Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Some links to SNL skits about Teddy K.
As promised, these are fun to check out:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Gameplans for finishng up our capital punishment discussions: making sure we are all on the same page(s)
Because I have not been a model of consistency and clarity concerning what students should be reading for class and concerning what I expect to cover, let me here try to make amends with a brief outline/overview of my class plans/expectations:
Tuesday, Sept 27: We will finish up a discussion of Furman/Gregg/Woodson/Roberts/Coker, which help explain/define modern DP relaties
Wednesday, Sept 28: We will consider how Florida, Texas and Ohio capital sentencing laws help guide jury death sentencing discretion for the Unibomber (and others)
For a lot more information about "your client," here is a massive Wikipedia entry on Ted Kaczynski. That entry has (too) many great links, though I would especially encourage checking out at least some of the Unibomber's (in)famous Manifesto, "INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE" as well as this lengthy Time article by Stephen J. Dubner from 1999 about Teddy K. headlined "I Don't Want To Live Long. I Would Rather Get The Death Penalty Than Spend The Rest Of My Life In Prison")
Monday, Oct 3: No class (extra time to work on mini- or maxi-papers)
Tuesday, Oct 4: We will discuss McClesky v. Kemp (paying extra special attention to the final few paragraphs of the majority opinion and then debating a possible Ohio Racial and Gender Justice Act)
Wednesday, Oct 5: Wrap up DP discussions and start transition to LWOP/non-capital sentencing challenges by identifying enduring lessons
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
The full McGautha...
can be found here. Reading just the majority opinion authored by Justice Harlan (which is only 1/4 of the whole thing) is encouraged, but not required, for having extra fun throughout next week's discussion. I also think everyone should at least get started reading Furman and Gregg and subsequent SCOTUS cases in chapter 3 of our text ASAP.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Death penalty deterrence research and arguments that the death penalty is morally required
As I mentioned in class, some years ago Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule produced a provocative article suggesting that new deterrence evidence might make the death penalty morally required for state actors seriously concerned with value of life. Here is a link to this article and its abstract, with one line stressed to pick up the theme developed in class that government killing is different-in-kind from other kinds of killing:
Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs , 58 Stan. L. Rev. 703 (2005):
Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished even if, as recent evidence seems to suggest, it has a significant deterrent effect. But if such an effect can be established, capital punishment requires a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. The familiar problems with capital punishment -- potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew -- do not require abolition because the realm of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context because government is a special kind of moral agent. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs potentially involved in capital punishment may depend in part on cognitive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve. The objection to the act/omission distinction, as applied to government, has implications for many questions in civil and criminal law.
Alternatively, if you like digging into social science research, the modern empirical debate over the death penalty should be informed by a collection of some data-crunching on the deterrent effect of capital punishment available via this page assembled by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Notably, CJLF is supportive of the death penalty; the Death Penalty Information Center is opposed to the death penalty, and it has this webpage criticizing the studies appearing on the CJLF's page concerning deterrence.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Lots of interesting new buzz concerning the (sort of dormant) Ohio death penalty
Conveniently, my week away proved to be a period in which some interesting local death penalty news and commentary emerged, as evidence by these two recent posts from my main blog:
- Is Ohio again about to pioneer a new execution method?
These topics and lots of others will be a part of our coming extensive discussion of death penalty theory, policy and practice over the next few weeks.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
A glimpse into the hows (and whos) of federal death sentencing in a high-profile case
This new BuzzFeed News article, headlined "Prosecutors Want To Limit Dylann Roof’s Use Of A “Mercy” Defense," provides an effective summary of this interesting motion filed by prosecutors in a high profile federal capital case. Especially because we will be jumping into the history, law and practice of capital punishment next week, I recommend everyone consider checking out the motion.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Basic information on the methods and madness of mini-paper assignment(s)
As the Course Description noted, part of your formal work in this class is to author (at least) two “mini-papers” which will comprise up to 20% of your final grade. (You can look through this blog's archives to see examples of the kinds of in-semester writings I have urged students to produce in previous years, though please know each year I tweak the topics and format of this class requirement.)
Absent further instructions/modifications, here is my planned approach to the mini-paper assignment this time around: Each submitted mini-papers must be no more than four pages long (and can be MUCH shorter), and should respond to my in-class prompts that I plan to provide every few weeks. The first prompt, for example, was (formally?) delivered today in class when I encouraged all to write up your personal "sentencing topic of interest" with a particular focus/reflection on the meta-topics we have discussed our first few weeks in class (namely theories of punishment and who sentences).
I expect to provide a new prompt for a new mini-paper every few weeks, usually right after these (Monday AM) tentative submission due dates for these mini-papers:
• September 19 (for "topic of interest" mini-paper)
• October 10 (for what will likely be a death penalty prompt)
• November 7 (for what will likely be a federal sentencing prompt)
• December 5 (for what will likely be a "SCOTUS-as-who" sentencing prompt)
As also hinted in class, one goal for this assignment is to engender additional inter-student substantive discourse; that is why, subject to any stated objections/concerns for certain submissions, I expect to distribute everyone's submitted mini-papers back to the class for all to read and consider.
Because the comments to this blog are now working, I encourage students to use the comments to ask any basic follow-up questions or to express any concerns about these assignments. And, to be perfectly clear, though I will be providing (at least) four formal prompts for mini-paper writing, students are requires only to complete two mini-papers throughout the semester. (But because you get this option, I will be expecting the papers to be really good, and you can earn extra credit by submitting more than the mandatory minimum number of papers.)
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Some background reading on (various forms of) castration as a punishment for sex offenders
Since I keep managing to end class with lingering questions about castration as a punishment for sex offenses, I figured I would use this blog space to highlight some existing literature on this topic. Perhaps my main goal here is to be sure I do not leave the impression that I am the only one who thinks (too much?) about the potential pros and cons of castration as a punishment for sex offenders:
A 2005 peer-reviewed journal article, titled "The Impact of Surgical Castration on Sexual Recidivism Risk Among Sexually Violent Predatory Offenders"
A 2006 press article, headlined "Some Sex Offenders Opt for Castration"
A 2009 student note making the case for chemical castration, titled "Chemical Castration for Child Predators: Practical, Effective, and Constitutional"
A 2010 press article, titled "California law mandates chemical castration of certain offenders"
- A 2013 student note arguing against chemical castration, titled "'Off with His __': Analyzing the Sex Disparity in Chemical Castration Sentences"
A 2014 press article from the UK, titled "Should We Be Castrating Sex Offenders?", interviewing an expert involved in UK "voluntary" program "to chemically castrate rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders."
I do not expect anyone to read all these materials (or even any of them if this topic creeps you out), but perhaps one or more of you might find this topic interesting for a future mini-paper or final paper. And, speaking of topics of interest for mini/final papers, I promise on Monday to start the class by going around the room and having folks describe a sentencing/punishment topic of personal interest. Once we have that discussion, we will then jump hard into the Williams case.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
First week assignments, electronic copies of course documents, and links for completing questionnaire
I have posted on the Moritz official website our first assignments, but I figured it would be useful to repost the details here, while also providing electronic copies of the basic course documents. So....
In preparation for our first week of classes starting Monday, August 22, 2016 you should:
1. Get a copy of the THIRD edition of the casebook for the course.
2. Download the questionnaire and fill it out before our first class. (In addition to being posted here, the questionnaire and course description will be available in hard-copy in front of my office, Room 313.)
3. Find/research on your own a real sentencing issue, case or story that is of significant interest to you, and come to our first week of classes prepared to explain this issue, case or story and why it is of significant interest to you.
You will discover that a few of the questions in the questionnaire call for a bit of on-line research, and here are some links to help in this arena:
- The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (which is a component of the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice).
- United States Sentencing Commission
- Death Penalty Information Center
- The Sentencing Project
- Quick Facts from Families Against Mandatory Minimums
- Wikipedia entry on California v. Brock Turner
- Collection of court documents from California v. Brock Turner
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Welcome yet again to another reboot of this blog for another semester of Sentencing Law at the Moritz College of Law
This is now the FIFTH re-launch of this blogging adventure!!
This blog started nearly 10 years ago (with the uninspired title of Death Penalty Course @ Moritz College of Law) to facilitate student engagement in the Spring 2007 course on the death penalty that I taught at OSU's Moritz College of Law. This first post in this space explained, way back then, that "I hope[d] that both the contents and very construct of this blog will inspire a new type of engagement with the death penalty and with on-line media for students." Sure enough, the blog proved successful during that semester (which was when this guy was still US Prez and when this TV show was still the most popular).
I closed this blog down not long after that first death penalty course ended, but thereafter discovered the students' hard work as reflected in the archives still was generating some web traffic and that many posts remained timely (though a whole bunch of old web links are now very dead). So, as I geared up for teaching Criminal Punishment & Sentencing in Spring 2009 at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and again when visiting in Spring 2010 at Fordham School of Law and again back at the Moritz College of Law in Fall 2011 and Spring 2014, I decided to reboot this blog to allow the new course to build in this space on some materials covered before. In all of these classes, I have been pleased with how this blog helped promote student engagement with on-line media and materials. (For the record, OSU students always engaged with the blog much more and better than Fordham students.)
Now, circa August 2016, I am gearing up to teach Sentencing Law again at the Moritz College of Law. And because a lot of new exciting sentencing developments seem likely in the weeks and months ahead, I am hopeful that this space will stay active as I flag current events for class discussion. In addition, I use this blog (rather than TWEN) as convenient place to post information about class activities and plans and assignments, and so you can/should be on the look out for class materials posting in this space soon.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Final sets of mini-papers for review and reactions
Well timed for the middle of the first week of final is the last set of student mini-papers for student review:
Remember that if you are looking for a great way to earn some final extra credit, say smart things about one or more of these mini-papers in the comments.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Still more sets of mini-papers for review and reactions
As promised (and threatened), I am now continuing to post collections of mini-papers produced by students throughout the semester. Here are three more of the collections:
Friday, April 24, 2015
A couple more sets of mini-papers for review and reactions
As promised, I will be posting throughout this week and next the collections of mini-papers produced by students throughout the semester. Here are two more of the collections to go along with the death penalty collection posted previously:
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
The great opportunity (and great joy) of semester review via mini-papers
Thanks to the extraordinary help of my wonderful office assistant Allyson, I now have now finally assembled more than 60 of the mini-papers submitted over the last two months into nine subject-specific collections (in pdf form) for posting here and collective review. Huzzah!
Though all the mini-papers are a whole lot to read in one sitting (running 120+ pages), I am hopeful the subject-specific organization will enable students to review topics of particular interest in smaller chunks. And, as I continue to re-read all the mini-papers, I find that they serve as an interesting and effective review of much of what we formally covered in class through the semester.
I will be posting these collections in a number of separate posts (to perhaps facilitate distinct comments concerning different collections), and I will start with the big topic of the death penalty that kept us especially busy the first half of the semester:
Download Death Penalty (pdf collection runs 31 pages)
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
If you are curious about federal child porn sentencing...
here is a link to the 400+ page report that the US Sentencing Commission published on the topic in December 2012. The report's executive summary is only about a couple dozen pages, can be accessed at this link, and here are some interesting excerpts:
[S]entencing data indicate that a growing number of courts believe that the current sentencing scheme in non-production offenses is overly severe for some offenders. As the Supreme Court has observed, the Commission’s obligation to collect and examine sentencing data directly relates to its statutory duty to consider whether the guidelines are in need of revision in light of feedback from judges as reflected in their sentencing decisions.
[A]s a result of recent changes in the computer and Internet technologies that typical non-production offenders use, the existing sentencing scheme in non-production cases no longer adequately distinguishes among offenders based on their degrees of culpability. Non-production child pornography offenses have become almost exclusively Internet-enabled crimes; the typical offender today uses modern Internet-based technologies such as peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing programs that were just emerging only a decade ago and that now facilitate large collections of child pornography. The typical offender’s collection not only has grown in volume but also contains a wide variety of graphic sexual images (including images of very young victims), which are now readily available on the Internet. As a result, four of the of six sentencing enhancements in §2G2.2 — those relating to computer usage and the type and volume of images possessed by offenders, which together account for 13 offense levels — now apply to most offenders and, thus, fail to differentiate among offenders in terms of their culpability. These enhancements originally were promulgated in an earlier technological era, when such factors better served to distinguish among offenders.15 Indeed, most of the enhancements in §2G2.2, in their current or antecedent versions, were promulgated when the typical offender obtained child pornography in printed form in the mail....
[M]ost stakeholders in the federal criminal justice system consider the nonproduction child pornography sentencing scheme to be seriously outmoded. Those stakeholders, including sentencing courts, increasingly feel that they “are left without a meaningful baseline from which they can apply sentencing principles” in non-production cases....
The Commission concludes that the non-production child pornography sentencing scheme should be revised to account for recent technological changes in offense conduct and emerging social science research about offenders’ behaviors and histories, and also to better promote the purposes of punishment by accounting for the variations in offenders’ culpability and sexual dangerousness.
In addition, you might find intriguing and informative the lengthy discussion of child porn sentencing in the split Third Circuit panel decision in United States v. David Grober (where the majority, inter alia, faults the district court for allowing me to testify at the sentencing hearing).
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Basic finals information (and a place for any questions or concerns)
As I mentioned in class, the final paper for this class (and the final take-home exam which is available as an alternative to completing a final paper) is due at close of business on the last day of the exam period. According to the Registrar's website, the final exam day is May 14, 2015. (Note that, because this is truly the last day, I cannot readily give any kind of extension, especially to anyone supposed to graduate the next day.)
If you are taking the take-home final, I am certain it will be available no later than April 30 (and perhaps sooner), and you have the entire exam period to complete it. In case you are wondering about the final's format, here are the general instructions I typically have for take-home finals in this class:
Typical Berman Take-Home General Instructions
1. To complete this exam you must answer at least 3 of the 4 questions.
2. As an open-book exam, you may refer to any (non-human) sources, but your answers must be prepared independently, without discussion or assistance from others.
3. Each question has a strict [1500 or 2000 or question-specific] word limit. These are limits, not goals. Great answers are possible in fewer words. Aided by your computer’s word count feature, please note the total number of words at the end of each of your answers.
4. You are not required to use sources other than class materials. You are not precluded from conducting outside research, though extra time may be best invested in reviewing course materials and revising your answers to ensure they are clear and concise.
I welcome any question or concerns about any of this expressed in class or in the (now working) comment section here. Remember my mantra: low-stress, high-learning.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Final weeks to focus on purposes, offense, offender, sentencing and post-sentencing for sex offenders
A number of stories I have recently covered on my blog leads me to conclude we would usefully bring our semester to an informative and challenging close by giving special attention to the uniquely dynamic purposes, offense/offender, sentencing/post-sentencing issues raised by an array of sex offenses and offenders. Though I will assign some formal readings from our casebook on these topics on Tuesday, I will kick off this final segment of the course by urging everyone to cruise through the Sex Offender Sentencing archive on my main blog looking for stories they find especially interesting and thus worthy of in-class discussion.
To highlight how dynamic and challenging sex offender sentencing issues can be, consider these posts concerning notable sex offender sentencing rulings and stories making headlines just in the past few weeks and months:
Distinct goals/purposes issues:
- Yet again, Sixth Circuit reverses one-day sentence for child porn downloading as substantively unreasonable
Distinct offense considerations:
- Oregon Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of LWOP sentence for public pubic promotion
Distinct offender considerations:
- Did serial rapist, former NFL star Darren Sharper, benefit from celebrity justice in global plea deal?
Distinct post-sentencing consequences and concerns:
- Can a sheriff prohibit sex offenders from a church that is sometimes a school?
- First Circuit creates hard and firm standards before allowing sex offender penile plethysmograph testing
I would be especially grateful if student come to class on Tuesday having reviewed many of these linked stories and with an opinion about which aspect(s) of sex offender sentencing they would like us to focus particularly upon in the final weeks of class.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Understand the terms of USSC debate over the fraud guidelines
As mentioned in class on Wednesday, and as detailed in this official notice, the US Sentencing Commission has a public meeting scheduled for April 9, 2015, at 1:00 pm (which is to be live-streamed here). The big agenda item of note for the meeting is the "Vote to Promulgate Proposed Amendments," and the most consequential amendments being considered concerns proposals to tweak § 2B1.1, the key guideline for fraud cases and many other white-collar offenses.
I doubt the actual USSC meeting will be a must-see event, though I still urge you to tune in. But I have a must-read for anyone interested in white-collar federal sentencing: this fantastic Jurist commentary by Prof Randall Eliason titled "The DOJ Opposition to the Proposed Sentencing Guideline Amendments: Fighting the Wrong Battles in Fraud Cases."
Monday, April 6, 2015
Two projects for a week with possibly just one class
Much to my chagrin, I fear this week our class will only be able to meet on Wednesday (4/8), and I fear that much of that class will involve going over current events and making sure the last few weeks of class are productive. To that end, I have two potential projects for students to work on/think about which (1) could be the basis for additional mini-papers OR (2) the basis for a final paper OR (3) the answer to one of the question(s) likely to show up on the take home final. Here are the basics, with more explanation to come during Wednesday's class:
Possible paper/project #1. After the drug war: keys terms for the treaty (or reparations, or a Marshall Plan, or a truth and reconciliation commission or....)?
As we have discussed in class, the so-called "war on drugs" has played a huge role in criminal justice developments over the last 40 years, and it has play an important role in debates over modern sentencing reform and mass incarceration. Now that there is a growing consensus that the harshest sentencing aspects of the drug war need to be reformed (and a remarkable move toward reform of marijuana and other criminal laws), a growing question is what the essential elements and terms of the post-drug-war sentencing and corrections system. Should past marijuana (and other drug) convictions be expunged? Should some kind of formal reparations be a critical part of modern reforms? And who --- legislatures, sentencing commissions, judges, executive officials --- should be principally charged with designing the terms of the "post-drug-war treaty"?
Possible paper/project #2. Drafting new formal federal guidelines for the consideration of (one, a few, many?) offender characteristics.
In this (relatively short) law review article, a former Chair of the US Sentencing Commission criticized the federal sentencing guidelines for having too often and for too long declared offender characteristics to be "prohibited or discouraged factors" because of a fear that these factors could too readily lead "courts to issue different sentences to defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." He suggested factors like "past drug dependence" and "positive response under pretrial supervision" ought to be the basis for new formal "guidelines that encourage consideration of those characteristics where appropriate." Do you agree that new guidelines would be fitting for these (or other) offender characteristics, and what might these guidelines look like?
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Working text of Amended RID bill for reducing drunk driving crimes and harms
As you should recall, we ended class on Thursday with a working draft proposal for new drunk-driving legislation. Here is what has made it through our drafting committee so far:
First Offense DUI: imprisonment from minimum term of zero to five years max
Second Offense DUI: imprisonment from minimum term of six month to seven years max
Third (or Greater) Offense DUI: imprisonment from minimum term of two years to ten years max
In addition, a sentencing judge should (must?) give the minimum term for any DUI offense if and only when the defendant's BAC was .10% or lower and no tangible harm result from the offense. A sentencing judge should (must?) impose a sentence above the minimum if the defendant's BAC was above .10% or tangible harm resulted from the offense.
We could (and perhaps should) continue to discuss and debate other offense-related provisions to incorporate into this sentenceing --- e.g., we might provide more specific guidance/mandates concerning what other BAC levels or types of harms should/must result in a certain amount of jail time. But, in order to reduce the risk of potential unwarranted disparity, I think it may be even more important that we consider whether and how to provide some offender-related instructions to judges for the exercise of their sentencing discretion in this setting. And to get the discussion started, here are some proposals for consideration:
Proposal 1. A judge generally should (must?) sentence an offender at or near the applicable minimum term if and when the defendant has no criminal history, has pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility and shown remorse, and has demonstrated a willingness to seek treatment for any substance abuse or personal problems that may have contributed to the offense.
Proposal 2. A judge generally should (must?) sentence an offender at or near the applicable maximum term if and when the defendant has a significant criminal history, has refused to accept responsibility and shown remorse, and has failed to demonstrate a willingness to seek treatment for any substance abuse or personal problems that may have contributed to the offense.
(Contrary) Proposal 3. A judge generally should (must?) not in exercising his sentencing discretion consider in any way a defendant's criminal history, whether he has shown any remorse, or whether any substance abuse or personal problems may have contributed to the offense.
As these proposals are written, it is possible (but not essential) to favor both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2. But Proposal 3 is intended to be directly contrary to the Proposal 1 and my goal here is to explore whether and how you favor (or oppose) the consideration of some common offender-related sentencing factors.
I would encourage students to use the comments to discuss any part of this on-going debate over our new sentencing bill, and folks should feel especially free to propose any additional amendments and modifications to the bill. We will build on what we have done to date in our class discussion on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Intriguing federal fraud sentencing raising distinct offense and offender issues
As mentioned in class, this week we will continue to unpack the challenging question of exactly what are the essential aspects of the "offense" to be assessed and punished at sentencing, and next week we will focus on whether there are any essential aspects of the "offender" that must (or must not) be assessed and punished at sentencing. With both topics in mind, a story of an upcoming federal fraud sentence blogged at SL&P struck me as especially interesting: You be the judge: what federal sentence for modern sheriff playing Robin Hood?.
Here are the basics of the offense based on press accounts:
Charge(s) of conviction: federal mail fraud, carrying a statutory range of 0 to 20 years in prison
Real conduct: "created hundreds of fake police reports [over and 18 month period] for a friend who ran a credit repair business so people could claim their identities were stolen and get out of credit." Main victim seems to be the credit company Equifax, and there is not tangible evidence the offender received any money for his fraudulent behavior (but his friend in the credit repair business made thousands of dollars from the scheme and may have paid the offender cash for his assistance).
Here are the basics of the offender based on press accounts:
Characteristics at time of 2012-13 crime: Male, heavy-set, 37 years-old, sheriff of southern county.
Background: "no criminal record, ... has suffered from depression and anxiety the past four years [and] has migraines, high blood pressure and insomnia." The now-former sheriff "was raised in a broken home, saw his mother abused by a boyfriend and left at age 17 to relieve her of financial burden [while they] resided in a poverty-stricken area." The offender joined the county "in 1997, two years after graduating high school and rose to chief deputy, becoming sheriff in April 2010."
Today and for the next few classes, we will talk about offense and offender sentencing issues using this real case (rather than the fake Rob Anon case) as a focal point. Consider and be prepared to discuss whether and how you think sentencing law could and should require (or preclude) consideration some of the facts listed above at sentencing. Also, consider whether there are any additional facts about the offense or the offender you would like to know before sentencing.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
National and Ohio drunk driving harms data for sentencing exercise
There are lots of sites worth checking out concerning the scourge of drunk driving, and this webpage from The Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility has lots of helpful links to lots of helpful data. For example,this page has a really nice simple chart highlight that drunk driving death nationally in recent years have been around 10,000 per year, which is about 1/3 less than the yearly average a decade ago. This decline in deaths arguably proves that tougher criminal laws work as this decline correlates with more states adopting .08% BAC as the legal limit AND with more states requiring ignition locks as punishment for DUI offenses.
But "only" 10,000 DUI deaths each year still means that, on average, more than 25 persons are killed by a drunk driver every single day in the US. This website with official Ohio highway stats reveals that Ohio has averaged more than 400 drunk driving deaths per year (meaning more than one per day). As I mentioned in class, these number are only slightly lower than the total number of deaths from intentional homicide: roughly, the US has averaged about 14,000 murders and Ohio has averaged around 500 murders per year in recent years.
Ohio's current penalties for drunk driving (called OVI) are effectively outlined on this webpage, and Senator Madd, the new head of the Judiciary Committee, made reducing drunk driving deaths and injuries a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. He also knows that, as explained on this MADD webpage, roughly "one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders. At any given point we potentially share the roads with 2 million people with three or more drunk driving offenses. Taking away their licenses isn’t enough; 50-75% of them drive anyway."
Senator Madd is eager to work with any and everyone on legislation to make Ohio's roads and all its citizens safer. He sees some potential merit in both the RID and TOUGH bills that have been proposed, but he is eager to get some additional input from fellow legislators about the best ways to move forward on these fronts.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Reminders and updates ... about class and sentencing cases we have been following
I hope everyone enjoyed Spring Break as much as I did and also that everyone is looking forward to an exciting final month of our sentencing class. This post provides a couple of reminders about on-going activities as well as some updates that might be of interest as we close out March sentencing madness:
1. Everyone has a chance to submit an extra mini-paper this week (requirements outlined here), ideally by 12noon on Monday, March 23. The required prompt: "What topic(s) are you eager for us to discuss in class more before the end of the semester?" Recall that, though all students are required to submit at least three mini-papers before the end of the semester, extra credit will be rewarded to those who submit more than the minimum.
2. This week in class, we will focus on what should be "the offense" for sentencing purposes. Specifically, should only the formal specifics of the offense of conviction be considered at sentencing (the "charge offense") or should sentencing involve at least some real specifics of how the offense was actually committed (the "real offense"). As you consider this seemingly basic question, review your prior efforts sentencing Rob Anon prior to modern reforms and under the federal sentencing guidelines. Did the charge offense or the real offense matter more to you when sentencing in the discretionary pre-guideline world? How about in the guideline world? And what does the US Constitution have to say about this according to the Supreme Court in the Watts case?
3. You may recall we talked earlier in the semester about the upcoming sentencing of former Connecticut Gov John Rowland. Here is how that turned out: Former Governor John Rowland Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison. In addition, we have been following death penalty debate in Pennsylvania, and here is an interesting "who" development on that front: "Victim's wife: Keep me out of death penalty fight"
Monday, March 9, 2015
Links to all the key guidelines for modern FSG sentencing of Rob Anon
With apologies for the delay, I will now finally through this post provide some hints and help for sentencing Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines. Here are links to the key provisions of the "official" on-line version of the now-applicable US Sentencing Guidelines as provided on the US Sentencing Commission's website:
- §2B3.1 Robbery
- §3B1.1. Aggravating Role
- §4A1.1. Criminal History Category
I highly encourage class members to start working through these "basic" federal guideline sentencing materials on their own (and then use the comments to express frustration) before looking for any more sentencing help. That said, if (when?) you want/need some more help, here is a link to a worksheet created by the US Sentencing Commission intended to aid in the guideline sentencing process:
As you work through this assignment, please feel free use the comments to express what it feels like to sentence in the federal system now that a whole lot of law has been brought into the process.
Though I continue to hope I am doing a good job with my low-stress, high-learning class mantra, it is very important in my view for everyone to get through the Rob Anon guideline sentencing experience ASAP; having done so will be essential to getting the most out of our classes the rest of this month. If you have already done this exercise, do it again and/or review your work. If you have not done it yet, please do.
More evidence that the death penalty will keep pulling us back in...
To paraphrase the most memorable line from the least memorable Godfather movie, just when I thought we could be done with our discussions of the death penalty and who sentences, the media and the US Supreme Court keep pulling us back in. Specifically, check out these recent notable posts from my main blog:
- Examining some statistical realities behind federal death penalty administration