« US Sentencing Commission to begin series of public hearings on its proposed guideline amendments | Main | CCJ report explores "The Relationship Between Sentence Length, Time Served, and State Prison Population Levels" »
February 23, 2023
BJS releases data on "Correctional Populations" and "Probation and Parole" at end of 2021
The Bureau of Justice Statistics today released its latest detailed accounting of national correctional populations and populations on probation and parole at the close of 2021. This BJS press release reports on some highlights and provides links to the full documents with lots and lots of data:
The total correctional population in the United States fell 1% from yearend 2020 to 2021, according to statistics in Correctional Populations in the United States, 2021 – Statistical Tables and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2021, two reports released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The number of persons held in prison or jail or supervised in the community on probation or parole decreased by 61,100, down to an estimated 5,444,900. Overall, an estimated 1 in 48 U.S. residents age 18 or older were under correctional supervision at yearend 2021, down from 1 in 47 in 2020.
“Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant short-term changes in correctional estimates, the overall correctional population continues to decline,” said Dr. Alexis Piquero, Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Over the 10-year period from 2011 to 2021, the U.S. correctional population declined 22%. A drop in the number of persons supervised in the community on probation accounted for 65% of this overall change, while decreases in the number of persons incarcerated in state and federal prison accounted for 26% of the change.
In 2021, the U.S. incarceration rate increased for the first time in 15 years. However, the rate was still lower than the pre-COVID-19 pandemic rate of 810 per 100,000 in 2019. The increase in the incarceration rate was driven by a 16% growth in the number of persons housed in local jails, which held an additional 87,200 persons from 2020 to 2021.
In 2021, the community supervision rate fell to a 21-year low of 1,440 persons on probation or parole per 100,000 adult U.S. residents, after declining each year since it peaked at 2,240 persons per 100,000 in 2007. At yearend 2021, an estimated 3,745,000 adults were under community supervision, down 136,600 persons from January 1, 2021. During 2021, the probation population decreased in 31 states and in the U.S. federal system and increased in 18 states and the District of Columbia. The rate of adults on probation in 2021 was at its lowest point in 36 years (1,143 per 100,000 adult U.S. residents)....
Changes in the demographic characteristics of the U.S. correctional population were small from 2020 to 2021 but were greater than 20% over the decade from 2011 to 2021. The number of males in the total correctional population declined less than 1% (down 28,300) from 2020 to 2021, while the number of females decreased 3% (down 32,800). Compared to 2011, the number of males under correctional supervision in 2021 declined by 21% and females decreased 25%. Over that same decade, the number of black persons under correctional supervision decreased more than 27%, while the number of Hispanic persons declined 21% and whites declined 20%.
“It is important to note that while blacks and Hispanics remain incarcerated at greater rates than whites, we are seeing long-term reductions in those differences,” said Director Piquero.
Correctional Populations in the United States, 2021 – Statistical Tables was written by BJS Statisticians E. Ann Carson, PhD, and Richard Kluckow, DSW. It provides statistics from several BJS data collections on persons living in the community while supervised by probation or parole agencies and those incarcerated under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities or in the custody of local jails.
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2021 was written by BJS Statistician Danielle Kaeble. Findings are from BJS’s Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey and Federal Justice Statistics Program, which are the only national data collections that cover community corrections in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. federal system.
February 23, 2023 at 10:59 AM | Permalink
Comments
Well, Doug, here's another example of the system being rigged--think the IRS will have something to say about this:
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2023/02/22/eric-swalwell-was-livin-la-vida-loca-spent-583k-in-campaign-funds-on-yachts-resorts-and-limos-n707348
Posted by: federalist | Feb 23, 2023 11:17:05 AM
Your concern, federalist, about "the system being rigged" contributes to my concerns about how "the system" decides who should be locked in cages.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 23, 2023 11:58:34 AM
Me too Doug. I just don't extend my concern to those who rape, rob and kill, and I part company with those who think that society should go easy on those people because there are other issues in society. That Eric Swalwell gets to live the high life without paying taxes on the "bennies" doesn't mean that Arizona should get to fry Cruz.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 23, 2023 12:22:31 PM
Arizona shouldn't
Posted by: federalist | Feb 23, 2023 1:03:19 PM
Doug --
"Your concern, federalist, about "the system being rigged" contributes to my concerns about how "the system" decides who should be locked in cages."
Not sure what you're saying here. Is it your view that judges and juries are "rigged"? In what way? Bought off? And do you think the defendant's conduct -- you know, the conduct that got him arrested to begin with -- had anything to do with his getting "locked in a cage"?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 23, 2023 2:59:55 PM
When a pol gets to take campaign funds and live the high life, there are obvious IRS implications (and funny how Hunter didn't have to pay his taxes either). They skate because they are connected. It's a problem. Don't think that should keep a murderer from getting zapped
Posted by: federalist | Feb 23, 2023 3:38:38 PM
I do not think judges and jurors are rigged, Bill, but I do think the "the system is rigged" when a jury can acquit a defendant and then the judge must sentence on the acquitted facts. I think "the system is rigged" when Jeffrey Epstein gets only 18 months in a Florida sentence (and a federal non-prosecution agreement) while Jared Stephens gets 150 years in Florida prison for conduct far less reprehensible. I think "the system is rigged" when only certain people in Chicago get lured into fake stash-house stings that results in decades in federal prison while connected people like Judge Camp get to plea down to misdemeanors on various drug and gun offenses. I could go on and on if you would like, Bill, but I hope you get the idea.
Importantly, I still love our justice system, Bill, so please do not accuse me (or federalist) of being a "hater." But it can and should aspire to be even better in all sorts of ways.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 23, 2023 5:57:22 PM
Doug --
How many times did I ever accuse you of being a hater? I'm quite sure the answer is zero, but I'll stand to be corrected if you can find any quotation of mine that says that.
I do think however, that you are seriously misguided in using scattered anecdotes out of literally millions of cases to paint the whole system as "rigged." I was in the system for a long time. It makes errors, like anything else human beings create, but it's not rigged. To the contrary, it makes more efforts, and more successful efforts, to get it right than almost any other institution I can think of.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 23, 2023 8:59:04 PM
I did not say you called me a "hater," Bill, I was just seeking to make sure you did not take my comments as an excuse to lump me in with the "Blame America First" crowd that you like to rail against. After all, you keep taking issue with me for using terminology that federalist brought into the discussion.
I agree with you that our system makes serious efforts to "get it right," but the extraordinary scale of our criminal justice system and punishments means that "errors" are profoundly impactful (and leads to you and Tarls and others claiming that 150 years for Jared Stephens "gets it right"). And, as federalist notes, the "connected" are best able to avoid these errors and the marginalized mostly absorb them.
That all said, I do not really think "rigged" is a helpful or fair term to describe the system as a whole. Here, I was eager to highlight how federalist's assertion about "the system being rigged" contributes to my concerns about how we decide who gets sent to prison and for how long. Interesting that you did not seek to interrogate federalist's initial claim about "the system being rigged." I guess I better stop quoting federalist since you apparently have problems with his claim and word choices, but only when I quote them.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 23, 2023 9:37:10 PM
Doug --
"I agree with you that our system makes serious efforts to "get it right," but the extraordinary scale of our criminal justice system and punishments means that "errors" are profoundly impactful..."
Well you're certainly right about that. Erroneous acquittals embolden the lucky criminal to go out and do it again, only worse, because now he has good evidence that he can flim-flam the system. And sweetheart plea deals that let the criminal off with accountability for a mere fraction of what he did result in much the same thing (and of course bring the system into disrepute for failing adequately either to do full justice or protect the public).
"And, as federalist notes, the 'connected' are best able to avoid these errors and the marginalized mostly absorb them."
Two points. First, this is true of virtually every aspect of life, so complaining about it is much like complaining that the sky is blue. Second, people do not as a general matter get "connected" out of the blue. You're now a chaired professor at a big school. Did that just fall out of the sky? Somehow I doubt it. I think you got "connected" because you worked harder and cared more than other people. And if you get credit for that by life's various institutions, legal, educational and otherwise, I have no problem with it at all and neither should you.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2023 12:11:21 AM
Doug, here's an example of a rigged justice system--rigged against the law-abiding: https://www.americanexperiment.org/court-failures-continue-as-gun-offender-murders-a-man-just-40-minutes-after-walking-out-of-court/
Posted by: federalist | Feb 24, 2023 8:24:46 AM
Bill: I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I take your closing sentiments to be, in essence: "Rich/successful/powerful people do better in virtually every aspect of life, and so we ought not bother to complain about the fact that criminal justice system treats them better AND the rich/successful/powerful are generally better people and so we ought not be troubled when they get treated better in our criminal justice systems." I suspect Hunter Biden would love to have you write an amicus brief on his behalf.
federalist: Since Bill seems not to want to ask you these questions, I will follow up with his query: "rigged justice system" In what way? Bought off? Based on the press story, it appears that the shooter here was held on bond after a June 2022 drive-by shooting. I could not find if that was a cash bond or how much it was. But maybe Bill will say that we should have no problem with somebody being "connected" and thus having the money to pay a bond to secure liberty (that was obviously misused).
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 24, 2023 9:25:56 AM
Doug --
This is just classic you as pro-crime advocate rather than scholar.
-- "Bill: I do not want to put words in your mouth, but..." This of course is what always precedes putting words in my mouth, which you proceed to do with gusto.
-- "...I take your closing sentiments to be, in essence: "Rich/successful/powerful people do better in virtually every aspect of life..."" And that's true, isn't it?
-- "...and so we ought not bother to complain about the fact that criminal justice system treats them better..." As you and your allies have insisted many, many times, a defendant who's led a productive life and made one "mistake" should get more of a break than a lifelong sleazy or violent thug. Why is this true when you say it but false when I do?
"...AND the rich/successful/powerful are generally better people..." This is because those people generally (not always, but generally) got to be that way for the same reason you and I did, to wit, they worked at it and invested themselves into something productive. Something wrong with that?
"...and so we ought not be troubled when they get treated better in our criminal justice systems." See above. And yes, the criminal justice system absolutely should treat differently situated people differently. Does any rational person disagree with that.
"I suspect Hunter Biden would love to have you write an amicus brief on his behalf." Hunter is an admitted druggie who traded of his father's influence. True, some people who do well in life get there that way, but most who do well get their by their own legitimate effort, as you did.
If little Hunter ever does get indicted, however, he can't afford me, and I wouldn't work for him even if he could.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2023 3:07:59 PM
Not seeking to be an advocate or a scholar in the deep comments of a blog, rather just seeking to understand your comments and their implications. And, if I am understanding your latest comments, it seems that you generally endorse how I articulated your views. Good to know that I continue to understand where you are coming from.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 24, 2023 3:18:14 PM
Doug --
If you actually want to know what my views are, it's really easy.
READ WHAT I WRITE, neither more nor less.
Your paraphrase of my views are your words not mine, and you have neither the portfolio nor (to be blunt) the desire to give my thoughts anything but spin.
You also seem to have developed the quite odd avocation of trying to play me off against federalist. Good luck with that.
But two questions: Do you agree that, not always but generally, successful people in life get there because of their own effort? And do you agree that, at sentencing, a first offender productive person should be given better treatment that a lifelong grifter?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2023 3:35:42 PM
I always read what you write, Bill, and then I try to understand the implications thereof. When I decided to write in my own words what I think the implications are, you can decide whether you want to correct me or agree with my account or ignore me. This round it seems you mostly agreed with my account. That leads me to feel more confident that I properly understand where you are coming from.
Meanwhile, I am not trying to "play you off against federalist." I just highlighted that twice recently you decided to take issue with terms federalist used only when I repeated them. If you want to nit-pick his words only when I use them, that's certainly your prerogative.
As for your questions: "Do you agree that, not always but generally, successful people in life get there because of their own effort?" A whole lot hangs on the word "generally," but I would generally agree. I think certain folks, myself included, start with advantages that can make it a lot easier to convert effort into success. In addition, I would be eager to add that a whole lot of people put in a lot of effort for a whole life without finding a lot of success.
"And do you agree that, at sentencing, a first offender productive person should be given better treatment than a lifelong grifter?" I fully agree that a first offender should get "better treatment" at sentencing that someone with a long criminal history. Indeed, I have authored a number of sentencing documents to make that point to federal judges in federal proceedings. But I wonder if you would call Bernie Madoff or Elizabeth Holmes or Brock Turner "a first offender productive person."
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 24, 2023 4:09:16 PM
Doug --
"But I wonder if you would call Bernie Madoff or Elizabeth Holmes or Brock Turner 'a first offender productive person'."
I have lots of doubts that any of them was a first offender in the ordinary sense. That is, I'd guess that Madoff and Holmes had been cheating for years, and that Turner had taken liberties with women before (although he was only 20 so he did have all that long to commit sex crimes). I guess all of them were first offenders in the legal sense, i.e., they had no prior criminal record.
What kind of treatment they get depends in part on their life history, sure, but also in part on the gravity of the offense, which in each of their cases was very serious (their defense lawyers' comically false pleadings notwithstanding). Turner's "oh-perverts-are-so-wonderful" sentence was so disgustingly lenient that the judge who gave it got recalled in an ultra-liberal jurisdiction -- as I noted in my piece in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/06/08/should-an-unpopular-sentence-in-the-stanford-rape-case-cost-a-judge-his-job/a-judges-recall-is-warranted-for-an-indecent-sentence
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2023 5:32:59 PM
Brock Turner's sentence was both lenient and not. Lifetime SO registration is no picnic.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 24, 2023 6:11:36 PM
Bill wrote:
"if you get credit [when being sentenced] for that by life's various institutions, legal, educational and otherwise, I have no problem with it at all"
Bill: Wondering what your thoughts are on the sentencing of former GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who, while employed as a high school wrestling coach, sexually abused numerous underage teenage boys, some as young as 14 years of age (to be clear, there were more than one victim; and as one of the victims had stated, the molestations were being committed on a continuing and ongoing basis). As you well know, the position of teacher/coach carries with it special power and authority, which Hastert (evidently) took full advantage so as to satisfy his perverted sexual needs.
Specifically, Bill, I am curious as to your thoughts on his sentence which did NOT include an order to register as a sex offender. What do you think of that? Was this in your opinion 'special treatment', or not? Would this be evidence of the system 'being rigged' to favor the rich, powerful, and/or connected, or not? Was this a comparatively light sentence in contrast to so many other sex offenders who have recieved decades in prison for doing a lot less? (Doug points to the sentencing of Jared Stephens in Florida...150 years?) Do you believe that Mr. Hastert's sentence was as a result of his 'living a good life' as a conservative politician after he had molested all of the boys?
(I do not seek to put words in your mouth as I am aware of your profound sensitivies in this area. If you feel that I have done so, I humbly apologize. I am not looking to set you off).
But I would love to hear your thoughts on this Hastert sentencing. Here are the facts as to the sentencing/punishment:
In May 2015, Hastert was indicted on federal charges of structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators. Federal prosecutors said that the funds withdrawn by Hastert were used as hush money to conceal his past sexual misconduct. Referring to Hastert as a "serial child molester", a federal judge imposed a sentence of 15 months in prison, two years' supervised release, and a fine. Hastert admitted to the numerous sexual abuse charges. He served 13 of the 15 months in prison.
Again, no order to register as a sex offender (even federalist characterizes life on the registry as 'no picnic'). Would you have ordered Speaker Hastert, serial child molester, to register as a sex offender?
Your thoughts would be so appreciated. Thank you.
Posted by: SG | Feb 26, 2023 10:05:03 PM
SG --
The Hastert case is very much worth discussing. I'd be happy to. However, it's not a one-way street, as I've mentioned to you before. I'm not going to answer your questions while you walk past mine. I will agree to answer your comment here if you agree, within 48 hours after my answer, to respond in this space with your real name, educational background, and professional standing and accomplishments.
Do we have that agreement?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 27, 2023 2:23:35 PM
My personal identification, history, background is exquisitely unimportant as it relates to the issues at hand. I choose not to share such information on any public website or with anyone who would (highly) likely repeat that info absent specific agreement or consent. If you choose not to engage in honest debate, on the merits, so be it. The info that I will share is the following: I have 25 years experience as a licensed criminal defense investigator/legal assistant, and twenty-three years experience as a substance abuse counselor. I hold two degrees - one in criminology and another in what is referred to as “Human Services”. I choose not to disclose the names of the colleges that I attended, but it was not Stanford. I believe this info is sufficient to satisfy your curiosity and merit a response on the issues. So I’m looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for your interest.
Posted by: SG | Feb 27, 2023 6:43:24 PM
SG --
I tend to like to know the name of the person I'm talking to, and of course my own personal info is well known because I view hiding as bad form. I think anonymity tends to breed poor behavior. Still, it seems you are acting in good faith here, so I'll answer, although I have no great insight. My info comes from the Wikepedia page, which is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
Child abuse is a state crime. The feds had no jurisdiction for it (it was not on federal land), so the federal prosecution was for money structuring and false statements. Hastert structured payments to the boys to avoid the suspicion that would be aroused by big withdrawals, then lied about it when interviewed by the FBI.
The state brought no prosecution because the statute of limitations had run on the sexual exploitation. That might have changed since then, but I don't know much about Illinois law.
Hastert pleaded guilty to the fed charges under a plea agreement in which the false statements allegation was dismissed. The feds (under a Democratic US Attorney appointed by Obama) recommended a within-guidelines sentence of 6 months, the top point of the USSG range. They did not seek an upward departure, although by then the real story of why these payments were made was known. Hastert's defense attorneys asked for straight probation with no jail time (Do you think that request was commendable given the nauseating facts of the case? Would you have made it?).
The statutory max was 5 years. The judge, Judge Thomas M. Durkin, an Obama appointee, imposed a sentence of 15 months in prison, two years' supervised release, including sex-offender treatment, and a $250,000 fine. Hastert is one of the highest-ranking American politicians ever sentenced to prison, although in my opinion it wasn't enough.
To my knowledge the money structuring statute under which he was convicted contains no provision allowing the court to require sex offender registration, so I can't blame the judge for not ordering it. You follow the law before you follow your anger, especially if you are a judge.
My main takeaway from the case is this: Thank God for the relevant conduct rule and the real offense system of sentencing. Although Judge Durkin didn't get anywhere near the statutory max, he went way above the top of the USSG range and the parties' recommendations. I'm sure he did that because he was allowed to consider, and did consider, uncharged conduct -- but conduct that was absolutely essential to understanding what the defendant did here, which went way beyond antiseptic money structuring. If the judge had not been allowed to consider uncharged conduct, the outcome would have been grotesque -- dishonest and unjust.
And that the defense lawyer sought NO JAIL TIME for what his client was doing -- well, that tells you all you need to know about why I never wanted to be a defense lawyer.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 28, 2023 1:55:36 AM
SG --
Now that you have my response on the merits, as requested, I'd like to hear what you think of the Obama-appointed US Attorney recommending such a paltry sentence in light of the defendant's awful conduct at the heart of the case; what you think of the defense attorney's even more preposterous NO JAIL AT ALL recommendation; whether you think being a defense attorney excuses indecency in the face if years of child abuse; and whether you agree with me that the real offense system of sentencing is about the only thing in this case that's even arguably wholesome.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 2, 2023 3:03:19 PM
Bill,
Thanks for the questions.
1. I am not at all sure that it was the "Obama-appointed U.S. Atty." for that district who "recommended the paltry sentence". Isn't it the practice of U.S. Atty's to allow their AUSA (who is responsible for the case) to make the sentencing recommendations? When you were an AUSA, did your boss (the U.S. Atty. for your district) direct you to make specific sentencing recommendations in high profile cases, which you were then bound to follow?
To answer the question more directly, I believed it to be a travesty of justice to give someone such as Hastert "special" treatment, that is, that the Govt. did not seek the maximum allowed by the guidelines. This is the issue what we were orginally debating - 'special treatment' extended to those who appear to enjoy greater status in society, due to wealth, fame, position, etc., and which you/others claim is somewhat deserved as it reflects their 'good life choices' that then resulted in this elevated status (I realize that this is a paraphrase of prior statements made by you/others. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe I got the gist of it).
2. "...the defense attorney's even more preposterous NO JAIL AT ALL recommendation".
This is perfectly acceptable and allowed under the law and does not shock me in the slightest. Two points on this: One, as "no jail time" was a possible outcome allowed by law, it is the duty of the defense attorney to get "the best possible outcome for the client", which would include no jail time, as presposterous a proposition as it may be.
AND, this is not necessarily a reflection of the defense attorney's personal opinion as to what is "fair and just" in this case. What is "fair and just" is not the defense attorney's concern (which I believe outrages you to the nth degree, more than anything else in regards to the Hastert case. If I'm wrong, please correct).
Secondly, I believe you to be presuming that Hastert had no personal input as to the attorney's recommendation. Hastert very well may have instructed his attorney to make this specific recommendation, for whatever reason (perhaps he didn't want to go to prison?). This cannot be ruled out. I have had clients who instructed their attorney what to recommend even tho we all (including the client) knew it wasn't reasonable and was very unlikely to be adopted by the court.
3. In respect to sex offender registration: Even though you had not queried my opinion in your most recent posting about this subject, this issue was previously raised and you responded in one of your previous postings that (essentially) the court did not have jurisdiction to order Hastert onto the sex offender registry. I disagree. Considering the uncharged crimes (continuing sexual abuse of minors), which were admitted to by the defendant (and thus, no 6th Amend. issues would arise), the court certainly could have made the order to register part of the conditions of supervised release. Such an order is de rigeuer in sexually based offenses in all of the federal sentencings that I am familiar with (not nearly as many as you, I'm sure). And this is THE NUMBER ONE issue that most shocks and offends me. And this is the issue which most reflects the "special treatment" extended to Hastert. This is vastly more outrageous than a defense attorney recommending no jail time. So this, along with the unbelievably short period of supervised release (2 years? My god!) is clearly a benefit which Hastert did NOT deserve given the nature of his crimes, his deceit, his lies, etc.
4. I do agree that "the real offense system of sentencing is about the only thing in this case that's even arguably wholesome". HOWEVER, when put in the hands of a court that bends to political, social and professional pressures, it is not even close to "wholesome". It corrupts that which is "wholesome", and makes the entire system a mockery. If on the other hand, the court cited extraordinary efforts by the defendant POST-INDICTMENT to atone for his crimes, as well as extraordinary efforts to address his mental, psychological, sexual and emotional dysfunctions, that may somewhat justify the court's decisions.
Posted by: SG | Mar 2, 2023 10:42:17 PM
SG --'
1. "I am not at all sure that it was the 'Obama-appointed U.S. Atty." for that district who 'recommended the paltry sentence'. Isn't it the practice of U.S. Atty's to allow their AUSA (who is responsible for the case) to make the sentencing recommendations? When you were an AUSA, did your boss (the U.S. Atty. for your district) direct you to make specific sentencing recommendations in high profile cases, which you were then bound to follow?"
I never had a defendant who used to be third in line to the Presidency.
The US Attorney is responsible for ALL the professional actions of his subordinates. And in a case as enormously prominent and publicized as this, I assure you that the US Attorney personally approved this (paltry) sentencing recommendation. So your effort (for strictly political reasons) to insulate the Obama-appointed US Attorney from the carefully calculated actions of his own office fails.
2. The fact that zero jail time was "allowed by the law" counts for zip. Not prosecuting the case AT ALL was also allowed by the law. Would that have been OK with you?
"What is 'fair and just' is not the defense attorney's concern..."
I cannot thank you enough for this explicit admission. I plan to quote it extensively when I keep hearing on this blog that defense attorneys are in fact the knights in shining armor of fairness and justice, standing up to the thuggy, vindictive prosecutors who are there simply to ruin people's lives by insisting on overly punitive laws. It's very refreshing to have someone so close to criminal defense admit that defense counsel HAVE ZERO INTEREST in either fairness or justice and operate simply to get away with whatever skimpy outcome they can for their disgusting client.
P.S. Maybe defense lawyers could therefore get off their high horse, ya think?
"Secondly, I believe you to be presuming that Hastert had no personal input as to the attorney's recommendation. Hastert very well may have instructed his attorney to make this specific recommendation..."
Of course the defense lawyer could easily have said, "Look Mr. Hastert, I have a reputation in this town as a reasonable, responsible person. That's worth a lot to me. I also have teenage children I have to look in the eye. I am not going to make a preposterous, disgusting sentencing recommendation, and if you insist on one, I quit."
But maybe the fat fee was too much for defense counsel to resist, ya think?
3. "And this is the issue which most reflects the 'special treatment' extended to Hastert."
And who did the extending? The Obama-appointed US Attorney's Office and the Obama-appointed judge.
I will say this in their (reluctant) defense, however: With no statutory authorization under the offense of conviction (money structuring), I don't see the authority to order registration. Can you cite a single case where the only offense of conviction was money structuring and the court ordered the defendant to register as a sex offender? Any case?
"So this, along with the unbelievably short period of supervised release (2 years? My god!) is clearly a benefit which Hastert did NOT deserve given the nature of his crimes, his deceit, his lies, etc."
That, of course, is to be laid at the feet of the Obama-appointed district judge, who could have gone up to the statutory max (60 months) but gave jail time ONLY ONE-QUARTER THAT LONG (15 months). What excuse can you offer for this astonishing leniency?
4. "I do agree that "the real offense system of sentencing is about the only thing in this case that's even arguably wholesome". HOWEVER, when put in the hands of a court that bends to political, social and professional pressures, it is not even close to 'wholesome'."
You have produced no evidence that Judge Durkin bent to any of those pressures, and it would be very odd if he did, since he's a Democrat. Far more likely is that he simply woodenly believes in the overriding mantra of criminal defense, leniency-uber-alles. Maybe a more thoughtful and nuanced mantra is called for.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 3, 2023 2:57:08 PM
Bill,
Thanks for the response. In reply:
1. As to whether or not the U.S. Atty. was an Obama appointee is unimportant to me (though it seems to be very, very important to you). I say a pox be upon both houses.
2. You also write:
"...when I keep hearing on this blog that defense attorneys are in fact the knights in shining armor of fairness and justice, standing up to the thuggy, vindictive prosecutors who are there simply to ruin people's lives by insisting on overly punitive laws".
Well, yeah...I believe you nailed it. Well done!
3. Then you come up with this nonesense about how the defense attorney should threaten to quit rather than request a lenient sentence, possibly as a result of a direct instruction by the client. And why?Because of some potential damage to the defense attorney's reputation, be it as it may?!? I got a good chuckle out of that one, Bill, especially since you hold all defense atty's. in such exceedingly low regard.
4. As to the issue of sex offender registration, you wrote: "With no statutory authorization under the offense of conviction (money structuring), I don't see the authority to order registration".
I tend to disagree with this explanation. I offer you this from the U.S.Sent.Guidelines: "In determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range, or whether a departure from the guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without limitation, any information concerning the background, character and conduct of the defendant, unless otherwise prohibited by law."
I would further suggest a quick review of 18 U.S.C. §3553(2), which states in part: "In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline, the court shall impose an appropriate sentence, having due regard for the purposes set forth in §3553 subsection (a)(2)".
In light of the factors set forth in §3553(a)(2), I believe there is clear authority for the judge to impose a sex offender registration order.
Posted by: SG | Mar 4, 2023 8:43:09 AM
