted Ohio’s argument, and its representations, with the Sixth Circuit explicitly holding that “any challenge to Ohio’s three-drug execution protocol is now moot.” With the prisoners’ constitutional claims thus mooted in this way, the State proceeded to carry out 20 executions over the next eight years, including that of Mr. Biros in December 2009.

Fast forward to October 2016: Ohio reneged on its promises. State officials announced that their “new,” three-drug protocol will again include a paralytic and potassium chloride. Unsurprisingly, the courts did not look favorably upon Ohio’s flip-flopping. In his order, following a five-day evidentiary hearing in 2017, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz wrote that “the position the State of Ohio now takes — that it will execute [prisoners] using a paralytic agent and potassium chloride — is completely inconsistent with the position it took on appeal in Cooey (Biros) and on remand from that decision before Judge Frost. Ohio prevailed on its contrary position and is now judicially estopped from re-adopting a paralytic agent and potassium chloride as part of the Execution Protocol.”  On April 5, 2017, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, upholding the preliminary injunction.

The State petitioned for the full court to hear the case, and in coming weeks, Ohio will try for the third time to explain why it is acceptable to render litigation moot by making one representation, and then later in that same litigation to propagate actions in contravention of that representation.

Judicial estoppel prevents parties from manipulating legal proceedings, requiring parties to maintain consistency within the course of litigation. The changing of positions based on convenience or “exigencies of the moment” is not authorized by law, and is particularly reprehensible when the issue at hand is one of life or death. Ohio apparently needs a third ruling to remind officials that what they promised the federal courts in 2009 still binds them in 2017. The law demands that the State devise an execution protocol consistent with its word.

Even without hearing the outcome of today's oral argument, I am predicting that this judicial estoppel claim does not end up carrying the day with the full en banc Sixth Circuit.  Ohio officials are claiming that they have returned to a three-drug execution protocol because of a state legal obligation to carry out lawful death sentences AND a constitutional obligation to carry out executions in the least painful way possible. If Ohio officials reasonably and accurately assert they had to return to a three-drug protocol to comply with these obligations, I doubt the full Sixth Circuit will conclude a prior litigation position must now thwart these efforts.  

June 14, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

"Out of Sight: The Growth of Jails in Rural America"

The title of this post is the title of this new report from the Vera Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge. Here is part of its introduction:

As concern in the United States has grown over the number of people behind bars, policymakers and the public are turning their attention to addressing the decades-long growth in the number of people held in the country’s more than 3,000 locally run jails — county or municipal detention facilities that primarily house people who have been charged but not yet convicted of a crime (known as the “pretrial” population), and those sentenced to a short term of incarceration, usually under a year.  With local jail populations swelling from 157,000 on any given day in 1970 to over 700,000 people in 2015, there are now an astronomical number of jail admissions annually — nearly 11 million — prompting many to question whether local jails have grown too large, and at too high a cost for the communities they serve.  This has in turn focused efforts among policymakers and the public to better understand and reform the size, scope, and distribution of local incarceration.

In contribution to this effort, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) developed the Incarceration Trends data tool in 2015 to better understand how jails have grown in every U.S. county.  (See “The Incarceration Trends data tool sources and units of analysis” on page 8.)  In an initial analysis, Vera researchers found that small counties, defined as counties with fewer than 250,000 people, have driven overall jail growth since 1970, despite the conventional perception that this has been exclusively a phenomenon of large cities.  In fact, jails have actually grown the least in large counties (the approximately 40 counties with more than one million residents).  To further understand the contours of jail growth, Vera researchers turned once again to its data tool to study the newly released 2013 Census of Jails from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted an updated historical analysis of jail population trends to examine two specific drivers of local incarceration: 1) changes in the number of people held in pretrial detention; and 2) changes in the number of people who are held for another authority. Vera researchers also looked at the degree to which these trends are different along the urban-rural axis, as well as between U.S. regions — the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.

As this report will enumerate, it is not simply small counties that have increasingly been the locus of rising local incarceration rates, but rural areas — nonmetropolitan areas defined by low population and distance from major population centers.  This is despite rural counties’ substantially lower crime rates in comparison to urban areas.  There appear to be two underlying trends.  First, as overall rates of pretrial detention have risen nationally, the highest rates now feature most prominently in rural counties across all regions of the country — increasing 436 percent between 1970 and 2013.  Second, an escalating number of rural jails — mainly in the South and West — are renting out jail beds to hold people for federal, state, and other local governments.  In some cases, jails are even building new capacity unrelated to crime levels in their own jurisdictions to meet jail-bed demands of other agencies.  Although the reasons for these two trends are likely numerous, this report explores one possible root: few resources in rural areas. Given that the distribution of scarce state and county resources is likely uneven — favoring those areas with more people — access to critical criminal justice and community services may be spread thin the further away a place is from the various population clusters in a state or county.  This means there may be fewer judges to quickly hear cases, less robust pretrial services, and fewer diversion programs available to decrease jail use.

June 13, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Notable prisoner makes notable case for prison education and programming ... only for some

I have been following the work an writings of Jeremiah Bourgeois, a juvenile offender sentenced to LWOP (but now eligible for parole) in Washington State, since he authored this thoughtful and personal essay for the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law a few years ago. His latest column for The Crime Report, headlined "Educate a Prisoner, Save a Life," begins by stressing that the reason for [his personal] change is not hard to find: the higher education courses [he has] been taking during my incarceration." As he goes on to put it: "It is amazing what an education can do. It can transform the violent and ignorant into the peaceful and intelligent."

But, intriguingly, while using his own story to make the case for "making higher education available in correctional facilities," his column also suggests that reform advocates and public officials need to urge "correctional systems [to] finally abandon[] efforts to change those who — quite simply — are content to continue the behavior which led them to prison in the first place." Here is part of his explanation for what he suggests should be a kind of modern prison programming triage:

I have never been able to wrap my mind around why correctional officials believe they can force change on those who are committed to wrongdoing. Nevertheless, they keep trying. One of the purposes of punishment in Washington State is to “offer the offender an opportunity to improve himself or herself.”  In practice, the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) has transformed this legislative decree into a Don Corleone-esque offer that prisoners cannot easily refuse.

DOC uses a carrot and stick approach. Prisoners can earn a small reduction in their sentence for every month that they follow the dictates of the Facility Risk Management Team (FRMT), which is a group comprised of the prisoner’s counselor and other unit staff, and outlines the programs the prisoner must complete in order to receive this “earned time.” This is the carrot.  The stick involves disciplinary sanctions for refusing to abide by the expectations established by the FRMT. Enough of these, and the prisoner will be transferred to ever more secure facilities until, in the end, he is confined in long-term administrative segregation.

All of this is done in an effort to mitigate the risk that prisoners will commit crimes upon being freed.  The belief is that requiring prisoners to work or go to school or undergo treatment interventions will reduce their likelihood of re-offending. On its face, such policies are rational.  Nobody wants prisoners to rejoin society in the same sorry state they were in when removed from it.

But the fact remains that resources are often devoted toward recalcitrant prisoners whose words and deeds manifest their commitment to the criminal subculture.  Having watched the same people cycle through prison over and over again, it’s clear to me that this subset of individuals are a bad investment — with diminishing returns.  Moreover, history has demonstrated that even the rack-and-screw is no match against the conviction of true believers, and many prisoners are just stubbornly unwilling to repent for a life of crime.

You can spot them throughout the penitentiary, begrudging the policies that compel them to work or go to school or to participate in treatment programs meant to change them. He is the slacker in the dish tank talking about how much “paper” he used to make on the streets.  He is the 20-something in the Adult Basic Education classroom spending the school-day freestyle rapping and sleeping.  He is the man in chemical dependency treatment tweaking on methamphetamines....

The time has come for rehabilitative efforts to be devoted toward prisoners who have the most likelihood of being rehabilitated.  Once upon a time, correctional systems had the luxury of trying to change such men. But those days are over. There is no money left to continue such social experiments.

Arrogance and paternalism is a combination that is antithetical to fiscal responsibility and sound correctional policies.  The time has come for rehabilitative efforts to be devoted toward prisoners who have the most likelihood of being rehabilitated, rather than those who are most likely to re-offend.  Moreover, such programs should be made available to those who seek it rather than mandating prisoners to participate in them.

Take the University Beyond Bars (UBB) for example.  Every participant in the UBB is there because they want to be, for this higher education program at MCC is entirely voluntary. Even when college credit cannot be offered due to lack of funding, prisoners readily sign up simply for self-enrichment.  As a member of the Prisoner Advisory Committee for the UBB, I saw such men come to recognize their capacity to complete college studies; and, more importantly, conceive of living lives removed from criminality.

These are the prisoners worth saving.  It may seem cruel, but in an emergency, triage is about not wasting one’s time and efforts on the hopeless.  Correctional systems should adopt the same sense of mission and purpose.

The uniquely informed perspective behind this commentary makes me eager to endorse its notable message, and yet I wonder and worry about the ability of correction officials and other to fairly and effectively figure out which prisoners are "worth saving" and which are "hopeless."  Like so many sound and sensible suggestions in the arena of sentencing and corrections, the devil would seem to be in the details here if and when corrections officials only made prison education and programming available to those who appeared worthy of these resources.

June 13, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (6)

"Whom Should We Punish, and How? Rational Incentives and Criminal Justice Reform"

The title of this post is the title of this paper authored by Keith Hylton recently posted to SSRN. Here is its abstract:

This essay sets out a comprehensive account of rational punishment theory and examines its implications for criminal law reform.  Specifically, what offenses should be subjected to criminal punishment, and how should we punish?  Should we use prison sentences or fines, and where should we use them?  Should some conduct be left to a form of market punishment through private lawsuits?  Should fines be used to fund the criminal justice system?

The answers I offer address some of the most important public policy issues of the moment, such as mass incarceration and the use of fines to finance law enforcement.  The framework of this paper is firmly grounded in rational deterrence policy, and yet points toward reforms that would soften or reduce the scope of criminal punishment. 

June 13, 2017 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)

Highlighting how criminal justice reformers are "going local" at the start of the Trump era

Chris Geidner has this notable lengthy new BuzzFeed News article about the work of criminal justice reform advocates under this extended headline: "Trump Loves Old School, Tough-On-Crime Policies. So Criminal Justice Liberals Are Going Local. What do you do when your progressive vision loses its spotlight from the White House?". Here is a snippet of an article the merits a read in full:

Glenn Martin, [who] is the president of JustLeadership USA, ... spent six years in prison more than two decades ago and is now helping to lead the fight to close New York City’s Rikers Island.  Closing the jail became a focus in the wake of multiple groundbreaking news stories examining its conditions — and why people are there in the first place — and a concerted, ongoing grassroots opposition. The effort to shutter the jail recently picked up backing from NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Martin, who served on the year-long commission whose report recommended closing the jail, was blunt about the reasons for his local focus — which was the case even before this past November’s election.  “I never had a lot of hope that Congress was the answer to this,” he said in an interview after a student-focused event about closing Rikers that took place at the New School in Manhattan.  “In fact, it was a bipartisan coalition that got us here; forgive me if I’m not inspired by a comeback coalition trying to get us out of this mess.”

While Martin is a federal skeptic, ending the mess — America has more people in jails and prisons, both in number and percentage, than any other country on the planet — was a mission that just last year seemed to be going strongly in these and other advocates’ direction on the national stage.

In the last months of his presidency, Obama commuted a steady stream of sentences — mainly focused on those serving long prison sentences for nonviolent drug-related offenses. A bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill was pressing for significant criminal sentencing reforms — and though Republican leadership was not moving the legislation, a younger generation of lawmakers had expressed openness or even enthusiasm for it.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch oversaw significant investigations into numerous police departments and had begun a process of ending the federal government’s reliance on private prisons — a long-sought aim of liberals.  And these promised to be merely the opening salvos in a paradigm-shifting mission: Ending mass incarceration and increasing police accountability had become popular causes for the highest level of public officials, celebrities, and intellectuals in Washington.

That momentum came to a halt in January.  Advocates are facing a very different situation now.  Trump wasn’t just disinterested in their cause — he actively campaigned against it, promising a crackdown on crime and echoing the kind of sentiments popular in the 1980s and early ’90s when crime rates were significantly higher.  (For Trump, “urban centers” — despite his having lived in one for years — remain a bad stereotype of a 1982 inner city.)  The naming of Sessions as attorney general was a doubling down of that vision: Sessions likely was the senator whose criminal justice views most closely aligned with Trump’s views.

While some remain hopeful about continuing to build federal momentum for sentencing law changes, the reality is that most federal efforts will be aimed at stopping or minimizing Trump and Sessions’ proposals — not advancing their own goals....

There are, in fact, a handful of areas where advocates see real possibilities: pressing local, even grassroots, efforts to make community change (including through local elections); backing state legislative changes where they’re possible; filing litigation where advocates think it’s needed; and partnering with business and philanthropists to fund programs that otherwise might not happen....

Passing laws and making changes locally is key to keeping the criminal justice movement’s momentum alive on a national scale.  For decades, politicians in both parties largely ran on harsher sentences and aggressive drug policy; persuading politicians that it can be done differently has become an essential piece of the local dynamic.

June 13, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, June 12, 2017

Swift and sensible sentencing justice for high-profile violent crime in Montana

As reported in this local article, headlined "Greg Gianforte gets anger management, community service after admitting he assaulted reporter," a high-profile crime and criminal got a non-prison sentence for a violent crime today.  Here are some of the particulars:

Republican congressman-elect Greg Gianforte will not spend any time in jail after he admitted a charge of misdemeanor assault Monday for “body slamming” a reporter on the eve of his election. “I just want to say I’m sorry,” Gianforte told Ben Jacobs, the reporter for the Guardian that he assaulted in Bozeman at a campaign event about 24 hours before polls closed on May 24.

Gallatin County Justice Court Judge Rick West ordered Gianforte to complete 20 hours of anger management counseling and 40 hours of community service. He was given a deferred six-month jail sentence.  If he does not violate the conditions of his sentence, the charge could be dismissed.

West initially tried to give Gianforte a sentence of four days in jail, converted to two days in a work program.  Work programs, which cut the time of a sentence in half, are not an option in assault cases, however. West said he felt anger management was necessary since Gianforte, who will go to Washington, D.C., under heavy scrutiny, could not handle questions from a single reporter.

Motioning around the courtroom, he said “It’s not a lot of cameras compared to what you’re going to see at the White House.”

"It is not my intent you spend four days in jail," West said to a small courtroom packed with journalists and some other members of the public. "I do not think that would serve the community or the taxpayers." West referenced Gianforte's charitable giving in the Bozeman community and around the state when deliberating the sentence, but also said Gianforte's unprovoked attack overshadowed that....

Jacobs, wearing a suit and new pair of glasses that replaced the ones broken in the attack, read to the court from a prepared statement. He spoke quietly enough the judge had to ask him to speak up. Jacobs described the day of the attack, saying he had entered a room to ask Gianforte a question.  "I was just doing my job," Jacobs said. "Mr. Gianforte's response was to slam me to the floor and start punching me." After the attack, Jacobs said Gianforte then sent an "inflammatory public statement in which he insisted this unprovoked ... attack was somehow my fault," Jacobs said.

When pressed by the judge, Gianforte at first did not give clear details on the assault but later said he grabbed for Jacobs' phone, ended up grabbing his wrists instead and a "scuffle" ensued where both men fell to the ground....  In his apology letter to Jacobs, Gianforte wrote “Notwithstanding anyone’s statement to the contrary, you did not initiate any physical contact with me, and I had no right to assault you.”  Neither Gianforte nor his staff have clarified why a false statement was sent out after the assault....

A handful of protesters were outside the Law and Justice Center after court ended.  They held up signs saying "Lock him up," "Shame" and "Justice vs. White Christian Privilege." Jackie Crandall drove up from Roberts that morning to protest. "I think Greg Gianforte got special treatment," she said.  "If he wasn't rich and powerful, he would be in jail. If he was black, he would be in jail."

As the title of this post suggests, I think a non-prison sentence for this violent crime seems quite sensible for a remorseful first offender who seems unlikely to be on a path to criminality (even though he is on a path to Congress).

June 12, 2017 in Celebrity sentencings, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (9)

How will (and how should) new $100 million fund be used to advance criminal justice reform and "end mass incarceration"?

12FUND2-master675The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable New York Times article headlined "Agnes Gund Sells a Lichtenstein to Start Criminal Justice Fund." Here is the interesting art-world backstory that now prompts the question:

In January, rumors swirled that the art collector and patron Agnes Gund had sold her prized 1962 Roy Lichtenstein “Masterpiece” for a whopping $150 million, placing it among the 15 highest known prices ever paid for an artwork.  Ms. Gund is confirming that sale now, revealing that she parted with the painting (for what was actually $165 million, including fees) for a specific purpose: to create a fund that supports criminal justice reform and seeks to reduce mass incarceration in the United States.

This new Art for Justice Fund — to be announced Monday at the Museum of Modern Art, where Ms. Gund is president emerita — will start with $100 million of the proceeds from the Lichtenstein (which was sold to the collector Steven A. Cohen through Acquavella Gallery).  “This is one thing I can do before I die,” Ms. Gund, 78, said in an interview at her Upper East Side apartment, where the Lichtenstein used to hang over the mantel, along with works by Jasper Johns and Mark Rothko. “This is what I need to do.”

Ms. Gund, together with the Ford Foundation, which will administer the fund, has asked other collectors to do the same, in the hopes of raising an additional $100 million over the next five years.  The effort is noteworthy, not only for the amount of money involved — rarely do charitable undertakings start at $100 million — but because Ms. Gund is essentially challenging fellow collectors to use their artworks to champion social causes at a time when the market has made their holdings more valuable than ever.

“The larger idea is to raise awareness among a community of art collectors that they can use their influence and their collections to advance social justice,” said Darren Walker, the Ford Foundation’s president. “Art has meaning on a wall, but it also has meaning when it is monetized.”

Those who have already committed to the fund — and are being called founding donors — include Laurie M. Tisch, a chairwoman of the Whitney Museum of American Art; Kenneth I. Chenault, chief executive of American Express, and his wife, Kathryn; the philanthropist Jo Carole Lauder; the financier Daniel S. Loeb; and Brooke Neidich, a Whitney trustee. “I was moved by her passion,” Ms. Tisch said of Ms. Gund, adding that she would contribute $500,000 in proceeds from a Max Weber painting she recently sold. “It’s ambitious, but when Aggie puts in a $100 million, that’s a real signal that it’s important and I’m happy to be a part of it.”

The fund will make grants to organizations and leaders who already have a track record in criminal justice reform — like the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala. — that seek to safely reduce jail and prison populations across the country and to strengthen education and employment opportunities for former inmates. The fund will also support art-related programs on mass incarceration.

“There’s long been this criticism that people who have the means to acquire fine art are allowed to surround themselves with beautiful things while they are unwilling to look at the ugly realities that sometimes shape a community or a culture or a country,” said Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative. “Using this art to actually respond to over-incarceration or racial inequality or social injustice is a powerful idea.”

The impetus for the fund was personal. Six of Ms. Gund’s 12 grandchildren are African-American, and she has worried about their future as they’ve matured, particularly in light of shootings of black teenagers like Trayvon Martin in Florida. “I have always had an extreme sensitivity to inequality,” Ms. Gund said.

She added that she was also deeply affected by Michelle Alexander’s 2010 book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” and by Ava DuVernay’s 2016 documentary, “13th,” about African-Americans in the prison system. After seeing the film, Ms. Gund called Mr. Walker, long a close friend. “She said, ‘I really want to do something to help here,’” Mr. Walker recalled. “‘What if I sold one of my jewels and we used the proceeds to make grants to organizations working on mass incarceration?’” ... Participation in the fund does not require the sale of artwork, Mr. Walker said; any type of support is welcome....

Mr. Stevenson will take part in an evening event at MoMA on Monday to announce the fund that will also feature Piper Kerman, author of “Orange is the New Black: My Year in a Women’s Prison,” and Glenn E. Martin, president and founder of JustLeadershipUSA, which aims to reduce the prison population, in conversation with The New York Times Op-Ed columnist Charles Blow.

The financier and collector Donald Marron, MoMA’s president emeritus, said he would support the fund — though probably not through the sale of his art — and commended Ms. Gund’s efforts. “Aggie has been so committed to art her whole life and now she’s using the art to jump-start her efforts in criminal justice,” he said. “That’s a model I hope other people will follow.”

There is not too much information at this website for the Art for Justice Fund, but the site does say the Fund is for a "movement to end mass incarceration." It also says that the "The Fund is a five-year initiative designed to make meaningful progress on key reforms in the U.S. criminal justice system" and that it "will support innovative advocacy and interventions aimed at safely cutting the prison population in states with the highest rates of incarceration, and strengthening the education and employment options for people leaving prison."

June 12, 2017 in Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

An (incomplete) accounting of the stalled state of federal statutory sentencing reform

The Atlantic has this lengthy new article providing something of an up-to-date accounting of the state of federal sentencing reform in Congress, and its first sentence serves as something of a summary: "You know a policy’s prospects are shaky when lawmakers on both teams are praying for Jared Kushner to ride in and save the day."  Here is more from the start, heart and end of the piece:

Not that Kushner isn’t a swell guy.  But Trump’s all-purpose son-in-law already had a pretty full plate (e.g., solving that whole Middle East thing) even before the feds started poking into his relations with Russia.  It seems unlikely he’ll have much bandwidth in the coming months to weigh in on Congress’s mundane domestic squabbles.  Which is why advocates of criminal-justice reform might want to take a moment to wave adios to any prospect of action in the foreseeable future....

Desperate for administration allies, reform advocates were tickled pink when Jared Kushner came to the Capitol in late March to talk reform with Grassley, Durbin, and Lee.  (The dream is that Kushner is sympathetic to reform because his dad did a stint in federal prison.)  Senate aides say it was more a listening session than an offer of support. But it gave disheartened advocates a shred of hope and emboldened them to renew their quest for backers.  Post-meeting, Grassley announced that he would know the administration’s position on reform legislation “in three weeks.”

Two-plus months later, the White House has yet to offer further guidance.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Sessions has jammed his thumb deep into reformers’ eye sockets.  Last month, his office issued a directive that federal prosecutors should pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences for even nonviolent drug offenders (a reversal of Obama-era policy). Reform fans on and off the Hill were dismayed.  (A trio of Senate Democrats from the Judiciary Committee had publicly petitioned Sessions not to go in this direction.)....

Complicating matters further, one of last year’s key SRCA backers, Senator John Cornyn, has begun toying with a new bill of his own. Cornyn is collaborating with House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul on a measure that would jack up mandatory minimums for certain immigrants and for people who commit violent crimes against law enforcement officials.  This move isn’t a total about-face for Cornyn. Last year, he introduced a “Back the Blue” bill establishing steep mandatory minimums for crimes against law enforcement.  More broadly, multiple Hill aides point out that Cornyn has always been in the “back-end” reform camp and has made clear he’d be just as happy to split his pet programs back off of SRCA.

At this point, folks on both sides of the aisle see Cornyn’s emerging proposal as more of a messaging move than an attempt at serious legislation. Even so, a competing bill is hardly welcome news to his reform colleagues. As a Judiciary Committee staffer noted, “A good amount of work went into putting together [SRCA]. It’s like an ecosystem: Change one thing and something else is changed.”

Bottom line, say Hill aides: For anything to happen on criminal-justice reform, Congress will need a kick in the pants from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “It’s going to be difficult to move forward if we’re not able to build support in the administration,” said the Judiciary Committee staffer.

With Sessions charging in the opposite direction, Kushner is seen as the cause’s last, best hope. If Trump’s beloved son-in-law would climb on board, say aides, the situation could get super interesting in a Jared vs. Jeff reality TV-style smackdown. Said a senior Democratic staffer, “If Kushner gets behind this effort and decides this is good for Trump, we’re gonna find out whether he has any influence with the president or not.” Alas, for now Kushner is preoccupied with his own “drama,” sighed a Republican aide, noting, “We’re still trying to get a face-to-face with him.”

Of course, with each passing day, it matters less what Kushner does. Congress is grotesquely behind in handling even its top priorities of healthcare and tax reform, and things will get exponentially worse as the fall budget battles approach. Even the most upbeat reform advocates sound blue when discussing the congressional calendar. “The pace at which the Senate is moving right now is a problem,” acknowledged the Judiciary Committee staffer.

Translation: Despite its lovely, bipartisan promise, the prospects for significant criminal-justice reform are — if not totally dead — only slightly worse than the odds that Kushner will go down in history as father of the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords.

This article is rich with important inside-the-Beltway details, but it misses a bit of the broader context that also plays a role in federal statutory sentencing reform being stalled.  Specifically, the significant up-tick in violent crime in recent years (and also, to a lesser extent, various issues related to the opioid epidemic) has provided reform reform agnostics with a basis to believe we should tap the brakes on any federal sentencing reform efforts.   And this is why legislative reform to reduce sentences is always such a hard slog: when crime is down, the tough-on-crime crowd says toughness is working and we should not risk another approach; when crime is going up, the tough-on-crime crowd says we have to we tough and tougher to deal with increasing crimes.

June 12, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

In summary reversal, SCOTUS holds AEDPA precluded federal court from finding Virginia's geriatric release system was insufficient to comply with Graham

One may need to be a hard-core law-geek to fully appreciate all the nuance that it is in the title of this post, which aspires to be an accurate accounting of the Supreme Court's decision six-page per curiam decision this morning in Virginia v. LeBlanc, No. 16–1177 (S. Ct. June 12, 2017) (available here).  Here are excerpts from the heart of the opinion:

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred by failing to accord the state court’s decision the deference owed under AEDPA. Graham did not decide that a geriatric release program like Virginia’s failed to satisfy the Eighth Amendment because that question was not presented. And it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that, because the geriatric release program employed normal parole factors, it satisfied Graham’s requirement that juveniles convicted of a nonhomicide crime have a meaningful opportunity to receive parole. The geriatric release program instructs Virginia’s Parole Board to consider factors like the “individual’s history . . . and the individual’s conduct . . . during incarceration,” as well as the prisoner’s “inter-personal relationships with staff and inmates” and “[c]hanges in attitude toward self and others.” See 841 F. 3d, at 280–281 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting) (citing Virginia Parole Board Policy Manual 2–4 (Oct. 2006)).  Consideration of these factors could allow the Parole Board to order a former juvenile offender’s conditional release in light of his or her “demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 U.S., at 75. The state court thus did not diverge so far from Graham’s dictates as to make it “so obvious that . . . there could be no ‘fairminded disagreement’” about whether the state court’s ruling conflicts with this Court’s case law. White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 11).

“Perhaps the logical next step from” Graham would be to hold that a geriatric release program does not satisfy the Eighth Amendment, but “perhaps not.” 572 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 11). “[T]here are reasonable arguments on both sides.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 11–12).  With respect to petitioners, these include the arguments discussed above. Supra, at 4. With regards to respondent, these include the contentions that the Parole Board’s substantial discretion to deny geriatric release deprives juvenile nonhomicide offenders a meaningful opportunity to seek parole and that juveniles cannot seek geriatric release until they have spent at least four decades in prison.

These arguments cannot be resolved on federal habeas review.  Because this case arises “only in th[at] narrow context,” the Court “express[es] no view on the merits of the underlying” Eighth Amendment claim. Woods, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Nor does the Court “suggest or imply that the underlying issue, if presented on direct review, would be insubstantial.” Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (per curiam) (slip op., at 7); accord, Woodall, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 5). The Court today holds only that the Virginia trial court’s ruling, resting on the Virginia Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Angel, was not objectively unreasonable in light of this Court’s current case law.

A proper respect for AEDPA’s high bar for habeas relief avoids unnecessarily “disturb[ing] the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, den[ying] society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrud[ing] on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority.” Harrington, supra, at 103 (internal quotation marks omitted).  The federalism interest implicated in AEDPA cases is of central relevance in this case, for the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s holding created the potential for significant discord in the Virginia sentencing process. Before today, Virginia courts were permitted to impose — and required to affirm — a sentence like respondent’s, while federal courts presented with the same fact pattern were required to grant habeas relief.  Reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case — rather than waiting until a more substantial split of authority develops — spares Virginia courts from having to confront this legal quagmire.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate concurrence in LeBlanc to make this point:

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), as today’s per curiam recognizes, established that a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide offense must have “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release [from prison] based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id., at 75. See ante, at 2.  I join the Court’s judgment on the understanding that the Virginia Supreme Court, in Angel v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 248, 704 S.E.2d 386 (2011), interpreted Virginia law to require the parole board to provide such a meaningful opportunity under the geriatric release program.  See id., at 275, 704 S.E.2d, at 402 (“the factors used in the normal parole consideration process apply to conditional release decisions under this statute”).  In other words, contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of Virginia law, the parole board may not deny a juvenile offender geriatric release “for any reason whatsoever,”  841 F.3d 256, 269 (2016) (emphasis in original); instead, the board, when evaluating a juvenile offender for geriatric release, must consider the normal parole factors, including rehabilitation and maturity.  See ante, at 4.

June 12, 2017 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (17)

Notable report of Missouri parole board playing a version of "turkey bingo" during hearings with inmates

I just noticed an interesting report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about an intriguing controversy swirling around Missouri's parole board.  Here are links to two lengthy stories about the controversies and their first few paragraphs:

"Missouri parole board played word games during hearings with inmates"

The Missouri Board of Probation and Parole allegedly toyed with prisoners during hearings by trying to get them to say a chosen word or song title of the day, such as “platypus” and “Hound Dog.”

Don Ruzicka, a member of the seven-member board, along with an unnamed government employee were accused of keeping score during the hearings, according to a Department of Corrections inspector general report completed on Nov. 1, 2016. Each time one of them used a predetermined keyword while interviewing an offender they earned a point. Two points were granted if the offender repeated the word. Occasionally, the duo spiced the game up by wearing matching clothing, like the time they dressed in black shirts, ties, pants and shoes.

The Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis recently obtained the state report and released it Thursday after a news conference, asserting that public servants “played games with people’s lives and liberty.”

"Officials insist Missouri parole board takes job seriously despite games played during hearings"

The day after a human rights law firm called on Republican Gov. Eric Greitens to remove former state Rep. Don Ruzicka from the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for toying with inmates during hearings, two top prison officials stood by the panel on Friday.

A previously undisclosed state investigation found that Ruzicka and an unidentified Department of Corrections employee entertained themselves at some parole hearings by trying to get inmates to say words and song titles such as “platypus” and “All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight.” They even kept score.

“We have very credible members who take their job seriously,” insisted Parole Board Chairman Kenneth C. Jones, who is also a former Republican state representative as well as a former sheriff. “There is no joking around. It’s a very serious job.”

June 12, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, June 11, 2017

"Are 18-year-olds too immature to face the death penalty?"

The question in the title of this post is part of a headline of this local Kentucky article describing an effort to extend the reach of the Supreme Court's Roper ruling. The article's headline continues with the phrase "Lexington attorney says yes." Here are excerpts from the article:

Fayette Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone will soon decide whether to exclude the death penalty for a murder defendant who was 18 when he was charged with murder and robbery.

In a 2005 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of people who were younger 18 at the time of their crimes violated the federal constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments. The defense team for Travis Bredhold wants Scorsone to extend that exclusion to people 21 and younger. Bredhold, 21, was 18 when he was charged Dec. 13 with murder and robbery in the fatal shooting of Marathon gas station attendant Mukheshbhai Patel.

Police said surveillance camera footage indicates that Patel, 51, was trying to comply with a robber’s demand for cash when he was shot. He died later at University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital.

Bredhold was “only five months and 13 days older than the limitation” established by the U.S. Supreme Court, public defender Joanne Lynch said. More importantly, Lynch said, research indicates that people’s brains don’t mature until they are in their mid-20s. The Supreme Court ruled that people who are young and immature and who are likely to be more impulsive are not as culpable as a group and shouldn’t be up for the death penalty.

Bredhold’s defense team is asking to extend the exclusion “because people under the age of 21 are almost completely like people under the age of 18. You really don’t mature until you are in your mid-20s,” Lynch said.

Fayette Commonwealth’s Attorney Lou Anna Red Corn argued during a hearing Friday that there isn’t a “national consensus” on whether to extend the death-penalty exclusion to defendants 21 and younger.

June 11, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Offender Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (17)

"From Retribution to Public Safety: Disruptive Innovation of American Criminal Justice"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new book, authored by William Kelly, Robert Pitman and William Streusand, that a helpful reader made sure I noticed.  Here is description via the book's Amazon page:

Over the past fifty years, American criminal justice policy has had a nearly singular focus -- the relentless pursuit of punishment.  Punishment is intuitive, proactive, logical, and simple. But the problem is that despite all of the appeal, logic, and common sense, punishment doesn't work.  The majority of crimes committed in the United States are by people who have been through the criminal justice system before, many on multiple occasions.
There are two issues that are the primary focus of this book.  The first is developing a better approach than simple punishment to actually address crime-related circumstances, deficits and disorders, in order to change offender behavior, reduce recidivism, victimization and cost.  And the second issue is how do we do a better job of determining who should be diverted and who should be criminally prosecuted.
From Retribution to Public Safety develops a strategy for informed decision making regarding criminal prosecution and diversion.  The authors develop procedures for panels of clinical experts to provide prosecutors with recommendations about diversion and intervention.  This requires a substantial shift in criminal procedure as well as major reform to the public health system, both of which are discussed in detail.
Rather than ask how much punishment is necessary the authors look at how we can best reduce recidivism. In doing so they develop a roadmap to fix a fundamentally flawed system that is wasting massive amounts of public resources to not reducing crime or recidivism.

June 11, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Is adequate due process for capital cases "arguably impossible"?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this San Francisco Chronicle editorial complaining about the prospect that the state of California might try to give effect to the voter initiative passed in the Fall, Proposition 66, intended to try to get the state's death penalty operational again.  Here are excerpts from the editorial, headlined "California should not speed up death penalty," which concludes with the phrase quoted in the title of this post:

Voters last fall narrowly approved Proposition 66, which sets a deadline for court review of capital-punishment appeals and takes other steps to restart a capital punishment machine that ground to a halt a decade ago. Fortunately, the state’s Supreme Court justices, who are considering a challenge to the initiative, have expressed appropriate doubts.

Efforts to prevent wrongful or torturous executions have slowed or stopped executions in many states as attorneys wrangle over challenges to convictions, court procedures and killing methods. The delays inevitably suggest one of two diametrically opposed political solutions: ending executions or expediting them. California voters rejected death penalty abolition and supported acceleration.

The constitutional amendment they approved sets a five-year deadline for each of two stages of death penalty appeals, which would shorten the average appeal by several years. With some 750 prisoners on Death Row and a backlog of more than 300 appeals, the justices noted, that would substantially shift court resources toward capital punishment and away from all other cases.

Prop. 66 also attempts to force more defense attorneys to take on capital cases, raising questions about how many of them would be qualified and eager to do so. Another provision would curtail review of lethal-injection procedures; California stopped executions in 2006 amid claims that its drug cocktail caused cruel and unusual punishment, and the state has yet to devise a new protocol.

The trouble with all these execution-efficiency measures is that they add up to an assault on the level of due process the death penalty requires, which is at least extraordinary and arguably impossible.  Barriers to carrying out the death penalty have their roots in serious questions about its irreversibility, arbitrariness and immorality.  Executing prisoners more quickly is exactly the wrong answer to those questions.

I understand all sorts of variations on abolitionist arguments, but I am sometimes troubled this notion that it is "arguably impossible" to provide capital cases with sufficient due process.  Recent high-profile federal and state capital cases involving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bomber) and James Holmes (Aurora mass shooter) provide good examples of mass murderers getting plenty of process. Of course, if a jurisdiction is trying to secure many hundreds of death sentences every year, it is certainly possible (perhaps even likely) that a kind super due process would not be provided in every case.  But still, as long-time readers know well, I generally worry a lot more about lesser criminals not getting much process at all than about modern capital defendants not getting enough procedural protections.

June 10, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (27)

Friday, June 9, 2017

Reviewing Prez Trump's judicial nomination success so far (and noting Prez Obama's early relative failings)

The New Republic has this notable and important article which highlights one big reason why notable and important members of the GOP are unlikely to defect from Team Trump anytime soon.  The full headline of the article accounts in part for my post title (with my emphasis added): "Trump’s Judicial Picks Are Keeping Republicans Happy — and Quiet: In a rare show of competency, he's tapped five times as many judges as Obama had at this point — and conservatives are delighted." Here are excerpts:

The most critical government document released on Wednesday — the one that’ll have the most wide-ranging impact in the future — was not James Comey’s prepared testimony for the Senate Intelligence Committee about his interactions with Donald Trump.  It was a simple press release, issued by the White House, announcing a “fourth wave” of judicial nominations since the Trump inauguration.  The eleven nominations included four district court judgeships, three for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, three for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one for the Court of Federal Claims.  Conservatives were uniformly delighted.

All told, Trump has nominated 22 judges to fill vacancies across the federal bench.  Thus far, only two — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Sixth Circuit Court Judge Amul Thapar — have been confirmed.  But the prospect of filling vacancies over time explains a lot about why congressional Republicans have stood by Trump, despite the erratic and stormy start to his presidency.  As long as Trump keeps funneling a steady supply of conservative jurists to the Senate, in a bid to dramatically reshape the federal courts, Republicans can go to bed happy that they’re fulfilling at least one major element of their political project.

Judicial nominations are the one area where the Trump administration is “running like a fine-tuned machine,” as the president boasted in February.  In fact, Trump’s team has far outstripped the efforts of his predecessor.  By this date eight years ago, President Obama had made just four judicial nominations: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and three nominations for the Court of Appeals.

It is true that Trump was blessed — thanks mostly to a virtual freeze on judicial confirmations in the last two years of the Obama presidency — with more opportunities than Obama.  According to the American Bar Association, at the beginning of June 2009 there were 72 judicial vacancies; today there are 132.  But even given that, if you want to do this by percentages, President Trump, at this point in his presidency, has nominated replacements for 16.7 percent of all judicial vacancies; President Obama by this time had nominated replacements for just 5.6 percent.

What accounts for this rare outburst of competency from the Trump White House?  Certainly, judicial nominations are a lighter lift than legislation; thanks to changes to the Senate filibuster made by both parties, judges at all levels now need only 50 votes for passage, meaning Republicans can confirm them without Democratic support.  Those rules were still in place in 2009, and throughout Obama’s first term. He did have a filibuster-proof majority for brief periods, from July–August 2009 and September 2009–February 2010.  But the former president certainly had less margin for error....

In the judicial arena, at least, Trump is fulfilling the duty laid out by Grover Norquist when he said that conservatives just need a president “with enough working digits to handle a pen.” His unpopularity and the overarching Russia investigation aside, he’s signing off on the nominations that conservatives want. If Republicans in Congress manage to get their act together on legislation, he’ll sign those bills into law as well. The GOP won’t abandon him because he’s giving them what they want.

I have left out some of the political spin that this article adds to this discussion largely because I think it most worth stressing how relatively successful Prez Trump has been in this arena despite difficulties elsewhere especially in contrast to where the Obama Administration was at this point.  The particular irony, of course, is that Prez Trump was a businessman before getting into politics while Prez Obama was a lawyer and law professor.  But this point may provide an explanation rather than an irony: Prez Trump may be much more willing to accept and move forward with judicial recommendations from others than Prez Obama might have been.  (Also, the Trump team gave themselves a kind of running start by putting together a SCOTUS possibilities list during the 2016 campaign.)

June 9, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Obama Administration, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (12)

"Measuring the Creative Plea Bargain"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting-looking paper authored by Thea Johnson available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

A great deal of criminal law scholarship and practice turns on whether a defendant gets a good deal through plea bargaining.  But what is a good deal?  And how do defense attorneys secure such deals?  Much scholarship measures plea bargains by one metric: how many years the defendant receives at sentencing. In the era of collateral consequences, however, this is no longer an adequate metric as it misses a world of bargaining that happens outside of the sentence.  Through empirical research, this Article examines the measure of a good plea and the work that goes into negotiating such a plea.  Through in-depth interviews with twenty-five public defenders in four states, I investigate the ways in which collateral consequences impact the negotiation of the plea.  What emerges is a picture of creative plea bargaining that takes into account a host of noncriminal sanctions that fall outside of the charge and sentence.  Public defenders assess the priorities of their clients — regarding both the direct and collateral consequences of the case — and piece together pleas that meet these varied needs.  The length of sentence after a plea does not tell the full story about whether a defendant got a good deal because a successful plea now encompasses much beyond the final sentence.

These findings have broad implications for the way we think about assessing public defense offices and individual defenders.  Much of what goes into a plea — particularly at the misdemeanor level — is a product of the client’s desire to avoid certain collateral consequences, and those desires generally do not enter the formal record or off-the-record negotiations with prosecutors.  As a result, pleas that look bad on paper may actually be meeting the needs of the client.  Therefore, in order to assess pleas and the defenders who negotiate them, we must understand the limits of publicly available data and focus on creating a more robust data set by which to judge public defenders.  Additionally, this Article provides a fuller picture of prevailing professional norms at the plea phase after Padilla, Lafler, and Frye.  As courts grapple with the role of the defense attorney during plea bargaining, it is critical that they understand that in many cases lawyers achieve optimal outcomes by providing advice and advocacy for their clients on concerns outside of the immediate criminal case.  Finally, this Article serves as a renewed call for attention and funding for the holistic model of public defense.

June 9, 2017 in Data on sentencing, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Alabama carries out second execution in as many weeks using midazolam as first lethal injection drug

A couple of weeks ago, as noted here, Alabama carried out the death sentence of Tommy Arthur for a 1982 murder-for-hire.  Last night, as this AP article reports, the state executed a "man convicted of killing three people during the 1994 robbery of an Alabama fast-food restaurant." Here are the basics:

Robert Melson, 46, was pronounced dead at 10:27 p.m. CDT Thursday at a southwest Alabama prison, authorities said. The execution was the state's second of the year. State prosecutors said Melson and another man who used to work at the restaurant, robbed a Popeye's in Gadsden, 60 miles northeast of Birmingham, and Melson opened fire on four employees in the restaurant's freezer. Nathaniel Baker, Tamika Collins and Darrell Collier were killed.  The surviving employee, Bryant Archer, crawled for help and was able to identify one of the robbers as the former worker which led police to Melson.

Collins' family members wore a badge with her photograph and the phrase "In Our Hearts Forever."  Her family issued a statement saying that three young people lost their lives for "a few hundred dollars" and criticized court filings on behalf of Melson that challenged the state's execution procedure as inhumane. Collins' mother and two sisters witnessed the execution. "He has been on death row for over 21 years being supported by the state of Alabama and feels he should not suffer a little pain during the execution. What does he think those three people suffered after he shot them, leaving them in a freezer?" the statement said.

Melson shook his head no when the prison warden asked if he had a final statement.  A prison chaplain knelt with him. Melson's hands quivered at the start of the procedure and his breathing was labored, with his chest moving up and down quickly, before slowing until it was no longer perceptible.

Melson's attorneys had filed a flurry of last-minute appeals seeking to stay the execution.  The filings centered on Alabama's use of the sedative midazolam which some states have turned to as other lethal injection drugs became difficult to obtain.  The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily delayed the execution to consider Melson's stay request, but ruled after 9 p.m. that the execution could go forward....

"Robert Melson's decades-long avoidance of justice is over. For twenty-three years, the families of the three young people whose lives he took, as well as a survivor, have waited for closure and healing. That process can finally begin tonight," Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement after the execution.

I have stressed in my post title the drug Alabama has used in its recent executions in part because that drug is sure to be at the center of discussions next week when the full en banc Sixth Circuit considers a current stay on Ohio executions based in part on concerns with the use of the drug midzolam. For basic background on that story, one can check out these posts:

June 9, 2017 in Baze and Glossip lethal injection cases, Death Penalty Reforms | Permalink | Comments (5)

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Noticing that the Trump DOJ budget predicts a 2% growth in the federal prison population in fiscal year 2018

The Wall Street Journal has this new article noting that the Trump Administration is already making plans for an increased federal prison population.  The article is headlined "Federal Prison Population Expected to Grow Under Trump: Increase is anticipated in prosecutions of illegal immigrants, drug offenders."  Here is how it gets started:

The federal prison population is expected to grow next year by 4,171 to a total of 191,493 as the Trump administration steps up prosecutions of illegal immigrants and drug offenders, reversing the trend toward a smaller prison population under former President Barack Obama.

That estimate of 2% growth in fiscal 2018 was tucked into in a Justice Department budget proposal posted online after the Trump administration's broader spending plan was released two weeks ago.  The proposed budget also calls for 300 new federal prosecutors and 75 new immigration judges.

June 8, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

"Neither Justice Nor Treatment: Drug Courts in the United States"

PhrThe title of this post is the title of this notable new report issued by the group Physicians for Human Rights. Here is an excerpts from the report's executive summary:

U.S. drug courts [are] specialized courts within the criminal justice system set up to provide alternative sentencing options — treatment instead of jail or prison time — for people charged with criminal behavior linked to drug possession, sale, or addiction.  The first courts were opened in 1989 to ease dockets and jails that were overflowing as a result of strict federal and state laws passed in the 1980s in an attempt to reduce drug supply and consumption.

Almost three decades later, there are more than 3,100 drug courts operating in the United States.  But while the courts’ proponents say they reduce recidivism for people with substance use disorders, critics say the system abuses due process, often mandates treatment for people who don’t actually need it — people without drug dependence — and fails to provide quality care to many who do.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the availability and quality of substance use disorder treatment through drug courts in three states — Florida, New Hampshire, and New York, chosen for the diversity of their drug court and health system approaches — and found major obstacles to quality evidence-based treatment for drug court participants in all three states.  Overall, PHR found that drug courts largely failed at providing treatment to those who truly needed it, and filled up limited treatment spaces with courtmandated patients who didn’t always need the care.  In many cases, court officials with no medical background mandated inappropriate treatment not rooted in the evidence base, or mandated treatment for people who didn’t need it.  In all cases, the functioning and mandate of the drug courts posed significant human rights concerns.

At the most basic level, PHR found that access to quality treatment was hampered by the inherent tension between a punitive criminal justice logic and therapeutic concern for drug court participants as patients.  In fact, despite the stated intention of drug courts to treat people who use drugs as ill rather Executive Summary than deviant, drug court participants were often punished for relapsing, missing therapy appointments, or otherwise failing to follow court rules.

One key concern motivating this research was whether drug courts were able to appropriately diagnose and facilitate treatment for people with substance use disorders who are in conflict with the law.  We found that, in many cases, they were not.  Diagnosis and initial treatment plans for drug court participants were often developed by people with no medical training or oversight, at times resulting in mandated treatment that was directly at odds with medical knowledge and recommendations.  The most egregious example of this was the refusal, delay, or curbing of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) (also known as substitution or replacement therapy) to people with opioid use disorders, despite evidence that treatment for such disorders in many cases requires long-term — sometimes permanent — medication.  Some drug courts also prevented participants from accessing or staying on medically prescribed treatment for anxiety, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and other chronic health problems.

Human rights concerns are thus particularly relevant for drug courts, as these courts blur the line between voluntary and coerced treatment, and compel participants to waive the right to confidentiality.  Furthermore, most drug courts operate with regulations that subject medical expertise and advice regarding treatment to prosecutorial oversight and potential veto, raising questions about a person’s ability to access impartial evidencebased care.  Even where courts did not actively violate human rights protections of their participants, the regulatory set-up constantly threatened such violations.

June 8, 2017 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Drug Offense Sentencing, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (6)

More interesting new "Quick Facts" publications from the US Sentencing Commission

The US Sentencing Commission has released two notable new Quick Facts covering "Drug Trafficking Offenses" and "Federal Offenders in Prison" as of February 2017. (As the USSC explains, "Quick Facts" are publications that "give readers basic facts about a single area of federal crime in an easy-to-read, two-page format.")  Here are a few of the many intriguing data details from these two small data-filled publications:

June 8, 2017 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Drug Offense Sentencing, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Facial Profiling: Race, Physical Appearance, and Punishment"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new empirical paper authored by Brian Johnson and Ryan King.  Here is the abstract:

We investigate the associations among physical appearance, threat perceptions, and criminal punishment.  Psychological ideas about impression formation are integrated with criminological perspectives on sentencing to generate and test unique hypotheses about the associations among defendant facial characteristics, subjective evaluations of threatening appearance, and judicial imprisonment decisions.

We analyze newly collected data that link booking photos, criminal histories, and sentencing information for more than 1,100 convicted felony defendants.  Our findings indicate that Black defendants are perceived to be more threatening in appearance.  Other facial characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, baby-faced appearance, facial scars, and visible tattoos, also influence perceptions of threat, as do criminal history scores.  Furthermore, some physical appearance characteristics are significantly related to imprisonment decisions, even after controlling for other relevant case characteristics.  These and other findings are discussed as they relate to psychological research on impression formation, criminological theories of court actor decision-making, and sociological work on race and punishment.

June 8, 2017 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Judge Jack Weinstein talks through general deterrence and gang activity in federal gun sentencing

A helpful reader forwarded to me the latest interesting sentencing opinion authored by US District Judge Jack Weinstein. The full 25-page opinion in US v. Lawrence, No. 16-CR-243 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017), is an interesting read for a lot of reasons, is not readily summarized and is available for download below. Here is how it gets started and ends to provide taste for the full opinion:

Defendant in the instant case pled guilty to a serious crime.  He is either a gang member or on the verge of becoming one.  He recklessly fired an illegally possessed handgun repeatedly down a public street, with the likelihood that a passing pedestrian might be hit: in fact he wounded his companion.

This case presents some of the critical difficulties in federal sentencing. It requires balancing general deterrence (and, relatedly, incapacitation) by a relatively long prison term with specific deterrence (and its other aspect, rehabilitation) by a relatively short term in prison. Both must be considered under section 3553(a)(2)(B) of section [1]8 of the United States Code.  By compromising, and reducing a somewhat draconian sentence (possibly less effective for general deterrence), or increasing the sentence (possibly less effective for rehabilitation), the sentence may risk frustrating either goal.

The subtle weighing of alternatives is made more difficult by the presence of numerous competing vectors (such as family or work or criminal history).  In the present case the court accepted, and acted on, testimony of an expert witness that increasing the length of incarceration does not proportionally increase general or specific deterrence....

The Guidelines do not consider gang membership as a factor in sentencing, except for defendants who are sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 521 (pertaining to criminal street gangs), where the Guidelines provide for an upward departure. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.18.  Were gang membership a sentencing factor in cases other than those under 18 U.S.C. § 521, courts would give greater weight to this factor.  This court recommends that the Sentencing commission revisit the gang membership problem.

Download Lawrence - Judgment%2c Memo%2c and Order

June 8, 2017 in Gun policy and sentencing, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Four Senators write to AG Sessions with pointed questions about the Sessions Memo on charging and sentencing

As detailed in this press release from Senator Mike Lee, "Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Rand Paul (R-KY) sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions Wednesday, seeking answers about the Department of Justice’s May 10, 2017 memorandum, directing federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious offense possible when prosecuting defendants."  The three-page letter is available at this link, and it starts this way:

We write concerning the Department of Justice's May 10, 2017 memorandum directing federal prosecutors to "pursue the most serious, readily provable offense." The Department's new policy ignores the growing bipartisan view that federal sentencing laws are in grave need of reform.  In many cases, the new policy will result in counterproductive sentences that do nothing to make the public safer. And it appears to force the hand of the prosecutors closest to each case to seek the highest possible offense rather than enable them to determine an appropriate lesser charge, which can help guard against imposing excessive sentences.

Among the six pointed questions (with sub-questions) that end the letter are these that strike me as especially interesting:

Pursuant to the Department's new policy, prosecutors are allowed to apply for approval to deviate from the general rule that they must pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.  The memo, however, does not explain how the Department will decide whether to grant approval to deviate from the general rule.  What factors will the Department consider in making these decisions? How often do you anticipate that prosecutors will request approval to deviate from the Department's charging policy? How often do you expect such requests will be granted?  Will Main Justice track how frequently attorneys seek departures from the new policy?

Are there any federal criminal offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences that you believe are unfair?  Do you believe that all applications of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) result in fair sentences?  If the answer to either of those questions is "no," why do you believe the Department's new policy allows enough discretion to individual prosecutors to result in fair outcomes in cases implicating these statutes?

 Prior recent related posts: 

June 7, 2017 in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Prof Stephanos Bibas among new slate of notable nominees to the circuit courts by Prez Trump

5914168_origThis big news in the world of Presidential nominations this morning would seem to be Prez Trump's decision, reported here, to nominate Christopher Wray to serve as head of the FBI.  Long-time and hard-core sentencing fans will perhaps recall that Wray was an Assistant AG for the Justice Department back when Blakely and Booker came down, so there is an interesting sentencing history that his name necessarily evokes.

But, other nomination news from inside-the-Beltway should be of even more interest to long-time and hard-core sentencing fans.  According to this Washington Times article, sentencing scholar Stephanos Bibas is getting tapped for an open position on the Third Circuit.  Here are the details from the press account, along with a bit of notable commentary therein:

President Trump announced a new round of 11 judicial nominations Wednesday, including three nominees for high-profile federal appeals courts.

One of the nominees, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison H. Eid, is being tapped by the president to fill a vacancy on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals created when Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed for the Supreme Court in April. Justice Eid was on Mr. Trump’s list of conservative potential Supreme Court nominees that he presented to voters during the presidential campaign last year. She has served on Colorado’s high court since 2006, and previously was the state’s solicitor general.

“These appointments follow the successful nomination and confirmation of associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court, the successful nomination and confirmation of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the nomination of numerous candidates to other judgeships,” the White House said in a statement.

Mr. Trump also is nominating U.S. District Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson of North Dakota for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Stephanos Bibas to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Erickson has served on the district court since 2003. The White House called Mr. Bibas, director of the university’s Supreme Court Clinic, “one of the nation”s leading experts in criminal law and procedure.” He has argued six cases before the Supreme Court, taught at the University of Chicago Law School and served from 1998 to 2000 as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York....

“President Trump continues to put forward superlative judicial nominees with sterling credentials and impressive intellects,” said Jonathan Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “It’s especially notable that President Trump continues to pick current and former academics for the appellate bench — more so than any recent president. This will only magnify the impact his nominees are likely to have on the federal courts.”

I have previously noted in this space Prez Trump's apparent affinity for academics in his early judicial selections (as well as for folks with some sentencing history).  And I have a particular affinity for Prof Bibas not only because of his long history as a sentencing scholar, but also because we worked together on a Supreme Court case Tapia in which he was an appointed amicus and we co-authored one of my favorite articles, Making Sentencing Sensible.  Stephanos and I also co-authored an essay about capital sentencing, Engaging Capital Emotions.

Also, long-time and eagle-eyed blog readers may recall that Prof Bibas did a stint of guest-blogging in this space in conjunction with the release of his book, "The Machinery of Criminal Justice," which was published in 2012 by Oxford University Press and is available here.  All of his posts are linked under the category tab, Guest blogging by Professor Stephanos Bibas, and here are links to my introduction and then to all his substantive posts:

June 7, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (18)

Spotlighting the continued challenges for juve lifers like Henry Montgomery even after SCOTUS victories in Miller and Montgomery

Mother Jones has this notable new article about Henry Montgomery and other juveniles who are still fighting to get relief after seemingly helpful recent Supreme Court Eighth Amendment rulings. The full headline of this piece is "The Supreme Court Said His Prison Sentence Was Unconstitutional. He’s Still Behind Bars. Despite a ruling in their favor, Henry Montgomery and other juvenile lifers are no closer to getting out."  Here are excerpts:

But although the Supreme Court often appears all-powerful, its clout is more limited than it seems. Nearly 18 months after his victory, Montgomery is still sitting in Angola, and there’s no guarantee that he — or many of the roughly 1,000 others serving similar sentences across the country — will ever get out....

Montgomery’s saga began in November 1963 in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, during a turbulent time of racial tensions, Ku Klux Klan activity, and cross-burnings. Montgomery, who is African American, was in 10th grade and playing hooky when he encountered the local sheriff, Charles Hurt, who was white. In a panic at being caught out of school, Montgomery allegedly shot and killed Hurt with his grandfather’s gun, which he had stolen....

[If sentenced today], Montgomery would be allowed to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, and his lawyers could argue that his youth and mental disability — he had an IQ of around 70 — should be grounds for a reduced sentence. Instead, a state appellate court upheld his mandatory life sentence, and that was the end of his contact with a lawyer for decades to come....

In 2012, the US Supreme Court offered juvenile lifers such as Montgomery a glimmer of hope. In Miller v. Alabama, a case of two men who’d been sentenced to mandatory life without parole for crimes they committed at the age of 14, the court ruled 5-4 that such sentences were unconstitutional. Mandatory life without parole violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the court said, because such sentences failed to recognize that adults differ from children, who have “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform.” The court held that life-without-parole sentences should be used only for “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.”

The decision set off a flurry of litigation by inmates incarcerated as children who argued that the Miller decision should be applied retroactively. Montgomery filed a petition to have his sentence overturned without the help of a lawyer, but the Baton Rouge public defender’s office eventually took up his case. The local district attorney fought him every step of the way, and he lost in all the state appeals courts. But in 2015, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

In January 2016, the court ruled in Montgomery’s favor, with Kennedy writing that the decision, which gave juvenile lifers a shot at parole, “would afford someone like Montgomery, who submits that he has evolved from a troubled, misguided youth to a model member of the prison community, the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition—that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change.”

But the decision was only the beginning of Montgomery’s fight.  The Supreme Court decision gave states a lot of leeway in how they handle cases like Montgomery’s and punted the details to lower-court judges and state legislators.  In Louisiana, a judge could reduce Montgomery’s sentence to life with parole, but that would leave his fate to Louisiana’s notoriously stringent parole board, which could deny him release.  The Supreme Court also left room for judges to simply resentence eligible inmates to life without parole by declaring them irreparably corrupt. And that’s exactly what the Baton Rouge district attorney pushed for in Montgomery’s case....

Montgomery’s case has languished in part because the state didn’t know quite how to handle Louisiana’s 300 juvenile lifers who’d won the right to resentencing.  Should an inmate have a full-blown sentencing hearing that would resemble those used in capital cases?  And who should decide the outcome, a jury or a judge?  The courts put Montgomery’s case on hold while the state Legislature considered a bill that would automatically grant juvenile lifers a shot at parole after they’d served 30 years in prison.  But the bill died last summer, and although it’s been taken up again this year, the courts have decided to move forward without any new legislation.  Some juvenile lifers have been able to win plea bargains that freed them, but they aren’t the majority.

Working against Montgomery is the fact that the adult children and grandchildren of his victim have been involved in the process and are opposed to his release....

Montgomery is one of many juvenile lifers whose sentences remain in limbo after the Supreme Court decision. Michigan, for example, has about 350 juvenile lifers behind bars. Since the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery, the state has begun resentencing them.  [Juvenile Law Center's Marsha] Levick says that in about 85 percent of those cases, prosecutors are again seeking life without parole.  In one jurisdiction, the local prosecutor is the same former judge who sentenced many of the inmates to life in the first place. She has requested new life sentences for 44 of 49 inmates serving life without parole for murders they committed before the age of 18....

Jody Kent Lavy, executive director of the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, visited Montgomery in Angola earlier this year and says that because of the resistance of states like Louisiana and Michigan to implementing the Montgomery decision, the high court really “needs to take another step to bar life without parole [for juveniles] outright.”  She notes that local district attorneys are usually elected, and so the Montgomery decision “still leaves room for racially charged decisions, politically motivated decisions, as opposed to what is fair.  It keeps me up at night.”

A state court judge heard Montgomery’s case last month and promised a decision by late June.

June 7, 2017 in Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Brennan Center provides a "final" accounting of rising violent crime in 2016

The folks at the Brennan Center have this new report titled "Crime in 2016: Final Year-End Data" authored by Ames Grawert and James Cullen. This Brennan Center webpage includes a link to the report, other past reports on crime rates, and this accounting of the report's primary findings:

Chicago accounted for more than 55 percent of the murder increase last year, according to a new analysis of crime data by the Brennan Center. The overall national crime rate remained stable.

This analysis finds that Americans are safer today than they have been at almost any time in the past 25 years.

Based on new year-end data collected from police departments in the 30 largest cities, crime in 2016 remained at historic lows across the country. Although there are some troubling increases in murder in specific cities, these trends do not signal the start of a new national crime wave. What’s more startling, this analysis finds that the increase in murders is even more concentrated than initially expected. Chicago now accounts for more than 55.1 percent of the total increase in urban murders — up from an earlier projection of 43.7 percent.

Final Year-End Findings:

  • The overall crime rate in the 30 largest cities in 2016 remained largely unchanged from last year. Specifically, overall crime rose by 0.9 percent, essentially remaining stable.

  • The murder rate rose in this group of cities last year by 13.1 percent.

  • Alarmingly, Chicago accounted for 55.1 percent of the total increase in urban murders — more than preliminary data suggested.

  • A similar phenomenon occurred in 2015, when three cities — Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. — accounted for more than half (53.5 percent) of the increase in murders.

  • Some cities are experiencing an increase in murder while other forms of crime remain relatively low. Concerns about a national crime wave are premature, but these trends suggest a need to understand how and why murder is increasing in these cities.

  • Violent crime rates rose slightly. The 4.2 percent increase was driven by Chicago (16.5 percent) and Baltimore (18.6 percent). Violent crime still remains near the bottom of the nation’s 30-year downward trend.

These crime data, however one might view or spin them, help ensure that Justice Department officials like Jeff Sessions Steve Cook have strong talking points whenever they are eager to make the case for tougher federal criminal justice policies and practices.  Moreover, they can help support a pitch for sentencing toughness that can be enduring: if crime keep going up in 2017 and beyond, then the case gets made that even great toughness is needed; if crime starts going down in 2017 or later, then the case gets made that toughness works.

June 7, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (2)

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

"Where Are the United States Attorneys?"

The title of this post is the title of this New York Times editorial, which starts and ends this way:

Three months after President Trump abruptly fired half of the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, following the resignations of the other half, he has yet to replace a single one.

It’s bizarre — and revealing — that a man who called himself the “law and order candidate” during the 2016 campaign and spoke of “lawless chaos” in his address to Congress would permit such a leadership vacuum at federal prosecutors’ offices around the country.  United States attorneys are responsible for prosecuting terrorism offenses, serious financial fraud, public corruption, crimes related to gang activity, drug trafficking and all other federal crimes....

Especially when it comes to higher-profile, long-term cases, Senate-confirmed heads are needed to work in coordination with the Justice Department.  The United States attorneys are only the tip of the iceberg.  Mr. Trump has yet to nominate a new F.B.I. chief after firing the former director, James Comey, last month.  The Justice Department’s criminal, civil and national-security divisions are all under temporary leadership.  These delays are strange even for a White House that ran what one former official called the “slowest transition in decades” and that has dealt with key government posts with all the urgency of a summer barbecue.

While his hiring freeze, which is leaving many lower federal jobs unfilled, is part of a broader strategy to hobble or suffocate entire federal agencies, this seems less deliberate and harder to understand.  The prosecutors certainly won’t be coming on board anytime soon.  Even in a fully functioning administration, it takes months for nominees to be screened by the F.B.I. and approved by the Senate.

One familiar rationale — that Mr. Trump wasn’t prepared because he never expected to win — may account for some of the delay, but it’s an increasingly embarrassing excuse.  You don’t run for president on a major-party ticket as a lark, and you don’t pink-slip top federal prosecutors en masse without a long list of qualified candidates in your back pocket.

There are two other obvious, and perhaps simpler, explanations, and both may be correct.  Mr. Trump does not actually believe in or care about his campaign claim of “lawless chaos” in our streets.  And Mr. Trump is not a good manager — not of his businesses, certainly, and not of the vastly larger, more complex organization he now runs, the one that matters to the well-being of every American.

June 6, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5)

Senators Grassley and Feinstein working on enhanced federal penalties for synthetic opioid offenses

This slightly confusing new NPR story, headlined "Lawmakers Consider Tough New Penalties For Opioid Crimes, Bucking Trend," suggests that the only kind of sentencing reform being now discussed in Congress involves increasing rather than decreasing drug offense sentences.  Here are the still opaque details as reported by NPR (with my emphasis added, for subsequent comment):

For nearly four years now, an unusual coalition of Republicans and Democrats has worked to reduce mandatory prison terms for many federal drug crimes.  But that bipartisan movement may be shallower than it appears. Indeed, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who both supported a cut-back on some drug punishments, are preparing a bill that would create tough new penalties for people caught with synthetic opioid drugs.  Grassley chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Feinstein is the panel's ranking member.

A draft of the legislation reviewed by NPR suggests the plan would give the attorney general a lot more power to ban all kinds of synthetic drugs, since criminals often change the recipe to evade law enforcement.  It would impose a 10-year maximum sentence on people caught selling them as a first offense. That would double if they do it again.

Michael Collins of the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for lighter punishments for drug offenders, has seen language in the proposal. He said he thinks it's a bad idea. "These synthetic drugs are added to heroin often outside the U.S., but the bill takes such a broad approach that it's penalizing individuals who sell drugs at a low level inside the U.S., and so it's going to do nothing to deter and stop the supply of drugs," Collins said.

Collins said drug addiction is a public health challenge. He said sending more people to prison won't help, just as it didn't help in the crack cocaine era a few decades ago. "The problem is really we've been here before with this approach in terms of the war on drugs and ramping up sentences, and we know that escalating sentences ... does nothing to help the opioid epidemic," Collins said. "In fact, it only serves to increase the prison population."

Many people inside the Justice Department disagree. Just last week, federal prosecutors in Utah announced charges against a half-dozen people in suburban Salt Lake City.  Authorities say two of them quit their jobs at eBay to embark on a new enterprise. They allegedly ordered a version of the synthetic opioid fentanyl by mail from China, then pressed the drug into counterfeit pills and sold them online to customers across the country.

U.S. Attorney John Huber brought the case. "Like much of the country, we are not escaping the heroin and opioid epidemic and this latest version or brand of it with the fentanyl danger just makes it that much more pressing of a concern for us," Huber said.  The alleged ringleader — 27-year-old Aaron Michael Shamo — could spend the rest of his life in prison if he's convicted under the current drug laws.  "Mr. Shamo faces a mandatory life minimum sentence if he's convicted and that shows how serious this is, when you're dealing in such large quantities of such a dangerous substance," Huber said. "This is as serious as it gets."

As this NPR story already indirectly indicates, severe federal sentences are already on the books for serious drug dealers who traffic in fentanyl, and I am pretty sure a first offense of even a small amount of fentanyl dealing already carries a mandatory maximum sentence of decades. Thus, I think the highlighted line from the article here meant to report that Senators Grassley and Feinstein are working on a bill that would have a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for even low-lever, first-time dealing of fentanyl.

I am not yet going to criticize a bill I have not yet seen, nor am I going to criticize the instinct of many legislators and law enforcement officials that drastic action needs to be taken in response to the still growing opioid epidemic.  But I am certainly prepared to express disappointment that leaders like Senators Grassley and Feinstein still apparently think that new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions serve as a wise and appropriate response to a national drug problem.

June 6, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Might AG Sessions resign due to tension with Prez Trump?

As I write the question in the title of this post, I already realize the answer surely is "No."  But the very fact the question arises is somewhat remarkable, and this ABC News report is the reason it does.  The report is headlined "Jeff Sessions suggested he could resign amid rising tension with President Trump," and here are excerpts:

As the White House braces for former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday, sources tell ABC News the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has become so tense that Sessions at one point recently even suggested he could resign.

The friction between the two men stems from the attorney general's abrupt decision in March to recuse himself from anything related to the Russia investigation -- a decision the president only learned about minutes before Sessions announced it publicly. Multiple sources say the recusal is one of the top disappointments of his presidency so far and one the president has remained fixated on.

Trump’s anger over the recusal has not diminished with time. Two sources close to the president say he has lashed out repeatedly at the attorney general in private meetings, blaming the recusal for the expansion of the Russia investigation, now overseen by Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

But sources say the frustration runs both ways, prompting the resignation offer from Sessions. Asked by ABC News if the attorney general had threatened or offered to resign, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores declined to comment.

The New York Times is on this beat with these recent articles on this front:

"Trump Grows Discontented With Attorney General Jeff Sessions"

"Sessions Is Said to Have Offered to Resign"

Dare I say that perhaps AG Session has offered to resign because he is now just so sick and tired of winning?

June 6, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6)

A timely call for "Reorganizing the Federal Clemency Process"

Paul Larkin, who has written a number of recent notable article on clemency noted here and here, now has this new "Legal Memorandum" at The Heritage Foundation titled ""Reorganizing the Federal Clemency Process."  Here its abstract and "Key Points":

The President relies on the Department of Justice to filter out ineligible applicants and recommend from the remainder which ones should receive clemency, but the department suffers from an actual or apparent conflict of interest.  One proposed remedy would be for Congress to create an independent advisory board like the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review every clemency application and offer the President its recommendations.  A better alternative would be for the President to move the Office of the Pardon Attorney into the Executive Office of the President and use the Vice President as his principal clemency adviser.  The Vice President can offer the President several benefits in the clemency decision- making process that no one else in the government possesses.

Key Points:

Prior related posts:

June 6, 2017 in Clemency and Pardons, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Discouraging account of the state of federal criminal justice reform come summer 2017

On the heels of big talk in summer 2013 from then-Attorney General Eric Holder about criminal justice reforms, some pundits (as noted here) were quick to suggest that momentum for major federal sentencing reform might be unstoppable. Ever the political pessimist, I was then quite hopeful but still not all that optimistic that Congress would find a way to enact some sweeping federal statutory sentencing reforms before too long.

But fast forward four years to the coming summer 2017, and there no seems to be very little reason to be hopeful or optimistic about anything getting done in this space anytime soon. This new Marshall Project feature article by Justin George highlights that this is not only a story of a new Prez and Attorney General with different criminal justice priorities, but also a story of reform voices on the left and right coming to battle each other in ways that may ensure there in no path forward. The article is headlined "Can This Marriage Be Saved?: Left and right came together on criminal justice reform. Then Trump happened." Here are a few notable excerpts:

John Malcolm [is] a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, the influential conservative think tank [and] a member of an unlikely alliance that hopes to end America’s status as the world’s most prolific jailer: liberals who find the criminal justice system racist, inequitable, and inhumane are joining forces with conservatives — such as Malcolm — who find it wasteful, harmful to families, and heavy-handed. Last year, reformers on both sides agreed to support a proposed law that would relax mandatory minimum sentences, giving federal judges somewhat more discretion in sentencing and helping low-level offenders avoid prison time. It was a modest proposal, compared to the size of the problem, but the bill attracted a rare amount of bipartisan support in Washington.

Despite that support, however, the measure failed to pass Congress. Some Republicans wanted the law to include a provision on “mens rea” reform, which would expand the category of crimes in which a defendant’s criminal intent is a factor in determining guilt. Democrats, convinced that such a provision would make it harder for prosecutors to go after corporate crime, resisted. The bill stalled, then died—and so did some of the spirit of common cause. Last year, as the contentious presidential election neared its conclusion, the alliance started to come undone.

Liberal members of the coalition, such as Jesselyn McCurdy, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, say that the reform bill failed because obstructionist Republicans didn’t want to give President Obama anything he could claim as a bipartisan achievement on the verge of the election. But, as Malcolm sees it, it was Democrats, confident that Hillary Clinton would be president and that the Republican grip on Congress would be loosened, who decided that they no longer needed to compromise. “People’s positions became hardened,” Malcolm said. Conservatives, he added, also bristled at the “anti-police” rhetoric of the Black Lives Matter movement and at the left’s emphasis on the racial disparities of the criminal justice system.... Groups from the right and left still meet regularly on criminal justice issues, including at a monthly work luncheon that Malcolm hosts, at the Heritage Foundation. But momentum has been hard to regain. “Hurt feelings are impacting meaningful discussion,” Malcolm said. “For the right, the criticism of the left is ‘Your messaging stinks, and you don’t make it easy to pass stuff, because you make this difficult for conservatives to sign on to,’ ” Kevin Ring, the president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said. “And, for the left, the criticism of the right was ‘You didn't try that hard.’ ”...

But [Senator Mike] Lee, who still believes that a reform bill can get through Congress, said he is not so sure Sessions will be an impediment. “Jeff Sessions is in a different role now — he’s no longer a lawmaker,” Lee said. “I’ve had conversations with people in the White House and elsewhere in the administration in which I’ve explained to them this could be a really good bipartisan win, a nice bipartisan moment, and I’ve been working with the administration to figure out what level of comfort they have with it and what we need to do in order to move forward.” (The Department of Justice said that Sessions was not available for comment, and the White House did not respond to requests to interview Kushner for this story.)...

But the only notable criminal justice measures showing signs of life in the House so far this year would only create more opportunities to put people in prison or to hand out longer sentences, such as a measure expanding the powers of federal probation officers to arrest anyone who interferes with their work. Given this inhospitable climate, Ring, of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said that perhaps the best course for reformers is to hope for “benign neglect” from the Trump administration and to focus on repairing the damage done to the alliance by the “emotional fallout” of 2016. Maybe, he said, “this is time for us to put our head down and start winning hearts and minds.”

June 6, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Kinds of Punishment"

The title of this post is the title of this essay by Douglas Husak now available via SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Contemporary states execute, imprison, fine, place on probation, conditionally discharge, caution, and do a great deal more to the persons they convict.  What general principles govern how retributivists should choose between the foregoing responses to culpable wrongdoing — or select an altogether different type of sanction?  If my subsequent reasoning is sound, it is easy to understand why retributivists have tended to neglect this issue.  They have neglected it because they have little to contribute to its resolution.  In what follows, I will support this conclusion and discuss a few of the somewhat controversial positions on which it rests.  I hope to make some headway on this topic by defending what I call the deferential view about kinds of punishment (or deferential view for short).

June 6, 2017 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, June 5, 2017

Gearing up for big state court argument on the state and fate of California's death penalty

The San Francisco Chronicle has this new article about the new issues the California Supreme Court is facing concerning the state's old death penalty problems. The piece is headlined "State high court ruling on death penalty could restart executions<" and here are excerpts:

The California Supreme Court hears many high-stakes cases on issues such as individual rights, taxes, and the lawmaking powers of the state and its voters. But it has seldom confronted a case with such potentially dramatic consequences as Tuesday’s hearing on the Proposition 66 death-penalty initiative.

If the court — traditionally deferential to the will of the voters — upholds the central provisions of Prop. 66, it will open the door to the resumption of executions in a state that last put a prisoner to death in January 2006. Nearly 750 condemned inmates inhabit the nation’s largest Death Row, and about 20 have run out of appeals to their conviction and sentence.

Prop. 66 also seeks to speed up future executions, in part by requiring the state’s high court to decide all death-penalty appeals within five years of sentencing — more than twice its current pace. If the court upholds that requirement, one of the most hotly contested in the case, it may have to reconfigure itself as a tribunal that gives priority to capital cases over all other types of criminal and civil law disputes in the nation’s most populous state.

California has long been what one expert calls a "symbolic death penalty state," one of 12 that has capital punishment on the books but has not executed anyone in more than a decade. Prodded by voters and lawsuits, the nation's most populous state may now roll back toward allowing executions, though observers are split on how quickly they will resume, if at all.

The justices could reject the deadlines while upholding other Prop. 66 provisions aimed at shortening the death-penalty process, such as limiting prisoners’ appeals and requiring more lawyers to accept capital cases. But opponents say the proposed timetables for court action are the heart of an initiative that seeks to hamstring judicial authority over state law.

Neither lawmakers nor voters can “force the courts to prioritize a certain type of case at the expense of all other types of cases,” said Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, a lawyer in the suit to overturn Prop. 66. The requirement to move death cases to the front of the line, she said, would “impair the court’s inherent function of giving fair and equal treatment to (all) litigants.”

Not so, said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and an author of Prop. 66. He said the measure would actually relieve the state Supreme Court of some of its current death-penalty workload by transferring some hearings to trial courts. It sets a five-year deadline that he says the court could meet if it eliminated needless delays. “If our side wins, we can get back to having a death penalty that actually works and really see some executions being carried out,” probably before the end of this year, said Scheidegger, who will argue in defense of the measure along with Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office at the hearing in Los Angeles.

Rayburn said an unrelated federal court case would probably delay any executions in California by at least six months, even if Prop. 66 were upheld. If the court overturns most or all of the initiative, executions will remain on hold for a year or longer as challenges to proposed new lethal-injection procedures work their way through state and federal courts....

Prop. 66 passed with 51 percent of the vote on the same November ballot in which a rival measure to repeal the death penalty in California was rejected by about seven percentage points, nearly twice the margin of defeat for a similar measure in 2012. While the votes were close, the message seemed clear: Californians want the death-penalty law enforced.  But the far-reaching provisions of Prop. 66, which received little attention during the campaign, have evidently raised concerns among the justices, who put the measure on hold while they consider a lawsuit seeking to overturn it....

Another provision of the measure seeks to expand the pool of defense lawyers by requiring attorneys to take capital cases if they already accept court appointments to represent defendants in other criminal cases.  Supporters say the change would ease the shortage of available lawyers, one of the chief reasons appeals take so long.  Opponents say it would put condemned inmates’ fates in the hands of unqualified lawyers and prompt many lawyers to refuse future assignments.

Prop. 66 would also speed up the state’s switch from three-drug executions, in use from 1996 to 2006, to lethal injections of a single barbiturate. Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration proposed procedures for one-drug executions last year in settlement of a lawsuit by relatives of murder victims.  Prison officials are still reviewing those procedures under a long-standing law that requires them to consider public comments.  The commenters have included organizations that say the proposed drugs are untested in executions and the procedures are unreliable....

Two of the court’s seven justices, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Ming Chin, have removed themselves from the case because they are members of the state’s Judicial Council....  Their replacements are two randomly selected appeals court justices, Andrea Hoch of the Sacramento court, an appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Raymond Ikola, appointed to the court in Santa Ana by Gov. Gray Davis.

June 5, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Deputy AG Rosenstein suggests rising crime justifies prosecutorial shift from Holder Memo to Sessions Memo

I just saw this AP article from late last week reporting on an interesting interview with the second in charge at the US Department of Justice.  Here are the details:

The Justice Department’s new policy urging harsher punishments for most criminals is meant to target the worst gang members and drug traffickers, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday in an effort to mollify critics who fear a revival of drug war policies. “We’re not about filling prisons,” Rosenstein told The Associated Press in his first interview since becoming the Justice Department’s No. 2 official. “The mission is to reduce violent crime and drug abuse, and this helps us do that.”

Rosenstein emphasized the department’s plan to fight violent crime that includes prosecutors’ ability to decide whether to level charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences — a carrots-and-sticks approach for gaining cooperation. He acknowledged that federal prosecutors will sometimes charge lower-level criminals to take down entire gangs but “that’s the exception not the rule.”...

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ directive last month urges federal prosecutors to seek the steepest penalties for most crime suspects, a reversal of Obama-era policies that aimed to reduce the federal prison population and show more leniency to lower-level drug offenders. Sessions’ Democratic predecessor, Eric Holder, told prosecutors they could, in some cases, leave drug quantities out of documents to avoid charging suspects with crimes that trigger years-long mandatory minimum punishments.

Some prosecutors have said they felt constrained by the Holder directive. Under that old rule, they worried about a loss of plea-bargaining leverage — and a key inducement for cooperation — without the ability to more freely pursue charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences.

Advocates for changes to the criminal justice system assailed the reversal as a return to drug-war era policies that helped ravage minority communities and put even nonviolent drug offenders in prison for long terms. Among the sharpest critics was Holder, who called it an “ideologically motivated, cookie-cutter approach that has only been proven to generate unfairly long sentences that are often applied indiscriminately and do little to achieve long-term public safety.”

Rosenstein said he dutifully implemented Holder’s policy when it was issued in 2013 but believes recent spikes in violence in some cities necessitate a new approach. Supporters of Holder’s policy “felt like there were too many people in prison and crime rates were falling, and they were hopeful that they could reduce enforcement and keep crime rates low,” he said. “We’re in a different position now.”

Officials will be continually tracking crime statistics in cities that have seen recent spikes in violence. But any change won’t be immediate, Rosenstein said. Sessions’ directive gives prosecutors leeway to veer from the policy and levy less-serious charges when warranted. And federal prosecutors rarely take cases against “minor offenders,” focusing their attention instead on larger criminal organizations, Rosenstein said. “We think it’s important in this circumstance in 2017 to restore to our federal prosecutors the authority to use the penalties Congress has given them in cases they think it’s important,” Rosenstein said. “We’re not micromanaging from Washington.”

I find it quite interesting that DAG Rosenstein here repeated a line used by AG Sessions last month when discussing his new charging/sentencing memo that the new policy is "not micromanaging from Washington." This leads me to think that at least some local US Attorneys expressed concern about being "micromanaged" by the Holder Memos, and it leads me to wonder if these US Attorneys will really feel more free from micromanaging under the Sessions Memo.

Prior recent related posts: 

June 5, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

Supreme Court unanimously limits reach of federal drug-offense forfeiture statute

The US Supreme Court this morning handed down a unanimous opinion in Honeycutt v. United States, No. 16-142 (S. Ct. June 5, 2017) (available here), a case concerning the reach of the federal criminal forfeiture statute. The opinion for the Court was authored by Justice Sotomayor, and it starts and ends this way:

A federal statute — 21 U.S.C. § 853 — mandates forfeiture of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of” certain drug crimes.  This case concerns how § 853 operates when two or more defendants act as part of a conspiracy. Specifically, the issue is whether, under § 853, a defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirator derived from the crime but that the defendant himself did not acquire. The Court holds that such liability is inconsistent with the statute’s text and structure....

Forfeiture pursuant to § 853(a)(1) is limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the crime.  In this case, the Government has conceded that Terry Honeycutt had no ownership interest in his brother’s store and did not personally benefit from the Polar Pure sales.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a.  The District Court agreed. Id., at 40a.  Because Honeycutt never obtained tainted property as a result of the crime, § 853 does not require any forfeiture.

The opinion's first footnote indicates that a majority of circuit courts embraced a broader view of the federal forfeiture statute, which in turns further reinforces my long-standing view that SCOTUS these days is generally more pro-defendant on a wide range of sentencing issues than most lower federal courts.

June 5, 2017 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2)

Supreme Court grants cert on whether Fourth Amendment limits collections of historical cell phone records

In this order list this morning, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Carpenter v. United States which asks, in the words of the cert petition, "whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment."

Though obviously not a sentencing case, I suspect lots of criminal justice fan (and others) will be keeping an eye on Carpenter in the months ahead.  In addition, this case would seem to present the first big opportunity for the newest Justice, Justice Neil Gorsuch, to reveal his take on the Fourth Amendment in particular and privacy issues more generally.

June 5, 2017 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Some recent highlights from Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

I has been some time since I have done a round-up of posts of note from blogging over at Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform.  So:

June 4, 2017 in Marijuana Legalization in the States, Pot Prohibition Issues | Permalink | Comments (1)

Federal District Judge Mark "Bennett says 80% of the mandatory sentences he hands down are unjust"

The quote in the title of this post's headline is just one of a number of notable lines from this extended CNN article headlined "The judge who says he's part of the gravest injustice in America." Here is some of the context and particulars from the article:

[U.S. District Court Judge Mark] Bennett seems exasperated, exhausted almost, as he explains he must sentence [Susan] Rice to a full five years -- the mandatory minimum required by law. It is a sentence he deems unjust, too much for a low-level addict, just for being caught with a certain weight of drugs.  

Bennett makes sure the record reflects he felt strongly enough to request that Iowa's US Attorney consider waiving the mandatory minimum. He accepts the defense mitigation that Rice had never been in trouble before she was in her 50s, when she began drinking heavily after a bad divorce and was introduced to meth. She met a mid-level dealer who offered her a mattress in his basement and free meth if she would drive him around. A willing drug mule to feed her addiction? Yes. But not the drug trafficker or conspirator whom the charges and mandatory minimum sentences were designed to target, the judge believed.

His plea fell on deaf ears.  He was told there was no option for Rice to be treated as an exception to the law. "I strongly disagree with that decision," the judge says firmly from the bench.  It is not the first time he has felt this way. Bennett says 80% of the mandatory sentences he hands down are unjust -- but that he is handcuffed by the law, which leaves no room for judicial discretion to consider a sentence based on individual circumstances of the defendant. 

Too often, Bennett says, low-level nonviolent drug addicts dealing to feed their habit end up being sentenced like drug kingpins.  Bennett says if he had the power, he would jail Rice for perhaps a year, or 18 months.  Across the street in a state courthouse, she would have been put on probation, he says.  "I think it's a miscarriage of justice," Bennett says. "But you know people are entitled to their own sense of what justice is."

Bennett hoped the tide was turning after members of both parties began pushing for sentencing reform on both state and federal levels, arguing it had been a huge mistake.  Now Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's attorney general, has instructed that the law governing mandatory minimums be enforced with renewed vigor. "If you are a drug trafficker," Sessions said after issuing his memo to prosecutors, "we will not look the other way. We will not be willfully blind to your misconduct."

Bennett thinks this approach is unjust. "I basically couldn't live with myself if I didn't speak out," he says, standing in the center of his courtroom only hours after sentencing Rice. "I'm compelled to talk about it because I think it's one of the gravest injustices in the history of America."  Year after year, giving out those sentences, is wearing on him.  "The burden of having given so many unjust sentences is a very heavy thing for me to carry around," Bennett says beginning to choke up. "I do not consider myself soft on crime, but I consider myself opposed to mandatory minimums for low level non-violent drug dealers who are basically addicts," he says....

The National Association of Assistant US Attorneys, made up of those who prosecute federal cases, supports Sessions' push to charge the most serious crime that is provable.  "It's an effective way of protecting the public and it has served us well for an awful long time," the group's president Larry Leiser says.  "People who were eligible for mandatory minimums are truly people who are involved in significant quantities of these very dangerous substances."  He rejects recent efforts to relax sentencing laws.  And he rejects the view the law unfairly catches non-violent addicts who are simply feeding their addiction by selling drugs.  And he hails the provision that lets offenders help themselves to lower sentences if they in turn help the authorities take serious criminals off the streets.

June 4, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4)

Saturday, June 3, 2017

"Is the death penalty dying in Dallas County?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this local article which documents a trend that leads me to think that the death penalty is never again likely to be a significant part of American criminal justice systems (if it every really was in the recent past).  Here are excerpts:

The crimes were heinous but Dallas County jurors couldn't condemn the convicted killers. A college student killed three people at a drug house in a premeditated robbery. A former special education teacher and U.S. Army veteran killed his girlfriend, her teenage daughter, his estranged wife, her adult daughter and severely wounded four children in a two-city rampage.

But neither killer received the death penalty, a punishment reserved for the "worst of the worst." Statewide, juries have declined death sentences in nearly half of the cases presented to them in the past two years.

So, what does it take to win a death penalty sentence? "You gotta be perfect probably these days," said Edwin King, a special prosecutor in one of the Dallas County cases.

Jurors couldn't agree to the death sentence in the two recent capital murder trials. They were the first Dallas County cases in which the state sought the death penalty since 2014.

The decision to seek the death penalty is based on the the severity of the crime, criminal background and what the victim's family wants, said Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson. "Our office only seeks the death penalty in the most heinous and serious of crimes," Johnson said....

"Even in Texas, the death penalty is dying," said Jason Redick of the Texas Coalition Against the Death Penalty. In the 15 death penalty cases tried in Texas since 2015, jurors have sent only eight men to death row. Death sentences peaked in the 1990s. Between 2007 and 2013, Dallas County led the state in defendants sent to death row. During that time, the county sentenced 12 people to death. Executions in Texas are also declining because of legal reforms that give prisoners more chances to have their sentences reviewed.

Jurors are only selected after they agree that they can give the ultimate punishment. Even so, they appear to be split on the issue in recent years. "We know these aren't folks who are anti-death penalty folks," Redick said. "At one point, they said they could hand out a death sentence."

June 3, 2017 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (10)

NPR covers debate over federal sentencing and mandatory minimums in three parts

This past week, National Public Radio ran a notable three-part series with conversations about modern federal sentencing realities on its Morning Edition program.  Here are the links, headings and brief descriptions of who what talking about what:

Mass Incarceration Is A Major U.S. Issue, Georgetown Law Professor Says

Rachel Martin talks to Georgetown University Law professor Paul Butler about the ongoing and new challenges facing the nation regarding the criminal justice system.

Former Prosecutor On Why He Supports Mandatory Minimums

Attorney General Sessions told federal prosecutors to seek the harshest penalties possible against defendants.  Former federal prosecutor Bill Otis tells Rachel Martin why he supports the guidelines.

A Federal Judge Says Mandatory Minimum Sentences Often Don't Fit The Crime

NPR's Rachel Martin speaks to federal Judge Mark Bennett of Iowa, who opposes mandatory minimum charging and sentencing guidelines for nonviolent drug offenses.

June 3, 2017 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, June 2, 2017

Former Penn State administrators get a few months in jail for failing to report Sandusky sex crimes leading to child endangerment convictions

As reported in this USA Today article, "former Penn State officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier were all sentenced to jail time Friday for failing to alert authorities to the allegations against ex-football coach Jerry Sandusky, allowing the now-convicted serial predator to continue molesting boys for years." Here is more:

All three were convicted of child endangerment. Schultz, the former university vice president, could serve a minimum of two months in jail and a maximum of 23 months. Curley, the former university athletic director, could serve a minimum of three months in jail and maximum of 23 months. And Spanier, the former university president, could serve a minimum of two months and a maximum of 12 months. All three are also poised to have house arrest after the jail time.

Prosecutors in the case argued that the ex-Penn State staffers failed as leaders and cared more about themselves and the school’s image than protecting the children. Judge John Boccabella in the case called it a “Shakespearean tragedy” and was befuddled by the former administrators lack of action. “These men are good people who made a terrible mistake,” the judge said. “Why no one made a phone call to police … is beyond me. All three ignored the opportunity to put an end to (Sandusky’s) crimes when they had a chance to do so."

“I deeply regret I didn’t intervene more forcefully,” Spanier said, expressing remorse, in reference to Sandusky’s victims. Spanier will appeal a misdemeanor of child endangerment charge that both Schultz and Curley pleaded guilty on.

Curley and Schultz also told the court they were sorry they didn’t do more. “I am very remorseful I did not comprehend the severity of the situation. I sincerely apologize to the victims and to all who were impacted because of my mistake,” Curley said. Said Schultz: “It really sickens me to think I might have played a part in children being hurt. I’m sorry that I didn’t do more, and I apologize to the victims.”

Sandusky is serving a 30 to 60-year prison term after being convicted of sexually abusing 10 boys.

June 2, 2017 in Celebrity sentencings, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (8)

Considering the unique housing challenges for aging sex offenders

This new Atlantic article explores the questions that now attend an ever-growing and ever-aging sex offender population.  The piece is headlined "The Puzzle of Housing Aging Sex Offenders: States are grappling with how to care for a growing population of registered offenders in long-term care facilities."  Here are excerpts:

When state officials finally released William Cubbage from the Iowa Mental Health Institute in 2010, they predicted he was too sick to hurt anyone again. But the octogenarian only became an even more notorious sex offender....

And while Cubbage’s case is extreme, he’s symptomatic of a larger puzzle in America’s long-term care facilities that no one’s managed to solve.  As lawmakers in Oklahoma and Ohio have found, isolating aging sex offenders is easier planned than achieved.

“The problem is that you’re talking about a project that’s uniquely difficult when it comes to structural needs and safety,” says Amy McCoy, a public-information officer with the Iowa Department of Human Services. “You’re talking about things like hallways without corners. You’re also talking about building a place that isn’t a prison. It’s something entirely different from a traditional care facility. You want people in the least restrictive setting, but you also want to be able to respond if something does happen.”

Local lawmakers have been sounding alarms for at least a decade whenever sex offenders strike.  With no federal regulations dictating how long-term care centers should handle offenders, solutions vary state to state. In 2012, Iowa’s Governor pushed a bill requiring nursing homes to notify residents if an offender moved in, but it died in the legislature.  California’s Department of Corrections notifies nursing homes if anyone on the sex-offender registry applies for residency, and the nursing homes are required to notify residents and employees.  Illinois facilities forbid offenders from having roommates and tests them for any special care needs before sending the results to local police and the Department of Public Health. (Requests to interview multiple nursing homes in Iowa, Ohio, and Illinois for this story went unanswered.)

Just as Iowa’s now considering, Oklahoma passed law in 2008 to create a specialized nursing home for offenders.  But not a single bid to construct the property was submitted.  A contractor’s reluctance to be involved with such a property could be due to its specialized requirements, but in the view of the sex-offender advocate Derek Logue, it’s just as likely another case of people not wanting any connection to the registry. Logue is the founder of Once Fallen, which calls itself the “leading reference & resource site for Registered Citizens.” A Cincinnati resident, Logue himself is registered in Ohio for a 2001 conviction of First Degree Sexual Abuse against an underage girl. At age 40, he calls himself “one of the younger guys”; most offenders who call for help finding a place to live or a job are in their 50s or 60s.

“If you look at the nursing homes that do take registered citizens, they tend to have below-average grades,” Logue says. “It’s the same issue [offenders] face when they’re trying to find a place to live.  You’ll never be anywhere decent, you always end up with some landlord who doesn’t care about the property.  We don’t exactly get quality service.”

Logue knows you won’t cry over his failure to score a luxury penthouse, but he counters that he’s served his time.  And it’s his tribe’s pariah statues, he says, that makes registered offenders likely to need extra medical attention in their declining years.  Beyond the Gordian knot that is the ongoing argument over the sex-offender registry’s effectiveness, constitutionality, and methods of inclusion, offenders are less likely to be employed, more likely to live in poverty if they do have full-time work, and subsequently less likely to have access to preventive care.

It’s also hard to gauge exactly how much of a danger they pose as seniors. Sexual assaults are already underreported crimes, and recidivism rates among all ages vary from study by study. Karl Hanson and Kelly Morton-Bourgon, a pair of sex-crimes researchers who work for the Canadian government, estimate that the average rate is likely around 13.7 percent. Meanwhile, multiple recent studies suggest recidivism rates seem to decline among the elderly....

Another blind spot is that almost no one is counting how many sex offenders require end-of-life care. Back in 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office counted 700 registered sex offenders living in nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. More recent numbers among the nation’s 15,600 long-term care facilities and their 1.4 million residents are hard to come by.

June 2, 2017 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (9)

"From Grace to Grids: Rethinking Due Process Protection for Parole"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper available via SSRN authored by Kimberly Thomas and Paul Reingold. Here is the abstract:

Current due process law gives little protection to prisoners at the point of parole, even though the parole decision, like sentencing, determines whether or not a person will serve more time or will go free.  The doctrine regarding parole, which developed mostly in the late 1970s, was based on a judicial understanding of parole as an experimental, subjective, and largely standardless art — rooted in assessing the individual “character” of the potential parolee.

In this Article we examine the foundations of the doctrine, and conclude that the due process inquiry at the point of parole should take into account the stark changes in sentencing and parole practice over the years.  Since the development of the parole due process doctrine in the 1970s, two seismic shifts have occurred.  First, the constitutional protections provided at the initial sentencing have vastly increased.  Second, the parole process itself has been transformed by the move to evidence-based parole guidelines and the use of actuarial risk-assessment instruments as the norm in parole decision-making.

In this Article we document the changes in this under-scrutinized area and assert that the liberty interest in parole should more closely match the present-day legal account of the liberty interest that courts afford defendants at sentencing. 

June 2, 2017 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tracking state work on criminal justice and drug policy through Stateline

The Pew Charitable Trusts Stateline site does a great job tracking state-level developments on an array of criminal justice and drug policy issues. Here are some examples from recent weeks that caught my eye:

 

June 2, 2017 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1)