« July 18, 2021 - July 24, 2021 | Main | August 1, 2021 - August 7, 2021 »

July 31, 2021

Amicus brief stresses congressional text does not preclude legal change as basis for 3582(c)(1)(a) sentence reduction

In this post last month, I lamented the split Sixth Circuit panel opinion in US v. Jarvis, No. 20-3912 (6th Cir. June 3, 2021) (available here), which stated that "non-retroactive changes in the law [can] not serve as the 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' required for a sentence reduction."  In that post, I noted that nothing in the text of § 3582(c)(1)(a) supports the contention that non-retroactive changes in the law cannot ever constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to allow a sentence reduction, either alone or in combination with other factors.  As I see it, the majority in Jarvis was eager to create an extra-textual categorical limitation on the authority Congress gave to district courts to reduce sentences because, presumably based on its own sense of sound policy, it wanted to cabin the new sentencing discretion created by the FIRST STEP Act. 

Against that backdrop, I was pleased to learn of a new amicus brief filed in support of rehearing en banc in Jarvis that makes a series of forceful arguments that wisely lean heavily on textualism.  The brief is filed on behalf of the American Conservative Union Foundation Nolan Center for Justice and Shon Hopwood, and I recommend the entire filing (which can be downloaded below).  Here are a few excerpts emphasizing the statutory text:

Until and unless the Sentencing Commission promulgates a new policy statement clarifying what factors district courts may consider in deciding motions for compassionate-release sentence reductions, this Court should refrain from holding that factors are legally impermissible unless consideration of those factors conflict with the statutory text.  To do otherwise is to substitute this Court’s judgment for Congress’s.  Because a district court’s consideration of nonretroactive sentencing-law reforms as extraordinary circumstances does not contravene any contrary statutory command, it is legally permissible (and is in fact consistent with the legislative history and plain text of the First Step Act)....

The Sentencing Commission is empowered to promulgate a new policy statement that expressly permits district courts to consider nonretroactive sentencing-law reforms, combined with other factors, in determining whether a defendant has presented extraordinary and compelling reasons.  That the Commission presently lacks a quorum is irrelevant to interpretation of the underlying statutes.  Since the Commission can promulgate a policy statement permitting consideration of nonretroactive sentencing reforms, district courts may certainly consider such criteria now in the absence of a new and applicable policy statement.

Download Jarvis Amicus Brief FINAL

July 31, 2021 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Trump Executions"

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

In the final six months of Donald Trump’s presidency, the federal government executed thirteen people.  For perspective, there were three federal executions in the prior fifty-seven years — and none since 2003.  Among other things, this Article is a historical record of the “Trump Executions,” constructed largely from primary-source material. The Article also offers a framework for organizing the unique legal issues that the Trump Executions presented, and discusses their crucial implications.

I proceed in three parts.  Part I places the Trump Executions in historical context.  For politicians and bureaucrats who embrace the death penalty, the Trump Executions were a once-in-a-generation opportunity.  Part I explains the Bureau of Prisons’ lengthy struggle to identify and implement a lawful execution protocol — which was largely responsible for the growth of federal death row, and the pent-up desire to clear it.  Part I also presents a four-year timeline of the Trump Executions, which grounds the balance of the Article.

Part II organizes, into four useful categories, the legal disputes that were largely unique to the Trump Executions.  These were over: (1) the pentobarbital-only lethal injection sequence, (2) a federal “parity” provision requiring alignment between federal and state death penalty implementation; (3) a statutory savings clause allowing prisoners to bypass otherwise-applicable restrictions on post-conviction relief; and (4) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.  (Issues belonging to a residual category receive abbreviated treatment.) Surprisingly, when the litigation was complete, the judiciary had clarified little about federal death penalty law.

Part III considers the implications of the Trump Executions.  The Supreme Court, which undertook unprecedented intervention by way of its “shadow docket,” plainly worked to ensure that the Joe Biden administration had no say in sentence implementation.  The significance of the presidential transition was quite real, as the Trump Executions went forward on the backs of political and bureaucratic outliers that coincide only infrequently.  Ironically, the Trump Executions will most durably affect other institutional practices that depend on emergency adjudication — including pandemic responses, elections, and capital punishment in the states.

July 31, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 30, 2021

Provocative new empirical paper claims to identify the "most discriminatory" federal sentencing judges

Via Twitter, I was altered to this notable new empirical paper by multiple authors titled "The Most Discriminatory Federal Judges Give Black and Hispanic Defendants At Least Double the Sentences of White Defendants."  The paper's title alone likely explains why I describe it as provocative, and this abstract provides more context about the paper's contents:

In the aggregate, racial inequality in criminal sentencing is an empirically well- established social problem. Yet, data limitations have made it impossible for researchers to systematically determine and name the most racially discriminatory federal judges.  The authors use a new, large-scale database to determine and name the observed federal judges who impose the harshest sentence length penalties on Black and Hispanic defendants.  Following the focal concerns framework, the authors (1) replicate previous findings that conditional racial disparities in sentence lengths are large in the aggregate, (2) show that judges vary considerably in their estimated degrees of racial discrimination, and (3) list the federal judges who exhibit the clearest evidence of racial discrimination.  This list shows that several judges give Black and Hispanic defendants double the sentences they give observationally equivalent white defendants.  Accordingly, the results suggest that holding the very most discriminatory judges accountable would yield meaningful improvements in racial equality.

The "new, large-scale database" used for this study is this JUSTFAIR data source published online last year.  I have not previously blogged about the JUSTFAIR data because I have never been sure of its representativeness since the source says it includes nearly 600,000 cases over a recent 18-year period (from 2001 to 2018), but more than twice that number of persons have been sentenced in federal courts during that span.  I fear I lack the empirical chops to know just whether to be reasonably confident or highly uncertain about the JUSTFAIR data, and that broader concern colors my thinking about this provocative new paper's claims that the authors have been able to identify the "most racially discriminatory federal judges."

I would love to hear from readers with strong empirical backgrounds about whether this new paper effectively demonstrates what it claims to identify.  I am initially skeptical because the the two judges labelled "most discriminatory" come from the same federal judicial district and only a few districts are among those that have all the identified "discriminatory" judges.  That reality leads me to wonder if case-selection realities, rather than "discrimination," may at least in part account for any observed racial differences in sentencing outcomes.  Relatedly, when I dig into the local data at the JUSTFAIR data site, the judges identified in this new paper as the "most discriminatory" do not seem to have anywhere close to the most racially disparate rates of above/below guideline sentencing outcomes even within their own districts.

In short, without a much better understanding of the empirics at work here, I am not confident about what this new empirical paper is claiming.  But I am confident that I would like to hear from readers as to what they think about this provocative new paper on an always important topic.

July 30, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Offender Characteristics, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

Lots and lots more great new content at great new Inquest website

I blogged here earlier this week about the launch of the great new website Inquest, which describes itself as "a forum for advancing bold ideas to end mass incarceration in the United States."  This week the site already has so much great and important new content, I am already falling behind in trying to keep up with this new forum.  Valuably, I have this blog space to note (and then later return to) all the significant new content filling this new site:

"Incarceration by Another Name: Jurisdictions are selling electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment. It’s anything but." By James Kilgore, Emmett Sanders & Kate Weisburd

"The Keeper and the Kept: The carceral system dehumanizes not just the people we condemn, but also its massive workforce." By Kaia Stern

"Carceral Democrats: There is empirical evidence that Democratic governors will outspend and out-incarcerate Republicans if their reelection depends on it. That’s entirely avoidable."  By Anna Gunderson

"Immigration Imprisonment Is a Choice: Quickly, legally, and unilaterally, the Biden administration could easily free tens of thousands trapped in ICE detention. Whether it wants to is another story."  By César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

July 30, 2021 in Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Highlighting how the Biden Administration could and should start reforming federal BOP

I have lamented in post after post that the Biden Administration has so far failed to seize the opportunity to advance federal sentencing reforms by making needed appointments to US Sentencing Commission, and I will continue to be troubled by (and complain about) its failings in this space for as long as it lasts.  In the meantime, I am pleased to see this new AP article highlighting another so-far-missed Biden Administration missed opportunity under the headline: "Is Biden overlooking Bureau of Prisons as reform target?".  Here are excerpts from a long piece worth a full read:

Biden is overlooking a prime -- and, in some ways, easier -- target for improving the conditions of incarcerated people: the federal Bureau of Prisons. While most criminal justice overhauls require action from local officials or legislation, reforming the federal prison system is something Biden and his Justice Department control. And there are crying needs there for improvement.

Even before the coronavirus, federal prisons were plagued by violence, suicide, escapes, understaffing and health concerns. The pandemic made things worse. And now these facilities are set to absorb even more prisoners from private institutions that are no longer in business with the government....

Meanwhile, the number of federal prisoners is rising. Defendants end up in federal prison usually because their crime crossed state lines, or they violated a specific federal law. There are about 156,000 federal inmates. In total, 38% are Black and 57% are white, 1.5% Asian and 2.4% Native American. Most are serving sentences between 5 and 20 years, and 46% of those sentences are for drug offenses. Another 20% are for weapons, explosives or arson charges.

The administration can’t control the laws that get someone sent to prison. But it can control staffing, transparency, health care, the use of solitary confinement and, most of all, agency leadership. The head of the Bureau of Prisons is a Trump holdover, Michael Carvajal, who has been in charge as the coronavirus raged behind bars, infecting more than 43,000 federal inmates. He also oversaw an unprecedented run of federal executions in the last six months of Donald Trump’s presidency that was a likely virus super spreader.

Administration officials have been mulling whether to replace him, but no decision has been made, according to officials who spoke to The Associated Press.

One question they should be asking, according to Andrea Armstrong, a Loyola Law School professor who studies prisons, is whether the director’s role is to do more than keep operations running smoothly. “Real leadership,” she says, “would be convening people incarcerated, wardens and programming staff together to say, OK, we have an enormous problem ... how do we address this?”....

The “First Step Act,” approved in 2018, gives judges more discretion when sentencing some drug offenders, eases mandatory minimum sentences and encourages inmates to participate in programs designed to reduce the risk of recidivism, with credits that can be used to gain an earlier release.

But those programs can’t be completed right now, because there are not enough workers to facilitate them. Nearly one-third of federal correctional officer jobs in the United States are vacant, forcing prisons to use cooks, teachers, nurses and other workers to guard inmates. “There need to be enough people working in a prison to keep people housed in a prison safe. And they must be able to get access to the programs that should allow their release,” said Maria Morris of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project.

A few of many prior related posts:

July 30, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 29, 2021

Federal judges expressing some concern about lenient plea deals for some Capitol riot defendants

This new BuzzFeed News article, headlined "A Judge Questioned If Capitol Rioters Are Getting Off Too Easy For 'Terrorizing Members Of Congress'," reports on some notable comments by some notable federal judges about the plea deals being given to some of the Capitol rioters.  Here are excerpts:

A federal judge on Thursday pushed back on the government’s decision to ink deals in the Capitol riot cases that involve low-level misdemeanors, questioning whether that was appropriate for people involved in “terrorizing members of Congress.”

The unusual exchange came during a plea hearing for Jack Jesse Griffith, who was charged solely with misdemeanor crimes for going into the Capitol on Jan. 6; he wasn’t accused of violence or property destruction.  As Griffith prepared to plead guilty to one count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building — a class B misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of six months in jail — US District Chief Judge Beryl Howell asked the prosecutor to explain why Griffith’s deal involved a class of crime typically reserved for people who did things like trespass in a national park at night.

“I'm just curious — does the government have any concern given the factual predicate at issue here, of the defendant joining a mob, breaking into the Capitol building through a broken door, wandering through the Capitol building and stopping a constitutionally mandated duty of the Congress and terrorizing members of Congress, the vice president, who had to be evacuated?” Howell asked.  “Does the government, in agreeing to the petty offense in this case, have any concern about deterrence?”

It was the second time this week that a judge questioned whether defendants charged in connection with Jan. 6 are getting off too lightly in plea deals, even if they’re not accused of more serious criminal activity, such as attacking police.  On Tuesday, US District Judge Reggie Walton, one of Howell’s colleagues on the federal bench in Washington, DC, briefly pondered whether he should jail two defendants who signed a deal similar to Griffith’s, given their involvement in the “atrocious act” of storming the Capitol; he ultimately allowed them to go home until they’re sentenced in October.

Griffith is the 27th defendant charged in the Jan. 6 riots to appear before a judge to plead guilty, and the 21st person to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor as part of an agreement with prosecutors — either the parading count that Griffith pleaded guilty to or disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, which also has a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

Howell in the end accepted Griffith’s guilty plea, but, like Walton, put the government and defense through several paces before she did. She asked whether the government was concerned that an agreement involving a low-level misdemeanor was enough not only to deter Griffith from participating in a similar event in the future but also the broader universe of the hundreds of people who descended on the Capitol that day.  The circumstance that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection, a presidential election, happens every four years, the judge noted.

Assistant US Attorney Mitra Jafary-Hariri and Griffith’s lawyer H. Heather Shaner defended the deal, telling Howell that Griffith had expressed interest in pleading guilty early on — something defendants throughout the criminal justice system typically get credit for — and had cooperated with law enforcement officials by turning over his devices and giving them access to his social media. Jafary-Hariri said that under those circumstances, the government decided it was “willing to resolve it this way.”

Some prior related posts:

July 29, 2021 in Celebrity sentencings, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

BJS releases notable new recidivism data for 2012-released state prisoners

The Bureau of Justice Statistics released this notable new report about the recidivism rates over five years for a set of state prisoners released in 2012. The full title of the 34-page report is "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017)." Here is the introduction and "Highlights" from the first page of the report:

Among state prisoners released in 2012 across 34 states, 62% were arrested within 3 years, and 71% were arrested within 5 years.  Among prisoners released in 2012 across 21 states with available data on persons returned to prison, 39% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 3 years that led to imprisonment, and 46% had a parole or probation violation or an arrest within 5 years that led to imprisonment.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned.  This study randomly sampled about 92,100 released prisoners to represent the approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012.  These 34 states were responsible for 79% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • About 6 in 10 (62%) prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 were arrested within 3 years, and 7 in 10 (71%) were arrested within 5 years. „
  • Nearly half (46%) of prisoners released in 2012 returned to prison within 5 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence. „
  • Eleven percent of prisoners released in 2012 were arrested within 5 years outside of the state that released them. „
  • Eighty-one percent of prisoners age 24 or younger at release in 2012 were arrested within 5 years of release, compared to 74% of those ages 25 to 39 and 61% of those age 40 or older. „
  • During the 5-year follow-up period, an estimated 1.1 million arrests occurred among the approximately 408,300 prisoners released in 2012. „
  • Sixty-two percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2012 were arrested for a nondrug crime within 5 years. „
  • The annual arrest percentage of prisoners released in 2012 declined from 37% in Year 1 to 26% in Year 5. „ Of prisoners released in the 19 states in the 2005, 2008, and 2012 recidivism studies, the percentage arrested within 5 years declined from 77% of 2005 releases, to 75% of 2008 releases, to 71% of 2012 releases.

July 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

CCJ releases June 2021 update on "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."

noted here last summer that the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) had launched an important, timely and impressive new commission titled the "National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice" and headed by two former US Attorneys General.  That commission has produce a number of important works (examples here and here and here), and it helped produced a series of reports on recent crime trends under the heading "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."  The latest version of this report, called a June 2021 update, is available for download at this link.  Over at the CCJ website, one can find this press release titled "New Data Shows Homicide Rise Continues in U.S. Cities, but at Slower Rate," which provides this overview of the crime data and also details on additional CCJ work in this arena:

Murder counts in major American cities continued to rise throughout the first half of 2021, but the pace of the increase slowed from the first to the second quarter of the year, according to research released today by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ).

Examining homicide in 22 cities through the first six months of 2021, the study found that the number of murders was 16% greater than during the same period in 2020 — claiming an additional 259 lives — and 42% greater than during the first half of 2019, representing an additional 548 lives.  Gun assaults (+5%) and aggravated assaults (+9%) also were up during the first half of 2021 compared to the same time frame last year, while drug and most property crimes fell.

Even with the 2021 increase, the homicide rate for the cities studied was about half what it was for those cities at the peak of violent crime rates in the early 1990s (15 deaths per 100,000 residents in those cities versus 28 per 100,000 in 1993). Nevertheless, the study’s authors called for “urgent action” to address the spike in violence.

A new CCJ panel will investigate the causes of rising violence and help decisionmakers translate rigorous evidence and lived experience into effective policy and practice.  Launched this week, the Violent Crime Working Group includes 15 leaders from community violence intervention organizations, law enforcement, the public health sector, and academia. The group is chaired by violence-reduction expert Thomas Abt, a Council Senior Fellow....

Rates of other major offenses declined in the first half of 2021, the new data released today shows.  Robbery (-6%), residential burglary (-9%), nonresidential burglary (-9%), larceny (-6%), and drug offense (-12%) rates all fell from the same period in 2020.  Motor vehicle theft rates, however, were 21% higher in the first half of 2021 than the year before.

July 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Informed Jury"

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

The right to a criminal jury trial is a constitutional disappointment.  Cases almost never make it to a jury because of plea bargaining. In the few cases that do, the jury is relegated to a narrow factfinding role that denies it normative voice or the ability to serve as a meaningful check on excessive punishment.

One simple change could situate the jury where it belongs, at the center of the criminal process.  The most important thing juries do in criminal cases is authorize state punishment.  But today, when a jury returns a guilty verdict, it authorizes punishment without any idea of what is in store for the defendant.  This principle of jury ignorance is a profound mistake.  It is unmoored from history and the core function of the jury to authorize punishment.  Worse, it exacerbates the criminal legal system’s predilection for excessive severity.

This Article offers and defends a proposal to replace ignorant juries with informed ones, by requiring juries to be told of the statutory minimum and maximum punishment in every case before being asked to return a conviction.  Informed juries would change the dynamics of criminal justice for the better.  In individual cases, punishment information would make juries more careful before convicting and would sometimes lead juries to refuse to convict where punishment would be excessive and unjust.  But more importantly, informed juries would provide systemic benefits.  Requiring informed juries would set in motion a political feedback loop that would counteract existing incentives for legislators and prosecutors to prefer severity.  In addition to being good policy, there are powerful arguments that informed juries deserve to be recognized as part of the constitutional jury-trial right.

July 29, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 28, 2021

"Disrupting Death: How Dedicated Capital Defenders Broke Virginia's Machinery of Death"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Corinna Lain and Doug Ramseur now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Virginia’s repeal of capital punishment in 2021 is arguably the most momentous abolitionist event since 1972, when the Supreme Court invalidated capital punishment statutes nationwide.  In part, this is because Virginia’s repeal marks the first time a Southern state abolished the death penalty.  And in part, it is because even among Southern states, Virginia was exceptional in its fealty to capital punishment.  Virginia had the broadest death penalty statute in the country, coupled with a post-conviction review process that was lightning fast and turned death sentences into executions at a rate five times the national average.  Virginia holds the record for the most executions in the history of the United States, so how did it go from all-in on the death penalty to abolition?

A critical piece of the puzzle was the fact that Virginia had not seen a new death sentence in ten years, and had only two people left on death row.  The death penalty was dying on the vine, and how that came to be owes largely to Virginia’s dedicated capital defenders, who literally worked themselves out of a job by disrupting the machinery of death at every turn.  In this Article, we (a law professor and a former regional capital defender) tell the story behind the story of Virginia’s plunging death sentences — what was happening in the trenches that the transcripts and plea deals don’t show. This is the backstory as we know it, and we share it here both to better understand Virginia’s journey, and to serve as a resource for others still navigating theirs.

July 28, 2021 in Death Penalty Reforms, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

Is the politics of crime and punishment now different than in our recent history?

The question in the title of this post is promoted by this recent Politico piece by Joshua Zeitz headlined "'Law and Order' has Worked for the GOP Before. This Crime Boom Might be Different." I recommend the piece in full, and here are a few excerpts:

In the 1970s and 1980s, Republican candidates successfully used violent crime as an issue to attract white voters. Fused with concerns over the economy, busing and neighborhood integration, “law-and-order” politics dislodged millions of working- and middle-class white voters from their former home in the Democratic Party. No politician did it better than Richard Nixon, whose White House staff aimed, in their own words, “to orient the Silent Majority toward issues other than foreign policy (e.g.: inflation, crime, law and order, etc.) and then to increase support for the President’s foreign and domestic proposals.”

But 2021 is not 1971. Even allowing for the public’s very real perception of violent crime as a top national priority, the nation’s political demography has changed dramatically over the last half century. Then, many working-class and middle-class voters lived in cities or inner-ring suburbs where crime was not a hypothetical concern; it was an everyday reality. By contrast, today most voters the GOP hopes to claw back inhabit increasingly diverse suburban areas where crime is not an everyday reality. Polls show that while most voters believe crime is on the rise, they don’t believe it threatens their neighborhoods.

It’s true that crime might function as a mechanism to motivate the conservative base. But to move voters from the Democratic to the Republican column, it will need to capture the independent voters who swung from Trump to Biden in the last election. And here the historical analogy breaks down....

[V]ast demographic changes over the past 50 years have re-sorted the American population.  Today’s swing voters are affluent suburbanites, not working-class residents of transitional urban neighborhoods.  The places where violent crime is on the rise — namely, cities — are deep blue and unlikely to change.  The places where violent crime is not on the rise — namely, suburbs — are the new political battleground....

Of course, none of this is to say that some of the urban voters affected by today’s rise in crime might not be up for grabs. Studies show that low-income non-white families are far more exposed to violent crime and more likely to perceive it as an immediate threat.  Republicans have made inroads with Latino voters, and in recent months, it has become clear that last year’s racial justice awakening obscured a more complicated reality about the Black electorate, which is diverse — not a monolith — but generally concerned about crime and welcoming of a greater police presence on the streets if and when that presence is protective of their safety....

The 2022 election cycle is still in the distant future, and in politics, things change quickly.  Judging by history and by polling, however, crime may not provide the winning message that the GOP is looking for.  Yesterday’s swing voters are not today’s swing voters, and in 2021, “law and order” doesn’t mean the same thing it did in 1971.

This article is focused on demographics to rightly observe that the politics of crime and punishment has evolved over the last half-century.  But I also think there is a lot more to the story of the changing political landscape, ranging from bipartisan disaffinity for (some parts of) the war on drugs and much greater public awareness — especially among younger Americans and libertarian-leaning conservatives — of the racial and economic impacts of mass incarceration and collateral consequences.  What all this means for elections in the 2020s remains to be seen, but nobody should forget that Donald Trump ran in 2016 on a "law and order" message and then signed a major federal criminal justice reform bill into law just two years later.  Put simply, in this century, I think both the politics and the practice of crime and punishment are quite nuanced and often quite unpredictable.

July 28, 2021 in Campaign 2016 and sentencing issues, Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ohio Justice provides insider take on "sentencing by ambush" due to plea bargaining process

This local court press piece, headlined "Justice Admonishes ‘Sentencing by Ambush’," reports on a notable new law review article authored by Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly. Here are excerpts from the press piece (with links from the original):

An Ohio Supreme Court justice is seeking reforms to plea deal processes, which he says are full of unknowns for defendants, who often surrender their constitutional rights.

Justice Michael P. Donnelly lists his concerns and solutions about discrepancies in plea agreements and their outcomes in an article published by the Akron Law Review titled, “Sentencing by Ambush: An Insider’s Perspective on Plea Bargaining Reform.”

In the piece, Justice Donnelly details observations from his 14 years as a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge and how his experiences on the trial court bench, paired with his perspective as a member of the Supreme Court, compelled him to write about the need for systemic change to plea arrangements.

“Would you ever enter into a contract when you had no idea what benefit you would receive… [or] without knowing the terms to which you were obligating yourself?” Justice Donnelly asks in the article. “Regrettably, … criminal defendants do that every single day.”

The article explains the legal course of plea bargaining: a prosecutor and defense attorney settle on a recommended punishment, and a judge ultimately determines the sentence. Justice Donnelly highlights multiple procedural flaws that occur in pursuit of this type of conclusion to a case.  The fundamental issues Justice Donnelly raises are magnified because U.S. Department of Justice researchers estimate 90% to 95% of cases — state and federal — are resolved through plea deals.

He notes that prosecutors can charge multiple and different offenses based on the facts from a single event as a means of leverage against a defendant.  The high court jurist also points out two main inconsistencies in plea proceedings: Not all judges accept settlements between the prosecution and defense, and not all plea negotiations are on the record.

“One of the biggest threats to public confidence in the criminal justice system [stems] from off-the-record sentencing representations, whether from a judge in chambers or a defense attorney’s informed speculation,” Justice Donnelly wrote.  As a means for transparency, the justice recommends that all discussions take place in open court. He believes a documented dialogue would ensure negotiations are fair between the prosecution and defense, which would include stating the rationale for the agreement....

Addressing sentencing issues also is the aim of a larger initiative, led by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Donnelly, to develop a statewide sentencing database.

Both efforts emphasize the need for transparency as a way to provide more uniform and proportional sentences across the state, while limiting implicit bias.  “This reform would provide decision-makers (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and legislators) with information that is essential to ensure that better decisions are made regarding the most serious issue of incarcerating individuals,” Justice Donnelly said.

July 28, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 27, 2021

Prison Policy Initiative details "Nine ways that states can provide better public defense"

Ginger Jackson-Gleich and Wanda Bertram at Prison Policy Initiative have this new briefing fully titled "Nine ways that states can provide better public defense: We suggest a few questions to ask to assess the strength of your state's public defense system." Here is part of its introduction and conclusion:

One of the many reasons mass incarceration persists is because people too poor to afford their own lawyers are denied meaningful representation in court. This injustice happens because public defense systems — the systems tasked with providing attorneys to those in need — are severely underfunded and overburdened.

While every state and local public defense system is unique, we’ve identified nine urgent and common problems that plague public defense systems nationwide.  Unfortunately, there isn’t enough current data for us to explain how every state stacks up on these issues, but we’ve done the next best thing: We’ve created a list of nine questions you can ask to assess where your state’s public defense system might need help, and we’ve highlighted helpful and detailed resources that can assist reform efforts....

Even an excellent public defense system in every state would not, on its own, end mass incarceration, but ensuring that every person accused of a crime has satisfactory assistance of counsel would certainly help.  As many others have noted before us, the constitution’s promise that every criminal defendant has the right to legal counsel has never been a reality in this country.

Today, at least 4.9 million people are arrested annually, most of them poor, and virtually every public defense system struggles to represent all of the defendants who can’t afford their own lawyer.  Until states remove the many barriers to providing adequate public defense, this country will continue to be one where due process and equal protection are imaginary — a place where people are told to believe in a constitutional right that does not actually exist.

July 27, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Just Algorithms: Using Science to Reduce Incarceration and Inform a Jurisprudence of Risk"

The title of this notable new forthcoming book authored by Christopher Slobogin.  It is also the title of this new SSRN posting which provides a preview of the book and an article that sets forth some of its contents. Here is the SSRN posting abstract:

Statistically-derived algorithms, adopted by many jurisdictions in an effort to identify the risk of reoffending posed by criminal defendants, have been lambasted as racist, de-humanizing, and antithetical to the foundational tenets of criminal justice.  Just Algorithms argues that these attacks are misguided and that, properly regulated, risk assessment tools can be a crucial means of safely and humanely dismantling our massive jail and prison complex.

The book explains how risk algorithms work, the types of legal questions they should answer, and the criteria for judging whether they do so in a way that minimizes bias and respects human dignity. It also shows how risk assessment instruments can provide leverage for curtailing draconian prison sentences and the plea-bargaining system that produces them.  The ultimate goal of the book is to develop the principles that should govern, in both the pretrial and sentencing settings, the criminal justice system's consideration of risk.  Table of Contents and Preface are provided, as well as a recent article that tracks closely two of the book's chapters.

July 27, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Recommended reading, Technocorrections, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 26, 2021

House hearing to explore "How Court-Imposed Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden Vulnerable Communities"

Tomorrow morning at 10am ET, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "A Fine Scheme: How Court-Imposed Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden Vulnerable Communities." This hearing should be live-streamed at this link.

Via email, I received notice that Alexes Harris will testify, and that her essay “Monetary Sanctions as a Pound of Flesh” was just published today as part of the Brennan Center's Punitive Excess series.  Here is a paragraph from that essay: 

The system of monetary sanctions reinforces our two-tiered system of justice: one for people with financial means and one for people without.  Within a society riven by so much inequality, a system of punishment based on economic resources can never be fair or just.  This “coerced financialization” perfectly and purposefully places the freedom of poor and racially marginalized people on a perpetual layaway plan.  It’s a system so fully embedded in our criminal legal system that the American Rescue Plan Act, passed by Congress in March 2021 to alleviate the financial pains of the Covid-19 pandemic, allowed private collectors and courts to seize the $1,400 stimulus grants from people burdened with unpaid penal debt, either public or private.

July 26, 2021 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions | Permalink | Comments (1)

Shouldn't federal prosecutors already be doing what they can to minimize the unjust crack-powder sentencing disparity?

At last month's Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on "Examining Federal Sentencing for Crack and Powder Cocaine," the Biden Administration through the testimony of Regina LaBelle rightly stated that the crack-powder sentencing disparity produces "significant injustice":

The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supports eliminating the current disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.  The current disparity is not based on evidence yet has caused significant harm for decades, particularly to individuals, families, and communities of color.  The continuation of this sentencing disparity is a significant injustice in our legal system, and it is past time for it to end.  Therefore, the Administration urges the swift passage of the “Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law Act,” or the “EQUAL Act.”

In addition, the US Department of Justice submitted testimony (linked below) that rightly stated that "it is long past time" to end the crack-powder sentencing disparity:

The Department strongly supports the legislation, for we believe it is long past time to end the disparity in sentencing policy between federal offenses involving crack cocaine and those involving powder cocaine.  The crack/powder sentencing disparity has unquestionably led to unjustified differences in sentences for trafficking in two forms of the same substance, as well as unwarranted racial disparities in its application.  The sentencing disparity was based on misinformation about the pharmacology of cocaine and its effects, and it is unnecessary to address the genuine and critical societal problems associated with trafficking cocaine, including violent crime.

Download DOJ EQUAL Act Testimony- FINAL

In light of these forceful statements, I have been optimistic that the EQUAL Act might move forward in Congress fairly soon even though the pace of congressional action is always uncertain.  At the same time, I hoped that federal prosecutors under the authority of Attorney General Garland might do what they could ASAP, in the exercise of their charging and sentencing authority, to minimize the impact of the crack-powder disparity as Congress works on a permanent legislative fix.  After all, if DOJ really believes that "it is long past time to end the disparity" and that the disparity is based on "misinformation" which produces "unwarranted racial disparities," then a department purportedly committed to justice surely ought not keep charging crack mandatory minimums and advocating for guideline sentences based on this disparity.

But I have heard from defense attorneys in the know that statements about existing crack sentencing provisions creating "significant injustice in our legal system" have seemingly not trickled down to federal prosecutors, who are still generally charging crack mandatory minimums and arguing for within-guideline crack sentences.  And I have be authorized to share this recent statement from the Federal Defenders to DOJ: "We were glad to see the Department’s recent support for legislation to end the crack-powder disparity but reports from the field indicate that line prosecutors continue to indict mandatory-minimum crack cases and seek guideline sentences that rely on the discredited ratio."

Talking the talk to Congress about reform is an important aspect of what the executive branch can do to improve our justice system. But the Justice Department can and should also be expected to walk the walk.  But so far, it seems, federal prosecutors are not really ready to give up the crack-powder disparity, even though DOJ asserts that "it is long past time" to do so. Sigh.

July 26, 2021 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Race, Class, and Gender, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Excited for the launch of Inquest, "a forum for advancing bold decarceral ideas"

E676CJ9WQAEKg4PI was pleased to receive via email this morning the first official announcement of Inquest, which as explained here "is published by the Institute to End Mass Incarceration [but] not the voice of the Institute."   Here are excerpts from the Inquest mission page:

Inquest is a forum for advancing bold ideas to end mass incarceration in the United States. Here, you will find original, insightful work by thinkers and doers across a broad range of experience and expertise, united in the belief that mass incarceration is an epic injustice that can and must urgently end.

Our authors include leading and new voices across fields, from activism and community organizing, to law and policy, to academia, journalism, and public health. Drawing on their lived experience and their accumulated wisdom, they come here to share ideas, narratives, and analyses that boldly explore the causes and consequences of mass incarceration and that provoke rigorous discussion — all aimed at driving thoughtful action....

Rather, our mission is to create a space where the voices of those doing the thinking and the work — the people closest to the problem, including those directly impacted by mass incarceration — can come together to share ideas and be heard as they pursue bold solutions.

And here is some of the text from the introductory email that I received along with links to the first set of materials and essays on the site:

We are so excited to share this new publication and its core mission with you.  Our opening slate of original, thought-provoking essays is below.  We hope you will take a look today and come back often. Inquest is a forum for advancing bold ideas to end mass incarceration.  The publication features original, insightful work by thinkers and doers across a broad range of experience and expertise, united in the belief that our system of mass incarceration can and must urgently end....

Read a welcome note from our founding editors and visit Inquest to check out our opening slate of essays, all linked below:

Joel Castón, the first incarcerated person ever elected to public office in Washington, D.C., shares his story and vision with Inquest.

Tomas Keen, incarcerated in Washington State, highlights the problems with a prison closure plan.

"To get to real justice, we have to stop depending on the department bearing that name." — Rachel Barkow & Mark Osler

Maneka Sinha on forensics: "[M]any of the reforms proposed to date . . . serve to shore up the legitimacy of the field in the same ways that conventional reform proposals do in the policing context."

All these essays look great, and I am very excited to keep up with both Inquest and the new Institute to End Mass Incarceration.

July 26, 2021 in Prisons and prisoners, Recommended reading, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reviewing Biden Administration's uninspired criminal justice reform efforts

Law360 has this lengthy new article, headlined "Advocates Frustrated By Biden's Silence On Justice Reform," that provides a lengthy review of various criminal justice reform efforts to date by the Biden Administration.  As the headline suggests, advocates are so far underwhelmed.  Here are excerpts from a piece worth reading in full:

One of President Joe Biden's most powerful tools for advancing criminal justice reform is his voice and yet, despite his campaign promises, he has been mostly silent on the issue while in office, frustrating criminal justice reform advocates.

Advocates for ending mass incarceration and mandatory minimum sentencing would have liked Biden to do more than just talk about criminal justice reform in his first six months in office, but they are even more frustrated by the fact that he isn't loudly advocating for reform and isn't letting people know when he will act on his reform promises....

Criminal justice advocates acknowledge that Biden started his presidential term with a full plate of pressing issues to address: the COVID-19 pandemic, an economic downturn, extreme political division and a migrant crisis at the southern border that could have sidelined criminal justice reform in his administration's early days.  And now, six months later, Biden's administration is still grappling with these issues in addition to combating a spike in homicides and surges in coronavirus cases in areas with low vaccination rates.

But advocates and experts say that Biden could at least publicly support more criminal justice reform legislation that has been introduced in Congress and dispel myths being perpetuated by some Republican lawmakers that releasing people from prison increases crime....

Biden alluded to criminal justice reform in his inaugural speech and in a presidential address marking his first 100 days in office.  He also included snippets of criminal justice reform in his plans for revitalizing jobs, helping American families and fighting gun violence....

Udi Ofer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's justice division, said that Biden's crime prevention plan doesn't recognize that the majority of what police do is arrest people for low-level offenses like drug possession, and these arrests don't stop homicides and gun violence. "President Biden has invested so much political capital in laying out his crime prevention plan, and we have not seen the same sort of commitment laid out for criminal justice reform and for police accountability," Ofer said.

A lot of people are waiting to hear him say loud and clear that he recognizes the flaws in the justice system and genuinely wants to help fix them.

Some experts say that Biden's silence on criminal justice reform could be a calculated political move to straddle party lines and keep members of his own party together.  Republicans and Democrats are in disagreement about police reform. Progressive Democrats are calling for defunding the police and older party members fear that is too radical a move, according to Jacinta Gau, a criminal justice professor at the University of Central Florida....

Rumblings of Biden's early plans for handling criminal justice reform-related issues has already sparked outcry from lawmakers and advocates.  A coalition of 20 advocacy organizations sent a July 19 letter to Biden urging him not to reimprison people who were released to home confinement during the pandemic and instead commute their sentences....

Even though advocates and experts want Biden to move more quickly on criminal justice reform, they also don't want him to make reactionary "tough on crime" policies that have been devastating for communities of color and led to mass incarceration.  However, they say Biden and his administration don't need to "reinvent the wheel" on criminal justice reform because organizations and scholars have already done the research on what works and what doesn't work.  The administration just needs to follow their lead, they say.

Though I am not surprised it goes unmentioned in this article, I have to bring up again in this context that the Biden Administration has so far missed the opportunity to appoint reform-minded persons to the US Sentencing Commission.  Of course, as I have lamented in post after post, the Biden Administration has so far failed to appoint anyone to the USSC.  As I stressed here, the US Sentencing Commission, when functional, has the power and the ability to be a significant agent for federal criminal justice reform.  But, unless the Biden Administration makes a lot of appointments very soon, I fear this important agency might not be functional until 2022 or perhaps even later.  Sigh. 

July 26, 2021 in Criminal justice in the Biden Administration, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Death Penalty Exceptionalism and Administrative Law"

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

Prosecutors ask for death sentences, and judges and juries impose them, but the people who actually carry out those sentences are corrections department officials — administrative agency personnel. In this symposium contribution, I explore a little known nook of administrative law, examining how administrative law norms work in the execution setting of lethal injection.  What I find is death penalty exceptionalism — the notion that “death is different” so every procedural protection should be provided — turned on its head. 

Lethal injection statutes just say “lethal injection,” providing no guidance whatsoever to those who must implement them. Prison personnel have no expertise in deciding what drugs to use or how to perform the procedure.  And the usual administrative law devices that we rely on to bring transparency and accountability to the agency decision-making process are noticeably absent.  The culmination of these irregularities is a world where lethal injection drug protocols are decided by Google searches and other decision-making processes that would never pass muster in any other area of administrative law.

In the execution context, death penalty exceptionalism means that the minimal standards that ordinarily attend administrative decision-making do not apply.  It means that when the state is carrying out its most solemn of duties, those subject to its reach receive not more protection, but less.  In the end, when the death penalty meets administrative law, administrative law norms get sullied and the death penalty loses the one comfort one might otherwise have: that when the state takes human life, it takes extra care to do it right.  What happens at the intersection of these two great bodies of law is a result not good for either.

July 26, 2021 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 25, 2021

US Sentencing Commission releases more detailed "Compassionate Release Data Report" for 2020

As detailed in this post, last month the US Sentencing Commission released a short data report titled "Compassionate Release Data." That report provided notable but very basic numbers on the grants and denials of federal compassionate release motions nationwide for calendar year 2020.  The report revealed, as further discussed in this follow-up post, that judges granted a good number of these motions once COVID hit, but that the Bureau of Prisons approved stunningly few compassionate release applications and that there were considerable disparities in grant rates in different judicial districts.

I was quite pleased to see the USSC promulgate any compassionate release data, but I was eager for additional data beyond circuit and district breakdowns of these motions.  In my prior post, I hoped we might at some point see "a lot more offender demographic information (e.g., race, gender, age of movant) and sentence modification information (e.g., primary sentenced offense and amount of sentence reduction)."  Excitingly, the USSC has now released this updated expanded data report that provides a lot more details about compassionate release grants for calendar year 2020.

Specifically, this latest report includes data on "Demographic Characteristics Of Offenders Receiving Compassionate Release" and on "Selected Sentencing Factors For Offenders Receiving Compassionate Release" and on "Type Of Crime For Offenders Receiving Compassionate Release" and on "Original Sentence Length For Offenders Receiving Compassionate Release." I am so very pleased to see this additional data, although the extent of sentence reductions is still a data point not covered which seems to me to be important to understand the full compassionate release story (e.g.,ten granted sentence reduction motions that reduce sentences by five months seem quite different than ten granted motions reducing sentences by five years.)   

Upon first glace, it is hard to see if there are any particularly distinctive or disturbing patterns in this enhanced USSC compassionate release data.  Interestingly, looking at the demographics, I noticed that the percentage of black prisoners securing a sentence reduction in 2020 (which was 45.2% according to the USSC data) appears to be greater than the percentage of black prisoners in federal prison (which was 34.9% as of this USSC report with March 2021 data).  Likewise, I was intrigued to see that the percentage of prisoners convicted of drug trafficking securing a sentence reduction in 2020 (which was 53% according to the USSC data) appears to be greater than the percentage of such prisoners in federal prison (which was 43% as of this same USSC report).   

I hope that the US Sentencing Commission not only continues to release more and more granular data about sentencing reduction grants.  I also hope the USSC will (a) track recidivism rates for this population over time, and (b) learn about which guidelines might be seen to produce excessively long sentencing in retrospect as documented through these grants.  The kind of second-look sentencing mechanism now operating the the federal system is not only valuable and important as a means to achieve better justice in individual cases, but also should serve as an important feedback loop providing a kind of on-going audit of the operation of the entire federal sentencing system. 

A few of many prior related posts:

July 25, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1)

Interesting review of African (and global) trends in capital punishment abolition

The New York Times has this interesting new article on capital punishment around the world under the headline "One by One, African Countries Dismantle Colonial-Era Death Penalty Laws."  Here are excerpts:

Lawmakers in Sierra Leone voted unanimously on Friday to abolish the death penalty, a momentous step that made the West African country the 23rd on the continent to prohibit capital punishment.

The decision was one more step in a long-sought goal of civil society organizations and legal practitioners who see the death penalty as a vestige of Africa’s oppressive colonial history.  “This is a horrible punishment and we need to get rid of it,” said Oluwatosin Popoola, a legal adviser at the rights group Amnesty International, a leading critic of capital punishment.

A vast majority of the 193 member states of the United Nations have either abolished the death penalty or do not practice it.... The vote in Sierra Leone came against the backdrop of a steady march in Africa to discard brutal laws imposed by past colonial masters.  In April, Malawi ruled the death penalty unconstitutional.  In May of 2020, Chad did the same. Nearly half of Africa’s 54 independent countries have abolished the punishment, more than double the number from less than two decades ago.

While death sentences and executions have declined globally in recent years, they do not necessarily reflect the growing number of countries that have banned capital punishment.  At least some of the declines are attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic, which slowed or delayed judicial proceedings in many countries.  And in some, like the United States, federal executions were ramped up in 2020.

As in previous years, China led the 2020 list of countries that execute the most people, killing thousands, according to Amnesty International, which compiles capital punishment statistics.  The exact figures for China are not known, as its data remains a state secret.  Next in 2020 came Iran, which executed at least 246 people, and then Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and in sixth place the United States, with 17 executions.  Most of the American executions were of federal prisoners in the last six months of President Donald J. Trump’s term, a turnaround after years of an informal moratorium.

The legislators in Sierra Leone on Friday replaced the death sentence with a maximum life sentence for certain crimes, including murder and treason.  This means that judges will have the power to consider mitigating factors, such as whether the defendant has a mental illness.  They would have had no such flexibility if the lawmakers had voted instead to replace the death penalty with a mandatory life sentence....

Sierra Leone is the first of the English-speaking West African countries to abolish the punishment.  A decade ago, a commission in Ghana recommended abolition, but in recent years efforts have stalled.

In Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, at least 2,700 people are on death row — the highest number by far on the African continent. Gambia had been on track to abolish the death penalty last year, when a new Constitution was drafted. But it was rejected by Parliament. Still, Gambia’s president has made some significant moves away from capital punishment, Mr. Popoola said.  These are all countries that, like Sierra Leone, obtained independence from the Britain in the late 1950s and 1960s — around the same time as that colonial power was carrying out its own last executions.

July 25, 2021 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentencing around the world | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Boundary Problem of Rights Restoration"

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

By conditioning restoration of felons’ political rights on the repayment of legal financial obligations, states have kept millions of potential voters from participating politically — profoundly altering the shape of the American electorate. Courts have universally upheld the practice by treating the conferral of political rights to nonmembers of the political community as an exercise of legislative grace subject to few constraints, while critics argue that the practice conditions political participation on wealth status and is therefore subject to heightened review.

This Essay traces the disagreement back to a first-order question that has gone overlooked by both sides: how should the juridical status of a disenfranchised citizen’s “lost” rights be understood?  The conventional position, which I call “depoliticization,” imagines that a sentence of disenfranchisement casts a citizen outside the democratic community, thereby voiding all prospective constitutional interests predicated on political membership. However, disenfranchisement is better characterized as the subordination — not the wholesale elimination — of a citizen’s constitutional interests in voting or otherwise participating politically, just as incarceration suppresses but does not eliminate a person’s constitutional interest in physical liberty.  It follows that rights restoration is not the conferral of a new statutory benefit to a political outsider, as courts have assumed, but instead marks the endpoint of state-sustained subordination.

Redescribing the disenfranchisement-to-restoration process in this way aligns with the Richardson Court’s reading of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, resolves a number of doctrinal contradictions, and — most critically for future litigation challenges — sharpens the constitutional symmetry between fee-based restoration and paradigmatic forms of wealth discrimination like poll taxes and debtors’ prisons.  By framing re-enfranchisement as a constitutional default and drawing attention to disenfranchised citizens’ enduring claim to political presence, this account may also be of use in popular restoration efforts currently underway outside the courts.

July 25, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)