Sentencing Law and Policy

Timely and puzzling statement from AG Sessions on work of DOJ Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

While he has been getting bashed repeatedly by Prez Trump in recent days, Attorney General Sessions has been noticably quiet.  This afternoon, however, the Justice Department released this press release under the heading "Statement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Recommendations From the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety."  Here is its full text:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the work of the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety:

"Every American, no matter who they are or where they live, has the right to be safe in their homes and neighborhoods.  And yet, in many locations, the violent crime rate is rising, and in some of our urban areas, the increase is staggering.  Reducing this crime surge is a top priority for President Trump and the Department of Justice.  Consistent with the President's Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, I created the Task Force in February and it has provided me with recommendations on a rolling basis.  Dedicated professionals from throughout the Department have been listening to our partners in state, local, and tribal law enforcement; identifying successful violent crime reduction strategies; and developing recommendations on actions the Department can take to help improve public safety.

"I have been acting on the Task Force's recommendations to set the policy of the Department.  I will continue to review all of the Task Force's recommendations, and look forward to taking additional steps towards ensuring safer communities for all Americans."

I do not think this press release is meant as a direct response to recent statements by Prez Trump, but I do think it serves as an indirect way for AG Sessions to remind Prez Trump that the AG is busy doing the job Prez Trump appointed him to do.  In addition, an (informal?) deadline for the Task Force's recommendations was set for July 27, and I believe a lot of folks (myself included) thought we could be getting some public information about the Task Force's recommendations on that date or soon thereafter.  I believe this statement by AG Sessions is suggesting that no big formal announcements or big DOJ changes of policy should be expected tomorrow.

But maybe AG Sessions is saying and signaling something else with this statement.  When I first read it, I started looking for some other new document which set out some of the Task Force's recommendations.  But I have not found any such document, nor (after a re-read of this statement) do I think such a document is soon forthcoming.  That is why I find this statement somewhat puzzling, though perhpas I should not try so hard to read between the lines.

Jared Kushner still finding time to work on sentencing reform with members of Congress

This lengthy new Wall Street Journal article, headlined "Kushner’s Interest in Drug-Sentencing Limits Is at Odds With Attorney General: Jared Kushner has discussed criminal justice changes with lawmakers who backed a 2016 measure that then-senator Jeff Sessions opposed," reports on the continued efforts of President Trump's son-in-law to keep federal statutory sentencing reform afloat. Here are excerpts:

President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, and some Republican lawmakers are discussing potential changes to the criminal justice system, including to mandatory minimum sentencing, that could conflict with Attorney General Jeff Sessions ’ tough-on-crime agenda.

Mr. Kushner met this month with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), continuing a dialogue with lawmakers that began in March with Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Sens. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah). Mr. Kushner also has huddled with leaders of organizations involved in criminal justice.

“He’s quietly listening to all sides, including outside groups, to understand what’s possible and to ultimately be able to make a recommendation to the president,” said a White House official familiar with the meetings. “It’s a personal issue to him given his father spent time in prison. He got to know the families and got to see what’s wrong with the federal prison system.” Mr. Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, a real-estate executive, was sentenced in 2005 to two years in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion.

Mr. Kushner’s discussions have included a range of issues, including curbing long mandatory-minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. In contrast, Mr. Sessions is promoting mandatory minimums as a pivotal crime-fighting tool that helps prosecutors get cooperation from suspects and keeps dangerous offenders behind bars. Mr. Kushner has met with Mr. Sessions and is trying to find common ground, according to the White House official.

However, Mr. Sessions appears to have lost favor with the president for recusing himself from a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump has taken to berating Mr. Sessions publicly, on Tuesday saying on Twitter Mr. Sessions “has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes,” referring to the Federal Bureau of Investigation look into her email practices. On Monday, Mr. Trump referred to Mr. Sessions as “our beleaguered A.G.”

“Everyone does see it as a challenge that some people in the White House and Congress want to do criminal justice reform but are at odds with actions the attorney general is taking,” said Greg Mitchell, a federal lobbyist who has worked on criminal-justice issues for years, representing groups that favor shorter sentences....

Mr. Grassley, in a recent speech outlining his agenda at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he is awaiting input from the White House before reviving the sentencing bill. Supporters cast it as a bipartisan initiative that demonstrates the growing consensus around reducing the prison population. “It is consistent to be both tough on crime and still support sentencing reform,” Mr. Grassley said at AEI. “Passing a sentencing bill remains a top legislative priority for me as chairman.”

Advocates of less-punitive drug-sentencing laws view Mr. Kushner as their chief ally in the White House. However, Mr. Kushner’s responsibilities are broad, from Middle East politics to overhauling the federal bureaucracy. He has also been drawn into the Russia probes. As with climate change and other issues, criminal justice divides the White House into opposing camps. Mr. Trump ran on a law-and-order platform, and Mr. Sessions has largely executed that agenda.

“We have a chance of getting the support of this administration,” Mr. Grassley said in his AEI speech. “You look at some people appointed by this president, you might believe otherwise, but I have reason to believe it’s possible. I know there is both support and opposition within this White House.”

In a sign of the sensitivities surrounding drug sentencing, two newly-filed criminal-justice bills steer clear of the issue. Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) introduced a bill Monday that would require federal prisons to assess inmates’ needs and offer rehabilitation programs. Co-sponsored by Mr. Goodlatte, the bill requests $250 million over the next five years to pay for prison education programs. “As a compassionate conservative, I know that people who are doing time will at some point re-enter the community,” Mr. Collins said.

Congress is unlikely to focus on criminal justice before the fall, lobbyists and staffers say. It’s unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who declined to bring the 2016 sentencing bill to a vote, would embrace a similar bill this time around.

Will Ohio successfully get its machinery of death operational today after 3.5 years of delays?... UPDATE: Yes

The question in the title of this post is prompted by the fact that, after years of difficulties securing execution drugs and then litigation delays, Ohio appear poised to have its first execution today since January 2014.  This AP story, headlined "US Supreme Court denies stay of execution for Ohio convict," provides the basic backstory:

A condemned child killer was scheduled to die on Wednesday in the state's first execution in more than three years after the U.S. Supreme Court denied his requests for more time to pursue legal challenges. Ronald Phillips was transported to the death house at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville on Tuesday morning, about 24 hours before his execution was planned. He was convicted of the 1993 rape and killing of his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter in Akron.

Justices denied the 43-year-old Phillips a stay on three requests, with a pair of justices dissenting on a request by Phillips that was joined by two other death row inmates with upcoming execution dates. The inmates had asked the court for a delay while they continue challenging Ohio's new lethal-injection method. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the inmates had demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial. Sotomayor objected to the court's "failure to step in when significant issues of life and death are present."

The death penalty has been on hold in Ohio since January 2014, when a condemned inmate repeatedly gasped and snorted during a 26-minute procedure with a never-before-tried drug combination. Republican Gov. John Kasich halted upcoming executions after that, and delays have continued because the state had trouble finding new supplies of drugs and death row inmates sued on the grounds the state's proposed new three-drug execution method represented "cruel and unusual punishment."

Phillips' arguments were backed up by 15 pharmacology professors, who stepped in Monday to argue that a sedative used in the process, midazolam, is incapable of inducing unconsciousness or preventing serious pain. A federal court last month upheld the use of midazolam, which has been problematic in several executions, including Ohio's in 2014 and others in Arkansas and Arizona.

Phillips also sought a delay based on his age at the time of the killing. He was 19, older than the Supreme Court's cutoff of 18 for the purposes of barring executions of juveniles. His request argued the age should be 21. His lawyers said he had such "psychosocial deficits" when he was picked up by police that they initially took him to a juvenile, rather than an adult, facility.

Attorneys for the state argued Phillips made meritless, often conflicting, legal claims. "Phillips argues that youth, like IQ, cannot be reduced to a number. But he also argues that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of adults under age twenty-one," they wrote in a court document filed Tuesday. "He cannot have it both ways; if age cannot make one eligible for death, it cannot make one ineligible for death."...

Phillips has had several previous delays to scheduled executions, most notably in 2013, when he made a last-minute plea to donate his organs. He said that he wanted to give a kidney to his mother, who was on dialysis, and possibly his heart to his sister. His request was denied. His mother has since died.

If Ohio completes this execution and two more scheduled for 2017 without difficulties, the state could be poised to be the most active execution state in coming years. Ohio has 10 "serious" execution dates already scheduled for 2018, and I believe the state has enough lethal injection drugs to complete them all.

UPDATE:  This local story reports that "Akron child killer Ronald Phillips was put to death Wednesday ... by lethal injection at 10:43 a.m. Wednesday at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville." According to the report, "there were no complications, and witnesses said Phillips showed no signs of gasping, choking or struggling."

Shouldn't latest lawsuit challenging federal marijuana prohibition include an Eighth Amendment claim?

The question in the title of this post is my (sentencing-addled?) reaction to seeing the 89-page complaint filed yesterday on behalf of a number of notable plaintiffs in federal district court. The full complaint, which is available at this link, is summarized by Keith Stroup, legal counsel for the advocacy group NORML, in this new posting.  Here is part of that summary: 

Individual plaintiffs in the suit were two young children, an American military veteran, and a retired professional football player, all of whom are medical marijuana patients; and a membership organization alleging their minority members have been discriminated against by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Seeking to overturn the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, plaintiffs request a declaration that the CSA, as it pertains to the classification of Cannabis as a Schedule I drug, is unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, an assortment of protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the fundamental Right to Travel. Further, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Congress, in enacting the CSA as it pertains to marijuana, violated the Commerce Clause, extending the breadth of legislative power well beyond the scope contemplated by Article I of the Constitution....

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the federal government does not, and could not possibly, believe that Cannabis meets the definition of a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for the most dangerous of substances, such as heroin, LSD, and mescaline; and that classifying Cannabis as a “Schedule I drug,” is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution. Among the other claims in the lawsuit are that the CSA: (i) was enacted and implemented in order to discriminate against African Americans and to suppress people’s First Amendment rights; and (ii) violates plaintiffs’ constitutional Right to Travel.

Like every self-respecting law professor, I love novel constitutional claims -- they are certainly "good for business."  Consequently, I am intrigued and bemused by the effort to bring down the CSA as a violation of the First Amendment and the "Right to Travel."  But, especially because the CSA includes criminal penalties for any and all marijuana use, even if that use is recommended by a doctor for a serious medical condition, I have long thought there could be a viable Eighth Amendment claim that possible federal prosecution for some marijuana activity threatens a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."

A big new lawsuit attacking the CSA on various grounds on behalf of medical marijuana patients would now seem to present good new opportunity to bring a big new Eighth Amendment claim.  After a lot of recent initiative and legislative reforms, some kind of medical marijuana reform is the law in roughly 90% of US jurisdictions (details here).  And the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence always talks up "evolving standards," and it often stresses the import of "objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice" to evidence a "national consensus" against a particular type of punishment.  It thus strikes me that there is now an especially strong argument that there is now an especially strong national consensus in the US against criminally punishing anyone for using marijuana for a legitimate medical reason.

But perhaps I am missing something when I think about this issue in Eighth Amendment terms, and perhaps a reader can help me identify a possible good reason for this new lawsuit to be missing an Eighth Amendment argument.

"Could Lyin' Ted replace 'beleagured' Jeff? Trump is 'openly considering removing Attorney General Sessions and could replace him with former enemy Cruz"

The title of this post is the headline of this press report that amusingly captures the latest crazy news from inside the Beltway.  Here are the basics:

Ted Cruz is reportedly near the top of Donald Trump's list of choices to potentially replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general.  Cruz, who was regularly mocked by Trump during the Republican primaries and nicknamed 'Lyin' Ted' by the then-candidate, could find himself taking Sessions' spot if the former Alabama representative resigns or is fired, the Washington Post reports.

Trump would reportedly be willing to make the Texan the country's chief law enforcement officer despite him having last year revived a rumor linking Cruz's father, Rafael, to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination.

However, Cruz was quick to distance himself from the speculation on Monday night, releasing a statement that said he is 'deeply gratified that we have a principled conservative like Jeff Sessions serving as Attorney General.  He added: 'The stories being reported in the media tonight are false. My focus is and will remain on fighting every day to defend 28 million Texans in the US Senate.'

Another name reportedly under consideration is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani denied he is in the running for the role, which reportedly is on the cusp of being available due to Trump's desire to fire special counsel Robert Mueller and bring the Russia investigation into his presidential campaign to an end, according to the Post.

Senator Cruz has in the not-so-distant past been a supporter of some federal sentencing reforms for nonviolent drug offenders (such as Smarter Sentencing Act) and also for allowing states to set their own marijuana policies. Generally speaking, because just about any new AG would likely be more supportive of sentencing reform than AG Sessions, advocates of modern sentencing reforms should be rooting for the President to make a change here. But, personally, I still think a change is pretty unlikely.

UPDATE: Prez Trump today criticized AG Sessions yet again, but has not yet indicated plans to fire him. And this Daily Beast article highlights why no one should expect AG Sessions to retire. The piece is headlined "Jeff Sessions Is Growing ‘Pissed’ at Trump, His Allies Say. And He Doesn’t Plan to Quit." Here is a snippet:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has no plans to leave office, as friends say he’s grown angry with President Donald Trump following a series of attacks meant to marginalize his power and, potentially, encourage his resignation. “Sessions is totally pissed off about it,” said a Sessions ally familiar with his thinking. “It’s beyond insane. It’s cruel and it’s insane and it’s stupid.”

Sessions’ allies say the president’s criticism of the attorney general is counterproductive. Perhaps more than any other member of Trump’s Cabinet, Sessions has been an uncompromising advocate for Trump’s agenda. The attorney general has worked methodically to dismantle Obama’s legacy at the Justice Department: reconsidering the department’s efforts to make troubled police departments change their practices, changing the DOJ’s stance on voter-ID lawsuits, and rolling back former Attorney General Eric Holder’s sentencing guidelines that were aimed at reduced incarceration and balancing out drug-crime-related punishments....

“He’s not going anywhere,” said another Sessions ally. “He is not going to resign. What he is accomplishing is way too important to the country.”

Rather than quit, Sessions insiders predict the attorney general will call Trump’s bluff. And unlike other members of Trump’s Cabinet, he has political wiggle room to do so. Trump’s base of support — immigration restrictionists, rank-and-file law-enforcement officials, and states’ rights conservatives — were Sessions’ fans before they flocked to the president. They may very well scoff at the idea that the administration would be better off without its AG. Sessions also enjoys continued support in the Senate, where he served for a decade. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pushed back on Trump’s attacks and called the president’s encouragement that Sessions prosecute Hillary Clinton over her email use “highly inappropriate.”

Distinct approaches to the opioid epidemic

Earlier this month, Kathleen Sebelius and Tommy Thompson, who served as U.S. Secretaries of Health and Human Services under the last two Presidents, penned this Hill commentary headlined "5 big ideas to halt America's opioid epidemic."  Here are the five big ideas as these HHS Secretaries presented them: "Expand access to treatment through insurance...; Rein in overprescription of opioid pain relievers...; Treat opioid addiction as a public health problem...; Stop drug overdose deaths with this solution...; Learn how to treat pain with minimal side effects."

But as the headline of this New York Times article reports, some prosecutors in the New York region have been pursuing a much different big idea: "New Tactic in War on Opioids: Charging Dealers in Overdose Deaths."  Here is an excerpt from the piece:

As heroin and its synthetic cousin, fentanyl, send more and more victims to the morgue, prosecutors are leaping into largely uncharted legal terrain, as they tried in the 1970s, to fight the scourge. The second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges filed against Mr. Cummings follow similar strategies used recently by prosecutors in upstate New York and on Long Island. They also mirror a case brought three years ago by the city’s special narcotics prosecutor, Bridget G. Brennan, against a pain management doctor, Stan Xuhui Li, who was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison.

Convicting a physician of recklessly causing the death of his patients is a leap beyond proving a drug dealer did the same to a customer, but they reflect the same approach: prosecutors mixing current laws with new investigative tools to fight back against the rising tide of opioid-related deaths. The Richmond County district attorney, Michael E. McMahon, has applied such tactics in more than 240 overdose cases....

Around the city, a more common path for such cases has been through federal courts. Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have brought 13 cases over the last four years charging people with “distribution of drugs causing death,” a statute that carries a 20-year minimum sentence. A bill in Albany, dubbed Laree’s Law, to create a homicide charge in state cases, has languished in the Assembly. In all cases, the authorities said they sought the most punitive sanctions, which has led to a focus on tying narcotics rings to violence, particularly in gang takedowns.

"Nine Lessons About Criminal Justice Reform: What Washington can learn from the states"

The title of this post is the headline of this extended essay by Bill Keller published last week at The Marshall Project. I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts focused on some of Bill's most sentencing-specific lessons:

“Reform” is one of those ambiguous words that mean different things to different people.  I think of reform as something that aims to reduce the numbers of Americans who are removed from society and deprived of their freedom, and to do it without making us less safe.  In 1972, when I was starting my newspaper life at The Oregonian, 93 out of 100,000 Americans were in state or federal prisons.  By 2008 the incarceration rate had grown nearly six-fold, to 536 per 100,000, and it has hovered in that vicinity ever since. That’s not counting the hundreds of thousands held in county jails on any given day or those confined in the juvenile justice system or immigrant detention.

Every year about 650,000 of those prisoners are released back into the world.  We know that most of them will be unemployed a year later, and that two-thirds of them will be rearrested within three years.  We have a corrections system that fails to correct.

Here are a few lessons Washington can learn from the states.

Lesson 1: It is possible to reduce incarceration and crime at the same time. ...

Lesson 3: Probably the most effective way to reduce incarceration is not to lock people up in the first place — at least not so many, and not for so long....

Lesson 4: While the front end is important, don’t neglect the back end....

Lesson 5: Be wary of reformers who suggest you can cut incarceration drastically by releasing low-level, nonviolent offenders. ...

Lesson 6: Prison reform doesn’t necessarily mean a huge windfall for taxpayers. ...

Lesson 8: Many states are finding that incentives work better than mandates.

"North Dakota’s Norway Experiment: Can humane prisons work in America? A red state aims to find out."

The title of this post is the headline of this interesting new Mother Jones piece.  Here are a few excerpts from a piece that justifies a full read:

Scandinavian prisons tend to elicit eye rolls from law-and-order types weaned on the punitive American model.  Yet a growing number of state corrections officials are coming to the realization that our approach is ineffective, costly, and cruel.  Fred Patrick, director of the Center on Sentencing and Corrections at the Vera Institute of Justice, cites the nation’s staggering recidivism rate — 77 percent of inmates released from state prisons are rearrested within five years.  “Once you realize that this system isn’t working well,” he says, “it’s fairly easy to pivot to: ‘How do we do something different?'”...

North Dakota has advantages as a laboratory for correctional reforms. Like Norway, it is sparsely populated and relatively homogeneous — race-based prison gangs hold little sway here.  Another advantage, Don Specter told me, is simply that the state government is sufficiently small that it can be responsive to the exertions of a visionary leader.  Yet [North Dakota prisons chief Leann] Bertsch and [deputy Karianne] Jackson have no illusions about transforming their system into a corrections utopia overnight.  “You have to pace yourself,” Bertsch says.

The Norwegian principle of “dynamic security” posits that warm relationships between inmates and staff reduce the potential for violence. American prisons typically try to create safe conditions by means of oppressive rules, random searches, and the threat of additional punishment. Transitioning from one approach to the other requires a profound paradigm shift and the ability to sell front-line prison workers on a brand new mindset.  “How do you get somebody who thinks they’re in law enforcement to figure out you need to be more of an empath, more of a social worker, a friend, and a mentor?” Jackson asks.

The correctional officers I met at the state penitentiary, ex-military all, weren’t outwardly hostile to the idea of cultivating relationships with prisoners, but it clearly didn’t come naturally to them.  For that reason, perhaps, the brass created a mandate: Guards in the segregation unit must have at least two conversations per shift with each of the inmates under their supervision.  “It’s worth a shot,” a corrections officer named Josh Hedstrom told me.  “Because what we were doing before wasn’t working.”

Reduced jail time in Tennessee for inmates who ... agree to vasectomy or birth control implant!?!?!

This local story out of Tennessee is hard to believe, but it does not appear to be fake news.  The story is headlined "White County Inmates Given Reduced Jail Time If They Get Vasectomy," and here are excerpts:

Inmates in White County, Tennessee have been given credit for their jail time if they voluntarily agree to have a vasectomy or birth control implant, a popular new program that is being called “unconstitutional” by the ACLU.

On May 15, 2017 General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed a standing order that allows inmates to receive 30 days credit toward jail time if they undergo a birth control procedure. Women who volunteer to participate in the program are given a free Nexplanon implant in their arm, the implant helps prevent pregnancies for up to four years. Men who volunteer to participate are given a vasectomy, free of charge, by the Tennessee Department of Health.

County officials said that since the program began a few months ago 32 women have gotten the Nexplananon implant and 38 men were waiting to have the vasectomy procedure performed.

Judge Benningfield told NewsChannel 5 that he was trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges, subsequently can’t afford child support and have trouble finding jobs. “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves,” Judge Benningfield said in an interview.

First elected in 1998, Judge Benningfield decided to implement the program after speaking with officials at the Tennessee Department of Health. “I understand it won’t be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win,” he added.

Inmates in the White County jail were also given two days credit toward their jail sentence if they complete a State of Tennessee, Department of Health Neonatal Syndrome Education Program. The class aimed to educate those who are incarcerated about the dangers of having children while under the influence of drugs. “Hopefully while they’re staying here we rehabilitate them so they never come back,” the judge said.

District Attorney Bryant Dunaway, who oversees prosecution of cases in White County is worried the program may be unethical and possibly illegal. “It’s concerning to me, my office doesn’t support this order,” Dunaway said....

On Wednesday, the ACLU released this statement on the program: "Offering a so-called 'choice' between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role."

There are many thing so very remarkable about this story, but I am especially struck by how many jail inmates are willing to undergo a life-changing procedure simply to avoid 30 days in jail. Anyone who doubts the coercive pressures of even a short jail stay (say because of an inability to make bail) should be shown this story.

Senators Kamala Harris and Rand Paul make the case for bail reforms

In this New York Times op-ed, the notable pair of Kamala Harris and Rand Paul explain the reasoning behind their new bill to reform bail practices.  The piece is headlined "To Shrink Jails, Let’s Reform Bail," and here are excerpts:

Our justice system was designed with a promise: to treat all people equally.  Yet that doesn’t happen for many of the 450,000 Americans who sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail.

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children — or their life.  As criminal justice groups work to change sentencing and mandatory minimum laws, we must also reform a bail system that is discriminatory and wasteful.

Excessive bail disproportionately harms people from low-income communities and communities of color.  The Supreme Court ruled in Bearden v. Georgia in 1983 that the Constitution prohibits “punishing a person for his poverty,” but that’s exactly what this system does. Nine out of 10 defendants who are detained cannot afford to post bail, which can exceed $20,000 even for minor crimes like stealing $105 in clothing.

Meanwhile, black and Latino defendants are more likely to be detained before trial and less likely to be able to post bail compared with similarly situated white defendants.  In fact, black and Latino men respectively pay 35 percent and 19 percent higher bail than white men.

This isn’t just unjust. It also wastes taxpayer dollars.  People awaiting trial account for 95 percent of the growth in the jail population from 2000 to 2014, and it costs roughly $38 million every day to imprison these largely nonviolent defendants.  That adds up to $14 billion a year.

Bail is supposed to ensure that the accused appear at trial and don’t commit other offenses in the meantime.  But research has shown that low-risk defendants who are detained more than 24 hours and then released are actually less likely to show up in court than those who are detained less than a day....

Our bail system is broken. And it’s time to fix it.  That’s why we’re introducing the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act to encourage states to reform or replace the bail system.  This should not be a partisan issue.

First, our legislation empowers states to build on best practices.  Kentucky and New Jersey, for instance, have shifted from bail toward personalized risk assessments that analyze factors such as criminal history and substance abuse. These are better indicators of whether a defendant is a flight risk or a threat to the public and ought to be held without bail.

Colorado and West Virginia have improved pretrial services and supervision, such as using telephone reminders so fewer defendants miss court dates and end up detained.  These nudges work.  Over the second half of 2006, automated phone call reminders in Multnomah County in Oregon, resulted in 750 people showing up in court who otherwise may have forgotten their date.

Instead of the federal government mandating a one-size-fits-all approach, this bill provides Department of Justice grants directly to the states so each can devise and carry out the most effective policies, tailored for its unique needs.

Enabling states to better institute such reforms also honors one of our nation’s core documents, the Bill of Rights. In drafting the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail, the founders sought to protect people from unchecked government power in the criminal justice system.

Second, our bill holds states accountable. Any state receiving support must report on its progress and make sure that reforms like risk assessments are not discriminatory through analyses of trends and data.  This will show that it’s possible to demand transformation, transparency and fairness.

Finally, this bill encourages better data collection. Data on the pretrial process is notoriously sparse. By collecting information on how state and local courts handle defendants, we can help guarantee that reforms yield better outcomes.

Could Prez Trump follow Prez Obama's lead by making notable and significant use of his clemency powers?

The question in the title of this post is my somewhat cheeky effort to put a kind of sentencing spin on the news from the Washington Post that Prez Trump has been "discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons" as part of an effort to limit or undercut special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Here is a bit more:

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

One adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation. “This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

Along with a number of other commentators, I have long complained about the failure of modern President's to make robust use of their clemency powers, particularly early in their terms. I have not had exactly these kinds of pardons in mind, but I am still inclined to be grateful whenever a president is giving any attention to his historic clemency powers.

Two notable new briefing papers on crime and punishment from the Vera Institute of Justice

The folks at the Vera Institute of Justice have released two new "briefing papers" under the series heading of "For the Record: Evidence on crime and safety in America." Here is how these papers are set up:

Criminal justice and immigration policy affects millions of lives in the United States. Yet, public policy is too often swayed by political rhetoric and unfounded assumptions. This is especially true in today’s era of rapid-response digital journalism, where the pace of publication means that stories with misleading information can easily go viral, and news consumption often occurs through curated social media feeds showing headlines that reinforce a person’s beliefs. Now, more than ever, there is a need for accessible, reliable information that can be used to fact-check stories in the press and on social media.

To improve understanding on justice issues currently elevated in public debate, the Vera Institute of Justice has created a series of briefing papers that provide an accessible summary of the latest evidence concerning justice-related topics. By summarizing and synthesizing existing research, identifying landmark studies and key resources, and, in some cases, providing original analysis of data, these briefs offer a balanced and nuanced examination of some of the significant justice issues of our time.

And here are links to the two papers via their titles, as well as an overview:

"The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safe" by Don Stemen:

Despite its widespread use, research shows that the effect of incarceration as a deterrent to crime is minimal at best, and has been diminishing for several years. Indeed, increased rates of incarceration have no demonstrated effect on violent crime and in some instances may increase crime. There are more effective ways to respond to crime—evidenced by the 19 states that recently reduced both their incarceration and crime rates. This brief summarizes the weak relationship between incarceration and crime reduction, and highlights proven strategies for improving public safety that are more effective and less expensive than incarceration.

"Measuring Public Safety: Responsibly Interpreting Statistics on Violent Crime" by Bruce Frederick:

With a few hyper-localized exceptions that require targeted attention, violent crime rates are lower today than they have been at any point over the past four decades. However, this era of public safety has been misrepresented by some media reports and public commentary concluding that violent crime increases in a few cities equal a sweeping national problem. This brief examines those erroneous conclusions about current crime trends—using both existing and original research—and describes how to avoid common pitfalls when interpreting statistics on violent crime.

"Should California drop criminal penalties for drug possession?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this effective new opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle authored by Beau Kilmer and Robert MacCoun. Here are excerpts:

For better or worse, California likes to decide drug policy at the ballot box.  Voters have already approved marijuana legalization, but criminal sanctions against users of heroin, cocaine and other drugs are very much intact, though they’ve been moving in a more lenient direction.  It would not be surprising to see a proposition entirely eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession in the near future.

The removal of criminal penalties for drug possession — which is very different from allowing legal sales — is not a new idea. It has been implemented in other countries, and a joint statement from the United Nations and World Health Organization last month recommended the review and repeal of “laws that criminalize or otherwise prohibit … drug use or possession of drugs for personal use.”

California already moved in this direction in 2014 when voters approved Proposition 47, which reduced to a misdemeanor the possession of heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs. Possession of these drugs, however, is still a criminal offense.

Possession arrests and convictions can have devastating effects on users and their families — especially for young men of color, who are disproportionately targeted, and for immigrants, who can be deported for a criminal offense.  There are a number of additional sanctions associated with drug convictions; for example, they can make it harder to receive federal aid for college, or access public housing.  The stigma around criminalization can also make it harder for users to get help or discuss their problems with family members and health professionals.

On the other side, there are two main arguments for criminalizing possession.  First, there’s deterrence, with the goal of discouraging use by threatening users with sanctions. Second, there’s leverage — that is, using arrest and prosecution to steer those with substance-use disorders toward treatment....

We think that a constructive new debate about decriminalizing drug possession can start with three observations:

Decriminalizing drug possession and use does not give users a free pass to commit other crimes.  If substance use leads individuals to drive impaired or engage in violence, they should be punished for those offenses.  Jurisdictions could consider “bundling” decriminalization with innovative treatment and/or sanctioning regimes for those whose use leads them to commit crimes that threaten public safety.

Eliminating criminal penalties needn’t mean eliminating all sanctions on use. Many jurisdictions outside California punish cannabis possession with civil fines, and the same could be done for other drugs.  (A failure to pay the fine could still be punishable by jail time.)  Many citizens will be subjected to drug testing at work. And the informal social sanctions of stigma and shame will continue to play an important role, as we see with tobacco smoking and heavy alcohol use.

Decriminalizing possession does not have to be permanent. Risk-averse decision makers could adopt a sunset provision that automatically reimposes criminal penalties after a fixed amount of time unless the Legislature acts to extend the change in policy.

Californians have a lot to consider when it comes to decriminalizing possession, especially because we are still learning about the consequences of Prop. 47.  But now is the time for a rigorous discussion about removing criminal penalties for drug possession, rather than rushing to judgment in the heat of a future election season.

OJ Simpson granted parole after serving nine years in prison for Nevada robbery convictions

As reported in this Los Angeles Times article, "O.J. Simpson was granted parole Thursday for convictions connected to a robbery in a Las Vegas about a decade ago. He could be out of jail as early as October. Here is bit more about perhaps the highest profile justice-involved individual:

The ruling came after a hearing in which Simpson testified that he longed to be reunited with his family and children and that he has no interest in returning to the media spotlight.

During the hearing, Simpson was assured by one of his victims that the former football star and actor already has a ride waiting for him when he gets out. “I feel that it’s time to give him a second chance; it’s time for him to go home to his family, his friends,” Bruce Frumong, a sports memorabilia dealer and a friend of Simpson’s, told the Nevada Board of Parole.

Frumong was threatened and robbed by Simpson and some of his associates in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007, and his testimony in that case led to Simpson’s imprisonment. But, Frumong told the board, “if he called me tomorrow and said, ‘Bruce I’m getting out, would you pick me up?….’” At that point, Frumong paused, turned to Simpson and addressed the former USC gridiron star by his nickname: “Juice, I’d be here tomorrow. I mean that, buddy.”

The board went into recess late Thursday morning after hearing more than an hour of testimony from Simpson; his oldest daughter, Arnelle Simpson; and Frumong, who each asked for Simpson’s release. The panel returned about a half hour later and unanimously voted to grant parole....

The commissioners asked Simpson a series of questions about how he had conducted himself in prison, what he thought his life would be like outside of prison and whether he felt humbled by his convictions. Simpson said on several occasions he was “a good guy” and indicated that he mostly wanted to spend time with his family — bemoaning missed graduations and birthdays — and that the state of Nevada might be glad to be rid of him. “No comment,” one of the commissioners said to some laughter.

He expressed regret at being involved with the crime, but drew some pushback from commissioners who took issue with his version of events, in which he said he didn’t know a gun had been brandished in the hotel room during the robbery. But Simpson held to his version, repeatedly apologizing and expressing regret that he had left a wedding in Las Vegas to go recover memorabilia he said was his. “I am sorry things turned out the way they did,” Simpson said. “I had no intent to commit a crime.”

"The Immediate Consequences of Pretrial Detention: Evidence from Federal Criminal Cases"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting empirical paper authored by Stephanie Holmes Didwania that was recently posted on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper presents evidence of the effects of pretrial detention status on criminal case outcomes in federal criminal cases. I find that criminal defendants who are released pending trial earn a roughly 72 percent decrease in sentence length and a 36 percentage-point increase in the probability of receiving a sentence below the recommended federal sentencing Guidelines range. Pretrial release also reduces the probability that a defendant will receive at least the mandatory minimum sentence — when one is charged — by 39 percentage points, but does not affect the probability that the defendant will face a mandatory minimum sentence.

To address the identification problem inherent in using pretrial detention status as an explanatory variable, I take advantage of the fact that pretrial release in federal courts is typically determined by magistrate judges who vary in their propensities to release defendants pending trial. This setting allows magistrate judge leniency to serve as an instrumental variable for pretrial release. I also present suggestive evidence of the mechanism at work. It appears that pretrial release affects case outcomes in two distinct ways: most importantly, by giving defendants the opportunity to present mitigating evidence at sentencing and, secondly, by making it easier for defendants to earn a sentencing reduction by providing substantial assistance to the government. In contrast, this paper does not find evidence that pretrial release improves defendants’ abilities to bargain with prosecutors. I also find that the effects of pretrial detention status on case outcomes are heterogeneous, and most pronounced for drug offenders.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds state sex offender registration law punitive and thus unconstitutional to apply retroactively

In a big opinion today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided its state's sex offender registration law, though civil in design, was punitive in practice and thus cannot be applied retroactively. The 55-page majority opinion in Pennsylvania v. Muniz, No. (Pa. July 19, 2017) (available here), gets started this way:

We granted discretionary review to determine whether Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§9799.10-9799.41, as applied retroactively to appellant Jose M. Muniz, is unconstitutional under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.  The Superior Court held SORNA’s registration provisions are not punishment, and therefore retroactive application to appellant, who was convicted of sex offenses prior to SORNA’s effective date but sentenced afterwards, does not violate either the federal or state ex post facto clauses.  For the following reasons, we reverse and hold: 1) SORNA’s registration provisions constitute punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as nonpunitive; 2) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violates the federal ex post facto clause; and 3) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violates the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The 13-page dissenting opinion authored by Chief Justice Saylor is available here and concludes this way: "Based on the Mendoza-Martinez factors, which I view as almost uniformly suggesting a non-punitive effect, I would conclude that SORNA’s registration requirements do not constitute punishment and do not violate the federal ex post facto clause."

Will (and should) OJ Simpson get paroled in Nevada this week?

This USA Today article, headlined "Why O.J. Simpson is expected to be paroled at July 20 hearing," reports on why an infamous state criminal defendant is expected to secure parole in Nevada after serving only about 30% of his imposed prison term. Here are excerpts:

O.J. Simpson, behind bars in a Nevada prison for almost nine years, is eligible for parole Thursday and one of his former attorneys thinks the matter is all but a foregone conclusion that the former football and TV star will be eligible for release on Oct. 1.

"He’s going to get parole," said Yale Galanter, who represented Simpson during the 2008 trial when Simpson was found guilty of 12 counts, including robbery and kidnapping, and sentenced to nine years minimum and 33 years maximum. "Parole in the state of Nevada is really based on how you behave in prison, and by all accounts he’s been a model prisoner. There are no absolutes anytime you’re dealing with administrative boards, but this is as close to a non-personal decision as you can get."

Four members from the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners will consider parole for Simpson at the board offices in Carson City, Nev., with the proceedings set to begin Thursday at 1 p.m. ET. Simpson, 70, will participate by video conference from about 100 miles away at Lovelock Correctional Center, where he has been imprisoned since December 2008.

Parole is largely determined by a point system, and how the commissioners feel about Simpson — or his acquittal in the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman — can have no impact on parole, according to Galanter. "It really is based on points," he said. "How long have you served, what your disciplinary record is, what the likelihood of committing another crime is, their age, the facts and the circumstances of the case."

The parole board has rejected the idea that Simpson could be facing more conservative commissioners because he’s imprisoned in northern Nevada. In a statement published on its website, the parole board said all commissioners use the same risk assessment and guidelines, adding, "There is no evidence that the board is aware of that indicates that one location has panel members who are more conservative or liberal than the other location."... "Simpson, with the help of several other men, broke into a Las Vegas hotel room on Sept. 13, 2007, and stole at gunpoint sports memorabilia that he said belonged to him. More than a year later, on Oct. 8, 2008, he was found guilty by a jury on all 12 charges. He was granted parole in 2013 on the armed robbery convictions. Galanter called that "the clearest indicator" Simpson will be granted parole on the remaining counts Thursday.

Simpson is being considered for parole for kidnapping, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and the use of a deadly weapon enhancement. "It’s a fairly routine administrative matter," the attorney said. "It’s more like, 'Mr. Simpson, you’ve been a model prisoner, you have the points, congratulations, do you have anything to say, thank you very much, granted, Oct. 1.' "

Yet, it won’t exactly be routine. The parole board, for example, has said it will issue a decision Thursday so to minimize distractions. The results of some hearings, by contrast, take three weeks to reach the inmate. "The media interest in this one case is a disruption to our operation," the parole board said in its statement. "A decision (on Simpson) is being made at the time of the hearing so that the board’s operation can return to normal as soon as possible after the hearing."...

Simpson will have an opportunity to address the board by video conference as he did during the 2013 hearing. More than 240 media credentials have been approved, according to Keast, who said a dozen satellite trucks are expected at the sites in both in Carson City and Lovelock. If Simpson is paroled, the media figure to return in droves in Oct. 1, when he will be eligible for release from prison.

Notably, Gregg Jarrett at FoxNews believes strongy that OJ shoud not get parole; he explains in this commentary, headlined "O.J. Simpson, up for parole, should never be set free," how the California civil suit finding OJ responsible for wrongful deaths should be sufficient for the Nevada parole board to conclude he presents a risk to public safety.

"Plea Agreements As Constitutional Contracts"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article authored by Colin Miller available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In his dissenting opinion in Ricketts v. Adamson, Justice Brennan proposed the idea of plea agreements as constitutional contracts and lamented the fact that the Supreme Court had yet to set up rules of construction for resolving plea deal disputes.  Since Adamson, courts have given lip service to Justice Brennan’s dissent and applied his reasoning in piecemeal fashion.  No court or scholar, however, has attempted to define the extent to which a plea agreement is a constitutional contract or develop rules of construction to apply in plea deal disputes.  This gap is concerning given that ninety-five percent of criminal cases are resolved by plea agreements.

This Article is the first attempt to defend the concept of plea agreements as constitutional contracts and establish a core rule of construction to guide judges in interpreting plea bargains. It advances two theses.  First, plea agreements are constitutional contracts whose constitutional protections extend to all matters relating to plea agreements.  Second, due process requires that courts treat pleading defendants at least as well as parties to other contracts, meaning all of the protections associated with contract law should be incorporated into plea bargaining law through the Due Process Clause.

This Article then argues that incorporation of one of these protections — the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing — would lead to legal reform in three plea bargaining scenarios where pleading defendants are treated worse than parties to other contracts:

(1) substantial assistance motions;

(2) Brady disclosures; and

(3) prosecutorial presentation of sentencing recommendations.

Bipartisan discussion of female incarceration issues at "Women Unshackled" event

My twitter feed was full of reports and links to a big criminal justice reform event yesterday which was given the title "Women Unshackled."  This Washington Post article, headlined "Officials from both parties say too many women are incarcerated for low-level crimes," reports on the event, and its coverage starts this way:

Democratic and Republic officials at a conference Tuesday said too many women are being incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, a troubling trend both groups said they were committed to tackling.

From Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Tex.) to Republican Rep. Mia Love (Utah) and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, there was bipartisan agreement that most of the women in jails and prison would be better served by drug rehabilitation and mental health services, rather than harsher sentences. They noted that most women in the criminal-justice system are victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence. And because most incarcerated women have small children, locking them away can destroy an already fragile family.

The discussion came during a day-long conference called “Women Unshackled,” presented by the Justice Action Network and sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, the Coalition for Public Safety and Google.

Some additional coverage of the issues and individuals involved in this event can be found in these recent press pieces:

• From HuffPost here, "The Hidden Bearers Of Mass Incarceration: Women"

• From Mother Jones here, "Kamala Harris Went to Prison So Others Won’t Have To"

• From the Wall Street Journal here, "Oklahoma’s Mary Fallin Emerges as Champion of Conservative Criminal Justice Reform"

Details emerging on new Trump Administration approach to asset forfeiture ... UPDATED with new DOJ memo

As noted in this prior post, on Monday Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech in which he indicated that a "new directive on asset forfeiture" was forthcoming that, "especially for drug traffickers," sought "to increase forfeitures."  This new AP article, headlined "US restoring asset seizures - with safeguards," reports on what this new directive is going to include. Here are excerpts from the AP piece:

The Trump administration will soon restore the ability of police to seize suspects’ money and property with federal help, but The Associated Press has learned the policy will come with a series of new provisions aimed at preventing the types of abuse that led the Obama Justice Department to severely curtail the practice.

At issue is asset forfeiture, which has been criticized because it allows law enforcement to take possessions without criminal convictions or, in some cases, indictments. The policy to be rolled out Wednesday targets so-called adoptive forfeiture, which lets local authorities circumvent more-restrictive state laws to seize property under federal law. The proceeds are then shared with federal counterparts.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder significantly limited the practice in response to criticism that it was ripe for abuse, particularly with police seizures of small amounts of cash. Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to ease those restrictions, but also impose new requirements on when federal law can be used, a senior Justice Department official briefed on the policy said Tuesday. The official, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the changes before their unveiling.

Key changes include requiring more detail from police agencies about probable cause justifying a seizure before federal authorities get involved. Also, the Justice Department will have to decide more quickly whether to take on local seizures and also let property owners know their rights and the status of their belongings within 45 days of the seizure, faster than federal law requires.

Another key change will make it harder for police to seize less than $10,000 unless they have a state warrant, have made an arrest related to the seizure, have taken other contraband, such as drugs, along with the money, or the owner has confessed to a crime. Without at least one of those conditions, authorities will need a federal prosecutor’s approval to seize it under federal law.

Old rules set that threshold at $5,000, the official said. The old process rarely required a federal prosecutor’s sign-off, said Stefan Cassella, a former federal prosecutor and expert on asset forfeiture and money laundering law.

Sessions’ support for asset forfeiture is in keeping with his tough-on-crime agenda and aligns with his oft-stated view that the Justice Department’s top priority should be helping local law enforcement fight violent crime. Police departments use the seizures for expenses, and some agencies felt Holder’s restrictions left them without a critical funding source. When he forecast the rollback of the Holder provision at a conference of district attorneys, the announcement drew applause.

But an embrace of asset forfeiture follows bipartisan efforts to overhaul the practice, and as a growing number of states have made their own laws limiting its use. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who sponsored legislation this year to tightly regulate asset forfeiture, told the AP that Sessions’ move is “a troubling step backward” that would “bring back a loophole that’s become one of the most flagrantly abused provisions of this policy.”

“I’m glad that at least some safeguards will be put in place, but their plan to expand civil forfeiture is, really, just as concerning as it was before,” Issa said. “Criminals shouldn’t be able to keep the proceeds of their crime, but innocent Americans shouldn’t lose their right to due process, or their private property rights, in order to make that happen.”

UPDATE:  Here now is the official US Department of Justice news release, headlined "Attorney General Sessions Issues Policy and Guidelines on Federal Adoptions of Assets Seized by State or Local Law Enforcement." And here is the associated one-page order.