Crime and Consequences

Sen. 12/10/2007 - 3RDG FINAL PASSAGE - Yes {21} No {16} Not Voting {3} - Roll Call

Asm. 12/13/2007 - 3RDG FINAL PASSAGE - Yes {44} No {36} Not Voting {0} Abstains {0} - Roll Call

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The New Jersey Assembly passed Timmendequas's Law today, as expected. Jeremy Peters reports here in the NYT.

Joe Logan has this story in the Philadelphia Inquirer of the opposition to the law by the family of Megan Kanka, who was murdered at the age of 7 by Jesse Timmendequas. That crime sparked the enactment of the first "Megan's Law," back in the days when the New Jersey Legislature cared more about victims than about criminals.

Posted by CJLF Staff at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in the case challenging the residency restrictions of Proposition 83, approved by the voters last November. Bob Egelko reports here for the SF Chron. The case is In re E.J., S156933. The docket is here.

Procedurally, the case is an "original habeas petition," meaning it was filed directly in the California Supreme Court rather than as an appeal from the decision of a lower court. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court -- which can only take original habeas petitions when they are, in practice, reviews of other court decisions -- Cal. Supreme has jurisdiction to hear these cases without a lower court decision. The usual practice in noncapital cases is to say "go away and file in another court," but this case was evidently considered important enough to take the fast track. The order to show cause effectively accepts the case for full consideration.

We at CJLF have been unenthused about the residency restriction from the beginning. The requirement that sex offenders live no closer than 2000 feet from any school or park was ill-considered, effectively banning them from densely populated areas. An exodus of sex offenders from San Francisco to Merced is not a good thing. We supported Prop. 83 anyway because of other worthwhile provisions but warned that the constitutionality of this one was borderline.

Winston Churchill once said something to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. In California, we take that a step further. Direct democracy is the worst form of democracy except for the other. If our Legislature were not so dysfunctional, we wouldn't have to make nearly all important criminal law by initiative. But it is, and we do.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I talk to the press fairly often on the subject of the death penalty and am quoted in the stories occasionally. They invariably spell my name correctly, no small accomplishment. The quotes are almost always accurate when they are direct quotes. Reporters' paraphrases of what I say, on the other hand, are often off the mark. On occasion, though, even a direct quote can be wrong. Sometimes it is simply not what I said. Sometimes, a quote is accurate as far as it goes but clips off an essential part of the statement. A whopper of a truncated quote that is effectively a misquote can be found in this AP story by David Crary.

On the subject of the cost of the death penalty, I have stated my position publicly many times. That position is that the death penalty would not cost significantly more than life imprisonment if we did them both correctly. It might cost less. To see why we must look separately at the guilt and penalty phases.

Regarding the guilt phase of the trial, I have said many times, "Whatever we need to spend on a death penalty case [to make sure we have the actual perpetrator], there is no moral justification for spending a penny less on a life imprisonment case." Although an innocent person sentenced to life in prison would have longer time to prove his innocence, the reality is that in almost all cases he will not have the resources to do so and will probably die in prison. Hence, to argue we can save money on the guilt phase by abolishing capital punishment is to argue, in effect, that we save money by locking up innocent people for life.

Regarding the penalty phase, and review of the penalty phase, my consistent position has been that we don't need to spend as much as we do. If the Supreme Court overruled Lockett v. Ohio, we wouldn't need this extended, expensive psychosocial examination of the defendant's entire life. If the rule of Stone v. Powell were extended to the penalty phase of criminal cases, review would be shorter and less expensive.

That two-part, somewhat extended statement does not lend itself well to the kind of pithy, bumper-sticker-like statement of position that fits easily in a news story. So here is what I supposedly said as reported in the AP article:

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, acknowledged that capital punishment cases generally do cost more than other cases because of the lengthy legal reviews. It's worth it for the sake of justice, he said.

"Whatever we need to spend on a death penalty case, there's no moral justification for spending less," he said.

That is not an accurate statement of my position, and the truncated quote is effectively a misquote.

Postscript: I emailed AP with my objection as soon as the story came out, and Mr. Crary called me back on Friday. He says the quote in the story is consistent with his notes. I do not doubt that the problem is the result of an honest misunderstanding and not malice or intentional misquoting. The purpose of this post is simply to set the record straight on what my position is.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Timmendequas's Law is set for a vote tomorrow in the New Jersey Assembly, to change New Jersey's abolition of the death penalty from de facto to de jure. Tom Hester has this report for AP. Google News has comments by Robert Blecker and Richard Dieter.

GPS Tracking provided a quick partial solution to drive-by murder of Nelly Vergara in Los Angeles Monday, Thomas Watkins reports for AP. Police cross-checked the time and place of the murder with the tracking devices worn by some parolees and arrested MS-13 gang member John Garcia. "We are not dealing with the brightest bulbs in the circuit," said Chief Bratton. "This character has to be one of the stupidest people in the city of Los Angeles." Although GPS shows Garcia's presence at the scene, witnesses are still needed.

"She wanted to save money and buy her first home and because of these people that shot at her, her dreams are not a reality any longer," Vergara's mother Mireya Robles said in Spanish through heavy tears as she asked for witnesses to come forward. "I can't even begin to tell you my pain."

The Kimbrough and Gall cases are the subjects of copious commentary, but this one by Frank Bowman at SCOTUSblog is particularly good.

Curtis Dean Anderson, a notorious sexual predator, died in prison of unspecified medical problems, Marisa Lagos reports in the SF Chron. Anderson kidnapped and raped two young girls in Vallejo, northeast of San Francisco, and murdered one of them, Xiana Fairchild.

Posted by CJLF Staff at 02:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The U.S. Supreme Court announced three opinions today on federal sentencing matters. We won't be covering them much here. There is commentary at SL&P and SCOTUSblog. In a nutshell:

Watson v. United States rejected the preposterous notion that a person "uses" a gun within the meaning 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A) by receiving it in trade for drugs.

Kimbrough v. United States held that under the post-Booker federal sentencing system, a judge can decide that the much-criticized guideline that considers an amount of crack cocaine equal to 100 times as much powder is unreasonable and need not be followed.

Gall v. United States held that under the same post-Booker regime, appellate courts consider all district court sentencing decisions under the same abuse-of-discretion standard, not a different standard depending on whether it's inside or outside the guidelines.

The orders list had no grants, as expected given that grants were announced Friday.

Posted by Kent Scheidegger at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One depressing item and one funny one from weekend papers:

A culture of murder in parts of Oakland is the subject of this article by Meredith May in the SF Chron.

Criminals who can't resist snapping cell-phone pictures of their exploits are examined by William Bulkeley in the WSJ.

Last year, Morgan Kipper was booked on charges of stealing cars and reselling their parts. He declared his innocence, but his cellphone suggested otherwise: Its screensaver pictured Mr. Kipper behind the wheel of a stolen yellow Ferrari.

"As a criminal defense attorney, it's very difficult when a client proclaims his innocence but incriminates himself by taking photos of the stolen items," says William Korman, the Boston attorney who represented Mr. Kipper.

Meanwhile, back at the blogosphere, we note that a number of other blogs are actively soliciting their readers to go vote for them at the ABA Journal Blawg 100. We'll pass.

Posted by CJLF Staff at 06:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)