Monday, September 30, 2013

Mangino talks public safety on WKBN-TV

Watch my interview on WKBN-TV in Youngstown on the impending government shutdown and the potential impact on public safety.

Click Here to watch the interview.

Can the government shutdown be dangerous?


The public safety double whammy 

A government shutdown is imminent. There is no question that a shutdown can be inconvenient and a hardship, but can it be dangerous? The double whammy--sequester and a government shutdown--will have an impact on public safety.
Judge Solomon Oliver Jr., chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, said the area’s federal court system could function for probably two weeks, based on fees and other funds collected over time. “Beyond two weeks, those funds probably would be exhausted,” Oliver said. “So if there’s any shutdown for a substantial period of time, it’s going to be devastating to the courts and, I’m sure, all of the governmental agencies.” 
The court's are already feeling the crunch. Nearly $350 million in cuts to the courts this year under the across-the-board government spending reductions called sequestration, have been “devastating” and “painful.”
Clerks and probation and pretrial offices have lost as many as 1,000 staff. The staff that has been maintained have lost 8,600 furlough days during 2013. 
Initially, the government shutdown will not result in cuts for any government employee who conducts  "essential activities to the extent that they protect life and property." For example: all emergency medical care, food-safety inspections, border patrol, federal prisons, law enforcement, emergency and disaster assistance, overseeing the banking system, operating the power grid, and guarding federal property. 
However, Atlanta's top federal prosecutor and the special agent in charge of the FBI said that deep budget cuts are already diverting funds from catching criminals, and it's putting public safety at risk.
"When you have fewer people, when you have less money, when you don't have the resources to do the cases you used to do, there's going to be a public safety impact on the district," said U.S. Attorney Sally Yates.
"A furlough is just a nice way of saying 'pay cut.'" Yates said. "We're doing everything we can to try to prioritize our cases and to do the most significant cases."
"We don't have a set number of days yet in the FBI. We're talking about as many as 16 days for every employee of the FBI nationwide," Mark Giuliano, FBI agent-in-charge said.
Besides the furlough, the FBI has already put a hiring freeze into effect, so agents who retire, quit or even get promoted aren't being replaced.
Yates said there will be furlough days in the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well. Yates said the estimate of up to 16 furlough days is for fiscal year 2014.
Local law enforcement has taken a pounding in the last two years. Federal funding for criminal justice assistance through the U.S. Department of Justice has dropped by an enormous 43 percent.
Forty-four percent of local law enforcement agencies reported a funding drop of at least one-third while 14 percent reported a cut of more than one-half.
When law enforcement has fewer resources and less people logic dictates there will be a public safety impact. 

 

Pennsylvania considers opening statute of limitations for sex crimes

Allegheny County State Rep. Ed Gainey is co-sponsoring legislative that would allow past victims of child sex abuse to bring civil charges against their perpetrators.

State Sen. Rob Teplitz,  of Dauphin County, unveiled companion legislation to H.B. 238, co-sponsored by Gainey, which would establish a two-year window during which the civil statute of limitations would be suspended to allow victims of child sex abuse to access the justice system and reveal guilty perpetrators.

"We are dealing with a statute of limitations that wants to put a constraint on the victim instead of giving him or her the power to have their day in court. We have an obligation to do the right thing. We have an obligation to make sure that we vote this into law and don't become a state that makes it easy for the perpetrator but make it a state that empowers the victim," said Gainey.

Supporters say similar legislation has unveiled hundreds of predators in California and Delaware.

"How many friends have come out to you years later and then you finally understand some of the emotional turmoil that they were going through? It's well past time to offer the same protection to Pennsylvanians who have been victims of these crimes," Gainey said.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Texas carries out 27th execution of the year

The 27th Execution of 2013

Texas executed Arturo Diaz on September 26, 2013 for 14 year old murder in which the victim was bound with shoelaces and strips of bedding, stabbed 94 times and robbed of $50.

 It was the 13th execution this year in Texas, the nation's most active capital punishment state.

Diaz smiled and blew a kiss to several witnesses watching through a window, including his mother and grandmother.

He then turned to the father of his victim, watching through an adjacent window to the death chamber. "I hope this can bring some relief for you and your family," he told him.

He spoke in Spanish to his own friends and relatives, telling them: "I am with God."

He also added that he hoped his fate "serves as an example for some youngsters. ... Think about it before you do drugs."

He was pronounced dead 17 minutes later, at 6:30 p.m. CDT.

"It was way too easy," Forrest Nichols, whose son was murdered in 1999, said as he stood watching Diaz.

 Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials have used pentobarbital as the single execution drug for more than a year, but Diaz became the first in the state given the sedative procured from a vendor or manufacturer the prison agency has declined to identify.

Diaz's reaction to the drug was similar to other Texas inmates who have been executed with pentobarbital. He took several deep breaths, began snoring and ceased movement in less than a minute.

To read more Click Here
 
 
 

Ohio executes killer with last dose of lethal injection drug

The 26th Execution of 2013

Ohio executed Harry Mitts, Jr. on September 25, 2013.  Mitts who was white spewed racial slurs before fatally shooting a black man and a police officer in a 1994 rampage that prosecutors called one of the worst Ohio has seen, reported The Associated Press.
 
Mitts asked the families of his victims to forgive him, saying he had carried the burden of his crimes with him for 19 years. "I had no business doing what I did," he said in a last statement to six witnesses representing his victims. Two clergy members and a friend were also in attendance.
 
 He was pronounced dead at 10:39 a.m. by lethal injection of the powerful sedative pentobarbital at the state prison in Lucasville after years of acknowledging his crimes and repenting. The state's supply of pentobarbital is expiring, and a new execution method will be announced later.
 
Mitts was convicted of aggravated murder and attempted murder in the August 1994 rampage against random neighbors and responding police officers at his apartment complex in a Cleveland suburb.
 
Wielding a gun with a laser sight and later other weapons, Mitts first shouted racial epithets and killed a neighbor's black boyfriend, John Bryant, and then shot and killed white Garfield Heights police Sgt. Dennis Glivar as he responded to the scene. Mitts also shot and wounded two other police officers.
 
With Ohio's supply of pentobarbital expiring, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has said it expects to announce its new execution method by Oct. 4. Pentobarbital is no longer available because its manufacturer has put it off limits to states for executions.
 
To read more Click Here

Saturday, September 28, 2013

GateHouse: DOJ comes to the aid of public defenders

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
September 27, 2013

A lawsuit in the state of Washington has alleged that public defenders are so overworked that people accused of a crime are denied their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The United States Department of Justice is so concerned with the allegations that they have recommended a series of corrective measures should the court find in favor of the claimants.

The DOJ’s position is rooted in the 50-year-old landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. The unanimous decision required free legal counsel for defendants accused of a crime who could not afford a lawyer.

The decision was premised on the Sixth Amendment, wherein the framers of the U.S. Constitution provided, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

This summer, Attorney General Eric Holder told a gathering at the American Film Institute, “[D]espite the undeniable progress our nation has witnessed over the last half-century, America’s indigent defense systems continue to exist in a state of crisis.”

Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers told an audience at the Law Library of Congress last month, the decision by the DOJ to intervene in the Washington cases “[I]s a breakthrough moment."

Just how bad is the problem that necessitated the intervention of the DOJ?

In the Washington case, the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon had just two part-time lawyers handling 2,000 misdemeanor cases.

The New York Times editorial board recently lamented the plight of indigent defendants in New Orleans. In 2009, part-time public defenders in Orleans Parish handled the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney, annually. The Times estimated that the average time spent per case was about seven minutes.

Federal public defenders will be forced to terminate up to half their employees and close branch offices if funding stays at the same level in the upcoming federal budget starting Oct. 1. Michael Nachmanoff, a federal defender from Virginia said, “If action is not taken immediately to save the program, the federal defender system will be devastated.”

In western Pennsylvania, some counties outside of Pittsburgh pay as little as $40 an hour for court-appointed indigent defense counsel. These attorneys are called upon when there is a conflict of interest with the public defender’s office.

Try getting a plumber to come to your house for $40 an hour. Yet a defendant accused of armed robbery, facing up to 20 years in prison, can expect no better.

What the DOJ is proposing is unprecedented. They are urging the court, if the plaintiffs prevail, to appoint an independent monitor for public defender workloads, the first time ever in a federal case. The monitor scenario would be similar to what is going on in New York City as a result of the controversial “stop-and-frisk” court decision.

"We are absolutely committed to the principle that every indigent person who is accused of a crime is entitled to his or her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel,"  Jocelyn Samuels, who leads the DOJ civil rights unit, told NPR.

As Samuels pointed out, the right to counsel is not merely the right to a warm body beside a criminal defendant, the right encompasses “effective” assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court has established the parameters of effective representation, now the federal government — as well as state and local governments — must make a substantial investment in indigent defense.

Whether its seven minutes of preparation or a woeful $40 an hour, America’s system of justice must hold itself to a higher standard or the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment will be worthless.

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 Click Here

 
 


Friday, September 27, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: Forced drugging of death row inmates

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 27, 2013

Imagine a delusional, psychotic inmate on death row being forced to take medication so that he becomes lucid enough to execute. Does such a scenario seem cruel or farfetched? Not so fast, it is the law in Pennsylvania and other states as well.

In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that Arkansas could force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make him sane enough to execute. Without the drugs Charles Laverne Singleton, could not be put to death. A 1986 Supreme Court decision prohibited the execution of the insane.

''Singleton presents the court with a choice between involuntary medication followed by an execution and no medication followed by psychosis and imprisonment,'' Judge Roger L. Wollman wrote in his anything but compassionate opinion.

Judge Wollman said the first choice was the better one, at least when the drugs were generally beneficial to the prisoner. ''Eligibility for execution is the only unwanted consequence of the medication,'' he wrote. That unwanted consequence was soon realized, Singleton was executed in 2004.

In 2008, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state can force two death row inmates to take antipsychotic medication so they are mentally competent enough to proceed with their appeals and be executed. The decision was not as dire as it might seem. Pennsylvania has not executed anyone involuntarily in the modern era of the death penalty.

The two Pennsylvania inmates were sentenced to death but were found incompetent to participate in the appeals filed on their behalf. The Supreme Court ordered “that appellee be administered, involuntarily if necessary, antipsychotic medication to render him competent.”

Justice Max Baer dissented, saying that each defendant, “has as much of an interest in avoiding an unwanted and forced drugging as he has in pursuing collateral relief.” It appears that Justice Baer understood that the issue was more about appearing in court than showing up in the death chamber.

Ironically, it took Texas, the state that has executed more killers than any other, to make a sensible decision in the area of mental illness and execution.

In a recent 5-4 decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that death row inmate Steven Kenneth Staley cannot be forcibly medicated to become competent for execution.

He was convicted of capital murder in 1991 for a killing during a robbery. An execution date was originally set for February 2006. The trial court conducted two separate hearings on whether Staley was competent to be executed before the matter got to the appeals court.

"We conclude that the trial court lacked the authority to order the involuntary medication of appellant and that the competency finding must be reversed because that determination is wholly dependent on that unauthorized involuntary medication of appellant," Judge Elsa Alcala wrote for the majority.

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Philadelphia death penalty case costs $10 million and counting


A review of records, as well interviews with lawyers and court officials, indicates the public price tag for the federal government to investigate, convict, and detain Kaboni Savage easily tops $10 million, making it among the costliest prosecutions in Philadelphia history.

Savage gunned down one man, ordered the killing of five others, and directed the 2004 rowhouse firebombing that killed four children and two women, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Court-appointed lawyers for Savage and his codefendants have logged more than $3.3 million in fees and expenses - a record for a federal case in Philadelphia - and are still billing.

The defense total is a fraction of the prosecution cost, according to one expert. Government lawyers, FBI agents, and staff spent years building the case against Savage, at times working on nothing else.
The jury selection and murder-racketeering trial in Judge R. Barclay Surrick's courtroom lasted seven months.

The court shelled out $325,000 in per-diem payments and travel expenses for 1,100 prospective jurors and the 18 eventually picked for the trial, according to information compiled by court officials.
Juror lunches and snacks topped $24,000. Transcripts cost $249,000.

On most days, a half-dozen U.S. marshals ringed the courtroom and escorted the defendants, jurors, and witnesses. Additional security and travel costs exceeded $283,000, the Marshals Service said.
And the price of imprisoning Savage is at least $31,000 a year for each year he lives, prison officials say. That could be decades. Savage is 38.

"Frankly, no one should be surprised to see it cost this much," said Jon B. Gould, an American University law professor who has studied defense costs in federal capital cases. "If we're going to do it right, so that [death-penalty] convictions are accurate, it's going to cost money."

To read more Click Here

 

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Guest Column: State should act on cyberbullying

Matthew T. Mangino
The Delaware County Daily Times
September 23, 2013

Recently, the dark side of social media made headlines across the country as authorities investigated the role of cyberbullying in the suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick, a 12-year-old Florida girl who jumped to her death from an abandoned cement plant near her home.

Friends and family said she suffered constant online harassment from friends who had savagely turned against her in a dispute over a boyfriend.

We are constantly reminded that bullying is no longer hurtful words exchanged between students in hallways and bathrooms and by notes passed in classrooms.

About 20 percent of young people have been the victim of cyberbullying, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center, a clearinghouse of information on cyberbullying. About 15 percent of teens have admitted they have bullied or ridiculed others on social media, photo-sharing and other websites, reported the Los Angeles Times.

According to the website of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane cyberbullying can include, but is not limited to:

Sending cruel, vicious or threatening e-mails.

Creating Web sites that have stories, pictures and jokes ridiculing others.

Posting pictures of other students/kids online with derogatory phrases or questions attached to them.

Using someone else’s e-mail to send vicious or incriminating e-mails to others.

Using instant messaging tools to harass others.

The law in Pennsylvania currently imposes criminal liability for engaging in a course of conduct that causes emotional distress by electronic means including electronic mail, Internet and wireless communication.

Pennsylvania law also provides that schools must adopt a policy on the use of electronic communication with intent to bully in a school setting. The policy is limited—“school setting” is defined as in school, on school grounds, in school vehicles, at bus stops and during school activities.

When the Pennsylvania House of Representatives reconvenes in Harrisburg for the fall session, proposals to deal with cyberbullying will be one of the issues that legislators address.

House Bill 156, also known as the Pennsylvania Safe Schools or PASS ACT, would require clearer definitions of bullying and cyberbullying, provide prevention and remediation tools for all teachers and school staff on incidents of bullying, establish reporting requirements and allow for parents and the community to support the adoption of anti-bullying policies.

House Bill 1163 would make cyber harassment of a child a punishable offense. This legislation would prohibit the use of electronic communications to repeatedly make statements or offer opinions about a child’s sexuality or sexual activity or make statements that significantly ridicule, demean or cause serious embarrassment to a child.

“The consequences can be, we found, very devastating to a child. In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has characterized cyberbullying as an emergency public health problem.

Not everyone is behind the crusade to eradicate cyberbullying, reported WHYY. The Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the legislation, saying it is not constitutional to censor free speech online just because it is mean-spirited and directed at a child.

However, Audrey Rogers, a professor at Pace Law School, told USA Today words can be criminal. “You’re not allowed to use your words to harass, annoy or intimidate someone,” she said. “It’s clear the law allows you to outlaw certain kinds of speech.”

The courts are a mixed bag in Pennsylvania. In J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “where speech that is aimed at a specific school and/or its personnel is brought onto the school campus or accessed at school by its originator, the speech will be considered on-campus speech.”

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals said the school generally “cannot punish a student for expressive conduct that originated outside of the schoolhouse.”

These cases leave unclear the right of school officials to regulate or discipline conduct on social media that has a negative influence on the school environment.

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

Visit the Delco Times

Texas executes killer of four

The 25th Execution of 2013

Robert Gene Garza was executed on September 19, 2013 in Texas for the ambush massacre of four woman.  He became the 12th condemned inmate executed this year in Texas, reported The Associated Press.

Garza smiled and blew a kiss to friends and relatives as they entered the death chamber. In a brief final statement, he thanked them for coming and told them he loved them.

"I know it's hard for you," he said. "It's not easy. This is a release. Y'all finally get to move on with your lives."

He took several deep breaths as a lethal dose of pentobarbital began flowing into his arms, then began snoring. All movement stopped within less than a minute. He was pronounced dead 26 minutes later, at 8:41 p.m. CDT.

A member of a Rio Grande Valley gang known as the Tri-City Bombers even before he was a teenager, Garza insisted a statement to police acknowledging his participation in the September 2002 shootings in Hidalgo County was made under duress and improperly obtained.

But prosecutors said Garza orchestrated the gang's plan to silence the women, who Garza thought had witnessed another gang crime, and was present when several gang members opened fire on the women when they arrived at their trailer park home after work at a bar.

"I really didn't have anything to do with the scenario the state was providing," Garza told The Associated Press recently from death row. "I guess since we are gang members, they got me involved through the gang.

"I think they were just trying to close his case ... and they needed somebody."

To read more Click Here

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

FBI facing furloughs and staffing cuts

Big budget woes worry new FBI Director James Comey.
      
The special agent training pipeline is empty, curtailed by prior economizing, reported McClatchy Newspapers. By Oct. 1, Comey must find an additional $800 million or so in budget savings, out of a total annual FBI budget of about $8.1 billion. Layoffs and furloughs appear inevitable.

“I’m not playing a game,” Comey told reporters Thursday. “I’m not crying wolf.”


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/19/202692/terrorism-cyber-crime-and-budget.html#.UjxdjLyE7ok#storylink=cpy
Over the next decade, the automatic cuts known as the sequester, are estimated to reduce federal spending by about $1 trillion. Most Justice Department agencies would, like the FBI, shoulder cuts of 8.2 percent.

“It didn’t make sense before I was sworn in, and it still doesn’t make sense to me,” Comey said. “To get to where I need to be, I need to eliminate a bunch of positions, and then we’re faced with a furlough.”

The bureau grew immensely in both staff and funding during the past 12 years under Mueller. In fiscal 2001, it had a budget of $3.3 billion and a staff of about 27,000. By fiscal 2012, the bureau’s budget was $8.1 billion and the staff has expanded to more than 34,000 employees.

Comey indicated that he may have to “cut 3,000 positions,” as well as impose unpaid furloughs of up to two weeks on remaining employees to meet the sequester demands. He declined to spotlight specific programs where the potential cuts might hit.

To read more Click Here

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/19/202692/terrorism-cyber-crime-and-budget.html#.UjxdjLyE7ok#storylink=cpy

Monday, September 23, 2013

Poll: Mental illness leading cause of gun violence

More Americans believe mental illness is a leading cause of gun violence.  More so than any other factor, including access to guns, reported Politico.  Support for stricter gun laws has fallen below 50 percent.

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed blamed mental illness a great deal in the Gallup poll released last week, the same number as a poll taken just after a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., at then-Rep. Gabby Giffords’s congressional event.

The number who blame easy access to guns a great deal for shootings, however, has decreased 6 points since January 2011, to 40 percent. Drug use was blamed next, at 37 percent, a drop of 5 points, and violent movies, video games and music was at 32 percent.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, September 22, 2013

The Crime Report: The DOJ Takes on Indigent Defense

Matthew T. Mangino
The Crime Report
September 17, 2013

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a Statement of Interest  in a U.S. District Court case in the state of Washington, advocating specific remedies—including an independent monitor— should the court find that public defender services in two Washington cities have fallen short of Sixth Amendment guarantees.

While Statements of Interest are neither surprising nor unusual, this one is, as some have described it,  “nothing short of historic.”

 The DOJ’s position is rooted in the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright case. In that 1963 case, the Supreme Court  ruled unanimously that defendants accused of a felony were entitled to free legal counsel if they could not pay for an attorney.

The decision was premised on the Sixth Amendment, in which the framers of the U.S. Constitution provided, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

This summer, Attorney General Eric Holder, joined the growing group of advocates and legal experts who have argued that the Gideon decision has left large loopholes.

“Despite the undeniable progress our nation has witnessed over the last half-century – America’s indigent defense systems continue to exist in a state of crisis,” Holder told a gathering  at the American Film Institute in Washington, DC.

The crisis is a reflection of a system under duress.

Judge Julia Gibbons of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and chairwoman of the U.S. Judicial Conference’s budget committee, told a Senate subcommittee this summer that the nearly $350 million in cuts to the courts this year under the across-the-board government spending reductions called sequestration, have been “devastating” and “painful.”

“If funding levels remain flat or decline, it compromises the constitutional mission of the courts,” Gibbons testified.

The Washington state case, in which the DOJ intervened, is just one of many tragic illustrations around the country of Gibbons’ argument.  According to facts presented to the court, he the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon have just two part-time public defenders handling 2,000 misdemeanor cases.

New Orleans is another example. The New York Times editorial board recently lamented the plight of indigent defendants in that city, noting that in 2009, part-time public defenders in Orleans Parish handled the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually. The Times estimated that the average time spent per case was about seven minutes.

The problem is bound to get worse.

Federal public defenders will be forced to terminate up to half their employees and close branch offices if funding stays at the same level in the upcoming federal budget starting October 1.

According to Michael Nachmanoff, a federal public defender from Virginia, “If action is not taken immediately to save the program, the federal defender system will be devastated.”

In western Pennsylvania, where I’m from, some counties outside of Pittsburgh pay as little as $40 an hour for court-appointed indigent defense counsel. These attorneys are called upon when there is a conflict of interest with the public defender’s office.

Try getting a plumber to come to your house for $40 an hour. Yet a defendant accused of armed robbery, facing up to 20 years in prison, can expect no better.

What the DOJ is proposing is unprecedented.

DOJ lawyers have urged  the Court, if the plaintiffs prevail, to appoint an independent monitor for public defender workloads, the first time ever in a federal case.  The proposed remedy is similar to what is going on in New York City as a result of the controversial “stop-question and-frisk” court decision, where a federal judge designated an independent monitor to ensure police practices observe the rights of minorities .

In an interview with National Public Radio,  Jocelyn Samuels, who leads the DOJ civil rights unit, explained: "We are absolutely committed to the principle that every indigent person who is accused of a crime is entitled to his or her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel,.
The problem is resources.

Unless the federal government—as well as state and local governments— are prepared to make a substantial investment in indigent defense, the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment will be worthless.

Seven minutes of preparation.  A woeful $40 an hour.  Fifty years after Gideon, , America should  to expect more and better from the criminal justice system.

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

Visit The Crime Report

Saturday, September 21, 2013

GateHouse: Homicide trends driven by local influences

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
September 20, 2013

In late 2011, Charles Lane’s column in The Washington Post touted America's dramatic decline in crime. He gleefully suggested that, "With luck, the United States could soon equal its lowest homicide rate of the modern era: 4.0 per 100,000, recorded in 1957." Well, that hasn’t happened.

Murder is on the rise.  According to the 2012 edition of the FBI’s annual report Crime in the United States released this month, homicide increased by 1.1 percent last year.

Each year, law enforcement agencies voluntarily provide offense and arrest data through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. That data revealed that there were 215 more murders in 2012 than in 2011.

However, before you sound the alarm, the murder rate is still as low as it has been in more than 40 years.

Forty years ago, there were 18,670 murders nationwide. Last year, there were 14,827. Although the difference is a few thousand, the rate of homicide is almost half of what it was.

To get an accurate picture of the pervasiveness of homicide, criminologists look at the number of murders per 100,000 people. In 1972, the rate was 9 per 100,000; in 2012, it was 4.7 per 100,000.
Homicide is a mixed bag.

Detroit pulled even with New York City for the first six months of 2013. We’re not taking about the Tigers and the Yankees. New York City has about 8.3 million residents and had 154 murders for the first half of 2013. Detroit has a population of about 700,000 and had 153 murders. Baltimore is another example. New York City has 13 times as many people as Baltimore but as of Aug. 31, Baltimore had 152 homicides. New York had 213.

The news is not all bad. In Philadelphia, the 115 murders for the first half of 2013 put the city at more than 42 percent below the murder rate for the same time last year, marking a 45-year low in the city’s homicide rate.

In early May, the Chicago Police Department released figures indicating the city marked a 43 percent decline in the number of murders over the first four months of 2013, as compared to the same period last year. For the first quarter of year, Chicago registered 93 murders, its lowest January-to-April tally since 1963.

On the other hand, the Bay Area’s three largest cities, San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland, have experienced a 52 percent increase in homicides over the past two years.

Why the inconsistency or disparity in the rate of homicide?

Crime trends are much more likely to vary across cities, and that has been the case since 2000, when the national murder trend flattened. This suggests that recent crime trends have been driven more by local conditions than by any general national demographic, incarceration, or economic trend according to Alfred Blumstein and Richard Rosenfeld in Factors Contributing to U.S. Crime Trends.

According to Blumstein and Rosenfeld, some factors are distinctively local, such as policing tactics; some may be regional, such as the progression of a particular drug market; and some may be national, such as the result of a change in federal public assistance policies. Local factors also include policing strategies, and management; firearm availability; the presence of local gangs; and availability of social services.

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil once said that “all politics is local.” The same can be said for homicide. The variations are astounding. New York City’s decline has been described as “miraculous,” with a homicide rate of 3.83 per 100,000 people. Twelve miles down the New Jersey Turnpike, the city of Newark has a homicide rate of 33.1 per 100,000.

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, September 20, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: PA lawmakers to take up cyberbullying

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 20, 2013

Authorities are investigating the role of cyberbullying in the suicide last week of Rebecca Ann Sedwick, a 12-year-old Florida girl who jumped to her death from a platform at an abandoned cement plant near her home.

Friends and family said she suffered constant online harassment from friends who had turned against her in a dispute over a boy. Rebecca was "absolutely terrorized on social media," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told reporters.

Gone are the days when spiteful words and banter between students was traded in middle-school bathroom stalls and by notes passed in the hallways.

About 20 percent of young people have been the victim of cyberbullying, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center, a clearinghouse of information on cyberbullying. About 15 percent of teens have admitted they have bullied or ridiculed others on social media, photo-sharing and other websites.

"It's now 24-7. It's not just something you can escape after the school day," said Sameer Hinduja, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center.

Cyberbullying can include, but is not limited to:
-- Sending cruel, vicious or threatening e-mails.
-- Creating Web sites that have stories, pictures and jokes ridiculing others.
-- Posting pictures of other students/kids online with derogatory phrases or questions attached to them.
-- Using someone else's e-mail to send vicious or incriminating e-mails to others.
-- Using instant messaging tools to harass others.
 
When the Pennsylvania House of Representatives reconvenes in Harrisburg for the fall session, a proposal on cyberbullying will be one of the issues that legislators address.

"The consequences can be ... very devastating to a child. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has characterized cyberbullying as an emergency public health problem," said State Representative Ron Marsico.

At a recent hearing, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association voiced support for the plan, but said it should be changed to ensure that anyone prosecuted under it must be shown to have a malicious intent.

Every state but Montana has an anti-bullying law. However, only 18 states actually have laws that mention cyberbullying.

Not everyone is behind the crusade to eradicate cyberbullying. The Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the legislation, saying it isn’t constitutional to censor free speech online just because it is mean-spirited and directed at a child.

However, Audrey Rogers, a professor at Pace Law School says words can be criminal. "You're not allowed to use your words to harass, annoy or intimidate someone," she said. "It's clear the law allows you to outlaw certain kinds of speech."

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Life terms quadruple over 30 years

One in nine U.S. prisoners is serving a life sentence, according to a new report from the Sentencing Project, as reported by The Crime Report.

About 160,000 prisoners are currently serving life sentences, according to the report; four times as many as there were 30 years ago.

The nationwide population of prisoners service serving life without parole is currently about 49,000, a 22% increase since 2008.

California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania account for more than half the national population of inmates serving life sentences, according to the report.

Nearly half of those serving life sentences are African-American and one in six are Latino.
Researchers note that the rise in life sentences has come amidst a long-term drop in serious crime and a modest decline in overall prison populations.

To read more Click Here

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers pre-arrest silence

On September 10, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments in Molina v. Commonwealth and Adams v. Commonwealth, both of which deal with issues of whether the mention of pre-arrest silence in court violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination, reported The Legal Intelligencer.

The cases had been postponed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Salinas v. Texas, which found that a prosecutor's mention of a defendant's silence before he was arrested or given a Miranda warning did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights because the defendant did not expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment.

While attorneys for Michael Molina and Shataan Adams both took steps to distinguish their cases from the U.S. Supreme Court's June 17 ruling in Salinas, attorneys for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling applied to the cases.

"The U.S. Supreme Court was clear. Five justices agreed that the defendants must assert the Fifth Amendment right in order to arguably receive the protection," said Francesco Lino Nepa, an attorney representing the state in the Molina case. "The commonwealth's position was that there were no rights attached until the time the defendant was placed under arrest."

In Molina, a sharply split en banc panel of the Superior Court held that prosecutors may not use nontestifying defendants' pre-Miranda silence as substantive evidence of their guilt.

The panel, ruling 5-4, ultimately concluded that such use infringes on a defendant's Fifth Amendment right.

To read more Click Here

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Schools hire firm to monitor social media

Company to be Monitoring About 3,000 Schools Worldwide by the End of the Year

Last year, the Glendale, CA Unified School District hired Hermosa Beach-based Geo Listening to piece together the cyber tidbits of its 14,000 or so middle and high school students. The effort, for which the district is paying $40,500, is aimed at unearthing the earliest signs of bullying and self-harm.

The company's computers scour an untold number of public posts by students on blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, for example. Analysts are alerted to terms that suggest suicidal thoughts, bullying, vandalism and even the use of obscenities, among other things. When they find posts they think should spur an intervention or anything that violates schools' student codes of conduct, the company alerts the campus.

While acknowledging some of the benefits, critics of the program contend that the monitoring could also have a chilling effect on students' free speech. And, they contend, it opens the possibility that students could be disciplined for comments made outside of school.
Students say the policing of their posts has stirred debate on campuses. Some are angry about what they see as an intrusion.

The Glendale district began a pilot program to monitor students online last year at its three high schools, Glendale, Hoover and Crescenta Valley.

"We think it's been working very well," Sheehan sid. "It's designed around student safety and making sure kids are protected."

The district does not provide a list of students to the company. Instead, it uses "deductive reasoning" to link public accounts to students, said Chris Frydrych, founder and chief executive of Geo Listening. He declined to be more specific.

Frydrych would not comment on how many school districts he has contracts with but said he expects the company to be monitoring about 3,000 schools worldwide by the end of the year.

He stressed that the company monitors only publicly available posts and isn't peeking into private correspondence or hacking into accounts. The company gathers what students are putting out there for the world to see, Frydrych said.

To read more Click Here

Monday, September 16, 2013

Does gun ownership increase rate of violence?


The largest ever study of gun violence in the United States, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health.

According to thinkprogress.org, Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the firearm suicide rate in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic.

Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Cook County Jail largest correction facility in America

After dipping to 8,900 in 2011, the average annual jail population — primarily inmates awaiting trial — has been on the rise at Chicago's Cook County Jail.  According to the Chicago Tribune the daily count is now frequently more than 10,000, the highest totals since 2007.

About 5 percent of detainees at the jail have been awaiting trial for more than two years, according to the sheriff’s office.

With that rise in population, Chicago has regained its spot, once held by Houston, as home of the most populous single-site jail in the country — and also effectively Illinois’ largest mental health facility.

To read more Click Here

Saturday, September 14, 2013

GateHouse: Eliminate the collateral consequences of criminal convictions

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
September 13, 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. Holder’s announcement is in response to soaring prison costs — $60 billion in 2012 — and draconian budget cuts brought about through the federal sequester.
 
There is another way to reduce prison costs and maintain public safety without diminishing accountability — eliminate the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. A criminal record shouldn’t be a life sentence.
 
A collateral consequence is a penalty, disability or disadvantage that is related to employment or occupational licensing as a result of the individual's conviction and applies by operation of law whether or not the penalty, disability or disadvantage is included in the sentence.
 
According to the Pew Center on the States, more than 40 percent of offenders released from prison are reincarcerated within three years, either committing a new crime or violating conditions of parole.
 
The problem with our crowded prisons isn’t the result of punishing offenders for their criminal conduct — it is the ongoing sanctions that hinder former offenders from successfully reintegrating into society.
 
The unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated offenders one year after release may be as high as 60 percent and there is an increasing reluctance among employers to hire people with criminal histories. Offenders successfully returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime-free.
 
Incarceration and community supervision are often not the end of the sanctions attached to a criminal conviction. According to the National Employment Law Project, an estimated 65 million Americans have a criminal record.  The American Bar Association (ABA) has identified over 38,000 penalties — collateral consequences — that can impact people long after they complete their criminal sentence.
 
The ABA Task Force on Collateral Consequences, found that a former offender “may be ineligible for many federally-funded health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, and federal educational assistance.”  A former offender’s “driver’s license may be automatically suspended.”  Their ability to earn a living in their chosen profession may be limited in that an offender “may no longer qualify for certain employment and professional licenses.”
 
Collateral consequences may prohibit military service, possession of a firearm or a federal security clearance. A convicted U.S. citizen may lose the right to vote. A non-citizen may lose the right to reside in the U.S.
 
Last year, Ohio adopted new protections for formerly incarcerated offenders. Many employers hesitate to hire individuals who have been arrested or convicted of a crime even though they may be the best qualified for the job.
 
Employers may be interested giving a person a second chance, but they are concerned that hiring a person with a criminal record might expose them to liability for negligent hiring if the employee commits a crime on the job.
 
Prior to 2012, five states had passed legislation limiting negligent hiring liability for employers who hire people with criminal records. According to The Sentencing Project, eight states considered new limitations on negligent hiring liability last year, only Ohio followed through.
 
The bill signed into law by Gov. John Kasich on June 12, 2012, creates a mechanism by which an individual who is subject to a collateral sanction may obtain a certificate of qualification for employment that will provide relief from certain bars on employment or occupational licensing.
 
The law also provides immunity for employers from negligent hiring. The certificate is available to an individual either six months or one year after completing his or her sentence.
 
Ohio’s law is a common-sense approach to eliminating a significant barrier to successful reentry. The law also provides the means to reduce prison costs, maintain accountability and generate tax revenue.
 
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, September 13, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: Seeing into the future is illegal in Pennsylvania

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 13, 2013

Fortune telling is against the law in Pennsylvania and has been for more than 150 years. The antiquated statute was in the news recently when 26-year-old Jennifer Marks of Hermitage in Mercer County was accused of charging people hundreds, even thousands of dollars for mystic solutions to their everyday problems.

Marks was arraigned before a district magistrate last week on charges of fortune telling and theft by deception.

The statute which criminalizes fortune telling reads like something from a dime store novel. A person is guilty of the charge if they "tell fortunes or predict future events … pretend to effect any purpose by spells, charms, necromancy or incantation, or advise the taking or administering of what are commonly called love powders or potions."

A violation occurs if the fortune teller can "stop bad luck," "give good luck," "win the affection of a person," or "tell where to dig for treasure," in return for "gain or lucre."

In 2009, a Chester County woman was prosecuted under the statute. “It certainly is a rare occasion to see someone prosecuted for fortune telling, but it is a viable statute," said Chester County Judge Anthony Sarcione.

In 2007, Philadelphia City inspectors shut down more than a dozen psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers with the threat of prosecution. Inspectors did not make arrests or issue fines, “but they will if these people try to return to work,” said Dominic E. Verdi, deputy commissioner of the city Department of Licenses and Inspections.

Police alerted the department of the statute only days before the sweep. Verdi said, “I was surprised.”
The Philadelphia housing inspectors are not the only ones surprised by the statute. Thomas Young a Johnstown attorney wrote in 2010, that the last time the statute was the subject of appellate review was “in 1935 in the Cambria County Courthouse.”

Just across the line in Ohio, fortune telling is not illegal. In fact, the practice is licensed by the state. Fourteen years ago, a Louisiana federal judge struck down a 1982 ban on palm reading and fortune telling. Judge Tucker L. Melancon ruled that the town ordinance had violated its residents' First Amendment rights.

Things can even get a little murky in Pennsylvania. In 1988, the Monroeville Police Department worked with a psychic while searching for Sylvester Tonet a missing elderly man. The psychic directed police to his frozen corpse on a wooded hillside. A detective acknowledged he "doesn't like to believe that stuff but had to admit she put us in the area where the body was found."

Visit Ipso Facto

Thursday, September 12, 2013

GUEST BLOG Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape: Eliminate the Barriers, Create Opportunity


Matthew T. Mangino
Guest Blog, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape
September 11, 2013

As a former prosecutor who spent six years on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, I am continually struck by the “well-intentioned” barriers created to offender reintegration. Those barriers are particularly oppressive for sex offenders.

More than two years have passed since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated an Allegheny County ordinance that restricted where convicted sex offenders could live. The Court ruled the ordinance would banish offenders to “localized penal colonies” with little access to jobs, support or even their families.

There is ample scientific evidence showing residency laws interfere with the reintegration of sex offenders into society. “Criminal offenders who have stable housing, stable employment and support systems in their lives, those people are less likely to go on and commit new crimes,” said Dr. Jill S. Levenson, a professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

After acknowledging the research and the court’s decision, why would lawmakers propose a new statewide residency restriction? In January, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 86 to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care, preschool, bus stop, playground or recreation center.

Before being paroled, sex offenders have completed rigorous sex offender treatment plans. Offenders have articulated the benefits from programming during parole interviews and have provided adequate home and employment plans. Offenders participate in continued treatment on the street under the supervision of a parole agents.

Independent studies of the effectiveness of in-prison treatment programs and out-patient treatment on the street, for sex offenders have demonstrated that evidence-based programs can reduce recidivism.

Recently, researchers at the RAND Corporation found that inmates who participated in correctional education programs had a 43 percent lower chance of returning to prison than those who did not. Employment opportunities also increased by 13 percent.

Last January, I wrote in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly that an offender facing reintegration into the community must deal with many obstacles. Finding employment may be the most difficult obstacle and yet may be the most important component of success. Offenders returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime-free, according to the National Re-entry Resource Center.

The unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated offenders one year after release may be as high as 60 percent, according to Joan Petersilia in When Prisoners Come Home, and there is an increasing reluctance among employers to hire people with criminal histories.

Formerly incarcerated men earn approximately 40 percent less per year than those who have never been incarcerated. Unfortunately, many offenders are ill-equipped to break the cycle of incarceration. They lack the education and workforce skills needed to succeed in the labor market and the problem-solving skills needed to address the challenges of re-entry, according to Doris Layton MacKenzie in What Works in Corrections.
Instead of creating barriers, we would do well to create opportunity for offenders being released from prison. Such efforts will, in the long term, make our neighborhoods safer and communities stronger.

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

Visit PCAR

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Oklahoma executes killer responsible for two murders in the late 1970s

The 24th Execution of 2013

Oklahoma death row inmate, Anthony Rozelle Banks, convicted for a 34 years old murder was executed September 10, 2013 after he apologized for taking the victim's life and said his execution "is justified."

Banks was pronounced dead at 6:07 p.m. after receiving a lethal injection of drugs at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Banks is the fourth Oklahoma death row inmate to be executed this year.

Banks was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a Tulsa County jury for the June 6, 1979, killing of Sun "Kim" Travis. Banks was already serving a life prison sentence for his conviction in the April 11, 1978, slaying of a Tulsa convenience store clerk during an armed robbery when he was linked to Travis' death by DNA evidence 18 years after her death.

"I can't express the terrible things I've done. I'm sorry," Banks said.

"To know that I took lives hurts me," he said. He said he knew he had also hurt the victims' family members.

"This is justified," Banks said. "I've done one good thing in my life and that is to become a Jehovah's Witness. For that, I'm eternally grateful."

Banks, strapped to a gurney with IV lines attached to his arms, acknowledged witnesses to his execution, including his attorney, Tom Hird of the Federal Public Defender's Office in Oklahoma City, and an unidentified spiritual adviser.

"I'm thankful everybody's here. I appreciate that," he said.

Banks singled out Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz, who also witnessed his execution.

"I haven't seen you in years, decades," Banks said with a smile.

Banks closed his eyes and took several deep breaths as the lethal drugs were injected into his body. He appeared to grimace briefly before he stopped breathing and his body went limp.

No one from the victim's family witnessed Banks' execution. Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued a statement beforehand that said his thoughts were with the victim's family.

"Anthony Banks brutally ended the life of an innocent young woman and has proven his willingness to continue committing violent crimes," Pruitt said.
 
Banks and a co-defendant, Allen Wayne Nelson, 54, were charged in August 1997, when their DNA was detected in evidence found on Travis' body and clothing. A 12-member jury convicted Nelson of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
 
Banks was already in prison following his conviction for the 1978 slaying of David Fremin, who was shot and killed during an armed robbery. Banks was convicted of first-degree murder by a Tulsa County jury that imposed the death penalty in that case.
 
To read more Click Here

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

WYSU Commentary: Breaking down employment barriers for ex-offenders

Listen to my Commentary, Breaking down employment barriers for ex-offenders, on PBS affiliate WYSU at Youngstown State University.

Click HERE to listen.

Criminal Justice Reform or Cover for Slashing Costs?

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
September 10, 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. Holder said, "I think there are too many people in jail for too long, and for not necessarily good reasons."

That sounds great and Holder should be commended for starting a dialogue that may lead to meaningful reform on prison crowding and soaring costs.

In the meantime, the reforms are more about reducing costs than a fundamental change in philosophy concerning crime and punishment. Holder told NPR, "The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old. ... There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color."

These problems are not new, nor have they just been discovered. What is new is a federal budget crisis known as the sequester — a set of automatic spending cuts put into law by the Budget Control Act. The cuts began in March and will total $1.2 trillion over nine years.

Tavis Smiley, host of a talk show on PBS, recently wrote for CNN of Holder's proclamation on sentencing, "I would like to believe that it's about a shift in our morals. ... 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 folks we've locked away. We've been addicted to the drug of incarceration, and now we can no longer afford our expensive habit."

The sequester is decimating the criminal justice system.

"A second year under sequestration will have a devastating, and long-lasting, impact on the administration of justice in this country," 87 chief federal judges said in a recent letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the vice president.

The judges are asking lawmakers to go along with a Senate Appropriations Committee plan to give the courts a $500 million budget increase over this year's funding level set through sequestration.

Outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller warned of the impact of the sequester-driven budget crisis. Mueller said there's only so much the bureau can cut back on cars and travel and information technology upgrades. Furloughs for 2014, he said, are on the way.

"I expect the special agent in charge to make certain that there is no Mohamed Atta, terrorist, swimming in the waters in that division," Mueller told NPR. "So what's going to be hit is white-collar crime. What's going to be hit is violent crime — we're not going to be able to do as much as we'd want there."

Judge Julia Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, chairwoman of the U.S. Judicial Conference's budget committee, told a Senate subcommittee that the nearly $350 million in cuts to the courts this year through sequestration have been "devastating" and "painful."

Clerks and probation and pretrial offices will lose as many as 1,000 staff and implement 8,600 furlough days during 2013. According to The National Law Journal, a Law Weekly affiliate publication, Gibbons suggested that cuts will slow civil and bankruptcy cases and harm public safety and effective representation by counsel.

"If funding levels remain flat or decline, it compromises the constitutional mission of the courts," Gibbons testified.

Ohio State University law professor Douglas A. Berman wrote in a recent op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, "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."

Yet, federal public defenders have been forced to furlough employees and take days off without compensation. Now, private attorneys appointed by federal courts to represent indigent defendants will be paid $15 less per hour next year thanks to sequestration.

Fourth Circuit Chief Judge William B. Traxler Jr., the Judicial Conference chairman, wrote that "reducing panel attorney compensation rates, deferring panel attorney payments and limiting federal defender organization funding to the maintenance of current on-board staff are undesirable, and may impact the delivery of justice, but are necessary to avoid permanent damage to the federal defender program."

The impact of sequestration goes beyond the federal government. Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS), a Washington-based group tasked with helping states manage federal funds, estimates that if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill and the government is run on the same sequester-driven budget levels, states will face about $4.2 billion in federal funding cuts.

When it comes to finding budgets to cut, the low-hanging fruit is in the criminal justice system.
There is no question that federal prisons are bursting at the seams. The United States 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.

Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, a law and order candidate for governor, told The Washington Post, "There is an expectation that the generic Republican position is tough on crime. ... But even that has budget limits, particularly on the prison side."

The cost of maintaining the federal prison system is enormous. The United States 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.

University of California Hastings College of Law professor Rory Little said in a Web chat, "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.'"

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.

When reform is driven chiefly by budgetary influences, the result is rarely good. Time will tell if this sea change in criminal justice policy is any different.

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

Monday, September 9, 2013

DOJ sides with overworked indigent defense attorneys

An unprecedented recent court filing from the U.S. Justice Department has cheered the overburdened attorneys who represent the poor and could have dramatic implications for the representation of indigent defendants, reported NPR.

"This is a breakthrough moment," Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers told an audience at the Law Library of Congress. "If you want to talk about something that could give us cause for optimism, this to me is the most optimistic development we have seen in years."

At just 17 pages, the filing doesn't seem like a milestone. But lawyers at the Justice Department say the decision to weigh in on a case about the quality of indigent defense in two cities north of Seattle is nothing short of historic.

"We are absolutely committed to the principle that every indigent person who is accused of a crime is entitled to his or her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel," says Jocelyn Samuels, who leads the DOJ civil rights unit.

Plaintiffs in the case say around the time they sued, the cities had just two part-time lawyers running 2,000 misdemeanor cases. The Justice Department didn't take a position on whether public defenders in those cities — Burlington and Mount Vernon, Wash. — systematically deprived people of their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

But if a judge finds those cities should be on the hook, Justice lawyers urged that an independent monitor be appointed for public defender workloads, the first time ever in a federal case like this one. The overwhelming majority of cases about the quality of indigent defense move through state courts, which makes it much more rare for the U.S. Justice Department to intervene.

To read more Click Here

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Eliminate the collateral consequences of criminal convictions

Matthew T. Mangino
The Youngstown Vindicator
September 8, 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. Holder’s announcement is in response to soaring prison costs—$60 billion in 2012—and draconian budget cuts brought about through the federal sequester.

There is another way to reduce prison costs and maintain public safety without diminishing accountability—eliminate the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. A criminal record shouldn’t be a life sentence.

A collateral consequence is a penalty, disability, or disadvantage that is related to employment or occupational licensing as a result of the individual’s conviction and applies by operation of law whether or not the penalty, disability, or disadvantage is included in the sentence.

According to the Pew Center on the States more than 40 percent of offenders released from prison are reincarcerated within three years, either committing a new crime or violating conditions of parole.
The problem with our crowded prisons isn’t the result of punishing offenders for their criminal conduct—it is the ongoing sanctions that hinder former offenders from successfully reintegrating into society.

The unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated offenders one year after release may be as high as 60 percent and there is an increasing reluctance among employers to hire people with criminal histories. Offenders successfully returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime-free.

Incarceration and community supervision are often not the end of the sanctions attached to a criminal conviction. According to the National Employment Law Project, an estimated 65 million Americans have a criminal record. The American Bar Association (ABA) has identified over 38,000 penalties—collateral consequences—that can impact people long after they complete their criminal sentence.

The ABA Task Force on Collateral Consequences, found that a former offender “may be ineligible for many federally-funded health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, and federal educational assistance.” A former offender’s “driver’s license may be automatically suspended.” Their ability to earn a living in their chosen profession may be limited in that an offender “may no longer qualify for certain employment and professional licenses.”

Collateral consequences may prohibit military service, possession of a firearm or a federal security clearance. A convicted U.S. citizen may lose the right to vote. A non-citizen may lose the right to reside in the U.S.

Last year, Ohio adopted new protections for formerly incarcerated offenders. Many employers hesitate to hire individuals who have been arrested or convicted of a crime even though they may be the best qualified for the job.

Employers may be interested giving a person a second chance, but they are concerned that hiring a person with a criminal record might expose them to liability for negligent hiring if the employee commits a crime on the job.

Prior to 2012, five states had passed legislation limiting negligent hiring liability for employers who hire people with criminal records. According to The Sentencing Project, eight states considered new limitations on negligent hiring liability last year, only Ohio followed through.

The bill signed into law by Governor John Kasich on June 12, 2012, creates a mechanism by which an individual who is subject to a collateral sanction may obtain a certificate of qualification for employment that will provide relief from certain bars on employment or occupational licensing.


The law also provides immunity for employers from negligent hiring. The certificate is available to an individual either six months or one year after completing his or her sentence.

Ohio’s law is a common sense approach to eliminating a significant barrier to successful reentry. The law also provides the means to reduce prison costs, maintain accountability and generate tax revenue.

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

Saturday, September 7, 2013

GateHouse:Reducing prison costs and keeping neighborhoods safe

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
September 6, 2013
 
As lawmakers across the country struggle to get a handle on soaring criminal justice costs, we learn of plans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, the diversion of “low-level” drug offenders from prison and a host of other ideas that keep offenders from being held accountable for their criminal conduct.
 
There is another way to lower prison costs while reducing victimization and generating tax revenue: Remove barriers to employment for previously incarcerated offenders.
 
An offender facing reintegration into the community must deal with many obstacles. Finding employment may be the most difficult obstacle and yet may be the most important component of success. Offenders returning home from prison often identify employment as the most important factor that helped them stay crime-free, according to the National Reentry Resource Center.
 
The unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated offenders one year after release may be as high as 60 percent, according to Joan Petersilia in When Prisoners Come Home, and there is an increasing reluctance among employers to hire people with criminal histories.
 
Furthermore, studies show that inmates re-entering communities are most vulnerable to failure in the early stages after release from jail or prison. Offenders who do not reintegrate successfully into society often do it early; within three years of release, four out of 10 prisoners will have committed new crimes or violated the terms of their release and will be reincarcerated, according to the Pew Center on the States.
 
Formerly incarcerated men earn approximately 40 percent less per year than those who have never been incarcerated. Unfortunately, many offenders are ill-equipped to break the cycle of reincarceration. They lack the education and workforce skills needed to succeed in the labor market and the problem-solving skills needed to address the challenges of re-entry, according to Doris Layton MacKenzie in What Works in Corrections.
 
MacKenzie recently wrote that a growing body of evidence shows that providing offenders with education and training increases their employment opportunities, addresses their cognitive deficits and helps reduce their likelihood of recidivating.
 
A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that inmates who participated in correctional education programs had a 43 percent lower chance of returning to prison than those who did not. Prisoners who participated in academic or vocational education programs increased their chances of employment by 13 percent.
 
There are certainly relevant concerns for employers that are seeking to fill vacancies in their workforces.
 
How does an employer know when it's all right to disregard a criminal record? Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are looking for the answer. Professors Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura believe their research provides criminal justice practitioners with a scientific method for estimating how long is long enough for someone with a prior record to remain arrest-free before being considered "redeemed" by a prospective employer.
 
Their research found, in part, that an 18-year-old convicted of robbery is no more likely to commit another crime than the rest of the population once 7.7 years have passed crime-free since the offense.
The research is promising for former offenders who have remained crime-free, but it takes legislative action to remove the barriers to employment. Those most burdened by criminal records are those with felony convictions.

At least 26 states allow some felonies to be expunged. Even some traditional "law and order" states like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina recognize that old, minor offenses can plague job-seekers for years and took positive steps to allow the expungement of a number of low-level offenses.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a former prosecutor, said, “Most of those convicted of crimes will return to our communities, and we should be doing everything we can to give them the skills and opportunities they need to reintegrate successfully, rather than returning to a life of crime. That is the right thing to do, and it makes us all safer."

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 read more Click Here

Friday, September 6, 2013

The Cautionary Instruction: Texas a model for downsizing prisons?

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 6, 2013

The Texas based blawg Grits for Breakfast estimated that 3.7% percent of Texas adults are in prison, or under community supervision based on data from a recent Texas Criminal Justice Coalition report. That's about one in 27 adult Texans; still a large number, but down from one in 22 just a few years ago, when the state justice system supervised about 4.6 percent of Texas adults.

Recently, Texas has been lauded for closing down prisons and keeping violent crime rates in check. The reality is that Texas was incarcerating, and continues to incarcerate, more people than any other state and most foreign countries.

It was not long ago that America was stunned by the ever expanding size of the nation’s prisons. In 2008, more than one out of every 100 adults in America was in jail or prison. The data documented by the Pew Center on the States, confirmed America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator. At the time, there were 2.3 million Americans in jail or prison.

The report found that the nation spent more than $49 billion a year on corrections, up from less than $11 billion in 1988. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.

A year later, a record 6.9 million adults were under the supervision of state and federal corrections systems — incarcerated or on probation or parole — according to a Justice Department study.

Put another way, about 3.2 percent of the adult U.S. population, or 1 in 32 adults, were incarcerated or on probation or parole at the end of 2009.

Although those numbers were astounding, they pale in comparison to Texas. In fact, Texas and California alone accounted for about 1 million incarcerated or supervised offenders.

Now, Texas which still incarcerates more people than any other state is being held out as a model for downsizing prisons. Why -- all of a sudden -- are states and the federal government so anxious to downsize prisons?

Prisons cost American taxpayers about $60 billion last year.

The Obama administration had to request $6.9 billion for the Bureau of Prisons in fiscal 2013. The federal prison system only houses about 14 percent of America’s prisoners.

According to the Washington Post, “The rapid growth in federal prisons was putting a serious strain on the Justice Department’s budget. The number of federal inmates has quadrupled since 1980 and now surpasses 218,000. Housing all those prisoners isn’t cheap.”

That strain is being felt by state lawmakers as well and when it comes to slashing costs prisons are easy targets.

Visit Ipso Facto