Saturday, August 31, 2013

GateHouse: ‘Stop-and-frisk’ saves lives

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
August 30, 2013
 
The New York City Police Department was rocked recently when a federal judge ruled that the “stop-and-frisk” tactics used by police violated the constitutional rights of potentially millions of citizens. The collateral consequences of this decision will be the loss of innocent lives.
 
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called NYC’s stop-and-frisk tactics "indirect racial profiling." The police used the tactic more than 4.4 million times between 2004 and 2012. The vast majority of the stops were of blacks, 52 percent, and Hispanics, 31 percent.
 
Twelve percent of all stops resulted in an immediate arrest or charges by mail. Eighty-eight percent resulted in no further law enforcement action.
 
"The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," wrote Scheindlin.
 
When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot she may detain an individual and may run her hands lightly over the suspect's clothing to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.
 
Judge Scheindlin did not say that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional. She couldn’t. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in Terry v. Ohio that stop-and-frisk was constitutional.
 
At the time, the court ruled that a plain-clothed Cleveland police officer did not violate the constitutional rights of an individual whose conduct, pacing outside a store, raised a reasonable suspicion. The officer stopped the individual, patted down the outside of his clothing and discovered a gun, which led to his arrest. 
 
Judge Scheindlin instead focused on NYC’s tactics, "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution."
In NYC, officials argued that it was prudent to place a disproportionate share of its resources in minority neighborhoods with high crime rates and that its practices were "not racially biased policing."
 
Opponents of stop-and-frisk argued that the police stops were discriminatory because they did not reflect the city’s overall census numbers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg argued in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post that opponents of stop-and-frisk are using flawed logic. Bloomberg writes that not targeting high-crime neighborhoods would result in an absurd strategy that would result in “far more crimes committed against black and Latino New Yorkers. When it comes to policing, political correctness is deadly.”
 
NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly defended the department’s stop-and-frisk practices during a round of television appearances. He emphatically claimed there’s “no question” violent crime will spike if stop-and-frisk is abandoned. 
 
"The losers in this, if this case is allowed to stand, are people who live in minority communities," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
 
Why? Ninety-seven percent of shooting victims are black or Hispanic. If stop-and-frisk deters a killing, and there have been more than 7,300 fewer killings in NYC in the last 11 years, the life that is saved will most likely be black or Hispanic.
 
In 1990, there were 2,245 murders in the NYC. Last year, the number was 414, the lowest since police began keeping records. Statistics for the first six months of this year revealed an astounding 25 percent drop in homicides compared with the same period in 2012.
 
Franklin Zimring, a professor of UC Berkeley School of Law, told Newsday, "This isn't a return to the good old days, this is breaking new ground."
 
There is no single explanation for NYC’s spiraling crime rates.  However, it would be a mistake to pooh-pooh the impact of stop-and-frisk.
 
NYC officials are convinced that without stop-and-frisk crime rates will climb.  More armed criminals will commit more murders. The people this decision aims to protect — blacks and Hispanics — will feel the brunt of the inevitable increase in violent crime.
 
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
 
Visit Column



Friday, August 30, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: In NYC crime more costly in jail than on the street

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 30, 2013

New York City spent about $167,731 per inmate last year and had 12,287 prisoners on an average day, according to a study of New York City jails by the city’s Independent Budget Office (IBO).

“The numbers provide a troubling statistical portrait of the more than 12,000 people in our city jails on a typical day last year, coming at a significant fiscal cost to the city and no doubt great social cost to families and communities,” the IBO’s Doug Turetsky told the New York Post.

The annual average taxpayer cost in 40 states responding to a recent Vera Institute of Justice survey was $31,286 per inmate. According Vera, Pennsylvania pays $42,339.00 per year, per prisoner in state prison. New York state is the highest with an annual cost per state inmate of $60,076.

Michael P. Jacobson, the director of the City University of New York Institute for State and Local Governance and a former city correction and probation commissioner, told the New York Times part of the reason the city’s cost was so high was because “The inmate-to-staff ratio probably hovers around two prisoners for every guard.”

On the state level, the guard-to-prisoner ratio is one guard for every 6.7 prisoners, according to the American Correctional Association.

Jacobson also noted the success in bringing down NYC’s jail population from a peak of about 23,000 in 1993 to about 12,000 people today -- but said the fixed costs were not likely to go down soon.
Still, he said, there were things that could be done to save money, like reducing the amount of time people sat in jail awaiting trial. Some 76 percent of the inmates in the NYC were waiting on trial or other disposition, according to the IBO.

The average time spent awaiting trial has stretched to 95 days from 76 days in 2002. Many inmates cannot afford bail and simply sit in jail for months. Twice as many people as a decade ago await trial for six months or longer.

With three out of four inmates sitting in jail in New York City awaiting trial, taxpayers are paying about $1.5 billion a year incarcerating people who have not even been convicted of a crime.

Many of those inmates, if they could afford a monetary bond, would be working, united with family and paying significantly less for room and board than NYC is currently paying.

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, August 29, 2013

'Stand Your Ground' No Longer on Solid Ground

"Stand your ground" is no longer on solid ground in Michigan.  Some lawmakers want to review the law in the wake of the Zimmerman case. Darrell Standberry who fatally shot a man trying to steal his SUV doesn't think that is a good idea.

"I got out of the vehicle to go inside to pay for gas," he said. "I turned back and looked, and he was already in the driver's seat of my vehicle."

"He turned around and looked and [saw] that I was still standing there, and that's when he reached in his pocket to pull out his weapon. And I pulled out my weapon, and I fired one shot. And he took off in my vehicle."

His ride was wrecked, the carjacker was dead, and Standberry was arrested. He was never charged with a crime, and he said it's thanks to "stand your ground".

Not everyone is that happy with the law.

After George Zimmerman's acquittal in the Trayvon Martin case, the law has come under heavy scrutiny.

"I am not one of those guys that wants to take your gun away from you," said state Rep. Harvey Santana.

However, he does want to review the law and for Democrats and Republicans in Lansing to have a conversation about "stand your ground" and let the chips fall where they may.

"Maybe what we find out is that we have the best law in the union as it relates, and maybe we are the model for the nation to pursue legislation on. Maybe we find out we need to tweak this a little bit," Santana said.

Standberry doesn't buy it.

"If you're reviewing it, you're trying to make changes to it. That's what you're trying to do," he said.
Santana insisted he does not want to repeal the law, but there are a lot of people in Lansing who want it gone as soon as possible.

To read more Click Here



Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Prisoners receiving education/training less likely to return to prison

Prison inmates who receive general education or vocational training are far less likely to return to prison and significantly more likely to find employment after their release, according U.S. News and World Report.

Researchers at the RAND Corporation found through an analysis of past studies, that inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 43 percent lower chance of returning to prison than those who do not. Additionally, if prisoners participated in academic or vocational education programs, their chances of employment after release were 13 percent higher than their peers.

"Correctional education programs provide incarcerated individuals with the skills and knowledge essential to their futures," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in a release. "Investing in these education programs helps released prisoners get back on their feet — and stay on their feet — when they return to communities across the country."

To read more Click Here

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Death Row Inmate Wins Habeas Relief in Federal Court

After two decades on death row and several fruitless appearances before Pennsylvania state court judges, James Dennis has won habeas relief in federal court, reported The Legal Intelligencer.

Detailing three examples of exculpatory evidence that were withheld by prosecutors in the case that led to Dennis' conviction for killing a teenage girl during the theft of her earrings in 1991, U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that each instance qualified as a Brady violation and, because the state appeals courts didn't consider the cumulative effect of those violations, she wouldn't be constrained by AEDPA.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, called AEDPA, requires federal courts considering habeas claims from state prisoners to afford significant deference to the findings of the state courts that have considered the merits of claims brought to federal court. But, if the claims weren't decided on the merits in state court, then the federal court can conduct de novo review, according to the opinion.

"I need not defer to the Pennsylvania state court decisions here," Brody said, since neither of the state appeals proceedings weighed the combined impact of the three Brady violations. "As a result, AEDPA deference does not apply and I review this claim de novo."

In order to make a successful Brady claim, so named for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Brady v. Maryland in 1963, the petitioner has to prove three things: that the evidence that had been withheld was favorable to his case; that it was suppressed, on purpose or by mistake, by the state; and that the case was prejudiced as a result, according to the opinion.

Brody found that the three claims made by Dennis — that prosecutors withheld statements made by a man named William Frazier that three other people had committed the crime; that the state didn't turn over a receipt that would have corroborated Dennis' primary alibi; and that it didn't disclose a police activity sheet with evidence that a key eyewitness, the friend of the deceased, had recognized the shooter from her high school — qualified as Brady violations.

To read more Click Here

Monday, August 26, 2013

Prosecutors Ask State Supreme Court to Review Jordan Brown Decision

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case of Jordan Brown, a Lawrence County teenager who was 11 years old when he was charged in the 2009 killing of his father's pregnant fiancée, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The case has been reviewed twice by the Superior Court, once overturning a trial court's decision not transferring the case to juvenile court and a second time ruling the court abused its discretion in arriving at an adjudication of delinquency.

State prosecutors filed the petition last week, asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to examine the Jordan Brown case after the state's Superior Court denied state attorneys' request to rehear the case last month.

Jordan was adjudicated delinquent in April 2012 in the homicides of Kenzie Houk, 26, and her unborn child and placed in a secure juvenile facility. Prosecutors said he shot her in the back of the head while she slept in their New Beaver farmhouse.

The story attracted international attention and interest from juvenile justice advocates at the time because Jordan was first charged as a adult. If convicted as an adult he would have been one of the youngest persons in the nation to faced mandatory life in prison.  Mandatory life in prison for juveniles was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/prosecutor-asks-state-supreme-court-to-review-jordan-brown-case-700156/#ixzz2cnCCun4K

Sunday, August 25, 2013

NYC Pays $167,000 a Year to House an Inmate

The Most Expensive Neighborhood in New York City is Rikers Island

New York City spent a whopping $167,000 per inmate in 2012, according to the New York Times. A new report from the city's Independent Budget Office says the most expensive neighborhood in New York City is Rikers Island.

The NYC cost per inmate is nearly three times the cost of New York State's prison system and five times as much as the national average, according to the Vera Institute for Justice.

Michael P. Jacobson, the director of the City University of New York Institute for State and Local Governance and a former city correction and probation commissioner, said part of the reason the city’s cost was so high was because it had a richly staffed system. “The inmate-to-staff ratio probably hovers around two prisoners for every guard,” he said.

The budget office said 83 percent of the expense per prisoner came from wages, benefits for staff and pension costs.

Jacobson noted the success in reducing the NYC jail population—from a peak of about 23,000 in 1993 to about 12,000 people today—but said the fixed costs were not likely to go down soon.

Still, he said, there were things that could be done to save money, like reducing the amount of time people sat in jail awaiting trial. Some 76 percent of the inmates in the city were waiting for their cases to be disposed, according to the budget office.

The wait times have grown even as the number of felonies committed in the city has declined.       
Since 2002, the time spent waiting for cases to be disposed of has increased to 95 days, from 76 days said Jacobson.

To read more Click Here

Saturday, August 24, 2013

GateHouse:The arbitrary nature of capital punishment

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
August 23, 2013
 
Life ended recently for two men on death row, one in Texas the other in Ohio. The deaths — very different — occurred less than a week apart and demonstrated the inequities of the death penalty.
 
On the last day of July, Texas executed Douglas Feldman, a former financial analyst and magna cum laude graduate of Southern Methodist University, who at age 40 gunned down two people.
 
A few days later, Billy Slagle hanged himself in his cell at the Chillicothe, Ohio Correctional Institution. He was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Aug. 7 for the murder of Mari Anne Pope in Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
Pope was babysitting her neighbor’s children when Slagle broke into her home. He beat her and stabbed her 17 times with a pair of scissors.
 
Slagle was an 18-year-old high school drop-out when he committed the drug- and alcohol-fueled murder. “He was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs. He grew up in a very chaotic environment,” Allison Smith of Ohioans to Stop Executions told CityBeat of Cincinnati.
 
Slagle told the Parole Board he was deeply sorry for killing Pope and that he understood the effect that his crime had upon her family.
 
Feldman took a very different approach. He mimicked a judge as he awaited his lethal injection. He announced a mocking verdict, using the names of his victims and declaring he had found them guilty of crimes against him. He said, "I have sentenced them both to death. I personally carried out their executions."
 
Feldman was riding a motorcycle the night of Aug. 24, 1998, when Robert Everett allegedly cut him off in his 18-wheeler on a Dallas County freeway. Feldman took out his 9mm pistol, pulled up alongside Everett’s truck and shot him to death.
 
He testified at trial that he was still angry about 45 minutes later when he spotted Nicholas Valesquez, a gasoline tanker driver filling up at a Dallas service station, and shot him.
 
"It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain," Feldman said in a letter he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting trial.
 
The Ohio Parole Board did not recommend Slagle for clemency, and Gov. John Kasich denied Slagle’s request to have his death sentence commuted to life in prison. That is not unusual. Feldman's attorney filed a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole that was turned down only days before his execution.
 
However, what was unusual about Slagle’s clemency petition was that prosecutors and defense attorneys both asked the Ohio Parole Board to spare Slagle’s life.
 
The new Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty wrote to the parole board that under his leadership the office changed its approach to capital punishment.
 
McGinty wrote that it was unlikely that his office would have sought a death sentence against Slagle if his case were tried today. He alluded to the fact that a life sentence without the possibility of parole is now a sentencing option, though it was not 25 years ago; Slagle was 18 when he committed the crime, the death penalty is no longer an option for those convicted under the age of 18; and Slagle had a history of adolescent alcohol and drug abuse.
 
Did these two very different men — one repentant, the other defiant; one a middle-aged killer, the other a teenager; one educated, the other a high school drop-out — deserve essentially the same fate?
 
In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty — the Court found that the imposition of the death penalty had become arbitrary. Today, with the death penalty reinstated, there are 143 inmates on death row in Ohio, 716 in Texas and 3,103 nationwide. With only 23 executions so far in 2013, can an argument be made that the death penalty is again arbitrary — this time upon those whom it is carried out?
 
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
 
Visit the Column


Friday, August 23, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: A watershed moment in the criminal justice system

Matthew T. Mangino
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 23, 2013

A number of states and now the federal government have made a seismic shift in crime and punishment policy. Specifically, policymakers are looking for ways to incarcerate fewer people for shorter periods of time.

Here is what some commentators and practitioners think about this watershed moment in America’s criminal justice system.

Tavis Smiley, is host of the “Tavis Smiley” show on PBS:

I would like to believe that it's about a shift in our morals; that our nation has finally come to the conclusion that being the world's leader on lockdowns is neither socially sustainable nor a just way to treat fellow citizens. But, alas, I'm not that naive.
It's about money. Pure and simple. As a nation, we have a habit every bit as addictive as the habits of many of the folk we've locked away. We've been addicted to the drug of incarceration, and now we can no longer afford our expensive habit.
 
Professor Douglas Berman, Ohio State University Law School:

In recent years, with criminal justice expenditures accounting for an ever-larger portion of shrinking government budgets, Republican leaders at both the state and federal levels had begun championing reforms designed to reduce prison populations and their associated costs. A prominent new group, Right on Crime — which includes such GOP stalwarts as Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist and Edwin Meese III.
 
The combination of relatively low crime rates, lean budgets, sequester cuts and overcrowded federal prisons presents a unique moment for the enactment of landmark criminal justice legislation, and the need for fundamental sentencing reform is one of the very few topics on which leading Democratic and Republican voices might be able to agree.
 
Prosecutor Henry Garza, president of the National District Attorneys’ Association:

Repeating the myth that prisons are full of first-time, non-violent offenders leaves America’s 40,000 prosecutors, who handle over 95 percent of the criminal prosecutions in this country, shaking their collective heads. The reality is that almost every offender, in every state prison, is there for a violent offense or sexual offense, or for committing repeated offenses.”
 
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II:

There is an expectation that the generic Republican position is tough on crime, but even that has budget limits, particularly on the prison side.
 
Professor Rory Little, Hasting College of Law:

It's largely economics. Why did it take so long? The federal government is a lot slower than states. And it has never before been politically possible to act in a direction viewed as "pro-criminal." But now, many many states…recognize that the costs of over-incarceration are too high.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George, P.C. He is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse New Service. You can read his musings on the criminal justice system at www.mattmangino.com and follow Matt on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Crowd-scanning facial recognition soon to be deployed

The Department of Homeland Security tested a crowd-scanning project called the Biometric Optical Surveillance System — or BOSS — last fall after two years of government-financed development.  The surveillance system would pair computers with video cameras to scan crowds and automatically identify people by their faces, reported the New York Times.

Although the system is not ready for use, researchers say they are making significant advances. That alarms privacy advocates, who say that now is the time for the government to establish oversight rules and limits on how it will someday be used.

The effort to build the BOSS system involved a two-year, $5.2 million federal contract given to Electronic Warfare Associates, a Washington-area military contractor with a branch office in Kentucky.
  
Significant progress is already being made in automated face recognition using photographs taken under ideal conditions, like passport pictures and mug shots. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is spending $1 billion to roll out a Next Generation Identification system that will provide a national mug shot database to help local police departments verify identities.
 
But surveillance of crowds from a distance — in which lighting and shadows vary, and faces tend to be partly obscured or pointed in random directions — is still not reliable or fast enough. The BOSS research is intended to overcome those challenges by generating far more information for computers to analyze.
 
The system consists of two towers bearing “robotic camera structures” with infrared and distance sensors. They take pictures of the same subject from slightly different angles. A computer then processes the images into a “3-D signature” built from data like the ratios between various points on someone’s face to be compared against data about faces stored in a watch-list database, the documents show.
 
To read more Click Here

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

More empathy for battered dogs than battered people

Adults have more empathy for battered dogs and puppies than they do for battered adults, according to new research to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, reported The Crime Report.

Apparently local news producers are already aware of this phenomenon.  The number of animal cruelty stories on the local nightly news has increased exponentially.  Often those stories lead before a murder or rape or other story where an adult has been maimed or killed.

Researchers from Northeastern University studies the responses of 240 men and women who were randomly given one of four fictional news articles about the beating of a one-year-old child, an adult in his thirties, a puppy, or a 6-year-old dog. The stories were identical except for the victim’s identify.
The respondents were primarily white and between the ages of 18 and 25 and were asked to rate their feelings of empathy towards the victim.

The full study has not yet been released, but author Jack Levin, professor of sociology and criminology at Northeastern University, said in a press release that the study's results highlight the complexities of human responses to age and species.

“The fact that adult human crime victims receive less empathy than do child, puppy, and full grown dog victims suggests that adult dogs are regarded as dependent and vulnerable not unlike their younger canine counterparts and kids,” Levin said.

Visit The Crime Report

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Oklahoma teens kill jogger for 'the fun of it'

An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

Christopher Lane, who was visiting the town of Duncan, where his girlfriend and her family live, had passed a home where the boys were staying and that apparently led to him being gunned down at random, Police Chief Danny Ford said Monday. A 17-year-old in the group has given a detailed confession to police, but investigators haven't found the weapon used in last week's shooting, the chief said.

That teen and the others — ages 15 and 16 — remain in custody, and Ford said the district attorney is expected to file first-degree murder charges Tuesday. It wasn't known if the three will be charged as adults or juveniles. They are to appear in court Tuesday afternoon.

"They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said: 'There's our target,'" Ford said. "The boy who has talked to us said, 'We were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.'"

He said they followed the 22-year-old Lane, a student from Melbourne attending college on a baseball scholarship, in a car and shot him in the back before driving off.

Ford told the television station KOCO in Oklahoma City that one of the teens said they shot Lane for "the fun of it."

To read more Click Here

Opponents of 'stand your ground' in Ohio gear-up

Members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus have been hosting rallies and circulating petitions at churches and businesses, looking to create grassroots opposition to House Bill 203, a gun bill that includes a “stand your ground” provision, reported the Columbus Dispatch.

County prosecutors and a variety of law-enforcement groups also oppose the provision, which would eliminate an Ohio law requiring a person to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as the person is carrying a firearm lawfully and is in a place where he or she has the right to be.

“We do not oppose the Second Amendment and the right to defend yourself,” said Rep. Alicia Reece, D-Cincinnati, president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus. “But at the same time, we certainly have concerns with ‘stand your ground’ provisions that would allow something like what happened in Florida.

“We don’t want folks who aren’t trained to follow innocent people around and, because of their own internal issues, decide they have the right to engage and shoot another individual.”

At least 22 states have “stand your ground” laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“When an Ohio citizen is in peril of serious bodily harm or even death at the hands of an attacker, his or her first duty should be self-defense, not a duty to retreat and hope for the best,” Rep. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, the bill sponsor, said in a statement. “The fact is that people who are confronted with life-threatening attacks often face a split-second decision, and Ohioans deserve to have clear laws that do not undermine our natural right to defend ourselves."

Fifteen House Republicans have signed on to the bill, which had one committee hearing before the summer recess. Lawmakers return after Labor Day.

To read more Click Here

Monday, August 19, 2013

White female inmates on the rise in Ohio prisons

Ohio's fastest-growing prison trend: Locking-up white woman from rural communities according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

As the number of white woman in Ohio's prison surges, the experts are baffled.

White women, many from rural Ohio, are the fastest growing population in Ohio prisons. In fact, they made up 80 percent of the female felons sentenced to prison between June 30, 2012, and July 1, or fiscal year 2013, according to state records.

Compare that to fiscal year 2003, when white women sentenced to prison made up 55 percent of females in prison. In 1998, they made up 43 percent, according to state records.

On June 1, there were 3,974 female inmates in Ohio prisons; 2,962 were white, or nearly 75 percent.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Mississippi: Too tough on crime?

Before Mississippi passed a “truth in sentencing” law in 1995, the state had about 11,000 people in prison and the Department of Corrections budget was $119 million.

Now, inmate population has doubled, to 22,000 and the DOC’s budget has nearly tripled, to $340 million, reported the Clarion Ledger. Taxpayers routinely have to cover budget deficits for the prison system, and state officials are faced with the same tough question with which federal officials are grappling: How tough can we afford to be on crime, particularly nonviolent and drug crime?

Other states have had to back down from the lock them up, throw away the key laws passed years back, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is advocating the same now on the federal level.

“We need to decide whom we are afraid of and whom we are mad at,” MDOC Commissioner Chris Epps said. “Persons convicted of low-level crimes should not continue to be tax burdens in a swollen prison system such as Mississippi’s.”

Mississippi ranks second in the nation, behind Louisiana, in per capita incarceration, length of sentences and time served.

The state Legislature this year created a 21-member Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force of people working in the system and lawmakers. It is reviewing the state’s corrections system and sentencing laws and will make a report to the 2014 Legislature.

To read more Click Here


Saturday, August 17, 2013

GateHouse: Attorney General Eric Holder should proceed with caution

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
August 16, 2013
 
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences. That sounds great and Holder should be commended for starting a dialogue that may lead to meaningful reform on prison crowding and soaring costs.
 
However, his proposal will have little impact. There are about 1.57 million people in prison in the United States, not to mention the millions of inmates who cycle through America’s county jails each year.
 
The federal prison population, the only area that Holder has authority to address, consists of about 14 percent of the nation’s overall prison population. Most would agree that about half of those inmates are in prison for drug offenses.
 
The question becomes, how many of those drug offenders in federal prison are low-level, nonviolent drug offenders? In my experience as a state prosecutor, I was not aware of the federal government prosecuting individuals for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs.
 
Often the federal government was involved in complex drug investigations involving numerous targets and large quantities of drugs. In most cases, federal mandatory sentencing is based on the quantity of illegal drugs possessed by an offender. Rarely would a nonviolent, low-level drug offender, possessing a small amount of illegal drugs, receive a mandatory federal sentence.
 
Are there low-level, nonviolent drug dealers? If an offender is selling drugs — maybe he isn’t armed and maybe he doesn’t resort to violence. However, the drug-addicted buyer may resort to theft or robbery to get money — a purse snatching, a mugging, an armed robbery. The person selling drugs is dealing in violence — at least indirectly.
 
There is no question that federal prisons are bursting at the seams. The U.S has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal prison over the last 30 years. The federal bureau of prisons is nearly 40 percent over capacity, and it costs about $30,000 a year to house an inmate.
 
However, in those same 30 years, crime rates have fallen to levels not seen in nearly half a century. In some places, like New York City, the homicide rate has fallen to record lows. While there are many theories as to why crime rates have fallen so precipitously, one factor that has had an impact is incarceration. Is it the sole reason, of course not, but it is a factor. Will a sudden change in incarceration rates have an impact on crime rates?
 
The cost of maintaining the federal prison system is enormous. The U.S. spent $80 billion in 2010 on prisons and jails. There are two different directions that lawmakers can go, raise revenue — taxes — to pay for the rising cost of punishing offenders, or reduce costs by incarcerating fewer offenders.
 
There was a time in this country when being labeled “soft on crime” was the worst possible fate for a politician. Today, politicians will do anything to avoid the label “tax and spend” — even if that means being soft on crime. Therein is the concern.
 
This country has made great strides in dealing with crime and violence. We should not rush to change the system because it is financially expedient to do so. There are states that have reduced prison population while maintaining public safety.
 
Let’s proceed with caution, examine the long term effects of Justice Reinvestment Initiatives underway in a number of states. The criminal justice system can benefit from meaningful reform. Let’s not nibble around the edges with things like federal mandatory minimums or federal charging procedures. 
 
The issues of freedom, justice and public safety demand well planned, comprehensive, evidence-based practices that lead to meaningful and balanced reform.
 
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
 
 To visit Column

Friday, August 16, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: AG Holder will limit use of mandatory minimums

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 16, 2013

Critics have long contended that draconian mandatory minimum sentence laws for low-level drug offenses have had a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups and have packed federal prisons with drug offenders. This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal prosecutors would no longer invoke certain mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

In order to increase public safety, David Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, believes they need to focus on punishment and rehabilitation. He said they won't be soft on crime, but will be smarter.

Hickton believes he will have more discretion when making charging decisions. "We're talking about an approach that has two sides to it. We're going to be more selective and in indeed get even more aggressive with a certain class of criminals, but we're going to try and be more smart with a second group of criminals."

The cost of incarceration in the United States was $80 billion in 2010, according to the Justice Department. While the U.S. population has increased by about a third since 1980, the federal prison population has grown by about 800 percent. Justice Department officials said federal prisons are operating at nearly 40 percent over capacity.

Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman said, it would be the first major sentencing reform since the crack epidemic of the 1980s.

"It's not just a story of new politicians in Washington having a new willingness to speak about these issues, because of lower crime rates and the budget crisis, but I think also the discovery that across the political spectrum across the country, states have been successful in modifying ... sentencing laws to go from what's often talked about as being tough to being smarter on crime," Berman adds.

Some prosecutors, even some inside the Justice Department, may have a hard time making that pivot, as they debate how lengthy prison terms may have helped lower the crime rate.

William G. Otis, a former federal prosecutor and an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School, described Mr. Holder’s move as a victory for drug dealers that would incentivize greater sales of addictive contraband, and he suggested that the stop-and-frisk ruling could be overturned on appeal.

Otis also warned that society was becoming “complacent” and forgetting that the drug and sentencing policies enacted over the last three decades had contributed to the falling crime rates.

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, August 15, 2013

NY grant helps counties provide counsel at arraignment

Twenty-five New York counties will split $12 million in the first state grants earmarked to provide criminal defendants with legal representation at their initial court appearances, reported the New York Law Journal.

The grant has the potential to save money by reducing needless pretrial detention.

 The grants will fund counsel-at-first-appearance programs over the next three years in the 25 counties that were awarded the funding after submitting bids to the Office of Indigent Legal Services. All 25 counties that applied for grants received some funding. Thirty-two other eligible counties did not submit bids.

New York City was not eligible. The city's indigent defense system already provides counsel to criminal defendants at their initial court appearances.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman promised to create the grant program in his 2011 Law Day speech as a way of moving the state to closer conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), that all criminal defendants receive legal representation regardless of their ability to pay.

James Milstein, Albany County public defender, said it is "very, very important" for a lawyer to be present at arraignment, when critical decisions are made, such as setting bail.

He said that unless lawyers are there to stop them, defendants often make statements in court "they think is helpful to them, but which, in fact, is detrimental."

For instance, Milstein said a defendant may tell a judge after an alleged domestic disturbance, "I didn't hit my wife, we were just arguing," which could represent an unintentional admission to violation of an order of protection.

"Certainly there can be some great advantages to a client having an attorney by his or her side in an unfamiliar surrounding and in an emotional environment in which the attorney can provide competent professional advice," Milstein said.

To read more Click Here

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

NYC's 'stop and frisk' unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called New York City's stop and frisk "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city's highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said.

"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg stood his ground. "People also have a right to walk down the street without being killed or mugged," he said at a news conference, repeating his conviction that the program resulted in a drastic reduction in crime that made New York the "poster child" for safe U.S. cities.

As part of her ruling, Scheindlin ordered the appointment of an independent monitor and other immediate changes to police policies. Her "remedies" address two lawsuits, one brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the other by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To read more Click Here

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

South Dakota allows school districts to arm teachers

A South Dakota commission unanimously approved rules for training teachers, other school staff members or volunteers to carry guns in schools under a state law aimed at improving security, reported the Rapid City Journal.

"We believe this package both carries out the directives of the Legislature and best protects our children under that scheme," Attorney General Marty Jackley said after the Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission passed the rules.

While President Barack Obama and officials in many states sought to pass gun control measures after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in December, the South Dakota Legislature instead passed a law that allows school districts to decide whether to arm school leaders in order to deter would-be attackers. Local law enforcement officials must approve a school's plan.

Under the rules, the so-called school sentinels will undergo at least 80 hours of training in firearms proficiency, use of force, legal issues, first aid and weapons retention and storage. The rules will not take effect until September, so officials say the first training class probably won't be held until next summer _ when teachers and others have time for the two-week course.

Only those approved by a school board and local law enforcement officials could be trained to have guns in schools. Officials have said the fee charged to school districts for the initial 80-hour course is expected to be $700. To retain qualifications, sentinels would have to complete another eight hours of training each year.

Jackley said no school district has formally notified the state it plans to arm teachers and others under the law.

The Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission originally planned to certify school sentinels in a process similar to how actual law officers are licensed, but had to drop the certification because it's not authorized in the law. A certification would have allowed the state commission to remove a sentinel at any time for misconduct, but that will now be up to local school boards and law enforcement agencies.

To read more Click Here

Monday, August 12, 2013

AG Holder: 'Too many people in jail for too long'


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told NPR, "I think there are too many people in jail for too long, and for not necessarily good reasons."

This is the nation's top law enforcement officer calling for a sea change in the criminal justice system. And he's not alone.

Over the past few weeks, lawmakers have introduced bipartisan measures that would give judges more power to shorten prison sentences for nonviolent criminals and even get rid of some mandatory minimum terms altogether.

"The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old," Holder said. "There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color."

That's one reason why the Justice Department has had a group of lawyers working behind the scenes for months on proposals the attorney general could present as early as next week in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco.

Some of the items are changes Holder can make on his own, such as directing U.S. attorneys not to prosecute certain kinds of low-level drug crimes, or spending money to send more defendants into treatment instead of prison. Almost half of the 219,000 people currently in federal prison are serving time on drug charges.

Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman has been following the criminal justice system for years. With violent crime near record lows, and federal prisons eating up a quarter of the Justice Department's 2014 budget, Berman says now may be time for change.

"There's the opportunity for action, not only on [Capitol Hill] but maybe in the Obama administration particularly, when we're a little bit away from the midterm elections and a long time away from the next presidential election cycle," Berman says.

It would be the first major sentencing reform since the crack epidemic of the 1980s, he says.

"It's not just a story of new politicians in Washington having a new willingness to speak about these issues, because of lower crime rates and the budget crisis, but I think also the discovery that across the political spectrum across the country, states have been successful in modifying ... sentencing laws to go from what's often talked about as being tough to being smarter on crime," Berman adds.

Some prosecutors, even some inside the Justice Department, may have a hard time making that pivot, as they debate how lengthy prison terms may have helped lower the crime rate.

But Berman says it's worth asking these questions: "Are we using the prison system too broadly, too widely? Are we getting a poor return on our investment with criminal justice dollars when we're constantly growing the federal prison population and especially in a time of sequester that comes with cuts to prosecutors, cuts to police forces, cuts to defender services?"

To read more Click Here

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Death penalty’s arbitrary nature seen in two deaths

Matthew T. Mangino
The Youngstown Vindicator
August 11, 2013

Life ended recently for two men on death row, one in Texas and one right here in Ohio.
The deaths — very different — occurred less than a week apart and demonstrated the inequities of the death penalty.

On the last day of July, Texas executed Douglas Feldman, a former financial analyst and magna cum laude graduate of Southern Methodist University, who at age 40 gunned down two people.

Last Sunday, Billy Slagle hanged himself in his cell at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. He was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Aug. 7 for the murder of Mari Anne Pope in Cuyahoga County.

Pope was babysitting her neighbor’s children when Slagle broke into her home. He beat her and stabbed her 17 times with a pair of scissors.

Slagle was an 18-year-old high school drop-out when he committed the drug and alcohol fueled murder. “He was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs. He grew up in a very chaotic environment,” Allison Smith of Ohioans to Stop Executions told CityBeat of Cincinnati.

Slagle told the Ohio Parole Board he was deeply sorry for killing Pope and that he understood the effect that his crime had upon her family.

Mocking verdict

Feldman took a very different approach. He mimicked a judge as he awaited his lethal injection. He announced a mocking verdict, using the names of his victims and declaring he had found them guilty of crimes against him. He said, “I have sentenced them both to death. I personally carried out their executions.”

Feldman was riding a motorcycle the night of Aug. 24, 1998, when Robert Everett, allegedly cut him off in his 18-wheeler on a Dallas County freeway. Feldman took out his 9 mm pistol, pulled up alongside Everett’s truck and shot him to death.

He testified at trial that he was still angry about 45 minutes later when he spotted Nicholas Valesquez, a gasoline tanker driver filling a Dallas service station, and shot him.

“It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain,” Feldman said in a letter he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting trial.

Commutation denied

The Ohio Parole Board did not recommend Slagle for clemency, and Gov. John Kasich denied Slagle’s request to have his death sentence commuted to life in prison. That is not unusual.

Feldman’s attorney filed a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole that was turned down only days before his execution.

However, what was unusual about Slagle’s clemency petition was that prosecutors and defense attorneys both asked the Ohio Parole Board to spare Slagle’s life.

The new Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty wrote to the parole board that under his leadership the office changed its approach to capital punishment.

McGinty wrote that it was unlikely that his office would have sought a death sentence against Slagle if his case were tried today. He alluded to the fact that a life sentence without the possibility of parole is now a sentencing option, though it was not 25 years ago; Slagle was 18 when he committed the crime, the death penalty is no longer an option for those convicted under the age of 18; and Slagle had a history of adolescent alcohol and drug abuse.

Very different men

Did these two very different men — one repentant the other defiant; one a middle-aged killer the other a teenager; one educated the other a high school drop-out — deserve essentially the same fate?


In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty — the court found that the imposition of the death penalty had become arbitrary. Today, with the death penalty reinstated, there are 143 inmates on death row in Ohio, 716 in Texas and 3,103 nationwide. With only 23 executions so far in 2013, can an argument be made that the death penalty is again arbitrary — this time upon those whom it is carried out?

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on twitter @MatthewTMangino)

Visit The Vindicator

DA charges defense attorney for letting client use cellphone


Bedford County, Pennsylvania District Attorney Bill Higgins said Thomas Crawford, a Pittsburgh defense attorney handed a cellphone to Michael Patrick Crawley at a May 1 Central Court hearing, a no, no according to the DA. Pennsylvania law counts providing phones to prisoners as a first-degree misdemeanor, reported the Altoona Mirror.

Because Crawley was waiting in a holding cell, Higgins said he counts as a prisoner. State law says it's illegal to give a cellphone not just to jail inmates but to those in detention facilities and mental hospitals, as well.

"That's not even illegal. It's Central Court," Crawley said. "It's the way I've done it a thousand times."
Central Court refers to the weekly roundup of preliminary hearings for Bedford County's accused, usually conducted at Magisterial District Judge Kathy Calhoun's Everett office.

Crawford said he handed Crawley the phone for just a moment, so the prisoner could tell his mother how his bail would be handled. Higgins said sheriff's deputies saw the exchange, grabbed the phone and returned it to Crawford before reporting the incident to prosecutors.

"The law applies to Mr. Crawford the same as it does everyone else," Higgins said Wednesday.

Higgins said such charges against lawyers are exceedingly rare, especially in Bedford County.
"Most attorneys comply with the law," he said, laughing. "Most attorneys have more respect for the law."

Higgins and Crawford share a bitter relationship, going back to at least 2008, when Crawford represented a woman who accused the district attorney of sexual assault. Those charges were later dismissed, but the two attorneys have sparred repeatedly in the courtroom since.

Higgins denied any suggestion that the cellphone charge was motivated by his feelings toward Crawford.

"It's just business. The guy broke the law; he's going to be punished," Higgins said.

Representatives at Calhoun's court office said they haven't yet mailed summons to Crawford's Pittsburgh address for a scheduled Sept. 18 hearing. Crawley has not been charged for possessing the phone, also a misdemeanor.

Crawford hadn't heard of the charges as of Wednesday, he said. "I guess Higgins wants to do something," he said. "Whatever."

To read more Click Here

Saturday, August 10, 2013

GateHouse: Criminal justice reform must consider race

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
August 9, 2013
 
The political mantra “tough on crime” is about to celebrate its 50th anniversary. Politicians of both political persuasions have won countless campaigns, either touting their crime-fighting bona fides or attacking their opponents for being soft on crime.
 
In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee for president, introduced campaign operatives to the concept of crime as a divisive, hot-button issue and America has never been the same.
 
For half a century before 1964, prison population had remained stable at about 110 inmates per 100,000 people. In the nearly 50 years that followed, that number rose to 480 inmates per 100,000 people.
 
When Richard Nixon was making his second bid for president in 1968 the Civil Rights Act had passed, riots had erupted in cities across the country after the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., and murder rates had increased 50 percent since 1950.
 
Race relations were tenuous, at best, and Nixon knew it. Crime control became a surrogate for race control. And every man and woman in America is paying for it, in more ways than one.
 
Today, African Americans make up 12.6 percent of the general population and 43 percent of the prison population. Death row is comprised of almost an equal number of blacks and whites.
 
Nixon won in 1968 and 1972 with a crime-fighting agenda. Along the way, more and more African Americans entered the prison system.
 
Drug laws became more and more onerous and again the law disproportionately affected African Americans. During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan introduced draconian mandatory minimum sentences and even harsher drug penalties. Some of those penalties targeted the African American community over other drug-using segments of society. For instance, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created much harsher sentences for the use of crack cocaine, popular in predominately African American urban neighborhoods, as opposed to powder cocaine, popular in more affluent suburbs.
 
In 1988, George H.W. Bush put race front and center in his campaign for president. The GOP ran a commercial depicting intimidating-looking African American men walking in and out a revolving prison door. The commercial assailed Democrat nominee Michael Dukakis for his support of a weekend furlough program that released convicted killer Willie Horton who committed a rape and robbery while on furlough.
 
In 1992, Bill Clinton leveled the playing field for Democrats on crime. As a candidate for president he left the campaign trail to preside over the execution of an Arkansas man who was so mentally disabled he saved a piece of pie for after his execution.
 
Since Clinton, every Democrat nominee for president has supported the death penalty in some form. As a result, crime disappeared as an issue in national politics — until now.
 
Overburdened prisons and resulting costs are unsustainable. Policymakers nationwide spent $70 billion on incarceration in 2012.
 
How are lawmakers dealing with the issue? The conservatives have Right on Crime; The Counsel of State Governments has the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). Neither deals with the fundamental problems of overcriminalization, disproportionate impact of crime on people of color and a failed war on drugs.
 
The theory behind JRI is to decrease state prison population and divert the savings to treatment, reentry services, law enforcement initiatives and investing in troubled neighborhoods.
At least 17 states have enacted JRI legislation. Although JRI has been touted as a road map to meaningful reform, there are several states, some often cited as examples of success, that are struggling to reduce prison population.
 
The most glaring JRI failure is the lack of targeted reinvestment in high incarceration communities, urban neighborhoods densely populated by African Americans, according to a report by the nonprofit research organization Justice Strategies. The report, "Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment," suggests that JRI has not "steered reinvestment toward the communities most weakened by aggressive criminal justice policies."
 
Policymakers need to act fast to prevent JRI from being a blueprint for the continued marginalization of the African American community.
 
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

Visit Column

Friday, August 9, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: TSA not just for airports anymore

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 9, 2013

Don’t be surprised if you see the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at a ballgame or concert near you. The TSA isn't just for airports anymore.

TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals, sporting events, music festivals, rodeos, highway weigh stations and other mass transit locations around the country.

"We are not the Airport Security Administration," said Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte, North Carolina. "We take that transportation part seriously."

With little fanfare, the agency best known for airport screenings has vastly expanded its reach. Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, TSA has broad responsibility to enhance security in all modes of transportation nationwide. TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program is part of a nationwide transportation security program that serves all modes of transportation.

VIPR teams can be deployed at random locations and times in cooperation with local authorities to deter and defeat terrorist activity; or teams may be deployed to provide additional law enforcement or security presence at transportation venues during specific alert periods or in support of special events.

TSA routinely conducts thousands of VIPR operations each year in transportation systems nationwide.

The TSA has grown to an agency of 56,000 employees at 450 American airports. The VIPR program now has a $100 million annual budget and is growing rapidly; increasing to several hundred people and 37 teams last year, up from 10 teams in 2008. TSA records show that the teams ran more than 8,800 unannounced checkpoints and search operations with local law enforcement outside of airports last year, according to the New York Times.

TSA officials say they have no proof that the roving VIPR teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. But they argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolsters public confidence.

VIPR searches outside of airports haven't yet been challenged in court, but it's likely, civil liberties groups say. "I think expanding the program will be problematic politically and legally," said Ginger McCall of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Any courtroom battle over VIPR searches will pick apart the Fourth Amendment, which bars police searches unless there's "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

But the TSA claims "administrative search authority" to conduct random checkpoint searches of passengers and baggage at "surface transportation venues" without probable cause, according to TSA spokeswoman Kimberley Thompson.

"The administrative search does not require probable cause, but must further an important government need, such as preventing would-be terrorists from bringing an explosive device onto a crowded commuter train," Thompson said.

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Federal Smarter Sentencing Act Seeks to Modernize Drug Laws

With federal prison populations skyrocketing and nearly half of the nation’s federal inmates serving sentences for drug offenses, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, a Democrat, Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, have introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, to modernize drug sentencing polices by giving federal judges more discretion in sentencing those convicted of non-violent offenses. Making these incremental and targeted changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment.

“Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses have played a huge role in the explosion of the U.S. prison population,” Durbin said. “Once seen as a strong deterrent, these mandatory sentences have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, judges should be given the authority to conduct an individualized review in sentencing certain drug offenders and not be bound to outdated laws that have proven not to work and cost taxpayers billions.”

“Our current scheme of mandatory minimum sentences is irrational and wasteful,” Lee said.  “By targeting particularly egregious mandatory minimums and returning discretion to federal judges in an incremental manner, the Smarter Sentencing Act takes an important step forward in reducing the financial and human cost of outdated and imprudent sentencing polices.”

The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years, in large part due to the increasing number and length of certain federal mandatory sentences. Mandatory sentences, particularly drug sentences, can force a judge to impose a one-size-fits-all sentence without taking into account the details of an individual case. Many of these sentences have disproportionately affected minority populations and helped foster deep distrust of the criminal justice system.

This large increase in prison populations has also put a strain on prison infrastructure and federal budgets. The Bureau of Prisons is nearly 40 percent over capacity and this severe overcrowding puts inmates and guards at risk. There is more than 50 percent overcrowding at high-security facilities. This focus on incarceration is also diverting increasingly limited funds from law enforcement and crime prevention to housing inmates. It currently costs nearly $30,000 to house just one federal inmate for a year. There are currently more than 219,000 inmates in federal custody, nearly half of them serving sentences for drug offenses.
 
The bill takes a studied and modest step in modernizing drug sentencing policy by:
  • Modestly expanding the existing federal “safety valve" allowing federal judges to appropriately sentence certain non-violent drug offenders below existing mandatory minimums.
  • Promoting sentencing consistent with the bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act which reduced a decades-long sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. 
  •  The Smarter Sentencing Act lowers certain drug mandatory minimums, allowing judges to determine, based on individual circumstances, when the harshest penalties should apply.

Read more about the Fair Sentencing Act.



Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Florida executes mass murderer

The 23rd Execution of 2013

John Errol Ferguson was executed on August 5, 2013 for murdering eight people in Miami-Dade County in the late 1970s, according to The Associated Press. The execution came less than two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a final request for a stay.

Ferguson made a brief statement before 25 witnesses, including family members of the victims. "I just want everyone to know that I am the prince of God and will rise again," he said calmly.

About three minutes into the procedure, he moved his head, strained his neck, moved his feet, put his head back down and closed his eyes. The entire execution took 16 minutes.

Ferguson and two others were convicted of killing six people in 1977 during a robbery at a Carol City house used by marijuana dealers. Ferguson dressed as a utility worker to gain access and let his accomplices inside. Most of the victims were friends who happened to drop by the house while Ferguson and the other men were there. The victims were blindfolded and bound, and the encounter turned violent after a mask fell off one of Ferguson's gang members and his face was spotted by a victim.

The decision was made to kill all eight people in the house. Two survived. At the time, it was the worst mass slaying ever in Miami-Dade County.

Ferguson also was convicted of the 1978 murder of a 17-year-old couple, Brian Glenfeldt and Belinda Worley, from Hialeah. They were shot as Ferguson, dressed as a police officer, tried to rob them while they were parked at a lovers' lane. Worley was raped.

The randomness of the crime and the age of the victims stunned many in Miami. Ferguson confessed to killing "the two kids" after he was arrested in April 1978 for the earlier killings, court records show.

The attorneys appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that Ferguson was too mentally ill to be put to death and lacked "rational understanding" that he will be executed and that killing him would be "cruel and unusual punishment," violating the Eighth Amendment.

Ferguson chose to eat the same food other prisoners were being served as his final meal: A meat and vegetable patty, white bread, stewed tomatoes, potato salad, carrots and iced tea.

To read more Click Here

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

For Better or Worse, Stand Your Ground Is Here to Stay

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
August 6, 2013

Pennsylvania's expanded castle doctrine was enacted in 2011. Governor Tom Corbett signed the self-defense bill into law only months after his predecessor, former Governor Ed Rendell, vetoed the legislation.

Self-defense statutes like the castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws gained notoriety this summer as George Zimmerman stood trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Interestingly, Zimmerman did not raise stand-your-ground as a defense during his Florida murder trial, although the judge included the phrase "stand your ground" in her instructions to the jury.

Zimmerman raised a traditional self-defense claim. He believed he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily injury, had no opportunity to retreat and lethal force was needed to defend himself.
He had the chance to raise the issue of stand-your-ground but chose to forgo a pretrial hearing to raise the defense. Obviously, Zimmerman's attorneys made the correct tactical decision — he was acquitted on the charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter.

However, the Zimmerman case has reignited a debate surrounding the use of lethal force to defend oneself. There is a fundamental difference between Florida's stand-your-ground law and Pennsylvania's expanded castle doctrine legislation.

Pennsylvania's expanded castle doctrine gives individuals the right to use deadly force without retreating anywhere they are legally allowed to be, provided they reasonably believe they are facing death, serious injury, kidnapping or rape, per 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 505. The key difference is, in Pennsylvania, the aggressor must be armed with a gun or other lethal weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury.

Florida's stand-your-ground law allows the use of deadly force if one deems it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or others, regardless of whether the aggressor has a weapon.

In December 2010, after Rendell vetoed the castle doctrine, he unequivocally explained his rationale.
"The bill as passed encourages the use of deadly force, even when safe retreat is available, and advances a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality," Rendell said in his veto statement. "I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves."

Rendell, a former prosecutor, fell in line with his former colleagues in the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, as well as the Pennsylvania State Police and a number of mayors and police chiefs, all of whom opposed the bill.

"Pennsylvania already has a strong castle doctrine," Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr., at the time president of the PDAA, told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "Citizens already possess the right to defend themselves in their homes."

Rendell said Marsico "told me that 'this bill is proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist' and that, if approved, it would create 'great opportunities for defense lawyers of violent criminals.' I agree."

The second time around, the PDAA actively participated in the process. The PDAA worked with legislators to ensure the legislation could not be used as a tool by criminals to circumvent the justice system. Prosecutors insisted that the duty to retreat outside of the home continues if:

• The shooter illegally possessed the firearm.
• The person against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer and the shooter knew or should have known that fact.
• The shooter is engaged in criminal activity "related to" the underlying confrontation.

Once those provisions were added to the legislation, the PDAA's official position on the expanded castle doctrine changed from opposed to neutral.

Recently, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took a strong stance against stand-your-ground laws, he took the same position that Pennsylvania prosecutors took in 2010 and 2011: "These laws try to fix something that was never broken."

"There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — no safe retreat is available," Holder said. "It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."

In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, thousands of people across the country have taken to the streets to protest, among other things, stand-your-ground and castle doctrine laws.
Since Florida enacted the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, at least 24 other states have enacted some variation of the expansive self-defense law. As America focuses on these laws, what is the likelihood they will be repealed?

In March, months before the Zimmerman trial, the New Hampshire Judiciary Committee voted 12-6 to recommend the full state House of Representatives pass a bill to repeal the state's stand-your-ground law enacted in 2011. The effort failed in the state senate, according to the Concord Monitor.

Last week, Arizona state Senator Steve Gallardo, flanked by legislative, city and community members during a news conference at the state capitol, said he agreed with U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., who recently called for a review of the state's stand-your-ground law.

In Alabama, state Senator Henry Sanders pledged to lead an effort to repeal the state's version of stand-your-ground in the next legislative session but acknowledged it could be a difficult fight. "We know it will not just be uphill, but up a mountain," Sanders told the Arizona Republic.

In Pennsylvania, the chances of repealing the expanded castle doctrine are next to none. In 2011, 45 out of 50 state senators voted in favor of the law. There is little stomach among Pennsylvania lawmakers for quarrelling with gun supporters.

The political climate is clear. Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the Christian Science Monitor, "For better or worse, stand-your-ground laws are here to stay."

Winkler emphasized, "Non-gun owners are questioning stand-your-ground laws ... but the gun lobby is too strong to allow such laws to be repealed."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. He is a former district attorney for Lawrence County and former member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Researchers link climate change to violence


Shifts in climate are strongly linked to human violence around the world, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Princeton University.

Even relatively minor departures from normal temperatures or rainfall can substantially increase the risk of conflict. The study, which includes more data than prior research in this field and covers all major regions of the globe, shows the Earth’s climate plays a more influential role in human affairs than previously thought.

The results were published August 1 in the journal Science.

The authors found similar patterns of conflict around the world that were linked to changes in climatic, such as increased drought or higher than average annual temperature. Examples include spikes in domestic violence in India and Australia; increased assaults and murders in the United States and Tanzania; ethnic violence in Europe and South Asia; land invasions in Brazil; police using force in the Netherlands; civil conflicts throughout the tropics; and even the collapse of Mayan and Chinese empires.

The study could have critical implications for understanding the impact of future climate change on human societies, as many climate models project global temperature increases of at least 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years.

The researchers said that exactly why climate affects conflict and violence is the most pressing question for future related research. While the study finds strong evidence that climatic events may be a cause of conflict, the researchers stressed that they are not claiming that climate is the only or primary cause of conflict, cautioning that conflict dynamics are complex and remain poorly understood.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Texas executes unrepentant killer

The 22nd Execution of 2013

Douglas Feldman, a former financial analyst with a history of disruptive behavior, received a lethal injection on July 31, 2013 in Texas for gunning down Robert Everett of Missouri and Nicholas Valesquez of Texas, reported The Associated Press.

Feldman mimicked the announcement a judge or jury makes when announcing a verdict, using the names of his victims and declaring he had found them guilty of crimes against him.

"I have sentenced them both to death. I personally carried out their executions," he said in a loud voice, adding that he carried out their executions in August 1998.

As of that time, the state of Texas has been holding me illegally in confinement and by force for 15 years," Feldman said. "I hereby protest my pending execution and demand immediate relief."

He appeared very nervous, breathing quickly and his feet twitching under a sheet. As the drug began taking effect, he grimaced twice, took a few deep breaths and began snoring. Then all movement stopped.

Feldman was pronounced dead 13 minutes after the lethal drug was injected at 6:28 p.m. local time.

Feldman's attorney, Robin Norris, filed a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles that was turned down Monday. Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, earlier rejected appeals on Feldman's behalf.

Feldman, from Richardson, was riding his motorcycle the night of Aug. 24, 1998, and said Everett, driving an 18-wheeler, cut him off on a Dallas County freeway so he took out his 9 mm pistol, pulled up alongside the truck cab and shot him. Feldman testified at his capital murder trial that he was still angry about 45 minutes later when he spotted Valesquez, a gasoline tanker driver filling a Dallas service station, and shot him.

"A security camera catches him shooting the man in cold blood," Jason January, the former Dallas County assistant district attorney who prosecuted him, said. "Several counties were frightened as this unidentified motorcyclist was out acting like 'The Terminator.'"

Feldman was arrested more than a week later, after shooting and wounding a man at a fast-food restaurant and driving off. A bystander saw the shooting and reported his license plate number to police, who tracked him down and found Feldman with two pistols and nearly 300 rounds of ammunition. Ballistics tests confirmed one of the guns was used in all three shootings.

"It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain," he said in one of 81 letters he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting his trial. The writings from the magna cum laude Southern Methodist University graduate were introduced into evidence.

"God forbid I ever had my finger on the button to launch a nuclear explosive device because I guarantee that I would wipe as many of these bastards off the face of the planet as I am able!" he said in another letter.

Without remorse, he also acknowledged the killings while testifying at his capital murder trial.

Feldman became the 11th prisoner executed this year in Texas and third this month. At least seven other inmates are scheduled to die in the coming months in the nation's busiest capital punishment state.

To read more Click Here