Sunday, June 3, 2012
Inmate fights to avoid death
The Youngstown Vindicator
June 3, 2012
Mark Wayne Wiles paid the ultimate price on April 18. Wiles was executed at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville. It was Ohio’s first execution in five months because of legal wrangling about lethal-injection.
Wiles was convicted in the fatal stabbing of a 15-year-old boy in 1985. He was out of prison on an aggravated-robbery conviction when he committed the Portage County murder.
Six weeks have passed since Wiles’ execution. Four more men have been executed nationwide and Ohio has another execution scheduled for this week.
Abdul Awkal is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Wednesday. Awkal shot and killed his wife and brother-in-law at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse during a divorce proceeding.
Clemency denied
Awkal was recently denied clemency by the Ohio Parole Board. Last week, his challenge to lethal injection was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost, whose prior court order was behind the five month lull in executions.
Frost ruled that Awkal misunderstood Ohio’s long-running lethal injection lawsuit, which focused on the process of administering lethal drugs, and didn’t address Awkal’s concern that Ohio might execute a mentally ill inmate.
That’s not to say that Ohio’s death penalty procedure has been problem free.
Twice Ohio officials had to halt executions because something “went wrong.” In the case of Romell Broom, prison staff labored for two hours to establish an IV for administering the lethal injection. Finally, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland intervened and stopped the execution.
The concern with Awkal’s execution has nothing to do with procedure; it has to do with Awkal’s mental health.
A court initially found him not competent to stand trial because of his mental health. He was sent to a psychiatric hospital and placed on medication before the court found him competent for trial.
WOIO-TV in Cleveland reported that Awkal was recently evaluated by an expert who found that he does not have a rational understanding of the reasons for this punishment and did not meet the legal standard necessary for execution.
Awkal was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. He is reported to have had delusions that included his belief that he managed the U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he has been in direct communication with the CIA and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Moratorium
Four states have dropped the death penalty in recent years. California has put the issue on the ballot for this fall and Oregon’s governor has imposed a moratorium on carrying out executions.
The number of Americans who support the death penalty has fallen to 61 percent—down from 80 percent less than 20 years ago.
The U.S. Supreme Court has barred the execution of those who, because of insanity, have no rational understanding that death is imminent and why.
Last week, Texas, the most prolific state in terms of executions, stayed the execution of a paranoid-schizophrenic prone to delusions. He was being forced to take medication to remain competent for execution.
Although, in recent years, Ohio has been a leader in executions nationwide, capital punishment is on the decline.
The number of death sentences and the number of executions has tumbled. Public support for the death penalty has waned. Ohio would do well to closely examine the planned execution of Awkal. A cruel and merciless execution of a seriously mentally ill inmate may influence already declining public support for the ultimate penalty.
Visit The Vindicator
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Incompetent inmates languish in California jails
Inmates with serious mental illnesses deemed incompetent to stand trial are languishing in California jail cells for months as they wait for state hospital beds to open up, according to advocates, jail officials and family members, according to The Sacramento Bee.
State and county budget cuts to mental health programs are combining with prison realignment and a shrinking number of state hospital beds to exacerbate the problem, they say.
In many counties, seriously mentally ill inmates routinely wait three to six months in jail before a state hospital bed opens up, Randall Hagar, director of government affairs for the California Psychiatric Association told The Bee. He calls the situation, which he says has gotten worse in recent years, "tragic."
In recent years, counties around California have been severely hit by budget cuts to mental health services. From 2009 to 2012, California has reduced mental health funding by $765 million, more than a fifth of its mental health budget, according to a report by the nonprofit National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, which advocates for services and treatment. As funds and services have disappeared, the number of people with mental illness landing behind bars has surged, reported The Bee.
State prison inmates with mental illnesses increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2012, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
To read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/27/4519117/mentally-ill-inmates-on-the-rise.html
State and county budget cuts to mental health programs are combining with prison realignment and a shrinking number of state hospital beds to exacerbate the problem, they say.
In many counties, seriously mentally ill inmates routinely wait three to six months in jail before a state hospital bed opens up, Randall Hagar, director of government affairs for the California Psychiatric Association told The Bee. He calls the situation, which he says has gotten worse in recent years, "tragic."
In recent years, counties around California have been severely hit by budget cuts to mental health services. From 2009 to 2012, California has reduced mental health funding by $765 million, more than a fifth of its mental health budget, according to a report by the nonprofit National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, which advocates for services and treatment. As funds and services have disappeared, the number of people with mental illness landing behind bars has surged, reported The Bee.
State prison inmates with mental illnesses increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2012, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
To read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/27/4519117/mentally-ill-inmates-on-the-rise.html
Friday, June 1, 2012
The Cautionary Instruction: The Double Jeopardy squeeze -- justice denied
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
June 1, 2012
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that a criminal defendant may be retried even though the jury in his first trial had unanimously rejected the most serious charges against him, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court had given prosecutors “the proverbial second bite at the apple.”
Indeed, the court had done just that. Imagine facing a jury as the foreperson tells the judge that she and her fellow jurors were unanimous in finding you not guilty of capital murder and first degree murder. Yet, less than an hour later a mistrial is declared and you will face a second jury on both charges.
In Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a jury's unanimous but “not final” vote to acquit a defendant on some charges does not count as a verdict.
In 2009, Alex Blueford was tried for murder and manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend's 20-month-old toddler. The jury voted unanimously against the murder charges, but the foreperson said they were "hopelessly deadlocked" on whether he was guilty of manslaughter. The defense asked for a partial verdict on the more serious charges. The judge refused and declared a mistrial.
Was the foreperson’s disclosure of jury votes prior to the judge declaring a mistrial a verdict?
Chief Justice John Roberts said that at the time of the disclosure the jury was still deliberating and had the ability to reconsider capital murder charges. Roberts wrote, “The foreperson’s report prior to the end of deliberations lacked the finality necessary to amount to an acquittal on these offenses, quite apart from any requirement that a formal verdict be returned or judgment entered.”
The Founding Fathers included the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Constitution in response to prosecutorial abuses by the British monarchy. Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, "This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from reprosecutions that favor States and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time. Only this Court's vigilance has."
At the core of the controversy are the trial court’s jury instructions. The instructions required the panel to consider four separate grades of homicide. Arkan sas’ jury instructions specifically direct jurors not to consider the lesser charges until they make a unanimous decision on the more serious charge.
A majority of jurisdictions use Arkansas’ “acquittal-first” instruction, requiring juries to unanimously convict or acquit on each offense before considering less serious charges. The remaining jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, allow courts to give an “unable to agree” instruction. The jury can consider less serious charges after making reasonable efforts to reach a verdict on the more serious charges.
Sotomayor’s criticism is pointed, "The Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendant's request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock."
For Alex Blueford the trial judge’s failure was justice denied.
June 1, 2012
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that a criminal defendant may be retried even though the jury in his first trial had unanimously rejected the most serious charges against him, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court had given prosecutors “the proverbial second bite at the apple.”
Indeed, the court had done just that. Imagine facing a jury as the foreperson tells the judge that she and her fellow jurors were unanimous in finding you not guilty of capital murder and first degree murder. Yet, less than an hour later a mistrial is declared and you will face a second jury on both charges.
In Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a jury's unanimous but “not final” vote to acquit a defendant on some charges does not count as a verdict.
In 2009, Alex Blueford was tried for murder and manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend's 20-month-old toddler. The jury voted unanimously against the murder charges, but the foreperson said they were "hopelessly deadlocked" on whether he was guilty of manslaughter. The defense asked for a partial verdict on the more serious charges. The judge refused and declared a mistrial.
Was the foreperson’s disclosure of jury votes prior to the judge declaring a mistrial a verdict?
Chief Justice John Roberts said that at the time of the disclosure the jury was still deliberating and had the ability to reconsider capital murder charges. Roberts wrote, “The foreperson’s report prior to the end of deliberations lacked the finality necessary to amount to an acquittal on these offenses, quite apart from any requirement that a formal verdict be returned or judgment entered.”
The Founding Fathers included the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Constitution in response to prosecutorial abuses by the British monarchy. Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, "This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from reprosecutions that favor States and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time. Only this Court's vigilance has."
At the core of the controversy are the trial court’s jury instructions. The instructions required the panel to consider four separate grades of homicide. Arkan sas’ jury instructions specifically direct jurors not to consider the lesser charges until they make a unanimous decision on the more serious charge.
A majority of jurisdictions use Arkansas’ “acquittal-first” instruction, requiring juries to unanimously convict or acquit on each offense before considering less serious charges. The remaining jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, allow courts to give an “unable to agree” instruction. The jury can consider less serious charges after making reasonable efforts to reach a verdict on the more serious charges.
Sotomayor’s criticism is pointed, "The Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendant's request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock."
For Alex Blueford the trial judge’s failure was justice denied.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Florida governor nixes popular prison diversion law
According to The Crime Report, Florida Gov. Rick Scott's veto of a bill to divert nonviolent drug offenders from prison to rehab programs was "soft on sense," says Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell. The idea is to take the most promising inmates — nonviolent offenders with good behavior, and who prison officials believe are ready for reform — and move them out of prison and into rehab. The goal is to get inmates whose primary problem is addiction, off drugs. That way we don't arrest and imprison them again and again.
The idea was so popular it got overwhelming legislative support, including a rare unanimous Senate vote, according to The Crime Report. Business groups and government watchdogs praised the move. Scott's veto baffled fellow Republicans, Maxwell said, because his veto message largely ignored the overall goal of the bill — reducing crime and saving taxpayers money. Maxwell says Scott should approve the measure if the legislature passes it again.
To read more: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-29/news/os-scott-maxwell-citrus-bowl-florida-prisons-05301-20120529_1_money-saving-idea-tax-money-florida-citrus-bowl
The idea was so popular it got overwhelming legislative support, including a rare unanimous Senate vote, according to The Crime Report. Business groups and government watchdogs praised the move. Scott's veto baffled fellow Republicans, Maxwell said, because his veto message largely ignored the overall goal of the bill — reducing crime and saving taxpayers money. Maxwell says Scott should approve the measure if the legislature passes it again.
To read more: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-29/news/os-scott-maxwell-citrus-bowl-florida-prisons-05301-20120529_1_money-saving-idea-tax-money-florida-citrus-bowl
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Part VII: The Crime Report examines drug policy
This is the seventh in a regular series of posts derived from Ted Gest's article Crime and Justice Trends in America: How We Got Here; Where We Go Next on cutting edge evidence-based crime fighting practices posted at The Crime Report.
Drug Policy--Peter Reuter, University of Maryland.
The U.S. has the western world's worst drug problem, even though the problem has declined overall in the last decade, Reuter said.
Too many addicts are unable to get treatment, and the treatment that they do get is not of good quality. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to incarcerate many drug users. The presidents of Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, all of which have been severely harmed by drug related violence fueled by the American drug market, have said it is worth considering the legalization of drugs in their countries.
There are many good arguments for legalization in the U.S., but is not clear whether legalizing drugs would benefit the nation overall; in any case, a 2010 Gallup poll 2010 found fewer than 10 percent of respondents favoring legalization of cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, or methamphetamine.
The concept that drug addiction is a brain disease is gaining support, and it is a credible basis for sending criminally active addicts to treatment rather than the criminal justice system.
Attitudes toward marijuana have changed substantially in the last four decades as tracked by Gallup. The percentage of the public favoring legalization of the drug rose sharply from 1995 (25 percent) to 2012 (50 percent). This may reflect the fact that a number of states allowed medical use of marijuana. In 2010 a poorly formulated California initiative got 46.5 percent of the vote.
This year, better-constructed initiatives are going to voters in Colorado and Washington.
Drug Policy--Peter Reuter, University of Maryland.
The U.S. has the western world's worst drug problem, even though the problem has declined overall in the last decade, Reuter said.
Too many addicts are unable to get treatment, and the treatment that they do get is not of good quality. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to incarcerate many drug users. The presidents of Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, all of which have been severely harmed by drug related violence fueled by the American drug market, have said it is worth considering the legalization of drugs in their countries.
There are many good arguments for legalization in the U.S., but is not clear whether legalizing drugs would benefit the nation overall; in any case, a 2010 Gallup poll 2010 found fewer than 10 percent of respondents favoring legalization of cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, or methamphetamine.
The concept that drug addiction is a brain disease is gaining support, and it is a credible basis for sending criminally active addicts to treatment rather than the criminal justice system.
Attitudes toward marijuana have changed substantially in the last four decades as tracked by Gallup. The percentage of the public favoring legalization of the drug rose sharply from 1995 (25 percent) to 2012 (50 percent). This may reflect the fact that a number of states allowed medical use of marijuana. In 2010 a poorly formulated California initiative got 46.5 percent of the vote.
This year, better-constructed initiatives are going to voters in Colorado and Washington.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Mentally ill inmates languish in CA prisons
Inmates with serious mental illnesses deemed incompetent to stand trial are languishing in California jail cells for months as they wait for state hospital beds to open up, according to Jocelyn Wiener of the California HealthCare Foundation Center for Health Reporting writing in The Sacramento Bee.
State and county budget cuts to mental health programs are combining with prison realignment and a shrinking number of state hospital beds to exacerbate the problem, they say.
In many counties, seriously mentally ill inmates routinely wait three to six months in jail before a state hospital bed opens up, said Randall Hagar, director of government affairs for the California Psychiatric Association. He calls the situation, which he says has gotten worse in recent years, "tragic."
Weiner wrote that in recent years, counties around California have been severely hit by budget cuts to mental health services. From 2009 to 2012, California has reduced mental health funding by $765 million, more than a fifth of its mental health budget, according to a report by the nonprofit National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, which advocates for services and treatment. As funds and services have disappeared, the number of people with mental illness landing behind bars has surged.
State prison inmates with mental illnesses increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2012, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Dr. Gregory Sokolov, medical director of Sacramento County jail psychiatric services, said the county has also seen a steady increase in inmates with severe mental illnesses, which he attributes in large part to the reduction in mental health services.
He said wait times to get into state hospitals got so bad six years ago that a local Superior Court judge ordered the hospitals to accept Sacramento's mentally ill inmates within seven days of a judge committing them. That improved the local situation for a while, Sokolov said, although lately the transfers have started to slow down again.
Advocates emphasize that state hospitals are not ideal places for the majority of seriously mentally ill patients, many of whom might flourish if they received intensive support services in the community. But few suggest the jails are a better substitute, reported Weiner.
Darrell Steinberg, state Senate president pro tem, said incarceration of the mentally ill was one of the main reasons he authored the Mental Health Services Act, a 2004 ballot measure that levied a 1 percent tax on millionaires to fund innovative programs for this population.
"The criminalization of the mentally ill is Exhibit A for how, as a society, we have not made mental health a priority," he said.
To read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/27/4519117/mentally-ill-inmates-on-the-rise.html#storylink=cpy
State and county budget cuts to mental health programs are combining with prison realignment and a shrinking number of state hospital beds to exacerbate the problem, they say.
In many counties, seriously mentally ill inmates routinely wait three to six months in jail before a state hospital bed opens up, said Randall Hagar, director of government affairs for the California Psychiatric Association. He calls the situation, which he says has gotten worse in recent years, "tragic."
Weiner wrote that in recent years, counties around California have been severely hit by budget cuts to mental health services. From 2009 to 2012, California has reduced mental health funding by $765 million, more than a fifth of its mental health budget, according to a report by the nonprofit National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, which advocates for services and treatment. As funds and services have disappeared, the number of people with mental illness landing behind bars has surged.
State prison inmates with mental illnesses increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2012, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Dr. Gregory Sokolov, medical director of Sacramento County jail psychiatric services, said the county has also seen a steady increase in inmates with severe mental illnesses, which he attributes in large part to the reduction in mental health services.
He said wait times to get into state hospitals got so bad six years ago that a local Superior Court judge ordered the hospitals to accept Sacramento's mentally ill inmates within seven days of a judge committing them. That improved the local situation for a while, Sokolov said, although lately the transfers have started to slow down again.
Advocates emphasize that state hospitals are not ideal places for the majority of seriously mentally ill patients, many of whom might flourish if they received intensive support services in the community. But few suggest the jails are a better substitute, reported Weiner.
Darrell Steinberg, state Senate president pro tem, said incarceration of the mentally ill was one of the main reasons he authored the Mental Health Services Act, a 2004 ballot measure that levied a 1 percent tax on millionaires to fund innovative programs for this population.
"The criminalization of the mentally ill is Exhibit A for how, as a society, we have not made mental health a priority," he said.
To read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/27/4519117/mentally-ill-inmates-on-the-rise.html#storylink=cpy
Monday, May 28, 2012
Milwaukee's crime drop tainted by misreporting
Milwaukee's crime rate has decreased each of the last four years. A new investigation by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has found that hundreds of beatings, stabbings and child abuse cases were missing from the violent crime count.
More than 500 incidents since 2009 were misreported to the FBI as minor assaults and not included in the city's violent crime rate, the investigation found. That tally is based on a review of cases that resulted in charges - only about one-fifth of all reported crimes.
Yet the misreported cases found in 2011 alone are enough that Milwaukee would have been announcing a 1.1% increase in violent crime in February, instead of a 2.3% decline from the reported 2010 numbers, which also include errors, reported the Journal Sentinel.
"Misreporting is cheating the public," Michael Maltz, criminology professor at Ohio State University told the Journal Sentinel. He called the findings just "the tip of the iceberg."
"If they are playing fast and loose, they will do it with the cases they don't send to the prosecutor," said Maltz, senior researcher at the university's Criminal Justice Research Center. "If it's this bad at this level, how bad can it be on the cases that don't reach eye level?"
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system is aimed at helping the state and FBI monitor crime and trends. A city's overall crime rate is made up of eight categories - four violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) and four property crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and arson).
According to the Journal Sentinel, all other incidents, such as simple assaults, are excluded from the official crime rate. When a crime is misreported as a lesser incident, to the general public it's as if it never happened.
To read more: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/hundreds-of-assault-cases-misreported-by-milwaukee-police-department-v44ce4p-152862135.html
More than 500 incidents since 2009 were misreported to the FBI as minor assaults and not included in the city's violent crime rate, the investigation found. That tally is based on a review of cases that resulted in charges - only about one-fifth of all reported crimes.
Yet the misreported cases found in 2011 alone are enough that Milwaukee would have been announcing a 1.1% increase in violent crime in February, instead of a 2.3% decline from the reported 2010 numbers, which also include errors, reported the Journal Sentinel.
"Misreporting is cheating the public," Michael Maltz, criminology professor at Ohio State University told the Journal Sentinel. He called the findings just "the tip of the iceberg."
"If they are playing fast and loose, they will do it with the cases they don't send to the prosecutor," said Maltz, senior researcher at the university's Criminal Justice Research Center. "If it's this bad at this level, how bad can it be on the cases that don't reach eye level?"
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system is aimed at helping the state and FBI monitor crime and trends. A city's overall crime rate is made up of eight categories - four violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) and four property crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and arson).
According to the Journal Sentinel, all other incidents, such as simple assaults, are excluded from the official crime rate. When a crime is misreported as a lesser incident, to the general public it's as if it never happened.
To read more: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/hundreds-of-assault-cases-misreported-by-milwaukee-police-department-v44ce4p-152862135.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
