Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Judge Richard Lewis denied a defense motion to ban the use of the website Twitter from his courtroom during the trial of former state representative Mike Veon and three co-defendants.
According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Lewis said preventing the sending of news snippets known as "tweets" before they've even happened would constitute "an impermissible prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment."
Ironically, in addition to a few reporters, one of the defendants, Stephen Keefer, was posting "tweets" about the trial. Again, according to the Tribune-Review, Keefer wrote,"Sorry folks. No more tweets from court," Keefer added, "AG's (attorneys general) R worried about me saying anything bad about (Tom) Corbett or this phony investigation." Tom Corbett is the Republican state attorney general. His office is prosecuting the four Democrats while he campaigns for governor.
Twitter is a free social networking (microblogging) service that enables users to send and read messages known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters displayed on a web page as well as delivered directly to subscribed "followers."
Nationwide, courts have struggled with the use of twitter in the courtroom. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab allowed reporters to post stories live during a criminal trial in Pittsburgh. A federal court in Kansas permitted the use of twitter, while a federal court in Georgia prohibited its use during a recent trial.
There appears to be little concern about the public learning instantly the nature of testimony as it is presented at trial. Trials are open to the public and the public is invited to attend such proceedings. In fact, the constitution encourages the open and transparent conduct of judicial business.
The concern with twitter lies in otherwise sequestered witnesses (those barred from hearing the trial testimony before they testify) having access to testimony through twitter. This appears to be a specious argument. Sequestered witnesses have had access to trial testimony for as long as newspapers have covered trials. Judge Lewis in the Veon trial has addressed the concern with a further admonishment to witnesses to avoid not only newspaper and other media reports, but also electronic communication before testifying.
Inevitably, some witnesses will try to gain access to trial testimony, just as some jurors will do independent research during trial. The conduct in both instances is highly unethical and inappropriate. However, a blanket prohibition against twitter or blogging in the courtroom will not alleviate those few who ignore the rule of law.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Long arm of the law too long?
Youngstown Vindicator
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Pennsylvania currently has eight men locked-up who have served their complete sentence for a crime committed years ago. These men are sex offenders. They are sexually violent predators, as determined by a civil court, and are being detained indefinitely.
Pennsylvania is one of 20 states that provide for the civil commitment of sexually dangerous offenders. There are more than 3,600 men, and some women, committed or detained across the country. Ohio does not have a civil commitment statute for sex offenders.
Civil commitment is not new. The procedure has been used for decades with regard to the mentally ill and those with highly contagious diseases. More recently it has been applied to sex offenders with a diagnosable mental abnormality and a likelihood to re-offend.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court found that civil commitments were an appropriate state action. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the high court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. The court found that the statute violated neither the double jeopardy clause, punishing an offender for the same crime twice, or ex post facto, punishment through a law applied retroactively.
In 2006, the federal government got into the civil commitment business. Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which gave the federal government authority to seek civil commitment of “sexually dangerous persons” already held in its custody. That authority, in turn, allowed the government to seek to have individuals who are either completing federal prison sentences, or incompetent to stand trial, remain in federal custody indefinitely as a result of their “sexually dangerous” status.
Clear evidence
To secure the continued detention of an individual completing his sentence, the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the individual “is a sexually dangerous person.” If the federal government can prove that, the individual is committed without a specific period of detention, possibly for life.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to the federal government’s authority to impose civil commitments. In U.S. v. Comstock, the high court must decide if the federal government usurped the power of the states through the Adam Walsh Act. Graydon Comstock was sentenced to three years in prison for possession of child pornography. Just days before the end of his sentence he was designated “sexually dangerous,” was civilly committed, and has been kept in a North Carolina institution for the last two years along with 105 other similarly situated men.
There are some striking differences in the Kansas statute and the federal statute. First, in Kansas an offender is entitled to a jury trial, a federal detainee is not. In Kansas, the state must prove the mental abnormality beyond a reasonable doubt. In federal court the burden of proof is a less stringent — clear and convincing evidence.
According to the Washington Post, a majority of the court seemed inclined to side with the government during the Comstock argument. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people. The government has some responsibility.”
A greater concern may be how far does the concept of protecting the health and safety of the public reach?
The state of Virginia uses risk assessment to determine the duration of sentences. The City of Philadelphia uses risk assessment to determine appropriate supervision of probationers. Couple a high risk for violent re-offending with a mental abnormality and could the civil commitment of extremely violent predators be far off?
Stephen McCallister, the Kansas solicitor general does not think it implausible. He told NPR, “Constitutionally, it might be possible,” to extend the rationale for civil commitment to other kinds of crimes. “I don’t have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law.”
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Pennsylvania currently has eight men locked-up who have served their complete sentence for a crime committed years ago. These men are sex offenders. They are sexually violent predators, as determined by a civil court, and are being detained indefinitely.
Pennsylvania is one of 20 states that provide for the civil commitment of sexually dangerous offenders. There are more than 3,600 men, and some women, committed or detained across the country. Ohio does not have a civil commitment statute for sex offenders.
Civil commitment is not new. The procedure has been used for decades with regard to the mentally ill and those with highly contagious diseases. More recently it has been applied to sex offenders with a diagnosable mental abnormality and a likelihood to re-offend.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court found that civil commitments were an appropriate state action. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the high court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. The court found that the statute violated neither the double jeopardy clause, punishing an offender for the same crime twice, or ex post facto, punishment through a law applied retroactively.
In 2006, the federal government got into the civil commitment business. Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which gave the federal government authority to seek civil commitment of “sexually dangerous persons” already held in its custody. That authority, in turn, allowed the government to seek to have individuals who are either completing federal prison sentences, or incompetent to stand trial, remain in federal custody indefinitely as a result of their “sexually dangerous” status.
Clear evidence
To secure the continued detention of an individual completing his sentence, the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the individual “is a sexually dangerous person.” If the federal government can prove that, the individual is committed without a specific period of detention, possibly for life.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to the federal government’s authority to impose civil commitments. In U.S. v. Comstock, the high court must decide if the federal government usurped the power of the states through the Adam Walsh Act. Graydon Comstock was sentenced to three years in prison for possession of child pornography. Just days before the end of his sentence he was designated “sexually dangerous,” was civilly committed, and has been kept in a North Carolina institution for the last two years along with 105 other similarly situated men.
There are some striking differences in the Kansas statute and the federal statute. First, in Kansas an offender is entitled to a jury trial, a federal detainee is not. In Kansas, the state must prove the mental abnormality beyond a reasonable doubt. In federal court the burden of proof is a less stringent — clear and convincing evidence.
According to the Washington Post, a majority of the court seemed inclined to side with the government during the Comstock argument. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people. The government has some responsibility.”
A greater concern may be how far does the concept of protecting the health and safety of the public reach?
The state of Virginia uses risk assessment to determine the duration of sentences. The City of Philadelphia uses risk assessment to determine appropriate supervision of probationers. Couple a high risk for violent re-offending with a mental abnormality and could the civil commitment of extremely violent predators be far off?
Stephen McCallister, the Kansas solicitor general does not think it implausible. He told NPR, “Constitutionally, it might be possible,” to extend the rationale for civil commitment to other kinds of crimes. “I don’t have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law.”
Fifty States, Fifty Solutions
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
February 8, 2010
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., last month scored a dramatic upset victory in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate.
Brown, who was sworn in as the Senate's 41st Republican on Thursday, is not likely to be your typical GOP senator.
He is pro-choice, pro-death penalty and although he was an ardent supporter of health care in Massachusetts, he used President Obama's health care plan to trounce Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in the balloting on Jan. 19.
That may seem a bit disingenuous, but in reality Brown has a consistent position. He has said he believes health care reform should be left to the states. He told Meredith Vieira on NBC's "Today" show the morning after his election, "Well, I think we should allow the states to do what's important for their own states, have the federal government incentivize those individual states. And while I believe everybody should have insurance, I initially have to look out for our state."
Brown would do well to look at the states' response to prison health care and prison crowding before he so confidently pushes the uninsured off on to the states. Massachusetts has managed to insure 98 percent of its residents, while the rest of America has 43 million people uninsured. At the same time, while Michigan is closing prisons and renting beds to other states, Pennsylvania is building prisons and currently renting from Michigan.
Why the dramatically different responses? It is not just Michigan and Pennsylvania that have gone off in opposite directions. There seems to be as many responses as there are states to the pressing problem of dwindling budgets and expanding prison populations.
No one questions the seriousness of the problem. In little more than 20 years, the national prison population has nearly tripled from roughly 600,000 in 1987 to 1.6 million in 2007. Combine the number of people in prison with the people sitting in county and local jails, and the number of Americans behind bars balloons to 2.3 million. The Pew Center on the States reported that 1 in every 100 adults in the U.S. are in jail or prison. In fact, the U.S. imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in the world.
There is no question that incarceration has had some impact on crime rates. Two of America's leading criminologists, Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University and James Q. Wilson of Pepperdine University, both concede that incarceration has an impact on crime rates; they differ as to the degree. Wilson said, "Incarceration lowers crime rates, but no one thinks that prison is the whole answer." Blumstein contended, "There is little question that incarceration can contribute to crime reduction, but rarely as much as its advocates claim."
There is a new dynamic in the crime fighting by incarceration theory -- money, or the lack of it, to be more precise. State budget problems in recent years, and the prospect of even tighter future budgets, have forced some states to reassess their capacity to house more and more prisoners. The result has been a panoply of programs and initiatives to cut costs and lessen the number of prisoners. Most astounding is the lack of consensus among states regarding what works and what doesn't.
Criminology is a burgeoning field with many competent and innovative researchers who have published countless studies on incarceration, prison diversion, and cognitive intervention. Yet, individual states are all over the map in terms of dealing with prison crowding.
Here are but a few examples:
In Colorado, the governor cut $19 million from the corrections budget based on a plan for the early release of about 8,000 inmates. The projections were faulty. The parole board is refusing about 80 percent of the inmates targeted for release. At the current rate only about 1,600 will be released, saving far fewer dollars than projected.
In Massachusetts, the state is considering $100 million in cuts from the corrections budget. The state's 17 prison facilities are all well over capacity. The budget cuts may result in the closing of four prisons and the furlough of hundreds of employees.
In Iowa, the corrections budget has been cut by $35 million. The cuts may result in 515 layoffs and the elimination of 262 vacant positions. There is also the possibility of closing a facility and reducing treatment costs.
In Pennsylvania, the state plans to build four new 2,000-bed prisons to ease overcrowding. The Department of Corrections is currently renting bed space from other states. In 2007 and 2008, Pennsylvania had the highest increase in prison population. While the nationwide increase was 1 percent, Pennsylvania's prison population grew at a whopping 9.1 percent.
In Utah, the state is facing an $850 million dollar budget shortfall. The prison system has nearly reached its capacity and a 330 bed facility has been put on hold. The expansion of another prison has also been shelved indefinitely.
In Michigan, the state has closed three prisons and five work camps and is renting bed space to other states.
In Washington, the corrections budget has been reduced by 6.7 percent and the Department of Corrections has responded by proposing to close one adult prison and one juvenile detention center. This follows the early release of some 8,000 offenders from community supervision.
In Tennessee, the state is in a $1.5 billion hole and the Department of Corrections proposed the early release of low level felons. The state has about 19,700 inmates and plans to trim that number by about 20 percent to save the state nearly $53 million.
In Ohio, the state passed a budget last July that cut funding for colleges and universities by $170 million and public libraries by $84 million. Ohio has spent nearly a billion dollars to build 23 prisons since 1987 and still maintains population levels at 130 percent of capacity.
Texas, the state that leads the nation in executions, has reconsidered building more prisons. It has diverted the money to evidence-based substance abuse programs. Prison population growth has stabilized.
Illinois has released about 1,000 non-violent inmates to save about $5 million a year. The state is also contemplating closing prisons and reducing its 45,000 prisoners by 11,000.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners to ease the state's prison overcrowding problem. California has 172,000 prisoners in 33 institutions.
South Dakota has added 592 beds in the past four years and is building a new 250 bed prison to be opened this fall.
Kentucky's legislature has authorized the release of 3,127 inmates and has released another 3,874 offenders from community supervision to ease a budget crisis.
Arizona is accepting bids from private companies to take over their entire prison system. It is the first effort by a state to privatize prisons.
Missouri opened nine prisons between 1994-2004, and then the state closed a 1,000-bed prison in 2005. Missouri now has more prisoners than ever and limited space to house them.
In Connecticut, a budget shortfall has forced the state to close a minimum security prison in the face of a growing prison crowding problem.
In most states there are competing ideas on how to take on the very real problem of dwindling resources and prison overcrowding. Wisconsin is typical of most states. While early release of inmates has begun as a means to reduce a population that is 20 percent over capacity, there is also proposed legislation to build more prisons.
The above examples of 18 different states dealing with essentially the same issues -- dwindling resources and prison overcrowding -- should give pause to all Americans when Scott Brown says he favors leaving health care up to the states.
In these complex and difficult economic times, states should be mandated to adopt "best practices" to deal with issues that have a direct connection to public safety. The early release of prisoners or the building of new prisons at the expense of treatment programs, education or health care are issues that demand thorough evaluation and consistent implementation.
Is there a recognized evidence-based program that has been reviewed, analyzed and vetted by acknowledged experts regarding incarceration and prison overcrowding? A program that is verified by researchers and policymakers as having been successful in dealing with a problem that has the potential to affect so many aspects of state government? A model program that can be implemented nationwide that is both consistent and effective? There may well be, but right now there are 50 states looking in 50 different directions for the same thing.
How can we trust 50 states to implement a workable health care plan for 100 percent of their law abiding citizens when they can't come to a consensus on the best practice to deal with the housing and health care of their non-law abiding citizens that make up about 1 percent of the population?
That's a question Brown should answer before his Senate colleagues begin any filibuster of Obama's health care plan. •
February 8, 2010
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., last month scored a dramatic upset victory in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate.
Brown, who was sworn in as the Senate's 41st Republican on Thursday, is not likely to be your typical GOP senator.
He is pro-choice, pro-death penalty and although he was an ardent supporter of health care in Massachusetts, he used President Obama's health care plan to trounce Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in the balloting on Jan. 19.
That may seem a bit disingenuous, but in reality Brown has a consistent position. He has said he believes health care reform should be left to the states. He told Meredith Vieira on NBC's "Today" show the morning after his election, "Well, I think we should allow the states to do what's important for their own states, have the federal government incentivize those individual states. And while I believe everybody should have insurance, I initially have to look out for our state."
Brown would do well to look at the states' response to prison health care and prison crowding before he so confidently pushes the uninsured off on to the states. Massachusetts has managed to insure 98 percent of its residents, while the rest of America has 43 million people uninsured. At the same time, while Michigan is closing prisons and renting beds to other states, Pennsylvania is building prisons and currently renting from Michigan.
Why the dramatically different responses? It is not just Michigan and Pennsylvania that have gone off in opposite directions. There seems to be as many responses as there are states to the pressing problem of dwindling budgets and expanding prison populations.
No one questions the seriousness of the problem. In little more than 20 years, the national prison population has nearly tripled from roughly 600,000 in 1987 to 1.6 million in 2007. Combine the number of people in prison with the people sitting in county and local jails, and the number of Americans behind bars balloons to 2.3 million. The Pew Center on the States reported that 1 in every 100 adults in the U.S. are in jail or prison. In fact, the U.S. imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in the world.
There is no question that incarceration has had some impact on crime rates. Two of America's leading criminologists, Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University and James Q. Wilson of Pepperdine University, both concede that incarceration has an impact on crime rates; they differ as to the degree. Wilson said, "Incarceration lowers crime rates, but no one thinks that prison is the whole answer." Blumstein contended, "There is little question that incarceration can contribute to crime reduction, but rarely as much as its advocates claim."
There is a new dynamic in the crime fighting by incarceration theory -- money, or the lack of it, to be more precise. State budget problems in recent years, and the prospect of even tighter future budgets, have forced some states to reassess their capacity to house more and more prisoners. The result has been a panoply of programs and initiatives to cut costs and lessen the number of prisoners. Most astounding is the lack of consensus among states regarding what works and what doesn't.
Criminology is a burgeoning field with many competent and innovative researchers who have published countless studies on incarceration, prison diversion, and cognitive intervention. Yet, individual states are all over the map in terms of dealing with prison crowding.
Here are but a few examples:
In Colorado, the governor cut $19 million from the corrections budget based on a plan for the early release of about 8,000 inmates. The projections were faulty. The parole board is refusing about 80 percent of the inmates targeted for release. At the current rate only about 1,600 will be released, saving far fewer dollars than projected.
In Massachusetts, the state is considering $100 million in cuts from the corrections budget. The state's 17 prison facilities are all well over capacity. The budget cuts may result in the closing of four prisons and the furlough of hundreds of employees.
In Iowa, the corrections budget has been cut by $35 million. The cuts may result in 515 layoffs and the elimination of 262 vacant positions. There is also the possibility of closing a facility and reducing treatment costs.
In Pennsylvania, the state plans to build four new 2,000-bed prisons to ease overcrowding. The Department of Corrections is currently renting bed space from other states. In 2007 and 2008, Pennsylvania had the highest increase in prison population. While the nationwide increase was 1 percent, Pennsylvania's prison population grew at a whopping 9.1 percent.
In Utah, the state is facing an $850 million dollar budget shortfall. The prison system has nearly reached its capacity and a 330 bed facility has been put on hold. The expansion of another prison has also been shelved indefinitely.
In Michigan, the state has closed three prisons and five work camps and is renting bed space to other states.
In Washington, the corrections budget has been reduced by 6.7 percent and the Department of Corrections has responded by proposing to close one adult prison and one juvenile detention center. This follows the early release of some 8,000 offenders from community supervision.
In Tennessee, the state is in a $1.5 billion hole and the Department of Corrections proposed the early release of low level felons. The state has about 19,700 inmates and plans to trim that number by about 20 percent to save the state nearly $53 million.
In Ohio, the state passed a budget last July that cut funding for colleges and universities by $170 million and public libraries by $84 million. Ohio has spent nearly a billion dollars to build 23 prisons since 1987 and still maintains population levels at 130 percent of capacity.
Texas, the state that leads the nation in executions, has reconsidered building more prisons. It has diverted the money to evidence-based substance abuse programs. Prison population growth has stabilized.
Illinois has released about 1,000 non-violent inmates to save about $5 million a year. The state is also contemplating closing prisons and reducing its 45,000 prisoners by 11,000.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners to ease the state's prison overcrowding problem. California has 172,000 prisoners in 33 institutions.
South Dakota has added 592 beds in the past four years and is building a new 250 bed prison to be opened this fall.
Kentucky's legislature has authorized the release of 3,127 inmates and has released another 3,874 offenders from community supervision to ease a budget crisis.
Arizona is accepting bids from private companies to take over their entire prison system. It is the first effort by a state to privatize prisons.
Missouri opened nine prisons between 1994-2004, and then the state closed a 1,000-bed prison in 2005. Missouri now has more prisoners than ever and limited space to house them.
In Connecticut, a budget shortfall has forced the state to close a minimum security prison in the face of a growing prison crowding problem.
In most states there are competing ideas on how to take on the very real problem of dwindling resources and prison overcrowding. Wisconsin is typical of most states. While early release of inmates has begun as a means to reduce a population that is 20 percent over capacity, there is also proposed legislation to build more prisons.
The above examples of 18 different states dealing with essentially the same issues -- dwindling resources and prison overcrowding -- should give pause to all Americans when Scott Brown says he favors leaving health care up to the states.
In these complex and difficult economic times, states should be mandated to adopt "best practices" to deal with issues that have a direct connection to public safety. The early release of prisoners or the building of new prisons at the expense of treatment programs, education or health care are issues that demand thorough evaluation and consistent implementation.
Is there a recognized evidence-based program that has been reviewed, analyzed and vetted by acknowledged experts regarding incarceration and prison overcrowding? A program that is verified by researchers and policymakers as having been successful in dealing with a problem that has the potential to affect so many aspects of state government? A model program that can be implemented nationwide that is both consistent and effective? There may well be, but right now there are 50 states looking in 50 different directions for the same thing.
How can we trust 50 states to implement a workable health care plan for 100 percent of their law abiding citizens when they can't come to a consensus on the best practice to deal with the housing and health care of their non-law abiding citizens that make up about 1 percent of the population?
That's a question Brown should answer before his Senate colleagues begin any filibuster of Obama's health care plan. •
Friday, February 5, 2010
Justice Kennedy Attacks California Prison Union
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pointed the finger at the California correctional officers union for the states prison overcrowding problem. During a recent lecture at Pepperdine University School of Law, Justice Kennedy said the union's support of the draconian three-strikes law was taking taxpayer dollars way from other important community needs.
The Los Angeles Times reported Kennedy's comments, "California now has 185,000 people in prison at $32,500 a year" each. He then urged voters and officials to compare that expense to what taxpayers spend per pupil in elementary school.
"The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers' union and that is sick!" Kennedy said of the measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders.
There is little question that tough-on-crime legislation, including the three-strikes law, has had a powerful impact on prison crowding. However, much of the blame lies with the elected policy-makers who have been influenced by the "law and order industrial complex." There is enough blame to go around including judges, prosecutors, governors and legislators who have ridden the back of the "law and order tiger" to campaign success. Remember the comments of another Kennedy; President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
The Los Angeles Times reported Kennedy's comments, "California now has 185,000 people in prison at $32,500 a year" each. He then urged voters and officials to compare that expense to what taxpayers spend per pupil in elementary school.
"The three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers' union and that is sick!" Kennedy said of the measure mandating life sentences for third-time criminal offenders.
There is little question that tough-on-crime legislation, including the three-strikes law, has had a powerful impact on prison crowding. However, much of the blame lies with the elected policy-makers who have been influenced by the "law and order industrial complex." There is enough blame to go around including judges, prosecutors, governors and legislators who have ridden the back of the "law and order tiger" to campaign success. Remember the comments of another Kennedy; President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Execution Style Murder on the Rise
In November of last year, I wrote an article published in the Youngstown Vindicator entitled "Killing with a firearm becoming more precise."
(http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/nov/08/killing-with-a-firearm-becoming-more-precise/)
I wrote that Baltimore's reduction in homicides was not keeping pace with the reduction in non-fatal shootings. I theorized that today's killers are not just random shooters, they are executioners. Why? Seventy-percent of victims know their killers, killers are using larger caliber guns and wounds are more deadly. I concluded the article with, "(W)hy are non lethal shootings decreasing at a greater rate than homicide. The answer is clear and alarming. Killers know their targets, are better armed and more lethal in their methods."
Last month the Baltimore Sun reported, "A review of the Baltimore Police Department's annual analyses of homicides shows that as murders fell, the number of people shot in the head rose from a small portion of the total killings more than a decade ago to about half last year. Police say those figures, along with anecdotal evidence, indicate an increasing number of close-range, execution-style shootings."
The Sun further reported, "More close-range, targeted shootings could explain why the homicide rate remains stubborn in light of more significant reductions in gun crime. Though both have fluctuated and are down considerably from two years ago, department statistics show that in the past decade, reported shootings fell 38 percent, from 725 in 2000 to 449 in 2009, while homicides dropped by 8.8 percent, from 261 to 238."
(http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/nov/08/killing-with-a-firearm-becoming-more-precise/)
I wrote that Baltimore's reduction in homicides was not keeping pace with the reduction in non-fatal shootings. I theorized that today's killers are not just random shooters, they are executioners. Why? Seventy-percent of victims know their killers, killers are using larger caliber guns and wounds are more deadly. I concluded the article with, "(W)hy are non lethal shootings decreasing at a greater rate than homicide. The answer is clear and alarming. Killers know their targets, are better armed and more lethal in their methods."
Last month the Baltimore Sun reported, "A review of the Baltimore Police Department's annual analyses of homicides shows that as murders fell, the number of people shot in the head rose from a small portion of the total killings more than a decade ago to about half last year. Police say those figures, along with anecdotal evidence, indicate an increasing number of close-range, execution-style shootings."
The Sun further reported, "More close-range, targeted shootings could explain why the homicide rate remains stubborn in light of more significant reductions in gun crime. Though both have fluctuated and are down considerably from two years ago, department statistics show that in the past decade, reported shootings fell 38 percent, from 725 in 2000 to 449 in 2009, while homicides dropped by 8.8 percent, from 261 to 238."
Delaware Death Penalty Constitutional
The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the constitutionality of Delaware's death penalty. The appeal had delayed executions for more than three years. The issue focused on the administration of lethal injection.
It has been nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) held that lethal injection did not violate the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The three drug cocktail that anesthetizes, paralyzes and ultimately stops the heart (used at that time by every state with the death penalty) provided sufficient safeguards for offenders facing execution.
Last year, the botched execution of Romell Broom resulted in Ohio being the first state to deviate from the three drug protocol and administer a single drug, a lethal anesthetic, during execution. Ohio has carried out two single-drug executions without incident
In 2005, concerns were raised in Delaware after the prolonged execution, by lethal injection, of Brian Steckel. As a result of those concerns condemned killer Robert W. Jackson, III and Delaware's 17 other death row inmates objected to the state's lethal injection procedure. According to the News Journal attorneys for Delaware's condemned inmates detailed problems during executions, including inadequate qualifications and training of execution team members, improper dosages of the lethal injection drugs and odd procedures such as the execution team mixing drugs in the dark. These collective errors made Delaware's death penalty unconstitutional.
The Third Circuit Court did not buy their argument. In an opinion written by former Pennsylvania attorney general, Judge D. Michael Fisher, the court held that Delaware's lethal injection protocol was constitutional. However, Judge Fisher raised some concerns. Judge Fisher wrote,"The record before us reflects an occasional blitheness on Delaware's part that, while perhaps not unconstitutional, gives us great pause. We remind Delaware not only of its constitutional obligation ... but also of its moral obligation to carry out executions with the degree of seriousness and respect that the state-administered termination of human life demands."
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden expects to begin scheduling executions, although the 18 condemned offenders will undoubtedly seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It has been nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) held that lethal injection did not violate the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The three drug cocktail that anesthetizes, paralyzes and ultimately stops the heart (used at that time by every state with the death penalty) provided sufficient safeguards for offenders facing execution.
Last year, the botched execution of Romell Broom resulted in Ohio being the first state to deviate from the three drug protocol and administer a single drug, a lethal anesthetic, during execution. Ohio has carried out two single-drug executions without incident
In 2005, concerns were raised in Delaware after the prolonged execution, by lethal injection, of Brian Steckel. As a result of those concerns condemned killer Robert W. Jackson, III and Delaware's 17 other death row inmates objected to the state's lethal injection procedure. According to the News Journal attorneys for Delaware's condemned inmates detailed problems during executions, including inadequate qualifications and training of execution team members, improper dosages of the lethal injection drugs and odd procedures such as the execution team mixing drugs in the dark. These collective errors made Delaware's death penalty unconstitutional.
The Third Circuit Court did not buy their argument. In an opinion written by former Pennsylvania attorney general, Judge D. Michael Fisher, the court held that Delaware's lethal injection protocol was constitutional. However, Judge Fisher raised some concerns. Judge Fisher wrote,"The record before us reflects an occasional blitheness on Delaware's part that, while perhaps not unconstitutional, gives us great pause. We remind Delaware not only of its constitutional obligation ... but also of its moral obligation to carry out executions with the degree of seriousness and respect that the state-administered termination of human life demands."
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden expects to begin scheduling executions, although the 18 condemned offenders will undoubtedly seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Blumstein: The Obama Effect
The H.F. Guggenheim Symposium on Crime in America is an annual forum where leading criminal justice practitioners, journalists and policymakers get together to discuss emerging trends, analysis and research being conducted around the world. The symposium closed yesterday in New York.
As rates of reported street crime are down dramatically nationwide David Kennedy of John Jay College of Criminal Justice attributed at least part of the crime decline to an “emerging sensibility that none of this is acceptable.”
According to The Crime Reporter , Criminologist Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University went a step further. Blumstein speculated on the possibility of an “Obama Effect,” in which some young black men are more optimistic about their future because of the president’s election, and refrain from violence.
When crime rates began their historic decline in the late 1990's there were many reasons offered. At the time, Blumstein suggested the decline in crime was in part the result of the decline in the demand for crack cocaine. Others suggested incarceration, gun control, more police on the street and better policing to name a few. In fact, Steven Levitt suggested the legalization of abortion wiped out a whole generation of potential criminals.
The speculation continues as crime rates continue to fall.
As rates of reported street crime are down dramatically nationwide David Kennedy of John Jay College of Criminal Justice attributed at least part of the crime decline to an “emerging sensibility that none of this is acceptable.”
According to The Crime Reporter , Criminologist Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University went a step further. Blumstein speculated on the possibility of an “Obama Effect,” in which some young black men are more optimistic about their future because of the president’s election, and refrain from violence.
When crime rates began their historic decline in the late 1990's there were many reasons offered. At the time, Blumstein suggested the decline in crime was in part the result of the decline in the demand for crack cocaine. Others suggested incarceration, gun control, more police on the street and better policing to name a few. In fact, Steven Levitt suggested the legalization of abortion wiped out a whole generation of potential criminals.
The speculation continues as crime rates continue to fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
