April 30, 2020

One last thanks and one last class presentation

So even though it has only been a few weeks since our last class, I miss seeing you all and I continue to hope you are enduring the pandemic (and finals) with good health and good cheer.  In addition to doing one last post to say thanks again for a great semester, I wanted to also post Hart's presentation on Clemency in North Carolina:

Download NC Clemency

I hope you all can find time for a study break to review this presentations.  I also hope you all continue to fell comfortable reaching out to me with any question about the final paper or about any other matters of concern as this very strange semester draws to an official close.

 

April 30, 2020 in Class activities, Course requirements | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 31, 2020

Many thanks for the terrific in-class presentations, and apologies for only being able to post this additional one... AND ONE MORE

I keep wanting to believe that I have a handle on technology, but it seems I only can figure out blogging (sometimes). 

To that end, here is Andrea's terrific presentation (in two parts because of the size of the file):

Download Part 1 -- Clemency for Victims of Sex Trafficking Who Commit

Download Part 2 -- Clemency for Victims of Sex Trafficking Who Commit

I am a bit fearful that the embedded audio may still not be working, but I will keep trying to make this work. 

 

Also, the recording of our Zoom class on March 31 is available at this link (which I have also posted in Carmen):

https://osu.zoom.us/rec/share/z-hYIovOqXhIabfLwmPyc7cqQdvnX6a8h3AfqKUMmUvteUR_EYW7YQuOc8hcfBXU 

 

UPDATECarly has submitted a recorded version of her presentation on "Clemency in the UK" and here is the link:

Download Carly Sinclair Clemency LP3

 

March 31, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 11, 2020

Eager to be flexible with remaining class presentations (and final papers)

With the news that Ohio State has now suspended face-to-face instruction and is moving to virtual instruction through at least Monday, March 30, I am eager to hear from those students who still need to make their clemency presentations about how best to move forward (recalling my mantra of low stress/high learning).  Here are some thoughts as we move forward:

1.  Because of travel restrictions, we have had to cancel the guest speaker who was supposed to speak at our class session on March 31.  As a result, we have five "open" scheduled class periods for the eight remaining presentations (March 17, 24, 31 and April 7, 14).

2.  With the hope that we will be back to regular classes by March 31 or April 7, we could just cancel our classes during the face-to-face suspension period and plan to have the final eight presentations during our regular scheduled Tuesday class times upon return.

3.  Using this blog or other technology (e.g., Carmen), we could "post" online student presentations in the form of just a PowerPoint deck or a video presentation.  Students could create/record whatever form of online presentation they would like to develop at their own pace, and then send them to me for posting for all of us to watch/review at our own pace.  (We can even arrange to record a presentation at Drinko if that would be helpful or more convenient for any interested students.)

4.  We can plan to "meet" online via Carmen Zoom at our regularly scheduled Tuesday times and students could plan/seek to present at their regularly scheduled times.  (UPDATE: I have been playing with Carmen Zoom, and it seems pretty easy to use if we would all like to try to conduct our "normal" class in this less-than-normal way.)

As of right now, I am inclined to (A) cancel our March 17 class so that students can spend the first week "back" figuring out just what "virtual instruction" looks and feels like in all your other classes, (B) encourage anyone interested in creating any online presentation to go ahead and do so in order to satisfy this part of the course requirements, and (C) welcome/encourage any and all feedback so we can do our best to keep achieving low stress/high learning in the weeks ahead.

Feedback is welcome in the comments here or via email.  Also, the lack of face-to-face instruction ought not create any major barriers to completing your final papers (which are not due until May 7), and I welcome any questions or concerns on that front (or any others) during these uncertain times.   And remember, as I have said repeatedly, you are all going to pass.

If I can help any of you with any challenges you may be facing, please do not hesitate to reach out.

March 11, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 24, 2020

Excited for student presentations after a week of clemency commentary

Just a reminder to everyone that, as we start the first week of student presentations, we will be going back to meeting in Room 348.  I look forward to seeing everyone there no later than 4pm so we have adequate time for the scheduled presentations.

Meanwhile, I assume all clemency fans have been seeing some of the commentary that Prez Trump's grants last week have engendered.  Just a very small sample of the buzz his clemency work engendered is covered in these posts at my other blog:

February 24, 2020 in Class activities, Clemency | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 17, 2020

What went wrong (or right) with the Obama Administration's clemency initiative? What are its substantive and procedural lessons?

Us_presidential_pardons_obamaOur last class of general discussion (before we turn to student presentations) will focus on the ground-breaking and controversial clemency activity during the final years of the Obama Administration.  I handed out in class last week this basic web review of the initiative as described by the US Department of Justice.  Among many topics I am eager to discuss in class, I would like to get your reaction to the substantive criteria that the were set out as part of the initiative.  Specifically, as explained by DOJ:

Under the initiative, the Department prioritized clemency applications from inmates who met most, if not all of the following factors:

  • They are currently serving a federal sentence in prison and, by operation of law, likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense(s) today;
  • They are non-violent, low-level offenders without significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs or cartels;
  • They have served at least 10 years of their prison sentence;
  • They do not have a significant criminal history;
  • They have demonstrated good conduct in prison; and
  • They have no history of violence prior to or during their current term of imprisonment.

I have linked in this prior post, and will link here again for convenience, two reports on the Obama Administration's clemency initiative that were prepared after President Obama left office: (1) U.S. Sentencing Commission, An Analysis of the 2014 Clemency Initiative (2017); (2) NYU Law School Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, The Mercy Lottery: A Review of the Obama Administration’s Clemency Initiative (2017).  Another important report reviewing the Obama Administration's clemency initiative came from the Department of Justice's own (3) Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Department’s Clemency Initiative (2018).  The executive summary of this OIG report provides important background as to some reasons why the clemency initiative was problematic and subject to considerable criticisms:

We found that the Department did not effectively plan, implement, or manage the Initiative at the outset.  However, subsequent actions by Department leadership enabled the Department to not only meet its goal of making recommendations to the White House on all drug petitions received by the deadline of August 31, 2016, but also to make recommendations on over 1,300 petitions received by OPA after the deadline.  In total, as a result of the Initiative, the Department made recommendations to the White House on over 13,000 petitions, resulting in 1,696 inmates receiving clemency.

Our review identified several shortcomings in the Department’s planning and implementation of the Initiative.  Because of philosophical differences between how the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) and OPA viewed clemency, Department leadership did not sufficiently involve OPA in the Initiative’s preannouncement planning.  Moreover, despite the Department’s stated commitment to provide OPA with the necessary resources, the Department did not sufficiently do so once the Initiative began.

The Department also did not effectively implement the Initiative’s inmate survey, which was intended to help the Department identify potentially meritorious clemency petitioners. For example, rather than survey only those inmates who likely met the Initiative’s six criteria, the survey was sent to every Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate.  As a result, CP 14 and OPA received numerous survey responses and petitions from inmates who clearly did not meet the Initiative’s criteria, thereby delaying consideration of potentially meritorious petitions....

Further, the Department experienced challenges in working with external stakeholders to implement the Initiative.  For example, the Department did not anticipate that CP 14 attorneys would have challenges in obtaining inmate Pre-sentence Investigation Reports and, as a result, it took almost a year before the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts allowed CP 14 attorneys to access them, which hampered CP 14’s ability to make timely eligibility determinations.  We also found that the Department and CP 14 had very different perspectives regarding CP 14’s role in the Initiative.  In particular, while the Department expected CP 14 to focus on identifying and submitting petitions on behalf of inmates who were strong candidates for clemency, CP 14 instead viewed its role as assisting and advocating for any inmate who wished to file a petition.  As a result, the Department believes CP 14 took longer to complete its work.

Our review also identified several weaknesses in the management of the Initiative in its early stages.  For example, there were differing views on how to interpret the Initiative’s six criteria.  The Initiative’s announcement stated that the criteria would be used to prioritize consideration of clemency petitions.  However, we were told by then Deputy Attorney General James Cole that petitions from inmates who did not meet all six criteria would not be considered.  Yet, then Pardon Attorney Deborah Leff directed OPA staff to review and provide recommendations to ODAG on every clemency petition, regardless of whether the inmates met all six criteria.  We found that OPA continued to view the criteria as subjective even after being advised by ODAG that it was applying the criteria strictly.  Lastly, although not one of the six criteria, the Administration decided that non-citizens would not be considered for clemency.  This was a significant criterion given that, at the time, approximately 25 percent of all federal inmates were non-citizen; yet the Administration did not publicly announce this decision and, as a result, non-citizen inmates filed clemency petitions and OPA spent time reviewing and processing them.  While under Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, the Department did recommend clemency for some non-citizens, President Obama ultimately did not grant clemency to any non-citizens under the Initiative.

Additionally, we found that U.S. Attorneys did not always provide their views on clemency petitions to OPA within 30 days, as required by Department policy.  For example, as of December 1, 2016, nearly 600 OPA requests to U.S. Attorneys had been awaiting a response for more than 30 days.

There has been some writing in various law reviews about the Obama Administration clemency initiative, and here are examples:

I do not expect students to read all that much of all these materials, but I will like to talk about how you think future Presidents will react and should react to all that transpired with President Obama's clemency work.

February 17, 2020 in Class activities, Clemency, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 03, 2020

Continuing discussion of "ideal" clemency process

In class this week, we will finish up discussing Woodard's account of what the Constitution demands (and does not demand) in the form of required process for those seeking clemency.  And then, as mentioned at the end of last class, I want us to explore various visions of what we might view as an ideal clemency process.

As we think about the clemency process, we might find it useful to discuss both (A) the broad "system structure" for clemency decision-making, and (B) the individual "case specific" process.  As for structure, questions arise concerning, e.g., whether to prefer decisions to be entirely in the hands of Governors/Presidents or to involve some kind of reviewing board; whether to want a legislature to create some standards or limits for clemency work. As for the case-specific, questions arise concerning, e.g., whether and how defendants can have legal counsel and present evidence; whether clemency decision-makers should provide some formal explanation for its rulings.

In addition to contemplating these sort of matters, please also remember to send me your top two presentation dates from these options.

February 3, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 27, 2020

Be ready to discuss Woodard as well as "ideal" clemency process

Though I hope you have had a chance to review the cases distributed last week -- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) and Ohio v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St. 3d 97 (2013) -- I expect that we will spend the bulk of out time in class discussing Woodard's rulings about what the Constitution demands (and does not demand) in the form of required process for those seeking clemency.  So be sure to take extra time to review the various opinion in Woodard, and think about whether a person alleging some extreme behavior by clemency authorities (e.g., a state official receiving a large campaign donation in order to vote against clemency) would make out a viable due process claim in light of Woodard.

In addition to considering the minimal clemency process that may be constitutionally required, in class I will also want to explore your views of an ideal clemency process.  In criminal trials, defendants have well-established rights to the assistance of legal counsel and to call witnesses (and contest the government's witnesses).  Even if these constitutional rights do not extend fully to the clemency process, should states provide for these processes in their clemency laws and procedures?  Should at least some persons seeking clemency (e.g., death row defendants) not only have a right to help from counsel, but also be able to get help from a lawyer paid for by the state?  Should the clemency process and any procedural rights afforded to an applicant vary based on his basis for seeking clemency (e.g., asserting innocence) or based on the underlying crime and relief being sought (e.g., a juvenile offender seeking just a commutation of a prison term)?

In addition to contemplating these sort of matters, please also remember to send me your top two presentation dates from these options.

January 27, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 20, 2020

Figuring out dates for clemency class presentations

As mentioned in class and in this post, this week everyone should be prepared to share their (tentative) plans for their class presentation.  In turn, it is now time to start figuring out a (tentative) schedule for these presentations.  If we want to schedule 3 or 4 presentations per week, we will need four class sessions to fit all 14 class presentation in during the normal class time.  In order to be able to cancel at least the last scheduled class (April 14) AND because we have a guest speaker scheduled on March 31, we have the following viable Tuesday presentation dates during the second part of the semester:

Because March 3 is the week before Spring Break and some of you might have assignments due in other classes around that time, I would be open to cancelling the March 3 class to provide for April 7 class as an alternative presentation date.  (We can make other class time adjustments if it is especially convenient for more than 4 people to present on a particular date, or we could even consider adding a "presentation lunch date" on a Friday if that might work better for some presenters.)

So, at your relative convenience, please send me via email at least two dates that you think would be best for you to do your class presentation.

January 20, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 07, 2020

Follow up information and links after our first class

As promised, here are links to the full articles that were passed around in partial hard-copy form in class today:

If you were interested in the full documentary "College Behind Bars" that I previewed in class, here is a link to the PBS site where it can be streamed. And speaking of things to watch, here ate the IMDB pages for new criminal justice movies Just Mercy and Clemency.  I would be eager to organize a trip for class members if interested.

Last but not least, we will be sure in next week's class to discuss the real-world example of (state or federal) clemency which took place BEFORE the 21st Century that is of interest to you.  Sorry we did not get to that today, but we will for sure next week.

UPDATEIt dawned on me that you all might like an electronic version of the course description and syllabus.  You will find that document (updated with our new room number) below:

Download Revised LP3 Berman for 2020

January 7, 2020 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 27, 2019

Mini-paper submission review

I have reviewed my inbox and files to check my records on how many mini-papers I have so far received from each student.  My current cumulative accounting has me with 45 total submissions to date, with the following particularity:

Mini #1: What topic interests you and might be basis for final paper --- 18 submissions so far

Mini #2: Advise a real official on expedited DP for mass shooters (or advise DeWine on Ohio issues) --- 8 submissions so far

Mini #3: Reflections/take-aways from the death penalty until --- 4 submissions so far

Mini #4:  Do we need a functioning US Sentencing Commission --- 7 submissions so far

Mini #5: Are drug offenses/offenders different  --- 8 submissions so far

In addition, as of this writing, my records show that 16 students have already completed the required two or more mini papers.  An additional 9 students are half way to that goal, and 10 students have not yet turned in any minis.  Feel free to follow up by email if you have any uncertainty about where you fall among these categories.

November 27, 2019 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 23, 2019

Previewing "College Behind Bars"

This recent USA Today article, headlined "'Undoing a mistake': Ken Burns film looks inside the push to bring college education back to prison," provides some important backstory on a notable new documentary about a notable prison education program in New York.  I suspect the full documentary with be worth watching/streaming, and I think just the preview serves as a potentially useful watch before our special guest scheduled for a visit on Monday.  Check it out:

November 23, 2019 in Class activities, Current Affairs, Scope of imprisonment, Television | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 18, 2019

Follow-up items from our class today on crime, alternatives and collateral consequences

Here are additional materials/links to follow up some matter discussed in class on Monday.  First, here are links to unpublished materials from our casebook for those really eager to dig deep into alternatives:

Second, here is  a link to the full huge new report from the US Commission on Civil Rights has today released in June titled "Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, Redemption and the Effects on Communities."   The report runs over 150 pages and provide a comprehensive modern accounting of collateral consequences along with reform recommendations. and here is part of the introductory letter from the Commission Chair:

This report provides an overview of the relevant data and arguments for and against the imposition of collateral consequences on people with criminal records.  Each year, federal and state prisons release more than 620,000 people to return to their communities.  While these individuals have often completely exited criminal supervision (for example, through a prison sentence or probation), individuals with criminal records still face potentially thousands of collateral consequences upon reentering society.  These collateral consequences are sanctions, restrictions, or disqualifications that attach to a person because of the person’s criminal history.  For example, individuals with criminal histories can face barriers to voting, jury service, holding public office, securing employment, obtaining housing, receiving public assistance, owning a firearm, getting a driver’s license, qualifying for financial aid and college admission, qualifying for military service, and maintaining legal status as an immigrant.  The reach of each collateral consequence extends past people with criminal records to affect families and communities.

Third, here is a recent report from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the problem of child sexual abuse images (aka child porn). It starts with this accounting of its data:

At the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children® (NCMEC), our CyberTipline® has received more than 50 million reports of suspected child sexual exploitation from its launch in 1998 through June 2019 – 18.4 million in 2018 alone. The vast majority of these reports contain child sexual abuse images – a stunning indictment of the insatiable demand for this abusive imagery on the internet. In the last decade, there’s been enormous progress made to disrupt the distribution of these images and prosecute those who share the experience of victimizing children with other offenders. In large part, this progress is due to technological advances to find these images online, leading to an increase in the number of reports to NCMEC’s CyberTipline.

November 18, 2019 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (2)

November 04, 2019

Thinking about the work of prosecutors as we gear up for our special guest

I am hoping you are as exited as I am for our special guest during our usual class time this afternoon.  One way to gear up might be to come to the American Constitution Society's panel on Progressive Prosecution which just happens to be taking place this today at 12:10PM in Room 244. (I have been told lunch will be from Hot Chicken Takeover at the event!)

An event about the work of prosecutors serves as a fitting prelude to our discussion with our special guest (though much of our discussions throughout the entire semester have been in some way about the work of prosecutors).   This CNN piece highlights some of our special guest's 35 years of legal experience, most of which has been served in the role of a prosecutor.  Here is our special guest's bio page at the large NYC firm where she now works.  

It is my understanding that our guest only plans to talk for a few minutes about her experiences and then will be eager to answer questions.  I urge everyone i the class to think about questions for our guest, which can be substantive about the federal sentencing system and the role of prosecutors therein or can also be career-oriented about topic like how her own career path developed or advice she would give to law students today concerning careers in government service and/or the criminal justice system.

November 4, 2019 in Class activities, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 29, 2019

Remember to attend Professor Kreit's class on drug sentencing in Room 344 at 3pm on 10/30

I missed seeing everyone this week at our usual Monday time, and I just waned to post this quick reminder that you should be sitting in on Professor Alex Kreit's class at our usual Wednesday time to hear him talk about sentencing drug crimes.  I handed out the Chapman case from his casebook last week, but I am also going to post his class materials here as well:

Download Kreit_10_30_ClassReading

As always, students are welcome and encouraged to use the comments here to share their take on readings or class discussions.

October 29, 2019 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 16, 2019

Some FIRST STEP Act basics for Friday's lunch and future use

The FIRST STEP Act, which is fully titled the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, was signed by President Donald Trump into law on December 21, 2018. Many have rightly called this law the biggest federal criminal justice reform legislation in a generation, and yet others have rightly called this law a very small modification of the federal criminal justice system. Among the good question to reflect on is whether the FIRST STEP Act is a big deal or much ado about very little.

Because lots of disparate provisions got rolled into the FIRST STEP Act, it is hard to readily summarize all its elements. The Congressional Research Service produced this intricate 20-page overview of Act, which is initially summarized this way:

The act has three major components: (1) correctional reform via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment system at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), (2) sentencing reform via changes to penalties for some federal offenses, and (3) the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199). The act also contains a series of other criminal justice-related provisions.

The advocacy group FAMM has this webpage about the Act, which includes these general (multi-page) summaries:

FAQ: First Step Act

FAQ: First Step Act Risk and Needs Assessment

Read a full description of the bill here

The federal Bureau of Prisons and the National Institute of Justice also have useful webpages about the FIRST STEP Act, and their pages provide a particular focus on the work these agencies are doing under the Act (aka "Who sentences").

October 16, 2019 in Class activities, Working on white papers | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 06, 2019

Use your free time to start reading about federal sentencing system.... UPDATE on Oct 14

Just a quick post to remind you we do not have class this Monday, but we will make up for lost time on Wednesday by jumping into our review of the federal sentencing system. So get started on the readings from the syllabus, and get excited about coming discussions about the operation of the federal sentencing guidelines!

If the FSG don't quite keep your interest while I am away, note that SCOTUS gets back in action on Monday with two notable criminal cases.  I collect some previews of the action in this post at my main blog.

 

UPDATE:  Remember that we are going to be starting our discussion of the Rob Anon sentencing exercise this week.  We will start with a focus on what it was like to sentence in the federal system before modern guideline reforms and what it is like to sentence under the modern guideline system.  It is CRITICAL that you have started working on the Rob Anon exercise and done the associated reading (e.g., Frankel and then Booker).

October 6, 2019 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 02, 2019

Second-look materials for review and (competitive?) repackaging

Many thanks to the whole class for your terrific engagement with David Singleton in today's class.  I trust you enjoyed as much as I did hearing a lot from him (and not so much from me).  And, as we discussion, the issue of "second look" sentencing mechanisms in Ohio and elsewhere is a hot topic.  Here are some more background and links to some materials I briefly referenced in class:

The newly revised sentencing provisions of the Model Penal Code includes "second look" authority through § 305.6 urging legislatures to authorize "a judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker to hear and rule upon applications for modification of sentence from prisoners who have served 15 years of any sentence of imprisonment."  MPC § 305.6, titled "Modification of Long-Term Prison Sentences; Principles for Legislation," and its engthy commentary can bel reviewed at this link.

Inspired in part by this MPC proposal, just this past July, US Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) and Representative Karen Bass (D-California) introduced a federal second look bill named the Matthew Charles and William Underwood Second Look Act of 2019.   This press release discusses the essential elements of the bill and its full text can be found at this link.  The advocacy group FAMM has been a big supporter of these proposals, and it released the following materials in conjunction this the bill's introduction:

As mentioned in class, David Singleton and I are eager to bring "second look" interest and energy to Ohio in the form of a student legislative drafting competition.  I would be very grateful for comments here (or in person) about how we might run such a contest for maximum interest and impact.  Would law students be more interested in a (small) cash prize or a chance to get published and/or present their work to important people?  Any and all feedback on the basic idea of a contest or on how best to structure its particulars would be greatly appreciated.

October 2, 2019 in Class activities, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (2)

September 21, 2019

Materials (and fun) for considering the representation of Ted Kaczynski

As I have mentioned in class, we will be exploring in coming classes how Florida, Texas and Ohio capital sentencing laws help guide jury death sentencing discretion for the Unibomber, Ted Kaczynski.  You should imagine yourself preparing for getting a jury to recommend a life sentence rather than a death sentence for Teddy K.  The essentials for preparation appear in our handout, although you also need to check out two Ohio statutory provisions via the web:

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."

And if you want to have some old-school SNL fun while preparing for this discussion, these are fun to check out:

September 21, 2019 in Aggravators and mitigators, Class activities, Death eligible offenses | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 11, 2019

The full McGautha and Furman...

are worth reading in full if you find constitutional history and/or death penalty procedure really interesting (and these are great topics for final papers).

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.

The full Furman can be found here; reading the whole thing could take you the rest of the semester, and our handout seeks to provide strategic highlights from each of the nine(!) opinions.  As mentioned, I will ask you in class  which of the nine opinions you would be most likely to join, so you might want to consider skimming the full version of the one opinion you find most appealing from our casebook.

September 11, 2019 in Class activities, Death penalty history, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 29, 2019

Readings for wrapping up "whos" and heading into the capital sentencing world

As mentioned in our last class, we will start wrapping up our formal "who" unit by reviewing the latest, greatest Supreme Court sentencing case, United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (June 26, 2019).  You are welcome to read Haymond in any form, and the full SCOTUS slip opinion can be accessed at this link.

For maximum appreciation and understanding, you should be sure to read McMillan and Blakely in our text before turning to Haymond.  I doubt we will get through all three of these cases on Wednesday after the long holiday break, but I might try.  (Students are highly encouraged to start any discussions of McMillan and Blakely and Haymond in the notes, if so inclined.)

Thereafter, we will turn to an (all-too-quick) review of capital sentencing law, procedures and practices.  As the syllabus reveals, the readings for this unit (which will keep us busy through most of the rest of September) are to be provided via handouts.  Those handouts will be provided in hard-copy in class, but I wanted to provide links here to electronic copies:

Chapter 3, Topic A: Regulation of Discretion in Capital Sentencing

Electronic Chapter 9: Race, Gender, and Class in Sentencing

I plan to cover the first 69 manuscript pages in the Chapter 3 materials linked here and the first 21 pages manuscript pages in the Chapter 9 materials linked here.  (Of course, you are always welcome to read more.)

August 29, 2019 in Class activities, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

May 03, 2018

Double checking on Mini-Paper submissions and the timelines for wrapping up

I have now finally double- and triple-checked my various files to confirm my records on how many mini-papers I believe I received from each student.  All 42 of you should be able to find you names on the spreadsheet uploaded here, and therein you will find an associated number for how many papers I have in hand from you.

Download Mini paper submissions for Spring 2018

If you see what you think is an error in my accounting, please let me know before the end of next week.

Speaking of the end of next week, please remember that you need to submit a final paper or a final exam to complete the course, and that submission needs to be no later than May 10.  (I am fearful that the Registrar is unable to prevent the exam software from demanding that exam takers submit their take home answers by May 9.  I hope that does not prove to be a problem for anyone, and I should be around on May 10 in case of any potential hiccups.)

I am continuing to enjoy re-reading your mini-papers and now reading some final drafts.  I try to provide some general feedback on drafts within a few days of receipt, but that opportunity will be extinguished in the next few days.  Feel free to email me with any questions. 

May 3, 2018 in Class activities, Mini-papers | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 15, 2018

Examining the "why" and "who" of modern mass incarceration and its potential alternatives

As we finish up the semester with a final few classes examining the particulars of modern mass incarceration and possible alternatives, I realize it would be useful and fitting to return to some of the early themes of the class concerning the "why" and "who" of sentencing.  Specifically (and building off themes stressed by Fordham Law Professor John Pfaff at the Reckless-Dinitz Lecture), I will likely start Monday's class by exploring:

(1) "why" incarceration has become such a popular punishment in modern American history, and

(2) "who" has been most responsible for the particular emphasis on incarceration in modern American history.

I think some reasonable answers to these questions are important for anyone eager to move the nation away from modern mass incarceration: without having some sense of just why incarceration has proved so popular and just who has had a leading role in inflating incarceration levels, it will be hard to engineer a successful change of course.

Especially because there have recently been a whole lot of notable new court opinions about Eighth Amendment limits on extreme juvenile prison sentences — see examples here and here and here and here and here from the Third Circuit, the District of Connecticut, the Iowa Supreme Court, the Georgia Supreme Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court — I am especially eager to discuss what role we think courts have played in creating modern mass incarceration and what role courts could play in moving us away from modern mass incarceration.

In this context (and again to serve as a kind of semester review), I think it important to recognize that courts have played a major role in the modern decline of the death penalty in the United States over the last two decades.  All sort of litigation has played all sorts of roles in "gumming up" the modern machinery of death, and many abolitionists have come to expect that the US Supreme Court will play a starring role in a final push to have the death penalty fully abolished throughout the United States. 

Is there any basis to hope or expect courts to play a major role in a decline in the use of incarceration in the United States over the next two decades?

April 15, 2018 in Alternatives to imprisonment, Class activities, Theories of punishment, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (4)

April 11, 2018

Should particular pie pieces or particular populations be of particular concern for those troubled by modern mass incarceration?

Women_pie_2017The question in the title of this post will be one I will be eager to unpack in coming classes, and it is inspired in part by the points emphasized in the Prison Policy Initiative updated version of its terrific incarceration "pie" graphic and report now at this link.  Here is part of the PPI pie report's introductory text and subsequent discussion:

While this pie chart provides a comprehensive snapshot of our correctional system, the graphic does not capture the enormous churn in and out of our correctional facilities and the far larger universe of people whose lives are affected by the criminal justice system. Every year, 626,000 people walk out of prison gates, but people go to jail 10.6 million times each year. Jail churn is particularly high because most people in jails have not been convicted. Some have just been arrested and will make bail in the next few hours or days, and others are too poor to make bail and must remain behind bars until their trial. Only a small number (150,000 on any given day) have been convicted, generally serving misdemeanors sentences under a year....

Breaking down incarceration by offense type also exposes some disturbing facts about the youth confined by our criminal and juvenile justice systems: Too many are there for a “most serious offense” that is not even a crime. For example, there are over 8,500 youth behind bars for “technical violations” of the requirements of their probation, rather than for a new offense. Further, 2,300 youth are locked up for “status” offenses, which are “behaviors that are not law violations for adults, such as running away, truancy, and incorrigibility.” Nearly 1 in 10 is held in an adult jail or prison, and most of the others are held in juvenile facilities that look and operate a lot like prisons and jails.

Turning to the people who are locked up criminally and civilly for immigration-related issues, we find that 13,000 people are in federal prison for criminal convictions of violating federal immigration laws, and 13,000 more are held pretrial by U.S. Marshals. Another 34,000 are civilly detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) separate from any criminal proceedings and are physically confined in federally-run or privately-run immigration detention facilities or in local jails under contract with ICE. (Notably, these categories do not include immigrants represented in other pie slices because of non-immigration related criminal convictions.)

Adding to the universe of people who are confined because of justice system involvement, 22,000 people are involuntarily detained or committed to state psychiatric hospitals and civil commitment centers. Many of these people are not even convicted, and some are held indefinitely. 9,000 are being evaluated pre-trial or treated for incompetency to stand trial; 6,000 have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill; another 6,000 are people convicted of sexual crimes who are involuntarily committed after their prison sentences are complete. While these facilities aren’t typically run by departments of correction, they are in reality much like prisons....

While this “whole pie” provides the most inclusive view of the various systems of confinement in the U.S. justice system available, these snapshots can’t capture all of the important systemic issues. Once we have wrapped our minds around the “whole pie” of mass incarceration, for example, we should zoom out and note that being locked up is just one piece of the larger pie of correctional control. There are another 840,000 people on parole and a staggering 3.7 million people on probation. Particularly given the often onerous conditions of probation, policymakers should be cautious of “alternatives to incarceration” that can easily widen the net of criminalization to people who are not a threat to public safety.

Beyond identifying the parts of the criminal justice system that impact the most people, we should also focus on who is most impacted and who is left behind by policy change. For example, people of color are dramatically overrepresented in the nation’s prisons and jails. These racial disparities are particularly stark for Blacks, who make up 40% of the incarcerated population despite representing only 13% of U.S residents. Gender disparities matter too: rates of incarceration have grown even faster for women than for men. As policymakers continue to push for reforms that reduce incarceration, they should avoid changes that will widen disparities, as has happened with juvenile confinement and with women in state prisons.

Notably, last fall the Prison Policy Initiative working jointly with the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice released this great report with a particular population perspective: "Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017."  The report explains that it provides "a first-of-its-kind detailed view of the 219,000 women incarcerated in the United States, and how they fit into the even larger picture of correctional control."  In addition to thinking about how the female incarceration "pie" looks different, I wonder if you share my concern about discussion of "women's mass incarceration" given that there are around 165 million women in the United States and thus really less than 0.15% of all US women are incarcerated. 

Is it accurate and helpful to describe a phenomenon as "mass" if it directly impacts less than 1 out of 500 persons in a population?

April 11, 2018 in Class activities, Scope of imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)

April 07, 2018

Reading in preparation of John Pfaff's visit on April 12 and our discussions of mass incarceration

9780465096916As repeatedly mentioned in class, Fordham Law Professor John Pfaff will be on campus this coming Thursday, April 12.  At 4pm at the Barrister Club he will be delivering the Reckless-Dinitz Lecture titled "Moving Past the Standard Story: Rethinking the Causes of Mass Incarceration." Here is the abstract for this lecture:

"Reducing America's exceptional reliance on incarceration is one of the few issues of genuine bipartisan cooperation these days. Yet despite years of work, change has been slow and halting.  One critical reason is that the story we tell about what has driven prison growth often emphasizes causes that matter less at the expense of those that matter more.
"We talk about the impact of long sentences — which certainly matter — but end up overlooking the even more important role of prosecutorial charging behavior in the process.  We emphasize the need to stop sending people to prison for drugs, but as a result fail to talk about changing how we punish those convicted of violence — even though only 15% of the prison population is serving time for drugs, compared to over 50% for violence.  And reformers frequently direct their attention on private prisons, and thus don't focus on the fact that public institutions hold over 90% of all inmates, and that (public) correctional officer unions and legislators with public prisons in their districts play far bigger roles than the private prison firms in pushing back against reform efforts. Even the modest reductions in prison populations since 2010 are something to celebrate, but more substantive cuts will require us to start asking tougher questions about the sorts of changes we need to demand."

As I have noted before, Professor Pfaff is the author of Locked in: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration—and How to Achieve Real Reform (2017), and I expect his lecture will be covering many points he develops in his book.  Were I an evil lawprof, I could demannd that you all read his full book ASAP.  Instead, I will be content to here link to some effective reviews of Locked In:

Though everyone should feel free to read Locked In, for class discussion purposes I think it might be useful for folks to read Professor Pfaff latest commentary titled "A Smarter Approach to Federal Assistance with State-Level Criminal Justice Reform."  Here is its abstract:

This brief explains how Congress and the president can best help reduce our country’s outsized reliance on imprisonment, a goal with rare, widespread bipartisan support. Successful interventions will need to target issues that previous efforts have overlooked or ignored, and they will need to take better account of the haphazard ways that costs, benefits, and responsibilities are fractured across city, county, state, and federal governments. If designed properly, however, federal efforts could play an important role in pushing our criminal justice system to adopt more efficient, as well as more humane, approaches to managing and reducing crime.

April 7, 2018 in Class activities, Scope of imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 26, 2018

Reading in preparation of Zac Bolitho's visit on Monday, April 2

On April 2, Zachary Bolitho, Moritz class of 2007 who now serves as Deputy Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, will be speaking to our class.  As mentioned in class, here is how he would like all of us to prepare for his visit:

In terms of reading, it might be helpful if the students were familiar with Judge Pryor’s “presumptive guidelines” proposal (described in this speech to the American Law Institute).  I plan to spend a few minutes discussing how the Commission operates, what role DOJ plays in the process, what amendments are pending at the Commission now, and then I’d like to just have a discussion with the students.  I’d particularly love to hear their reactions to Judge Pryor’s proposal.

If there are particular questions that you would like me to address (or topics you know the students will want to discuss), please send them my way.

March 26, 2018 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 25, 2018

Some recent posts about the Department of Justice and the US Sentencing Commission that might inspire mini-paper #4

As highlighted in previous posts,  on April 2, Zachary Bolitho, Moritz class of 2007 who now serves as Deputy Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, will be speaking to our class.  As repeatedly mentioned, and as shown at the end of this list of US Sentencing Commissioners, Zachary Bolitho also now serves as the designated ex officio member of the United States Sentencing Commission representing the Attorney General. 

As also repeatedly mentioned, mini-paper #4 should be a short memo addressed to ADAG Bolitho on whatever topic you would be eager to raise with him.  If looking for ideas, here are links to a few posts from my main blog highlighting news of various sorts involving the US Sentencing Commission and the US Department of Justice (and the Trump White House):

 

Regarding US Sentencing Commission:

Interesting new US Sentencing Commission analysis of possible impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017

Another US Sentencing Commission public hearing on alternatives to incarceration and synthetic drugs 

Prez Trump makes (tough) nominations to US Sentencing Commission 

Lots of notable reaction to Prez Trump's nominations to the US Sentencing Commission

 

Regarding US Department of Justice:

New spending bill includes a lot more money for Justice Department to fight drug war even harder 

AG Jeff Sessions issues memo to "strongly encourage federal prosecutors ... when appropriate" to pursue "capital punishment in appropriate cases" 

Notable report of AG Sessions seeking more federal death sentences, but what about carrying out those long ago imposed? 

DOJ casting new marijuana enforcement memo in terms of "rule of law" and "local control" 

AG Sessions gives full accounting of his full law-and-order approach to his work as Attorney General

 

Regarding Trump White House:

Via executive order, Prez Trump creates new Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry 

Trump White House expresses opposition to sentencing reform part of SRCA of 2017

Highlights from Prez Trump's tough talk about the opioid crisis and federal response

March 25, 2018 in Class activities, Mini-papers, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 16, 2018

Lots to consider and discuss as we get back together

I am looking forward to getting back to our discussion of federal sentencing realities this coming week, and I expect on Monday (3/19) to get us finally into a discussion of "acquitted conduct" and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997).  But before we get together, I want to make sure everyone also knows of this great event in Saxbe right before our class: 

The 2018 David H. Bodiker Lecture on Criminal Justice will feature James Forman Jr., professor of law at Yale Law School and best-selling author of the critically acclaimed book, Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America (2017), which explores how decisions made by black leaders, often with the best of intentions, contributed to disproportionately incarcerating black and brown people....

This lecture is scheduled for noon on March 19 in Saxbe Auditorium, located inside Drinko Hall.

In addition, if you have been taking a well-deserved break, you might have missed some of these posts from my other blog that touch on issues we have been exploring:

March 16, 2018 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 06, 2018

Important scheduling matters for first few weeks of April

Even though March has just gotten started, it will be April before you know it, and I wanted to make sure everyone know of some class schedule issues of importance for the first part of April.  Some of this I have mentioned in class, but some of this is new news (and would be helped by student input):

Monday, April 2: Zachary Bolitho, Moritz class of 2007 who now serves as Deputy Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, will be speaking to our class.  As repeatedly mentioned, and as shown at the end of this list of US Sentencing Commissioners, Zachary Bolitho also now serves as the designated ex officio member of the United States Sentencing Commission representing the Attorney General.  As mentioned also repeatedly mentioned, mini-paper #4 should be a memo addressed to ADAG Bolitho.

Monday, April 9NO CLASS!!

Thursday, April 12: Make-up class possibilities:

March 6, 2018 in Class activities, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 05, 2018

Diving deep into many particulars of modern guideline sentencing (and mandatory minimums) for Rob Anon and others

This final week before Spring Break, we will be diving even deeper into the sentencing of Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines.  I continue to welcome comments to this prior post if/when you want to discuss your experiences with guideline sentencing, though I also welcome new comments here as I reprint the US Sentencing Commission's latest accounting of the average sentences that modern federal robbery defendants now receive. 

Over the last few years, the US Sentencing Commission has be producing terrific Quick Fact publications (you might call them mini-papers) about various federal sentencing realities. This recent one for "Robbery Offenses" was released in August 2017, and reported that in "fiscal year 2016, there were 1,554 robbery offenders, who accounted for 2.5% of all offenders sentenced under the guidelines."  This two-page document has too much data to capture in this space, but here are particulars that seem particularly notable in light of our Rob Anon exercise:  

The most common Criminal History Category for these offenders was Category I (25.0%). The proportion of these offenders in other Criminal History Categories was as follows:  11.0% of these offenders were in Category II; 20.2% were in Category III; 13.5% were in Category IV;  7.8% were in Category V; and 22.6% were in Category VI.

The median loss for these offenses was $2,846.  92.1% of robbery offenses involved losses of $95,000 or less.  82.5% of robbery offenses involved losses of $20,000 or less.

Sentences for robbery offenders were increased for: 48.7% of offenders for taking the property of a financial institution or post office; 61.2% of offenders for using or brandishing a firearm or dangerous weapon or making a threat of death; 13.0% of offenders because a victim sustained bodily injury; 22.0% of offenders for abducting or physically restraining a victim; 8.5% of offenders for carjacking; 8.2% of offenders for taking a firearm, destructive device, or controlled substance; and 5.1% of offenders for recklessly creating a risk of death or bodily injury in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.

More than one-third (34.1%) of robbery offenders also had convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

The average sentence length for robbery offenders was 111 months.  

  • The average sentence length for robbery offenders with a conviction under section 924(c) was 180 months. 
  • The average sentence length for robbery offenders without a conviction under section 924(c) was 75 months. 

In fiscal year 2016, 46.7% of robbery offenders without a conviction under section 924(c) were sentenced within the guideline range.

  • Substantial assistance departures were granted in approximately 11 to 13 percent of robbery cases without section 924(c) convictions in each of the past five years.
    The average reduction for these offenders was 42.6% during the five year time period (which corresponds to an average reduction of 36 months).
  • The rate of non-government sponsored below range sentences increased during the past five years for robbery cases without section 924(c) convictions from 22.5% to 24.7%.  The average reduction for these offenders was 32.1% during the five year time period (which corresponds to an average reduction of 24 months).

In fiscal year 2016, 43.0% of robbery offenders with a section 924(c) conviction were sentenced within the guideline range.

  • Substantial assistance departures were granted in approximately 19 to 22 percent of robbery cases with section 924(c) convictions in each of the past five years.
    The average reduction for these offenders was 41.7% during the five year time period (which corresponds to an average reduction of 84 months).
  • The rate of non-government sponsored below range sentences increased during the past five years for robbery cases with section 924(c) convictions from 18 to
    21 percent. The average reduction for these offenders was 17.3% during the five year time period (which corresponds to an average reduction of 31 months).

UPDATE: It just dawned on me, as I was thinking about how much to talk about the impact of section 924(c) charges and convictions in the federal sentencing process, that I should flag that just last year the Supreme Court finally got around to discussing the interplay of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and the discretion created by Booker's conversion of the guidelines from mandates to advice.  The Supreme Court's unanimous(!) work in Dean v. United States is worth checking out, in part because it highlights the potential severity of "stacked" 924(c) convictions.

And if you have been wondering, "what the heck is a section 924(c) conviction and why is it so significant," here is a link or two or three to help(?) on that front.

March 5, 2018 in Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Sentencing data | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 26, 2018

Interesting accounting of federal bank robbery sentencing (and parole) in pre-guidelines era

Starting with Wednesday's class, we will start unpacking the sentencing of Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines.  I welcome comments to this prior post if/when you want to discuss your experiences with guideline sentencing.  This post, however, is meant to wrap up our pre-guideline sentencing experiences with the help of this interesting 1986 US Government Accounting Office report reviewing the "median sentences imposed and median time served for 609 offenders convicted of armed and unarmed bank robbery who were confined in the Federal Prison System as of June 30, 1983, and on whom release decisions had been made by the Parole Commission."

I think folks find might the whole US GAO report interesting, but I will provide this imperfect summary:

Usefully, the short report also notes that the US Parole Commission had "established parole release guidelines as required by law which indicate the customary range of time to be served by offenders before release from prison." These parole guidelines had two parts, "offense severity and parole prognosis": the severity of the offense was "broken down into eight categories" and the parole prognosis score ranging "from 0 to 10."  These Parole Commission guidelines served as a partial template for the work of the original US Sentencing Commission creating the original US Sentencing Guidelines (especially its criminal history categories).

In addition to giving you another perspective on the range of sentencing outcomes for the likes of Rob Anon, this report serves as another reminder of just how practically consequential the abolition of parole was as a feature of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.  We will discuss that reality and other parts of the SRA starting Wednesday. 

February 26, 2018 in Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Sentencing data | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 25, 2018

Exploring federal sentencing realities for some local federal appellants

As mentioned in class, mini-paper #3 provides you an opportunity to explore federal sentencing realities surrounding a federal defendant of your choice. Continuing a series of posts providing suggestions about possible federal defendants you might consider examining for mini-paper #3, below are some links to some Sixth Circuit opinions all from the first two months of 2018 in cases in which a federal defendant appealed some aspect of his federal sentencing.

As we will discuss in class, before modern guideline reforms, appeals of federal sentences were very rare and very rarely successful. Now, as you can see from the list below, federal sentencing appeals are quite common (and you will have to click through to get a sense for how often successful):

United States v. Terrance Ford and Brian Williams (drug offenses resulting in imprisonment for 120 months and 180 months, respectively)

United States v. Richard Thornton and Keenan Crane and David Tatum (fraud offenses resulting in imprisonment for 136 months, 80 months, and 66 months, respectively).

United States v. Bernardo Santana (drug offenses resulting in imprisonment for 180 months)

United States v. Michael Ferguson (firearm offenses resulting in imprisonment for 105 months)

United States v. Kenneth Jozwiak (fraud offenses resulting in imprisonment for 51 months)

United States v. Anthony Sanders (drug offenses resulting in imprisonment for 60 months)

United States v. John Benchick (fraud offenses resulting in imprisonment for 110 months)

United States v. Malcolm Roberson (firearm offenses resulting in imprisonment for 41 months)

United States v. Arthur Charles Smith (armed robbery offenses resulting in imprisonment for 262 month)

United States v. James Cortelyou (sex offenses resulting in imprisonment for 157 months)

United States v. Timothy Vallier (sex offenses resulting in imprisonment for 264 months)

United States v. Donald Allen (sex offenses resulting in imprisonment for 300 months)

United States v. Velasquez Curuchiche (sex offenses resulting in imprisonment for 600 months)

February 25, 2018 in Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Mini-papers | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 24, 2018

Some hints and help for sentencing Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines

As stressed in class last week, the next two weeks are going to involve detailed discussions of federal sentencing policies and practice before and after modern guideline reforms. 

We will begin on Monday with a deep discussion of the sentencing realities faced in sentencing Rob Anon in a pre-guideline world (the world Judge Marvin Frankel criticizes in the excerpt in our text which you should read and re-read).  In addition to imagining how you, as a judge, would sentence Rob Anon in this world, think also about how prosecutors and defense attorneys would approach sentencing in a pre-guideline world. 

We will then turn to sentencing Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines.  I highly encourage class members to try to figure out how to identify and assess federal guideline sentencing laws relevant to Rob Anon with just the help of on-line search materials or traditional legal research resources (and feel free to use the comments to express frustration).  Consider that a federal defendant or a novice lawyer taking on his or her first federal criminal case will not likely have access to any perfect guide (or even "Guidelines for Dummies") to enable ready understanding of the federal sentencing guidelines.

If and when you would like some basic guideline sentencing help, you can turn to these links which take you to key guideline provisions for Rob Anon appearing in the "official" on-line version of the now-applicable US Sentencing Guidelines as provided on the US Sentencing Commission's website:

I highly encourage class members to start working through these "basic" federal guideline sentencing materials on their own (again feeling free to use the comments to express frustration) before looking for any more sentencing help.  That said, if (when?) you want or need even 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, give particular thought to the array of challenges that modern federal sentencing law may present for modern federal sentencing lawyers.   If you want to think particularly about the import and impact of sentencing law for the work of defense attorneys, perhaps check out this article I wrote some years ago seeking to highlight "the array of challenges that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines create for defense counsel."

February 24, 2018 in Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (4)

February 20, 2018

Unearthing federal sentencing realities for some celebrity federal defendants

As mentioned in class, mini-paper #3 provides you an opportunity to explore federal sentencing realities surrounding a federal defendant of your choice. Continuing a series of posts providing a suggestions about possible federal defendants you might consider examining for mini-paper #3, here are some links to posts from my main blog from the last few years about "famous" or high-profile offenders whose federal sentencing stories you might find engaging:

Rene Boucher (that guy who attacked Senator Rand Paul)

Michael Flynn

Jared Fogle

Dennis Hastert (former speaker of the US House)

Abby Lee Miller (star of Dance Moms)

Larry Nasser

Sholom Rubashkin (rabbi who receive commutation from Prez Trump)

Sheldon Silver (former speaker of New York Assembly)

Martin Shkreli (that Pharmo Bro guy)

Michael Slager

Kevin Trudeau (infamous infomercial star)

Ross Ulbricht (creator of Silk Road website)

Anthony Weiner

February 20, 2018 in Class activities, Course requirements, Guideline sentencing systems | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 18, 2018

Unearthing federal sentencing realities under federal defendants now before SCOTUS

As mentioned in class, mini-paper #3 provides you an opportunity to explore federal sentencing realities surrounding a federal defendant of your choice. In a series of posts, I will be providing a series of suggestions about possible federal defendants you might consider examining for mini-paper #3.

In this post, for example, I thought it worth highlighting federal defendants whose cases are currently before the Supreme Court.  Sentencing issues are the focal point for SCOTUS in some of these cases, but other matters concern SCOTUS for the first five cases listed below.  Below I have provided links to SCOTUSblog materials on cases involving federal criminal defendants now pending before the Justices, along with the sentences the defendants received according to the briefs of the US Solicitor General:

Class v. United States ("sentenced to 24 days of imprisonment, to be followed by 12 months of supervised release")

Carpenter v. United States ("sentenced ... to 1395 months in prison")

Marinello v. United States ("sentenced ... to 36 months of imprisonment, to be followed by one year of supervised release")

Byrd v. United States ("sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release")

Dahda v. United States ("sentenced to 189 months of imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of supervised release")

----

Lagos v. United States ("sentenced petitioner to 97 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered $15,970,517 in restitution")

Rosales-Mireles v. United States ("sentenced ... to 78 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release")

Hughes v. United States ("sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release")

Koons v. United States ("sentenced ... to 180 months in prison, to be followed by ten years of supervised release")

Chavez-Meza v. United States ("sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release")

February 18, 2018 in Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Mini-papers, Supreme Court rulings | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 12, 2018

Westerville police shooting creates not only Ohio capital punishment case, but also interesting potential federal sentencing case

We discussed in class today some of the dynamics sure to surround a possible capital prosecution of Quentin Smith, the suspect charged with killing two Westerville police officers over the weekend.  Against that backdrop, I found notable this new local article headlined "The death penalty: Is it cheaper? Why does it take so long from sentencing to execution?". Here are some other questions this article poses (click through to see the answers given):

Q: What does a death penalty indictment mean?

Q: Will the court process be different in a death penalty case?

Q: A death sentence means the case will be cheaper because the defendant dies, right?

Q: How long after a death sentence being imposed will a person be executed?

Q: Does the jury or the judge decide if a person gets a death sentence?

Also notable, and likely to become a topic for discussion later in our class, is news of a federal prosecution resulting from this shooting.  This Columbus Dispatch article, headlined "Northeast Ohio man charged with buying gun used to kill Westerville officers," provides these basics:

A Cleveland-area man was scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court in Columbus Monday, charged with providing a Glock semi-automatic handgun to the convicted felon accused of killing two Westerville police officers over the weekend.

Gerald A. Lawson III, 30, of Warrensville Heights, was taken into custody by federal agents just before noon at his home and faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted, according to a release from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.  Lawson was to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Monday afternoon in Columbus.

His arrest came two days after Quentin L. Smith allegedly killed veteran Westerville officers Anthony Morelli and Eric Joering, who were responding to a 911 hangup call from a Cross Wind Drive residence. A criminal complaint says Smith retrieved a handgun after officers entered the residence and shot both. Joering died at the scene; Morelli died a short time later at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center....

Investigators say Smith provided money and an extra $100 payment to Lawson to purchase the firearm and that Lawson knew that Smith was a convicted felon. A trace determined the gun was bought in Broadview Heights, a Cleveland suburb.

The two are longtime friends, with several photos of the two together posted online on one of Lawson’s social media accounts, according to a release.

At the risk of asking you to pre-judge the matter, I encourage you to think about what kind of punishment you might be inclined to impose upon Gerald A. Lawson III for illegally acquiring a gun for his friend that his friend used to kill two police officers.

February 12, 2018 in Class activities, Ohio news and commentary, Recent news and developments | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 05, 2018

Gearing up to represent (or prosecute) the Unibomber

As I have repeatedly mentioned in class, we will be exploring in our next few classes how Florida, Texas and Ohio capital sentencing laws help guide jury death sentencing discretion for the Unibomber (and others).  The essentials for preparation appear at pp. 252 to 257 of our text, though you also need to check out two Ohio statutory provisions via the web: 2929.03 Imposition of sentence for aggravated murder and 2929.04 Death penalty or imprisonment - aggravating and mitigating factors.

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."

And if you want to have some old-school SNL fun while preparing for this discussion, these are fun to check out:

February 5, 2018 in Class activities, Death eligible offenses, Death penalty history | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 03, 2018

Gameplans for continuing capital punishment discussions

Because we have been moving (usefully) slowly through our discussion of capital constitutional history, I want to make sure everyone is sure about what I expect/hope to cover over the next few weeks:

Week of Feb 5: We will finish up a discussion of Furman/Gregg/Woodson/Roberts which help explain/define modern DP realities and we will explore how Florida, Texas and Ohio capital sentencing laws help guide jury death sentencing discretion for the Unibomber (and others).  (I will do a separate post with a lot more information about Ted Kaczynski, whom some of you will be asked to defend or prosecute). 

Week of Feb 12: 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 and thereafter try to start wrapping up DP discussions and transition to LWOP/non-capital sentencing issues for constitutional courts and other actors.

February 3, 2018 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 25, 2018

The full McGautha and Furman...

are worth reading in full if you final constitutional history and/or death penalty procedure really interesting.

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.

The full Furman can be found here; reading the whole thing could take you the rest of the semester, and our casebook aspires to provide strategic highlights from each of the nine(!) opinions.  I will ask you in class to think about which of the nine opinions you would be most likely to join, so you might want to read the full version of the one opinion you find most appealing from our casebook.

UPDATE In addition to continuing our discussion of capital constitutional history in this coming week, we will migrate to a discussion of how capital punishment is now administered.  That will, of course, take us back to a discussion of "who sentences," and it also will perhaps have us focused on our own state of Ohio which now is scheduled to have the next US execution.  With Ohio and who in mind, folks might be interested in this recent post from my other blog:

Are Governors considering capital clemency inclined to give great weight to capital jurors calling for a commutation?

January 25, 2018 in Class activities, Death penalty history, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 18, 2018

Diving deeper into "who" and "how" with a little help from a new Massachusetts case

Next week we will continue to discuss the Williams case in order to continue to unpack the relationship between theories of punishment and the "who" and "how" of sentencing.  And, before we wrap up our Williams discussion, I will review what doctrines from Williams remain good law and what do not.  That discussion may lead us to discuss the more modern McMillan and Blakely cases, so be sure to have read those cases for next week.

The McMillan case also brings up the "why" and "who" and "how" of mandatory minimum sentencing.  So be sure to read (and re-read) the selection from the US Sentencing Commission about the debate over mandatory minimums (MMs) and think about who ends up with the most sentencing power in a jurisdiction that makes regular us of MMs.

Last but not least for next week, I hope we can take about the role of crime victims at sentencing and you have a reading selection in the text that covers this part of the who story.  But, conveniently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down a notable short ruling on these issues just today: Massachusetts v. McGonagle, SJC-12292 (Mass. Jan. 18, 2018) (available here).  Because I so enjoy bringing "hot new cases" into our discussions, I encourage everyone to read this new McGonagle case instead of (or in addition to) the victim-input section of the text.

January 18, 2018 in Class activities, Interesting new cases, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 16, 2018

How can and should "why punish" issues influence the "who" and "how" of sentencing?

As we transition to a discussion of the "who" and "how" of sentencing — beginning with a deep dive into the 1949 case Williams v. New York — you should be giving particular thought to how a sentencing system can and should integrate its basic "why punish" commitments into its sentencing process.  You should see how the Williams ruling was driven in part by the punishment theories of the time: the "prevalent modern philosophy of penology that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime" and "the belief that by careful study of the lives and personalities of convicted offenders many could be less severely punished and restored sooner to complete freedom and useful citizenship." 

The class survey indicated a strong affinity for prioritizing rehabilitation and deterrence as theories of punishment.  If Ohio was to make these punishment theories predominant, which actors in the criminal justice system should have the most sentencing authority?  Which should have the least?  Should the answer to "who" sentences change if a jurisdiction prioritizes retribution or incapacitation?  What if it does not prioritize any particular theory?

January 16, 2018 in Class activities, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 30, 2017

Welcome the the class blog of Sentencing Law @ Moritz College of Law (with first week details)

This blog got started over 10 years ago (with the uninspired title of Death Penalty Course @ Moritz College of Law) to facilitate student engagement in a Spring 2007 course on the death penalty.  Because the blog proved successful during that semester, and because the students' hard work as reflected in the archives still generates web traffic, I have kept repeatedly building subsequent sentencing classes on this platform by rebooting this blog for each new course.  

On the eve of 2018, I am excited again to be gearing up again to teach Sentencing Law at the Moritz College of Law and to be again planning to use this blog to flag current events and cases to supplement our class readings and discussions.  Because I use this blog (rather than TWEN) as convenient place to post information about class activities and plans and assignments, students can and should be on the look out for class materials and announcement posted here. So, for example, here is a repeating of what is posted on the Moritz official website for our first assignments (along with electronic copies of the basic course documents):

In preparation for our first week of classes starting Monday, January 8, 2018 you should:

1.  Get a copy of the THIRD edition of the casebook for the course, along with the course description/syllabus.

2.  Access the questionnaire and fill it out before our first class.  (In addition to being posted below, the questionnaire and course description/syllabus are 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. 

Download 2018 Course description

Download 2018 Fall pre Class Survey 

 

You will discover that the last item in the questionnaire references recent clemency activity by recent presidents, and here are a few links with background:

Background on President Obama's Clemency Initiative

"Obama used clemency power more often than any president since Truman"

An Analysis of the Implementation of the 2014 Clemency Initiative

 

"Trump commutes sentence of kosher meatpacking executive"

"Trump Did a Good Thing: In praise of the president’s decision to commute Sholom Rubashkin’s sentence."

"Immigration hawks protest Trump giving Sholom Rubashkin first prison commutation"

December 30, 2017 in About this blog, Class activities, Clemency, Course requirements | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 11, 2016

Last call for mini-papers submission, first call for final paper inquiries/meetings/review

As explained in this prior post, an essential element of completing our course for credit is the submission of at least two mini papers, and the due date for these papers is the start of this coming week. ANy student struggling to meet this requirement should contact me ASAP.

With mini-papers now being wrapped up, students are welcomed and encouraged to meet with me or reach out in others way with any questions or concerns or desire for feedback concerning the final paper. I should be around the law school and generally available through Dec 23 (which is when the final paper is due), and I am eager to help anyone wanting/seeking help with the final paper assignment.

December 11, 2016 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (3)

December 04, 2016

Reviewing the final fulsome mini-paper opportunities

In a coming post, I will try to clarify any lingering questions students have about completing the final paper.  But as classes technically are not yet done, I want to first clarify student mini-paper opportunities/expectations.

First, to complete the course is a satisfactory manner, a student has to have submitted at least two mini-papers.  (If I have not received at least two mini-papers from a student by Dec 12, I will notify the student of the deficiency and its consequences.)

Second, every student is encouraged to earn extra credit by submitting more than the two-mini-paper minimum.  But all mini-papers need to be submitted no later than Dec 12 to receive full credit/extra credit for your work.

Third, I put forth the following three final mini-paper possibilities:

  1. Reviewing Prez Obama's sentencing reform legacy
  2. Recommending activities/concerns for Attorney General designee Jeff Sessions
  3. Assessing the sentencing history/views of one (or more) of the 21 persons on Prez-Elect Donald Trump's SCOTUS short-list

Among the benefits/challenges of completing a mini-paper on this topics is the possibility that I may ask to publish your analysis on my main blog or maybe even in the Federal Sentencing Reporter.

Any questions?

December 4, 2016 in Class activities, Mini-papers, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 08, 2016

Gearing up for figuing the (right?) sentence for the various convicted "Bridgegate" federal criminals

As I mentioned in class today, our coming exploration of the federal sentencing system will be based in part on using the real-world "Bridgegate" case into a real-world sentencing exercise.  To get started in preparation to that end, I recommend some review of at least the following two links:

This Wikipedia page, titled "Fort Lee lane closure scandal" provides lots of background on the scandal, at it provides this very helpful initial summary of the crime and the three protagonists now facing federal sentencing:

The Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal, or Bridgegate, is a U.S. political scandal in which a staff member and political appointees of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) colluded to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey, by closing lanes at the main toll plaza for the upper level of the George Washington Bridge.

The problems began on Monday, September 9, 2013, when two of three toll lanes for a local street entrance were closed during morning rush hour. Local officials, emergency services, and the public were not notified of the lane closures, which Fort Lee declared a threat to public safety. The resulting back-ups and gridlock on local streets ended only when the two lanes were reopened on Friday, September 13, 2013, by an order from Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye. He said that the "hasty and ill-informed decision" could have endangered lives and violated federal and state laws.

The ensuing investigations centered on several of Christie's appointees and staff, including David Wildstein, who ordered the lanes closed, and Bill Baroni, who had told the New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee that the closures were for a traffic study.

The United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey Paul J. Fishman launched a massive federal investigation, resulting in a sweeping nine-count indictment against Bridget Anne Kelly, the deputy chief of staff, Baroni and Wildstein. Wildstein entered a guilty plea, and testified against Baroni and Kelly, who were found guilty on all counts in November 2016.

The copy of the plea agreement in which Mr. Wildstein agreed to plead guilty and which also has a copy of his charging "information."

November 8, 2016 in Aggravators and mitigators, Class activities, Guideline sentencing systems, Offense Conduct, Scope of imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 28, 2016

Two timely new commentaries in light of our Graham-based discussions of "legal" adulthood

I have been quite amused to see these two headlines on two notable commentaries published since our last class:

The first of these articles starts this way:

Consider three young people: An 18-year-old who can vote, but can’t legally buy a beer; a 21-year-old who can drink, but is charged extra to rent a car; and a 25-year-old who can rent a car at the typical rate, but remains eligible for his parents’ health insurance.

Which one is an adult? All of them? None of them? Some of them? Or does it depend on the individual?

These questions are newly salient in the criminal justice system.

October 28, 2016 in Aggravators and mitigators, Class activities, Theories of punishment | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 20, 2016

Some more "who sentences" stories from my main blog, now focused on non-capital sentencing

In this post earlier this month, I flagged a number of "who sentences" stories relating to the death penalty on my Sentencing Law & Policy blog.  Here is now a similar round up of some recent non-capital sentencing stories and commentaries that provide some more "who" perspectives:

October 20, 2016 in Class activities, Current Affairs, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 17, 2016

Lies, damn lies and federal prison and commutations statistics

As I mentioned in class, as we turn our attention more to the history and modern realities of non-capital sentencing and especially to the history and modern realities of incarceration, having a basic understanding of a lot of number becomes important.   The title of this post is designed to make sure, before you dive too much into these data, that you keep in mind perhaps the most famous quote about statistics.  Once you have that quote in mind, consider some of the data and their sources.

The latest detailed breakdown of the federal prison population comes from this terrific "Quick Facts" document released this month by the US Sentencing Commission titled "Federal Offenders in Prison – March 2016."  Here are just some of the data therein that caught my eye:

• A large majority of offenders in the federal prison population are male (93.3%).

• Hispanic offenders make up the largest group of the federal prison population(35.2%), followed by Black offenders (34.4%), White offenders (27.0%), and Other Races (3.5%).

• More than three-quarters (77.9%) of these offenders are United States citizens.

• The majority of offenders pleaded guilty (88.5%).

• Nearly one-quarter (23.9%) of all offenders serving a sentence for a federal conviction possessed a firearm or other weapon in connection with their offenses.

• Half of all offenders (50.2%) in the federal prison population were sentenced to more than ten years in prison, while 5.2% were sentenced to 30 years or longer, and 2.7% were sentenced to life in prison.

• Approximately 17,000 offenders (9.9% of all incarcerated offenders) have served more than 10 years in prison.

• More than half (56.8%) of offenders in the federal prison population were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.

The data in the USSC report is already significantly dated because it analyzed a federal prison population of 195,676 "offenders in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on March 27, 2016."   But, just a little more than six months later according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons latest inmate population report, it is now only in charge of 191,322 total federal inmates.  In other words, in just the last 6 months alone, there has been more than a 2% decline in the overall federal prison population!

Speaking of changes over time in the population levels in the Federal Bureau of Prison, check out this BOP year-by-year report of the past federal prison population in modern times, which includes these numbers:

Fiscal Year      BOP Population

1983                 33,216

1993                 88,565

2003                 172,499

2013                 219,218

In other words, in just the last 20 years up to 2013 (12 of which had a Democrat in charge in the Oval Office and his appointees running the US Department of justice), there was 250% increase in the overall federal prison population!

As you may now realize, the number of federal prisoners for fiscal year 2013 was the year with the highest ever federal prison population (it was also, of course, the first year of Prez Obama's second term in office and the fifth year of the US Department of Justice being run by former US Attorney General Eric Holder). 

Also, as of the end of Fiscal Year 2013, this webpage from the Office of the Pardon Attorney reports that Prez Obama had received well over 8,000 federal commutation petitions and had granted a grand total of 1 commutation.  (If you are running the numbers, this means that as of the end of 2013, Prez Obama had granted only about .01% of commutation petitions received from federal prisoners.)

Of course, Prez Obama has picked up the pace on commutation grants: as this White House website highlights, by having now granted a total of 774 commutations, Prez Obama "has granted commutations to more prisoners than the past 11 presidents combined."  But his actions here ought to be put in some other statistical context, as does this webpage from the Office of Pardon Attorney, which reports that Prez Obama has received 29,078 commutation petitions during his time an office.  So, by having now granted 774 commutations from among the 29,078 commutation petitions received, Prez Obama has now upped his granted rate to about 2.5% of all commutation petitions received from federal prisoners.

As always, a great way for students to earn extra credit for the class would be to mine these numbers for further insights and data points worthy of highlighting in the comments to the blog (or in class).  And any student who can find good data on the race/gender of the 774 persons to have received commutations from Prez Obama and compares them to the general federal prison population will be sure to receive extra, extra, extra credit.

October 17, 2016 in Class activities, Clemency, Data on sentencing, Race and gender issues, Scope of imprisonment, Sentencing data, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 12, 2016

How some Framers thought about "gradation of punishments" (and proposed sentencing guidelines) in a world before "modern" prisons

One of my all-time favorite documents in the history of US sentencing law and policy is this document authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1778 under the title "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital."  I recommend a read of the entire document (as well as this historical discussion of its backstory and its rejection by one vote).  Here I have reprinted the document's preamble and provisions proposing a range of different forms of punishment, all of which seem especially interesting as we move from a discussion of the modern death penalty to other forms of modern punishment [I HAVE THROWN IN A FEW EDITORIAL COMMENTS IN ALL CAPS AND BOLD FOR ENHANCED READING]:

[STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND PROPORTIONALITY:] Whereas it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment of these having principally induced men to enter into society, government would be defective in it's principal purpose were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them; but it appears at the same time equally deducible from the purposes of society that a member thereof, committing an inferior injury, does not wholy forfiet the protection of his fellow citizens, but, after suffering a punishment in proportion to his offence is entitled to their protection from all greater pain, so that it becomes a duty in the legislature to arrange in a proper scale the crimes which it may be necessary for them to repress, and to adjust thereto a corresponding gradation of punishments.

[STATEMENT ABOUT THEORY OF PUNISHMENT:] And whereas the reformation of offenders, tho' an object worthy the attention of the laws, is not effected at all by capital punishments, which exterminate instead of reforming, and should be the last melancholy resource against those whose existence is become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens, which also weaken the state by cutting off so many who, if reformed, might be restored sound members to society, who, even under a course of correction, might be rendered useful in various labors for the public, and would be living and long continued spectacles to deter others from committing the like offences.

And forasmuch the experience of all ages and countries hath shewn that cruel and sanguinary laws defeat their own purpose by engaging the benevolence of mankind to withold prosecutions, to smother testimony, or to listen to it with bias, when, if the punishment were only proportioned to the injury, men would feel it their inclination as well as their duty to see the laws observed.

For rendering crimes and punishments therefore more proportionate to each other: Be it enacted by the General assembly that no crime shall be henceforth punished by deprivation of life or limb except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished....

[PUNISHMENT FOR MOST SERIOUS CRIMES:]  If any person commit Petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a parent his child, or a child his parent, he shall suffer death by hanging, and his body be delivered to Anatomists to be dissected.

Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way shall suffer death by hanging.

And in all cases of Petty treason and murder one half of the lands and goods of the offender shall be forfieted to the next of kin to the person killed, and the other half descend and go to his own representatives. Save only where one shall slay the Challenger in at duel, in which case no part of his lands or goods shall be forfieted to the kindred of the party slain, but instead thereof a moiety shall go to the Commonwealth....

[PUNISHMENT FOR LESSER HOMICIDES:] Whosoever shall be guilty of Manslaughter, shall for the first offence, be condemned to hard labor for seven years, in the public works, shall forfiet one half of his lands and goods to the next of kin to the person slain; the other half to be sequestered during such term, in the hands and to the use of the Commonwealth, allowing a reasonable part of the profits for the support of his family. The second offence shall be deemed Murder....

[PUNISHMENT FOR SEX CRIMES:] Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least....

[PUNISHMENT FOR SERIOUS ASSAULTS:] Whosoever on purpose and of malice forethought shall maim another, or shall disfigure him, by cutting out or disabling the tongue, slitting or cutting off a nose, lip or ear, branding, or otherwise, shall be maimed or disfigured in like sort: or if that cannot be for want of the same part, then as nearly as may be in some other part of at least equal value and estimation in the opinion of a jury and moreover shall forfiet one half of his lands and goods to the sufferer.

[PUNISHMENT FOR SERIOUS ECONOMIC CRIMES:] Whosoever shall counterfiet any coin current by law within this Commonwealth, or any paper bills issued in the nature of money, or of certificates of loan on the credit of this Commonwealth, or of all or any of the United States of America, or any Inspectors notes for tobacco, or shall pass any such counterfieted coin, paper bills, or notes, knowing them to be counterfiet; or, for the sake of lucre, shall diminish, case, or wash any such coin, shall be condemned to hard labor six years in the public works, and shall forfiet all his lands and goods to the Commonwealth.

Whosoever committeth Arson shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.

If any person shall within this Commonwealth, or being a citizen thereof shall without the same, wilfully destroy, or run away with any sea-vessel or goods laden on board thereof, or plunder or pilfer any wreck, he shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers three-fold.

Whosoever committeth Robbery shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.

Whatsoever act, if committed on any Mansion house, would be deemed Burglary, shall be Burglary if committed on any other house; and he who is guilty of Burglary, shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured....

[PUNISHMENT FOR LESSER ECONOMIC CRIMES:] Grand Larceny shall be where the goods stolen are of the value of five dollars, and whosoever shall be guilty thereof shall be forthwith put in the pillory for one half hour, shall be condemned to hard labor two years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.

Petty Larceny shall be where the goods stolen are of less value than five dollars; whosoever shall be guilty thereof shall be forthwith put in the pillory for a quarter of an hour, shall be condemned to hard labor one year in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured....

[PUNISHMENT FOR PUBLIC DISORDER CRIMES:] All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, inchantment, or sorcery or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding 15. stripes....

[SPECIAL DEFENDANTS:] Slaves guilty of any offence punishable in others by labor in the public works, shall be transported to such parts in the West Indies, S. America or Africa, as the Governor shall direct, there to be continued in slavery.

October 12, 2016 in Alternatives to imprisonment, Class activities, Death penalty history, Theories of punishment, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 05, 2016

Game planning next week's final(?) capital punishment discussions (and requests for expressions of any continued DP interest)

As I surmise you could tell from the last few classes, I am not at all troubled that our discussions of how Teddy K.'s capital case might play out in states like Florida and Texas has gone on longer than I had initially planned.  I am hopeful you were able to get a real feel from this week's two classes concerning the various important structural and practical realities of modern death penalty decision-making that have resulted from the Supreme Court's modern Eighth Amendment "guided discretion" jurisprudence. 

With the Teddy K. hypo and some of its lessons now covered, I want to update/clarify our plans and my expectations for next week's classes and beyond:

Monday, Oct 10:  Guest presentation/discussion with Kevin Stanek, Assistant Chief Counsel for Ohio Governor John Kasich (and OSU Moritz College of Law Class of 2013). There is no need to prepare anything formal this class, but this Dispatch article and this part of a Wikipedia entry provides a quick overview of the Ohio execution administration issues that ACC Stanek will likely be discussing.  (And for a lighter (and not-so-tasteful) look at these issues, check out this satire video from The Onion, "Ohio Replaces Lethal Injection With Humane New Head-Ripping-Off Machine.")

Tuesday, Oct 11: We will finally get to discussing 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 12:  Wrap up DP discussions and start transition to LWOP/non-capital sentencing challenges by identifying enduring lessons ....

UNLESS YOU REPORT IN THE COMMENTS OR ELSEWHERE ABOUT ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ISSUES YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE US COVER IN CLASS.  If nobody raises any addition death-penalty issues in the comments or in other ways with me, I will assume that everyone has already had more than their fill of death penalty discussions and thus will feel all that much more confident moving on to discussions of non-capital sentencing realities ASAP.

For those students hoping and eager for us to move on beyond our death penalty discussions, please feel free to get started on our first set of prison readings, in the form of:

UPDATE: ACC Stanek suggested that everyone read this DC Circuit case, Cook v. FDA, to get a flavor of some of the challenges states face when trying to acquire the drugs needed to conduct a lethal injection.

October 5, 2016 in Class activities, Course requirements, Execution methods, Ohio news and commentary, Race and gender issues | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 27, 2016

Some links to SNL skits about Teddy K.

As promised, these are fun to check out:

September 27, 2016 in Class activities | Permalink | Comments (0)