« April 28, 2019 - May 4, 2019 | Main | May 12, 2019 - May 18, 2019 »

May 11, 2019

New issue of Crime and Justice covers "American Sentencing — What Happens and Why?"

I just received an email reporting that the latest issue of Crime and Justice is in print, and all sentencing fans will want to get access to this volume. This issue has 10(!) amazing articles put together by editor Michael Tonry around the topic of "American Sentencing — What Happens and Why?." Here is the list of titles and authors (and clicking through here enables seeing abstracts for each):

May 11, 2019 in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment, State Sentencing Guidelines | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 10, 2019

Split Eighth Circuit panel explores lifetime supervised release conditions for child porn offender

A helpful reader made sure I did not miss an Eighth Circuit panel's work today in US v. Carson, No. 17-3589 (8th Cir. May 10, 2019) (available here). Like many federal sentencing cases, there are lots of small stories wrapped within the numbing reality of an offender with an affinity for child porn and teenage girls receiving mass punishment: e.g., the defendant here got "only" 20 years in prison when his guideline range called for 30 years; even though facing the real possibility of imprisonment until nearly 2045, for some reason "Carson did not submit his own sentencing memorandum"; counsel at sentencing did not object to broad conditions of lifetime supervised release, so they get reviewed only for plain error.

The heart of the legal dispute on appeal is defendant's claim that sentencing court should have had to provide a distinct analysis and justifications for his special conditions of supervised release, one of which included social media restrictions seemingly comparable to what the Supreme Court stuck down as unconstitutional in Packingham v. North Carolina. Here is a portion of the majority's rejection of the claims on appeal:

We next turn to Carson’s argument that Special Condition 16 (the social media restriction) “suffers the same flaws as the North Carolina statute held to be unconstitutional in Packingham.”  The Supreme Court in Packingham considered the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from “access[ing] a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members” or from “creat[ing] or maintain[ing] personal Web pages” on such sites.  Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1733 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5(a), (e)).  The Supreme Court held the statute burdened substantially more speech than necessary to further the government’s interests in protecting minors from sexual abuse.  Id. at 1737–38.  The Court reasoned that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” given the importance of social media for accessing information and communicating with others. Id. at 1737.  Carson argues his court-imposed inability to maintain or create a user account on any social media site falls squarely under the holding of Packingham.

We disagree.  Several of our sister circuits have rejected a similar argument in challenges to supervised release conditions forbidding access to the internet — and effectively to social media sites — without prior approval or monitoring by a court or probation officer.  See United States v. Antczak, 753 F. App’x. 705, 715 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished); United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 657–58 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Browder, 866 F.3d 504, 511 n.26 (2d Cir. 2017); United States v. Rock, 863 F.3d 827, 831 (D.C. Cir. 2017).  These courts have noted Packingham invalidated only a post-custodial restriction and expressed concern that the statute applied even to “persons who have already served their sentence.”  Halverson, 897 F.3d at 658 (quoting Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1737).  Because supervised release is part of a defendant’s sentence, Packingham does not render a district court’s restriction on access to the internet during a term of supervised release plain error.  See id.; Rock, 863 F.3d at 831.  We find this reasoning applies with equal force here.  Thus, even assuming the district court’s prohibition on creating or maintaining a social media profile implicates the same First Amendment interests as a restriction on accessing social media altogether, the district court did not commit plain error by imposing Special Condition 16.

And here is the closing paragraph of Judge Kelly's dissent:

I do not minimize the seriousness of Carson’s crimes.  For those he will serve a twenty-year prison term followed by a lengthy term of supervised release.  I also recognize the need to monitor Carson’s conduct upon release.  But Carson was thirty- three at the time of his arrest, and his lifetime term of supervised release could very well last decades. We can only imagine the universe of internet-reliant electronic devices that will pervade everyday life by then.  The length and conditions of Carson’s supervised release may well be justified, but such punishment deserves, at minimum, some reasoned explanation from the sentencing court.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

May 10, 2019 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"4 Ways To Win A Presidential Pardon Under Trump"

The title of this post is the headline of this lengthy new HuffPost piece, which carries this subheading: "Trump’s pardon process is unorthodox. But his willingness work around a deeply flawed Justice Department system has advocates for clemency reform hopeful."   This piece is a thorough and thoughtful review of modern federal clemency realities, and I recommend it in full.  Here are excerpts from its start and finish, as well as the headings that seem to capture the "4 ways to win" described in the headline:

There’s a name rumbling through prisons around the nation: Jared Kushner.  Kushner’s father served time in federal prison, and some incarcerated people hope that experience gives President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser a better understanding of their plight ― and could lead him to look favorably on their requests for clemency.

The idea that Kushner might have some special interest in freeing prisoners has so pervaded the nation’s federal prisons that some inmates have sent copies of their clemency applications directly to his Office of American Innovation in the White House.  A few inmates have even pinned news clips of Kushner on their cell walls.

Jared Kushner, cellblock pinup, is just one of the surprising results of Trump’s unconventional approach to granting clemency.  The president has been bypassing the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice, which has vetted clemency applications under previous presidents, and has acted more impulsively, issuing high-profile clemencies in cases that grab his attention. So inmates and their advocates have adapted their tactics to fit the current administration.  Here’s a guide to how to win a pardon under Trump.

Send Your Application To Jared Kushner... 
Get Kim Kardashian West’s Attention....
Get Your Case On Fox News....
Don’t Expect Much From The Pardon Attorney’s Office.... 

The framers of the Constitution gave the president the pardon power to act as a backstop to an imperfect criminal justice system that too often doles out excessively harsh punishment. That’s not always how presidents have used that power. Some of Trump’s pardons appear to have more to do with political favoritism or celebrity attention than with any interest in remedying overzealous prosecution or unfair sentencing. But they’re not the product of a lengthy and conflicted bureaucratic process, either. And that might be a good thing, some clemency advocates argue....

Margaret Love, a former pardon attorney, argues that one of the biggest stumbling blocks [to a well-functioning clemency process] is the transfer of the pardon attorney’s office to the deputy attorney general’s bailiwick.  The deputy attorney general oversees all prosecutors in the many U.S. attorney’s offices around the nation — the very same prosecutors who are bringing charges against defendants that the pardon attorney is seeking to provide relief to.  He or she also has the authority to review the pardon attorney’s clemency recommendations and can ultimately reject the application.  Critics say this is exactly what happens all too frequently, as federal prosecutors have little interest in questioning or unwinding the department’s convictions. Justice Department prosecutors have become “determinedly and irreconcilably hostile” to clemency, Love wrote in a 2015 paper.

The process can be extremely difficult for prisoners and their lawyers, explained Mark Osler, a professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis and an expert on clemency. “Unlike other parts of the criminal process, with clemency there is no transparency: no sense of where the petition is in the process, what the timeline will be or even the reasoning behind a grant or denial,” Osler said.

The mystery that envelops the process is unnecessary, Osler argues.  Osler and other clemency experts, such as Rachel Barkow, a New York University law professor and a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2013 to 2018, have pushed for years to move the pardon attorney’s office out from under the Justice Department and instead situate it as an independent, bipartisan commission inside the Executive Office of the President with a diverse membership that could directly inform the president of its recommendations. That remedy could relieve the inherent conflicts of interest of DOJ oversight, allow for more voices to weigh in on an application beyond federal prosecutors, and increase transparency around clemency.

Advocates are eager for Trump to establish a formal process that is outside the Department of Justice at some point. But the unending controversies swirling around the president, including with regard to controversial pardons, may make that impossible. In the meantime, incarcerated people and their advocates will try every means available to reach Trump. “People are just desperate, and so they’re sending things to the pardon attorney, they’re sending things to the White House because there’s just no clear guidance,” explained one attorney who has worked on pardons and who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the ongoing process. “It’s quite disheartening. Everyone’s not going to have the celebrity touch,” the attorney said. “They’re just not.”

A few of many recent related posts: 

May 10, 2019 in Clemency and Pardons, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 9, 2019

Noting how California's prosecutors keep pursuing death sentences despite execution moratorium, and what more Gov Newsom has in mind

This new lengthy New York Times article discusses the (unsurprisingly) reality that local prosecutors in California keep bringing capital charges even though the state's chief executive has impose a moratorium on execitions. The piece is headlined "California Has a Moratorium on Executions. Prosecutors Want New Death Sentences Anyway."  Here are excertps:

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, issued a moratorium in March on executions in the state, which has more death row inmates than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. But that decision has not stopped local prosecutors from seeking new death sentences, underscoring the divide in the state between conservative prosecutors and liberal reformers like the governor.

And as liberal as California voters are generally, as recently as 2016 they rejected a ballot measure that would have abolished capital punishment, and approved another one to fast-track executions.

These divisions, experts say, are setting the backdrop for what could be a contentious fight as Mr. Newsom takes new steps beyond the moratorium to abolish capital punishment. For now, the moratorium amounts to temporary reprieves for each of the 737 men and women on California’s death row, which will last for the duration of his time as governor.

“It’s got to be really confusing for the average citizen who sees both things going on and doesn’t understand how all of the above can be occurring,” said Michele Hanisee, the president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys in Los Angeles County. She is seeking a death sentence in one of her cases: The man accused of being a serial killer, Alexander Hernandez, who is charged with killing five people in a shooting rampage in the San Fernando Valley in 2014.

“The simple answer is this: The district attorneys of the state of California took an oath to uphold and follow the law,” Ms. Hanisee said. “I think the governor probably did too, but he doesn’t care.” The governor, she added, does “not have the legal authority to tell them not to seek death or not to follow the law.”

New death sentences in California have declined in recent years — 2018 was a record low, with five new sentences. The drop aligns with a national trend, as public support for capital punishment has waned and juries have been reluctant to impose death sentences in the face of evidence of racial disparities and high-profile exonerations. Before Mr. Newsom’s moratorium, 20 other states, including most recently Washington and Delaware, had abolished the practice....

California, while maintaining a large death row, has not executed anyone since 2006. There were longstanding legal challenges to the state’s lethal injection protocol that had halted executions even before Mr. Newsom’s moratorium.

In an interview, Mr. Newsom said his administration was considering several new steps to dismantle the state’s capital punishment system, and that his moratorium was a first step on what he hoped was a path that ended with abolition. He said his advisers were studying how he could commute the sentences of current death row inmates to life without parole. Mr. Newsom has the power to commute sentences in which the inmate has only one felony, but more than half of the death row population has at least two felonies; to commute those sentences would require approval from the State Supreme Court.

Mr. Newsom’s advisers are focusing on the Supreme Court’s decision to block several pardons or commutations — though not for death row inmates — issued by former Gov. Jerry Brown before he left office in January. Those rejections were the first time in decades the court had blocked a governor’s commutations, and Mr. Newsom has asked the court for an explanation. He hopes the explanation will offer some guidance “that will allow us to form better judgment on next steps if we want to look to commutations on the capital punishment side.”...

Mr. Newsom also said he was discussing with the attorney general’s office what role the state could play in blocking prosecutions of new death sentences. But legal experts say this power is limited: The state could decline to defend capital cases on appeal, but it does not have the power to order district attorneys, who are elected at the county level, to not seek death.

One possibility is that the attorney general could take cases away from local prosecutors. But experts say that is unlikely and would be unprecedented. “I have not seen any indication from our attorney general that they want to impose the governor’s view and take cases away from us so that we cannot seek capital punishment,” said Anne Marie Schubert, the Sacramento County district attorney, who is part of the prosecution in the Golden State Killer case.

Ms. Schubert added that, “Capital punishment is the law in California, and just because Gavin Newsom has a personal opposition to it doesn’t mean that we as prosecutors abandon our obligation to enforce the law in the appropriate cases. I’m not this zealot about the death penalty, but it is the law.”

Prior related posts:

May 9, 2019 in Clemency and Pardons, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

"Unusual State Capital Punishments"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by William Berry now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

This article argues that many of the states that retain the death penalty currently violate their own constitutions because their use of the death penalty is unusual.  Specifically, the death penalty in some states, particularly when assessed in an intra-state manner examining its use across counties, suggests that the rareness of its use might mean that it has become an unusual punishment.  As a result, this article explores the twenty-six capital states that proscribe unusual punishments and categorizes them based on the likelihood that their utilization of the death penalty violates their state constitution.

Part I of the article explains the concept of unusualness under the Eighth Amendment as developed by the United States Supreme Court in its capital cases.  In Part II, the article explores the Eighth Amendment analogues in state constitutions that similarly prohibit unusual punishments and the conjunctive and disjunctive language of the state constitutions, before demonstrating how the Eighth Amendment approach could translate to the analysis of unusualness under state constitutional law.  Part III then examines the states that have unusual proscriptions in their state constitutions, and categorizes the states based on the likelihood that their use of the death penalty violates their state constitution.  Finally, in Part IV, the article argues for an expansive application of state constitutions to bar unusual state capital punishments, exploring the policy reasons supporting this analytical move.

May 9, 2019 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Recommended reading, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spotlighting how federal drug prosecution patterns have changed in recent years

Screen-Shot-2019-05-08-at-10.43.47-AM-768x588I noted here that yesterday the US Sentencing Commission released its 2018 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics covering Fiscal Year 2018.  There are lots of interesting data to mine from this big new resource, and I am pleased to see the folks at Marijuana Moment highlighting one particular story under the headline "The Feds Prosecuted Even Fewer Marijuana Trafficking Cases In 2018." Here are the details:

Federal marijuana trafficking cases dropped again in 2018, continuing a trend that seems linked to increasingly successful state-level cannabis legalization efforts.

A report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that was released on Wednesday shows that while drug-related offenses still constitute a sizable chunk of federal prosecutions — larger than fraud and firearms combined — marijuana trafficking cases have significantly declined since states started repealing their cannabis prohibition laws.

There were just over 2,100 federal marijuana trafficking cases in 2018, compared to nearly 7,000 in 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize cannabis but hadn’t yet implemented their programs.

Trafficking cases for other drugs remained mostly stable during that period, with the exception of methamphetamine. Those cases have been on the rise, reaching about 7,500 last year.

All told, drug-related crimes represented 28 percent of federal prosecutions in 2018.  The only larger category was immigration, which accounted for 40 percent of cases.

The average sentence for marijuana trafficking cases was slightly higher in 2018 compared to the previous year, with the average offenders receiving 18 months in prison.

The reasons behind the decline in cannabis trafficking cases isn’t certain, but advocates believe that the data bolsters the case they have long made about how consumers would prefer to purchase marijuana from legal and regulated businesses instead of from the criminal market.

Technically, these US Sentencing Commission data are only specifically reflecting cases that were sentenced in FY 2018, so it is not quite right to say these data reflect precise prosecution numbers for FY 2018. (Some number of cases that get prosecuted will be dropped or will not result in a conviction for various reasons, to total number of cases prosecuted is likely a bit larger than total number of cases sentenced.)  Nevertheless, number of cases sentenced is a pretty good proxy for prosecution patterns, and the trends in all drugs noted in the graph above is interesting.  The slight uptick in federal heroin sentences and the huge uptick in federal meth sentences stand in sharp contrast to the notable declines in sentences for crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and marijuana. 

May 9, 2019 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Drug Offense Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 8, 2019

"Rewriting the Sentence Summit on Alternatives to Incarceration"

The title of this post is the title of this great event taking place next month in New York City hosted By Columbia University and The Aleph Institute at Columbia Law School.  Though I have played a small role in helping to plan the event, some folks much more talented than me have arranged for an extraordinary array of great speakers to be at the event (as detailed at this link). The event website provides this overview:

What is the Rewriting the Sentence Summit on Alternatives to Incarceration?

This is a high-level summit that aims to highlight the range of alternative sentencing policies and programs that are currently operating in the U.S. and abroad, and look more deeply at their effectiveness and functional requirements.  It will include a wide range of perspectives on these issues.

Who will participate in the summit?

The summit will bring together an unprecedented number of current and former leaders and senior government officials who have served on the front lines of day-to-day operations in the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, government, judiciary, defense, forensic social workers and psychologists, and nonprofits, as well as formerly incarcerated people, victims and advocacy groups.

What are the summit’s objectives?

Beyond education, The Rewriting the Sentence Summit on Alternatives to Incarceration will use plenary, breakout and interactive sessions to generate substantive dialogue between all delegates and identify key priorities for:

  • Expanding the use of effective alternative sentencing programs while enhancing public safety, including the mechanisms of discretion (police, prosecutorial and judicial) and legislative reforms;
  • Addressing public safety concerns over its broadened use and practical barriers to expansion and launching effective new programs in new jurisdictions, including operational limitations, program evaluation and public education;
  • NGOs that can help to support broader application of effective alternative sentencing, e.g., ubiquity of access and other measures and peripheral programs to help ensure successful reentry.

What sets the summit apart from other events?

The number of high-level participants; the balance between reformers and healthy skeptics; the interactive session; and the focus on making connections and producing outcomes that include the development of a database of best practices and an informal network for future coordination and support.

May 8, 2019 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

US Sentencing Commission (finally) releases 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics

Via email, I received this morning this notice from the US Sentencing Commission about the publication of lots of new federal sentencing data:

Newly Released Sentencing Data

Today the U.S. Sentencing Commission published its 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. 

The Annual Report presents an overview of the Commission's work in fiscal year 2018. The Sourcebook was expanded this year to include more analyses of drug and immigration offenses, as well as new sections on firearms and economic offenses to give readers more complete information about the most frequently occurring federal crimes. 

The Sourcebook contains information collected from 321,000 federal sentencing documents on 69,425 federal offenders. 

Quick Highlights

  • The federal sentencing caseload increased by 2,552 cases from fiscal year 2017, representing the first increase since fiscal year 2011.

  • Immigration offenses accounted for the largest single group of federal crime — a position held by drug offenses in fiscal year 2017.

  • Immigration offenses increased from 30.5% in fiscal year 2017 to 34.4% in fiscal year 2018 while drug and firearms offenses decreased.  

  • Methamphetamine offenses, the most common drug type in the federal system, continued to rise (up from 30.8% of drug offenses in fiscal year 2016 and 34.6% in fiscal year 2017 to 39.8% in fiscal year 2018).

  • 75% of federal offenders were sentenced under the Guidelines Manual in fiscal year 2018.

Interestingly, as reveled by this prior post, these annual materials were released by the USSC last year in early March.  I presume the government shutdown and the lack of commissioners has something to do with these data coming out a few months later this year.  I am hopeful it will not take me a few months to find a few data stories to highlight from these latest USSC documents, and I welcome the help of readers to identify just how the Trump era is now looking through the lens of federal sentencing statistics.

May 8, 2019 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Does our county really need a bigger jail?"

Pretrial_detention_growth450x337The question in the title of this post is the title of a new Prison Policy Initiative report that seeks to provide cities and counties with a guide for preventing unnecessary jail expansion.  This press release about the report reviews the essentials (and provides a link):

The report, Does our county really need a bigger jail?, lays out 33 questions that local decision-makers should ask in evaluating proposals for new or bigger jails.  “It’s very common today for jails to be overcrowded, because the number of people in jails nationwide has tripled in the last 30 years,” said report author Alexi Jones. “But in too many counties, jail growth is rooted in known policy failures like an overreliance on money bail. Local policymakers owe it to their constituents to find out if there is a better fix to overcrowding than just building a new or bigger jail.”

The report’s 33 questions for policymakers include:

  • On a typical day, how many people are confined in the existing jail who have not been convicted?
  • How many people in the county are incarcerated because they cannot afford to pay fines and fees?
  • What specialized “diversion” courts and treatment programs is the county using to divert people struggling with substance use and mental illness into more effective treatments than jail?
  • Do official cost estimates for building new jail space include not only the cost of construction, but the cost of debt service on the loan, annual operation costs, and collateral costs such as adverse impacts on public health?

“Building new jail space typically costs tens of millions of dollars or more, even as other options that are both more cost-effective and more compassionate are ignored,” said Jones. “If policymakers can’t answer these questions about why more jail space is necessary, they should not be undertaking jail expansion.”

For all 33 questions, the report also offers a set of alternatives and best practices, including:

  • Releasing more pretrial defendants on their own recognizance, and investing in pretrial services to help them make their court dates;
  • Requiring judges to set fines and fees based on a defendant’s ability to pay;
  • Investing in specialized “problem-solving” courts for people with mental health or substance use disorders that serve as true alternatives to jail time.

The report’s recommendations are accompanied by helpful graphics, as well as examples of local and state governments successfully implementing alternatives to jail expansion. “We know that the answer to mass incarceration begins at the local level,” said Jones. “That’s why it’s critical to help cities and counties think beyond jail expansion when it comes to improving public safety.”

May 8, 2019 in Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 7, 2019

So much to keep up with concerning Kim Kardashian's criminal justice reform efforts

I have done a number of prior posts about the criminal justice activism of Kim Kardashian because I have long thought that a huge celebrity with a huge following (and a huge bankroll) could have a huge impact in this space.  And these recent (entertainment) reports suggest Kimme's impact is continuing to grow:

From TMZ, "KIM KARDASHIAN HELPED FREE 17 INMATES IN 90 DAYS ... Reuniting Them with Families"

From Elle, "Kim Kardashian West Is Producing an Oxygen Documentary on Criminal Justice Reform"

Here is an excerpt from the second of these pieces:

Kim Kardashian West is continuing her commitment to bettering the criminal justice system with a new two-hour documentary. According to a press release sent to ELLE.com, the reality star will executive produce the Oxygen film, working title Kim Kardashian: The Justice Project, which aims to capture her, "efforts to secure freedom for Americans who she believes have been wronged by the justice system." It also promises "exclusive, never before seen look inside her mission to tackle one of America's most controversial subjects."...

On Friday, Kardashian West tweeted that she'd helped secure the release of another low-level drug offender from prison."We did it again! Had the best call w/this lovely family & my attorney @msbkb who just won release for their loved one Jeffrey in Miami," she wrote on Twitter. "He served 22 years of life sentence for low level drug case. He served too much time but it gives me so much joy to fund this life saving work."

According to a new TMZ report, Kardashian West has helped 17 prisoners—and that's just in the last three months. She's reportedly involved in a campaign called 90 Days of Freedom, which was started by Decarceration Collective lawyer MiAngel Cody and Kardashian West's attorney Brittany K. Barnet. The report names several other people who have been directly impacted by Kardashian's assistance, including Jamelle Carraway, Eric Balcom, and Terrence Byrd.

Prior related posts:

May 7, 2019 in Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wondering how many sentencing commissions include formerly incarcerated after notable new appointment in Minnesota

In this post last month about the new secretary of the Pennsylvania pardon board, I recalled Judge Marvin Frankel famously urging the creation of a "Commission on Sentencing" and the appointment of "former or present prison inmates" to the commission because "the recipients of penal 'treatment' must have relevant things to say about it."  Frankel's long-ago advocacy and this new story out of Minnesota prompts the wondering in the title of this post.  The press article is headlined "'Incarceration survivor' vows to add missing perspective to Minnesota's sentencing commission," and here are excerpts:

Before she was a teen, Tonja Honsey knew what it was like to be under court supervision.  Decades — and several jail stints — later, she almost lost her youngest child while four months pregnant and behind bars on a probation violation. "I say that I'm an incarceration survivor," Honsey said.

The 42-year-old St. Paul woman has since found sobriety and built a deep résumé as a criminal justice reformer, a different type of record that led Gov. Tim Walz to put her on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission.

When Honsey arrives for her first meeting later this week she will join a new panel of jurists, law enforcement and legal officials tasked with recommending changes to the Legislature and the courts on how Minnesotans should be punished and rehabilitated for their crimes.  Believed to be the first woman to serve on the commission after having served time behind bars, Honsey brings a wealth of experience helping mothers and pregnant inmates in the years since her return to society. She also brings direct knowledge, having bounced back from the receiving end of Minnesota's criminal justice system.

Growing up in what she describes as a dysfunctional family, Honsey found herself turned over to state-run institutions after repeatedly running away from home at an early age.  She later cycled into selling drugs to make ends meet while on her own, and eventually using them to cope with childhood trauma.  Her record also includes charges for check forgery and theft. Her most serious drug crime was in Freeborn County: a 2002 conviction for second-degree controlled substance, after a clandestine meth lab bust near Maple Island....

Hers is a perspective, she said, that the sentencing commission could use.  "The shift needs to turn from people who have gone to school to learn about re-entry, to where people who are directly impacted need to be the ones leading," Honsey said.  "And not just brought in for a focus group.  We actually need to be leading the charge."

She will serve with several other new members.  Walz also appointed Kelly Lyn Mitchell, who leads the University of Minnesota's Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, as new chairwoman of the commission.  Abby Honold, a Minnesota rape survivor who has been a leading voice on working to improve how police handle rape cases, will be a new commissioner representing Minnesotans who have been the victims of a crime.  Walz said his appointments are intended to "ensure that a diversity of perspectives is represented when making these life-altering decisions."...

Dan Cain, president of RS Eden, was the first former inmate to serve on the commission when he was tapped in its early stages in 1982. He eventually went on to chair the group.  Minnesota was the first state to create a body to study sentencing policy in 1978 and, two years later, issued the nation's first set of sentencing guidelines for state court judges.

"I think that my being on the commission was recognition by the commission members that not everyone shared their worldview," said Cain, who is 47 years sober and was pardoned for a series of burglary and forgery crimes committed in the 1970s.  "I think a mistake policymakers make often is they believe the same things that motivate and deter them are the same things that motivate and deter everyone."

I am inclined to guess that Minnesota has now set a record by having two formerly incarcerated persons serve on its sentencing commission, and I really wonder how many states have had even one such person as a commission member. I am nearly certain that none of the 30+ members of the US Sentencing Commission over the last 35 years have had such a background.

Prior related post:

May 7, 2019 in Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Latest issue of ABA Journal focuses on addressing collateral consequences

0519CVR-250pxI just received my hard copy of the latest issue of the ABA Journal, and I was pleased to discover that its cover has the phrase "Ending mass incarceration won’t succeed without giving people a second chance."  That phrase also serves as the headline for this lead article, which includes these passages:

People like Steve Price — poor, African-American, a high school dropout, raised by a single mom, forced to hustle on the street to survive — fall into a pattern.  They get arrested, go to prison and are released with little or no preparation, counseling or drug treatment.  Most have no job skills, and few employers are willing to hire them because they have a criminal record.  So they wind up going back.  Recidivism is a problem that for decades has continued to spin the revolving door of mass incarceration.

While the United States has consistently put more people in prison than any other country, it has come up short in helping rebuild their lives once they’re released.  More than 600,000 people leave the nation’s prisons every year with little more than a bus ticket and 50 bucks. Within five years, more than half of former state inmates are back inside.

While there’s been a growing bipartisan movement to end mass incarceration, such efforts still must grapple with the increasing number of “decarcerated” individuals.  The national First Step Act, a major criminal justice reform initiative signed by President Donald Trump in December, offers some hope.  It includes reforms that reduce sentences for federal drug crimes and funding for programs to reduce recidivism.  The president in April announced plans for a “Second Step Act” in his fiscal 2020 budget that will focus on re-entry and reducing unemployment for this with criminal records.  But these programs apply only to those convicted of federal crimes.  Most incarcerated people are in state prisons and county jails.  To complicate matters, state and local governments have thousands of laws, regulations and policies that create barriers that even the most determined people have trouble scaling when trying to get a second chance.

Drew Findling, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, has seen this firsthand in 30 years of representing criminal defendants.  “Someone can leave prison, but in many ways, they remain imprisoned.  They can’t get the job that pays a living wage.  They can’t get into an apartment.  They can’t get the loan for a home, they can’t even feel what it’s like to be a normal citizen,” Findling says.  “You realize there are all these punitive measures the government takes that, while it doesn’t keep you caged, it does, in many ways emotionally and professionally and socially, keep you caged.”

According to the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, there are nearly 45,000 measures that can stand in the way of a person with a criminal record seeking to lead a normal, productive life.  These restrictions cover employment, licensing, housing, education, public benefits, credit, loans, immigration status, parental rights, interstate travel and more....

Margaret Love, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who was the first director of the NICCC, and is now executive director of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, recalled that what she found was distressing.  “The phenomenon of collateral consequences is, in a sense, a part of the sentence,” she says.  “People get tarred with a criminal record, whether they go to prison or not, and that can be disabling for their entire life.  Until recently, there have been fewer and fewer ways for people to get out from under the cloud of a criminal record.  The fact is that even arrests come up on rap sheets, and they are frequently used to disqualify people.”

While the number of such consequences remains high, efforts to reduce them have been successful.  According to the resource center, 32 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands enacted at least 61 laws in 2018 aimed at reducing barriers to successful reintegration for those with criminal records, continuing a trend the center has tracked for the past six years.  By the end of 2018, every state passed laws to address the problem.

This issue of the ABA Journal also includes these companion stories:

May 7, 2019 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Report on Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools in the U.S. Criminal Justice System"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new report "written by the staff of the Partnership on AI (PAI) and many of [its] Partner organizations."  Here is part of the report's executive summary:

This report documents the serious shortcomings of risk assessment tools in the U.S. criminal justice system, most particularly in the context of pretrial detentions, though many of our observations also apply to their uses for other purposes such as probation and sentencing.  Several jurisdictions have already passed legislation mandating the use of these tools, despite numerous deeply concerning problems and limitations. Gathering the views of the artificial intelligence and machine learning research community, PAI has outlined ten largely unfulfilled requirements that jurisdictions should weigh heavily and address before further use of risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system.

Using risk assessment tools to make fair decisions about human liberty would require solving deep ethical, technical, and statistical challenges, including ensuring that the tools are designed and built to mitigate bias at both the model and data layers, and that proper protocols are in place to promote transparency and accountability.  The tools currently available and under consideration for widespread use suffer from several of these failures, as outlined within this document.

We identified these shortcomings through consultations with our expert members, as well as reviewing the literature on risk assessment tools and publicly available resources regarding tools currently in use. Our research was limited in some cases by the fact that most tools do not provide sufficiently detailed information about their current usage to evaluate them on all of the requirements in this report.  Jurisdictions and companies developing these tools should implement Requirement 8, which calls for greater transparency around the data and algorithms used, to address this issue for future research projects.  That said, many of the concerns outlined in this report apply to any attempt to use existing criminal justice data to train statistical models or to create heuristics to make decisions about the liberty of individuals.

Challenges in using these tools effectively fall broadly into three categories, each of which corresponds to a section of our report:

-- Concerns about the validity, accuracy, and bias in the tools themselves;

-- Issues with the interface between the tools and the humans who interact with them; and

-- Questions of governance, transparency, and accountability.

Although the use of these tools is in part motivated by the desire to mitigate existing human fallibility in the criminal justice system, it is a serious misunderstanding to view tools as objective or neutral simply because they are based on data.  While formulas and statistical models provide some degree of consistency and replicability, they still share or amplify many weaknesses of human decision-making.  Decisions regarding what data to use, how to handle missing data, what objectives to optimize, and what thresholds to set all have significant implications on the accuracy, validity, and bias of these tools, and ultimately on the lives and liberty of the individuals they assess....

In light of these issues, as a general principle, these tools should not be used alone to make decisions to detain or to continue detention.  Given the pressing issue of mass incarceration, it might be reasonable to use these tools to facilitate the automatic pretrial release of more individuals, but they should not be used to detain individuals automatically without additional (and timely) individualized hearings.  Moreover, any use of these tools should address the bias, human-computer interface, transparency, and accountability concerns outlined in this report.

This report highlights some of the key problems encountered using risk assessment tools for criminal justice applications.  Many important questions remain open, however, and unknown issues may yet emerge in this space.  Surfacing and answering those concerns will require ongoing research and collaboration between policymakers, the AI research community, and civil society groups.  It is PAI’s mission to spur and facilitate these conversations and to produce research to bridge these gaps.

May 7, 2019 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Technocorrections, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Prez Trump gets back in clemency business by granting full pardon to US veteran convicted of killing Iraqi prisoner

As reported in this AP piece, "President Donald Trump has pardoned a former U.S. soldier convicted in 2009 of killing an Iraqi prisoner, the White House announced Monday." Here is more:

Trump signed an executive grant of clemency, a full pardon, for former Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, of Oklahoma, press secretary Sarah Sanders said. Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone after killing a suspected al-Qaida terrorist in Iraq.  He was paroled in 2014 and had been scheduled to remain on parole until 2024.

A military court had sentenced Behenna to 25 years in prison.  However, the Army's highest appellate court noted concern about how the trial court had handled Behenna's claim of self-defense, Sanders said.  The Army Clemency and Parole Board also reduced his sentence to 15 years and paroled him as soon as he was eligible.

Behenna's case attracted broad support from the military, Oklahoma elected officials and the public, Sanders said.  She added that Behenna was a model prisoner while serving his sentence, and "in light of these facts, Mr. Behenna is entirely deserving" of the pardon.  Oklahoma’s two Republican senators, James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, hailed the pardon, thanking Trump for giving Behenna “a clean slate.”

Behenna acknowledged during his trial that instead of taking the prisoner home as he was ordered, he took the man to a railroad culvert, stripped him, and then questioned him at gunpoint about a roadside bombing that had killed two members of Behenna's platoon. Behenna, a native of the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond, said the man moved toward him and he shot him because Behenna thought he would try to take his gun.

Oklahoma’s attorney general first requested a pardon for Behenna in February 2018 and renewed his request last month. Attorney General Mike Hunter said he believed Behenna’s conviction was unjustified because of erroneous jury instructions and the failure of prosecutors to turn over evidence supporting a self-defense claim.

May 7, 2019 in Clemency and Pardons, Offense Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

May 6, 2019

Highlighting how judges can now bring needed compassion to compassionate release after FIRST STEP Act

In prior posts, I have made much of a key provision of the FIRST STEP Act which allows federal courts to directly reduce sentences under the so-called compassionate release statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A)This recent Reason article discussing the impact of this provision in a notable recent case from Montana.  The full title of this article serve as a summary of its contents: "A Terminally Ill, Wheelchair-Bound Inmate Applied for Compassionate Release. The Justice Department Argued He Wasn't Dying Fast Enough To Qualify. The FIRST STEP Act gives dying inmates the opportunity to appeal to a judge for compassionate release. This case shows why." Here are excerpts:

On Wednesday a judge ordered the release of federal inmate Steve Brittner, 55, under the new provisions of the FIRST STEP Act, a criminal justice bill passed late last year.  The judge ordered the release over the objections of federal prosecutors, who argued that Brittner, who is suffering from a malignant brain tumor, does not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" reasons to qualify for what's known as "compassionate release."

Brittner's case illustrates both the impact of the new law and the extraordinary hurdles terminally ill inmates and their families still face when trying to squeeze a small amount of mercy out of the federal government.

One provision of the FIRST STEP Act allows federal inmates to take their pleas to a judge if the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) rejects their petitions for compassionate release — a policy that is supposed to afford elderly and terminally ill inmates the opportunity to finish their lives among family and in relative peace....

"This is a very telling case," says FAMM president Kevin Ring.  "On one hand, the First Step Act's reforms to compassionate release worked as intended and this family prevailed.  On the other hand, it blows my mind that the Justice Department and BOP still fought tooth and nail to keep a low-level drug offender who is dying of brain cancer and bound to a wheelchair away from his family for the final weeks of his life.  They'll say they were just doing their jobs, but their job is to do justice."

A few prior related posts from before and after FIRST STEP :

May 6, 2019 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Offender Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

New Miss USA is a lawyer who blogs and seeks "reduced sentences for people who were sentenced unjustly"

17818960_1027573494011270_3870026070707142656_nI was intrigued to learned that I share some traits with the newly-crowed Miss USA, Cheslie Kryst. As detailed on this webpage, Kryst is a lawyer and a blogger and an advocate concerned with excessive sentences:

Cheslie graduated with a Juris Doctor degree (JD) and Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) from Wake Forest University. And also earned her Bachelor of Science degree (BS) in Business Administration from the Honors College at the University of South Carolina.

Cheslie is practicing complex civil litigation for a private law firm and is licensed to practice law in two states.  She also does pro bono (free legal) work to get reduced sentences for people who were sentenced unjustly.

Cheslie currently runs her own fashion blog, White Collar Glam, that focuses on workwear fashion for women. She was inspired to begin ‘White Collar Glam’ after struggling to find appropriate, affordable, and professional clothing.

And this new TMZ piece reports that Miss USA is already joining forces with high-profile folks with a track record of getting excessive sentences reduced:

Miss USA Cheslie Kryst is hard at work on a project that goes well beyond your typical beauty pageant agenda -- and it has her crossing paths with Kim Kardashian.

The new Miss USA was on "TMZ Live" Monday and told us she's working to free an inmate who's serving a life sentence for a low-level drug charge. She's working closely with Brittany K. Barnett -- the lawyer who just secured another prisoner's release ... with Kim's funding.

Cheslie, an attorney herself, tells us she and Brittany hope to do the same for someone in her home state of North Carolina by the end of this month.

As we reported ... Kim and Brittany just helped free Jeffrey Stringer, who served 22 years of a life sentence in Florida. Kim posted a celebratory shot of his family ahead of Stringer's release.  Now, Cheslie's hoping she can accomplish a similar mission close to home.

Kim's got a pretty amazing track record when it comes to this sort of thing ... helping Tennessee inmate Cyntoia Brown secure clemency, playing a key role in freeing Matthew Charles and Alice Marie Johnson, and taking her cause to the White House for a meeting with President Trump ... accomplishments Cheslie says should be celebrated.

May 6, 2019 in Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Pennsylvania Gov grants clemency to three more persons serving life sentences

I am pleased to see that, while Prez Trump and some who want his job have been talking the talk about clemency at the federal level, some notable governors have been walking the walk at the state level.  This new local article, headlined "Gov. Tom Wolf releases 8 lifers, more than any other Pa. governor in decades," reports on the record of the chief executive in the Keystone state.  Here are excerpts:

On Tuesday evening, George Trudel Jr. — heretofore known as inmate AS2262 at the State Correctional Institution Phoenix — got the news he’d been awaiting for 30 years.  Gov. Tom Wolf had granted him clemency, bringing to a close what had been a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole....

Trudel, now 52, is one of more than a thousand lifers convicted for a role in a killing that they did not personally commit or necessarily even anticipate — lookouts for botched robberies and burglars who caused elderly victims to have heart attacks....

The reduction of Trudel’s life sentence, and those of two other men, bring to eight the number of commutations granted by Wolf. That’s more than any other governor in the last 25 years.

The politically precarious practice of commuting life sentences began to fall out of favor not long before Trudel was convicted, when Gov. Richard Thornburgh took office in 1979.  It all but ceased in 1994 — the year a lifer named Reginald McFadden was released and went on a killing spree, flipping the governor’s race away from Mark Singel, who had approved the commutation, and shifting the odds of clemency from Harvard-acceptance rare to lottery-win rare for the next 2½ decades.

As a result, Pennsylvania is now home to more than 5,000 people serving live without parole.  Today, commutations must be unanimously recommended by the state Board of Pardons before the governor can even consider them.  Many applicants are senior citizens who have spent decades in prison.

The two other men who received clemency were Adolfo Carrillo, 79, from Philadelphia, and Samuel Barlow, 68, of Pittsburgh.  Carrillo shot and killed a neighbor, Santiago Garcia, during an argument in 1976; he told police that Garcia had disrespected his wife, according to news reports.  Barlow was initially sentenced to death for serving as the lookout in a 1968 bank robbery in which his co-defendants shot and killed a customer, George Morelock.

May 6, 2019 in Clemency and Pardons, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Will New Hampshire legislature this time override veto to finally repeal state's death penalty?

As noted in this post last month, a lopsided vote in favor of a bill to repeal the death penalty in the New Hampshire legislature suggested that the state would be able to abolish capital punishment despite the opposition of the state's Governor.  On Friday, as reported in this local article, the expected veto occurred, setting up the question that is the title of this post.  The local article is headlined "Sununu vetoes repeal of seldom-used death penalty as large delegation of police applaud," and here are excerpts:

Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed legislation to repeal the death penalty Friday surrounded by about 30 state, county and local police officers at the Michael Briggs Community Center, named for the officer whose killer is the state’s lone occupant of death row.

The governor acknowledged the bill he vetoed received bipartisan support in the House and Senate that was “pretty overwhelming.”...

Michael Addison, already a convicted felon when he shot officer Briggs, is the only person on death row in New Hampshire, which hasn’t executed anyone since 1939.  A recurring theme among repeal opponents has been the fear that Addison’s sentence will be converted to life without parole if the death penalty is repealed, even though repeal advocates argue that the law can’t be applied retroactively.

After the veto signing, Sununu said he believes in the death penalty as a matter of sound public policy and that he would have vetoed a repeal whether or not the state had an inmate on death row. “The reason is quite obvious,” he said, “when you talk to law enforcement and ask if this serves as a deterrent, they say ‘absolutely.’ People in this state understand that this is a tool and when you use it justly and with prudence, as New Hampshire does, it’s appropriate.”...

Sununu said he would do everything he could to “engage citizens in this process.”

“When you get to sustaining or overturning a veto, a lot of dynamics come into play,” he said. “So we’ll go back and talk to folks. We’ll keep fighting for it.  The vote was pretty overwhelming, to be honest.  Politics didn’t come into play.  I think it was folks not really understanding what this means to law enforcement and their families.”

Because I do not know the particulars of the New Hampshire legislature and local politics, I am not able to make a confident prediction on a veto override under the circumstances. Notably, the legislature failed to override a similar veto of a similar bill last year, but the 2018 election may have changed the numbers enough to change the outcome. But, as this news article suggests, it would appear the Governor is eager to take steps to preserve his veto and thus the state's death penalty.

Prior related post:

May 6, 2019 in Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Urging Prez candidates to urge bold criminal justice changes looking beyond incarceration levels

Sara Wakefield and Kristin Turney have this notable new Hill commentary headlined "In 2020, we need bold ideas for criminal justice reform too."  Here are excerpts:

As the 2020 election quickly approaches, Democratic candidates are presenting bold ideas about a wide variety of issues including climate change, inequality, national paid leave, filibuster reform, student loans, and Medicare for All. Few ideas are too ambitious for the base, even though many would require major structural changes to American institutions and civic life.

Then, there’s the issue of justice. Criminal justice reform and mass incarceration get talked about, correctly, as racial justice issues that need to be addressed, but no one has proposed radical changes to how we approach crime and punishment in America. It’s time for 2020 candidates to think as boldly about criminal justice as they are about health care and climate change.

Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) “Next Step Act” currently comes closest to a bold proposal, taking on police officer training, the conditions of confinement, and expungement procedures. Yet, even this proposal includes the sentencing reforms and reentry assistance proposals we’re used to seeing. Our collective focus, and the focus of popular criminal justice reform laws like the FIRST STEP Act, remains on a late stage of criminal justice contact: incarceration.

Prison incarceration is, of course, a consequential event, but many more millions of people engage with our inefficient and repressive criminal justice system — through arrests, misdemeanor convictions, parole and probation, the bail industry, and the accumulation of fines and fees. People don’t have to be sentenced to prison to have life-altering interactions with the criminal justice system, and our leaders need to think about these experiences too. In 2016, for example, 70 percent of the roughly 646,000 Americans in local jails on any given day had not been convicted of anything, largely remaining in jail due to their inability to make bail or because they violated the conditions of probation and parole....

Presidential candidates should also consider how much our criminal justice system impacts lives after someone has served time. In 2016, almost 7 million people were under some form of correctional supervision, such as parole or probation. The most common reentry proposals are aimed at improving the labor market prospects of the formerly incarcerated. We applaud these efforts, but people who lack health care and a stable home may struggle to find and keep a job. Discussions of health care and housing policy that ignore the formerly incarcerated ignore a population with the most significant health care problems and housing instability in the country....

By focusing on reforming incarceration only, we are obscuring a broader landscape of pain for millions of Americans. To truly begin on a path toward criminal justice reform, we need our leaders to think in terms of new deals, guarantees, and sweeping legislation that could impact more Americans, like they do on climate and health care. The type of country we want to have depends on these decisions.

May 6, 2019 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 5, 2019

Assembling criminal justice questions for the 2020 Prez field

Writing in the Washington Post, the Radley Balko is playing a great game of 20 questions in the form of this commentary headlined "Here are 20 criminal-justice and civil liberties questions for the 2020 contenders." I recommend the piece in full, in part because he lists a lot more than 20 questions (as my partial imprint reveals).  Here is part of its lead-in and a few of my favorite questions:

The 2020 campaign will likely present voters with the sharpest contrast on criminal-justice and civil-liberties policy in recent memory.  Most of the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination are pro-immigration and gun regulation and anti-death penalty and mass incarceration — all stances that put them at odds with President Trump. Many also have said they believe there is racial bias in the criminal-justice system and have expressed sympathy for police critics such as Black Lives Matter, again in sharp contrast to Trump.

So here’s a list of the questions I would pose to the Democratic field as a whole. (I’ll posit individualized questions based on the candidates’ records at a later date, when the field narrows down a bit.)  Feel free to leave your own questions in the comments....

5. Almost all of you favor the legalization of marijuana. Would you consider pardoning everyone who has been convicted in federal court on charges exclusively related to possession, sale or transport of marijuana?  What is your more general opinion of the pardon power?  Should it be used more often, less often?  Should it be used to grant mercy and redemption on guilty people, or as a check against injustices against potentially innocent people?...

10.  Numerous surveys and studies have shown that for much of the country, public defenders are underfunded, understaffed and overworked.  Some would argue that this imperils the Sixth Amendment rights of criminal defendants, and that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government is obligated to step in to protect those rights. Do you agree?  If so, what should the federal government do to guarantee an adequate defense for indigent defendants?...

14.  Most of you say you are against the death penalty.  As president, you will have the power to commute sentences. For those of you who are against the death penalty, will you commit to commuting the sentences of everyone on federal death row? Will you vow that your administration will not seek any new death sentences?....

18.  Nearly all of you say you support reforming the criminal-justice system and ending mass incarceration. The criminologist John Pfaff, among others, has shown that to truly end mass incarceration, we’ll need to not just release nonviolent offenders but also rethink how we treat violent offenders.  We now know that from about the age of 25 on, the probability of recidivism among violent offenders drops significantly.  Would you support a policy that allows for the release of or shorter sentences for some violent offenders?

19.  There hasn’t been a justice on the Supreme Court with criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired.  Only a few justices since Marshall have had any criminal law experience at all. Do you think this is a problem? Would you consider appointing someone to the court with a significant criminal defense background?

I have a lot more questions in mind for the 2020 field with much more of a sentencing focus, but it still feels a bit too early for getting them all revved up. But readers should not feel shy about chiming in now.

May 5, 2019 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)