« Effective look at the many ugly realities of probation | Main | Effective coverage of compassionate release challenges at the state level »
January 29, 2023
Rounding up some sentencing and punishment stories in an exhausting week that was
A horrible series of mass shootings and the release of awful videos defined the criminal justice week that was. But there were also a bunch of sentencing and punishment stories of note and interest that I did not have time to cover here. As is my custom, I will try to catch up with a headline/link round-up:
From the Arizona Republic, "Reformers applaud Hobbs' plans for an oversight commission for troubled Arizona prisons"
From CBS News, "Louisiana "routinely" keeps inmates in custody past release dates, Justice Department finds"
From The Crime Report, "Report: Native Americans Significantly Overrepresented In US Prisons"
From Fox News, "DeSantis proposes making child rapists eligible for execution, allowing death penalty without unanimous jury"
From The Intercept, "Oklahoma Slows Down Frenzied Execution Spree And Launches Probe Into Richard Glossip Case"
From the Marshall Project, "Giving Incarcerated People What They Want — Better News Access"
From NPR, "A man who killed 8 bicyclists in Manhattan is convicted and may face the death penalty"
From New York Daily News, "Brooklyn lawyer who helped firebomb NYPD car during Floyd protests sentenced to a year and day in prison"
From Politico, "Jan. 6 rioter who maced Brian Sicknick sentenced to 80 months"
From Reason, "Federal Inmates Suffering From Unconstitutional Medical Neglect Could Get Relief Under Rule Change"
From Rolling Stone, "Trump’s Killing Spree: The Inside Story of His Race to Execute Every Prisoner He Could"
January 29, 2023 at 09:53 AM | Permalink
Comments
80 months for macing a cop? Hmmm. One year for firebombing.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 29, 2023 10:30:29 AM
Thanks, federalist, for reminding me that I initially failed to include a story on Colinford Mattis's sentencing. Now fixed with a link to NY Daily News coverage.
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 29, 2023 10:46:36 AM
Context is everything. Are you saying that firebombing an empty car is the same as macing an offer who later died---an act that was committed in the process of attacking a venerated U.S. institution?
Not to mention, the other individual who actually firebombed a vehicle (where officers were actually present) was given a sentence of 72 months.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 30, 2023 7:08:00 AM
"context is everything"--why yes it is--first of all, Sicknick's death had nothing to do with the mace (and shame on the Dems for pushing that narrative). Second, look at all the charges dropped against the Portland rioters (who attacked a federal building), the DJT inaugural rioters, and the non-prosecution of those who attacked the WH.
And bringing Molotov cocktails to a riot is really really dangerous, and the woman who did firebombing, first name, Urooj, got 15 months.
Why don't we get those things right?
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 10:29:17 AM
Well, first of all it's not a Dem narrative, it's a common sense narrative about the death of Officer Sicknick. In these very posts a week or so prior, we had robust discussion about what factors a judge should be allowed to take into account at sentencing. Do you really believe that a federal judge should ignore the fact that the officer died shortly after the responding to a riot where the defendant sprayed him with mace even if there was no medical evidence that the mace played a role in the proximate cause of his death?
Next, it's quite foolish of you to equate Portland rioters with people actually attacking the Capital of the United States while sitting members of Congress are there. This is nothing more than a foolish partisan talking point and a feeble attempt at "what-about-ism." All crimes are not equal federalist---you know that. Should the Portland rioters have been charged---yes. But did any of their crimes amount to seditious conspiracy? Lets not play that game---you're far too intelligent.
Lastly, Samantha Shader (not Rahman) received 72 months in prison for attending those very same riots and throwing a cocktail at officers in a vehicle.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 30, 2023 10:56:51 AM
So there's no evidence that the macing led to the death, and we should use it to add time? Wow. In any event, Dems have pushed the Capitol Police Officers died meme, and it is just untrue. And it seems weird that someone who firebombed cops gets less time than someone who merely maced one. And that does not explain the lenience shown to the two I mentioned.
With respect to Portland vs. DC--should some grandma who walked around the Capitol and left get time while a violent Antifa thug in POrtland gets charges dropped? Saying, "Well its the Capitol." doesn't really get it done. It feels like there is a serious political double standard here--let's go to the ends of the earth to prosecute anyone who set foot in the building (i.e., no seditious conspiracy), while going easy on the people I mention. That's not whataboutism--that's looking at the obvious favoritism for leftist violence vs. certain non-violence of Trump people. You know, that's not how DOJ is supposed to roll.
Lastly, how many times have crazy people entered the Capitol and disrupted proceedings or confronted Congresscritters about Kavanaugh or other cause du jour, and they get nothing or a fifty dollar fine.
Those Trump supporters who attacked cops should get time, but so should others who did, and that didn't happen. Are you saying the political doublestandards are ok in the law enforcement context?
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 12:40:32 PM
To answer your question: No, there should not be any double-standard in the law. Unfortunately, this is the justice system that we have and we must live with it because we both know that it is by no means perfect.
It makes me uncomfortable that a grandmother walking around the Capital would be charged. One could argue that at her age, she should have known better and must be held accountable; while another argument could look at her history and characteristics which would presumably weigh in favor of not charging her.
But it also makes me uncomfortable that I've seen far too many first time offenders (in their teens) sentenced to decades for drug crimes. I could make the same arguments discussed above as pro-punishment or less time for this type of defendant. Like I said, it's the criminal justice system that we have been given. Distribution of drug is, of course, a more serious offense than any potential offense associated with a grandmother entering the Capital without permission which is why I would not advocate for no jail time for the drug crime. Still, it's not the crimes but the blatant inequities of the system that I am highlighting.
If I were a judge, which I am clearly not, the grandmother likely goes home with nothing more than a speech as to who she chooses to align herself with politically and what poison she opts to digest when it comes to politics. And the teen would receive some jail time but not the type that I have seen meted out.
And, to be clear, I am not at all saying that the judge 'should' be allowed to consider this fact (although I am sure that Bill Otis would advocate for this fact to be considered given his take on State/Federal power when it comes to sentencing). What I am saying is that I have seen judges consider facts just like this under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) when the facts supporting any kind of upward variance of the sentence have been even more attenuated.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 30, 2023 1:22:00 PM
Wow--the rearguard action commences. No longer are you saying that I am engaged in whataboutism, but rather that we should live with an ideological thumb on the scale--cute little radical firebombers get a discount, but meanie Trump guy with mace gets the book thrown at him. That we may have to live with that doesn't mean I don't get to criticize it harshly and call out scum like Merrick Garland.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 1:36:33 PM
Eric A. Hicks --
"And, to be clear, I am not at all saying that the judge 'should' be allowed to consider this fact (although I am sure that Bill Otis would advocate for this fact to be considered given his take on State/Federal power when it comes to sentencing)."
With all respect, you have no portfolio to state my positions, and this illustrates why. My actual position is that no fact can be counted against the defendant unless it has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. That the defendant's offense here was causally related to the officer's later death has not been so proven to my knowledge, and therefore cannot be considered.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 30, 2023 2:19:51 PM
federalist,
People in the inner-city who care nothing for either political party have been making this argument for decades regarding the inequity of the criminal justice system and it has fallen on deaf ears.
These people don't care about the radical fire-bomber, Trump or the guy with mace duped by Trump to be somewhere he clearly should not have been. All they know is what they have seen and experienced in their own lives as it pertains the criminal justice system. When they have made this argument, the retort wasn't unfairness but the need for there to be more personal accountability within the home and community.
All I am giving you is another perspective. I'm sure that many folks in the inner-city would agree with you that something is terribly wrong with the system. The examples may differ but the results add up to the same thing: distrust for the system. I'm sure you would find many interesting perspectives there ad they would likewise find your take interesting.
It is your right to criticize the criminal justice system because I think you know, just like I do, that it can do better. Where the divide often comes is how we get to 'that place' of better.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 30, 2023 2:25:00 PM
So, because maybe there is unfairness somewhere, we need to tolerate a DOJ ideological thumb on the scale? Nice pivot.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 2:38:46 PM
Bill Otis,
With all respect, you have no portfolio to state my positions, and this illustrates why. My actual position is that no fact can be counted against the defendant unless it has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. That the defendant's offense here was causally related to the officer's later death has not been so proven to my knowledge, and therefore cannot be considered."
The last that I noticed, you seemed to be quite versed in stating my portfolio on positions so just consider this me returning the favor. You spoke incessantly about OJ Simpson's guilt (and yes, I know he was going guilty by a preponderance in a civil suit) even though no finding of guilt by preponderance was made in the criminal court. I guess you're equating civil findings in a separate court with criminal findings now. You've made your position on this topic very clear---at least to me.
And while I am on the subject, I guess if the defendant in Officer Sicknick's case loses the civil case, you will change your stance on him as well regarding whether the death of the officer should be (or, should have been) considered at his federal sentencing??? Just wondering.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Jan 30, 2023 10:44:22 PM
Eric A. Hicks
"You spoke incessantly about OJ Simpson's guilt..."
Not true, if "incessantly" means what the dictionary says it means.
"...(and yes, I know he was going guilty by a preponderance in a civil suit)"
It's that but more than that. He's guilty in the ordinary lay sense, to wit, he did the acts he was charged with doing. Do you disagree?
"I guess you're equating civil findings in a separate court with criminal findings now."
You guess wrong, which is while I will ask again that you refrain from attempting to re-formulate my positions for me. What I said (to Doug) was, under his theory of banning use of acquitted conduct out of "respect" for the jury's verdict, it would seem to follow that no later court in the same jurisdiction could impose a burden on that same defendant when the necessary legal predicate for that burden would be a judgment contrary to the first jury's exculpation.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 30, 2023 11:22:27 PM
