« July 11, 2021 - July 17, 2021 | Main | July 25, 2021 - July 31, 2021 »

July 24, 2021

"Talking Back in Court"

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

People charged with crimes often speak directly to the judge presiding over their case.  Yet, what can be seen in courtrooms across the U.S. is that defendants rarely “talk back” in court, meaning that they rarely challenge authority’s view of the law, the crime, the defendant, the court’s procedure, or the fairness of the proposed sentence.

With few exceptions, legal scholars have treated the occasions when defendants speak directly to the court as a problem to be solved by appointing more lawyers and better lawyers.  While effective representation is crucial, this Article starts from the premise that defendants have important things to say that currently go unsaid in court.  In individual cases, talking back could result in fairer outcomes.  On a systemic level, talking back could bring much needed realism to the criminal legal system’s assumptions about crime and punishment that produce injustice.

This Article analyzes three types of power that prevent defendants from talking back in court: sovereign, disciplinary, and social-emotional power.  While sovereign power silences defendants through fear, disciplinary power silences defendants by imposing a system of order within which talking back seems disorderly.  Finally, social-emotional power silences defendants by imposing an emotional regime in which self-advocacy is both a breach of decorum and an affront to the court’s perception of itself as a source of orderliness and justice.  The dynamics of social-emotional power are particularly critical to evaluating court reform efforts focused on improving courtroom culture.  Paradoxically, the more solicitous the judge, the less the defendant may feel comfortable raising concerns that challenge the court’s narrative of justice.

July 24, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (9)

July 23, 2021

Across political spectrum, insightful folks saying in insightful ways that Prez Biden must do better on criminal justice reform

The news to start this work week that the Biden Justice Department is not disputing the legal opinion that federal prisoners released into home confinement would be returned to prison after the pandemic has likely contributed to the end of this work week bringing a number of effective commentaries rightly asserting that Prez Biden continues to come up short on criminal justice issues.  Notably, these commentary are coming from across the political spectrum as evidenced by these pieces:

From Samantha Michaels at Mother Jones, "Biden Said He’d Cut Incarceration in Half. So Far, the Federal Prison Population Is Growing."

From Lars Trautman at The Washington Examiner, "Biden’s criminal justice inaction is nothing but malarkey"

I recommend both of these shorter pieces, but I especially want to encourage everyone to read this lengthy Washington Post magazine commentary by Piper Kerman headlined "She accidentally provided the ‘Lose Yo Job’ soundtrack to Biden victory memes this fall.  He could learn a lot from hearing her story."  In fact, we can all learn a lot from her story, as brilliantly told and contextualized by Piper Kerman, and her piece is a useful reminder that Vice-President Harris ought not be left out of discussions and criticisms of the tepid criminal justice reform efforts of the Biden Administration to date.

July 23, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

As Eleventh Circuit works though ACCA "occasions different" mess, Judge Newson flags Apprendi "prior conviction" issues

A helpful reader alerted me to an interesting new split Eleventh Circuit panel decision in US v. Dudley, No. 19-10267 (7th Cir. July 22, 2021) (available here), concerning application of the severe mandatory minimum in the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.  As regular readers know, ACCA converts the 10-year maximum prison term for illegal gun possession by a felon into a 15-year mandatory minimum if the defendant has the wrong kind of prior convictions.  The basic issue in Dudley is a topic also to be considered by the Supreme Court this fall in Wooden v. US, namely ACCA's requirement that key prior offenses needed to be "committed on occasions different from one another."  In Wooden, the facts of the prior convictions are not in dispute, and so the Supreme Court will likely just explore the legal meaning of "occasions different from one another."  In Dudley, part of the debate concerns uncertainty about the facts of the prior convictions, and so the Eleventh Circuit panel has to discuss how these facts can be proved.

Working through a variety of complicated ACCA precedents, the majority in Dudley ultimately decides that "the district court did not err in relying on the prosecutor’s factual proffer in Dudley’s plea colloquy to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the three qualifying prior convictions for Alabama assault occurred on three separate, distinct occasions."  For hard-core ACCA fans, the majority's discussion might be interesting.  But hard-core Sixth Amendment fans will especially want to check out Judge Newsom's lengthy partial dissent which flags the significant Apprendi issues raised by prior rulings and this case.  Here is are some passages from the partial dissent to show why the whole opinion is worth checking out:

For starters, why doesn’t judicial factfinding involving ACCA’s different-occasions requirement itself violate the Sixth Amendment?  After all, we’ve described the different-occasions inquiry as a factual one....

Of course, I recognize that we and other circuits have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to ACCA’s different-occasions inquiry.  See Maj. Op. 18–19 (collecting cases).  We’ve justified ourselves on the ground that the date of an offense is part of the “factual nature” of the conviction — and thus falls under Almendarez-Torres’s exception to Apprendi....

But that explanation, while plausible at first blush, is tough to square with the Court’s characterization of Almendarez-Torres as a “narrow exception” to Apprendi’s general rule.  See Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 111 n.1.  As interpreted by Apprendi, Almendarez-Torres exempts only “the fact of a prior conviction” from the bar on judicial factfinding.  Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 (emphasis added).  After all, Almendarez-Torres itself involved only the bare fact that the defendant had been convicted of a prior aggravated assault.  523 U.S. at 226.   Although I don’t question Almendarez-Torres’s continuing vitality — above my pay grade — it seems that we do more than just faithfully apply that decision when we extend its “narrow exception” for the mere “fact of a prior conviction” to include other related facts, such as the date or time of the underlying offense.  Indeed, if Almendarez-Torres authorizes factfinding about more than just the fact of a prior conviction, what’s the limiting principle?  What differentiates the timing of the offense from the fact that it was “violent” for ACCA’s predicate-felony inquiry?  Both, it seems to me, are equally part (or not part) of the “factual nature” of the prior conviction.

July 23, 2021 in Almendarez-Torres and the prior conviction exception, Gun policy and sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 22, 2021

Noticing Biden Administration's withdrawal of pursuit of the death penalty in many cases

This new New York Times article, headlined "U.S. Won’t Seek Death Penalty in 7 Cases, Signaling a Shift Under Biden," reports on a notable set of pending case developments suggesting one way that the Biden Administration is making good on its stated antipathy toward capital punishment.  Here are excerpts:

One man was charged in Orlando, Fla., with kidnapping and fatally shooting his estranged wife. Another man was indicted in Syracuse, N.Y., in the armed robbery of a restaurant and the murders of two employees. And a third man was charged in Anchorage with fatally shooting two people during a home invasion.

Those cases and four others prosecuted in federal courts around the country all had a common theme — they were among cases in which the Justice Department under President Donald J. Trump directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty if they won convictions.

But now, under a new presidential administration, the Justice Department has moved to withdraw the capital punishment requests in each of the seven cases. The decisions were revealed in court filings without fanfare in recent months. The decision not to seek the death penalty in the cases comes amid the Biden administration’s broad rethinking of capital punishment — and could signal a move toward ending the practice at the federal level....

Some legal experts said it was too early to tell what the seven scattered cases signified, and one lawyer suggested Mr. Garland could have been even more assertive. “I think it’s a good and important step by the attorney general, but there’s no question that it’s not far enough,” said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the Capital Punishment Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “President Biden should issue a much broader moratorium,” Ms. Stubbs added. “He should ask for a moratorium on all death penalty prosecutions.”

But Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group in Sacramento, Calif., that supports crime victims and the death penalty, was critical of Mr. Garland’s decisions in the seven cases. “The families of murder victims are clearly not included in the calculus when ordering U.S. attorneys not to pursue capital punishment in the worst cases,” he said.

Under Mr. Garland, the Justice Department has continued to fight the appeal of the death sentence imposed on Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine Black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015. And in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of helping to carry out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, which killed three people and injured more than 260, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty, which had been overturned on appeal.

July 22, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Seventh Circuit panel states (in dicta?) that vaccine availability "makes it impossible" for COVID risks to create eligibility for compassionate release

The Seventh Circuit yesterday released a short panel opinion affirming the denial of a compassionate release motion in US v. Broadfield, No. 20-2906 (7th Cir. July 21, 2021) (available here) (Hat tip: How Appealing).  The opinion has a number of notable passages that make this ruling a useful read in full for those working in this arena, but the closing paragraph seemed especially worth highlighting here:

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) was enacted and amended before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and it will continue to serve a beneficent function long after the pandemic ends.  But for the many prisoners who seek release based on the special risks created by COVID-19 for people living in close quarters, vaccines offer relief far more effective than a judicial order.  A prisoner who can show that he is unable to receive or benefit from a vaccine still may turn to this statute, but, for the vast majority of prisoners, the availability of a vaccine makes it impossible to conclude that the risk of COVID-19 is an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for immediate release.

This final paragraph seems to me to be dicta (though what precedes it might lead some to conclude it is part of the holding).  I suspect the final clause will garner considerable attention no matter how characterized.  Critically, by using the phrase "the vast majority of prisoners," this final sentence still suggests that, at least for a few prisoners, the risk of COVID-19 can still provide an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for compassionate release.  Even more important may be whether lower courts might read this paragraph to mean that COVID risks cannot be combined with other factors to make out extraordinary and compelling reasons. Even if COVID risks are low for the vaccinated, they are not zero and so should be, as I see it, still a potential contributor to assessing what qualifies as an extraordinary and compelling reason when combined with other factors.

July 22, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

BJS releases new reports on "Correctional Populations in the United States, 2019" and "Probation and Parole in the United States, 2019"

Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics always produces terrific reports on national criminal justice realities, though there is necessarily a time lag in the data reported.  But given they ways the COVID pandemic has changed (and not changed) our criminal justice systems, I think it is especially timely that BJS has just released to big new reports on the state of US correctional populations at the end of 2019, just before the pandemic hit.  Via email, I got news and short descriptions of these new BJS reports:

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics today released two reports that present statistics on adults in the U.S. correctional system. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2019 – Statistical Tables provides data on both incarcerated persons and those on probation or parole, while Probation and Parole in the United States, 2019 focuses on persons under community supervision on probation or parole.

Correctional Populations in the United States, 2019 – Statistical Tables presents statistics on persons supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems at year-end 2019, including those supervised in the community on probation or parole and persons incarcerated in state or federal prison or local jail.  It describes the size and change in the total correctional population from 2009 to 2019.  Findings are based on various BJS data collections, including the Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of Jails, National Prisoner Statistics program and Survey of Jails in Indian Country.

Probation and Parole in the United States, 2019 presents national data on adult offenders under community supervision on probation or parole in 2019.  It includes characteristics of the population such as sex, race or Hispanic origin, and most serious offense.  The report details how offenders move onto and off community supervision, such as completing their term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community.  Findings are based on data from BJS’s 2019 Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey.

July 22, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

House Judiciary Committee votes 36 to 5 to advance the EQUAL Act to reduce federal crack sentences

At a time of problematic and often ugly partisanship inside the Beltway, I have continued to believe and hope that a number of federal sentencing reforms could and should still be able to secure significant bipartisan support.  This belief was reinforced yesterday when the House Judiciary Committee voted 36 to 5 to advance the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act.  Excitingly, not only does this bill reduce crack statutory sentences to the level of powder cocaine offenses, it also provides for all previously convicted crack offenders to obtain a resentencing.  (Recall that neither the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 nor the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 included full retroactivity for the sentencing reductions in those reform bills.)

I want to believe that the overwhelming vote in support of the EQUAL Act in the House Judiciary Committee means that a vote a passage by the full House will be coming soon.  I also want to believe that the bill, which also has bipartisan Senate support, could move efficiently through the upper chamber and become law this year.  But, because the politics and ways of Congress are always mysterious, I am not assuming passage is a sure thing and I have no idea what the timeline for the bill's potential progress will be going forward.  All I know is that it is now more than a quarter-century since the US Sentencing Commission first explained to Congress why a big crack/powder sentencing difference was unjustified and unjust, so the EQUAL Act cannot become law too soon and is way too late.  But better late than never, I still hope.

Notably, we are already approaching three years since passage of the FIRST STEP Act and there is yet to be a next step.  Though I would like to see many more statutory sentencing reform steps from Congress that go far beyond the EQUAL Act, I still think reforms can and should be happy right now with even baby steps in the right direction from a divided Congress.  And,  critically, the EQUAL Act would be a consequential baby step: USSC data indicate that more than 8000 people are in federal prison for crack offenses now and that more than 100 people are sentenced on crack offenses each month.  So literally thousands of people will be impacted if the EQUAL Act becomes law, and then, if/when this reform is finally achieved, we can work on correcting the next and the next and the next injustice baked into federal sentencing law and practice. 

A few prior related posts:

July 22, 2021 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Limits of Retributivism"

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

"Limiting retributivists” believe that the vagueness of retributive proportionality represents a moral opportunity.  They maintain that the state can permissibly harm an offender for the sake of crime prevention and other nonretributive goods, so long as the sentence resides within the broad range of retributively “not undeserved” punishments.  However, in this essay, I argue that retributivism can justify only the least harmful sentence within such a range.  To impose a sentence beyond this minimum would be cruel from a retributive perspective.  It would harm an offender to a greater degree without thereby increasing the realization of our retributivist ends.  Thus, if our nonretributive policy aims required a harsher sentence, the offender’s retributive desert could not provide the rationale, and we would need another theory that explains why, if at all, harming an offender as a means of realizing the desired nonretributive good is permissible.

July 22, 2021 in Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 21, 2021

Highlighting the drug war's continuing extraordinary toll on people of color

The AP has this lengthy new piece headlined "50-year war on drugs imprisoned millions of Black Americans."  I am a bit troubled by the use of the past tense in the headline because the casualties of the drug war continue to grow every minute of every day we rely on the criminal justice system to deal with drug issues. But, headline quibble aside, this extended AP piece is worth a full read, and here are excerpts:

Fifty years ago this summer, President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs.  Today, with the U.S. mired in a deadly opioid epidemic that did not abate during the coronavirus pandemic’s worst days, it is questionable whether anyone won the war.

Yet the loser is clear: Black and Latino Americans, their families and their communities.  A key weapon was the imposition of mandatory minimums in prison sentencing.  Decades later those harsh federal and state penalties led to an increase in the prison industrial complex that saw millions of people, primarily of color, locked up and shut out of the American dream.

An Associated Press review of federal and state incarceration data shows that, between 1975 and 2019, the U.S. prison population jumped from 240,593 to 1.43 million Americans. Among them, about 1 in 5 people were incarcerated with a drug offense listed as their most serious crime.

The racial disparities reveal the war’s uneven toll. Following the passage of stiffer penalties for crack cocaine and other drugs, the Black incarceration rate in America exploded from about 600 per 100,000 people in 1970 to 1,808 in 2000.  In the same timespan, the rate for the Latino population grew from 208 per 100,000 people to 615, while the white incarceration rate grew from 103 per 100,000 people to 242....

Although Nixon declared the war on drugs on June 17, 1971, the U.S. already had lots of practice imposing drug prohibitions that had racially skewed impacts. The arrival of Chinese migrants in the 1800s saw the rise of criminalizing opium that migrants brought with them. Cannabis went from being called “reefer” to “marijuana,” as a way to associate the plant with Mexican migrants arriving in the U.S. in the 1930s.

By the time Nixon sought reelection amid the anti-Vietnam War and Black power movements, criminalizing heroin was a way to target activists and hippies. One of Nixon’s domestic policy aides, John Ehrlichman, admitted as much about the war on drugs in a 22-year-old interview published by Harper’s Magazine in 2016.

Experts say Nixon’s successors, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, leveraged drug war policies in the following decades to their own political advantage, cementing the drug war’s legacy. The explosion of the U.S. incarceration rate, the expansion of public and private prison systems and the militarization of local police forces are all outgrowths of the drug war.

Federal policies, such as mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses, were mirrored in state legislatures.  Lawmakers also adopted felony disenfranchisement, while also imposing employment and other social barriers for people caught in drug sweeps.

The domestic anti-drug policies were widely accepted, mostly because the use of illicit drugs, including crack cocaine in the late 1980s, was accompanied by an alarming spike in homicides and other violent crimes nationwide.  Those policies had the backing of Black clergy and the Congressional Black Caucus, the group of African-American lawmakers whose constituents demanded solutions and resources to stem the violent heroin and crack scourges.

“I think people often flatten this conversation,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit organization pushing decriminalization and safe drug use policies. “If you’re a Black leader 30 years ago, you’re grabbing for the first (solution) in front of you,” said Frederique, who is Black.  “A lot of folks in our community said, ‘OK, get these drug dealers out of our communities, get this crack out of our neighborhood. But also, give us treatment so we can help folks.’” The heavy hand of law enforcement came without addiction prevention resources, she said.

July 21, 2021 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender | Permalink | Comments (0)

As we puzzle through gun violence spike, is it too soon to hope a decline is already starting?

German Lopez has this useful new piece at Vox headlined "Murders are up.  Crime is not.  What’s going on?".  I recommend the extended article in full and here are some excerpts (with my highlighting to help account for the optimism in my post title, and just a few of many helpful links retained):

Last year, the US saw the biggest increase in the murder rate in decades.  The estimated total number of homicides rose to levels not seen since the late 1990s, even as the overall crime rate declined.  So far, the spike has continued into 2021: Murders are up nearly 15 percent so far this year compared to the same period last year, based on data from US cities collected by crime analyst Jeff Asher.

That’s what we know. What we don’t really know yet is why....  Year-to-year fluctuations in crime and violence can and do happen. But the size of the murder spike has led to broader national attention.  The increase is now part of an ideological proxy war — leading to conflicting opinions even within political parties on what to do about the increase in murders, and plenty of finger-pointing over whether the pandemic, protests over police, or guns are to blame.

We don’t really know, with certainty, what’s behind the rise.  All three of those factors likely played a role.  And there may even be some unknown factor that researchers won’t notice for years; the theory that higher levels of lead in the environment caused higher crime and violence from the 1960s to 1990s took decades to get widespread national attention....

The increase in murder appears to be a uniquely American phenomenon.  While murder rates rose in some developed countries last year, like Canada and Germany, the increases are far below the double-digit spikes America is seeing. That’s especially notable because the United States already had a higher baseline of murders, after controlling for population.  Despite claims that Democratic mayors or progressive criminal justice policies are driving the increase, it also appears indifferent to the political party in charge: As Asher and criminal justice expert John Pfaff have shown, murder rates increased in cities run by Democrats and Republicans, progressive and not.

The good news is there is a lot more agreement among experts about how to bring down the spike than there is about what caused it.  But the best evidence suggests stopping murders in the short term will require more and better, though not necessarily more aggressive, policing — a controversial proposal on the left. “I know people don’t want to hear this, and I empathize with that,” Anna Harvey, a public safety expert at New York University, told me. “But at least as far as the research evidence goes, for short-term responses to increases in homicides, the evidence is strongest for the police-based solutions.”

The [murder spike] data is preliminary; final official numbers for 2020 will be out later this year.  But the findings have been backed by multiple sources, including the FBIAsherseparate reports from the Council on Criminal Justice, and the University of Pennsylvania–run website City Crime Stats.  A consistent finding in these analyses: The spike is truly national, showing up in every region of the country and most of the cities with available data.

Some other kinds of crime also increased, according to this early data, including shootings, aggravated assaults, and car thefts.  Still, violent crime in general went up at much lower rates, if at all, compared to murders, and overall crime declined, driven in part by a drop in the majority of property crimes.  The split between murder rates and crime rates might seem odd, but there’s good reason to believe the divergence is genuine and not an artifact of underreporting.  There were fewer opportunities to commit property crimes last year with businesses shut and people staying home....

Based on Asher’s analysis of major US cities, the murder spike has continued into 2021 but likely decelerated.  There also seems to be more variation: More cities, including Chicago, are reporting a decrease or at least no increase in murders so far this year....

The closest to a consensus I’ve been able to find in talking to experts about the cause of the murder spike: It’s complicated.  Experts have rejected some possibilities.  Given that murders rose in both Democrat- and Republican-run cities, as well as places that adopted criminal justice reforms and those that didn’t, partisanship and criminal justice reforms don’t seem to be a cause.  Three plausible explanations, none of which exclude the others, have come up repeatedly:

1) The Covid-19 pandemic....

2) The US protests over police brutality...

3) America’s gun problem....

Perhaps the best explanation: All of these factors played a role.  There are many ways all these explanations could have interacted.  As one example: Covid-19 and protests both fueled a sense that the social fabric was unraveling, and more people — particularly in the worst-off neighborhoods — felt they had to fend for themselves.  They equipped themselves with guns to act on their own if they felt a threat.  And this made any given conflict more likely to escalate to deadly violence.

I have been keeping a particular eye lately on this webpage in which Jeff Asher has compiled a "YTD Murder Comparison" for 73 cities.  On July 12 in this tweet, Asher noted that the "change in murder relative to last year is dropping in cities with data.  A few weeks ago it was +22%, last week it was +18%, now it's +16%.  Largely reflects cities entering the time last year when murder surged (murder is down in Chicago, for example)."  And, now of July 21, Asher's data shows we are under a 15% year-to-date increase, providing further reason to be hopeful that the homicide spike may already be ending. 

Of course, given last year's significant increases, just having little or no increases in murder is not something to celebrate robustly.  But if these encouraging trends continue and we end up seeing declines in homicides nationwide in the coming month, perhaps the criminology question could soon become what explains the end of the homicide spike starting in mid 2021 rather than what explains the spike starting in mid 2020.

July 21, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Prosecutorial Roles in Reducing Racial Disparities in the Justice System"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new R Street report authored by Nila Bala, Casey Witte and Lars Trautman.  Here is its executive summary:

The most pressing problems facing criminal justice policymakers and practitioners are racial disparities within the criminal justice system.  In many instances, the data on outcomes at each stage of the criminal justice process are stark, with Black individuals disproportionately bearing the brunt of system involvement and severe sentences.  While nearly every actor and policymaker associated with the criminal justice system can play a part in addressing this issue, prosecutors remain some of the most powerful.  With a hand in decisions ranging from charging to plea bargaining, the policies and practices of prosecutors inevitably influence the existence and extent of any racial disparities.  This paper examines the sources of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, the ways in which prosecutors may contribute to them and finally, actions that prosecutors can take to help reduce these disparities.  These recommendations include better understanding of disparities, decreasing reliance on cash bail and pretrial detention, prioritizing diversion programs and implementing algorithmic color-blind charging.

July 21, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 20, 2021

Helpful review of some modern US capital punishment realities

FT_21.07.15_DeathPenaltyFacts_2Over at the Pew Research Center, John Gramlich has this effective new piece headlined "10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S." In fact, many of the "facts" discussed in this article are facts about polling regarding the death penalty in the U.S. (which makes sense given Pew's recent poll work on this topic). Nevertheless, the piece is well worth a read in full, and here are a few of the highlights I though most bloggy-notable:

1. Six-in-ten U.S. adults strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to the April 2021 survey. A similar share (64%) say the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder....

5. Support for the death penalty is consistently higher in online polls than in phone polls. Survey respondents sometimes give different answers depending on how a poll is conducted. In a series of contemporaneous Pew Research Center surveys fielded online and on the phone between September 2019 and August 2020, Americans consistently expressed more support for the death penalty in a self-administered online format than in a survey administered on the phone by a live interviewer. This pattern was more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than among Republicans and GOP leaners, according to an analysis of the survey results....

7. A majority of states have the death penalty, but far fewer use it regularly. As of July 2021, the death penalty is authorized by 27 states and the federal government – including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. military – and prohibited in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But even in many of the jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, executions are rare: 13 of these states, along with the U.S. military, haven’t carried out an execution in a decade or more.

A growing number of states have done away with the death penalty in recent years, either through legislation or a court ruling. Virginia, which has carried out more executions than any state except Texas since 1976, abolished capital punishment in 2021. It followed Colorado (2020), New Hampshire (2019), Washington (2018), Delaware (2016), Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011), New Mexico (2009), New Jersey (2007) and New York (2004)....

8. Death sentences have steadily decreased in recent decades. There were 2,570 people on death row in the U.S. at the end of 2019, down 29% from a peak of 3,601 at the end of 2000, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). New death sentences have also declined sharply: 31 people were sentenced to death in 2019, far below the more than 320 who received death sentences each year between 1994 and 1996....

9. Annual executions are far below their peak level. Nationally, 17 people were put to death in 2020, the fewest since 1991 and far below the modern peak of 98 in 1999, according to BJS and the Death Penalty Information Center. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted legal proceedings in much of the country in 2020, causing some executions to be postponed.

July 20, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Death Penalty Reforms, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Building exits off the highway to mass incarceration: Diversion programs explained"

The title of this post is the title of this great new report authored by Leah Wang and Katie Rose Quandt for the Prison Policy Initiative. I recommend the report in full, and here is how it gets started:

Our nation’s mass incarceration crisis has led to far too many people locked up in jails and prisons.  As public outrage grows regarding the unfairness of the criminal justice system, counties and municipalities are adopting a wide range of programs that divert people out of the system before they can be incarcerated, pitching these as solutions to reduce the number of people in confinement.  But these programs are not all created equal, and the design and implementation of diversion can be wildly different in its impact on justice-involved people.

We envision the criminal justice system as a highway on which people are heading toward the possibility of incarceration; depending on the state or county, this highway may have exit ramps in the form of diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration.  Diversion is a broad term referring to any means of exiting the criminal justice system without a criminal conviction, while an alternative to incarceration can be offered to someone who has been convicted.

The further someone travels down the highway, the more collateral consequences they will experience: a police encounter that may turn dangerous; the trauma of being booked; their mugshot published on the internet; massive amounts of time spent away from work and family for jail time or court appearances; the financial burden of bail and court costs; and a criminal record that generates numerous other challenges like exclusion from the workforce, ineligibility for public benefits, disenfranchisement, and denial of the right to serve on a jury.

The earlier someone can take an exit ramp, the more devastating impacts they can avoid — and the more we can shrink the massive footprint of the criminal justice system.  This report provides a general overview of diversion and alternative-to-incarceration programs, and key differences in how they might alleviate (or complicate) someone’s experience going through the system.

In an ideal world, a community would implement all or almost all of these programs, to help divert people at every stage.  But when resources — financial or political — are limited, it is important that policymakers make choices that will have the largest impact.  While all diversions are better than incarceration, the most powerful are the earliest interventions (which we’re calling “Exit 1”) that prevent encounters with police and the criminal justice system in the first place.

July 20, 2021 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)

When might we expect advocacy groups to push Prez Biden make needed appointments to the US Sentencing Commission?

As we officially hit six months into the Biden Administration, it seems a good time to express my frustration again that there has not yet been any nominations to the US Sentencing Commission.  As I have noted in a number of prior posts (some linked below), due to a lack of Sentencing Commissioners, the USSC has not been fully functional for most of the last five years, and the USSC has not had complete set of commissioners firmly in place for the better part of a decade.  The USSC staff continues to produce lots of useful research and reports, but the FIRST STEP Act's passage in December 2018 makes it particularly problematic for the USSC to have been completely non-functional in terms of formal amendments or agendas in recent years.

In this post a few weeks ago, I highlighted that all the openings on the USSC provide the Biden Administration with an opportunity to appoint transformative commissioners who could make the USSC into a criminal justice reform leader for years to come.  And, as the title of this post suggests, I am now growing a bit frustrated that an array of criminal advocacy groups are not yet publicly advocating on this issue.  (I surmise there might be behind-the-scenes work afoot on this front.  I sure hope so.)  Notably, a broad range of advocacy groups have been actively urging Prez Biden to broadly and aggressively use his clemency powers for various sets of offenders.  Though I share an interest in seeing clemency powers revived, clemency is often just a "one-time" achievement.  Effective appointments to the US Sentencing Commission can provide the foundation for advancing badly needed structural and institutional federal sentencing reforms for a generation.

Justified concern for the home confinement cohort at risk of being sent back to federal prison after the end of the pandemic has garnered lots of attention from advocates and the media.  But, ironically, with the pandemic dragging on, that cohort is still likely to be able to stay home for the foreseeable future even if Prez Biden does not grant some kind of mass clemency (and, as I have argued, Congress ought to be acting to address this issue).  Meanwhile, the federal prison population is growing significantly again, perhaps in part due to a number of beneficial changes to federal sentencing law from the FIRST STEP Act having not yet been fully implemented into the guidelines.  (I particularly have in mind potential expansion of the "safety valve" adjustment in the drug guidelines based on the statutory change in FIRST STEP; a parallel guideline change which might reduce thousands of drug sentences if made fully retroactive.)  With the pandemic dragging on and the federal prison population on the rise, it is especially worrisome that the Biden Administration is moving at a pace that could result in there is no functioning  US Sentencing Commission in place until 2022 and even no realistic chance for any needed guideline amendments until perhaps 2023.

I understand that other appointments, from judges to other executive branch positions, are a higher priority for many political insiders and advocacy groups.  But shrewd and bold nominations to the US Sentencing Commission could and would serve as an effective way for Prez Biden to signal a real commitment to criminal justice reform while also reviving an agency with a long history of impactful work on the federal sentencing system.  In addition to hoping the Biden team is making some progress on this front, I also now want to urge criminal justice advocacy groups to see this is an important opportunity to advance needed change.

Last bit of insider tounge-in-cheek joke:  Maybe the Biden team should get really clever and urge Justice Breyer to give up his day job and serve again on the US Sentencing Commission. 

A few of many  prior recent related posts:

July 20, 2021 in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 19, 2021

"The Evolving Standards, As Applied"

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:

In Jones v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow reading of its Eighth Amendment categorical bar on mandatory juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) sentences.  Specifically, the Court rejected the Jones’ claim that the Eighth Amendment categorical limit required a sentencing jury or judge make a finding of permanent incorrigibility — that the defendant is beyond hope of rehabilitation — as a prerequisite to imposing a JLWOP sentence.

In dicta, the Court suggested that Jones could have made an individual as-applied challenge to his sentence under the Eighth Amendment by claiming that his JLWOP sentence was disproportionate to the crime he committed.  While the Court has used a narrow disproportionality standard in non-capital, non-JLWOP cases, it is not clear what standard would apply to individual as-applied Eighth Amendment challenges in capital and JLWOP cases.  The Court customarily reviews such cases categorically under a heightened evolving standards of decency standard, which suggests that an individual as-applied challenge would also merit some heightened level of review.

Accordingly, this Article argues for the adoption of heightened standards of Eighth Amendment review for individual as-applied proportionality challenges in capital and JLWOP cases.  Specifically, the Article advocates for the adoption of an intermediate level of review for JLWOP cases and a strict scrutiny level of review for capital cases.  Further, the Article argues for a broadening of the kinds of sentences that receive heightened scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, both for categorical challenges and for individual as-applied proportionality challenges.

Part One of the Article describes the Court’s evolving standards of decency doctrine and Eighth Amendment’s categorical limitations on capital and JLWOP sentences.  In Part Two, the Article explains the other side of the application of the Eighth Amendment, the narrow disproportionality test the Court uses to evaluate as-applied challenges in individual non-capital, non-JLWOP cases.  Part Three then argues for the adoption of heightened as-applied standards of review in individual capital and JLWOP cases as an application of the evolving standards of decency doctrine.  Finally, Part IV sketches some possible extensions of the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standards to other punishments and other classes of defendants.

July 19, 2021 in Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

New York Times reporting Biden Justice Department agrees with OLC memo stating prisoners transferred to home confinement must return to prison after pandemic ends

As reported in this new New York Times article, headlined "Biden Legal Team Decides Inmates Must Return to Prison After Covid Emergency," it appears that the US Department of Justice is not changing its view of the limits of congressional authority to move people to home confinement under the CARES Act. Here are the details:

The Biden administration legal team has decided that thousands of federal convicts who were released to home confinement to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19 will be required by law to return to prison a month after the official state of emergency for the pandemic ends, officials said on Monday.

The administration has come under pressure from criminal justice reform activists and some lawmakers to revoke a Trump-era memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which said inmates whose sentences lasted beyond the “pandemic emergency period” would have to go back to prison.

But the Biden legal team has concluded that the memo correctly interpreted the law, which applies to about 4,000 nonviolent inmates, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity about sensitive internal deliberations.  Several officials characterized the decision as an assessment of the best interpretation of the law, not a matter of policy preference.

The official state of emergency is not expected to end this year because of a rise in new infections caused by the coronavirus’s Delta variant. But the determination means that whenever it does end, the department’s hands will be tied.

That leaves two options if those prisoners are not to be sent back into cells: Either Congress could enact a law to expand the Justice Department’s authority to keep them at home beyond the emergency, or President Biden could use his clemency powers to commute their sentences to home confinement.

The Biden team is said to be wary of a blanket, mass commutation, however, both because it would represent an extraordinary intervention in the normal functioning of the judicial system and it could create political risks if any recipient who would otherwise be locked up commits a serious crime.  Another option is case-by-case assessment for commutations, but the volume of work required to individually evaluate so many people is daunting.

When asked for comment, the White House responded with a general statement about the administration’s support for policies that can reduce incarceration. “President Biden is committed to reducing incarceration and helping people to re-enter society,” said Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman. “As he has said, too many Americans are incarcerated, and too many are Black and brown. His administration is focused on reforming our justice system in order to strengthen families, boost our economy and give people a chance at a better future.”...

The disclosure of the Biden legal team’s internal decision came as an ideologically broad range of advocacy groups — nearly two dozen organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, FreedomWorks and the Faith and Freedom Coalition — stepped up pressure on the Biden administration not to recall inmates from home confinement when the emergency ends.

Notably, however, those organizations issued a letter framing their request in terms of Mr. Biden using his clemency powers to resolve the issue. “On the campaign trail and during your presidency, you have spoken about the importance of second chances,” according to the letter. “This is your opportunity to provide second chances to thousands of people who are already safely out of prison, reintegrating back into society, reconnecting with their loved ones, getting jobs and going back to school. We urge you to provide clemency now to people under CARES Act home confinement.”

I do not find this news especially surprising; if there was any considerable legal wiggle room here, I think the Justice Department would have spoken some time ago.  And, as this article highlights, I have sensed that a number of advocates have been talking up blanket clemency as the most fitting way to resolve this issue.  But I am always eager to highlight the point I made in this recent post, titled "Why aren't there much stronger calls for CONGRESS to fix post-pandemic home confinement problems?," that Congress readily could (and I think should) enact a statute that provides for the home confinement program to be extended beyond the end of the pandemic.

In addition, as I highlighted in this recent post, another option for case-by-case relief is through compassionate release motions.  This is how Gwen Levi got relief, and such motions have the potential to reduce sentences and not just allow these sentences to be served at home.  Of course "the volume of work required" for so many CR motions would be considerable, but the Justice Department could (and I think should) support and even bring sentence reduction motions under the (so-called compassionate release) statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Some prior recent related posts:

July 19, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

First Jan 6 rioter to be sentenced on felony charges gets (below-guideline) sentence of eight months in federal prison

As noted in this preview post on Friday, this morning was the scheduled sentencing day for Paul Allard Hodgkins, who carried a Trump flag into the well of the Senate during the January 6 riot at the Capitol.  Hodgkins' sentencing has been seen as particularly significant because he is the very first person to be sentenced on felony charges stemming from his actions on January 6 — one misdemeanor defendant has been sentenced to probation — and because Hodgkins' sentencing memo and the Government's sentencing memo made notable arguments as he sought probation and as the government urged an 18-month prison term (at the midpoint of the calculated guidelines range of 15 to 21 months).

This AP piece reports via its headline that the federal sentencing judge here did what often happens in these kinds of cases, namely he came quite close to splitting the difference: "Capitol rioter who breached Senate sentenced to 8 months."  Here are more details on this notable federal sentencing:

A Florida man who breached the U.S. Senate chamber carrying a Trump campaign flag was sentenced Monday to eight months behind bars, the first resolution for a felony case in the Capitol insurrection.

Paul Allard Hodgkins apologized and said he was ashamed of his actions on Jan 6. Speaking calmly from a prepared text, he described being caught up in the euphoria as he walked down Washington’s most famous avenue, then followed a crowd of hundreds up Capitol Hill and into the Capitol building. “If I had any idea that the protest … would escalate (the way) it did … I would never have ventured farther than the sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Hodgkins told the judge. He added: “This was a foolish decision on my part.”

Prosecutors had asked for Hodgkins to serve 18 months behind bars, saying in a recent filing that he, “like each rioter, contributed to the collective threat to democracy” by forcing lawmakers to temporarily abandon their certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory over President Donald Trump and to scramble for shelter from incoming mobs.

His sentencing could set the bar for punishments of hundreds of other defendants as they decide whether to accept plea deals or go to trial. He and others are accused of serious crimes but were not indicted, as some others were, for roles in larger conspiracies. Under an agreement with prosecutors, Hodgkins pleaded guilty last month to one count of obstructing an official proceeding, which carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence. In exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop lesser charges, including entering a restricted building and disorderly conduct.

Video footage shows Hodgkins wearing a Trump 2020 T-shirt, the flag flung over his shoulder and eye goggles around his neck, inside the Senate. He took a selfie with a self-described shaman in a horned helmet and other rioters on the dais behind him.

His lawyer pleaded with Judge Randolph Moss to spare his 38-year-old client time in prison, saying the shame that will attach to Hodgkins for the rest of his life should be factored in as punishment. The lawyer argued in court papers that Hodgkins’ actions weren’t markedly different from those of Anna Morgan Lloyd — other than Hodgkins stepping onto the Senate floor. The 49-year-old from Indiana was the first of roughly 500 arrested to be sentenced. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and last month was sentenced to three years of probation.

Hodgkins was never accused of assaulting anyone or damaging property. And prosecutors said he deserves some leniency for taking responsibility almost immediately and pleading guilty to the obstruction charge. But they also noted how he boarded a bus in his hometown of Tampa bound for a Jan. 6 Trump rally carrying rope, protective goggles and latex gloves in a backpack — saying that demonstrated he came to Washington prepared for violence.

Prior related posts:

July 19, 2021 in Celebrity sentencings, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (6)

NIJ releases new publication with "Guidelines for Post-Sentencing Risk Assessment"

Via this webpage, headed "Redesigning Risk and Need Assessment in Corrections," the National Institute of Justice discusses its notable new publication titled "Guidelines for Post-Sentencing Risk Assessment."  Here is how the webpage sets up the full publication:

Over the past several decades, the use of RNA in correctional systems has proliferated. Indeed, the vast majority of local, state, and federal correctional systems in the United States now use some type of RNA. Despite the numerous ways in which RNA instruments can improve correctional policy and practice, the kind of RNA currently used across much of the country has yet to live up to this promise because it is outdated, inefficient, and less effective than it should be.

In an effort to help the corrections field realize the full potential of RNA instruments, NIJ recently released Guidelines for Post-Sentencing Risk Assessment.  These guidelines, assembled by a trio of corrections researchers and practitioners, are built around four fundamental principles for the responsible and ethical use of RNAs: fairness, efficiency, effectiveness, and communication.  Each of these principles contributes to an innovative, practical checklist of steps practitioners can use to maximize the reliability and validity of RNA instruments.

Here is part of the executive summary from the full report:

Risk and needs assessment (RNA) tools are used within corrections to prospectively identify those who have a greater risk of offending, violating laws or rules of prison or jail, and/ or violating the conditions of community supervision.  Correctional authorities use RNA instruments to guide a host of decisions that are, to a large extent, intended to enhance public safety and make better use of scarce resources.  Despite the numerous ways in which RNA instruments can improve correctional policy and practice, the style and type of RNA currently used by much of the field has yet to live up to this promise because it is outdated, inefficient, and less effective than it should be.

In an effort to help the corrections field realize the potential that RNA instruments have for improving decision-making and reducing recidivism, we have drawn upon our collective wisdom and experience to identify four principles that are critical to the responsible and ethical use of RNAs.  Within each principle is a set of guidelines that, when applied in practice, would help maximize the reliability and validity of RNA instruments.  Because these guidelines comprise novel, evidence-based practices and procedures, the recommendations we propose in this paper are relatively innovative, at least for the field of corrections.

■ The first principle, fairness, holds that RNA tools should be used to yield more equitable outcomes. When assessments are designed, efforts should be taken to eliminate or minimize potential sources of bias, which will mitigate racial and ethnic disparities. Preprocessing, in-processing, and post-processing adjustments are design strategies that can help minimize bias. Disparities can also be reduced through the way in which practitioners use RNAs, such as delivering more programming resources to those who need it the most (the risk principle). Collectively, this provides correctional agencies with a strategy for achieving better and more equitable outcomes.

■  The second principle, efficiency, indicates that RNA instruments should rely on processes that promote reliability, expand assessment capacity, and do not burden staff resources. The vast majority of RNAs rely on time-consuming, cumbersome processes that mimic paper and pencil instruments; that is, they are forms to be completed and then manually scored by staff. The efficiency of RNA tools can be improved by adopting automated and computer-assisted scoring processes to increase reliability, validity, and assessment capacity. If RNA tools must be scored manually, then inter-rater reliability assessments must be carried out to ensure adequate consistency in scoring among staff.

■  RNA instruments should not only be fair and efficient, but they should also be effective, which is the third key principle. The degree to which RNA instruments are effective depends largely on their predictive validity and how the tool is used within an agency. Machine learning algorithms often help increase predictive accuracy, although developers should test multiple algorithms to determine which one performs the best. RNA tools that are customized to the correctional population on which they are used will deliver better predictive performance.

■  Finally, it is important to focus on the implementation and use of RNAs so that individuals can become increasingly aware of their risk factors. To this end, the fourth key principle is to employ strategies that improve risk communication. Training the correctional staff who will be using the RNA tool is essential for effective communication, particularly in how to explain the needs and translate it into a case plan. A risk communication system, which includes case plan improvement, treatment-matching algorithms, and graduated sanctions and incentives, provides an integrated model for decision-making that helps increase an individual’s awareness of their own circumstances and need for programming.

July 19, 2021 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Technocorrections, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

New UNODC report details interesting global realities and trends in incarceration

A section of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has released this interesting new data report highlighting on its cover page "Nearly twelve million people imprisoned globally; nearly one-third unsentenced; with prisons overcrowded in half of all countries."  This release about the report provides some context and highlights: 

One in every three prisoners worldwide are held without a trial, which means that they have not been found guilty by any court of justice, according to the first global research data on prisons published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

The research brief, released ahead of Nelson Mandela International Day on 18 July, examines the long-term trends of imprisonment, stating that over the past two decades, between 2000 and 2019, the number of prisoners worldwide has increased by more than 25 per cent, with a global population growth of 21 per cent in the same period, with 11.7 million people incarcerated at the end of 2019.  This is a population comparable in size to entire nations such as Bolivia, Burundi, Belgium, or Tunisia.

At the end of 2019 — the latest year data is available — there were around 152 prisoners for every 100,000 population. While Northern America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe have experienced a long-term decrease in imprisonment rates of up to 27 per cent, other regions and countries, such as Latin America and Australia and New Zealand, have seen growth over the last two decades of up to 68 per cent.

At 93 per cent, most of the persons detained in prison globally are men.  Over the past two decades, however, the number of women in prisons has increased at a faster pace, with an increase of 33 per cent versus 25 per cent for men.

For those concerned about mass incarceration in the US and elsewhere, this report provides a terrific global snapshot of recent trends and some of the latest data. For example:

As of 2019, there were an estimated 152 prisoners for every 100,000 population globally.  This global rate has not changed much over the last two decades — it stood at 151 prisoners in 2000.  There is, however, considerable sub-regional variation: as of 2019, a much larger share of the population was imprisoned in Northern America (577 per 100,000 population), Latin America and the Caribbean (267) and Eastern Europe (262), than in Sub-Saharan Africa (84), Melanesia (78), or Southern Asia (48).  Furthermore, gender-specific rates also vary substantially across sub-regions. The high male imprisonment rate in the Northern American sub-region (1,048 male prisoners per 100,000 male population) is particularly noteworthy.

July 19, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Sentencing around the world | Permalink | Comments (0)

New report highlights how various federal agencies other than DOJ can advance criminal justice reform

The Center for American Progress has this intriguing new report titled "Beyond the U.S. Department of Justice: An Intersectional Approach To Advancing Criminal Justice Reform at the Federal Level." The report discusses the work that leading federal agencies other than the Justice Department could do to improve criminal justice systems. Here is part of the report's introduction:

The nation urgently needs to rethink justice system operations, from policing and prosecution to probation and parole. But a comprehensive approach to U.S. criminal justice reform must also look beyond the justice system. The nation must re-examine the web of policies that intersect with public safety and criminal justice — from education to economic development to health care and beyond. Only through an intersectional approach can the government truly redress the harms of the past and build a fairer, more just, and equitable future....

While the DOJ will undoubtedly play a significant role in reforming criminal justice policy and regulations during the next four years, other federal agencies will also be crucial to these efforts. From the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Veterans Affairs, every corner of President Biden’s administration will be essential in shaping the future of America’s approach to safety and justice. As the new administration works toward its promise to “strengthen America’s commitment to justice,” there are several agencies that can take meaningful action toward implementing progressive criminal justice reforms, reducing the footprint of the justice system, and removing barriers for formerly incarcerated individuals.

This report highlights some of the agencies beyond the DOJ that can have significant impacts on reforming the criminal justice system and outlines measures that they could take to establish policies and regulatory practices that would support a more fair and equitable justice system in the long term.

July 19, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 18, 2021

Catching up on notable mid-summer stories and commentary

The middle of July continues to bring many criminal justice stories and commentaries worth a read, and so here is a round up of links to catch up:

From CNN, "How crime stats lie — and what you need to know to understand them"

From The Crime Report, "Dream Corps Launches Campaign to Close Federal Prisons"

From The Marshall Project, "Inside The Nation's Overdose Crisis in Prisons and Jails"

From The Marshall Project, "Everyone on Death Row Gets a Lawyer. Not Everyone Gets a Kim Kardashian."

From NJ.com, "N.J. has dismissed 88K weed cases under new marijuana law"

From Politico, "4 wealthy donors fuel overhaul of California's criminal justice system"

From the New York Times, "A Pause in Federal Executions, but Uncertainty About What’s Next"

From the Washington Post, "Mass incarceration is bad law enforcement policy. It's bad for the economy, too."

July 18, 2021 in Recommended reading | Permalink | Comments (0)