“Are you really going to put a felony on this guy? Here is a kid that could have been planning on going into the military, being a cop or fireman, and/or just being a guy with a career.” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. When Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Bill Evans issued an instructional memo setting out a fictional encounter between a deputy and a Christian college student with an “illegal folding pocket knife” (let’s call it a switchblade) he didn’t expect that the document would ricochet around the country at the speed of the Internet. But it did. Now everybody from Maine to Montana to this blogger wants to weigh in. (Well, not everyone. At last check the President’s stayed out of it.) Not all the reaction has been positive. Hubert Williams, president of the Police Foundation and former chief in Newark didn’t think that focusing on the youth’s character was appropriate. “The moment you start saying ‘take the individual into account’ you’ve opened the door to allow bias into the decision-making process.” Merrick Bobb, southern California’s famous police watchdog, had another concern: What if the same kid was a black student with long dreadlocks at Dorsey High? What if the same kid was a Latino and undocumented? A single parent with a young child at home? I would hope the same ability to empathize and exercise compassionate discretion would be triggered in those instances also. Discretion is an inescapable part of policing. Agencies choose how and where to deploy cops and which crimes to emphasize, while individual officers decide whom to stop and what to do with them afterwards. Cops, of course, can’t simply act how they please. Some laws – domestic violence comes to mind – require an arrest when there’s sufficient evidence. Even if not mandated by law, it would be unthinkable for cops not to arrest an armed robber or a violent criminal. Police discretion is bounded in other ways. As James Q. Wilson pointed out, communities influence the police, and conduct that may lead to an arrest in one city may not in another. So what should a cop do about a college student with a switchblade? Seeking guidance from the LAPD manual (regrettably, the LASD’s isn’t online) we come across section 1/508, “Police Action Based on Legal Justification.” It advises that what’s appropriate varies with the situation. Hmm. Then there’s section 1/512, “Alternatives to Physical Arrest, Booking or Continued Detention,” which warns that if an arrest is legally justifiable, the decision to invoke a less serious alternative must be based on fact alone: Once a violator has been identified, it is the function of the Department to initiate the criminal process; however, there are circumstances when a crime may occur and the Department will not make a physical arrest. There may be a report written and an application for a complaint made; or in some cases, when the offense is of a minor nature, a verbal warning or other direction may be given. The decision not to make an arrest will be guided by Department policy and the factual situation involved, not by the personal feelings of the officer. That’s all well and good if there is an applicable policy and there are plentiful “facts.” Yet the paradox is that policies governing the exercise of discretion tend to lack detail precisely because these “facts” are often nonexistent or too ambiguous or politically incorrect to articulate, let alone put into writing. To be sure, one could draft a policy that gives a break to youths carrying switchblades that they don’t intend to misuse. But on what “facts” would cops be expected to rely? (For New Haven PD’s exceptionally detailed policy, which applies only to order-maintenance situations, click here.) Lieutenant Evans knows that officers often exercise leniency. Perhaps he’d like the practice to increase. Yet encouraging them to do so in weapons cases seems questionable. Decisions to arrest are influenced by perceptions of a suspect’s dangerousness, and it so happens that weapons possession is its most salient indicator. Criminal record, gang involvement and suspect demeanor are also important. All are demonstrable “facts,” so if an agency wishes to regulate the use of discretion each could probably be part of a defensible policy. On the other hand, turning to extrinsic factors such as religiosity or which college one attends invites fatuous distinctions. Decisions to let someone go shouldn’t rest on idle speculation. That’s probably what spurred a Sheriff’s station commander to suggest that it would have been better to share the memo at a meeting where the “subtleties” of police decision-making could be properly addressed. There’s no question but that the lieutenant was well intended. Where, he asks, would some of us be had we run into a “hard-line cop” when doing “crazy stuff” in our younger years? Fair enough, but as we mentioned in Before JetBlue it’s precisely the overlooking of crazy stuff that has allowed ticking time-bombs to become police officers. It goes without saying that everyone benefits when characters who may have a penchant for violence are formally rather than informally processed. Sure, be compassionate, but when it comes to carrying a switchblade (incidentally, it’s a misdemeanor under P.C. 653k) being Christian seems like an awfully flimsy excuse. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print/Save Jump to next posting RELATED POSTS Posted 6/6/10 Mortgage fraud, ordinary people and the Great Recession
A “flipped” home. All the lender saw is the front view. (FBI photo) By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Four to six billion dollars. That’s what mortgage fraud costs the U.S. each year. And it’s not just our pockets that are getting picked. Effects from America’s financial meltdown have rippled around the world, spreading pain at the speed of the Internet and turning the Great Recession into a global event. An analysis of suspicious mortgage-related activities during 2008 revealed that 65 percent of suspected home purchase fraud and 54 percent of suspected refinance fraud was “for housing,” meaning that borrowers intended to live in the home and keep payments current. Purchasers actively furthered the fraud in 87 percent of these cases, usually by misrepresenting their income and liabilities and offering false documentation. Stated income loans made fudging easy. More popularly called liar’s loans, they carried high (subprime) rates but didn’t require proof of income. Mortgage industry workers can increase their sales volume, thus their income by inflating the creditworthiness of marginal borrowers. It’s estimated that 63 percent of suspected “for housing” schemes involved brokers, and 23 percent appraisers. Indeed, when the market was hot financial firms pressed employees to make as many loans as possible. A State’s attorney who investigated the Ameriquest scandal put it succinctly: “The culture was to sell, sell, sell and do whatever it takes to sell, sell, sell.” A person who identified himself as a loan underwriter (verifies that loans conform to policy) posted this revealing comment on an Internet bulletin board: Now...the initial [loan] application...was submitted [by the loan officer] as [an] unsigned telephone interview so that the gory REAL details of the borrower's data could be swept under the rug and compel the underwriter to approve the loan....I am an underwriter and caught this numerous times to the dismay of my employers who wanted every loan approved. I was not their favorite underwriter...I caught on to the malfeasance...not appreciated. Did this happen on a regular basis, you betcha...every day. We’ll get to why lenders would carelessly dole out cash in a moment. For now let’s turn to the other kind of mortgage fraud, “for profit.” There are many varieties (for an overview click here and go to page 13.) “Flipping,” the repetitive purchase and resale of a home by corrupt investors, is very popular. It often begins with a homeowner desperate to sell. Fraudsters inflate the home’s value with an exaggerated appraisal (see photo above), then get the seller to kick back the difference between the loan and the secretly agreed-to purchase price. They then put the property through a series of sham resales to straw buyers, at each step profiting from the income generated by ever-larger appraisals. Eventually the property is abandoned to foreclosure or sold to an unsuspecting mark. (Click here for a recent example.) Builders are often involved in scams. With a purchaser’s assent they may inflate the selling price and apply the excess loan amount as a pretend down payment, thus creating the illusion that the borrower has equity. Many buyers consider this a quasi-legitimate way to acquire a home with no money down. Of course, if they default the lender quickly discovers that a good chunk of the home’s “value” has vaporized. Reports filed with the Treasury Department suggest that in 2008 sixty-one percent of “for profit” schemes involved buyer cooperation. Their participation was second only to brokers (62 percent) and far more frequent than appraisers (23 percent). When real estate was hot the mortgage industry was more than happy to qualify the unqualified and look the other way as shady brokers and appraisers helped boost the paper value of already overpriced property. In an overheated, go-go atmosphere where home prices rose before lunch, few objected. It’s not that the Feds didn’t know what was going on. As early as 2004 the FBI’s top criminal investigator warned that mortgage fraud “has the potential to be an epidemic.” One year later FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Report pointed out that “combating significant fraud in this area is a priority, because mortgage lending and the housing market have a significant overall effect on the nation's economy.” And it’s not that they lacked legal tools. Mortgage applicants complete a standard form that warns false statements are crimes. Thanks to the interstate commerce clause and the government’s insuring of financial institutions and backing of loans, virtually every shady move is a violation of Federal law. Among the applicable statutes are 18 USC 1341, mail fraud; 18 USC 1343, wire fraud; and 18 USC 1014, false statements in loans and credit applications (click here for an example of a charging document in a Federal prosecution.) Yet as the real-estate bubble grew the number of investigators overseeing the loan industry fell sharply. In the wake of 9/11 the FBI reassigned 2,400 agents from criminal duties to chasing Al Qaeda; by 2007, as the bubble was set to pop, a mere 100 agents were working mortgage fraud. As a retired supervisor said, “we knew that the mortgage-brokerage industry was corrupt....But the agents with the expertise had been diverted to counterterrorism.” Once the nation started slipping into recession the FBI had second thoughts. Many agents were brought back to fight white-collar crime. Their return was welcome. Naturally, much of the damage was already done. Really, mortgage shenanigans were the worst-kept secret in the financial industry. Why did lenders encourage unqualified borrowers to sign on the dotted line? Why didn’t they challenge exaggerated appraisals? Because when times were good churning out loans regardless of quality paid rich dividends. Risk was passed along. Mortgages – including the many stinkers – were sold by smaller lenders to the larger, then bundled by the latter into securities that were peddled throughout the world. As long as homeowners paid their debts, investors got their dividends. If a few borrowers defaulted it hardly mattered. Except that when the bubble burst the cash stopped flowing, fast. Firms that had purchased highly-rated mortgage-backed securities (yes, the ratings agencies were in on it too) turned on the Wall Street firms that got them into the fix. In the end Uncle Sam decided that some financial houses were “too big to fail” and propped them up with taxpayer cash. Soon the big fish were again making money hand over fist and vacationing in the Hamptons. (Click here for an entertaining slide show that tracks the mortgage debacle.) Dreams of home ownership and, yes, profit led many upwardly mobile members of the middle class to take out subprime loans and buy homes that were well beyond their means. Encouraged by brokers and loan officers, ordinary individuals gambled that rising prices would give them enough equity to refinance before teaser rates expired. Holding their noses, they exaggerated their income, minimized their liabilities and dove in. Then the economy collapsed, taking home values with it. Unemployment soared. But like ticking time-bombs the mortgages were still there, their interest rates resetting to stratospheric highs. Without equity getting a new loan was impossible. Jobless or underemployed, owing far more than their properties were worth, millions walked away or were driven from their homes. Once-manicured neighborhoods fell to blight, becoming breeding grounds for crime and disorder. There’s plenty of blame to go around. By all means, point the finger at greedy lenders who peddled loans for which a schnauzer could have qualified. Lock up the crooks who took advantage of the wild-west atmosphere to line their pockets. Go after the financial giants who ignored warning signs and recklessly marketed mortgage-based securities for the sake of a buck. But don’t forget that it couldn’t have happened without help from the many borrowers who decided that the time was ripe to get theirs, and that if all it took was a few white lies and a little bit of imagination, why that was perfectly acceptable. After all, things could only go up! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print/Save Jump to next posting RELATED WEBSITES FBI Mortgage Fraud homepage US Treasury Mortgage Fraud Reports Mortgage Fraud Blog RELATED POSTS You Think You’re Upset? Who’s Guarding the Henhouse? (Part II) UPDATES 07/16/11 State Attorney Generals in New York and Delaware are pursuing a broad-based criminal investigation of top executives at Wall Street investment banks to determine if they defrauded buyers of mortgage-backed securities by fooling them into thinking that the underlying loans were sound. Other states are being asked to join in the effort. 03/01/11 While many low-level loan officers were prosecuted for mortgage fraud, their higher-ups haven’t been touched says the New York Times. An example is Angelo Mozilo, founder of bankrupt Countrywide Financial, whose firm “pushed” subprime loans on unqualified borrowers and deceived them about the terms. 11/27/10 New York Times’ Joe Nocera discusses the devastating impact of stated-income loans (aka “liar’s loans”) on the housing marketplace 06/17/10 A new Federal campaign against mortgage fraud has led to the arrest of 1,200 individuals allegedly responsible for $2.3 billion in losses. Much of the effort has been directed against brokers who obtained mortgages for unqualified persons. Posted 4/26/10 Angry over Federal dithering, Arizona enacts its own immigration laws
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Sooner or later it was bound to happen. Frustrated by the Fed’s laissez-faire attitude about the effects of illegal immigration, the Grand Canyon State struck out on its own. Less than a month after the murder of a goodhearted Arizona rancher (police followed the suspect’s tracks to the border) Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a comprehensive measure that turns illegal aliens into state outlaws and encourages local police to seek them out and hand them over to the Feds. Key provisions include the following:
According to the Department of Homeland Security Arizona has 460,000 illegal immigrants, the seventh most in the nation. As a proportion of the population their number lags only behind California, and then by a whisker (6.9 percent versus 7.0 percent.) SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, reimburses States and localities for part of the cost of confining illegal immigrants who are convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors and held for at least four days. (Illegal immigrants convicted of ordinary crimes are commonly called “criminal aliens.”) The GAO reported that in 2003 Arizona prisons housed 4,200 criminal aliens, costing state taxpayers $50 million. SCAAP reimbursed $7 million. Arizona placed fifth in numbers of incarcerated criminal aliens, behind California (30,200), Texas (11,200), New York (5,700) and Florida (5,200). But when adjusted for state population, Arizona’s share was second to California’s. In 2003 the Maricopa County (Phoenix) jail system housed 4,300 criminal aliens, costing state taxpayers $15 million. Its reimbursement? $1 million. Only four jails, two in California, one in Texas and one in New York City held more. Adjusting for county and city size, Maricopa was in third place, just behind the California counties. Another GAO report examined the backgrounds of 55,322 criminal aliens who were incarcerated for any offense in Federal and State prisons and county jails in December 2003. Eighty percent came from three states: California (58 percent), Texas (14 percent) and Arizona (eight percent.) Arizona is one of the nation’s principal gateways for illegal entry, regularly placing first in border arrests and second only to Texas, a state with a population four times its size, in immigration prosecutions. It’s also a primary entry point for illegal drugs, with Federal drug prosecutions in Arizona increasing more than twofold during 2008-2010. And as we pointed out in a prior post, the state’s gun dealers are a major source of firearms for the Mexican cartels. The consequences are obvious. Human, drug and gun trafficking tear at the social fabric, attracting unscrupulous characters, consuming prodigious criminal justice resources and setting the stage for other crimes. According to the Arizona Republic, Phoenix experienced an astounding 368 kidnappings for ransom in 2008, much of it ostensibly related to drug and cartel activity. What’s more, although its police chief touts the city as “one of America’s safest large cities,” a 2008 survey of cities over 75,000 population ranked Phoenix 302 out of 393. It was well behind Los Angeles, which placed 240th. (higher numbers are worse). Phoenix’s problems are no surprise to your blogger, who as an ATF agent in Arizona during the seventies got to experience the troubled city first-hand. Crunched by a tight economy, with a 2008 median household income two percent below the national mean, Arizona has struggled for decades to deal with the social and economic consequences of being on the border. But to many observers its current response seems an overreaction. Concerns that the law will drain scarce police resources, cause racial profiling and discourage crime victims from coming forward led the Arizona Police Chiefs Association to strongly oppose the measure. On the other hand many lower-ranking police officers, including presidents of police associations in Phoenix and Glendale favor it, in part because it would give officers more tools for combating crime. It’s no surprise that political views about Arizona’s stern approach mirror Party affiliations. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is for while President Obama, who warned that the Arizona bill would “undermine basic notions of fairness,” is against. Interestingly, his Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, repeatedly vetoed similar legislation when she was Arizona governor, in part because it would “overwhelm” police. Yet in 2005 she declared a “state of emergency” at the border, then sent the National Guard to help secure it. Within a couple of years, though, the Feds decided that physical barriers and a much-ballyhooed “virtual” fence were preferable to a heavy human presence. But only last month Secretary Napolitano called a halt to the multi-billion dollar project because of questions about its effectiveness. Arizona’s senators have since proposed that the money be spent on – you guessed it – troops and additional border agents. Meanwhile the Department of Justice is getting set to challenge Arizona’s new immigrant-unfriendly laws in Federal Court. That, in a nutshell, is America’s border “policy.” If you’re confused, join the crowd! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print/Save Jump to next post RELATED POSTS Extreme Measures II America, Gun Purveyor to the Cartels UPDATES For more recent see Extreme Measures II 07/06/10 Citing the Supremacy and Commerce clauses, DOJ sued Arizona in Federal court to enjoin its new immigration law from taking effect because it would “conflict [with] and undermine” the Fed’s balanced approach and distract it from focusing on dangerous aliens. Lawsuit 06/04/10 Crime in Phoenix plummeted during 2008-2009, and it’s now one of the safest four large cities in the U.S. The other three -- San Diego, El Paso and Austin, are also on the border. FBI 05/26/10 Police chiefs from several large cities, including Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Houston and Minneapolis are urging Attorney General Eric Holder sue to invalidate Arizona’s new law. 05/25/10 President Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border to help interdict drug trafficking. He also wants $500 million to hire more agents and improve technology. 05/12/10 Los Angeles passed an ordinance restricting official travel to Arizona and banning some future contracts. But independent agencies including airports and utilities are unlikely to take part. 05/12/10 A Pew poll finds widespread support across the U.S. for Arizona’s immigration law, even among Democrats, and disapproval for President Obama’s handling of immigration issues. 05/12/10 A new Arizona law bans as divisive the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools. It is targeted, according to a state official, at Chicano studies programs in Tucson. Bill text 05/03/10 Arizona measure amended; to apply only to persons lawfully “stopped, detained or arrested.” Race can be used as a factor in making a stop only as Constitutionally allowed. Bill text 05/02/10 It’s not border violence, says the Arizona Republic, that’s the problem. Instead it’s violence that “leapfrogs” to Tucson and Phoenix, where cartel members commit robberies, home invasions, kidnappings and murders. Still, Arizona’s crime rate has fallen along with the nation’s. 05/01/10 A deputy sheriff who spotted bales of marijuana in a human and drug smuggling route in the southern Arizona desert was shot and wounded by five suspects, who fired on him with a rifle. A police helicopter responding to his aid also came under fire. 04/30/10 Agreeing that the nation’s immigration policy lacks coherence, White House advisor David Axelrod said that “the best thing we can do is to develop and enforce a rational, thoughtful, consistent immigration policy that holds everybody accountable in the system.” 04/29/10 Calling Arizona’s immigration law “unpatriotic and unconstitutional,” L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa urged a boycott. “No person should be treated differently in the eyes of the law,” he said. 04/29/10 “Good, Catholic families” sneak across the border, says an Arizona resident. So do drug smugglers and other criminals. The trouble, he complains, is not knowing “who is who.” 04/27/10 Local officials in L.A. and San Francisco call for an economic boycott of Arizona 04/26/10 Critics say law conflicts with Federal supremacy on immigration; challenges expected Posted 2/6/10 Violence is the problem. Is harsh sentencing the solution?
“The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Who said that? Here are three possibilities: (1) the ACLU president, (2) the ACLU executive director, or (3) Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, addressing a gathering of lawyers on February 3, 2009 at Pepperdine University’s Odell McConnell Law Center, perched high on a spectacular bluff overlooking the shores of the Pacific. Hmm...let’s see... For someone who’s supposed to keep an open mind Justice Kennedy’s words may seem intemperate. Yet those familiar with his concerns aren’t a bit surprised. A staunch supporter of the police, the third-most senior member of the Court (he joined in 1988) is also a long-standing prison reformist. Justice Kennedy has frequently spoken out against overcrowding and excessively long sentences, which he likes to point out are on the average eight times longer than the European norm. Justice Kennedy’s ire last week was directed at California’s three-strikes law, widely considered to be the toughest in the nation. We’ve already described its two most salient features. First, it’s both a two-strikes and three-strikes law. Persons who are convicted of a new felony after being convicted for a violent or serious felony get their terms doubled; two such priors draw a mandatory 25 years to life. Note that the triggering offense – the new charge, or “strike” – can be any felony, including drugs and theft. It’s no secret that sentencing has become substantially harsher. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 447 per 100,000 adults (18+) were sentenced for felonies in State court in 1990. In 2006 the rate was 503 per 100,000, an increase of 13 percent. More importantly, those sentenced to State prison were serving considerably lengthier terms. Between 1993-2005 the average time served in State prison (all offenses) went up from 21 months to 29, an increase of 38 percent. For violent crimes the increase was from 36 months to 50 (39 percent); for property crimes it was from 17 months to 22 (29 percent). Harsh sentencing goes back several decades. According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. the U.S. imprisonment rate (persons in State or Federal custody and sentenced to one year or more, per 100,000 population) was 96 in 1970. It took off four years later and never looked back. By 1980 it had reached 139; in 1990 it was 296 and still climbing. The historical high, a mind-bogging 756 per 100,000 population came in 2007. In that year 2,298,041 persons – nearly one out of every one-hundred Americans – were locked up doing a year or more. (In 2008 the rate dropped ever so slightly, to 754.) As the good justice implied, when it comes to imprisoning its citizens the U.S. is on top (or the bottom, depending on one’s point of view.) According to the authoritative World Prison Population List, our 2007 incarceration rate of 756 was by far the highest on the planet, five times greater than the world rate of 145 per 100,000 and eight times that of Southern and Western Europe’s measly 95. Way behind in second place was Russia, with a barely respectable 629. Other pleasant places like Cuba (531) and Belarus (468) weren’t even in contention. Our chart depicts historical and contemporary violent crime and imprisonment rates per 100,000 population from 1970 to 2008. Comparing the trend lines we see that the well-known surge in violent crime that began in the mid-1970’s substantially outpaced the imprisonment rate until the late 1980’s. It’s generally agreed that by then a punitive mindset had formed, which persisted even as violent crime tumbled. In 1991, as the mayhem reached its zenith, there were 1,911,767 violent crimes, yielding a rate of 758.2 per 100,000. By 2000 the violent crime rate (based on 1,425,486 offenses) was a full one-third lower, at 506.5. A moderate downtrend still persists; 2008’s rate, 454.5, amounts to an additional reduction of ten percent. So here’s the million dollar question: was it punishment that turned things around? While it’s common sense that incapacitating offenders prevents crime, just how much additional value was produced by imprisoning more persons for longer terms? In his conservatively entitled “The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion,” statistician extraordinaire William Spellman estimates that increased imprisonment cut violence twenty-seven percent, a seemingly modest figure until one remembers that there were nearly two million violent crimes at the height of the madness. His endorsement of stiffer sanctions, though, seems half-hearted. One may conclude, with considerable conviction, that the prison buildup was an important contributing factor to the violent-crime drop of the past few years. America would be a much more violent place had billions of dollars not been invested in prison beds; violent crime would not have dropped as far and as fast as it has. Nevertheless, violent crime would have dropped a lot anyway. Most of the responsibility for the crime drop rests with improvements in the economy, changes in the age structure, or other social factors. Whether the key to further reductions lies in further prison expansions, or (more likely) in further improvements in these other factors remains an open question. What could really harsh stuff like three-strikes accomplish? Methodological issues make it difficult to figure out its unique effects. Three recent studies arrive at varying conclusions. In a survey of U.S. three-strikes laws Chen reported slight but statistically significant associations between three-strikes and declines in crime. Notably, California’s law, the harshest of the lot, didn’t fare better than the others. On the other hand, Kovandzic, Sloan and Vieraities found that three-strikes had no impact. (One possibility they cite is that in cases where three-strikes applies, its added sanctions aren’t of sufficient magnitude to stand out.) Finally, Helland and Tabarrok estimate that California’s three-strikes law reduced felony arrests for those with two existing strikes by 17-20 percent. They nonetheless suggested that the money spent on three-strikes is better used elsewhere. Money is a central issue. Thanks to liberalizations brought on by the economic downturn, imprisonment rates in a majority of States stood still or went down between 2007-2008, with reductions of as much as thirty-one prisoners per 100,000 population in Texas and Massachusetts. Still, harsh treatment is unlikely to disappear, and for the most practical of reasons: as we said last week citizens aren’t “averages” – they’re victimized one at a time. If, as Dr. Spellman conceded, stiff sentencing cuts violence by one-fourth, hundreds of thousands could be saved from becoming victims each year. Indeed, a push-back is already underway. In California a jail inmate let go under a new early-release policy then promptly re-arrested for sexual assault became the new poster-child for victim-right groups, while in Oregon the release of a violent inmate who went on to reoffend spurred reassessment of a law expanding good-time credits. Speakers at a recent national conference cautioned against letting financial considerations dictate sentencing. A public-policy expert opposed releasing prisoners just to “return to policies that don’t make sense,” while a State senator called a recent triple murder by a parolee a sharp reminder that he and others hadn’t been taking the threat of violence “as seriously as we should have been.” There’s nothing new about horrible crimes being committed by persons released on bail, or by probationers and parolees. Sure, it’s always possible to tune up the release system, but in the end predicting individual dangerousness is well-nigh impossible. So what about changing people? Well, we can’t force anyone to age out of crime any faster, and as far as making humans kinder and gentler – forget it! But we can throw away the key. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print/Save Jump to next post RELATED ARTICLES AND REPORTS Milwaukee Sentinel Series on the Consequences of Light Punishment American Prospect Report on Mass Incarceration So. Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission study (2010) Report on California Three-Strikes Impacts of State Sentencing Policies RELATED POSTS Reform and Blowback Ignoring the Obvious The Great Debate Why the Drop? UPDATES For more recent updates see Reform and Blowback
04/13/11 Indiana’s governor abandoned a plan to save money by reducing sentences of “low-level offenders” and placing many on probation after legislators, prodded by police and prosecutors, amended the bill to require serious offenders to serve 85 percent of their terms. Presently all inmates can shave off half their terms with good behavior.
04/13/11 To save millions of dollars Texas legislators are proposing a plan to place nonviolent probation violators in “shock” treatment, sending them to state prison for up to a year instead of the current average of nearly five years.
04/13/11 A national study reports persistent recidivism rates of about 40 percent. Three-year rates for state prisoners released in 1999 were 45.4 percent and for those released in 2004 as 43.3 percent. A 2002 BJS study of a cohort of offenders released in 1994 reported 3-year recidivism of 51.8 percent. 03/31/11 After two released inmates were arrested for murder, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie moved to repeal a law enacted in January at the end of the former governor’s term providing for a six-month early out. Christie also moved to end automatic parole reviews, insisting that decisions to hold hearings should be up to the parole board. 03/29/11 Ten Colorado probationers - six on “intensive supervision” - have been arrested for murder or attempted murder in nine months, including killing of a deputy sheriff and the wounding of two police officers. P.O.’s are blamed for laxity, but in Colorado they have little authority and aren’t armed, making them reluctant to stage surprise visits.
03/02/11 To save $600 million over the next two years the Texas legislature has, among other things, proposed closing an entire treatment facility and doing away with many treatment and pre-parole beds. That, a new report says, would increase the prison population up to 12,000 inmates in two years, wiping out the savings, or worse.
02/08/11 A new Federal report states that reducing recidivism and the costs of imprisonment requires using risk assessment to diagnose who is most likely to reoffend, then applying “logical, research-based” supervision practices. Texas, Kansas, Arizona and New Hampshire are given as models of this “Justice Reinvestment” approach. Report
02/04/11 Franklin Zimring, a famous criminologist, praises New York for reducing crime and making streets safer without launching a drug war or massively increasing incarceration. As for under-reporting, he claims it’s less an issue than in the past. Zimring also says that Compstat created tensions within the department from inception.
01/31/11 Texas’ success in reducing prison populations while holding back crime are cited by “Right on Crime,” a politically conservative group that is promoting a nationwide agenda to shift to a treatment orientation. Budget problems have reportedly led 21 states to experiment with various versions of that approach. 01/17/11 Colorado’s financial problems allow violent, dangerously unstable men such as Edward Romero to repeatedly avoid prison, even after multiple convictions for armed crimes. Romero, a 26-year old probationer with a record of armed robbery and gun possession is now charged with murdering a 16-year old neighbor. 01/15/11 Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick let go all members of the parole board, including the chairperson he installed, after an internal inquiry concluded that they didn’t follow established safeguards in releasing Dominic Cinelli, who went on to kill police officer John Maguire (see 12/30/10 entry.) 01/11/11 Spurred by the rape and murder of a child by a probationer, a 2004 Florida law made it tougher for felons who violate probation to stay on the streets, even if their misconduct was minor. Critics say that locking up ex-cons for petty transgressions actually increases crime by causing them to lose their jobs and places to live. 01/10/11 Paroled murderers in New York have very low recidivism rates. Of 1,190 who were released during a two-decade period only 3 percent were rearrested for a felony. Paroled murderers who kill again are even rarer: a 2002 national study reported a homicide recidivism rate of 1.2 percent. The problem is that 1.2 percent is not zero. 12/30/10 Massachusetts convicts serving life terms are being paroled at an increasing rate. One, Dominic Cinelli, 57, was released in 2008 while serving three life terms. A few days ago he shot and killed Woburn police officer John “Jack” Maguire while fleeing from a department store robbery. Cinelli was also killed. Click here for the debate 12/28/10 California’s appeal of a Federal court order directing it to reduce its inmate population by 46,000 in two years was recently heard by the Supreme Court. An amicus brief supporting California’s position describes “an extraordinary crime wave” caused by the imposition of a similar population cap in Philadelphia in the mid-1990’s. 12/01/10 John Ewell, 53, twice convicted of robbery in the 1980’s, is now charged with killing four people in a recent series of Los Angeles-area home invasions. Ewell was arrested for depositing a stolen $28,000 check in 1994 and has since been repeatedly picked up for theft. But each time the D.A. decided not to pursue a third strike. 11/11/10 In the last thirty years Arizona’s prison population has doubled and its incarceration costs have increased tenfold, straining the budget and leading legislators to consider revising the state’s tough sentencing laws. 11/03/10 The latest one-year recidivism rate for released California inmates is 47.5 percent. The 3-year recidivism rate is 67.5 percent. Most who return to prison do so for parole violations. Full report 10/29/10 Spurred by falling crime rates and an economic crisis, 44 states will be spending less on corrections this fiscal year. Crimes are being downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors, sentence lengths for nonviolent and drug crimes are being reduced, probation and release policies are being liberalized, and prisons are being closed. 10/12/10 Facing a budget crisis, Washington state legislators want to revive a law that expired in July which granted prison inmates fifty-percent off for good behavior. Some see it as a valuable incentive. Others criticize it as a ruse, a way to look tough on crime on the front end while allowing slippage out the back. 09/22/10 Although a felony probationer was being supervised, his probation wasn’t revoked even after he was caught with a gun and drug paraphernalia. Then a police chief’s daughter dies in his home, apparently of an overdose. 09/19/10 Missouri judges get sentence recommendations by entering data into an automated system that considers offense seriousness, a defendant’s prior criminal history, and the average sentences given in such cases. The monetary cost of each sentencing option and the corresponding likelihood of reincarceration are also provided. 09/02/10 A canceled Illinois program that saved money by releasing inmates early, many before they could be evaluated, only to see some quickly return to crime, led to the resignation of the state corrections chief. 08/30/10 A get tough on crime crusade left Indiana with a burgeoning prison population. Facing huge costs, it’s considering increasing the use of probation and home confinement and expanding alcohol and drug treatment. 07/14/10 LAPD complains that a gang member who was killed in a shootout that left one officer wounded and another hurt had been placed on unmonitored, “non-revocable” parole after serving only two years of a two-year term for drugs, evading police and possessing a gun and silencer. 06/29/10 A man paroled in 2006 after doing 15 years for a knife murder stabbed four to death. He was living in a halfway house after being revoked for not completing an anger management course. 06/24/10 Richmond officials and the Feds tout the effectiveness of stiff gun and drug sentencing in tamping down violence. But an academic thinks the lock-’em up mentality is counterproductive. 06/21/10 On June 10 three-time loser Cyril Williams was arrested for murdering a Maryland trooper. Williams had been paroled on a drug conviction in April 2008; thanks to good-time credits he did less than half his time. Attempted murder and gun charges had also been dropped. 05/17/10 Supreme Court says “no” to life without parole for juveniles who don’t kill, “yes” to the indeterminate, post-imprisonment civil commitment of dangerous sexual offenders. 04/30/10 Arrest of a man for attempted rape shortly after his release is why California legislators are now set to repeal a money-saving measure granting extra good time (see 2/10/10 entry, below). 04/22/10 Speaking in favor of better risk-assessment strategies, noted criminologist Lawrence Sherman said that extreme examples (e.g., Willie Horton) have led officials to over-predict high risk, leading to prison overcrowding. 04/16/10 As required by law, a 34- year old Nevada woman was sentenced to life for having a boy under 14 touch her breasts. She will be eligible for parole after ten years. 04/13/10 Entitled “Chelsea’s Law” after a teen who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender, a California bill would sharply increase penalties for sexually abusing children, setting steep minimums and in aggravated circumstances mandating life without parole. 03/17/10 According to the PEW Center, the State prison inmate count dropped in 2009 by 5,739, a .4 percent reduction and the first since 1972. But the overall prison count still rose by 1,099 due to a sharp uptick in the number of Federal prisoners. 03/12/10 John Gardner, a registered sex offender arrested for the rape and murder of San Diego-area teen Chelsea King, had been kept on parole despite repeated technical violations. 03/10/10 Complaining of poorly vetted and supervised early releases, LAPD union cites “low-level parolee” with 19 prior arrests, including murder, who threw rifle out a window during a wild pursuit. 03/09/10 To save money Michigan Governor urges repealing Truth in Sentencing provision that requires convicted persons serve at least their minimum term in prison. But many disagree. 03/08/10 Private study suggests that when measured accurately and for a longer period, recidivism is worse than official statistics indicate, with eight out of ten released inmates being reincarcerated. 03/05/10 New York Times reviews nationwide backlash against proposals to save money by releasing inmates early 02/26/10 Furious Michigan prosecutors protest against early parole of hundreds of violent inmates; say it’s no way to save money. 02/25/10 Releasing inmates early is politically risky, vesting ownership of the consequences on decision-makers, warns Todd Clear, new dean at the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice. But early outs don’t increase the likelihood of reoffending -- they just “change the date,” he adds. 02/23/10 In Massachusetts a recently paroled murderer, 60, kills a convenience store clerk, just like he did the first time around. 02/22/10 In “Why Crime Rates Fell,” Tufts sociologist John Conklin claims that half the crime drop is due to incapacitation by imprisonment. Others say an aging population is a better reason. 02/10/10 A newly amended California law (PC 4019) gives one-for-one credit for jailed non-violent offenders and one-for-four for those in prison, drawing protests from police, DA’s and judges. 02/08/10 So. Carolina Sentencing commission grapples with reducing incarceration costs while keeping citizens safe 2008-09 series of articles on parole failures 02/08/10 Michigan prosecutor accuses Governor, who has been releasing prison inmates “at a record rate” of making rushed, potentially unsafe decisions Posted 1/31/10 Who should go to prison? For how long?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. On December 6, 2009 police in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb, confronted Boneetio Washington, a transient on felony probation, on a complaint that he tried to break into a home. Officers didn’t feel there was enough evidence and let him go. His freedom didn’t last long. Two days later LAPD officers arrested Washington moments after he allegedly forced his way into an apartment and raped and murdered its occupant, a woman pregnant with twins. Washington’s prior conviction had also been for breaking into a woman’s apartment. Confined to jail and a mental hospital for a year awaiting trial, he pled guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years probation. By then the 22-year old had amassed a record of similar crimes, including arrests and at least one conviction for breaking and entering, larceny and assault in his native Rhode Island and, as recently as 2006, in North Carolina. Considering Washington’s criminal history why had California authorities dealt with him so leniently? Unnamed sources told the Los Angeles Times that there was “nothing in his past that appeared to show a predisposition to the kind of violence he is now accused of committing.” Here’s another L.A. story. In 2006 Charles Samuel snuck into the residence of the man who was dating Samuel’s estranged wife. He confronted and beat up the man and stole some small things. Already a two-time loser (he had served six years for a 1986 incident in which he kidnapped an elderly man to get him to withdraw cash from an ATM, resulting in convictions for residential burglary and robbery) Samuel was nonetheless allowed to plead guilty to felony theft. Although that lapse was attributed to a “clerical error,” Samuel had told a probation officer that the bargain avoided his being charged with a third strike, which in California generally calls for a mandatory 25-to-life (P.C. 667e). Samuel was paroled to a drug rehab facility after two years. On July 24, 2009 he got permission to go to the downtown DMV office. A 17-year old high school senior, Lily Burk, was also downtown, running an errand for her lawyer mother. Her mutilated body was later found in the family Volvo. In a horrific incident that parallels his earlier crime, Samuel has been charged with kidnapping Burk to get her to withdraw money from an ATM, then in a rage slashing her to death with a broken bottle. Forty years ago prison sentences were indeterminate, with the actual number of years to be served set by parole boards and commissions after the fact. While penalties looked stiff on paper, felony offenders sentenced to prison wound up serving, on average, only 38 percent of the top end of the range imposed by a judge (for violent offenders, it was 46 percent; for property offenders, 34 percent.) During the 1970’s and 80’s inner-city violence, much of it related to a booming crack trade, led to calls for “getting tough on crime.” Spurred by Federal grants, State legislatures responded with “truth in sentencing” laws that constricted sentencing ranges and cut back on good-time and other credits, narrowing the gap between what judges imposed and what was actually served. By the early nineties a majority of States and the District of Columbia required that prisoners serve at least 85 percent of their terms before release. In 1994 violent felons served, on average, less than one half their terms; by 2004 it was two thirds. More defendants were also being convicted and incarcerated. There were 893,630 felony convictions in State courts in 1990. By 2006 the figure was 1,132,290; adjusted for population growth, it represented a net increase of 13 percent. Yet the toughening wasn’t as severe as it might seem. While the number of convictions was up, and the disparity between sentencing and actual time served was reduced, penalties under the new determinate sentencing model were also lower, meaning that inmates wound up serving about the same amount of time as before. How much time do offenders serve? Keeping in mind differences between States, in 2006, the most recent year with full data, slightly more than half (54 percent) of violent offenders went to prison. Not including life terms, their sentences averaged 96 months. Minus fifteen-percent good-time credit that comes to 81.6 months, or nearly seven years. Terms for aggravated assault were substantially lower, for robbery and sex crimes somewhat higher, and for murder much higher. But citizens aren’t “averages.” They’re victimized one at a time. On October 1, 1993, Petaluma (Calif.) resident Polly Klaas, 12, was kidnapped and brutally murdered. A parolee, Richard Allen Davis, was quickly arrested for the crime. He admitted killing the girl and police collected abundant evidence of his guilt. Davis was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He’s still on death row. Polly’s murder shocked the nation. Citizens were particularly roiled by the killer’s record, which included a 1974 conviction for multiple burglaries (he got six months to 15 years and served two years), a 1976 conviction for kidnapping and assault (he got one to 25 years and did six), and a 1985 conviction for robbery and extortion (he got 16 years and did eight.) How could someone like that have been released at all, let alone after only serving half his term? The anger was quickly transformed into legislation. Enacted in 1994 by popular vote, Proposition 184, the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” initiative provides enhanced penalties for persons convicted of any felony, including property and drug crimes, if they have been previously convicted of a violent or “serious” felony (examples of the latter include burglary of an occupied dwelling and robbery). Those with a single such past conviction get their new term doubled (PC 667[e] [1]), while those with two or more qualifying convictions get a minimum of 25 to life (PC 667[e] [2] [A]). There is one exception: prosecutors can, “in the interests of justice,” choose to ignore prior “strikes” when accepting pleas to new crimes. Polly Klaas was murdered before three-strikes. But what about the two killers mentioned at the top of this post? Boneetio Washington had only one “strike” before he murdered the pregnant woman, so three-strikes would not have kept him off the street. Samuel, on the other hand, had at least one and possibly two strikes when he pled guilty to felony theft, yet prosecutors for some reason chose not to charge the priors, so he was freed well before Lily Burk ran her fateful errand. Next week we’ll examine three-strikes in greater detail. Stay tuned! Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Reform and Blowback Ignoring the Obvious The Great Debate II Why the Drop? UPDATES Posted 1/24/10 TINKERING WITH THE MACHINERY OF DEATH* Academics prove that the death penalty works. And that it doesn’t.
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. When ASC members opened the November 2009 issues of the society’s two publications, stodgy old Criminology and the supposedly more real-world Criminology and Public Policy, they must have felt dizzied. Criminology’s lead piece, “The Short-Term Effects of Executions on Homicide,” by Land, Teske and Zheng, concludes that capital punishment works, at least in Texas, preventing .5 to 2.5 homicides per execution. Meanwhile, in Criminology & Public Policy, Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Boots answer the question posed by their article, “Does the Death Penalty Save Lives?” with a resounding no, that it doesn’t. Indeed, the differences in opinion seem unusually sharp, with C&PP Senior Editor John Donohue flat-out asserting in his introductory remarks that “no credible evidence exists” that the death penalty deters homicide. Whoa – it’s not that simple! Decades of research have produced findings supporting both sides of the debate. Some of the squabbling can be attributed to differences between disciplines. Economists, who believe that criminal behavior is influenced by cost-benefit analyses, tend to favor the death penalty, while traditional criminologists, preferring to think that they take a broader, more nuanced view, often come out against. Either way, crunching the numbers presents a major challenge. While executions are exceedingly few, homicide is plentiful and influenced by many factors, so teasing out the unique effects (if any) of the former on the latter stretches the statistical arts, some would say to the breaking point. As far back as 1978 a book-length report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences panned death-penalty studies for, among other things, making “implausible” assumptions about the data for the sake of applying sophisticated statistical techniques. (For a skeptic’s more recent review of death penalty research click here and scroll to page 4.) Alas, concerns about over-reaching haven’t slowed investigators down. On reading these pieces one quickly encounters methodological complexities that are impenetrable to all but trained statisticians. Forgive the pun, but the impression is of a mathematical duel to the death. Writing in the same issue of Criminology and Public Policy that published the article favoring the death penalty (Criminology doesn’t include opposing views) here is what Emory University economist Paul Rubin had to say: In sum, Kovandzic et al. (2009) change the model specification, estimation method, as well as both the dependent and independent variables used by earlier death penalty studies that report deterrence, and they find no deterrence....To prove their assertions, Kovandzic et al. instead should have established, with rigor, that their results are derived from more appropriate statistical models and must, therefore, be the correct one. Moreover, their statistical methods are unjustified and, at times, inappropriate. Their assertion about the lack of a deterrent effect is, therefore, unwarranted given their evidence. (p. 858) After finishing off his enemy with a slide rule, Dr. Rubin goes on to suggest that (horrors!) human bias is likely at work: Most murders occur in poor neighborhoods and among relatively uneducated persons, often with risky lifestyles. An element of elitism may be present in academic recommendations for abolishing the death penalty, because others will bear the costs. (p. 858) Yes, where one stands undoubtedly influences what one sees. But as the frailty of the adjudicative system has become well recognized, minds have changed for the best of reasons. In Texas, the hang ‘em high State that hosts nearly half of America’s executions, one barometer of the public mood, the Dallas Morning News, recently came out against the death penalty. It used to strongly favor it: It's hard to imagine that, at the start of this decade, it was legal to execute people for crimes they committed as children, to execute the mentally retarded and to bring racial biases into jury-selection processes. The Supreme Court righted those wrongs and, for the first time, established that post-conviction DNA evidence could be considered in the appeals process. And in Texas, life without parole – or ‘death by prison,’ as we like to call it – finally became an option for juries. These are all signs that courts, prosecutors, politicians and the public are recognizing the problems in our imperfect system of justice. This newspaper feels more strongly than ever that those flaws are sufficiently widespread that the justice system cannot be trusted to impose irreversible sentences of death... If, as most criminologists believe, punishment deters, then it’s probably true that fear of being put to death has prevented some murders. But that presumed benefit alone isn’t dispositive. State-sanctioned killing is a political and moral issue that goes to the heart of the relationship between the people and their government. Capital punishment is also replete with racial and socioeconomic disparities. Simply put, if you can’t afford a good lawyer, better break open that Bible. What’s more, it’s become painfully clear that the justice system does goof, sometimes in a big way. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 139 death-row prisoners have been exonerated since 1973. To date the Innocence Project reports 249 DNA-based exonerations, including seventeen on death row. It’s likely that our contemporary justice system has executed innocent persons. (For an example, click here.) Surely, such blunders are unforgivable. Yet as the article in Criminology suggests, enjoying Texas-sized benefits requires ramping up the threat of execution to Texas-size levels. Naturally, that might increase the frequency of tragic mistakes. To what extent is impossible to estimate. Dead men tell no tales, and since we don’t track miscarriages of justice until they’re officially acknowledged, the error rate remains a cipher. (It’s analogous to the problem that plagues deterrence research. We don’t know who’s deterred, so how can we be sure how or if deterrence works?) Considering its problems one would be hard-pressed to support the death penalty just because of its reported effects in Texas. But what if the benefits could be extended to the rest of the country? In 2009 the Lone Star State (pop. 24,782,302) put twenty-four persons to death, or approximately one per million. Applying that ratio to the U.S. (pop. 307,006,550) calls for about 300 executions per year. Using the benefit range reported by Kovandzic et al. that would save from 150 to 750 lives, yielding, based on 16,272 murders reported in 2008, an overall reduction in homicide from .9 to 4.6 percent. Hmm. Executing two dozen persons each month might not be a problem in China or North Korea, but could we stomach that in the U.S.A.? Keep in mind that according to the deterrence paradox we can’t know whose lives are saved, so stirring up public support might be problematic. Really, given the controversies about its fairness, doubts about its effectiveness, and the likelihood of wrongful executions, expanding the use of the death penalty seems unlikely and unwise. With fifteen States and D.C. having already abolished capital punishment, it may be time for the U.S. to quit “tinkering” and join the E.U. and the rest of the civilized world in doing away with this throwback to the Dark Ages altogether. * Adapted from Justice Blackmun’s famous words in Callins v. James (1994): “From this day forward, I no longer will tinker with the machinery of death.” Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print/Save Jump to next posting RELATED POSTS Did Georgia Execute an Innocent Man? (Part I) With Some Mistakes There’s No Going Back Tookie’s Fate is the Wrong Debate Dead Man Walking DOJ: Texas Executed an Innocent Man House of Cards UPDATES 11/23/11 Calling his state’s death penalty “a perversion of justice,” Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber declared a moratorium on executions. He acted two weeks before the scheduled execution of a killer whose competency is in question. Kitzhaber said he acted because the death penalty is applied inequitably, not because it is morally wrong.
09/29/11 According to the Field Poll Californians strongly favor keeping the death penalty (68 percent.) But more favor life without parole over death for those convicted of 1st. degree murder (48 percent to 40 percent), suggesting that the preference for death may be shifting to more heinous crimes like multiple killings, cop killings and terrorism.
09/15/11 Ninety minutes after the scheduled execution time, the Supreme Court granted a stay to condemned Texas inmate Duane Buck. Justices will decide whether a psychologist’s testimony at Buck’s penalty hearing that blacks are more likely to recidivate violated Buck’s civil rights. At least eight other black Texas convicts may also be affected.
07/01/11 Sixty-three percent of Americans support the death penalty according to a new Rasmussen survey. A majority also feels the criminal justice system is unfair, not because people are wrongly arrested, but because criminals are too often let go. Despite statistics to the contrary, a majority also believes that crime is on the rise.
04/05/11 With only eight hours to spare, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of Texas inmate Cleve Foster, convicted in a 2004 killing. This stay and two others granted in the past month to condemned men in Alabama and Arizona are based on claims of various forms of ineffective legal assistance.
03/09/11 Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a bill abolishing the death penalty. He also commuted the sentences of all prisoners on death row to life imprisonment. His action was precipitated by fears of a wrongful execution, spurred by the fact that as many as 20 Illinois inmates once sentenced to death were subsequently exonerated. 12/07/10 Calling the death penalty “settled law,” the Harris County (Dallas) D.A. ordered her lawyers to stand mute at an ongoing hearing by a State judge to decide whether the risks of executing an innocent person in Texas are so high that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The hearing was spurred by a current case before the judge. 11/27/10 Former Justice John Paul Stevens says that he turned against capital punishment in 2008 after concluding that it is “shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.” His essay on the topic will be published in The New York Review of Books. 11/27/10 In California condemned prisoners must usually wait a decade or more to be assigned an appeals lawyer. The delays, which have led to a “logjam” on death row, where more than 700 prisoners await a final judgment, are in large part due to inadequate state funding, which keeps the pool of lawyers too small to handle the number of cases. 08/23/10 Now that an official report has severely criticized the North Carolina crime lab for bias and poor quality, death penalty opponents are demanding that the state commute all death sentences. No one has been executed for four years, but the Governor is known to support capital punishment. 06/18/10 Twenty-five years after murdering a Utah man, Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was executed by his method of choice, a firing squad. But it’s the delay -- not the method -- that’s brought on furious criticism from both sides of the death penalty debate. 06/08/10 Thirty-two years after bullets from his AK-47 rifle pierced the vest of Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo, his killer, David Powell, faces execution. Some say that justice so delayed is meaningless; others, including the dead officer’s colleagues and survivors, say it’s about time. 04/01/10 Excluding China, where several thousand persons were reportedly put to death, Amnesty International estimates that at least 714 persons were executed in 18 countries in 2009. Rounding out the top five were Iran (388), Iraq (120), Saudi Arabia (69), and the U.S. (52). 03/10/10 Serious errors in investigation and prosecution have led to a new trial for a New Orleans man sentenced to death for the 2006 murder of five. A study reveals that of 36 death sentences in New Orleans since 1976 five persons were exonerated and two others were acquitted on retrial.
|
