UVa Prof. Gerard Alexander has this op-ed in the WaPo. He does not address the debate over crime specifically, but the overall problem he addresses is quite consistent with what I have experienced debating crime issues over the years:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

*                           *                         *

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Federal officials are considering charging Scott Roeder with violating the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), reports Judy Thomas for the Kansas City Star. This is despite the fact that Roeder has already been convicted of murder in state court for killing abortion doctor George Tiller.

Constitutionally, the "dual sovereignty" doctrine permits the federal government to prosecute after a conviction or acquittal in state court for the same crime. As a matter of policy, though, it is rarely done. It is justified, in my opinion, when an acquittal or a grossly inadequate sentence is the result of some major malfunction of the state court system. That occurred in cases of violence against civil rights workers in the early 60s, for example. I see no reason for it here. Roeder was convicted of the highest degree of offense available under Kansas law, first-degree murder. (The crime is not capital under either Kansas or federal law.)  A 51-year-old man who is ineligible for parole for 50 years is not going to see the outside of the prison wall again.

The other justification given in the article is to investigate whether others were involved in a conspiracy. I think other tools are more appropriate for that.

Generally speaking, crimes by one person against another should be matters of state criminal law. Federal law enforcement should be used for inherently federal issues such as national security, smuggling, or counterfeiting, large organized crimes rings that cross state lines and are beyond the capacity of any one state to prosecute, and malfunctions of the state system itself.

Popular Support for the Death Penalty:  Last month, Kent reported that the majority of Britons and Canadians supported the death penalty, and guest blogger Bill Otis wrote that "the death penalty exists in both law and in practice in countries with well over half the world's population."  Over the weekend, on Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman reported that 86% of Japanese support the death penalty.  Berman writes that Japan stands as another modern example of an industrialized nation that still utilizes the death penalty.  And, apparently, 86% of the 3,000 men and women surveyed support its continued use. 

More on McDonald v. Chicago:  A few weeks ago, Tony Mauro reported that the Supreme Court granted the NRA's motion for oral argument time in the Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago.  Today, Wall Street Journal's Law Blogger, Ashby Jones, reports that the Supreme Court's grant, "sliced the lead attorney's time by a third and gave it to the NRA and its recently hired attorney, Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General...."  Apparently, the NRA's argument is different from the argument offered by lead attorney, Alan Gura.  The NRA will argue that the most "straightforward route" to incorporating the Second Amendment on the states is through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, while Gura urges the Court to incorporate the Second Amendment through the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause.  A Washington Post article by Robert Barnes comments that the NRA's motion for oral argument time "underscores the bad blood between the erstwhile Second Amendment allies."

Does Kiyemba Address a Moot Issue?:  That's what the Department of Justice appears to believe now that Switzerland has extended an offer of "resettlement" to the two Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay.  Jurist writer, Ximena Marinero, posts that the Department of Justice argued in its' merits brief for Kiyemba, et. al. v. Obama, that with all of the detainees scheduled for resettlement in other countries, "legal constraints prevent the courts from ordering that petitioners be brought to and released in the United States."  Lyle Denniston reports on SCOTUSblog that the DOJ suggested, "[a]s an alternative," that the Court uphold a D. C. Circuit Court ruling that denied federal judges any authority to order the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the U. S. itself.  Denniston writes that dismissing Kiyemba would allow the government to temporarily avoid a ruling that might allow courts to keep some some of the power to decide the fate of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, after they have been cleared for release.  The Obama administration has long held that only the Executive Branch can decide what happens ultimately to Guantanamo prisoners.

Cracking Down on Juror Tweeting:  At Blog of Legal Times, Marcia Coyle reports that a committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed a set of model jury instructions for district judges to help deter jurors from using cell phones, computers or other electronic technologies during their jury service.  The suggested federal instructions inform jurors that they may not use those technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they are serving.  The new instructions contain a laundry list of unacceptable forms of communication during the trial.  It is incredibly thorough and excludes communications through "your cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, My Space, LinkedIn, and YouTube."

Sir William Blackstone noted centuries ago that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." To that end, the system is intentionally tilted in the defendant's favor with such advantages as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But if one of those ten guilty persons has accomplices and they are tried separately, does it follow that they must also escape? Not in California, as of today. The California Supreme Court held in People v. Superior Court (Sparks), S164614:

Real party in interest, Dustin William Sparks (hereafter defendant or Sparks), was charged with two felony murders. Before his case came to trial, two other persons were tried for the same murders. One was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and the other was acquitted. Concerned about possible inconsistent verdicts, and applying the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel adopted in a criminal case in People v. Taylor (1974) 12 Cal.3d 686 (Taylor), the superior court ruled that those verdicts prohibit the prosecution from trying defendant for a crime greater than voluntary manslaughter.

We conclude that decisions postdating Taylor, supra, 12 Cal.3d 686, including decisions from this court and the United States Supreme Court, have undermined Taylor's reasoning and the authority on which it relied. Occasional inconsistent jury verdicts are inevitable in our criminal justice system. If a verdict regarding one participant in alleged criminal conduct is inconsistent with other verdicts, all of the verdicts may stand. (Standefer v. United States (1980) 447 U.S. 10, 25-26 (Standefer); People v. Palmer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 856, 860 (Palmer).) Accordingly, a verdict regarding one defendant has no effect on the trial of a different defendant. Courts should determine the propriety of a prosecution based on that prosecution's own record, not a different record. Nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply to verdicts in criminal cases.

This is a unanimous opinion by Justice Chin. Another bad precedent from California criminal jurisprudence's dark ages bites the dust.

Arkansas Injection Protocol Upheld: Another attack on lethal injection has been rejected post-Baze, this time in Arkansas. Eighth Circuit opinion here. AP story here. (Hat tip: How Appealing.)

Japan Death Penalty Poll:  Mainichi Daily News reports, "Some 85.6 percent of Japanese are in favor of the death penalty, results of a Cabinet Office survey released Saturday indicate. The survey further found that only 5.7 percent of the 1,944 respondents think death sentences should be abolished."

An Unexpected Legal Advocate: New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports on a man who made the most of his time in prison by studying law.  Shon R. Hopwood committed five robberies in Nebraska in 1997 and 1998 and was sentenced more than a decade in federal prison.  There, he studied the law and became a Supreme Court practitioner.  In 2002, Hopwood prepared his first petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for a fellow inmate, John Fellers.  The Court agreed to hear the case in December 2003.  Seth Waxman, a former U.S. Solicitor General, agreed to take Fellers case in part because "It was probably one of the best cert. petitions I have ever read."  Since being released from prison, Hopwood has taken a job with Cockle Printing, a leading printer of Supreme Court briefs.

Law Lagging With Technological Advances:  Boston Globe writers Jonathan Saltzman and John R. Ellement report on a loophole found in a Massachusetts law.  According to the Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion found here, state law does not bar people from sending lewd computer messages to minors.  Matt H. Zubiel was convicted of four counts of attempting to disseminate harmful matter.  He had emailed a photograph of himself and sent lewd messages to an undercover officer, who he thought to be a 13 year old girl.  On Friday, Zubiel's conviction was overturned.  The court's opinion stated, "If the Legislature wishes to include instant messaging or other electronically transmitted text in the definition, it is for the Legislature, not the court, to do so."  Governor Deval Patrick plans to introduce a bill to close the loophole next week.  Eugene Volokh also posts his thoughts on the decision at Volokh Conspiracy.   

With at least one vacancy on the high court quite possible this summer, "Democrats ... are divided over whether President Barack Obama should appoint a prominent liberal voice while their party still commands a large Senate majority, or go with someone less likely to stoke Republican opposition," reports Jess Bravin in the WSJ.

Needless to say, nominating someone with a history of bending over backwards to let violent criminals off with less than they deserve, or off altogether, would be a substantial political liability in a year where control change in Congress is a possibility. On the latter point, John Fund had this article in Friday's WSJ.

Crime researchers pump out studies almost daily, it seems, with implications for the policy choices we must make. At bottom, though, a study can be no better than the data that go into it. As they say in the computer industry, "garbage in, garbage out." Numbers can be run through sophisticated statistics software, and the results can be dressed up with snazzy graphics, but if the raw data are bogus, the graphs are meaningless at best and dangerous at worst.

In the New York Post, Philip Messing, Larry Celona, and James Fanelli have this disturbing story about cooking the books on crime stats as a result of the data-driven police management system, CompStat.

The general rule that character evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings is always subject to exceptions.  One of those exceptions is when the prosecution "opens the door" by introducing evidence of the victim's virtuous life during the penalty phase.  But in a murder trial, is evidence that the victim possessed child pornography enough to sully his good character?  And if defense counsel fails to introduce that evidence, is it reversible error under Strickland v. Washington? 

Yes, says the Supreme Court of Missouri in the recent case of Gill v. State:

When the State introduced evidence regarding the victim's good character, Gill's counsel should have presented rebuttal evidence. However, his counsel failed to present rebuttal character evidence because they failed to discover it. They saw the names of the sexually explicit files on the report but were not diligent in investigating further. Defense counsel testified at the Rule 29.15 hearing that after more carefully reviewing the report, they noticed entries that should have alerted them to the presence of pornography on the computer. They had the opportunity to discover the child pornography, bestiality content, and instant message conversations on the victim's computer but neglected to do so.

By failing to discover those files on the victim's computer, Gill's counsel's performance was deficient.

In 1994, Isam Salman and Hayder al-Turk were murdered in Salman's store. Justice for this crime was finally carried out yesterday. The perpetrators were emulating a scene from the movie Menace II Society. Alan Johnson has this story in the Columbus Dispatch. The Supreme Court's green light orders are here and here. No dissent is noted for either. 

Ohio's repeated successful use of a one-drug protocol should put to rest the nonsense emanating from the DPIC about using "untested" methods. It will probably be gradually adopted by the other states, just as the present three-drug method replaced the gas chamber and electric chair, which replaced hanging.

Ohio is doing a fine job of wrecking the opposition's containment strategy. They want to convince the rest of the country that the death penalty is a purely Southern phenomenon, with the usual express or implied accusation of racism. Now we need to get California on track. The Administrative Procedures Act mess should be fixed by May. There are 6 or 7 cases that are all the way through the review process, depending on whether the Ninth Circuit is finished being serially reversed in Belmontes.  Monthlies are possible in both states.

Examining Guantanamo Bay Policy:  In a post titled The Gitmo Rebellion, Volokh Conspiracy blogger, Kenneth Anderson, expresses his thoughts on Nick Baumann's Mother Jones article by the same name.  Baumann's article details recent efforts by Senators Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) to block funding to the Obama Administration's efforts to try 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian courts. Anderson offers these thoughts in response:  (1) the big question is whether the trial of KSM and potentially others will be tried as civilians, in the Federal courts, or by military commission; (2) the Senators' efforts may mean "that Congress might at last be getting involved in something that it has wanted to avoid getting involved with for years and years[;]" and finally, could changes proposed by Congress cause the administration's attorneys working on detainee policy to leave when things don't change? 

Justice Kennedy Addresses Pepperdine School of Law:  At Southern California Appellate News, Ben Shatz reports in on Justice Kennedy's 75 minute address to attendees of the William French Smith Memorial Lecture.  Shatz reports that during the question and answer session, Justice Kennedy expressed his views on international law, sentencing, effective  advocacy, and how he approaches the Constitution.  With regard to sentencing, Shatz quotes the Justice as saying "I'm against mandatory sentences. They take away judicial discretion to serve the four goals of sentencing. American sentences are 8 times longer than their equivalents in Europe. California's 3-strikes law emanated from the electorate, and the sponsor of the initiative was the correctional officers association -- 'and that is sick.'"

Justice Thomas' Law School Speaking Tour:  At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on speeches made by the Justice at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law in Gainesville.  Mauro reports that both speeches demonstrate "yet again that [Justice Thomas] is incapable of giving a dull speech."

Two New Supreme Court Judges?  Yesterday, Doug Berman posted on Sentencing Law and Policy that the Supreme Court may be ready for two new Supreme Court Justices.  Berman links to an ABC News article by Ariane deVogue suggesting that both Justices Stevens and Ginsburg could leave the Court this year.  Vogue gives the usual explanations for why each Justice may retire, and then suggests possible candidates. The list contains the usual suspects - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano - and then mentions some less obvious candidates - Cass Sunstein, Justice Leah Ward Sears, and Judge Merrick Garland.  Berman does not appear to believe that Justice Ginsburg will leave this year.  Ed Whalen at NRO's Bench Memos agrees.  Jonathan Adler comments on Volokh Conspiracy that the specter of two Supreme Court vacancies "could help explain the Administration's tardiness in making other judicial nominations." 

How Oyezed Opened Up the Court:  At SCOTUSblog, Matt Sundquist posts a Q&A from his interview with Jerry Goldman, the creator of the Oyez Project and a Political Science Professor at Northwestern University.  In the post, Goldman explains why he became interested in digitizing oral arguments from the U. S. Supreme Court, and how he went about creating a publicly-accessible archive of Supreme Court oral arguments dating back to 1955.