Zoosman: Israeli death penalty most discriminatory law 'the world has witnessed since Hitler's Third Reich'

 Michael J. Zoosman writes at JuristNews:

Israel’s new death penalty law is one of the most discriminatory pieces of execution legislation that the world has witnessed since Hitler’s Third Reich. This incontrovertible truth is yet another reason why the Israeli Knesset’s recent passage of its heinous “Death Penalty for Terrorists” law on March 30 has effectively defiled this year’s observance of Yom Hashoah, the consummate Holocaust commemoration for Israel and Jews worldwide that is taking place as I write these very words. 

Let there be no doubt: the thousands of members of “L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty” in Israel and abroad are against the death penalty in all cases. As the co-founder of this group, I am keenly aware that this has been the case since our founding in 2020, from the perpetrator of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting in 2018 to the  Washington, D.C., Israeli Embassy murders in 2025, and countless other Jewish and non-Jewish men and women condemned to death across the world. We carry the torch of Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, and passionate death penalty abolitionist Elie Wiesel (1928-2016), who, when asked about capital punishment, responded without equivocation that “death should never be the answer in a civilized society.”

L’chaim members adhere to Wiesel’s reflections on the death penalty in the wake of the Holocaust, firmly stating: “With every cell of my being and with every fiber of my memory, I oppose the death penalty in all forms. I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it’s human to be an agent of the Angel of Death.” Countless other Jewish and rabbinic abolitionists since the Holocaust have shared Wiesel’s position. Many of them recognized the direct Nazi legacies of various execution methods in the United States and elsewhere, from lethal injection and gassing to the firing squad.  

Nazi execution laws and protocols were arguably the most racist and vile of the modern era. They functioned not as a system of justice, but rather as a tool for racial persecution, social engineering, and the systematic elimination of the entire Jewish people and other perceived enemies. The laws targeted specific groups — primarily Jews, Roma, people with disabilities, and political opponents — based on the Nazi ideology of biological racism and the concept of “racial purity.”

Israel’s new death penalty law is far from the same as the above Nazi legislation. Yet, by calling for death specifically for Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis, while effectively excluding Israeli citizens and residents, it achieves something that few other societies have done since the time of the Nazis by entrenching an openly two-tiered system of capital “justice.” There can be no doubt that the Nazis’ targets of their dehumanization campaign were wholly innocent of any crimes. They selected their victims for who they were, not what they may or may not have done. This unequivocally contrasts with the would-be victims of Israel’s death penalty law, each of whom is ostensibly convicted of murderous terrorist actions. Still, a similar campaign of dehumanization of those ultimately condemned to death links both systems. The underlying narrative identifying perpetrators of any terrorist act as “monsters” is precisely the kind of thinking that allows an otherwise reasonable person—or “civilized society,” per Wiesel—to deem state-sponsored killing digestible. It is an insidious process that essentially removes the “human” from human rights. 

To read more CLICK HERE

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of Suck up to the President goes after whistleblower

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asked the Justice Department to investigate two former government officials who played a central role in President Trump's first impeachment inquiry, reported CBS News..

A spokesperson for Gabbard's office confirmed that she drafted criminal referrals for a whistleblower and a former intelligence community watchdog, but did not detail what specific crimes are alleged. Whether to pursue a criminal investigation following a referral is up to prosecutors at the Justice Department.

The referrals came after Gabbard criticized how former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson handled the 2019 whistleblower complaint earlier this week, releasing a trove of documents linked to Atkinson.

The whistleblower — whose identity has not been formally disclosed — reported an "urgent concern" about President Trump's request for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The complaint also expressed concerns about how records of a Trump-Zelenskyy phone call were handled, and about the role of Mr. Trump's then-personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in the U.S.'s relationship with Ukraine.

"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election," the whistleblower wrote. "This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals."

Mr. Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives in late 2019, but was acquitted in a Senate vote mostly along party lines in early 2020. He has long denied any wrongdoing, referring to his phone call with Zelenskyy as "perfect."

Gabbard alleged in a post on X Monday that "deep state actors" in the intelligence community "concocted a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019." She argued that the inspector general relied on "second-hand evidence" in looking into the whistleblower complaint.

To read more CLICK HERE

Man forgotten on death row has sentence overturned after 48 years

Texas’ highest criminal court has overturned the death sentence of a Harris County man who was on death row for nearly half a century, reported The Texas Tribune.

Clarence Curtis Jordan, 70, was first convicted in 1978 of murdering Joe L. Williams, a 40-year-old Houston grocer. Jordan, who is intellectually disabled, was then found in subsequent years to be incompetent and therefore could not be executed. But for almost four decades, he did not have an attorney to advocate for him and was seemingly forgotten on death row.

Jordan was finally appointed a new attorney in 2024 as news emerged that there were numerous delayed criminal appeals in Harris County, some of which were lost for more than a decade. The revelation came amid an effort by the county to reduce the backlog in its criminal courts.

Following new legal advocacy, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Jordan’s death sentence in a Thursday ruling. The panel also sent the case back to Harris County for a new punishment proceeding.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Police Officer Involved Killings Show Modest Decline

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 14, 2026

The Washington Post kept track of all police officer-involved shootings that resulted in death. The Post began collecting the data in 2015 because no one else was keeping track. According to a 2014 Wall Street Journal article, made part of the U.S. Senate official record, criminal justice experts lamented that there was no reliable national data on how many people are shot and killed by police officers each year.

Although national research groups were keeping data and statistics on topics ranging from how many people were victims of unprovoked shark attacks to the number of hogs and pigs living on farms in the United States, no one was keeping track of officer-involved shootings.

Then, of course, as The Post began massive newsroom layoffs, the police shootings data collection ended. Researchers can still utilize the data from 2015 to 2024. The data reveals that police in this country shoot and kill about 1,000 people a year. However, the data is limited to police involved shooting deaths, not all deaths at the hands of police.

Although officer-involved shootings are relatively rare in comparison with the millions of interactions between the police and the public, several high-profile fatal encounters with police —beginning with the 2014 killing of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., Beanna Tayler's 2020 killing in Louisville, Ky. and Goerge Floyds death by police in Minneapolis, Minn., in 2022, — piqued the interest of researchers and protesters alike.

Campaign Zero, a non-profit research institute, released an analysis of deaths caused by police in 2025, revealing the first decline in police killings in six years. Campaign Zero tracks all deaths by police, not just shooting deaths. Therefore, there is an inconsistency in the numbers. For instance, in 2024, Campaign Zero listed 1,365 killings and The Post listed 1,175. Campaign Zero recorded 1,329 killings in 2023 and The Post listed 1,169.

According to Campaign Zero, there were only six days in 2025 when law enforcement did not kill someone. On average, police killed 3.6 people per day — one person every 6.67 hours.

The data from Campaign Zero has some room for optimism. In 2025, police killed 1,314 people in the United States — a 5% decrease from 2024.

The stability in the annual number of homicides by police can be attributed to a statistical tool known as the probability theory. According to The Post's database, the probability theory holds that the quantity of rare events in huge populations tends to remain stable absent major societal changes, such as a fundamental shift in police culture or extreme restrictions on gun ownership.

The data also reveals an alarming trend. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed during a police encounter than other people approached or stopped by law enforcement, according to a study released by the Treatment Advocacy Center.

Does that mean it is hopeless and no matter what we do, 1,000 people a year or more are going to die after an encounter with police? Not necessarily.

There are examples of changes in training or "use of force protocols" that have saved lives. In New York City in 1971, there were 314 officer-involved shootings, 93 of which were fatal. Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, told The Washington Post, "The following year the city passed a law prohibiting officers from shooting into vehicles."

Within two years, the city reduced police shootings to 121, with 41 fatal. By 2015, after a period when crime dropped precipitously, the number had fallen to 23 people shot by police with eight killed.

Officer-involved shootings can be reduced, and lives saved, with training and a change in the warrior culture of policing.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To read more CLICK HERE

PA faces daunting resentencing effort after Supreme Court ruling on LWOP

 Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave lawmakers 120 days to find a legislative solution after ruling mandatory life sentences for second degree murder charges are unconstitutional under the state’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, reported the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

The ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever undertaken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

In Pennsylvania, someone can be charged with second-degree murder even if prosecutors can’t prove they intended to cause another person’s death. In some cases, a person can be charged without actually killing someone. Prosecutors just need to prove someone died while the person charged committed a felony. That charge comes with a mandatory life sentence without parole, which the state’s high court ruled unconstitutional last month.

Last Thursday, lawmakers on the state House Judiciary Committee were set to vote on a bill that would have addressed the problem by making those serving such sentences eligible for parole after 25 years, and creating a 50-year maximum sentence for future second degree murder charges.

But as the panel’s meeting started, its chairman, Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), announced he would be pulling the bill from consideration.

“These people have been serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse position than what I believe the Supreme Court would order for them,” Briggs said about those currently serving life sentences without parole on second degree murder charges. “I am confident that as long as we all work together, we will come up with a bill we can all be proud of.”

Briggs said that he and other lawmakers on the committee were seeking input from people and organizations like public defenders, district attorneys and victims advocates.

But while some groups had issues with components of the proposal, the move rankled criminal justice advocates who have long sought to eliminate mandatory life sentences for those convicted of felony murder. 

To read more CLICK HERE

“Precrime" the claim that biometric technology can foretell crime

Sara Fathallah writes in the Inquest: In prisons and jails across the United States, authorities now use automated systems to transcribe phone calls and visitation videos and to flag words or phrases deemed risky. For decades, correctional facilities recorded and reviewed calls manually, but AI-driven systems now allow authorities to scan millions of minutes of conversations in real time.

In the 2010s, prisons began using a biometric technology called voiceprinting, which identifies individuals based on the unique characteristics of their voices. It allows correctional facilities to identify who is speaking on any given call and to search for other calls featuring the same voice. Texas-based Securus Technologies, one of the largest providers of prison phone services in the United States, supplies sophisticated voiceprinting services to hundreds of correctional agencies.

There is no scientific consensus on the validity of automatic speaker recognition, and experts recommend exercising extreme caution when using voice recognition as evidence in court. Even Securus’s 2016 patent acknowledges that “each given person’s vocal tract characteristics actually vary in a number of ways depending on time of day, how much the person has been talking that day and how loud, whether or not the person has a cold,” and other factors. But prisons continue to collect voiceprints and build growing databases; at least 200,000 voiceprints have been stored thus far. Sometimes, prisons pressure incarcerated people to give up their voice samples by threatening a complete loss of communications privileges to those who decline. In other instances, they enroll incarcerated people in voice recognition programs without their knowledge or consent. New York alone, for example, had already enrolled 92 percent of its incarcerated population by 2019.

In some jurisdictions, voiceprinting systems can be used to identify both incarcerated people and the individuals who speak to them. As representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation point out, such technologies can potentially be used to “profile anyone who has a voice that crosses into a prison, including all the parents, children, lovers, and friends of incarcerated people.” Advocates are afraid that authorities might flag individuals who are in touch with multiple incarcerated people, searching for patterns and ways to crack down on prison organizing.

Today, a growing array of wearable technologies—ankle monitors, bracelets that measure blood alcohol levels, smartphones themselves—are used to track people at nearly every stage of the criminal legal process.

A new generation of compulsory biometric devices, however, pushes far into dystopian territory, raising questions about how much biological information the carceral state feels entitled to collect. Some of these tools, already being tested in U.S. jails and prisons, take the form of rigid wristbands that monitor heart rate, skin temperature, cortisol levels, and so-called “activity” or stress indicators. According to the ACLU, they represent “not just a privacy invasion but an assault on inherent human dignity and autonomy.”

In some research initiates, the data gathered by biometric devices is already being analyzed and operationalized. In Indiana, a team of computer scientists and developers at Purdue University utilized such data in 2020 to train an AI algorithm to predict recidivism. According to the team’s press release, the project—funded by the Department of Justice and conducted in collaboration with county-level corrections and law enforcement agencies—harvested data such as stress and heart rates via wearable bracelets and smartphones. The stated goal was to determine which physiological indicators are linked to an individual’s “risk of returning to their criminal behavior.”

But as scholar Brian Jefferson notes in Digitize and Punish, algorithms used for carceral means are not “simply mathematical objects” but rather “artifacts of governance designed to achieve specific objectives.” By focusing on internal, physiological states rather than structural conditions—such as access to housing, employment, health care or social support—these models dismiss decades of work investigating recidivism and its social and economic causes. Those causes, as AI researchers Os Keyes and Chelsea Barabas have noted, are already well understood. What remains unsettled is why emerging technologies continue to search for answers inside the body, rather than in the systems that shape people’s lives.

Across these examples, a shared pattern emerges: the encoding of the body as evidence, often without the knowledge, consent, or recourse of those involved. This process strips people of their autonomy, dignity, and right against self-incrimination. Whether through DNA, eye movements, or physiological indicators of stress, these systems recast human bodies as sites of suspicion, deception, threat, or risk. Rather than eliminating human bias, they redistribute and reinforce it.

“Crime prediction algorithms,” Ruha Benjamin aptly explains, “should more accurately be called crime production algorithms.” Biometric tools are likely to expand further across the criminal legal system as police departments, courts, and prisons increasingly turn to A.I.-driven surveillance and predictive technologies. These tools are being deployed most aggressively in communities that are already heavily policed and disproportionately criminalized. Preparing for—and resisting—this expansion requires a broader understanding of biometrics beyond facial recognition alone, including the many ways bodily data can be collected and put to use. Fighting to ban facial recognition is not enough; it must be part of the larger fight to stop carceral biometrics and advance digital abolition.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Five PA counties charged more than $21 million for immigration detention

Five county jails in Pennsylvania have or recently had agreements with federal immigration enforcement agencies to hold people in their jails, sometimes for months, in exchange for significant fees, Spotlight PA found, according to Spotlight PA.

Clinton, Erie, Franklin, and Pike Counties collectively charged more than $21 million for detention in 2024 and 2025, invoices obtained by Spotlight PA show. A fifth county, Cambria, has a similar detention arrangement, according to federal records and a county official — but denied Spotlight PA’s September 2025 request seeking payment information because ICE did not start sending detainees to its jail until later in the month.

Local government officials in favor of the agreements told Spotlight PA that the revenue generated supports services such as the county jail or general fund expenses.

“You’re always going to have pushback one way or another, but we haven’t really experienced it to this point,” Cambria County Commissioner Scott Hunt told Spotlight PA in early March. “This is a relationship that has gone back many years.

To read more CLICK HERE

ICE overstates its law enforcement support in Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, constables work alongside magistrate district judges, and have the power to arrest someone with an outstanding warrant, or to serve eviction or other civil papers. They can provide courtroom security or be called to keep order at a polling place, reported WESA and the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

While none of those duties involve federal immigration enforcement, constables now make up more than one-quarter of the 287(g) signatories in Pennsylvania: Twenty of the 73 law enforcement agencies ICE claims to have enrolled in the state are constables. (The agency claims to have 1,500 partner agencies nationwide.)

Participants in 287(g) programs receive training and can gain access to federal grants and other assistance. But several constables from around the state contacted by WESA said that, they sought to engage with the program, only to be told their participation had been suspended.

Indeed, some critics of 287(g) programs say that constables should have no part in them at all, in part for the very reasons that led to confusion in Monroeville.

While constables have limited police powers and work closely with local courts, they are not part of any state or local police department. They act as independent contractors rather than court employees. They are elected locally, but have jurisdiction across the commonwealth.

And University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris says a federal order for detention isn’t the kind of thing a constable can enforce.

“At the very least, it’s unclear that a constable would have any authority to make a move, an arrest, a detention of a person under one of those documents that comes from ICE,” he said.

Ari Shapell, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said he believes constables lack the authority under both federal and state law to enter into the agreements.

To read more CLICK HERE

THIEL COLLEGE--Comment No. 4

Why is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons so important to juvenile criminal justice jurisprudence?  Explain in detail the decision's impact beyond the death penalty.

Meet one of the leading candidates to become the next Attorney General

Here is an introduction by The Bulwark to Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a short-lister for the position of United State Attorney General:

Public confidence in elections is a foundational requirement for a constitutional republic. Now, more than ever, we must have confidence and trust in Utah’s elections. . . .

The election systems we built here in Utah work well because of a core tenant [sic] of the U.S. Constitution: federalism. When appropriately applied, the division of power between the federal and state governments means decisions that directly impact us are made by people closest to us in state and local government.

United States Senator Mike Lee coauthored the above for Deseret News on October 5, 2022.

Stephen Richer writes, I agree wholeheartedly with the senator’s argument: Utah has reasonable election laws and competent election officials, and the public can trust its election results. Mass interference in Utah’s vote is indeed “virtually impossible,” as Lee put it a bit lower in the piece. And if you don’t like the results of a particular election, you can always work harder to win the next one.

But Lee is now making somewhat different arguments than he did in 2022. He regularly posts that non-citizens will steal our elections if we don’t require voters to provide documented proof of citizenship—something Utah didn’t require for Lee’s 2010, 2016, or 2022 elections.1 He also now says that secure elections require photo identification—but the vast majority of Utah ballots are verified by signature matching, not photo ID. He tells us to be suspicious of mail ballots. But Utah is an all-mail state. And he is suspicious of states that don’t finish counting ballots within forty-eight hours of Election Day—a deadline that Utah failed to hit in 2024.

There’s nothing novel about a flip-flopping politician. Lee is already famous for making a habit of turnabout, including on Trump’s morals (“If anyone spoke to my wife, or my daughter, or my mother, or any of my five sisters the way Mr. Trump has spoken to women, I wouldn’t hire that person”), Trump’s lies (“We can get into the fact that he accused my best friend’s father of conspiring to kill JFK”), and Trump’s disregard for basic law (“I’d like some assurances that he is going to be a vigorous defender for the U.S. Constitution”).

To read more CLICK HERE

Do military lawyers working as federal prosecutors violate Posse Comitatus Act?

 Following the mass exodus of federal prosecutors in Minnesota, the Justice Department has enlisted lawyers from the armed services to fill the gaps, according to Courthouse News Service.

Now, a federal judge is set to decide the legality of using military judge advocate general lawyers to prosecute civilians.

Paul E. Johnson, a Minnesota resident facing a count of assaulting a federal agent in January, claims Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Hakes-Rodriguez is unlawfully prosecuting him in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The act bars federal military troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law — most commonly used to prosecute offenses committed by civilians on military intallations.

The Justice Department contends judge advocates may be detailed to “represent the United States in civil and criminal cases” — asserting Hakes-Rodriguez and others have fully satisfied the necessary requirement to practice in Minnesota federal courts.

“The only connection to the military is their membership, which is not part of their enforcement of civilian law," the government said in a reply brief.

Hakes-Rodriguez told Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins on Friday his appointment falls under an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act allowing judge advocates assigned to civilian offices to perform duties as requested.

But former judge advocates say military regulations never allowed for the general assignment of military lawyers in civilian matters.

“It is so wrong, and it’s inappropriate, and it’s going to undermine the relationship between civil and military authority for a long time going forward,” said attorney John Marti, a former judge advocate and federal prosecutor in Minnesota.

“If it’s OK for the attorney general to designate military attorneys as special assistants to prosecute civilians in civilian courts for civilian offenses with no nexus to military authority, there is no limitation on the attorney general doing that with all U.S. attorney’s offices,” he added.

A group of 11 former U.S. military attorneys, including Marti, submitted an amicus brief in Johnson’s case, urging the government to revert back to the tradition of limiting military attorney participation in civilian matters.

The group said the government typically details military attorneys on occasion to prosecute offenses committed by civilians on military installations, and in other cases where the military has a “clear and defined interest.”

“The government recently expanded this practice far beyond its historical and statutory bounds,” the group said in the March 10 brief — citing the dozens of military attorneys assigned to U.S. attorney’s offices in Minnesota, Washington, D.C. and Tennessee.

“During these temporary duty assignments, JAGs are not prosecuting cases with a nexus to the U.S. Military,” the former military attorneys said in the brief. “Instead, they are prosecuting civilians for the kind of general, domestic federal offense that civilian DOJ prosecutors would normally handle.”

The group said the government’s use of military attorneys is harming civil-military relations by suggesting military-led law enforcement is the “catch-all” substitute for regular civilian constitutional due process.

Military attorneys also have no choice, according to the group, unlike typical federal prosecutors.

“When civilian prosecutors are instructed by their superiors to pursue legally flawed or ethically suspect cases, they can resign, as they have done in this district,” the group said. “But JAGs do not have this option — they must obey their military superior’s lawful orders upon possible penalty of criminal prosecution.”

Reports say as many as 25 military attorneys could work at the depleted Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office in an attempt to keep it afloat after mass resignations during Operation Metro Surge due to ethical conflicts.

Before the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the office had reportedly more than 40 prosecutors on staff.

With that number now cut in half — not including enlisted military attorneys — it’s unclear how a judicial ruling against the use of military attorneys would impact the office, but Marti said the option to pull lawyers from other government departments — like DHS and ICE — has always existed.

“The question you ask yourself is why do you need military attorneys when all these other agencies have attorneys as well — why not detail them?” Marti said. “I think in part because it’s easier to direct military attorneys to go do a mission.”

Since Operation Metro Surge began, federal prosecutors have faced a reputational downfall through a myriad of court orders threatening contempt over misrepresentations of fact and law, and flouting of judicial instruction. Now, military attorneys sent in to ease the burden face similar challenges.

Hakes-Rodriquez was removed as the prosecutor on Johnson’s case Monday — only to be replaced with fellow military attorney William Richards.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Punishment Without Limits

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 8, 2026

A new Tennessee law will make it easier for people with felony convictions to vote. For years, Tennessee prohibited former offenders who were behind on child support or court costs and fines from voting. The state legislature recently approved a measure that would permit people who have complied with child support for one year to rejoin the voting and rolls. In addition, the law no longer ties payment of court costs and fines to the right to vote.

According to the Prison Project, laws in 48 states ban people with felony convictions from voting. In 2022, an estimated 4.4 million Americans, representing 2% of the voting-age population, were ineligible to vote due to similar disenfranchisement laws or policies.

These never-ending penalties are known as collateral consequences of crime. Disenfranchising former offenders is one of a myriad of lifetime penalties piled on people convicted of felonies in this country.

Lawmakers nationwide would do well to eliminate some of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. A criminal record shouldn't be a life sentence. The ever-growing list of collateral sanctions often put former offenders in a position to fail.

A collateral sanction is a penalty, disability or disadvantage that is related to employment or occupational licensing as a result of an offender's conviction. The sanctions apply by operation of law, whether or not the penalty, disability or disadvantage is included in the sentence.

According to The Council of State Governments' Justice Center, a little less than one in three offenders released from prison are reincarcerated within three years, either committing a new crime or violating conditions of parole. While that is an improvement over numbers from a decade ago, it is still too many.

The problems with our crowded prisons are not just the result of punishing offenders for their criminal conduct — the problems are compounded by ongoing sanctions that hinder former offenders from successfully reintegrating into society.

According to a 2024 National Employment Law Project report, an estimated 80 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 have completed 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." As a result, 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 federal security clearance. A non-citizen may lose the right to reside in the United States.

Supporting a family is that much more difficult when employers refuse to hire former offenders. Employers may be interested in 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 person commits a crime on the job.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, half of all states punish people who cannot pay fines and fees associated with criminal proceedings by taking away their driver's licenses. This practice impacts nearly 11 million people nationwide and diminishes their ability to secure a job, maintain stable housing and participate in their community.

More states, as well as the federal government, need to take action to remove heavy-handed sanctions that drive up costs, increase victimization and often doom offenders to a never-ending cycle of poverty or worse — reincarceration.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Trump: The Art of Negotiation

 “Every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.” War crimes are always a good negotiation ploy.

Tennessee law eases former offenders' right to vote

A new Tennessee law has eased up on two longstanding financial hurdles for people with felony sentences who want their voting rights back, including a unique requirement among states that they must have fully paid their child support costs, reported The Associated Press.

The Republican-supermajority Legislature approved the Democratic-sponsored change, which now lets people prove they have complied for the last year with child support orders, such as payment plans. The legislation also unties the payment of all court costs from voting rights restoration.

Advocates for years have sought various changes to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration system at the statehouse and in court. They say loosening these two rules marks the biggest rollback of restrictions to voting rights restoration in decades.

“This is huge and this is history,” said Keeda Haynes, senior attorney for the advocacy group Free Hearts led by formerly incarcerated women like her.

To read more CLICK HERE

FOX News: Man who put up $100K to find Nancy Guthrie says tipsters should skip the sheriff and call Crime Stoppers

As multiple agencies collect tips in the Nancy Guthrie case, the man funding a $100,000 reward says Crime Stoppers — not the sheriff — offers the safest path for witnesses to come forward and an enticing one for people who want to get paid for credible information without giving their name, reported Fox News.

"I believe that people will come forward if they’re anonymous and if they get a reward," said Wisconsin attorney Michael Hupy, who is the president of Crime Stoppers Milwaukee.

In Pima County, Arizona, the local Crime Stoppers affiliate is known as 88-CRIME, and the number is 520-882-7463.

Hupy has paid out $75,000 in rewards and posted another $200,000 in an effort to solve crimes in his hometown. But he told Fox News Digital this week he put up six figures in the Guthrie case due to the alarming circumstances of her disappearance.

To read more CLICK HERE

Ted Bundy executed 27 years ago claims another victim

The late Ted Bundy, one of the most famous and prolific serial killers in U.S. history, has claimed another victim, reported The Associated Press.

New DNA testing confirmed Bundy was responsible for the 1974 killing of a 17-year-old Utah girl who disappeared after leaving a party alone on Halloween night, the local sheriff’s office said Wednesday.

Laura Ann Aime was found dead on the side of a highway in American Fork Canyon about a month after her abduction. She was bound, beaten and without clothing.

Investigators long suspected that Bundy killed her — police said he confessed without providing any details before his execution in Florida in 1989 — but the case remained open until they could be certain.

“It’s really quite amazing that people are even still interested in Laura’s case,” her sister, Michelle Impala, said at a news conference Wednesday. “Know I speak for my family when I thank you, and thank you media, too, for even caring.”

Bundy was linked to the deaths of at least 30 women and girls across several states in the 1970s. His murders — which occurred in sorority houses, parks and elsewhere — set the nation on edge. Bundy’s arrest drew widespread fascination, in part because many considered him to be charming and handsome.

Investigators had carefully preserved the evidence from Aime’s case, and forensic analysts were able to identify portions that seemed most likely to have usable DNA samples, Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason said.

The state crime lab got new technology in 2023 that allows investigators to extract DNA from samples even if they are small, degraded from age or contain DNA from multiple people, he said. That technology allowed them to identify a single male DNA profile, which they submitted to a national law enforcement database.

Bundy’s DNA was a match, Mason said.

That profile can now be used by other law enforcement agencies who have long suspected Bundy of additional unsolved killings, he said, adding that more families could get similar closure.

“Laura Aime is the quintessential daughter of Utah County,” Sgt. Mike Reynolds said. “We felt the pain the family feels when she was taken. We felt the pain that you felt this whole entire time, and we’ve had the desire to deliver to you some type of healing.”

Impala was only 12 when her older sister died. Even with a five-year age gap, she said they were very close and did everything together. They shared a bedroom on the family’s farm in Fairview, Utah, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of Provo.

Impala reminisced Wednesday about riding horses with her sister and watching Aime feed her horse red licorice nibs.

“When she died, he would not eat those anymore,” she said.

It’s not known when Bundy first began his attacks, but by 1974, young women — many of them college students — began disappearing in Washington state. Authorities were still investigating those cases when Bundy moved to Salt Lake City and began killing in Utah, Idaho and Colorado.

At the time of Aime’s killing, Bundy was studying law at the University of Utah.

In August 1975, he was arrested for the first time in connection with the attacks. Police pulled him over and found incriminating items in his vehicle including rope, handcuffs and a ski mask.

He was found guilty the following year of kidnapping and assaulting a teen in Utah who had managed to get away. Bundy was sentenced to 15 years in prison for that crime, and while imprisoned he was charged in connection with the earlier death of a nursing student.

He was brought to Aspen, Colorado, for a hearing in that case in 1977, and he escaped custody by climbing out a second-story courthouse window when he was left alone for a time. He was caught after about a week, but escaped again six months later by breaking through the ceiling of a jail.

Bundy fled across the country, eventually making his way to Tallahassee, Florida. On Jan. 15, 1978, he entered the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University, bludgeoning two women to death with a large branch and leaving two more badly injured. He then went to another house nearby, badly injuring another woman.

Less than a month later, he abducted, sexually assaulted and killed a 12-year-old girl in Lake City, Florida. Kimberly Leach was believed to be his last victim before he was arrested again and executed by electric chair years later.

To read more CLICK HERE

Ohio AG wants to end eight year moratorium on executions

The state’s outgoing Attorney General is again urging Ohio to resume executions, even though it is highly unlikely before the end of his term or Gov. Mike DeWine’s, reported Statehouse News Bureau.

Ohio’s death row wait time now stretches longer than 22 years, with more and more inmates dying from natural causes—or by suicide—than from a sentence, according to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s mandatory 2025 capital punishment report. The state ranks 12th of 28 states for its wait time.

“During my years as attorney general, not a single sentence has been carried out—a mockery of the justice system and of the dead and their families,” Yost writes in the report, released Wednesday. “Yet other states, which get their life-ending drugs from the same companies Ohio could, have found the will and a way to carry out these sentences since 2019.”

The de facto execution moratorium is closing in on eight years and extending the entirety of Gov. Mike DeWine’s tenure. DeWine has delayed every scheduled one since January 2019, some more than once, blaming pharmaceutical companies’ opposition to use of their products in the drug concoction that creates a lethal injection.

But with his time in office closing, DeWine has for months hinted at coming out against capital punishment altogether. That announcement hasn’t come yet.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which opposes capital punishment, has asked DeWine to grant some death row inmates clemency.

“There is a real opportunity to address Ohio’s broken capital punishment system by reviewing individual cases and commuting sentences before it’s too late,” ACLU of Ohio Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer Jocelyn Rosnick wrote in an email statement.

More than 100 men and one woman are incarcerated on death row in Ohio, according to Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections data.

To read more CLICK HERE

Rejection Board: South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants in 2024

“Have a seat please, and tell us what we can do for you today.” 

This is the kind of greeting parole seekers receive in South Carolina when they sit down to discuss their chance at freedom. But the warm welcome belies a cold, harsh statistic. 

In 2024, South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants, or 25 out of 3,000 people. Prison Policy Initiative rates South Carolina as the lowest of the 35 states that grant discretionary parole, which allows people to leave prison before their sentence is complete. It’s so low that one lawyer who works on parole cases nicknamed the parole board the “rejection board," reported the Prison Journalism Project.

Even as parole rates have plummeted across the country in recent years, South Carolina remains an extreme outlier. Nearby Southern states grant parole at much higher rates, including Georgia (28%), Alabama (20%) and Mississippi (49%).  

Shifting criteria

What does it take to win freedom via parole in South Carolina?

James T. had what he thought was a promising application. He was officially deemed “minimal risk” to reoffend and had no disciplinary record, and that wasn’t all. “I had five character witnesses, a home plan, job plan, no write-ups and I still got turned down,” he said.

Most prisoners I spoke to said they received a standard form letter that stipulated the primary reason for denial as “the nature and severity of the crime.”

“Tell me just how I’m supposed to change the nature of my crime?” asked James T., who was convicted of aggravated assault. “They can use that so-called reason ’til doomsday. No matter what programs I take or how perfect my conduct is, it won’t change what I did.” 

In fact, 27 of the 35 state parole boards use “nature or severity of crime” as a primary reason to deny parole, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that researches the U.S. prison system. It is only superseded by one’s “criminal history”  — which includes one’s history of incarceration, supervision and arrests.

No one I spoke to argues that it’s unreasonable for the parole board to ask applicants to demonstrate that they have “reformed” and will lead a productive life if paroled. The problem, they said, is the vague and subjective criteria used by the parole board to make their decision. 

“We’ve found that in practically every state, parole boards cite a denial based not just on the nature of the crime but [on the idea] that to grant parole would diminish the severity [of the crime] and promote a disrespect for law and order,” said Brian Scott, director of Our Journey, a North Carolina-based transition service for people released from prison. “It’s all just rhetoric.”

‘They answer to nobody but themselves’

South Carolina’s parole board considers at least 15 criteria when granting parole, according to a memo from the state Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. Good conduct while in prison, participation in programs, education and treatment (such as for substance abuse and addiction) are touted as central to parole decisions. 

Billy D. checked all of those boxes.

“I plum ran out of programs to take years ago,” he said with a chuckle. “I took every class, got a college degree in business that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, and have been in recovery for over 20 years.” 

Billy D. is an accredited HVAC technician and has a commercial driver’s license and carpentry certificate, along with a record of serving as a peer support specialist to others in recovery. 

“It really don’t make any difference to the parole board of South Carolina,” said Billy D., who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, breaking and entering, larceny and driving under the influence. “They do what they want. They answer to nobody but themselves.” 

While South Carolina does give you the standard form citing the reason for their parole denial, they do not explain the reasoning.

Each member of the state parole board is appointed by the governor for a six-year term. There are no term limits. The board has more independence than most parole boards as they control not only parole, but all pardons in the state — South Carolina is one of only a few states where the governor cannot grant pardons.

When denied parole, your lawyer can request a parole reconsideration, but it must be filed within 15 days of the denial, according to a manual from the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles. Reconsideration is far from guaranteed. Your lawyer must prove to the board that they can provide additional pertinent information that the board did not have during the hearing, or that the board based their decision on “erroneous information.” I have not heard of a case in which someone has had their denial reversed. 

Some reformers have argued for replacing discretionary parole with presumptive parole. Presumptive parole means that a prisoner would automatically be granted parole if they met certain criteria, usually involving good behavior, completed programming and a certain amount of time served. These advocates have argued that greater use of presumptive parole, as has been adopted in states such as New Jersey and Vermont, would free up parole boards to devote more time to complex parole hearings.

Still, as long as public officials fear being painted as soft on crime, the prospect of parole reform remains unlikely.

To read more CLICK HERE