Court to Consider Cert of Issue of whether Jury Verdicts must be unanimous

This is being reprinted in whole from the Supreme Court Justice blog

SCOTUSblog

Conference Call: Do Guilty Verdicts Have to Be Unanimous?

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 10:39 AM CDT

The Constitution grants defendants the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases.

But when it comes to the details, the Framers were conspicuously silent.

While the Sixth Amendment requires that juries be locally drawn,

it says nothing about how many members must serve, how they should be selected,

or how convinced they must be to find a defendant guilty.

In its first conference of the upcoming term, the Supreme Court will consider

whether to grant review in a case involving perhaps the most fundamental,

and most widely assumed, aspect of jury trials: whether all members

must unanimously agree to render a verdict.

(The conference is scheduled for Sept. 29, and a decision is likely to be announced Sept. 30.

The petition is No. 07-1523, Lee v. Louisiana.)

The justices have answered the question before, in a splintered decision in the early 1970s,

holding that states could permit juries to convict or acquit defendants by as few as 10 votes.

But in a naked appeal to overrule precedent, the petitioner—accompanied by five amicus

briefs, including one from the American Bar Association—asks the justices to restore

a unanimity requirement that had previously extended back to the Middle Ages.

The defendant in the case, Derrick Todd Lee, was arrested in connection with

the 2002 murder of Geralyn Desoto, a university student who,

according to prosecutors, had allowed Lee in her home to use her phone.

(Lee, dubbed the “Baton Rouge Serial Killer,” has been linked to the

murders of six other women in southern Louisiana.)

A grand jury charged Lee with first-degree murder, a capital crime requiring unanimity for conviction.

But shortly before trial, Louisiana amended the indictment to second-degree murder—

a noncapital crime that, under state law, requires the agreement of only 10 jurors to render a verdict.

Following deliberations, the jury voted 11-1 to convict, and the judge sentenced Lee to life without parole.

On appeal, among other issues, Lee argued that the Constitution required

a guilty verdict to be rendered unanimously. Applying the Supreme Court’s

1972 decision in Apodaca v. Oregon, an appeals court swiftly rejected the claim.

In a convoluted decision, four justices in Apodaca found the constitutional

right to a jury trial mandated unanimous verdicts in both state and federal trials.

Four justices found it did not. In the middle was Justice Lewis Powell Jr.,

who concluded that while criminal defendants were entitled to jury trials

in both state and federal court, the unanimity requirement was not

“incorporated” against, or applied to, the states.

Because Powell provided the fifth vote to affirm the defendants’ convictions,

his views controlled. To this day, Oregon and Louisiana remain the only states

that do not require unanimous verdicts in some criminal cases.

With the Court already having addressed the issue, Lee’s petition for certiorari—

filed by Jeffrey Fisher, a law professor and director of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic—

is devoted almost entirely to urging the justices to overrule Apodaca.

In his main line of argument, Fisher says more recent Sixth Amendment decisions

undercut the rationale by which Apodaca was decided.

Whereas the Apodaca plurality looked to the function juries serve in modern society,

the petition contends—citing numerous cases Fisher himself argued—

that the modern Court looks at practices as they existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Fisher further points out that a line of cases beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000),

which required juries to find any factor that increased a defendant’s sentence,

have repeatedly quoted a passage from English commentator William Blackstone

that all criminal accusations must be confirmed by the “unanimous suffrage” of twelve jurors.

To overcome the Court’s adherence to stare decisis—the principle of abiding by prior decisions—

Lee argues that aside from Justice Powell, each of the other eight justices in Apodaca

believed the unanimity requirement should apply equally to both state and federal trials.

In the last thirty years, Fisher says, no justice has advanced Powell’s theory of “partial incorporation.”

Because the unanimity requirement applied in jury trials for hundreds of years

prior to the founding, the petition says the Court should be less reluctant to overrule

decisions that themselves departed from longstanding practice.

Finally, Fisher says recent empirical studies cast doubt on the Apodaca assumption

that unanimous juries were unnecessary to ensure adequate jury deliberation.

For example, the petition explains, in one study of trials in Arizona

(as recounted in the Northwestern Law Review), members of unanimous juries

reported engaging in more thoughtful debate and fears of eccentric holdout jurors did not materialize.

Citing other studies, including a report by the American Bar Association,

Fisher writes that “members of racial and ethnic minorities are often the ones

who are outvoted in non-unanimous verdicts.”

Opposing review, the state of Louisiana contends the petition fails to demonstrate

any special need to overrule Apodaca. Filed by Chief Felony Prosecutor

Antonio M. “Tony” Clayton, the brief in opposition maintains that

unlike the rights to counsel and cross-examination, which Fisher cited in the petition,

jury unanimity is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

If the Court had intended to overrule a prior decision in the Apprendi line of cases,
Clayton says, “it surely would have done something more than simply quote Blackstone.”

Do you think that criminal jury verdicts should/must be unanimous?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio facing federal inquiries based on profiling

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County in Arizona has been in the news
during his four terms in office.
He built his secondary jail out in the desert and placed the inmates in these tents
wearing pink underwear.
He stopped serving coffee when it got expensive and
meals became cold meat, often bologna, sandwiches.

He is currently running for a fifth term and seems likely to be re-elected.
But dark clouds are also descending on the Sherrif and his operation.
The current concern involves arresting illegal immigrants and other legal resident
Hispanics.

"A federal lawsuit by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund

accuses the sheriff’s department of racial profiling and detaining legal residents

and American citizens for long periods while their status is checked.

The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog arm of Congress,

is re-evaluating a program under which federal officials trained the deputies here

and elsewhere in immigration enforcement.

And the mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, has asked the Justice Department

to investigate the tactics employed by Sheriff Arpaio, who first gained national attention

years ago for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear, housing them in tents

and feeding them food of a green hue."

The quote is from a New York Times article that details the accusations.

The focus of the challenges is that the Sheriff's deputies are using racial profiling

and requiring not only a driver's license from Hispanics but a social security card

or other secondary items as well. Anglos need only show a driver's license

when stopped. In addition all are asked about their immigration status.

It will be interesting to watch developments in the various investigations.

There is divided opinion across the country on the constitutional role

police and/or sheriffs should play in respect to the capture of illegal immigrants.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Helping Families When a Mother or Grandmother is in Prison

An excellent article appeared in USA Today about a monthly program in Missouri that
allows young children to have
contact visits with mothers and grandmothers. The setting bears resemblance
to a day care room and allows the children to see that they are not the
only ones with a maternal relative in prison.

In addition the prisoners take courses to help their parenting skills and the visitors can see
the changes as they occur.

Many prisons across the country are beginning to realize the need to address family issues.

This article should be read. Then think about whether our state should consider such a program and
whether it would be accepted by both the public and the correctional institutions.

Share your thoughts with those of us who read this blog.

Public No Longer favors mandatory minimums for non violent offenses

With nearly all American eyes on Washington trying to discover how the financial security of the United States will be handled by Congress, it would seem that mandatory minimums is not the topic to be discussed. However, as we face a mammoth federal deficit and state budgets having problems, this is probably an excellent time to consider where taxpayer money is going and begin to raise some questions about the wisdom of some programs. Prison costs are eating up a greater percentage of budgets in some states than is being allocated for higher education.

60% Oppose Mandatory Minimums For Nonviolent Crimes: Survey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Americans may be starting to rethink one of the toughest recent anticrime practices: mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, says the Christian Science Monitor. A new survey finds 60 percent of respondents opposing mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Nearly 80 percent said judges are best qualified to determine sentences for crimes; nearly 60 percent said they'd be likely to vote for a politician who opposed mandatory minimums. "The public is ahead of the politicians on this," says Julie Stewart, president Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), which commissioned the poll. "This is a message members of Congress haven't heard. [] As a country we believe in individualized justice."

Not everyone believes mandatory minimums should be changed. Attorney General Michael Mukasey opposed the efforts last year to reduce sentences for crack offenders. The Fraternal Order of Police advocates mandatory minimums as an important deterrent to drug crimes. Says the FOP's Jim Pasco: "Nothing focuses the mind on consequences like knowing that you're going to get, for instance, a five-year minimum sentence." FAMM argues that there's no evidence mandatory minimums have helped reduce drug crime, and in fact, often focuses law-enforcement efforts on small-time players rather than drug kingpins.

The full article is here.

Where do you stand on this issue? Should we push our leglators into revising sentencing laws? Should we push for more alternative sentences for non-violent first offenders?

More than 20 years in Solitary

This article appeared in the NY Times on September 23, 2008

September 23, 2008

Two Decades in Solitary

By JOHN ELIGON

He is one of New York’s most isolated prisoners, spending 23 hours a day for the past two decades in a 9-by-6-foot cell. The only trimmings are a cot and a sink-toilet combination. His visitors — few as they are — must wedge into a nook outside his cell and speak to him through a 1-by-3-foot window of foggy plexiglass and iron bars.

In this static existence, Willie Bosket, 45, seems to have gone from defiant menace to subdued and empty inmate.

It was 30 years ago this month that a state law took effect allowing juveniles to be tried as adults, largely in response to Mr. Bosket’s slaying of two people on a New York subway when he was 15. He served only five years in jail for that crime because he was a juvenile, sparking public outrage. But shortly after completing his sentence, Mr. Bosket was arrested for assaulting a 72-year-old man.

He once claimed to be at “war” with prison officials. He said he laughed at the system and claimed to have committed more than 2,000 crimes as a child. He set fire to his cell and attacked guards. Mr. Bosket was sentenced to 25 years to life for stabbing a guard in the visitors’ room in 1988, along with other offenses, leading prison authorities to make him virtually the most restricted inmate in the state.

Now Mr. Bosket, who has gone 14 years without a disciplinary violation, does mainly three things: read, sleep and think.

“Just blank” is how Mr. Bosket described his existence during a recent interview at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, about 75 miles north of Manhattan. “Everything is the same every day. This is hell. Always has been.”

He is scheduled to remain isolated from the general prison population until 2046.

Mr. Bosket’s seclusion is part of a bigger debate over the confinement of troublesome inmates and the role of the prison system. Some say that Mr. Bosket’s level of seclusion is draconian, that he should be given an opportunity to rejoin the general population.

“He is a very dangerous person; he’s killed people,” said Jo Allison Henn, a lawyer who helped represent Mr. Bosket roughly 20 years ago when he fought unsuccessfully to have some of his restrictions removed. “I’m not saying he should be released from custody entirely, just the custody that he is in. It is beyond inhumane. I don’t think that too many civilized countries do that.”

But proponents of Mr. Bosket’s restrictions say he has proved to be something of an incorrigible danger to prison guards and other inmates and cannot be trusted in the general population. He is evaluated periodically, meaning he could rejoin the general prison population before 2046, said Erik Criss, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections.

“This guy was violent or threatening violence practically every day,” Mr. Criss said. “Granted, it has been a while, but there are consequences for being violent in prison. We have zero tolerance for that.”

From 1985 to 1994, Mr. Bosket was written up nearly 250 times for disciplinary violations that included spitting on guards, throwing food and swallowing the handle of a spoon, according to prison reports.

Few, if any, of the state’s current inmates have been in disciplinary housing longer than Mr. Bosket, said Linda Foglia, a spokeswoman for the corrections department.

Mr. Bosket says he wakes up at 7:15 every morning and gets a visit from a counselor at 8. At 9, he gets his first of three doses of medication for asthma and high cholesterol, he said. Lunch comes at 11:30, followed by more medication at 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.

He is entitled to three showers a week. Other than one hour of recreation a day, also solitary, he may leave his cell only for medical visits and haircuts. The recreation area measures 34 feet by 17 feet, surrounded by nearly 9-foot-high walls with bars on the top. Mr. Bosket said he was chained to a door during his recreation time and could not walk more than six feet, but corrections officials disputed that account, saying he was allowed to roam freely during his hour like other inmates.

And while other prisoners in isolation are escorted to a visiting room when they have guests, he must stay in his cell, speaking through the plexiglass.

Most of his waking hours, he said, are spent reading books, magazines, newspapers and anything else he can get his hands on. His favorite magazine, he said, was Elle.

“It’s very colorful,” he said. “It keeps me up to date on technology and the world.”

Mr. Bosket has long been known as a paradox, a man of charm and extraordinary intelligence but also of inexplicable fits of rage.

“It was like a terrifying metamorphosis when this spark within him went off, and you could see the rage in him building,” said Robert Silbering, a former prosecutor who tried Mr. Bosket for the subway murders. “I never have seen anything like that before or afterward.”

The killings led Gov. Hugh L. Carey to sign a law allowing people as young as 13 to be tried as adults for murder. Mr. Bosket said he saw it as something of an honor that he could drastically change a justice system that he said made him a “monster.”

“If I’m the perfect example, then I’ve been taught well,” he said.

At the sight of a recent visitor, Mr. Bosket cheerfully nodded and, revealing a small gap between his front teeth, gave a friendly, “Hi, how’s it going?”

He spoke with the aura of a professor, using deliberate gestures and emphasizing the ends of many words. He often spoke in metaphors and used stories and quotations to explain his philosophies.

As he contemplated his words, Mr. Bosket often folded his right arm across his bulging stomach and lay the fingers of his left hand across his mouth and nose. He sometimes rocked in his chair.

Despite his bleak situation, Mr. Bosket refused to concede defeat: “I’m not broken down and never will be.”

His life has always been empty, he said.

“I grew up with nothing,” he said. “I was born with nothing. I still have nothing. I will never have nothing. Forty-five years of living the way I have lived, I like ‘nothing.’ No one can take ‘nothing’ from you.”

Mr. Bosket, who has spent all but two years in some form of lockup since he was 9, also said he had formed a “breastplate” from a lifetime of incarceration.

“I’ve become so callous to the poking of the sword that, literally, instead of bleeding to death, the blood was drained and I became absent of concern, void of emotions, cold — plain cold to the degree that not much affects me anymore,” he said.

Yet Mr. Bosket did hint at something of a life of suffering.

“If somebody came to me with a lethal injection, I’d take it,” he said. “I’d rather be dead.”

His change from vicious to quiescent, Mr. Bosket said, was a calculated move. Growing up in Harlem, Mr. Bosket said, his heroes were revolutionaries like Huey Newton and Assata Shakur. He said he believed blacks needed to use violence to survive in the 1970s and ’80s.

But in 1994, he said, he sensed a change in society. “Blacks don’t need to go and attack to get their message across,” he recalled thinking.

He said that he also wanted young people to see positive in his life, and that continued violence could be counterproductive.

“I don’t believe at this point it’s strategic for me to be aggressive or violent,” he said. “I’ve made my point.”

“I’m not proud of a lot of the things I’ve done,” he added.

Mr. Bosket’s sister, Cheryl Stewart, 51, said her brother had expressed remorse in letters.

“What was done was wrong, and if he could redo it, he wouldn’t do it again,” she said. “He knows what was done was wrong and is just sorry for what all has went down.”

Though she corresponds with her brother, Ms. Stewart said she had not visited him in 23 years because it was difficult to see him so confined. Mr. Bosket is lucky to receive more than two visits a year.

Adam Mesinger, a television and movie producer, said he had visited Mr. Bosket seven times over the past four years and is shopping a script for a movie about Mr. Bosket’s life. He said that Mr. Bosket had always been warm and open with him and that he would consider him a friend.

“I have no fear of him,” Mr. Mesinger said. “I don’t think he would ever harm me. I don’t think he ever really wants to harm anybody.”

But not even Mr. Bosket would say that his days of violence are behind him.

“When you’re in hell,” he said, “you can’t predict the future.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

With no violations in 14 years, do you think he deserves a chance to be in general population or is the risk of harm to others too great to take that chance?

Public Defender in Tenn wants alternatives for juvenile

This is being copied from the Tennessean

Public defender wants alternatives to juvenile detention

By KATE HOWARD • Staff Writer • September 22, 2008

• • l.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Buzz up!Nashville's new public defender says she is most proud of two things: the good work her office does in representing the city's poor and being the city's first woman to hold the office.

Dawn Deaner, a 12-year veteran of the office, was appointed by Metro Council Tuesday night to lead the office until 2010. She'll be completing the term of Ross Alderman, who was killed last month in a motorcycle accident.

"I can't say enough about how proud I am to be a part of this office," Deaner said. "And how lucky Nashville is to have had the great public defenders we have had."

Deaner sat down with The Tennessean last week and talked about her respect for the history of the public defender's office and her vision for the future.

Ross Alderman was well respected in your office and in the community. Tell me about some of the qualities he possessed that you admired in him.

He cared deeply about our clients. He was doing this job because he cared, and saw humanity in each client we dealt with. Whether they were a homeless person charged with panhandling, or somebody who had committed a very serious offense, he saw their humanity. I think that's one of the most admirable qualities about him.

He was patient, with all of us. He took the time to listen to all of our gripes, rantings and insecurities, any problems that we had whether they be legal or personal, and didn't look down on any of them. … He would cut through all the emotions of it and give me a clear answer on where I needed to go from there.

What is your philosophy on the role of the public defender in the community?

First and foremost, the role of the public defender is to be an advocate for the community, to provide quality legal defense representation to the poor.

I think in the larger community of the city of Nashville, the public defender can play a role in helping citizens to understand the importance of the criminal justice system, and the importance of the public defender's office to a fair system.

I also think the public defender is somebody who can try to create a positive impact in the communities that we primarily serve. … I heard somebody say there's been plenty of blue-ribbon panels everywhere to try to resolve the issues of the rise in juvenile violent crime, recidivism rates, and lots of issues like that, that predominantly come out in the justice system.

The public defender can't find all the answers to that, but I think the public defender can play a role in finding the answers, by working with the communities those crimes impact. …

I think the public defender has a very important role to play in trying to be creative, finding new ways in the criminal justice system to address root causes of crime, rather than watching as our clients get sent off to jail or prison. One really important thing the public defender can do is look for alternate treatment programs, solutions to the problems that cause crime rather than simply represent people as they go to jail or prison.

What policies or programs that Ross Alderman started do you hope to continue?

The mental health court program (spearheaded by Alderman) I think is important. I think it's important that program continues and it would be great to be able to expand it.

Federal and state money available to the mentally ill in our community is dwindling and dwindling away. It's not only the mentally ill, but the mentally retarded as well. The dollars available are smaller every year.

A large part of the reason we see individuals dealing with those issues is that our criminal justice system is not where they belong. … They should be in treatment, getting the type of special services they need and they wouldn't be in the criminal justice system.

Continuing with the Drug Court programs and trying to find creative solutions for individuals addicted to drugs — and as a result of that are involved in criminal activity — is very important as well. I think most of us in the criminal justice system would say that an overwhelming majority of the offenses we deal with are motivated by drugs in some way.

I think also what needs to be addressed, what I would like to look into, is the issue of juvenile crime and how we can better deal with that. Simply transferring juveniles who commit serious offenses to criminal court for treatment as adults is not, in my opinion, the right solution.

I think I'm interested in seeing if there's some alternatives, some programs that we can develop in our juvenile court system to try to address some of the issues that are more and more affecting juveniles.

What challenges are the public defenders in your office facing today?

Obviously, I'm still learning about those challenges, having only been in this position for my third day now. But the challenges oftentimes here are retaining attorneys, qualified and high-caliber attorneys. The law school debt for most students coming out of law school is enormous. … While their hearts may want to come to the public defender's office, their bills are telling them
they need to go somewhere else.

We have a lot of lawyers here that work second jobs. I know in the district attorney's office as well, a lot of lawyers work part-time second jobs to try to make ends meet.

It's a challenge, retaining lawyers after they've been here a while so you then develop a second tier of qualified, experienced attorneys to handle some of the more serious cases we have. …

In the last budget year, the council and the mayor were gentle to this office, and we didn't see large reductions. We're able for the most part to continue providing the same level of services that we have in the past. … In criminal courts, an average (caseload) is between 25 and 35 indicted cases. On top of that, they usually have 20-40 bound-over clients, who have been through General Sessions Court and are bound over to the grand jury.

How do you think the African-American community in Nashville perceives your office, and what do you plan to do to address those perceptions?

That's a really hard question to answer. I think that members of the African-American community who have had a reason to deal with our office, for the most part, have a positive perception of the office because we do provide high-quality representation here at the office. However … there are clearly some individuals in the community at that forum (last Monday at Jefferson Street Missionary Baptist Church) who expressed a sense that the African-American community here in Nashville perceives that they are not getting high-quality criminal defense representation from our office. I think that's a misperception.

I think what I have to do in the coming months and years ahead is to work harder to try to reach out to members of the African-American community who perhaps don't know firsthand a lot about our office.

One idea was utilizing our Web site more than we have in the past, keeping it more current, and perhaps publicizing a little better through our Web site. I'm also thinking about monthly memos to leaders in the African-American community about some of the successes of this office. … We can be out there more talking about our good news rather than just being dictated by the bad news, our perception being dictated by that.

You said the night you were appointed that you were proud to move from a public defender to THE public defender, because you can shape how the criminal justice system treats your clients. What does that mean to you, and what do you hope to accomplish in this more public role?

I think, what I meant by that is that as the public defender, you are a participant in policymaking decisions, within the larger criminal justice system. For instance, if there's going to be a meeting about whether a particular docket should exist or not, the public defender has the opportunity to offer input into what would be the best outcome for our clientele. …

As an assistant public defender, I viewed my role as helping whatever client I was serving at that moment, and trying to be the best advocate for that client. As the public defender, part of my job would be to advocate for all our clients across the board, and potentially be able to do things that will positively impact what happens to them within the criminal justice system, rather than just on a case-by-case basis.

Court requests video be part of the record

This was taken from law.com

Video from 11th Circuit Excessive Force Case Finds Way to YouTube

When Judge Beverly B. Martin this month dissented to a federal appeals decision

in favor of a sheriff's deputy accused of civil rights violations for using a Taser

on a handcuffed man, she urged that a video of the events in question be published with the opinion.

The suggestion of Martin, a district court judge sitting by designation

with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, went unheeded.

But James V. Cook, the Tallahassee, Fla., attorney representing plaintiff

Jesse Daniel Buckley, apparently took Martin at her word.

On Monday Cook placed a copy of a video shot by a squad car camera on YouTube.

The six-minute video can be found under the term "Buckley v. Haddock."

Cook said Tuesday he is preparing a motion for an en banc rehearing.

The video shows how Florida sheriff's deputy Jonathan Rackard three times used

a Taser on Buckley, who had been stopped for speeding and then refused to sign

the traffic citation. Buckley is handcuffed, sobbing and sitting cross-legged on the ground.

Each Taser jolt administered a five-second, 50,000-volt electric shock, according to the 11th Circuit decision.

In the majority opinion, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson found that Rackard's actions were

"not outside the range of reasonable conduct under the Fourth Amendment."

Judge Joel F. Dubina concurred, although he wrote separately that Rackard's

third use of the Taser against Buckley was unconstitutional.

Martin disagreed, writing "that the Fourth Amendment forbids an officer

from discharging repeated bursts of electricity into an already handcuffed misdemeanant --

who is sitting still beside a rural road and unwilling to move -- simply to goad him into standing up."

Very Important New Bill Passed by Congress

Congress Passes Bill With Protections for Disabled - NYTimes.com

What makes this so important an article is that it illustrates
the way the Congress can correct a Supreme Court decision
involving a statute that Congress believes was mis-interpreted.
If a decision is based on a Constitutional issue, only by amending
the constitution can it be changed.

September 18, 2008

Congress Passes Bill With Protections for Disabled By Robert Pear

WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Wednesday to a major civil rights bill, expanding protections
for people with disabilities and overturning several recent Supreme Court decisions.

The voice vote in the House, following Senate passage by unanimous consent last week, clears the bill for President Bush.

The White House said Mr. Bush would sign the bill, just as his father signed the original Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990.

The bill expands the definition of disability and makes it easier for workers to prove discrimination. It explicitly rejects the strict standards used by the Supreme Court to determine who is disabled.

The bill declares that the court went wrong by “eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect” under the 1990 law.

“The Supreme Court misconstrued our intent,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic leader. “Our intent was to be inclusive.”

In an effort to clarify the intent of Congress, the bill says, “The definition of disability in this act shall be construed in favor of broad coverage.”

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the principal Republican sponsor in the House, said, “Courts have focused too heavily on whether individuals are covered by the law, rather than on whether discrimination occurred.”

Bills passed with overwhelming support are often insignificant or noncontroversial, but that was not true for this bill. “This is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation of our time,” said Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, who uses a wheelchair.

Disagreements over the bill were worked out in two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations that included members of both parties and people with disabilities, as well as the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce.

LeAnne Wilson, chief operating officer of the association, said the bill would help “meet the work force needs” of employers.

Lawrence Z. Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, said the bill would change the outcome of “a slew of cases that were thrown out of court in the past.” Now, he said, “employees who have cancer or diabetes or learning disabilities will get their day in court and are more likely to get accommodations from employers.”

Lawmakers said that people with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other ailments had been improperly denied protection because their conditions could be controlled by medications or other measures. In a Texas case, for example, a federal judge said a worker with epilepsy was not disabled because he was taking medications that reduced his seizures.

In deciding whether a person is disabled, the bill says, courts should not consider the effects of “mitigating measures” like prescription drugs, hearing aids and artificial limbs. Moreover, it says, “an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, the chief sponsor of the bill, said: “The Supreme Court decisions have led to a supreme absurdity, a Catch-22 situation. The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more likely it is the court will find that they are no longer disabled and therefore no longer covered under the A.D.A.”

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said the bill, by establishing more generous coverage and protection, “will make a real difference in the lives of real people.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Something is Seriously Wrong

This is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Boston Globe and which you can read here.

Age Of Shooting Victims Drops As "Disrespect" Leads To Violence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last six years, the number of teenagers, adolescents, and, in extreme cases,
infants rushed to a Boston hospital with bullet wounds has surged as shooters seem
to have abandoned any hesitation to pull the trigger, reports the Boston Globe.
In the last three months, a 7-year-old was hit while playing kickball with friends in,
a 4-year-old was shot while sitting on his porch, and a 5-month-old was wounded
while cradled in her father's arms.

The number of shooting victims 17 years and younger, fatal and nonfatal,

has nearly tripled over a last half- decade, from 23 in 2002 to 67 in 2007.

Young victims represent an expanding proportion of all shooting victims over the

same period, from 13 percent in 2002 to more than 21 percent in 2007. The growing number

of young victims has also caused the average age of shooting victims to fall nearly a year-and-a-half,

from 24.6 to 23.2. Police, crime analysts, and community members say they are dealing

with a generation that has grown so brazen that assailants will turn to guns as a first resort

in even the most inconsequential disputes. "It's no-holds barred," said the Rev. Bruce Wall

of Global Ministries Christian Church in Dorchester. He said that today's shooters lack

any of the code of honor that even the toughest of gang members of years past used to follow.

In Boston, teenagers are shot for things as petty as looking at someone's girlfriend,

crossing the wrong street, or glancing at someone the wrong way, any type of perceived disrespect,

said Police Commissioner Edward Davis.

Does the Criminal Background Law Need Modifying

Experts Explore "Critical Policy Juncture" On Background Checks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Studies in the journal Criminology & Public Policy found that state statutes
requiring employers to check criminal histories often lead to ex-felons being denied
employment. The research indicated that because discrimination against applicants
with criminal histories is common, ex-felons stand a better chance of being hired-and,
consequently, not committing new crimes-when such statutes are not in place.

Professors Michael A. Stoll of UCLA and Shawn D. Bushway of SUNY Albany,
found that state statutes mandating criminal record checks for job applicants
are the key contributor to the underhiring of ex-felons- not biased bosses
with a grudge against ex-cons. When such statutes are not in place, many employers
use the information to avoid negligent hiring lawsuits; others use only
information with a direct connection to the specific job.

Harvard's Richard Freeman suggested that more information about criminal histories

-not less-would alleviate part of the problem. He said that, in the absence of more

nuanced information about the nature of an applicant's criminal background,

employers will think the worst and discriminate more broadly against applicants

with prior convictions- even if they occurred in the distant past or for a trivial, unrelated

offense. Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota argues that we have reached

a "critical policy juncture" on the background check issue. Each writer calls for more

nuanced and sophisticated policies that will preserve public safety while striking

a better balance between the interests of employers and potential workers.

Those who want access to the full text should go to the Web site

the user name: reporter,

password :policy.

The journal is edited by Florida State University.

New FBI report - crime is down

OUR ANNUAL DIGEST OF CRIME Let the Analysis Begin
09/15/08
We’ve just published on this website our most comprehensive statistical product—our latest annual Crime in the United States report—and there are dozens of charts, tables, and documents to explore. Among the many numbers for 2007, the big picture is clear: crime is down. Nationwide, violent crime fell for the first time since 2005. Property crime declined for the fifth straight year. And each of the seven specific offense categories—from aggravated assault to murder—was down from 2006. A few more top line numbers: An estimated 1.4 million violent crimes were reported last year, a drop of 0.7 percent compared to 2006. Property crimes fell 1.4 percent in 2007, to an estimated 9.8 million. Larceny/theft offenses accounted for two-thirds of all property crimes, and victims of property crimes—excluding arson—collectively lost an estimated $17.6 billion. The report is the product of painstaking work by our law enforcement partners and our own Criminal Justice Information Services Division in West Virginia. In 2007, more than 17,700 city, county, college and university, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily participated in the program. Those agencies represented nearly 95 percent of the country’s population. Along with stats on violent crime and property crime, the publication contains a wealth of other information, including: Staffing levels of more than 14,600 U.S. law enforcement agencies; A crime map; Data about the age, gender, and race of arrestees for 29 separate offenses, including murder; and Expanded information relating to homicides. An important note about the numbers: Once again, the report features a prominent message cautioning against using the statistics to rank cities or counties. Such rankings can lead to simplistic or incomplete analyses, overlooking the many variables impacting crime and its reporting. For additional information about our Uniform Crime Reporting program, visit our Frequently Asked Questions page. Resources: Crime in the United States 2007 | National Press Release

Public Defenders' Having to Stop Taking Cases

This article was in USA Today

Public defenders reject new cases

By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY Public defenders are being hit so hard by budget cuts and growing caseloads that offices in several states are refusing to take on more cases because they say defendants' rights are being hurt. Other jurisdictions say they may follow suit. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that poor people charged with a crime have a right to a lawyer. In most states, taxpayers fund a public defenders' office that handles cases of people who cannot afford a private attorney. The American Bar Association cites studies saying a public defender can competently handle 150 to 200 cases a year. The growing caseloads could force states to spend more money on public defenders, delay trials or lead to overturned convictions because of inadequate counsel. "Many public defenders are feeling the squeeze at this point," says Maureen Dimino of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She has heard from public defenders in more than a half-dozen states who are considering challenging their growing caseloads in court. Miami-Dade County Public Defender Bennett Brummer sued Florida in June after the Legislature cut his budget 9%. He said his lawyers, who each handle an average of 436 cases a year, could not take any new clients charged with felonies without being in danger of committing malpractice. A Miami judge ruled last week that starting Sept. 15, Brummer can send his least serious felony cases to the state, which will have to provide attorneys or pay for private lawyers for poor defendants. The ruling, which effects thousands of felonies, "will have statewide and some nationwide impact," Brummer says. "Many defenders would like to take meaningful steps to alleviate their caseloads." Attorneys for the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office are appealing, saying Brummer is exaggerating the caseload. The public defenders are compromising victims' rights by withdrawing, spokesman Ed Griffith says. If a defendant does not get a trial within a set amount of time, a judge is obligated to set the defendant free "to the detriment of all the citizens," he says. Other state public defenders offices taking action: • Kentucky's former public advocate Ernie Lewis, who retired last month, has asked a judge to declare his office underfunded so it can refuse misdemeanor cases. Lewis says his attorneys' caseloads could top 500 each this year because budget cuts forced him to keep nearly 100 positions open. "It's very clear to me that our caseload would be unethical," he says. • The Missouri public defender's office last month notified courts in two jurisdictions that public defenders will reject new cases there. In Ava and Jefferson City, public defenders exceeded the maximum caseload per attorney set by a new state rule. The public defenders office is negotiating the least disruptive way to lessen the caseloads. "Our lawyers have an ethical responsibility to not take on more cases than they can handle," says Cathy Kelly, deputy director for the Missouri State Public Defenders System. "We just feel like we have reached the point where we have to say no."

Add this problem to the overpopulated prisons and you begin to see a pattern of our criminal
justice system in trouble.

Comments?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2008/09/governing-throu.html

This came from a legal professor's listserv and I have copied it in its entirety

‘Governing Through Crime’
September 10, 2008
By H. GEORGE FREDERICKSON

Politics and administration in the penal state


Rehearsing again the grim statistics of American crime and punishment is depressing.
The Pew Center on the States reminds us that one in every hundred American
is behind bars, a rate of incarceration far greater than in other developed countries.
Incarceration is notably skewed along racial lines — one in nine black men
aged 20 to 34 is serving time, as is one in 36 adult Hispanic men.
Recent reports by the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch
show that, despite roughly equal rates of illegal drug use by race, black men are 12 times
more likely than white men to be imprisoned for it. Although African-Americans
make up 12 percent of the American population, they make up over 40 percent of the jail and prison populations.

Much of growth of the prison population can be traced to drug policy and
the implantation of that policy. Between 1980 and 2006, drug arrests increased
from 580,000 to 1.85 million, with 80 percent of those arrests for possession rather than sale.
Of those arrested for possession, just under half were arrested for the possession of marijuana.

The costs of the American penal system are astonishing. In the past 20 years, state prison costs
have jumped from about $12 billion to just under $50 billion. At current projections,
they are slated to grow to $75 billion by 2011. On average, almost 7 percent of state
budgets now goes to support their penal systems. This growth in spending has crowded
out other priorities.

It is one thing to rehearse the data on incarceration in America; it is quite another
to know how to think about it. In the interest of shedding light on this dark subject,
I bring to your attention an important new book: Jonathan Simon's
"Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American
Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear."

To be politically effective, elected officials believe they must be tough on crime.
Simon writes, "Simply put, to be for the people, legislators must be for the victims
and law enforcement, and thus they must never be for (or capable of being portrayed as being for)
criminals or prisoners as individuals or as a class."

As part of the war on crime, according to Simon, "Americans have built a new civil
and political order structured around the problem of violent crime. In this new order,
values like freedom and equality have been revised in ways that would have been shocking,
if obviously unimaginable, in the late 1960s, and new forms of power institutionalized and
embraced — all in the name of repressing seemingly endless waves of violent crime."
This new civil and political order is, following Simon, a modern era of
"governing through crime," making crime, and particularly the fear of it, the
rationale for laws and policies which have resulted in mass incarceration —
over 2 million Americans in prison.

"Governing through crime" is a challenging description of the politics
and administration of the so-called "carceral state." Unlike "governing crime" —
the ordinary work of the police, the courts and the penal system, particularly as
they deal with those who break the law — "governing through crime" is the politics
and administration of mass incarceration.

Governing through crime has resulted in mass imprisonment noted by its scale,
its categorical (racial) application, and its increasingly warehouse-like or waste
management-like qualities. Simon says: "The distinctive new form and function
of the prison today is a space of pure custody, a human warehouse or even a kind
of social waste management facility. ... The waste management prison promises
no transformation of the prisoner through penitence, discipline, intimidation, or therapy."

What has governing through crime done to government? "Whether one values
American democracy for its liberty or its equality-enhancing features, governing
through crime has been bad. First, the vast reorienting of fiscal and administrative
resources toward the criminal justice system at both the federal and state levels
has resulted in a shift aptly described as transformation from the ‘welfare state' to the ‘penal state.'"

There are glimmers of hope. After a decade of stunning growth in prison inmates,
the Texas legislature decided it was time for a change. Drug treatment is being expanded,
parole practices are being reformed, parole boards are adjusting to earlier release dates,
and special drug courts are being established, all designed to slow the growth of incarceration.
To reduce parole violation-based reincarceration, Kansas is making grants to
community corrections agencies for parolee training and monitoring, and is
setting guidelines to assist judges and officers in revocation decisions.
Nevada is recalibrating good time served to reduce sentences. And, there
are many other examples. Nevertheless, American penal practices are abysmal,
an affront to democracy and to justice.

H. George Frederickson is the Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor of Public Administration
at the University of Kansas. He is the author of numerous books including
Up the Bureaucracy, a satirical take on public administration and politics
serialized in its entirety on Governing.com.

Visibility of Police

This information comes from the CJ listserv.
The entire article from the Boston Globe can be read here.

Boston Making "Huge Change," Stopping Plainclothed Patrols

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All 80 Boston plainclothes patrol officers will soon be ditching their jeans
and T-shirts and donning uniforms in an effort to increase police visibility
throughout the city and make residents feel safer, reports the Boston Globe.
The new directive, which Police Commissioner Edward Davis will put into effect
next week, means the officers, who have been focused on monitoring criminals
and catching them in the act, will now help deter crime. "It's a huge change in the way
we view our response to crime problems," Davis said. "Clearly in Boston the amount
of visibility in the street is a great concern to the community, and we want to make sure we increase that."

Some community leaders argue that residents are more eager to see police solve

violent crimes than patrolling in uniform. "What I hear from folks is, sure the

police presence is important, but there is nothing more important than getting

murderers off the street, getting those who are accused of crimes convicted and sent to jail,"

said Kevin Peterson of the Ella J. Baker House in Dorchester.

"It's a mixed bag as to what that change means in the community."

Criminologists agree that having uniformed officers on the street can play a

powerful role in discouraging crime and developing a stronger bond

between the police department and neighborhoods.

"Deterrence is a matter of perception, not reality," said James Alan Fox,

a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University.

"It doesn't matter what the actual risk of being caught is.

It's the perceived risk, and the perceived risk is very much influenced

by visibility. Plainclothes cops may be able to gather the information

that uniformed cops may not but, at least in terms of deterring crime, uniformed police are much better."

Extending Self-Defense

This was taken from the Crime and Justice newsletter where you can sign up to get the news each day

Castle Law On The Books In Ohio; Will It Be Abused?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A homeowner who injures, maims, or even kills an intruder is on the right side of the law, starting today in Ohio, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The "castle doctrine" law assumes the owner was acting in self- defense and shifts the burden to police and prosecutors to prove otherwise. Until today, people who attacked intruders had to prove they were acting in self-defense. About 20 states have similar laws with all types of variations. Some states do not limit the self-defense presumption to the person's home but apply it to the workplace or even on the street, if the person is threatened. Ohio's provision extends inside vehicles.

Ohio prosecutors and police chiefs associations are against the law. They say it provides legal cover for bad guys to hurt people who had no intent of harming them. "Defense lawyers will pick this up and use it to defend their clients who really aren't law abiding citizens in their homes," said John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney's Association. "It could be someone was dealing drugs in their house and something goes bad and so they shoot them. This is who this law will apply to." Gun-rights advocates and some rank-and-file police officers say it is fair to shoot first and ask questions later. "If your life is in danger you don't have to prove what the intent was of some intruder who is in your house, which was absolutely insane," said Jim Irvine of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

Cleveland Plain Newspaper article

Update to previous article

This news appeared in today's New York Times

Texas: Depositions in Capital Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: September 8, 2008

The judge and prosecutor from a condemned man’s murder trial have been ordered

to testify under oath about accusations they were romantically involved during the case.

The prosecutor, former District Attorney Tom O’Connell of Collin County,

began his deposition shortly after Judge Greg Brewer ruled.

The ruling came two days before Charles Dean Hood is scheduled to be executed.

Mr. Hood’s lawyers sought the ruling to investigate claims

of an improper relationship between the prosecutor and Verla Sue Holland,

a retired state district judge. She is scheduled to be deposed Tuesday.

Supreme Court may revisit decision

The United States Supreme Court has given both sides an opportunity to submit a brief
providing reasons to the Court in support of or against rehearing the issue of the
death penalty for the rape of a child.

An article by Adam Liptak states:

"In an indication that it may revisit a June decision banning the death penalty

for child rapists, the Supreme Court asked the parties in the case and the

United States solicitor general to submit supplemental briefs.

The decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana, had overlooked a 2006 federal law

making child rape a capital crime under military law."

There was a great deal of disapproval by citizens, and even some lawmakers, regarding

this issue. Many called for a rehearing which is rarely granted by the United States

Supreme Court.

Do you think the case should be reheard?

This Is Inexcusable

This article from the Houston Chronicle which came to my attention via the Crime and Justice News is a must read.

TX Juvenile Agency: Offender List Drops, Employee List Grows

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Texas Youth Commission has half the offenders it did 18 months ago,
but the number of administrators overseeing the juvenile correctional agency
has grown and some new bureaucrats have enjoyed raises, says the
Houston Chronicle.

Stephen Foster, hired last year as general counsel at $104,000,
got a 7 percent raise to about $111,000 as the population of offenders
at his agency began plummeting; it stands at 2,200.

Some 368 administrators oversee the agency, 47 more than early last year,

when it had 4,000 offenders in its lockups, nearly double today's number.

As the offender population dwindled - the result of a new law that closed

the agency to offenders 18 to 21 and those sentenced on misdemeanors -

the total cost of paying all those employees has risen by nearly a quarter,

to $18.7 million a year.

Richard Nedelkoff, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to head the agency

last year in the wake of the abuse scandal, said many of the hires were required

by legislature reforms 2007. He said he hired others simply to keep the agency from sinking.

Alternative Corrections Gaining Interest

This excerpt is from Crime and Justice News; read the entire Wall Street Journal article for more information and statistics related to the topic.

U.S. Sentencing Panel To Focus On Incarceration Alternatives

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The U.S. Sentencing Commission plans to focus on developing alternatives to incarceration, setting up a possible clash with the Justice Department, reports the Wall Street Journal. Possible models include tribunals like drug courts, which place offenders in treatment instead of prison. The panel's plan, mentioned in a filing in the Federal Register, could provide an impetus for cash-strapped states to follow suit. A Justice Department spokeswoman said, "We do not believe the use of alternatives should be expanded without further rigorous research showing their effectiveness in promoting public safety."

Prisons are responsible for some of the largest increases in state spending. The National Association of State Budget Officers says states spent $44 billion in tax revenue on corrections last year, compared with $10.6 billion in 1987. The federal commission has brought in local, state, and federal criminal-justice practitioners from across the country to talk about what they have been doing to ease prison overcrowding and cut correction expenses. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a California organization that focuses on crime victims, believes "alternatives are generally not a good idea and particularly for certain classes of criminals," such as felons and repeat offenders.

This is hard to believe

This article appeared in USA Today
and was copied from that site.

A New York Times article provides addition information and can be read here

Condemned man's hearing moved to before execution


By Michael Graczyk, Associated Press Writer

HOUSTON — A judge on Thursday moved a hearing date
for a condemned inmate so that it's no longer scheduled
for after his execution, giving his lawyers the chance to argue
while he's still alive that the conviction was unfair because
the judge was allegedly having an affair with a prosecutor.

State District Judge Greg Brewer moved the hearing date
for Charles Dean Hood to Monday, two days before Hood
is set to die for the 1989 slaying of a couple in Plano, near Dallas.

The decision reverses a that of another judge, Robert Dry,
who had set a similar hearing for Sept. 12, two days after Hood's execution date.

The hearing will address arguments that Brewer's murder trial
was unfair because of an alleged romantic relationship
between the judge presiding over the trial, Verla Sue Holland,
and former Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell.

Brewer ordered Holland, now retired, and O'Connell, now in private practice,
to be ready to be interviewed by lawyers Monday --
if Brewer agrees at Monday's hearing that the pair should be deposed.

Neither has commented on the allegations that they were romantically involved.

Later Thursday, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his office,
although it does not have jurisdiction in the matter at the local court
level, would be filing a friend of the court brief with Brewer seeking a
review of the allegations of a romantic link between Holland and O'Connell.

"Because of the unique nature of the issues in this matter --
and to protect the integrity of the Texas legal system --
we will ask the court to thoroughly review this matter," Abbott said.

He said the facts of the case were not in question, that Hood's appeals
never claimed he was innocent and "there appears to be little doubt
that Hood deserves the sentence he was given."

Greg Wiercioch, one of Hood's lawyers, called the attorney general's actions
"highly, highly unusual," but said there was no guarantee
they would result in the execution being delayed.

"We may still need help from the governor," he said.

Wiercioch has asked Gov. Rick Perry to issue a 30-day reprieve,
which the governor is empowered to do once.

Judge Dry wrote to the defense last month that he was treating
the request as part of a civil case that could be pursued
after Hood was dead. "In reality, you are exploring a
civil lawsuit for the estate of Mr. Hood," he wrote.

But the defense said the hearing should be held before Hood's execution,
because evidence gathered from taking the depositions of
Holland and O'Connell "may serve as the basis for a
reprieve request to the governor of Texas."

On Wednesday, Dry took himself off the case, citing
a "previous business relationship" with Holland's ex-husband
as the reason.

Hood, 39, was scheduled to die June 17 but his lethal injection,
which had cleared numerous lengthy appeals, was aborted by
state prison officials after they ran out of time to carry out
the execution by midnight.

The former topless-club bouncer was convicted of killing
Tracie Lynn Wallace, 26, an ex-dancer at the club, and
her boyfriend, Ronald Williamson, 46, at Williamson's home.

Hood was driving Williamson's Cadillac at the time of his arrest,
and fingerprint evidence tied him to the murder scene.
But he said he was living at Williamson's home and
had permission to drive the car.

Since fact issues (evidence) are not part of an appeal, his appeals
would have been based on due process. The fact that no mention of
his not being guilty is in the briefs does not automatically abrogate the
possibility of innocence.

All that matters is whether he had a fair trial and not bringing up
allegations of a romantic link between the judge and the prosecutor
until he has been executed is hard to fathom.

Unintended Consequences

This article was copied from the Crime and Justice News listserv. If you wish to see other cj related articles or get their news via email, here is where to go.

Switch To Digital TV Has Prisons Concerned About 'Peacekeeper'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The big switch to digital TV has prison officials scrambling
to keep one of the most important peacekeeping tools in prisons
across the nation: broadcast television.

When the nation's broadcasters make the switch from analog
to digital signals Feb. 17, televisions that are not hooked up to cable,
satellite or a converter box will be reduced to static.

While TV might seem like an undeserved luxury for inmates,
prison officials and inmates say the tube does more than fill
year after year of idle hours - it provides a sense of normalcy
and is a bargaining chip that encourages good behavior,
reports the Associated Press.

The TV industry has spent months preparing consumers
for the switch, running ads and offering government-funded
coupons that can be redeemed for the converter boxes needed
to display the digital signal on older TVs. But officials worry that
prisoners may be left to stare at blank screens because they don't
qualify for the $40 coupons. "They won't give us the switches,
we called them," said South Carolina Corrections Department
Director Jon Ozmint. "We asked them for the coupons and they said
they're only available for households.

I said, 'We're the big house.' But they didn't buy it."
Ozmint said state money won't be used to buy the
undetermined number of converters South Carolina needs
to keep its TVs running. Officials in many states haven't figured
out how many converter boxes will be needed - and what the exact cost will be.

Inmates will undoubtedly raise the funds for the cost as they do with many
other things.

Before you decide that "they" don't need television, remember that 95% of the
inmates will return to society. Adjustment will be assisted by knowledge of the
current world and television provides that knowledge. Prison officials have the
final word over what programs may be seen.

I have wondered to myself how many households for whom every penny counts
are going to be adversely affected by this conversion. This is just another example
of the unintended consequences of legislation.

Governor Reversed Parole Decision; Law Students Help Change Outcome

The Post-Conviction Justice Project at USC Law recently prevailed in a defining case for the California parole system for long-time client Sandra Davis-Lawrence.

USC Law students argued – and the California Supreme Court agreed – that a life-term prisoner is entitled to be granted parole once the prisoner no longer poses a danger to the community.

The Court rejected the Governor’s reversal of the parole commission’s grant of parole based solely on the circumstances of Sandra Davis-Lawrence’s 1971 commitment offense (first-degree murder), holding that the reversal violated her due process rights.

The 4 to 3 ruling provides meaningful judicial review of parole decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings and the Governor, and could affect nearly 1,000 parole cases now on appeal. Lawyers on both sides said it was the first time in recent history that the state’s highest court has ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case.

“This case is significant on so many levels – for Sandra who has paid for her crime and earned her freedom through exemplary efforts to educate and re-invent herself in prison, for so many clients of the clinic and other life-term prisoners who now see that their hard work toward rehabilitation in prison can lead to their freedom, and for all the students of the clinic who work so hard for their clients in every other case,” said Professor Rummel, who worked on the original petition as a visiting professor.

In the ruling, the justices said there was "overwhelming" evidence of Lawrence's rehabilitation while in prison demonstrating her suitability for parole. She earned two degrees in prison, including her MBA; mastered numerous marketable skills; served as a leader in many prison programs, including president of the inmates' Toastmasters Club; acted as a mentor for other women at the prison through a variety of programs; co-founded a tutoring program; and remained discipline-free. She also repeatedly expressed her extreme remorse for her crime and had tremendous support from the community for her release, including a job and a place to live.

This excerpt was taken from a Gould Law School publication which can be read in its entirety here.

Why say Mandatory when it really isn't?

As Hurricane Gustav approached the Gulf coast, mandatory evacuation orders were issued.

But not everyone complied with the order. In Mississippi three people who decided to stay
behind had to be rescued today. This meant that the rescuers were put into danger because
others did not heed the warning.

I learned that in Texas the government cannot force you to evacuate.

My question to you is simply: at what point should mandatory mean just that?

Should other lives be put in jeopardy because an individual decides they know better
than government authorities?

It is not an easy question and many views can come into play as we search for a
reasonable compromise, if one is needed.

This question requires some critical thinking on your part. Take a look at the elements
of critical thinking as you answer questions from me and all your other professors this semester.