Results matching “first”

Ferguson, Lies and Statistics

Bret Stephens has this column in the WSJ with the above headline, a variation on the old joke that there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.  The subhead is, "Here's a story for the media: a community in which honest people are afraid to tell the truth."

There are two parts to the column, as there are two reports out of Ferguson.  The first part is the exoneration of Officer Wilson and the discrediting of the reports that were so widely reported and believed.  He notes that some witnesses were afraid the tell the truth and contradict "the narrative reported by the media" for fear of reprisal in the neighborhood.

Now there's a story for the media: A community in which honest people can't tell the truth for fear of running afoul local thugs enforcing "the narrative reported by the media." Or is that more of a story about the media?
The second part has to do with the second report about the larger picture in Ferguson, and particularly that report's use of statistics.  Here we run into our old adversary, the fallacy that I call The Fallacy of the Irrelevant Denominator.

DOJ's Feckless Race Huckstering Against Ferguson

I'm late getting to this, but it should not pass without note.  Last week, DOJ announced that it had no case against (now former) Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson  --  this after essentially destroying his career with menacing, and false, speculation. "Hands up, don't shoot" and all that.

Apparently feeling heat from the disappointed mob calling for Wilson's scalp, however, DOJ issued a long report blasting epidemic racism in the Ferguson Police Department.  Among the principal allegations was that Ferguson is running a sort of poor man's version of debtors' prison (pardon the mixed metaphors). The city does this by, among other things "racist" traffic and parking citations, which, when ignored, snowball into escalating fines and costs.  These are designed To Further Torment The Already Downtrodden.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has a devastating answer, a taste of which is below:

[There are] several responses to the DOJ's attack on Ferguson's enforcement of its ordinances pertaining to matters such as parking. First, it is none of the federal government's business. The price of a parking ticket and the penalties for not paying them on time are issues of purely local concern.

Second, there is no basis for inferring racism from Ferguson's parking enforcement practices. Cities and municipalities throughout the nation generate revenue from the policing of parking violations and the like.

For example, Washington, DC, whose government is run by African-American officials, raises a significant amount of revenue by ticketing parking violators, including a large number of white suburbanites who park in the District (me, for example). This isn't racism or even anti-suburban bias. It's not personal; it's just business.

Third, there's an easy way to thwart "revenue generation through policing." Obey the parking rules and other municipal ordinances, and don't exceed the speed limit. In the event of a violation, pay your fine on time and don't blow off any court appearances. Is this too much to ask?

If Senators Rand Paul and Corey Booker have had anything to say about the Big Government absurdity of federal clucking about parking tickets, I haven't seen it. Federalism, it seems, is a sometime thing.

One of the leading backers of sentencing reform (i.e., widespread sentence reduction) is Prof. Doug Berman of the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University.  His blog, "Sentencing Law and Policy," is widely read, and he frequently appears at academic panels.  A Princeton and Harvard Law graduate, he has been called as an expert witness before Congress.

I therefore think it worth a separate entry to note what Doug acknowledges about the ultimate plans of many of those supporting sentencing reform.  As I have seen it  --  and I've seen it again and again  --  their mantra is that reform is designed for the "low-level, non-violent" offender.  Indeed, this is the principal refrain of the movement. 

"Low-level, non-violent."  Rinse and repeat.

Doug now acknowledges that, in the eyes of many reformers, there's a more ambitious agenda than we usually hear about  -- that lower sentences are to be handed out to violent criminals as well.  

His comment is the third on my earlier entry, "The Mask Slips."  He begins:

I do not think there is much doubt, Bill, that many persons concerned about mass incarceration want to lower sentences for violent criminals. I will be the first to say that I do not think anyone should get LWOP sentences. Also, arguably Weldon Angelos and Chris Williams were both "violent criminals" and I wanted both of them to get less than effective LWOP sentences.

You are right that some advocates will say they are only concerned with reducing sentences for the most sympathetic of defendants, but that is largely because you and fans of toughness do not want to even do that...

Readers are invited, it they care to, to examine the full exchange.  

I sometimes get frustrated with Doug, but I have nothing but admiration for his candor.



Holdout Jurors in the Penalty Phase

AP reports that the penalty phase retrial jury in the Jodi Arias case was deadlocked at 11-1 for death.  Because this was the second attempt, in Arizona that means the view of the 1 prevails over the view of the 11 and Arias will get a life sentence.  (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-752(K))  It will be up to the judge if there will be a possibility of parole.

Most of the jurors said they believed the holdout was biased and opposed to giving the death penalty. The other jurors asked the judge on Tuesday if the woman could be replaced with an alternate, but the request was denied and jury was told to keep deliberating.

One male juror said Thursday that he became angry when the holdout indicated the death penalty would be a form of revenge. Jurors also note that the woman had acknowledged seeing a cable TV movie about the Arias case.
Is there any jurisdiction in the world using trial by jury where a deadlock of all but one for guilt and one for acquittal results in acquittal?  Of course not.  Why does any state allow that when it comes to "guilt of the death penalty"?
Here is an update on the California lethal injection suit, in which we represent two family members of murder victims, Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander, suing to get CDCR off the dime on establishing a lethal injection protocol.  A prior post after the hearing is here. An NBC report featuring Mr. Alexander is noted here.

A week after the hearing, Judge Chang issued the final ruling on the demurrer.  This document is essentially a reprint of the tentative ruling with the post-hearing adjustments added at the end.  That can be a bit confusing if you are not used to it.  The final ruling on the demurrer is not a decision of the case.  It just says that CDCR's attempt to have our suit thrown out at the threshold fails and the case can go forward.  CDCR was ordered to answer the allegations of the petition within 10 days.

CDCR really did not want to answer and went to extreme lengths to avoid answering.  The AG, on behalf of CDCR, filed a writ petition with the Court of Appeal.  That is, even though an order overruling a demurrer is not appealable, they want the Court of Appeal to step in with a special kind of order called an "extraordinary writ."  On top of that, they wanted an immediate stay of all proceedings in the trial court.  Since the only thing happening imminently in the trial court was the requirement that they answer, the only reason for an immediate stay was to avoid answering.

I immediately set to work writing a quickie rebuttal to the stay request, but the following day, before I could finish it, the Court of Appeal clerk called to tell me the stay was denied.  CDCR had to answer.

April Supreme Court Arguments

The US Supreme Court has announced its April oral argument calendar.  This is the last session for the term.  Here are the criminal and related cases:

Monday, April 20:  Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120 will be reargued. The case deals with possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a "violent felony."  The case was argued Nov. 5, but on Jan. 9 the Court restored it to the calendar and asked for supplemental briefing on "Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague."

Tuesday, April 21:  McFadden v. United States, No. 14-378, deals with controlled substance analogues and the defendant's knowledge.

Monday, April 27:  Kingsley v. Henderson, No. 14-6368, is a civil case on the use of allegedly excessive force against a pretrial detainee in jail.

Wednesday, April 29:  Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, deals with Oklahoma's three-drug execution protocol using midazolam as the first drug.  A similar protocol is used in Florida.

Same day:  Mata v. Holder, No. 14-185 is an immigration case, but it deals with issues of equitable tolling and ineffective assistance that often come up in habeas corpus cases.
I'm preparing for a few debates and panels on sentencing reform when I return to the mainland next week.  In surveying the territory, I see three major questions that could use more definitive answers than they have now.  Indeed, I don't know how an informed debate is possible without pretty clear answers.

1.  How much of the huge drop in crime over the last 25 years is because of the increased use of incarceration?  The recent Brennan Center study, and the earlier but more neutral Levitt study, give wildly different answers.  

2.  What is the electorate's view of the current state of crime and punishment in America?  Does the public agree with the Attorney General that we have too many people in prison for too long, or does it think we aren't doing enough to keep people who commit crime off the street?  To my knowledge, this question has never been polled by any respected organization.

3.  Most people in the sentencing reform movement think we should start imposing shorter sentences and releasing thousands of inmates already serving their terms. Does the public think the sentencing system has made consistently sound, or unsound, decisions about who should go to jail and for how long? Does the public think, if we change the system, that roughly the same people will make consistently sound, or unsound, decisions about who is safe to release?

News Scan

Inmates Rescue Guard At Rikers:  Inmates at Rikers Island helped rescue a female guard who was nearly raped by a sex offender Saturday night.  Reuven Blau of the New York Daily News reports that Raleek Young, serving a five-to-10 year sentence for raping a 13-year-old girl, managed to get inside the watch post and attack the female guard, ripping off her sweater and choking her before inmates helped guards break a plexiglass window to gain entry and stop the attack.  Initially, jail management labeled the incident as a routine use of force, but after guards protested Young was arraigned on charges including attempted rape and assault.    

GA Execution Postponed:  The scheduled execution of Kelly Gissendaner, sentenced to death for planning the 1997 murder of her husband by her boyfriend, has been postponed.  FoxNews reports that the postponment was called when corrections officials noted that the anesthetic pentobarbital, to be used for the lethal injection process, appeared to be cloudy and in "an abundance of caution" decided to stop the execution.  A new execution date has not been set.

Parolees Convicted Of Two Murders:   As California continues its "smart sentencing" policy of reduced consequences for habitual felons, two criminals whose records were filled with convictions for what the state defines as "low level" felonies have recently been convicted of the brutal murders of two women.  On February 17, KUSI News reported that Jeff Boswell, a paroled drug addict with a long record of theft related felonies, was convicted of the 2013 beating and strangulation murder of an 87-year-old San Diego woman during a robbery.  Last Friday,  Kelly Puente of the Orange County Register reported that parolee Ean Keith Brown was convicted of beating and strangling a 22-year-old Huntington Beach woman to death. 

Would We Be Safer if Fewer Were Jailed?

The NYT Room for Debate page has a collection of six short articles under the heading above.  The subhead is, "Can the use of jails be reformed to reduce the number of inmates without increasing society's risks?"  The question presented was specifically on county jails, not state prisons.  There is quite a stink in the Big Apple over conditions at Rikers Island.

Before clicking on the link, care to guess how many of the six answer the main question "no"?  Or who wrote it?  (Oops, that singular pronoun in the second question sorta gave away the first.)

Can the AG Take Pot Off Schedule I?

The question whether the Attorney General can, strictly on his own initiative, take pot off Schedule I of the federal schedule of controlled substances has been kicking around for some time now.

As with everything inside the Beltway, it's hard to get a straight answer.  The Washington Post at least gives it a good college try today.  The key part of its piece is here (emphasis added):

Under federal law, the attorney general can move to add, reschedule or remove drugs on his own, at the request of the health and human services secretary or in response to a public petition. But the law also requires the attorney general to gather data and scientific and medical evaluation from the HHS secretary before doing so.

Congress can pass laws to change the scheduling of drugs. Even if the attorney general does decide to move toward rescheduling, Congress can overturn his decision, experts say.

The Drug Enforcement Administration already has denied a petition to reschedule the drug, based on findings by HHS. HHS determined that marijuana has a "high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," leading the DEA to reject the petition in 2011. The petition was filed nearly a decade earlier, in 2002.

I would add four observations.  First, pot is already de facto legal, as you can find out by going to any of a zillion frat parties this weekend.  Second, the incoming AG, Loretta Lynch, has said firmly that she opposes pot legalization  --  a quite direct answer, given the entirety of her testimony.  Third, it was several years into the present Administration that the federal government refused a request to take pot off Schedule I.  Fourth, a Congress vastly more liberal than this one (2006-2010) made absolutely no move to remove pot from Schedule I.

The facts being what they are, this is not that hard to figure out, unless you're stoned.



News Scan

Crime Victims to Testify Against Obama Immigration Policies: Family members of those killed by illegal immigrants released under President Obama's immigration policies will testify at a Congressional hearing Wednesday morning.  Joel Gehrke of the National Review reports that of the 36,000 convicted illegals released by the Department of Homeland Security since 2013, 1,000 of them have been arrested and convicted of crimes.  The crime victims' families are hopeful that their testimony will encourage  sensible immigration reform.

Bills Require Lifetime Tracking Of Sex Offenders: A group of Florida lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would require convicted sex offenders to wear or carry an electronic monitoring device for the rest of their lives.  Anneliese Delgado of WOKV News reports that under the legislation, sex offenders would wear the GPS device even after they have completed their court-ordered probation, and would also be responsible for reimbursing the Department of Corrections for the cost of the device.  If the bills are passed, they would go into effect October 1, 2015.

GA To Execute Female Murderer: The Georgia parole board has denied a request for clemency submitted by the state's only female death row inmate, allowing the state to move forward with executing her Wednesday evening.  The Associated Press reports that 46-year-old Kelly Gissendaner was sentenced to death in 1998 after a jury found her guilty of murder in the death of her husband.  If the execution is carried out as scheduled, Gissendaner will be the first woman executed by the state of Georgia in roughly 70 years.  

Fisherman Wins SarbOx Case

By the narrowest of margins, the U.S. Supreme Court has spared a fisherman from the overbroad drafting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law that was supposed to be about corporate financial accountability, not throwing fish overboard.  The vote in Yates v. United States is 4-1-4, with Justice Ginsburg writing the plurality opinion and Justice Alito concurring in the judgment in a separate opinion.  These split results typically produce a lot of head-scratching as lawyers and lower courts try to figure out what the heck the law is.

Update:  On an initial quick read, the plurality and concurrence don't seem all that different to me.  The SarbOx law prohibits destroying etc. "any record, document, or tangible object."  Is "tangible object" limited to information-containing objects along the lines of documents and records, or does it extend to any objects whatever?  The plurality and concurrence invoke the standard rules of statutory construction of considering words in their context and considering words in a list to be in the same general category as the others in the list.  The concurrence also notes the title of the section, "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy."  Yep.  Titles should get more attention than they do.  I especially dislike the old rule that too many lawyers write into documents that you should ignore the titles.  They are important clues into the genuine intent of a document.

Justice Kagan in dissent insists that "A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form," citing the renowned lexicographer Theodor Geisel by his better-known pen name.*  Pretty sure that's a first.

Death Penalty Repeal Fails in Montana

Mike Dennison reports in the Montana Standard:

The state House deadlocked Monday 50-50 on a bill to abolish the death penalty in Montana, likely killing the measure for the 2015 Legislature.
*                                                  *                                             *
Monday's vote fell largely along party lines, with most Republicans against it - but it took three of the House's 41 Democrats voting "no" to reject the bill, which would abolish the death penalty in Montana and substitute it with life in prison without parole. Montana has two murderers on death row.
While the vote is welcome, it is unfortunate and worrisome that they got that close.  Repeal supporters have swung marginal votes with arguments that the process takes too long and costs too much, when the obvious answer is to make in faster and, in the process, cheaper.

The way to make review of death penalty cases faster and cheaper while making it more reliable with regard to genuine miscarriages of justice is to limit all repeated reviews, after the first full round of review, to questions with some bearing on actual innocence. 

News Scan

Convicted Killer set to be Released: A former hit man for the Mexican Mafia who was sentenced to life without parole after being found guilty of first-degree murder is set to be released from prison in a matter of days after becoming an informant for law enforcement.  Robert Holguin of ABC 7 News reports that over the past several years, 52-year-old Rene Enriquez has testified for law enforcement agencies as an expert witness and has even been a regular speaker at law enforcement seminars.  Enriquez has been behind bars since 2003, he is set to be released sometime next week unless Governor Brown intervenes.

Bill Aimed at Strengthening Gun Laws: Republican lawmakers in Nevada have introduced a bill that would prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun.  The Associated Press reports that SB175 would also prevent individuals convicted of domestic violence that have an active restraining order filed against them from purchasing a gun.  In addition to strengthening gun legislation, the bill would also expand concealed carry laws and expand the definition of justifiable homicide.

Indiana High Court Upholds Death Sentence: The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence for a man convicted of killing two children in a fire.  The Indy Channel reports that in 2010, Jeffery Weisheit trapped his fiancee's two children their home before setting fire to the building, in what prosecutors described as an agonizing death. Attorneys for Weisheit appealed his sentence based on the claim that the trial judge prevented a witness from testifying about their client's ability to be in prison without harming himself, his request for a new sentence was ultimately denied.

News Scan

FL High Court Halts Execution: The Florida Supreme Court has stayed the execution of man who has been on death row for nearly three decades.  Payton Guion of The Independent reports that Jerry William Correll was sentenced to death for the murders of his daughter, ex-wife, ex-wife's mother and sister.  He execution was scheduled for February 26.  The state's high court stayed Correll's execution while it awaits a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the legality of the use of midazolam as the first drugs in a three-drug lethal injection protocol, the method presently in use in Florida and Oklahoma.  

Bill Would Expand Sex Offender Registry: A legislative panel in Idaho is reviewing a bill to add people convicted of violent crimes, such as murder and felony domestic violence, to the state's sex offender registry.  The Associated Press reports that the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee has already voted unanimously to consider the bill, which is intended to improve public safety.  Other crimes that may be considered for the registry include attempted murder, human trafficking, and battery with intent to commit a serious felony.

WA Lawmakers Weigh Death Penalty Bill: A House Committee in Washington state is set to hear public testimony on a bill to  abolish the death penalty.  The Associated Press reports that House Bill 1739 would eliminate the death penalty in Washington and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Last year, Washington Governor Jay Inslee imposed a moratorium on capital punishment.  


I want to follow up on my post yesterday, "An Amazing Fantasy," to show how the New York Times, one of the most prominent cheerleaders for lower criminal sentences, attempts to advance its cause.  Let me cut to the chase.  Its principal means are condescension and deceit.  In this, it is all too representative of the movement for which it speaks.

I will begin by analyzing yesterday's editorial one piece at a time.  As you will see, there is barely a sentence in it that's not condescending or deceptive or both.

Ignorance At The Top

You can't expect the average Joe on the street to understand precisely what a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is about.  I do expect the press to get it right, but I'm not shocked at an occasional error.

What is shocking, though, is for the Attorney General of the United States to completely misunderstand what a case before the high court is about. 

Sari Horwitz reports in the WaPo:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Tuesday that he would support a national moratorium on lethal injections until the Supreme Court reviews the protocol used in a botched execution in Oklahoma last year.
*                                              *                                           *

"The Supreme Court's determination as to whether or not lethal injection is consistent with our Constitution is one that ought to occur," Holder said after reiterating his personal opposition to the death penalty.

"I think a moratorium until the Supreme Court made that determination would be appropriate."

That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard from an Attorney General.

The Supreme Court is not determining whether lethal injection generally is consistent with the Constitution.  There is no serious question that the single-drug pentobarbital method that Texas has used without incident nearly 40 times is constitutional.  The case of Glossip v. Gross does not involve any question that would call that method into question.  That case involves the three-drug method used in Oklahoma, with midazolam as the first drug and with additional drugs to follow that would surely cause extreme pain if the inmate is not anesthetized by the first one.

To call for a national moratorium on all lethal injections, including those not implicated by the method involved in the case, is irresponsible and ignorant.  If Mr. Holder is concerned about the method being used in Oklahoma, he should show some leadership in helping to break down the barriers to the states' acquisition of pentobarbital.

The sooner he is gone the better.

News Scan

Iowa Lawmakers Want To Reinstate Death Penalty: Republican lawmakers in Iowa have introduced a bill aiming to reinstate the death penalty in their state.  William Petroski of The Des Moines Register reports that Senate File 239 would allow executions to take place for those convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a minor.  The last time the state of Iowa executed a death row inmate was in 1963, just two years later, the death penalty was abolished. 

FL Legislature Considers Prison Reform: A Florida Senate committee has given preliminary approval for a bill seeking to create an independent group to investigate wrongdoing in the state's troubled prison system.  Mary Ellen Klas of the Miami Herald reports that in a unanimous vote, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee approved SB2070, which mandate a nine-person Criminal Justice Commission that would be permitted to conduct random inspections in both state-run and private prisons, monitor inmate healthcare, and investigate allegations of abuse.  The Florida Department of Corrections has been plagued by allegations of cover-ups and rumors of inmate abuse for the past several years.

Habitual Felon Accused of Murder: The California man accused of stabbing a woman to death on a busy Sacramento street corner last week has a violent criminal past, and has been a registered sex offender since 2011.  Gamaliel Ortiz of KCRA reports that police believe 47-year-old Timothy Varmall violently attacked the woman and left her body on the corner of a busy intersection before fleeing the area when authorities arrived.  Varmall has prior convictions of sexual assault against a minor and sexual penetration of a victim with a foreign object by force.  Upon his release from prison, he was deemed a 'moderate-low' risk under the state's sex offender risk assessment.  



An Amazing Fantasy

And no, this is not about that fantasy.

It's about the New York Times's latest editorial pushing softer treatment for criminals (a/k/a "sentencing reform").  There are a number of howlers in the piece, but I want to start with this one:

Mr. Grassley [Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee], for reasons that defy basic fairness and empirical data, has remained an opponent of almost any reduction of [federal] sentences. In a speech from the Senate floor this month, he called the bills "lenient and, frankly, dangerous," and he raised the specter of high-level drug traffickers spilling onto the streets.

Mr. Grassley is as mistaken as he is powerful. Mandatory minimums have, in fact, been used to punish many lower-level offenders who were not their intended targets. Meanwhile, the persistent fantasy that locking up more people leads to less crime continues to be debunked. States from California to New York to Texas have reduced prison populations and crime rates at the same time. A report released last week by the Brennan Center for Justice found that since 2000 putting more people behind bars has had essentially no effect on the national crime rate.


The Times's claim about the "persistent fantasy" that increased incarceration produces less crime is stupid, dishonest and false.

A Bizarre Situation with a Predictable Ending

Kent noted the on-again-off-again resignation of Gov. John Kitzhaber of Oregon. The Governor's tenure just got off again, this time it seems for good.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber announced his resignation Friday, after alleged ethical breaches involving his fiancee prompted a criminal investigation.

Just months after being re-elected to a fourth term, Mr. Kitzhaber, a 67-year-old Democrat, bowed to mounting pressure to resign after media reports that his fiancee, first lady Cylvia Hayes, was allegedly being paid to represent an array of interest groups at the same time she was helping formulate policies in his administration that involved those groups.

Oregon has no office of lieutenant governor, so Mr. Kitzhaber will be succeeded by another Democrat, Secretary of State Kate Brown.

The Wall Street Journal has the story



The Death Penalty, Proportionality, and Second Best

In the sixth comment to a prior thread, Doug Berman, raises a number of important points I've seen frequently in the national death penalty debate.  They have sufficient gravity that I want to address them in a separate entry.

Doug's principal question is about the meaning of "proportionality" and the implications of that term in the law of punishment.

I had asked Doug if he thinks a jail sentence of any length fits the mind-bending crime of killing a hostage by burning him to death. Doug says that he does not.  He adds, however:

I also do not think a lethal injection would "fit" this grotesque crime, either. The only concept of "fit" that ever really made sense to me was the classic biblical admonition: "You must show no pity for the guilty! Your rule should be life for life, eye for eye...." With that concept of fit in mind, I think the only fitting punishment here would be seemingly be execution by burning at the stake.

In a prior thread, I believe you explained that certain concepts of civilization and humanity in the United States would preclude us from seeking this type of truly fitting punishment. I am not sure I would agree if I subscribed, in any significant way, to the notion that US punishment schemes should be principally focused on trying to impose "fitting" punishments. But, in my own assessments of punishments, I do not generally use vague normative terms like "fit" or "proportionality" because I really have very little idea of what these terms can possibly mean in the vast majority of cases, especially controversial ones.

Doug's questions are good ones, but, being a simple-minded man, I don't think the answers are all that hard.

A Bizarre and Unprecedented Situation

The title of this post is the Oregon Secretary of State's description of the situation with that state's governor. Alejandro Lazo reports for the WSJ:

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber is facing a mounting political crisis, as influence-peddling allegations involving his fiancée have spurred a criminal investigation by the state's attorney general and calls for his resignation from leaders of his own Democratic Party.

Just months after being re-elected to a record fourth term, Mr. Kitzhaber is under pressure to step down following media reports that his fiancée, first lady Cylvia Hayes, was being paid to represent an array of interest groups at the same time that she was helping formulate policies in his administration that involved those groups.

Oregon has no lieutenant governor, a wise choice.  The Secretary of State is next in line.  As I read Article V § 8a of the Oregon Constitution, it seems to say that the SecState would serve until "the next biennial election," in which a Governor would be elected to serve out the last two years of Kitzhaber's term.  The section is not a model of draftsmanship, though. 

Section 14 does not have any limitations on the commutation power for murder, so he could pull a Ryan and clear out death row before going to jail or wherever he is going after the governor's office.

News Scan

Parolee Arrested After Violent Pursuit: A California man with a lengthy criminal history is behind bars once again after leading police officers on violent chase through Los Angeles.  KTLA reports that 29-year-old Aaron Lorta carjacked one woman after threatening her with a handgun and attempted to steal two other vehicles during the violent pursuit.  Lorta was released from state prison and placed on parole last June after serving just one year for a robbery conviction, he is currently being held in county jail without bond.

MO Executes Convicted Murderer: A Missouri man who was sentenced to death for the murder of his neighbor has been executed after spending nearly 25 years on death row.  The Associated Press reports that Walter Storey broke into his neighbor's home in hopes of stealing money for beer.  When the victim confronted him, he beat her savagely leaving her with several broken bones before he slit her throat.  Storey was the first person executed in the state of Missouri so far this year.

LAPD On Alert After Violent Weekend: Police officers in Los Angeles are on high alert after responding to nearly two dozen shootings in just four days.  Veronica Rocher of the Los Angeles Times reports that since the start of 2015, both violent crime and property crime rates have increased by 10% and gang violence is up an astonishing 25%.  Police believe the majority of the recent shootings are in fact gang-related, and have increased patrols in high-crime areas  to ease mounting gang tension.


Fingerprint Error Rate: Zero

Natalia Zea reports for CBS Miami on a study of fingerprint match reliability.

The fingerprint examiners correctly matched every single print in the tests, with only 3 percent of the inaccurate matches caught by a second examiner, which is part of normal protocol at crime labs across the country.
That's rather awkward phrasing.  Presumably it means that 3 percent of the matches found by the first examiner were not correct but all of the errors were found and corrected on the second examination.
It recently came out that Barack Obama lied when, as a candidate in 2008, he said he opposed same sex marriage.  He was for it from the getgo, as almost everyone around him knew.  But it would have posed electoral problems for him to tell the truth, so he didn't.  He correctly calculated that, at the time, lying would bring in more votes.

This revelation will come as a surprise to very few people.  This is, after all, the same man who, also for political gain, assured us that, "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance," knowing as he spoke that this was false.  Both the premises and the specific requirements of Obamacare made it certain that millions would lose their insurance, which they did.

For purposes of this blog, the question arises whether Obama is also lying when he says he supports the death penalty.  And make no mistake, this is indeed his stated position when campaigning in his home state:

I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we've had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that's why a moratorium was put in place and that's why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale.

Is that what he actually thinks, or will that position, like his opposition to gay marriage, go over the side of the boat for political and/or ideological reasons?

News Scan

Execution Date Set For GA Killer: A Georgia woman who was sentenced to death for arranging the murder of her husband has been scheduled to be executed February 25, 2015.  AJC News reports that Kelly Renee Gissendaner, who has spent nearly two decades on death row was convicted after her boyfriend agreed to testify against her in exchange for a life sentence.  If the execution is carried out as scheduled, Gissendaner will be the first woman put to death in the state of Georgia since 1945. 

Judge Speaks Out About Prop 47: A Judge in Northern California is speaking out against a policy adopted by his county's District Attorney charging of gun thefts as misdemeanors rather than felonies.  Jess Sullivan of the Daily Republic reports that Solano County Judge Peter Foor, on the bench since 1979, is outraged at the way his county's DA is interpreting Prop 47, which reduced thefts of guns valued less than $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor.  Foor called Prop 47, which was misleadingly labeled "The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act", "the biggest fraud (ever) on the California public."  

OK Considers Execution With Nitrogen Gas: Republican legislatures in Oklahoma will present two bills later this week that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas as a backup execution method if lethal injection drugs remain unavailable.  Sean Murphy of the Associated Press reports that state Rep. Mike Christian supports using nitrogen gas for executions, calling it a much more practical and efficient method of execution.  If the bills pass, Oklahoma would become the first state in the country to allow the use of nitrogen gas for executions.

Are Prosecutors Right Wing Extremists?

To listen to most of the press and a great deal of the blogosphere, you'd think so. Time and again we hear that they're nothing but knuckle-dragging bullies and extortionists, routinely forcing innocent people in society's lower classes to falsely swear guilt in order to escape some "draconian" (do you ever hear of any other kind?) sentence.

Several days ago, Adam Liptak of the NYT wrote a fascinating piece that discusses the political inclinations of lawyers.  The piece was focused on the politics of judges, and introduced by the title, "Why Judges Tilt to the Right."

Now you would think, from that title, that you're about to read that judges are somewhere off there, between, say, Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee, which under any normal definition would be "tilting right."

Wrongo.  You have to read down the page to find out that most judges tilt left.  But I thought what was said about prosecutors was even more interesting.

News Scan

Bill Would Reinstate Felony Penalties For Firearm Theft: California assemblywoman Melissa Melendez has introduced legislation to allow voters to amend recently enacted Prop. 47, to reinstate the theft of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony.    Sam Spencer reports that if AB 150 passes both houses by a two-thirds vote, voters would be allowed to vote to amend the law at the next general election.  "A criminal doesn't steal a gun for recreational use," said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, "they steal a gun to commit crimes."

Execution Date Set For Cop Killer: The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered the execution of the state's oldest death row inmate after nearly two decades behind bars.  Gene Hartley of KY3 News reports that 74-year-old Cecil Clayton was sentenced to death in 1997 after shooting a police officer in the head at point-blank range as he sat in his patrol car.  Clayton is set to be executed March 17, 2015.

Bill Would Allow Chemical Castrations for Sex Offenders: Oklahoma Senator Mark Allen has introduced a bill that would allow violent sex offenders to be released from prison early if they agree to be chemically castrated.  Jackie Taurianen of CNN reports that Allen believes the process would help to resolve the state's prison overcrowding issue.  Currently, nine other states have legalized a version of chemical castration, however, it is unclear how often it is used.  The proposed bill would allow first-time offenders to have the option to participate, but would make it mandatory for repeat offenders.

The kerfuffle over the measles vaccine is off-topic for the blog.  It is also ultra vires (not virus) for CJLF.  I have watched the discussion with some interest, though, particularly the propensity of media outlets of a given orientation to ascribe anti-vaccine beliefs to the other side.  Crunching some actual numbers was a fun project (in a nerdy sense of fun) for a soggy Saturday here on the Left Coast, and I found some interesting things about how political orientation relates to an essentially nonpolitical subject.

Eric Holder's Political DOJ

Having at one point been a political appointee in the Justice Department, I see nothing wrong with a President's putting in place the people he wants to advance the priorities he prefers.  That's one of the reasons we have elections.

To say that, however, is not to say that politics ought properly infuse everything the Department does.  The tradition is that DOJ is more or less faithful to the Executive's constitutional duty to see that the law is faithfully executed.

One could not say that has been the case with Eric Holder.  His de facto repeal of mandatory minimum statutes for a class of cases he, rather than Congress, determined, is the example that first comes to my mind.  Others would point to his use of an engorged version of prosecutorial "discretion" in declining to enforce large swaths of immigration law.

This article takes a closer look at the breathtaking extent to which Holder has jammed politics into the Department's day-to-day operations.  One can hope it will be better under Loretta Lynch.  I have my doubts.
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99  

Monthly Archives