« Latest CCJ accounting of crime trends shows mostly encouraging news from 2022 about violent crimes (but not property crimes) | Main | New year and new Congress brings a new effort to advance new EQUAL Act »
January 26, 2023
VERA Institute provides first-person accounts of "The Human Toll of Jail"
Via email today I learned that the Vera Institute of Justice has launched another round of first-person essays about jail experienced under the titled "The Human Toll of Jail." Here is how the project is introduced on the site's main webpage (with links from the original):
Every year, people cycle through the revolving doors of the more than 3,000 jails operating in the United States — too often invisible to the public. But the truth of this hidden population is that the roughly 10.3 million annual U.S. jail admissions cause immense harm and disruption to people’s lives, families, and communities.
In 2016, the Vera Institute of Justice launched the Human Toll of Jail project to humanize the costs of incarceration and uplift true stories about people whose lives are affected by jail, in their own words. The project featured essays by people who had spent time in jail, their families and communities, and people who work in the system.
In 2023, mass incarceration continues to be the default setting of the U.S. “justice” system, and the conversation about the misuse of jails isn’t over. Vera has now partnered with PEN America’s Prison and Justice Writing program to embark on a second round of stories from people living the harsh realities of life behind bars.
Together, Vera and PEN invited submissions from currently incarcerated people, who give an up-close and honest view of life within U.S. jails today. From a wide-ranging pool of submissions, a selection committee chose eight winners, whose work appears here with custom illustrations inspired by each essay. With these personal and eye-opening essays, Vera and PEN America seek to amplify the voices of incarcerated writers, further conversations about the horrors and trauma of jail, and ultimately, ensure that people in the system are treated with dignity.
January 26, 2023 at 11:46 AM | Permalink
Comments
"In 2023, mass incarceration continues to be the default setting of the U.S. 'justice' system..."
This is a point-blank lie.
First, the huge majority of people charged with crimes are not sentenced to jail. Second, one-half of one percent of the population is in jail, and one-half of one percent isn't mass anything. Third, that percentage has been falling for at least ten years. Fourth, to the extent jail is a nasty experience -- which it is -- people might consider doing the one thing never suggested in the piece, to wit, refraining from the dishonest or violent behavior that gets you sent to jail.
But hey, we can't do that, because IT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 26, 2023 3:34:23 PM
Perhaps the VERA Institute should do some essays on, “The Human Toll of Letting Two Guys With 85 Felony Charges and 11 Convictions Walk the Streets.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-delivery-driver-robbed-convicted-felons-dozens-charges-caught-terrifying-video?fbclid=IwAR3javIGH75fWHEYDc1nfXlR6g64IzK2iy8ONzMWzBwgiRGqOjGsDdNcEcs
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 27, 2023 5:09:19 PM
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012781.enb.pdf
Your readers may enjoy reading this case. Doug, try to guess where I come out.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 27, 2023 6:04:06 PM
I suspect, federalist, this is one case in which you think what you like to call "'rat judges" got it right.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 27, 2023 9:33:39 PM
Doug --
Rather than engage with the substantive points raised in the first two comments on this thread, your sole expressed interest is in -- ready now? -- federalist's calling Democrats "'rats." If this adds to any discussion serious people should be interested in, I'm at a loss to understand how.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 28, 2023 12:32:20 AM
Bill, federalist directly asked me to guess about his view of the 11th Circuit opinion he cited. In an effort to be polite, I generally try, when time permits, to respond to comments directly addressed to me. (That is also why I was quick to respond to the post in another thread where federalist urged me to censor a comment.) Given federalist's long history of assailing the work of, in his words, "'rat judges," I thought it interesting to note that I was inclined to guess that he agreed with "those judges" in this case.
Are you troubled that federalist has often used the term "'rat judges" as a kind of partisan smear? Or is it just that I decided to use his own term in response to his request that I guess about his views of a judicial opinion?
I will leave it to federalist to speak himself to whether discussion of his perspective on the work of "rat judges" is something "serious people should be interested in."
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 28, 2023 1:33:49 AM
Bill,
Here are a couple more points Doug can ignore (just kidding, Doug. You know I love that bleeding heart of yours). 😆
There are a million tells of what BS this is.
“But the truth of this hidden population is that the roughly 10.3 million annual U.S. jail admissions cause immense harm and disruption to people’s lives, families, and communities.”
Wouldn’t an honest accounting include the “immense harm and disruption to peoples’ lives, families, and communities,” caused by crime? How come we never see THAT on this blog other than by commenters such as Bill? Doug, is it your bias that keeps such articles off this website or is legal academia so one-sided that they don’t give you the opportunity? Would you agree that such an echo chamber in legal academia is incredibly harmful to your students, victims, and the justice system in general?
“Together, Vera and PEN invited submissions from currently incarcerated people, who give an up-close and honest view of life within U.S. jails today.”
Ah, yes, because the “honesty” of convicted felons should never come into question. They would never lie or embellish for their own benefit. We hear all the time that jailhouse snitches cannot be trusted, but must take these people at their words when being critical of the CJS.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2023 1:43:26 AM
Tarls, statistically speaking, most people in US jails are not "convicted felons." Most have not (yet) been convicted of the charge that landed them in jail as they are there on pre-trial detention. Those who are convicted serving time in jail often have been convicted of misdemeanors, not felonies. I am being a bit pedantic, but I do think it quite important to distinguish between the roughly 1.5 million folks who are serving some time in prison in a given year (all "convicted felons") and the more than 10 million who spend some time in jail in a given year (mostly not "convicted felons").
That all said, I agree 100% that victim/community perspectives on crime and punishment are very important. That is one reason why, when I teach my sentencing course, we spend numerous classes discussing the law and policy of victim input on charging, pleas and sentencing. (My favorite hypo is to ask students whether, instead of obsessing over the intricacies of the federal sentencing guidelines to provide an "advisory" sentencing recommendation, we just ought to instruct federal judges to use the recommendation of victims as the advisory benchmark and starting point.) We also talk a lot about jury sentencing as a means of reflecting community perspectives on crime and punishment, and I am a huge fan of juries in criminal justice systems in large part because they provide a tangible means to get community input and involvement in our justice systems.
As for victim perspectives on this blog, when reprinting press stories about the death penalty and/or executions, I always make an effort to include quotes from the victims' families. I also have a topical archive that collects victims-focused items: https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/victims_rights_at_sentencing/. I wish I saw a lot more thoughtful work and cases on these topics in sentencing spaces --- I find the issues quite interesting both legally and in policy debates --- though I will concede that I have very little time to look for original materials that are not sent my way or get media coverage.
More broadly, I think you are right, Tarls, that the legal academia and progressive advocacy groups like the VERA Institute often fail to give adequate voice and enough platforms to crime victims. In a number of older blog posts and in some of my own advocacy work, I have been eager to highlight why I think giving more respect and attention to a wide array of victim perspectives would likely lead to a more balanced (and maybe less punitive) criminal justice system. (Some of this finds expression in restorative justice literature, but I do not always find those pieces fully satisfying.)
Of course, Tarls, you are welcome to recommend articles/writings on these topics in the comments, and I will be eager to try to make time to post/comment on resources or other materials that you think are especially thoughtful or interesting. Professor Paul Cassell, who I consider among the most important and impactful advocates for victims' rights, often will flag for me some of the federal cases he works on when they result in significant opinions. I also sometimes hear from persons I know at victims' rights organizations, but a lot of our interactions tend to focus on single cases rather than broader issues.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 28, 2023 2:42:35 AM
Doug,
You said, “More broadly, I think you are right, Tarls, that the legal academia and progressive advocacy groups like the VERA Institute often fail to give adequate voice and enough platforms to crime victims. In a number of older blog posts and in some of my own advocacy work, I have been eager to highlight why I think giving more respect and attention to a wide array of victim perspectives would likely lead to a more balanced (and maybe less punitive) criminal justice system. (Some of this finds expression in restorative justice literature, but I do not always find those pieces fully satisfying.)”
Then do you agree that legal academia is doing a grave disservice to victims, law students, the CJS, and society as a whole by concentrating on merely one perspective?
If so, would you agree that the work of legal academia must be called into question because it is so one-sided?
Would you ever consider studying the community harm of crime (financially, family, victim mental health, quality of life, etc.,) for society and direct victims?
What would you do to fix this hole in legal academia?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 28, 2023 1:08:19 PM
Tarls, I see lots of different perspectives reflected in legal academia --- both in the criminal justice space and elsewhere --- so I do not believe it can be fairly described as "concentrating on merely one perspective." And some crime victims garner considerable attention in legal academic activity and discourse --- eg, rape victims, human trafficking victims, domestic violence victims, victims of mass shootings, victims of police violence --- though I still support giving more respect and attention to a wide array of victim perspectives across a range of crimes and communities.
I can link you to dozens of law schools that have clinics or other student-facing programs focused on a range of crime victims. Here are just a few examples (and I can provide many, many more):
https://law.lclark.edu/programs/criminal_law/cvlc/
https://law.wm.edu/academics/programs/jd/electives/clinics/clinics_list/domestic/index.php
https://law.arizona.edu/news/2019/08/four-law-schools-launch-collaboration-support-human-trafficking-survivors
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2001_02/rcap.htm
As for my actions, I have helped organize/sponsor a number of activities that seek to give legal/policy attention to these issues (eg, inviting Prof Cassell to speak at OSU and getting him published in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, soliciting/printing dozens of articles on a wide array of "victims rights" issues for the Federal Sentencing Reporter). And, as you know (since you criticized my discussion), I also seek here and elsewhere to give attention to a segment of crime victims/harms that I fear are often lost in discussion of crime and punishment, namely the tens of thousands of people that die (preventable?) deaths from traffic accidents and the hundreds of thousand more who suffer injuries and property damage. And, as I said before, I would eagerly post/comment on resources or other materials in the broader victim/harm space that you think are especially thoughtful or interesting.
More generally, I do seek to study legal and policy issues related to "the community harm of crime (financially, family, victim mental health, quality of life, etc.,)" as they find expression in debates over sentencing law and policy and in debates over a range of drug law enforcement and policy issues. I bring these issues up in my teaching and in my scholarship in various ways. But I am not an empiricist nor a sociologist/criminologist by training or inclination. So my study and work typically just gives attention to whether and how sentencing reforms and/or drug policy reforms are likely to increase or reduce crimes and the range of widely-recognized harms generally associated with them.
I cannot quite tell if you think there is a "hole" in legal academia or if you are talking about a "hole" in empirical/sociological/criminological study. As noted in part in the links above, I do not see a huge law school hole --- there is a Institute on victim rights at Lewis & Clark law school, and I know of dozens of colleagues writing in this space (and hundreds more if we consider restorative justice scholarship). I do try to do my part to fill the "holes" that I think most need to be filled in legal academia --- eg, there were no sentencing classes and no sentencing casebooks in law schools when I started, and think I played a role in filling that hole; there were no marijuana reform classes and no marijuana casebooks in law schools as of just 10 years ago, and I think I played a role in filling that hole; there were no law school centers looking at drug enforcement and policy .... and so on. There are lots of holes one can find in law schools, but I do not have an unlimited supply of shovels. If you think more needs to be done here, I can send you more links to more law schools that surely would welcome your help increasing the resources available for studying these important topics.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 28, 2023 2:14:41 PM
TarlsQtr, you ask, "Wouldn’t an honest accounting include the 'immense harm and disruption to peoples’ lives, families, and communities,' caused by crime?"
Your question implicitly assumes that everyone in jail is guilty of a serious crime, and that cruel punishment in jail deters such crimes. Both assumptions are profoundly wrong. The methods used to convict people have only marginal correlation with guilt, and as our host points out, most people in jail haven't yet been convicted anyway. And if cruelty deterred crime, people who were abused as children would tend to be the best-behaved people, rather than being disproportionately likely to commit serious crimes.
Yes, there's some correlation between crime and conviction, just as there's some correlation between smoking and cancer. But assuming everyone who has been convicted is guilty is as wrong as assuming everyone with cancer is a smoker. Also, nearly all criminal gangs began as mutual-defense societies, and still largely serve that function, and as such there's a correlation between committing crimes and being the victim of a criminal gang. The main question about both the criminal justice system and about criminal gangs is whether they do more harm or more good. In both cases, I'm convinced that they do far more harm than good, just as cancer is a net negative even though it does tend to deter smoking.
In summary, I see the criminal justice system, not as being in opposition to crime, but as being yet another criminal gang, an especially powerful one. They are very much alike in how much the employ violence, and in the fundamental dishonesty of both (e.g. the Reid technique), and the "no snitching" policies of both. (Police who report other police are treated almost as badly as Mafia members who turn state's evidence.)
I support the vast majority of people, who are peaceful, kind, and honest, and would no more work as a cop or a jail guard than as a bank robber or telemarketer.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Jan 28, 2023 2:58:43 PM
TarlsQtr --
Legal academia is tilted way to the Left (of course this does not differentiate it from academia as a whole). Doug knows this as we all do. By the standards of legal academia, however, Doug actually can be seen as a centrist, for which he deserves credit. By the standards of the electorate as a whole, particularly in Ohio, well, ummmmmmmmmmm......
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 28, 2023 3:09:43 PM
Doug --
"Are you troubled that federalist has often used the term 'rat judges' as a kind of partisan smear?"
No. It's not relevant to anything worth a serious person's time. I was more troubled when Kent Scheidegger and I repeatedly got called Nazis on your blog without any pushback from you.
"Or is it just that I decided to use his own term in response to his request that I guess about his views of a judicial opinion?"
Same answer.
"I will leave it to federalist to speak himself to whether discussion of his perspective on the work of "rat judges" is something "serious people should be interested in.""
His perspective on the panel's analysis is worth hearing, yup, because he's a very smart guy. Further poking at him about this "rat" stuff just encourages the personalization of the comments section. Instead, it should be DIScouraged.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 28, 2023 3:12:11 PM
Bill, statistically speaking, I am quite to the right of center in the context of legal academia. But I do not think concern for the harms experienced by crime victims and communities, the issue raised by Tarls, is not neatly mapped on a simplistic right/left continuum. Certain crime victims and communities, but not all, get special attention from folks on the left; certain crime victims and communities, but not all, get special attention from folks on the right. Like many issues in criminal justice, the nature of the offenders and victims often impact the interests of different partisans.
Speaking of partisanship, I think the partisan lens that federalist brings to so many issues, including the work of judges, merits the attention of serious persons. It highlights that even a very smart guy may be quite eager to (pre)judge judicial work based on who the judge is. (And silly statements about Nazis say everything about the person using that slur and nothing about who it is directed toward.)
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 28, 2023 10:16:24 PM
Doug,
How many articles can you name, off the top of your head, that uses the ink to compare the harm to society (monetary, impact on the victim and families both emotionally and financially, the impact on high crime communities, etc.,) with the harm done to criminals? I’m not talking about a piece from National Review, but from your left-wing brothers and sisters in legal academia?
You might be able to think of some, but it would exceed 20:1 in favor of the pain to criminals and their families, not the victims. Furthermore, everyone in this discussion, including the felon’s family, is the victim of the felon, not the system. Yet, it is discussed as if the system is the one hurting the felon’s family.
We always talk about the cost of keeping people in prison, but never the cost of letting them out. That is a disservice to law students, the CJS, society as a whole, and victims specifically.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 29, 2023 1:25:50 PM
Doug,
Here is an example.
The other day I posted about an armed robbery of an Amazon driver where one of the two perps stuck his gun in the guy’s neck. The perps had a combined 85 prior felony charges.
We hear ad nauseum about the cost of keeping guys like these in prison. To them, the taxpayer, their families, etc. Which of your brethren is keeping a tab on the very possible result of a lifetime of anxiety, therapy, possibly having to leave his job, etc? If he does, the cost to the economy and the taxpayers possibly paying benefits to him and his family? Not to mention, the costs of the first 84 felonies?
There may be such articles, but I never see them here.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 29, 2023 1:44:44 PM
Tarls, off the top of my head, I mostly think of "law and econ" and criminologist types (eg, the folks at RAND) as those who do sophisticated work on the "costs of crime." The vast majority of law profs are not doing much serious empirical work about either crimes or punishments (or really anything else).
For example, here is a link to a full recent journal issue --- edited by three Yale law professors --- focused on gun violence that seems quite concerned about gun crimes and yet does not seem to have the type of harm accounting that you are seeking: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/solomon/document/gun_violence_in_america-_an_interdisciplinary_examination_jlme_dec_2020._final.pdf
Similarly, here is a link to recent work from folks at Stanford Law School also concerned about gun crimes, but not focused specifically on the harms they cause: https://www.nber.org/papers/w30190 (At Harvard, I have seen more work on gun crimes and gun violence from their schools of public health and medicine than from their law school.)
I have focused on gun crimes because that was mentioned in your second comment, and I do think the legal academy has generally tended to give more attention to gun crimes and their harms than to some other crimes. Indeed, because most lawprofs are pro-gun-control, one would think lawprof "policy priors" would lead many of them to be eager to do a full-scale accountings of "the harm to society (monetary, impact on the victim and families both emotionally and financially, the impact on high crime communities, etc.,)" with respect to the remarkably high levels of gun violence in the USA. But the most we see from lawprofs will be claims about how to try to reduce gun crimes, not what their full harms are.
Indeed, my general sense is that a lot of crime-empirically-focused legal academic work, in all spheres regarding any/all crimes, are generally built around claims (or suppositions) about what interventions ought to help with the reduction of crime. I think the recent article by Christopher Lewis and Adaner Usmani, "The Injustice of Under-Policing in America" (blogged here: https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2022/08/the-injustice-of-under-policing-in-america.html) serves as a good example of the type of law-prof analysis that assumes all crimes are costly and makes various claims about the best ways to reduce them.
If your main concern, Tarls, is recidivism, the long series of reports from the US Sentencing Commission on this topic (all of which I have blogged about) serves as another interesting example of empirical work that does not dig into the harm issues you flag. The USSC has in that series done an amazing job documenting all sorts of recidivism realities for all sorts of federal offenders, but the harm particulars you mention are not unpacked.
And if your main concern is liberal bias in the legal academy, the best I can do is to state that your concern is not inappropriate.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 29, 2023 3:35:26 PM
As for 'rat judges, let's not forget that when I say "'rat' judges" I invariably combine substantive criticisms with what they have written, and you know what, NO ONE in here, if memory serves me correctly, ever addresses the substance of my criticisms.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 11:20:30 AM
Here are a few examples that google brought up where no substantive analysis was with your "'rat" label, federalist:
"Hopefully, there aren't enough 'rat judges to thwart justice."
"More 'rat judges--what's not to love?"
"We can blame 'rat judges and elected 'rats."
But, it is true that you usually include some serious substantive criticism with the (unserious?) partisan moniker. I wonder if the partisan moniker leads people to often not be inclined to respond to the substance.
This side issues aside, was I right in my guess that the en banc 11th Circuit case that you flagged is one case in which you think what you like to call "'rat judges" had the better opinions?
Posted by: Doug B. | Jan 30, 2023 12:49:58 PM
Come on, Doug. Look at my criticisms of Judge Bye, Judge Dennis, Sotomayor and all the others--they are based on substance.
With respect to that 11th Circuit case, there is a surreality---they assume (precedent, I guess) that the warrant authorized the seizure of the guy with the same name, and that just ain't the case. If there's a warrant out there for a Douglas A. Berman for dealing drugs, that doesn't authorize the seizure of you. If you assume that the seizure was authorized, and that may or may not be dictated by precedent, then the majority opinions make some sense, although I still vehemently disagree.
I fault the 'rat judge--lol--for not more forcefully taking on the basis of the majority's argument. He just pointed out facts and implied duty. What he should have said is that probable cause to seize a person who may or not be the right David Sosa is just bowing to reality--if there are more than say, 10, guys named David Sosa in the whole country, then matching up a name alone cannot be probable cause to arrest the David Sosa that the cop has stopped absent additional corroborations. Thus, since the cops are getting a break on that issue, then they have affirmative duties to ensure they got the right guy reasonably quickly. A constitutional quid pro quo so to speak. HIs stuff on the new technology is really good though.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 1:49:19 PM
federalist, I said "it is true that you usually include some serious substantive criticism with the (unserious?) partisan moniker." But sometime you just throw out the moniker, and doing so may dissuade some from wanting to engage in a debate with someone with an obviously partisan perspective on judges.
Bill says your use of this moniker is "not relevant to anything worth a serious person's time." But I see it as quite relevant to your partisan view of judicial decision-making and your apparent eagerness to encourage others to view judges through a partisan lens.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 30, 2023 2:45:28 PM
I lit into Judge Frost. I'll light into any weak judge who wants to thwart capital punishment. But really Doug--recall a few years ago--a bunch of 'rat judges on the 11th circuit wanted to stay an execution based on the idea that the manufacturer of one of the LI chemicals was not identified. The drugs were tested for purity and passed--so the manufacturer's identity was completely irrelevant. That's a degree of willfulness that's astounding, and I cannot help but point out the party of the President that appointed them. Judge Dennis' rationale for a stay on one case was so ridiculous that I had to call it out.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 4:49:49 PM
You say, federalist, that you "cannot help but point out the party of the President that appointed them." I say, right, because you are a partisan, you think it is necessary to highlight this fact when you criticize certain opinions/rulings, but not when the opinion you disagree with involves a GOP appointment. Bill says this discussion is "not relevant to anything worth a serious person's time," but it in part accounts for why I call you a partisan.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 30, 2023 6:34:36 PM
Thanks for your response, Doug, especially the last sentence. Do you think that reality does a disservice to law students, victims, and the CJS?
And I was talking about a an objective accounting, but I also see a ton of subjective articles on the cost of incarceration to families, society, etc. I would even agree with that, however those costs are laid at the feet of the criminal, not “the system.”
As evidence of this bias, I don’t see articles on here regarding the cost of crime to society, victims, and their families.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 30, 2023 6:37:47 PM
First of all, Doug, in the real world, litigants look at the party of the appointing president. But more to the point, the judicial selection business has become partisan, and so pointing out the party of the appointing president is part of the discussion about federal judges. Am I wrong, for example, to call out 'rat judge Kim McLane Wardlaw--who has authored four, count 'em four, opinions that have been summarily reversed with a per curiam opinion (i.e., Ward;aw's Ninth Circuit opinion sucked so bad that SCOTUS reversed her without even hearing argument). The AEDPA reversals by unanimous or summary reversals are a 'rat judge problem.
And it's the Democrats who started the judicial wars . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 6:53:51 PM
I ripped into Sutton also, who is a darling of the right.
You point out to me hackery as bad as Kim McLane Wardlaw, Judge Clay in Bobby v. Bies, and I'll be happy to hammer the 'can judges too.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 30, 2023 6:56:04 PM
I think there are a very wide range of major "biases" in academic criminal law teaching and scholarship, Tarls, but the impact of "liberal bias" seems to me relatively modest (except with respect to approaches to capital punishment and policing/race issues). I could fill a couple books with my accounting of (non-political) biases in criminal law teaching and scholarship that, I think, do a "disservice to law students, victims, and the CJS." One such bias concerns excessive teaching and research focused on the nearly 75-year-old Model Penal Code. I criticized this bias in an article two decades ago: https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/72584 ("The Model Penal Code Second: Might 'Film Schools' Be in Need of a Remake?")
Another major bias is the failure to give serious or enough attention to plea bargaining and sentencing, which comprises 90%+ of case processing. (Obviously, this blog, my casebook and much of my scholarship aspires to work against that bias. And yet, only about 10% of law schools have a class on plea bargaining and maybe 25% have a class on sentencing (not counting capital sentencing which reflects another bias).)
Another major bias is the failure to give attention to misdemeanors and collateral consequences thereof. My work on drug/marijuana issues is partially attentive to this bias toward more serious offenses, but overcriminalization (and the denigration of traditional mens rea concerns) is a huge problem that many segment of a liberal academy are quick to whistle past.
Further, I see a deep failure to do much rigorous cost-benefit analysis in any CJ area by everyone, left/right/center. I do not see anything that really amounts to an "objective accounting" of the costs of crime (or punishment) anywhere. But this is a challenging and fraught and contestable endeavor. Some folks on the left are eager to talk us "wage theft" and all the white-collar criminals who avoid accountability for economic harms; how do we account for the costs of these crimes? There are millions of people committing drug crimes and illegal gun possession crimes every day; how do we account for the cost of these crimes? Some claim that 50 million child porn files are downloaded worldwide each day; how do we account for the costs of these crimes? (FWIW: Pre-pandemic, the FBI reported the highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,558,862 arrests), driving under the influence (estimated at 1,024,508), and larceny-theft (estimated at 813,073).
I sense that you ultimately think that, whatever kind of accounting might be done or not done, the persons who choose to commit crime and get caught should be "held responsible" and how society decides to respond is secondary. I suspect lot of people have a similar view.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 30, 2023 8:01:20 PM
federalist: I tend to see a good deal of "hackery" in a lot of very weak originalist analysis that is often the (real?) focus of what you now call "'can judges." (Also, the Special Master ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sure seemed like "hackery" to 11th Circuit panel that reversed her head-scratching order.)
But, again, substantive debates aside, the key point is that you eagerly highlight "'rat status" when you criticize certain opinions/rulings, but not when the opinion you disagree with involves a GOP appointee. I know you think you are not partisan in your own mind, federalist, but you certainly are partisan in your commentary. So be it, lots of folks are partisans. Perhaps if you drop the (unserious?) partisan moniker, then it will at least be a bit less obvious.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 30, 2023 8:22:31 PM
The 'rats have been blowing off AEDPA for years . . . . the 'rats foisted Sotomayor on us. The 'rats went easy on Clinesmith--the list goes on and on. Don't conflate 'can misdemeanors with 'rat felonies. And I guarantee you Judge Frost was a bug not a feature--Kim McLane Wardlaw is a feature not a bug.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 31, 2023 9:53:10 AM
Here's some more 'rat work:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/the-persecution-of-jack-phillips-should-end/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first
Posted by: federalist | Jan 31, 2023 9:58:45 AM
Partisans gonna partisan. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 31, 2023 10:30:31 AM
So you deny that blowing off AEDPA is a Dem judge problem? Do you deny that Phillips is being persecuted?
Do you deny that Dems covered for the Afghanistan debacle? For Schiff's lies, that a 'rat judge gave Clinesmith a horrible break?
We can revisit the Obama v. Trump more moral in office debate anytime you like.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 31, 2023 10:54:11 AM
Partisans gonna partisan. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 31, 2023 10:56:49 AM
Partisan or no, my points are hard to refute--
Posted by: federalist | Jan 31, 2023 11:47:42 AM
Partisans gonna partisan. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 31, 2023 11:55:18 AM
Like I said previously, the faculty lounge has rules, and in order to get into the debate, you're gonna have to concede some things . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jan 31, 2023 12:23:33 PM
Since the Phillips case has been brought up.
Such cases are always framed as freedom of religion claims.
Would I be wrong to say they should all be framed as freedom of speech cases? Should an atheist be forced to make a cake he finds offensive?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jan 31, 2023 10:46:53 PM
Here's a slice of academia, Doug:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/03/nas-report-reveals-dei-initiatives-to-be-politically-charged/
You ok with this?
Posted by: federalist | Feb 3, 2023 11:36:59 AM
Would need to read the full report and know a lot more about UT history and practices to have a detailed opinion, but it sound accurate to me to suggest that there are "ideological agendas" driving some DEI activity and all sorts of other fashionable activities in the academy these days. Yale Law School leading a bunch of law schools not to report data to US News is another example. Some of the "biases" in academic criminal law teaching and scholarship that I described above also seem to me to stem from various "ideological agendas." But I tend to see just about everything driven by some kind of "ideological agendas," whether that involves being for or against certain standardized tests or for or against certain funding sources for universities or for or against paying student athletes and so on and so on.
I sincerely hope there continues to be more reporting and scrutiny on all of these fronts, and I think much more transparency (especially of state schools) is essential to the proper assessment and development of many trends in higher education. And, especially because higher-ed is largely a consumer good for which there are lots and lots of market options, I think much more transparency and analysis on these topics is especially important for a better functioning higher-ed marketplace.
Does that address you inquiry, federalist? I really do not have time to read closely what's going on at another big university; I lack the time to keep up with most of what is going on at my own law school, let alone the huge OSU universe, let alone thousands of other schools and tens of thousands of higher-ed departments.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 3, 2023 11:56:30 AM
