John A. Rich a physician, a professor at Drexel University and former director of the Boston Public Health Commission has written an interesting book on violence among young black men. Rich's book, Wrong Place, Wrong Time:Trauma and Violence in the Lives of Young Black Men, provides a vivid look at the cause and effect of violence in troubled neighborhoods.
The background statistics are astounding. The homicide rate for black males ages 15-24 is 92 deaths per 100,000 people. The homicide rate for white males the same age is 4.7 per 100,000. The homicide rate for young black men is 19 times higher than young white men.
Rich makes clear that "homicide is only the tip of the iceberg." The book is not about homicide and when you look at the pervasive nature of non-lethal trauma you understand why. For every murder in this country there are 94 non-lethal assaults. There are four non-fatal gunshot victims for every murder; 64 non-fatal stabbings for every lethal stabbing; and 3,243 non-fatal assaults for every deadly assault. There are over 1.6 million victims of non-fatal shootings, stabbings or assaults every year in this country.
As Rich delves into the personal stories of traumatic gunshot wound survivors, he begins to paint a vivid picture of how violence and trauma simply breed more violence and trauma. Young people who feel vulnerable seek out protection in the form of weapons, often firearms, to sooth their insecurities. The hyper-vigilance that comes with things like post traumatic stress disorder contribute to the cyclical nature of violence. Rich describes what drives these young men back to violent injury as "the hazy fog of trauma."
The numbers don't lie. Forty-five percent of young black men who receive a penetrating injury (gunshot or stab wound) receive a similar injury within five years--at some point 20-percent of those victims die of a subsequent penetrating injury.
Wrong Place, Wrong Time: Trauma and Violence in the Lives of Young Black Men
John A. Rich
Johns Hopkins University
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
When Murder Matters in Mexico
When does murder matter in Mexico? When it touches America. Last weekend's killing in Juarez of Lesley Enriquez, who worked at the U.S. Consulate, her husband, Arthur Redelfs, a corrections officer in El Paso, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, whose wife also worked at the consulate, brought murder too close to home for many Americans.
In the resort city of Acapulco, 17 people were murdered last Saturday including six police officers. The strife continues throughout Mexico as more than 50,000 Mexican army troops fight the major drug cartels for control of Mexico's future.
Juarez is just across the border from El Paso, Texas. Although El Paso has one of the lowest homicide rates of any big city in the U.S., there were only 13 murders in 2009, Juarez is one of the most deadly cities in the world.
Beto O'Rourke, an member of the El Paso city council, told the Houston Chronicle the killings might finally bring necessary attention to the violence.
“It's tragic and incredibly sad,” he said. “But the brutality and tragedy we saw this weekend are nothing new. What is new is that the killings involved people who work at the consulate, which is the symbol of American power and prestige.”
The volume and brutality of the murders in Mexico might be shocking to most residents of the U.S., but murder is no longer shocking in Juarez or just about any other city in Mexico. This past weekend alone, 28 people were killed in Juarez. Over the past two years, more than 4,000 people have been killed in Juarez's violent drug war. There have been 18,000 drug related murders throughout Mexico since President Felipe Calderon began his all out war against drug cartels.
To read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6914721.html
In the resort city of Acapulco, 17 people were murdered last Saturday including six police officers. The strife continues throughout Mexico as more than 50,000 Mexican army troops fight the major drug cartels for control of Mexico's future.
Juarez is just across the border from El Paso, Texas. Although El Paso has one of the lowest homicide rates of any big city in the U.S., there were only 13 murders in 2009, Juarez is one of the most deadly cities in the world.
Beto O'Rourke, an member of the El Paso city council, told the Houston Chronicle the killings might finally bring necessary attention to the violence.
“It's tragic and incredibly sad,” he said. “But the brutality and tragedy we saw this weekend are nothing new. What is new is that the killings involved people who work at the consulate, which is the symbol of American power and prestige.”
The volume and brutality of the murders in Mexico might be shocking to most residents of the U.S., but murder is no longer shocking in Juarez or just about any other city in Mexico. This past weekend alone, 28 people were killed in Juarez. Over the past two years, more than 4,000 people have been killed in Juarez's violent drug war. There have been 18,000 drug related murders throughout Mexico since President Felipe Calderon began his all out war against drug cartels.
To read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6914721.html
Monday, March 15, 2010
Deportation Won't Pay the Bills in Texas
The population of foreign citizens in Texas prisons is at an all-time high. According to the Austin American-Statesman the idea of deporting some percentage of foreign offenders is gaining some traction among lawmakers. The Texas plan is to release nearly 11,400 foreign nationals by turning them over to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials for deportation.
"It could mean a lot of jobs, economic development, because the federal government will have to find a place to put them before they deport them," said state Senator Eddie Lucio. He said that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would need additional holding facilities for the soon-to-be deported criminals and that federal money might be available to pay for them and the jobs they would create.
"This could be a win-win situation for Texas," Lucio told the American-Statesman, noting that South Texas might benefit from such a program since that's where many federal immigration detention centers are located.
My Take
Texas cannot not solve their financial woes by deporting foreign nationals. In fact, their plan to make money by transferring inmates to the federal system and then charging the feds for housing them is a pipe dream.
More importantly, the plan will make Texas a more dangerous place. An investigation by the Arizona Republic found that 16-percent of deported criminals re-enter the United States. In fiscal year 2008, 16 percent of the 317,696 immigrants arrested by agents in Tucson, were charged with felony counts of re-entering illegally, either because they had prior felony convictions in the U.S. or previously had been formally deported. That is approximately 50,000 offenders. That represents more people than are currently incarcerated in Arizona.
The government does not have the resources to prosecute all of those felony re-entry cases. According to the Arizona Republic, most of those illegal re-entries were simply just deported and deported again.
The flaw in Texas' plan becomes painfully obvious, but it sounds good around election time when a candidate wants to be tough on crime, immigration and "fiscally" responsible.
To read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/lawmakers-discuss-deporting-foreign-convicts-352470.html.
"It could mean a lot of jobs, economic development, because the federal government will have to find a place to put them before they deport them," said state Senator Eddie Lucio. He said that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would need additional holding facilities for the soon-to-be deported criminals and that federal money might be available to pay for them and the jobs they would create.
"This could be a win-win situation for Texas," Lucio told the American-Statesman, noting that South Texas might benefit from such a program since that's where many federal immigration detention centers are located.
My Take
Texas cannot not solve their financial woes by deporting foreign nationals. In fact, their plan to make money by transferring inmates to the federal system and then charging the feds for housing them is a pipe dream.
More importantly, the plan will make Texas a more dangerous place. An investigation by the Arizona Republic found that 16-percent of deported criminals re-enter the United States. In fiscal year 2008, 16 percent of the 317,696 immigrants arrested by agents in Tucson, were charged with felony counts of re-entering illegally, either because they had prior felony convictions in the U.S. or previously had been formally deported. That is approximately 50,000 offenders. That represents more people than are currently incarcerated in Arizona.
The government does not have the resources to prosecute all of those felony re-entry cases. According to the Arizona Republic, most of those illegal re-entries were simply just deported and deported again.
The flaw in Texas' plan becomes painfully obvious, but it sounds good around election time when a candidate wants to be tough on crime, immigration and "fiscally" responsible.
To read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/lawmakers-discuss-deporting-foreign-convicts-352470.html.
Tie Goes to the Prosecution
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
March 9, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two recent decisions that affect the rights of suspected offenders pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Both decisions went in favor of the government. The Court ruled that a suspect’s request for an attorney does not go on indefinitely and that a police officer does not need to use specific language to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights.
Miranda v. Arizona is the landmark Supreme Court decision that has become a part of American culture. Miranda’s conversion from legal holding to cultural icon is due mainly to the nation’s insatiable appetite for television crime dramas. Everyone with a TV has heard Miranda warnings; “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, you have the right to an attorney, if you can’t afford one, one will be appointed for you.”
What did Miranda do to earn his place in the American consciousness? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. While in the midst of a custodial interrogation by police he confessed to raping an 18 year-old woman. At trial, prosecutors offered his confession into evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed and his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and suppressed his confession. The court imposed the following procedures to safeguard a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Those rights have been printed on wallet sized cards and have been carried by police officers for more than 40 years. However, Miranda has been continually tested and at times expanded and restricted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions are two in a long line of cases examining Miranda and its progeny.
Last month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-860 (2010) imposes a time limit on a presumption established by the Court nearly 30 years ago in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
In Edwards, the petitioner was questioned by the police until he said that he wanted an attorney. Questioning then ceased, but the next day, police officers returned to the jail to again talk with Edwards. The police informed him of his Miranda rights. He said he was willing to talk and police obtained his confession. The trial court denied Edward’s motion to suppress his confession. The appellant courts agreed.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In establishing the Edwards rule, the Court held once an accused invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation a valid waiver of that right could not be later established. The rule created a presumption that once a suspect invoked his right to the presence of counsel pursuant to Miranda, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation was involuntary.
In Maryland v. Shatzer, Michael Shatzer was in prison when the police questioned him about the sexual assault of his son. After being read his Miranda warnings he invoked his right to legal counsel and the interrogation ceased. Thirty-months later the police returned to interview him. Shatzer was, again, Mirandized and confessed to assaulting his son. Shatzer appealed and his confession was tossed out by the state court pursuant to the Edwards rule.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing on behalf of the majority in Shatzer, wrote that the Edwards rule should not act as an “eternal” bar against further police questioning. Scalia believed that the thirty-month break in custody was enough. However, Scalia went further. Those suspects, who have been released from custodial interrogation for at least 14 days, could be returned to custody and if they did not again invoke counsel could be interrogated and any inculpatory statement could be used at trial. Shatzer does not overrule Edwards, but appears to provide a time frame to rebut the presumption created by Edwards.
The Court’s bright-line rule of 14 days in Shatzer is surprising in light of the Court’s decision one day earlier in Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175 (2010). Kevin Powell was arrested in 2004 by the Tampa Police. He was taken into custody during a robbery investigation. A gun was later found in his girlfriend’s apartment. Powell was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his history of felony convictions. After he was told by police that he had, “The right to a lawyer before answering any of our questions,” he confessed, without counsel, to having the gun.
Powell successfully had his confession suppressed by the trial court and the appellant courts agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion written for a 7-2 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “The four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, but this court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed.”
Justice Ginsburg went on to write that a police officer’s warnings need not have the precision of a legal document, “But we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements.” The Supreme Court left it to the lower courts to decide, when police officers ad lib, if the Miranda warnings are adequate.
When contrasting the two decisions, handed down only 24 hours apart, it is striking to see how the Court went in two very different directions. On one day the court declines to add precision to probably the best known legal language ever established by the Court and literally the next day the Court establishes an arbitrary bright-line rule for conducting custodial interrogations.
The Court could have done exactly the opposite and been quite reasonable in doing so. The court could have ruled that the iconic language of Miranda must be uttered with precision and that the lower courts can decide on a case-by-case basis a reasonable time between the first and second custodial interrogation.
March 9, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two recent decisions that affect the rights of suspected offenders pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Both decisions went in favor of the government. The Court ruled that a suspect’s request for an attorney does not go on indefinitely and that a police officer does not need to use specific language to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights.
Miranda v. Arizona is the landmark Supreme Court decision that has become a part of American culture. Miranda’s conversion from legal holding to cultural icon is due mainly to the nation’s insatiable appetite for television crime dramas. Everyone with a TV has heard Miranda warnings; “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, you have the right to an attorney, if you can’t afford one, one will be appointed for you.”
What did Miranda do to earn his place in the American consciousness? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. While in the midst of a custodial interrogation by police he confessed to raping an 18 year-old woman. At trial, prosecutors offered his confession into evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed and his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and suppressed his confession. The court imposed the following procedures to safeguard a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Those rights have been printed on wallet sized cards and have been carried by police officers for more than 40 years. However, Miranda has been continually tested and at times expanded and restricted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions are two in a long line of cases examining Miranda and its progeny.
Last month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-860 (2010) imposes a time limit on a presumption established by the Court nearly 30 years ago in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
In Edwards, the petitioner was questioned by the police until he said that he wanted an attorney. Questioning then ceased, but the next day, police officers returned to the jail to again talk with Edwards. The police informed him of his Miranda rights. He said he was willing to talk and police obtained his confession. The trial court denied Edward’s motion to suppress his confession. The appellant courts agreed.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In establishing the Edwards rule, the Court held once an accused invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation a valid waiver of that right could not be later established. The rule created a presumption that once a suspect invoked his right to the presence of counsel pursuant to Miranda, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation was involuntary.
In Maryland v. Shatzer, Michael Shatzer was in prison when the police questioned him about the sexual assault of his son. After being read his Miranda warnings he invoked his right to legal counsel and the interrogation ceased. Thirty-months later the police returned to interview him. Shatzer was, again, Mirandized and confessed to assaulting his son. Shatzer appealed and his confession was tossed out by the state court pursuant to the Edwards rule.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing on behalf of the majority in Shatzer, wrote that the Edwards rule should not act as an “eternal” bar against further police questioning. Scalia believed that the thirty-month break in custody was enough. However, Scalia went further. Those suspects, who have been released from custodial interrogation for at least 14 days, could be returned to custody and if they did not again invoke counsel could be interrogated and any inculpatory statement could be used at trial. Shatzer does not overrule Edwards, but appears to provide a time frame to rebut the presumption created by Edwards.
The Court’s bright-line rule of 14 days in Shatzer is surprising in light of the Court’s decision one day earlier in Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175 (2010). Kevin Powell was arrested in 2004 by the Tampa Police. He was taken into custody during a robbery investigation. A gun was later found in his girlfriend’s apartment. Powell was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his history of felony convictions. After he was told by police that he had, “The right to a lawyer before answering any of our questions,” he confessed, without counsel, to having the gun.
Powell successfully had his confession suppressed by the trial court and the appellant courts agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion written for a 7-2 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “The four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, but this court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed.”
Justice Ginsburg went on to write that a police officer’s warnings need not have the precision of a legal document, “But we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements.” The Supreme Court left it to the lower courts to decide, when police officers ad lib, if the Miranda warnings are adequate.
When contrasting the two decisions, handed down only 24 hours apart, it is striking to see how the Court went in two very different directions. On one day the court declines to add precision to probably the best known legal language ever established by the Court and literally the next day the Court establishes an arbitrary bright-line rule for conducting custodial interrogations.
The Court could have done exactly the opposite and been quite reasonable in doing so. The court could have ruled that the iconic language of Miranda must be uttered with precision and that the lower courts can decide on a case-by-case basis a reasonable time between the first and second custodial interrogation.
Victims of Crime Forgotten
Youngstown Vindicator
March 14, 2010
Dwayne Carter a.k.a. Lil Wayne, a rap star, was scheduled for sentencing last week in a New York courtroom. He had pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. Although his sentence hearing was postponed, Carter is expected to receive a one-year sentence to be served at Riker’s Island Prison.
As the New York prison system gets ready to house yet another celebrity prisoner—recent celebrities included ex-New York Giant Plaxico Burress, Soprano’s star Lillo Brancato, Jr. and female rapper Foxy Brown—everyone’s focused on how to best accommodate high profile inmates. ''It's a challenge,'' said Martin Horn, a former commissioner of corrections in New York City. Horn told the New York Times, ''It's not about setting (a celebrity) on a bed of roses, but it is about an obligation to every inmate to keep him safe.''
Forgotten in all of this is the safety, security, and well being of the victims. Some might say that Carter and Burress committed victimless crimes. After all, Burress shot himself and Carter did not discharge his .40- caliber handgun he merely had it on his tour bus. However, in the wake of this conduct, and most criminal activity, are the children of the offenders. They are victims too. Carter has four children, three born within the last 16 months. Burress has two children.
Children of incarcerated parents are growing at a faster rate than the nation’s prison population. In 2008, the Pew Charitable Trust released a report that found 1 in every 100 adults in America are in prison or jail. The report generated a great deal of attention.
The Pew report overshadowed a report by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that was released about the same time. The DOJ report, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, found that more than 1.7 million minor children, or about 1 in 43, have one or both parents behind bars.
The rate of children with an incarcerated parent has soared. Between 1991 and 2007, children with a parent in jail or prison have increased by 82-percent. The average age of a child with an incarcerated parent is 8 years-old.
The impact of incarceration on children is usually first observed in school. In a 2006 report, Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children, 50-percent of children of incarcerated parents had school problems. These problems manifested themselves in poor grades and aggression. Middle school and high school aged children received more suspensions and ultimately dropped out of school at higher rates than their contemporaries.
Why should policymakers be concerned about children of incarcerated parents? Educational failure is a precursor to criminal activity. According to a 2006 study, Saving the Children of Prisoners, children of incarcerated parents are 6 to 10 times more likely to end up in prison than the average young person.
There is also growing concern over the increase in mothers facing incarceration. The number of incarcerated mothers has increased by 122-percent since 1991. The hardships that befall single mothers facing incarceration, and their children, are particularly alarming.
A 2008 report released by the Sentencing Project, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, presented the plight of incarcerated mothers in a compelling manner. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, passed in 1997 provides for the termination of parental rights if a child has been in foster care 15 of the previous 22 months. Since most prison sentences exceed that time, incarcerated mothers risk losing custody of their children permanently. Not surprisingly, women inmates report having children in foster care five times as often as male inmates.
Not every child of an incarcerated parent had a parent removed from an intact family and sent off to jail. In fact, according to the DOJ, fewer than half of parents in state prison lived with their minor children before coming to prison. However, for those children who lose a custodial parent, even temporarily, the results can be devastating for the child and down the road a potential threat to public safety.
March 14, 2010
Dwayne Carter a.k.a. Lil Wayne, a rap star, was scheduled for sentencing last week in a New York courtroom. He had pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. Although his sentence hearing was postponed, Carter is expected to receive a one-year sentence to be served at Riker’s Island Prison.
As the New York prison system gets ready to house yet another celebrity prisoner—recent celebrities included ex-New York Giant Plaxico Burress, Soprano’s star Lillo Brancato, Jr. and female rapper Foxy Brown—everyone’s focused on how to best accommodate high profile inmates. ''It's a challenge,'' said Martin Horn, a former commissioner of corrections in New York City. Horn told the New York Times, ''It's not about setting (a celebrity) on a bed of roses, but it is about an obligation to every inmate to keep him safe.''
Forgotten in all of this is the safety, security, and well being of the victims. Some might say that Carter and Burress committed victimless crimes. After all, Burress shot himself and Carter did not discharge his .40- caliber handgun he merely had it on his tour bus. However, in the wake of this conduct, and most criminal activity, are the children of the offenders. They are victims too. Carter has four children, three born within the last 16 months. Burress has two children.
Children of incarcerated parents are growing at a faster rate than the nation’s prison population. In 2008, the Pew Charitable Trust released a report that found 1 in every 100 adults in America are in prison or jail. The report generated a great deal of attention.
The Pew report overshadowed a report by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that was released about the same time. The DOJ report, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, found that more than 1.7 million minor children, or about 1 in 43, have one or both parents behind bars.
The rate of children with an incarcerated parent has soared. Between 1991 and 2007, children with a parent in jail or prison have increased by 82-percent. The average age of a child with an incarcerated parent is 8 years-old.
The impact of incarceration on children is usually first observed in school. In a 2006 report, Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children, 50-percent of children of incarcerated parents had school problems. These problems manifested themselves in poor grades and aggression. Middle school and high school aged children received more suspensions and ultimately dropped out of school at higher rates than their contemporaries.
Why should policymakers be concerned about children of incarcerated parents? Educational failure is a precursor to criminal activity. According to a 2006 study, Saving the Children of Prisoners, children of incarcerated parents are 6 to 10 times more likely to end up in prison than the average young person.
There is also growing concern over the increase in mothers facing incarceration. The number of incarcerated mothers has increased by 122-percent since 1991. The hardships that befall single mothers facing incarceration, and their children, are particularly alarming.
A 2008 report released by the Sentencing Project, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, presented the plight of incarcerated mothers in a compelling manner. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, passed in 1997 provides for the termination of parental rights if a child has been in foster care 15 of the previous 22 months. Since most prison sentences exceed that time, incarcerated mothers risk losing custody of their children permanently. Not surprisingly, women inmates report having children in foster care five times as often as male inmates.
Not every child of an incarcerated parent had a parent removed from an intact family and sent off to jail. In fact, according to the DOJ, fewer than half of parents in state prison lived with their minor children before coming to prison. However, for those children who lose a custodial parent, even temporarily, the results can be devastating for the child and down the road a potential threat to public safety.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Texas Judge Rescinds Controversial Death Penalty Ruling
Harris County, Texas sends more inmates to death row than any other county in the nation. Last week, a judge in Harris County declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The ruling came in response to a number of pretrial motions filed on behalf of John Edward Green Jr., who is pending trial on a 2008 robbery, murder of a woman and the wounding of her sister.
State District Judge Kevin Fine made the ruling, saying he could assume that innocent people have been executed. Judge Fine didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that as a trial judge he really has no authority to make a ruling overturning the death penalty. The decision is a bit strange and apparently so is the judge.
According to the Associated Press, Fine is heavily tattooed and campaigned for judge as a recovering alcoholic and former cocaine user.
The judge's ruling has generated a great deal of attention, not much of it favorable. Apparently, this free wheeling jurist isn't immune to criticism. He has now withdrawn his opinion and has scheduled a hearing on the motion to rule the death penalty unconstitutional.
Judge Fine took back his controversial ruling and asked Harris County prosecutors and defense attorneys to submit motions on the issue. Fine will then have an evidentiary hearing April 27, when the court will hear testimony on whether innocent people have been executed in Texas.
Casey Keirnan, one of Green's defense attorneys, told the Associated Press that the case is "headed in the exact direction we want it to go."
"This is the very first legal proceeding where a court is going to look into the issue as to whether or not we have executed innocent people in Texas," Keirnan said. "It's now taken on a life I've never dreamed it would. It's so amazing to me."
My Take
Keirnan is right about one thing--this is amazing. A renegade judge makes an irresponsible ruling to generate attention for himself and a cause--the abolition of the death penalty. However, it's clear that even those opposed to the death penalty are leery of Fine.
A tattooed, former party boy, "activist judge" will not be welcomed as the face of the anti-death penalty movement. His ruling will also ignite the passions of every politician who wants to win an election on the "law and order" ticket.
Judge Fine's ruling, and its subsequent rescission, may ultimately do more harm than good for the anti-death penalty movement.
State District Judge Kevin Fine made the ruling, saying he could assume that innocent people have been executed. Judge Fine didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that as a trial judge he really has no authority to make a ruling overturning the death penalty. The decision is a bit strange and apparently so is the judge.
According to the Associated Press, Fine is heavily tattooed and campaigned for judge as a recovering alcoholic and former cocaine user.
The judge's ruling has generated a great deal of attention, not much of it favorable. Apparently, this free wheeling jurist isn't immune to criticism. He has now withdrawn his opinion and has scheduled a hearing on the motion to rule the death penalty unconstitutional.
Judge Fine took back his controversial ruling and asked Harris County prosecutors and defense attorneys to submit motions on the issue. Fine will then have an evidentiary hearing April 27, when the court will hear testimony on whether innocent people have been executed in Texas.
Casey Keirnan, one of Green's defense attorneys, told the Associated Press that the case is "headed in the exact direction we want it to go."
"This is the very first legal proceeding where a court is going to look into the issue as to whether or not we have executed innocent people in Texas," Keirnan said. "It's now taken on a life I've never dreamed it would. It's so amazing to me."
My Take
Keirnan is right about one thing--this is amazing. A renegade judge makes an irresponsible ruling to generate attention for himself and a cause--the abolition of the death penalty. However, it's clear that even those opposed to the death penalty are leery of Fine.
A tattooed, former party boy, "activist judge" will not be welcomed as the face of the anti-death penalty movement. His ruling will also ignite the passions of every politician who wants to win an election on the "law and order" ticket.
Judge Fine's ruling, and its subsequent rescission, may ultimately do more harm than good for the anti-death penalty movement.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Is the Death Penalty on Life Support?
Is the death penalty merely out of vogue or has its usefulness been mitigated to the point that it is no longer an appropriate punishment? The death penalty has fallen in and out of favor over the last two centuries. The death penalty waned prior to the civil war. There was a resurgence in the late 19th century and then capital punishment fell out of favor in the first quarter of the 20th century.
In the 1940's, the death penalty was reenergized only to decline in use in the 1950's and 1960's. In the Mid-1970's, the death penalty was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court. However in 1976, capital punishment was back and there was a resurgence in the 1990's as violent crime rates soared. The four busiest years for the modern death penalty were 1997 through 2000, when the nation averaged 81 executions per year.
There have been 1,196 executions since 1976. Texas was responsible for 450 of those executions. Virginia was a distant second with 105.
The Crime Report has an interesting take on why Texas and Virginia represent a turning point in capital punishment. Instead of looking at executions--Texas carried out almost half of all executions last year--the Crime Report suggests looking at the number of executions imposed. Texas imposed only nine death sentences in 2009. The lowest number since 1976. Virginia has imposed only one death sentence in the last two years.
During the mid-1990's Texas was averaging 48 death sentences per year. Last year, Texas tried only 32 death penalty cases and five were actually re-trials.
My Take
Some legal observers suggest the life without parole (LWOP) and concern over wrongful convictions have fueled the skepticism about imposing the death penalty. Juries may be more comfortable with the idea that a convicted killer will serve LWOP and at the same time eliminate the chance of a wrongful execution.
Would juries be interested in knowing that there are organized efforts to eliminate LWOP? A killer convicted to life in prison might some day walk the street. There are also efforts in states such as Kansas, New Hampshire and Colorado to rescind the death penalty due to growing costs and dwindling resources.
Financial impact is playing a more meaningful role in legislative action regarding the criminal justice system. It is not just the death penalty, but prison crowding, sentencing schemes, policing, treatment and rehabilitation. Will the financial concerns impact community safety? Unfortunately, only time, and the possiblity of more victims, will tell.
In the 1940's, the death penalty was reenergized only to decline in use in the 1950's and 1960's. In the Mid-1970's, the death penalty was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court. However in 1976, capital punishment was back and there was a resurgence in the 1990's as violent crime rates soared. The four busiest years for the modern death penalty were 1997 through 2000, when the nation averaged 81 executions per year.
There have been 1,196 executions since 1976. Texas was responsible for 450 of those executions. Virginia was a distant second with 105.
The Crime Report has an interesting take on why Texas and Virginia represent a turning point in capital punishment. Instead of looking at executions--Texas carried out almost half of all executions last year--the Crime Report suggests looking at the number of executions imposed. Texas imposed only nine death sentences in 2009. The lowest number since 1976. Virginia has imposed only one death sentence in the last two years.
During the mid-1990's Texas was averaging 48 death sentences per year. Last year, Texas tried only 32 death penalty cases and five were actually re-trials.
My Take
Some legal observers suggest the life without parole (LWOP) and concern over wrongful convictions have fueled the skepticism about imposing the death penalty. Juries may be more comfortable with the idea that a convicted killer will serve LWOP and at the same time eliminate the chance of a wrongful execution.
Would juries be interested in knowing that there are organized efforts to eliminate LWOP? A killer convicted to life in prison might some day walk the street. There are also efforts in states such as Kansas, New Hampshire and Colorado to rescind the death penalty due to growing costs and dwindling resources.
Financial impact is playing a more meaningful role in legislative action regarding the criminal justice system. It is not just the death penalty, but prison crowding, sentencing schemes, policing, treatment and rehabilitation. Will the financial concerns impact community safety? Unfortunately, only time, and the possiblity of more victims, will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
