« New York Times editorial rightly frames debate over federal judges' expungement power | Main | "Why Arrest?" »
October 19, 2015
Submitted testimony from witnesses at SRCA 2015 hearing (and member statements) now available
As I continue to enjoy watching the still on-going big Senate hearing on the remarkable Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (SRCA 2015, S. 2123), I now have noticed that all the written testimony is available on-line. Here are links to member statements all the submitted testimony, and I would be grateful to get help in figuring out if there is anything especially notable and interesting in all these materials. My sense is that all the usual suspects are repeating their usual claims and viewpoints, but perhaps there may be some special needles in this testimonial haystack:
-
Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney General
-
Michael Mukasey, Former Attorney General
-
Hilary O. Shelton, Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy, NAACP
-
Craig DeRoche, Executive Director, Justice Fellowship
-
Debi Campbell, Spotsylvania County, VA
-
Steven Cook, President, National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys
-
Marc Mauer, Executive Director, The Sentencing Project
-
Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.
-
Brett L. Tolman, Former United States Attorney for the District of Utah
October 19, 2015 at 05:05 PM | Permalink
Comments
Isn't it a nice surprise that Judge Mukasey has come out in favor of the legislation? I remember a Federalist Society panel where he was essentially on the same side as Bill Otis. It is nice too see that some generally conservative folks take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach than Bill Otis. I wonder what he will say about Judge Mukasey, as Otis gets more and more lonely in is role as the "grumpy old man" of these issues or the racist, Archie Bunker types, if one is less charitable.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 19, 2015 6:23:59 PM
Does anyone know the backstory of Steven Cook and the AAUSAs. Are AUSAs in, the main, really against these reforms? He was not very thoughtful and did not seem comfortable following Ms. Campbell and essentially filibustered when asked to respond regarding cases like hers. Most AUSA's I know from the SDNY (who are the crème de la crème with the highest credentials) are very much in favor of reforms and very much did not like having to advocate for draconian sentences.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 19, 2015 6:33:41 PM
Mark. The lawyers on the panel forgot something. Crime victims?
Do you think your personal remarks are in any way lawyerly?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 19, 2015 7:16:02 PM
Supremacy Claus,
Why is it forgetting crime victims to modulate punishment somewhat differently than the status quo? The criminal justice system, of course, is not about ratcheting up Draconianism to the maximum extent possible because that might make SOME victims feel better. Indeed, we are seeing many thoughtful, intelligent victims favor reform, even in the case of violent offenders. Those victims who take a vindictive view, interestingly, seem generally to be less well educated and able to get beyond the visceral. Tellingly, you seem to side with the less sophisticated and well-reasoned approach.
I guess I will take your lawyerly remark as a compliment. The term "lawyerly" generally connotes careful reasoning and clear exposition. Do I have that wrong?
Posted by: Mark | Oct 19, 2015 7:31:44 PM
Re: AUSAs
In my experience, which is somewhat limited, AUSAs are "true believers" or "automatons." They aren't really independent thinkers and tend to "toe the party line." The party in this case being lock em all up and throw away the key party.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 19, 2015 7:39:24 PM
Incidentally, I'm a different Mark. Also recall that most AUSAs maintain political aspirations (internal politics at minimum) that are tied to their "win" rate and to a lesser degree to the harshness of sentences obtained.
Posted by: Mark II | Oct 20, 2015 10:26:37 AM
Couldn't resist the trifecta. Problematically, many of the BOP rehabilitative programs hyped by Tolman and others are limited to "eligible" offenders. Apparently, the there will still be a "hardcore" offender cohort which won't be affected by S.2123. If it's structured like current BOP programs, sex offenders (including those labeled such even without a real victim); gunslingers; and those whose "relevant conduct" include substantial imaginary drug weights attributed to persons in the same "conspiracy" whom they never even knew of; won't be included in the new and improved enlightened formula.
Posted by: MarK M. | Oct 20, 2015 1:19:37 PM
The Senate Hearing focused on sentence change for drug crimes. The are many low level offenders doing federal time for crimes other than drugs, how does the sentencing act help them?
Posted by: kat | Oct 20, 2015 1:30:31 PM
Mark. Sorry. I thought you were another Mark. I respect your opinion and have no dispute with it.
I use the word, lawyerly, as a sincere compliment. It has the meanings you listed plus many more good features.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 20, 2015 3:36:14 PM
Mark II. Beyond office politics, they are at will employees, with no civil service protection. The politically appointed back says, jump, or, do not jump,you have to.
One potential reform is to give civil service protection to those staying longer than two years. Most are there to learn the business, in two years, like in a medical residency. Then they leave and sell the experience and the Rolodex to defendants, at ten times the government salary.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 20, 2015 3:42:34 PM
Mark II. Beyond office politics, they are at will employees, with no civil service protection. The politically appointed back says, jump, or, do not jump,you have to.
One potential reform is to give civil service protection to those staying longer than two years. Most are there to learn the business, in two years, like in a medical residency. Then they leave and sell the experience and the Rolodex to defendants, at ten times the government salary.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 20, 2015 3:42:45 PM
Who testified for the Defenders?
Posted by: Don't Ask | Oct 20, 2015 4:10:11 PM
