« December 23, 2018 - December 29, 2018 | Main | January 6, 2019 - January 12, 2019 »

January 5, 2019

"Efficient Institutions and Effective Deterrence: On Timing and Uncertainty of Punishment"

The title of this post is the title of this paper recently posted to SSRN authored by Johannes Buckenmaier, Eugen Dimant, Ann-Christin Posten and Ulrich Schmidt. Here is its abstract:

This paper presents the first controlled economic experiment to study celerity, i.e. the effectiveness of swiftness of punishment in reducing illicit behavior.  We consider two dimensions: timing of punishment and timing of the resolution of uncertainty regarding the punishment.  We find a surprising u-shaped relation between deterrence and the delays of punishment and uncertainty resolution.  Institutions that either reveal detection and impose punishment immediately or maintain uncertainty about the state of detection and impose punishment sufficiently late are equally effective at deterring illicit behavior.  Our results yield strong implications for the design of institutional policies to mitigate misconduct and reduce recidivism.

January 5, 2019 in Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 4, 2019

"Why Aren’t Democratic Governors Pardoning More Prisoners?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this notable new piece in The Atlantic by Matt Ford. The subtitle adds "It's one of the most effective tools for reducing mass incarceration, but few are taking advantage of it."  Here are excerpts:

Governors in most states have the power to pardon or commute sentences, either at their sole discretion or with some level of input from a commission. Since most convictions occur at the state level, some governors can wield even greater influence on criminal justice than the president can.  But most governors rarely use this power, and few have made it a mainstay of their tenure in office — a major missed opportunity for justice and the public good.

Some outgoing governors were particularly resistant. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a former prosecutor, issued only three pardons during her two terms in office and added new restrictions to deter applicants.  Florida Governor Rick Scott turned the state’s clemency system into a hopeless slog.  Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker issued no pardons during his eight years in power, and in one of his final official acts, he signed a bill requiring state officials to keep a list of pardoned people who commit subsequent crimes and the governor who pardoned them.

All three of those governors hail from the Republican Party, which traditionally favored tough-on-crime policies. But even Democratic governors can be stingy.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made headlines last month when he pardoned 22 immigrants who faced deportation or couldn’t apply for citizenship because of previous state convictions.  The pardons gave Cuomo a chance to cast himself as a leading figure in the Democratic resistance to President Trump.  But with almost 200,000 New Yorkers in prison, probation, or parole, issuing fewer than two dozen pardons is hardly a courageous act....

What would it look like if governors pursued a more aggressive approach to their clemency powers?  Jerry Brown, California’s outgoing governor, carved out a model of sorts.  The state’s longtime leader spent his fourth and final term in office setting a national benchmark for clemency: The Times of San Diego reported that Brown has pardoned at least 1,332 inmates since 2011, quadrupling the number issued by the preceding four governors combined.  The burst of activity is particularly stark compared to his two immediate predecessors, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, who respectively issued fifteen and zero pardons....

So where could a more apprehensive governor begin? Perhaps the most prudent place would be the swelling numbers of elderly prisoners who were condemned to spend their dying years behind bars.  In a December 2017 report, the Vera Institute for Justice found that roughly 10 percent of prisoners in state custody in 2013 — roughly 131,000 people — were more than 55 years old. Demographic trends are expected to raise that figure to 30 percent by 2030.  Multiple states already have compassionate-release programs for elderly or dying prisoners; governors could fast-track pardon and commutations to accelerate the process.

January 4, 2019 in Clemency and Pardons, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Supreme Court grants cert on vagueness challenges to 924(c) provision in wake of Johnson and Dimaya

As detailed in this new order list, the US Supreme Court today granted certiorari in a number of new cases.  The cases involving Maryland and North Carolina partisan-gerrymandering are sure to get the most attention, but criminal law fans should be excited about the grant in US v. Davis, No. 18-431, in which the feds petitioned for review of this question:

Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using, or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague

This paragraph from the government's petition for cert explains why and how federal prosecutors are eager to distinguish the statutory provision at issue in this case from those struck down in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015):

Although the government has previously advocated an ordinary-case categorical approach to the determination whether an offense constitutes a “crime of violence” under Section 924(c)(3)(B), nothing in the statute or the decisions of this Court requires such an approach.  Section 924(c)(3)(B)’s subsection-specific “crime of violence” definition is applicable only to the conduct for which the defendant is currently being prosecuted, not to any conduct for which the defendant may have been convicted in the past.  It can naturally be read as inviting a case-specific determination as to whether that currently at issue conduct — not the hypothetical conduct of an “ordinary case” — satisfies the substantial-risk test in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B).  And, so construed, Section 924(c)(3)(B) does not implicate the constitutional infirmity with the ordinary-case approach that was identified in Dimaya and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2561 (2015).  Indeed, the Court in those cases “d[id] not doubt” that such a case-specific approach, involving a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt about the “real-world conduct” proved in the case, would be fully constitutional.  Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1215 (quoting Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2561).

Got that? Simple stuff here, and simply fascinating to think about whether the Dimaya five (perhaps joined by the new guy) could be prepared to continue its vagueness movement through the bowels of federal law.

January 4, 2019 in Gun policy and sentencing, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Vagueness in Johnson and thereafter | Permalink | Comments (6)

"Career Motivations of State Prosecutors"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new article authored by Ronald Wright and Kay Levine.  Here is its abstract:

Because state prosecutors in the United States typically work in local offices, reformers often surmise that greater coordination within and among those offices will promote sound prosecution practices across the board.  Real transformation, however, requires commitment not only from elected chief prosecutors but also from line prosecutors—the attorneys who handle the daily caseloads of the office.  When these individuals’ amenability to reform goals and sense of professional identity is at odds with the leadership, the success and sustainability of reforms may be at risk.

To better understand this group of criminal justice professionals and their power to influence system reforms, we set out to learn what motivates state prosecutors to do their work.  Using original interview data from more than 260 prosecutors in nine different offices, we identify four principal career motivations for working state prosecutors: (1) reinforcing one’s core absolutist identity, (2) gaining trial skills, (3) performing a valuable public service, and (4) sustaining a work-life balance.  However, only two of these motivations — fulfilling one’s core identity and serving the public — are acceptable for applicants to voice in the hiring context, even in offices that employ a significant number of former defense attorneys.  From this finding we offer a cautionary tale to job applicants as well as to office leaders, particularly chief prosecutors who want to reform office practices and to make those changes stick.

January 4, 2019 in Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

FIRST STEP Act leads to release of Matthew Charles from federal prison after remarkable re-incarceration

I discussed in this post from last May the remarkable case of Matthew Charles, who a few years ago had his 35-year sentence reduced thanks to lower crack sentencing guidelines, but thereafter was reincarcerated when the Sixth Circuit concluded he was not eligible to benefit from guideline changes.  Now, as this local article details, Charles today has been freed thanks to the FIRST STEP Act:

Matthew Charles, a man who was forced to return to prison after a court reversed a judge's ruling that his sentence was unfair, will be released again after the passage of a sweeping federal law that allows courts to shorten unduly harsh prison terms.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled on Thursday that Charles was "entitled to immediate release" under the new law, known as the First Step Act.

Charles, 52, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on charges that he trafficked crack cocaine in 1996. Advocates and experts have argued that sentence was unfair because punishments at the time were much lower for people convicted of dealing powder cocaine. Over the years, reform laws have aimed to address the disparity by shortening sentences for crack cocaine. Charles' attorneys argued the Fair Sentencing Act, passed in 2010, justified lowering his term.

In 2015, former federal judge Kevin Sharp agreed Charles deserved a shortened sentence. As a result, Charles was released in 2016. He did not re-offend.

But after an appeals court reversed Sharp's ruling, Charles was ordered to serve a full 35 years behind bars. As Charles prepared to return to prison in 2018, his case received national attention in part due to coverage from Nashville Public Radio.

But the new First Step Act, passed into law late in 2018, allowed judges to apply the drug sentencing reforms of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively. The law cleared the way for Charles' sentence to be reconsidered again.

Federal public defenders representing Charles asked for his sentence to be lowered on Dec. 27, days after the First Step Act was signed by President Donald Trump. Prosecutors responded Wednesday, saying they did not oppose his release because it was allowed under the new law. "Because Congress has now enacted a new law that does appear to make Charles legally eligible for a reduced sentence, the government does not object to the court exercising its discretion to reduce Charles’s sentence," the federal prosecutors wrote....

"Justice prevailed here," Sharp, the former federal judge, said in an interview. "It gives you hope that it can happen again." Sharp, who has become a leading advocate for sentencing reform, said Charles was "a poster child for why this act was needed." The former judge mentioned Charles' case during a meeting with Trump to discuss inequality in the criminal justice system.

The problem, Sharp said, is that Charles' case is not unique. It is similar to many others that do not receive publicity or review. "There are thousands of them out there," Sharp said. "We can't quit."

Prior related post:

January 4, 2019 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, New crack statute and the FSA's impact, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 3, 2019

"The Metal Eye: Ethical Regulation of the State’s Use of Surveillance Technology and Artificial Intelligence to Observe Humans in Confinement"

The title of this post is the title of this new article authored by Jennifer Brobst available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

This article addresses the dual interests of privacy and the need for social interaction as a right of personal autonomy in choosing the balance between them.  This is a right in need of protection in the face of new technology, including artificial intelligence, which has enabled constant state surveillance of individuals.  Those most at risk of a deprivation of this right -- persons in state institutional confinement, including those in prisons, nursing homes, or involuntarily committed in mental institutions -- provide an important context for examining this potential infringement, because there is a particularly strong concurrent state interest to surveil to maintain order and security.

The historical development of common law and federal constitutional protections of the rights of persons in confinement is examined next to the emergence of state constitutional amendments guaranteeing a right of privacy.  In addition, mental health research has added to the policy development in this area, as seen in research regarding the impact of solitary confinement.

January 3, 2019 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 2, 2019

Noting the notable "new crop of reform-minded prosecutors"

Though I do not expect a new wave of progressive prosecutors to radically change American criminal justice system, I do hope they can and will be important contributor to whole new conceptions of how to approach crime and punishment in the USA.  This new AP piece talks about some of the notable new folks taking office this year, and here are excerpts:

To get elected as a district attorney, sounding tough on crime used to be the most effective campaign strategy. But in recent years, district attorneys have been winning elections by sounding big on reform.

Next month, at least eight new reform-minded prosecutors will take office in cities around the country after winning their local elections by promising to be more compassionate toward drug addicts and more evenhanded in the treatment of minorities. Some won their races against long odds and deeply entrenched tough-on-crime attitudes.

In Chesterfield County, Virginia, a Democratic defense attorney who promised to eliminate cash bonds for nonviolent offenders won a traditionally conservative district held by a Republican for 30 years.

In Massachusetts, a lawyer who pledged to stop prosecuting a list of more than a dozen nonviolent crimes became the first African-American woman to win the district attorney’s office in Suffolk County, a district that includes Boston.

And in Dallas County, Texas, former Judge John Creuzot won after promising to reduce incarceration rates by 15 percent to 20 percent and to treat drug crimes as a public health issue. “Justice is HEART work” was part of his campaign slogan.

For decades, that kind of mantra by someone running for district attorney would have been seen as soft on crime and a turnoff for many voters. But a shift began in some communities several years ago when candidates began tapping into public frustration over high incarceration rates, disparate treatment of minorities, and the decades-old war on drugs....

This new crop of prosecuting attorneys is facing resistance to proposals for sweeping reforms, mainly from police and prosecutors in their own offices who are accustomed to decades-old policies of locking up defendants as long as possible....

Rachael Rollins, who won the District Attorney’s seat in Boston, raised the ire of everyone from police to retail store owners when she promised to stop prosecuting crimes such as shoplifting, resisting arrest, larceny under $250, drug possession and trespassing. She pledged to dismiss the cases or require offenders to do community service or complete education programs. “Accountability does not necessarily have to equal incarceration,” Rollins said. “There are many different tools we can use to hold people accountable.”

Larry Krasner, a civil rights attorney and public defender in Philadelphia, won a longshot bid for the District Attorney’s office in 2017. During his first year in office, Krasner has let go about 30 assistant prosecutors — 10 percent of the 300 lawyers in his office — and made it mandatory that he personally has to approve any plea deal that calls for more than 15 to 30 years in prison.

One of the challenges he’s faced and the newly elected DAs will likely face is an institutionalized belief that prosecutors should always seek the most serious charge and longest sentence possible. “I think resistance comes in many forms,” Krasner said. “There’s definitely a resistance that comes from the court system itself.”

Many of the new prosecutors have pledged to treat drug cases less like crimes and more like a public health problem. Scott Miles, a longtime defense attorney, won the Commonwealth’s Attorney job in Chesterfield County, just south of Richmond, Virginia, after promising to reduce felony drug offenses to misdemeanors in simple possession cases. Miles promised to “replace our outdated war-on-drugs approach to addiction.”

Kevin Carroll, president of the Chesterfield Fraternal Order of Police, said he is concerned that Miles will go too easy on drug offenders who often commit other crimes to support their habit. “If you’re not going to get in trouble for it, what’s the fear?” he said. “The truth of the matter is, unfortunately, for a lot of the people who are addicted to drugs, their ability to understand the difference between right and wrong is compromised. The fact is they’ll do what they need to do to get the drugs, and if they have to steal, they’ll steal.”

Lucy Lang, executive director of the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the new batch of reform-minded prosecutors represents a shift in the public’s attitude toward the criminal justice system. “It’s a little hard to say whether this reflects a massive sea change,” Lang said. “But I do think that this reflects an increase in awareness on the public’s part of the civil rights crisis we have found ourselves in as a result of overpolicing and mass incarceration over the past 50 years.”

January 2, 2019 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

US Sentencing Commission releases big new report on "Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Federal Sex Offenses"

The US Sentencing Commission has kicked of the new year with this 81-page report titled ""Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Federal Sex Offenses." This USSC webpage provides this summary and key findings from the report:

Summary

This publication examines the application of mandatory minimum penalties specific to federal sex offenses; it is the sixth and final release in the Commission's series of publications on mandatory minimum penalties.

Using fiscal year 2016 data, this publication includes analyses of the two types of federal sex offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties, sexual abuse offenses and child pornography offenses, as well their impact on the Federal Bureau of Prisons population. In addition to analyzing child pornography offenses generally, this publication analyzes child pornography offenses by offense type, exploring differences in frequency, offender characteristics, and sentencing outcomes for distribution, receipt, and possession offenses. Where appropriate, the publication highlights changes and trends since the Commission’s 2011 Mandatory Minimum Report.

Key Findings

  • Mandatory minimum penalties for sex offenses are applied less often in the federal system compared to other mandatory minimum penalties.
    • Offenders convicted of a sex offense comprised only 4.2 percent (n=2,633) of federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2016.
    • Sex offenses accounted for 19.4 percent of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty in fiscal year 2016.
  • Sex offenses, however, increased in number and as a percentage of the federal docket, and sex offenders were more frequently convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.
    • Offenders convicted of a sex offense increased from 3.2 percent (n=2,317) of federal offenders, in fiscal year 2010, to 4.2 percent (n=2,633) in fiscal year 2016.
    • The number of offenders convicted of sexual abuse offenses has steadily increased since the Commission’s 2011 Mandatory Minimum Report, from 639 offenders in fiscal year 2010 to a high of 1,148 offenders in fiscal year 2016. Additionally, the percentage of sexual abuse offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty also increased substantially, from 21.4 percent in fiscal year 2004, to a high of 63.2 percent in fiscal year 2016.
    • While also increasing over time since 2004, the number of child pornography offenders has remained relatively stable since the Commission’s 2011 Mandatory Minimum Report, decreasing slightly from 1,675 offenders in fiscal year 2010 to 1,565 in fiscal year 2016. The percentage of child pornography offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, however, has generally increased, from 50.2 percent in fiscal year 2010 to a high of 61.2 percent in 2014, before leveling off to 59.6 percent in fiscal 2016.
  • Sex offenders are demographically different than offenders convicted of other offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties.
    • In fiscal year 2016, Native American offenders comprised a larger percentage of sexual abuse offenders than of any other offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. They constituted 11.7 percent of sexual abuse offenders overall and represented the largest portion (28.2%) of sexual abuse offenders convicted of an offense not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.
    • White offenders constituted over 80 percent of offenders convicted of any child pornography offense (80.9%), convicted of a child pornography offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty (83.0%), and those subject to that penalty (83.2%).  In comparison, White offenders comprised 22.7 percent, 27.2 percent, and 31.1 percent of all federal offenders, federal offenders convicted of any offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, and federal offenders subject to any mandatory minimum penalty, respectively.
    • The average age for all child pornography offenders and child pornography offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty was 42, five years older than the average age for federal offenders convicted of an offense carrying any mandatory minimum penalty. Nearly half of all child pornography offenders were 41 or older (48.0%).
    • While the average age for sexual abuse offenders was the same as the average age of federal offenders overall (37), of those convicted of a mandatory minimum penalty, 17.6 percent were older than 50 and 20.5 percent were between 41 and 50.
  • Offenders convicted of sex offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty are sentenced to longer terms than those convicted of sex offenses not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.
    • In fiscal year 2016, the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty was nearly three times longer than the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offense not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty (252 months compared to 86 months).
    • The average sentence for child pornography offenders who faced a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty because of a prior sex offense conviction (136 months) was substantially longer than the average sentence for those offenders who were convicted of a possession offense (without a prior sex offense), which does not carry a mandatory minimum penalty (55 months).
    • Child pornography offenders convicted of distribution (140 months) and receipt offenses (93 months), which carry a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, also had a longer average sentence than offenders convicted of possession offenses (55 months), who did not face a mandatory minimum penalty.
  • Although Commission analysis has demonstrated that there is little meaningful distinction between the conduct involved in receipt and possession offenses, the average sentence for offenders convicted of a receipt offense, which carries a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, is substantially longer than the average sentence for offenders convicted of a possession offense, which carries no mandatory minimum penalty.
    • In fiscal year 2016, the average sentence for receipt offenders (without a prior sex offense conviction) was two and a half years longer (85 months) than the average sentence length for possession offenders (without a prior sex offense conviction) (55 months).
  • While still constituting a relatively small percentage of the overall prison population, the number of both sexual abuse offenders and child pornography offenders in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody has steadily increased, with both reaching population highs as of September 30, 2016.
    • Sexual abuse offenders accounted for only 3.5 percent (n=5,764) of the federal prison population as of September 30, 2016, but the number of sexual abuse offenders in a federal prison has steadily increased since fiscal year 2004, from 1,640 offenders to a high of 5,764 in fiscal year 2016. The number of offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty in the federal prison population has increased at a similar rate, from 276 to 4,055, during the same time period.
    • Child pornography offenders accounted for only 5.1 percent (n=8,508) of the federal prison population as of September 30, 2016, but the number of child pornography offenders in federal prison has steadily increased since fiscal year 2004, from 1,259 offenders to a high of 8,508 in fiscal year 2016. The number of offenders convicted of a child pornography offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty in the federal prison population has increased at a similar rate, from 118 to 6,303 during the same time period.

January 2, 2019 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (4)

December 31, 2018

Federal criminal caseload highlights from Chief Justice's "2018 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary"

The Chief Justice of the United States always closes out a calendar year by releasing a year-end report on the federal judiciary. The 2018 version from Chief Justice John G. Roberts is available here, and it includes an Appendix on the Workload of the Courts with some notable federal criminal justice details. Here are those details:

Criminal appeals fell one percent, appeals of administrative agency decisions decreased one percent, and bankruptcy appeals declined 10 percent.

Original proceedings in the courts of appeals, which include prisoner requests to file successive habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, dropped eight percent this year, continuing the decline from last year.  These filings had spiked in 2016 after the Supreme Court’s decision in Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ___, No. 15-6418 (Apr. 16, 2016), which provided a new basis for certain prisoners convicted under the Armed Career Criminal Act to challenge their sentences....

Filings for criminal defendants (including those transferred from other districts) increased 13 percent to 87,149. Defendants charged with immigration offenses rose 37 percent, largely in response to a 40 percent increase in defendants charged with improper reentry by an alien.  The southwestern border districts received 78 percent of national immigration defendant filings.  Drug crime defendants, who accounted for 28 percent of total filings, grew two percent, although defendants accused of crimes associated with marijuana decreased 19 percent.  Filings for defendants prosecuted for firearms and explosives offenses rose 21 percent, the highest total since 2004.  The district courts saw increased filings involving general offenses, violent offenses, and sex offenses, and reduced filings involving justice system offenses, traffic offenses, and regulatory offenses....

A total of 129,706 persons were under post-conviction supervision on September 30, 2018, a reduction of four percent from one year earlier.  Of that number, 113,189 persons were serving terms of supervised release after leaving correctional institutions, a three percent decrease from the prior year.  Cases activated in the pretrial services system, including pretrial diversion cases, increased 13 percent to 99,931.

December 31, 2018 in Data on sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)

NY Gov closes out 2018 with clemency grants

This New York Post piece, headlined "Cuomo grants clemency to 29 convicts, including murderers," reports on a final act of sentencing significance from the Governor of New York. Here are the basic details:

Gov. Cuomo granted clemency to 29 convicts Monday — including four serving lengthy sentences for murder.

Twenty-two of the inmates won pardons, including several immigrants convicted of drug crimes who were facing possible deportation. Nine others had their sentences commuted, four for murder and three for armed robbery.

“These actions will help keep immigrant families together and take a critical step toward a more just, more fair and more compassionate New York,” the governor said in a statement.

The convicted murderers had all served between 20 and 33 years and had committed the crimes in their teens. Alphonso Riley-James and Roy Bolus, both 49, were were part of a group involved in a drug deal in Albany that went bad and left two men dead.

But neither inmate was accused of causing the deaths, Cuomo said, and both have served 30 years of a potential life sentences. The governor said both showed remorse and had exemplary records in prison....

Two other convicted killers were also crime victims themselves, the governor said. Dennis Woodbine, 42, served almost 22 years of a 25-to-life sentence following an incident in Brooklyn in 1998, when he was 19. While chasing a group of young men who had stolen his jewelry, Woodbine fired a gun and struck and killed an innocent bystander. He has since earned a B.A. and is a mentor in the organization Rehabilitation Through the Arts and was featured in a PBS documentary.

The governor also commuted the sentence of Michael Crawford, 38, who served 20 years of a 22-to-life sentence after being convicted at age 17 of shooting an individual who stole concert tickets from him in Buffalo in 1999. The governor also commuted the sentences of three other prisoners convicted of robbery or weapons possession.

The full official statement and list of clemency grants from Gov Cuomo is available at this link.

December 31, 2018 in Clemency and Pardons, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

December 30, 2018

A hasty review of the SL&P year that was 2018

Year in review stories are catnip to me, so I figured I might as well use an unexpected little pocket of free time to create my own listing of big events in 2018 based on a lightning quick review of blog posts from the past year.  This listing is not representative or even all that reflective, and I welcome reader input on stories forgotten or unmentioned (or poorly ranked).  So, for giggles and comment, here is a list of post titles and links providing an imperfect, too-quick review of some notable stories from the past year:

25. Congress finally enacts "Paroline fix" that should improve victim restitution in federal child porn cases 

24. The Matthew Charles saga: another sad example of why complete abolition of parole was a mistake for federal sentencing

23. Entire First Circuit urges Supreme Court to revisit Harmelin's limits on Eighth Amendment challenges to extreme adult prison sentence 

22. What a difference a DA can make: new Philly District Attorney taking new approach to juve lifer resentencings 

21. Noticing the continued decline of the federal prison population (for now) ... and a story embedded with intricacies 

20. Judge Aaron Persky recalled by voters in response to lenient sentencing of Brock Turner 

19. "Charlottesville Jury Recommends 419 Years Plus Life For Neo-Nazi Who Killed Protester" 

18. Examining thoughtfully modern trend to prosecute overdose deaths as homicides

17. California reduces reach of its broad felony-murder law, and provides for retroactive sentence reductions accordingly 

16.  Paul Manafort found guilty of 8 of 18 counts ... and now faces real possibility of spending many years in federal prison

15. DPIC releases year-end report noting that 2018 was "fourth consecutive year with fewer than 30 executions and 50 death sentences"

14. DOJ casting new marijuana enforcement memo in terms of "rule of law" and "local control"

13. Bill Cosby gets 3 to 10 years of state imprisonment with no bail pending appeal

12.  Michael Cohen sentenced to three years in federal prison ... and joins ranks rooting hard for passage of the FIRST STEP Act

11. Washington Supreme Court strikes down state's death penalty based on its arbitrary administration

10. Child molester/gymnastics coach Larry Nassar gets (only?!?) 40 to 175 years as state prison sentence for mass molestation

9. Supreme Court grants cert on Haymond from Tenth Circuit to address when Apprendi and Alleyne meet supervised release!! 

8. Kimme’s accomplishment: Prez Trump commutes LWOP sentence of Alice Johnson!!

7. Prez Trump makes (tough) nominations to US Sentencing Commission (notably, these USSC nominees never got a Senate hearing or vote) 

6. How many federal prisoners may have Dimaya claims and how many procedural challenges will they face raising them? 

5. Criminal justice reform ballot measures passing in Florida and Louisiana, but losing badly in Ohio

4. Jeff Sessions is no longer Attorney General of the United States 

3. Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement ... which means a lot for the future of sentencing jurisprudence and so much more

2. DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh nominated by Prez Trump to replace Justice Kennedy

1. Prez Trump signs historic (though modest) FIRST STEP Act into law ... and now comes the critical work of implementing it well!!

December 30, 2018 in On blogging, Recap posts, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Highlighting continued work (and optimism) on alternatives to incarceration

I have had the great honor and pleasure for many years now of working with folks at the Aleph Institute, a national nonprofit that works on various criminal justice reform and recidivism reduction efforts. Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, who is director of special projects for the alternative sentencing division of the Aleph Institute, has this new New York Law Journal piece headlined "Our Country Grapples With Deepest Challenges Around Sentencing," discussing work on alternatives to incarceration and an event on the topic in the works for summer 2019.  Here is an excerpt:

The nonprofit I work with, the Aleph Institute, harbors a vision we call “Rewriting the Sentence,” wherein the cultural and political shift that has already taken hold in this country produces a complete reordering of our punishment priorities.  Once this shift is complete, we would view incarceration and other separation from community only as an option among many to be used sparingly, only when needed.

At present, we are such an outlying world incarcerator that we rank with the most heartless regimes on the planet.  It always bears repeating that we are not 5% of the world population and yet are responsible for almost a quarter of the world’s imprisoned population.  Across history, incarceration has not always dominated the punishment landscape — indeed, in Biblical law there is no such punishment as incarceration because of the inhumane collateral damage it wreaks.

We at Aleph think there are often legal and humanitarian reasons for the avoidance of custodial methods of correction at every stage of our system — from bail reform and law enforcement assisted diversion upfront to diversion programs, specialty courts and sentencing advocacy at the disposition stage to clemency, reentry support and compassionate release toward the back.

A system that uses evidence-based tools at each stage can deliver the optimal levels of supervision and services to allow each person to thrive and stay out of trouble.  Ideally — and I truly get that all of this sounds idealistic — we can use freed-up incarceration resources to support healthy communities, understanding that equity and thriving neighborhoods are the best prevention tools for crime.

What Aleph has learned from delivering care and support to thousands of individuals and families in prisons and jails all over the country for decades is that helping people function better is superior to an outmoded and misguided approach that inexorably leads to negative results, especially for the children left behind.

Here’s why I am not idealistic, but actually a pragmatist. If we don’t envision how we want the system to work, we will continue to incarcerate people none of us ever intended to incarcerate and to not know who we are incarcerating in a meaningful way.....

Why do I think I will see a true culture change in my lifetime on alternatives to incarceration too? Because we are already seeing the seeds of the change, to wit: in a recent meeting with the chief of alternatives for a major metropolitan district attorney, I was told that in recent years incoming prosecutors ask whether there are alternatives they can offer to defendants. In a decade, perhaps they will expect them.

So policy wonks and idealists alike, please stay tuned as we seek to rewrite a legacy of sentencing myopia. Aleph is convening criminal justice stakeholders next June at Columbia Law School for the Rewriting the Sentence 2019 Summit, and we will announce significant new initiatives thereafter. For more information, please visit askssummit.com.

December 30, 2018 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)