« "Lowering Jail Populations Safely Before, During, and After COVID-19: Updated Findings on Jail Reform, Violent Crime and the COVID-19 Pandemic" | Main | A distinct project for 2025 focused on criminal justice reform »
July 12, 2024
Should sentencing reform advocates have a rooting interesting in Donald Trump's running mate selection?
Almost exactly eight years ago today, I posted here under the title "Scouting Mike Pence on criminal justice: likely Trump VP pick with notably mixed reform record." Sixth month later, after Mike Pence became Vice President, I had this post asking "Is VP Pence going to be a key player for possible federal sentencing reform?". These posts serve as a kind of backstory reminder that a presidential candidate's pick of a running mate might be, or might not be, a matter of interest and concern for advocates of criminal justice reforms.
Of course, I bring this up because it seem we may be only days away from Donald Trump picking a new running mate. This new NBC News piece, headlined "Trump teases his VP pick timing and names 4 finalists," provides this account of timelines and possibilities:
Former President Donald Trump on Friday said that he'd like to announce his vice presidential running mate next week, potentially during the Republican National Convention, and named four key allies as potential picks.
"I’d love to do it during the convention, which would be you know, or just slightly before the convention, like Monday, love to do it on Tuesday or Wednesday, actually, but for a lot of complex reasons that you people understand, pretty much don’t do that," Trump told "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show."
Trump has been in no rush to reveal his running mate, more than happy to cede the spotlight to the Democratic Party, which is embroiled in the fallout of President Joe Biden's rough debate performance. The former president has a rally scheduled for Saturday evening in western Pennsylvania.
Trump indicated, as NBC News has reported previously, that his VP short list includes GOP Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and JD Vance of Ohio and North Dakota GOP Gov. Doug Burgum. He also named Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., as having been "fierce and great" during a recent television appearance. "We have a very good bench,” the former president said.
He also shed light on the vetting process, calling it a "highly sophisticated version of 'The Apprentice,'" referring to the popular reality TV show Trump hosted in the 2000s. Still, Trump described his decision-making process as, "ultimately ... more of an instinct."
I know Senator Scott has been an advocte for some policing reforms, and that both Senators Scott and Rubio voted for the First Step Act and other federal reforms that have garnered bipartisan approval. In addition, I believe Governor Burgham, who gets much love from me thanks to his first name, signed into law a number of modest criminal justice reforms for North Dakota. And Senator Vance has asserted that "We live in a third world country with a two-tiered justice system."
Though I have seen many political pundits assert that VP picks do not really move the needle as to election outcomes, I am still inclined to believe that a VP can prove meaningful and perhaps even consequential on some policy matters (especially when the president may be inclined to take various paths on a particular policy issue). So, to repeat the question in the title of this post:
Should sentencing reform advocates have a rooting interesting in Donald Trump's running mate selection?
July 12, 2024 at 04:04 PM | Permalink
Comments
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/241165np.pdf
I would be interested to hear thoughts on this case from Doug B.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 12, 2024 5:09:02 PM
I am not on expert on civil rights claims or bail jurisprudence, federalist. What do you find notable about what seems like a modest procedural ruling?
Posted by: Doug B | Jul 13, 2024 9:07:06 AM
FEDERALIST:
You go first.
Posted by: Schmederalist | Jul 13, 2024 11:14:00 AM
The substance. It's along the same lines as outrageous fees for long distance calls for inmates. I think that, particularly given the fact that this guy hasn't been convicted, this is a problem.
You and I probably see eye to eye on the concerns.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 15, 2024 10:12:18 AM
You might add this one to your "collateral consequences" posts---and this guy hasn't been convicted.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 15, 2024 10:26:09 AM
What (now VP candidate) Vance meant by the "two-tiered system of justice" was not at all what the pro-crime crowd means. He meant one tier for everyone else and another, more vindictive tier for Trump. Today's ruling by Judge Cannon certainly looks in that direction.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 15, 2024 4:39:58 PM
Which "tier," Bill, were the Jan 6 crowd subject to? How about all the businesses openly dealing marijuana during the Obama/Trump/Biden years not subject to federal prosecution? How about Paul Manafort? How do we figure out who is being subject to which tiers?
Also, is it politics that drives federal prosecutors to have another tier for Trump? Was DOJ wholly devoid of political concerns before Trump came along, or has there been politics at work for eons (see, eg, Hoover)?
Posted by: Doug B | Jul 15, 2024 5:26:47 PM
federalist, based on a google search, the guy in the case you cite seems to be quite the serious troublemaker: "State police said they’ve arrested a man accused of threatening a Butler County magistrate’s office. Police said Matthew Dec, 54, called the office of Magistrate Lewis Stoughton in Chicora and threatened to burn down the judge’s place and threatened staff. State police said Dec is facing multiple charges including terroristic threats." https://www.wtae.com/article/man-accused-of-threatening-butler-county-magistrates-office/44113372
Notably, another press piece mentioned this guy has a lengthy criminal history: "Dec has a criminal history, including numerous harassment, reckless endangerment and DUI charges as well as vehicle code violations." https://www.butlereagle.com/20230607/police-man-threatens-district-judge-jailed-tuesday/
Again, because I do not follow bail issues closely, I do not know whether this seemingly serious charge for someone with considerable criminal history would usually lead to a bail of "only" $25,000 or whether a bail condition of monitored house arrest (paid for by the defendant) is unusual. Are you arguing against all cash/money bail, federalist, with this case as your focus?
I know there are a number of folks who want to abolish all cash/money bail in all cases. Is that what is driving your interest/concern in this case? Or is it allowing house arrest as a condition with a charge? I suspect a charge of "only" $15/day to be on house arrest rather than in jail is a deal many incarcerated --- like some Jan 6 folk now going on three+ years in pre-trial custody --- would eagerly jump at. (The phone fee complaint is about people in prison being charged $15 just for a 30 minute call home, not getting to go home for that price.)
Relatedly, this is not really a "collateral consequences" issue --- which is typically about the formal and informal consequences of a conviction that are "collateral" to the case itself. This is more or a direct money bail and direct (financial) conditions of bail. Am I missing something? Is there a reason you are especially sympathetic to this seemingly dangerous repeat offender getting bail on these terms?
Posted by: Doug B | Jul 15, 2024 5:54:32 PM
Doug --
"Which 'tier,' Bill, were the Jan 6 crowd subject to?"
You'd have to ask Merrick Garland. I'm no longer at DOJ.
"How about all the businesses openly dealing marijuana during the Obama/Trump/Biden years not subject to federal prosecution?"
Ditto. Although I will say that each administration has priorities required by finite resources. If it were my choice, I too would go after fentanyl, meth, smack and other stuff beloved by (many) libertarian crackpots before I'd go after pot.
"How about Paul Manafort?"
He's a criminal jackass who probably got off easy.
"How do we figure out who is being subject to which tiers?"
You're assuming your conclusion -- that there are tiers. That's generally Leftist code for "racist treatment of blacks." In my extensive experience in the USAO, that allegation is false under administrations of both parties. But I understand that it's beloved in legal academia, which can't get enough of race huckstering and various related themes about how Amerika Stinks.
P.S. Thank you for not disputing what I actually said, namely, that the remark by Vance was assuredly not the pro-"criminal justice reform" sentiment it was implied to be in the entry.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 15, 2024 7:42:56 PM
Bill, you seemed to be claiming you know what Senator Vance meant with his two-tier point. That's why I asked you about how these tiers work. Now you seems to be asserting that, contra Vance's statement, that there are no tiers in how DOJ pursues justice. Can you clarify whether you agree with Vance's assertion that "We live in a third world country with a two-tiered justice system."
If you click through to what I linked, here is more of what Senator Vance said: "The actions of the corrupt Department of Justice should stand as a warning to all Americans: If the leader of our great nation could fall victim to such an injustice the same can happen for anybody. President Trump’s indictment further perpetuates the fact that we have succumbed as a nation to a banana republic, whose elite class decides the winners and the losers."
I know you have resisted engaging with federalist's repeated assertions that DOJ is corrupt. Senator Vance also makes this claim, and says DOJ corruption could cause "injustice ... for anybody," and that an "elite class" of politicians/prosecutors "decides the winners and the losers." In spirit, that sounds a lot like what we hear from a variety of advocates for criminal justice reform, though many CJ reformers just assert that our justice system is broken, not that DOJ is corrupt.
Posted by: Doug B | Jul 15, 2024 8:28:59 PM
