One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of "stop and frisk." This practice dramatically reduced the number of guns, knives and other dangerous weapons, as well as illicit drugs, in the city.See my previous post on this subject for the citation and an excerpt of the case. Continuing with Mr. Giuliani's piece:
But according to candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt during Monday night's presidential debate, stop and frisk is "unconstitutional." They are wrong. In Mrs. Clinton's case, it's the usual misrepresenting she does when she does not know what she is talking about. As for Mr. Holt, if a moderator is going to interfere, he should do some homework and not pretend to know the law when he does not. Mr. Holt and NBC cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
AL Death Row Inmate Files Appeal: An Alabama inmate just a few months away from his scheduled execution filed an appeal over the weekend asking an appellate court to review his claim that the state's lethal injection procedure is inhumane. Kim Chandler of the AP reports that Thomas Arthur, 74, who was scheduled to be executed on Nov. 3 for the 1982 murder-for-hire of a businessman, filed the appeal with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that his legal challenge was prematurely dismissed in July by a federal judge who misapplied a requirement for inmates to name an alternate execution method. Arthur is arguing against the use of the sedative midazolam hydrochloride in his execution, citing the drug's unreliability and his health issues. It as been over two years since Alabama regularly carried out executions. The last person put to death in the state was Christopher Eugene Brooks in January for raping and fatally beating a woman in 1993.
CA Parolee Arrested for Murder: A California parolee was arrested and booked on suspicion of murder early Sunday morning for killing a man over the weekend. Lyndsay Winkley of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that Richard Gunner, 23, is accused of killing Brandon Deguzman, 21, in front of the victim's El Cajon home on Saturday morning. Deguzman was discovered with at least one fatal gunshot wound on the sidewalk. Gunner was arrested the next day, initially on a parole violation and then later for murder, once police obtained sufficient evidence. Gunner's father says his son has spent time in prison for carjacking and has a serious drug problem.
How unusual is this? I dove into the historical data to find out. The Bureau of Justice Statistics online data gives us murder rates back to 1960. The rates range from 4.4 to 10.2 murders per 100k and are expressed to only one decimal place, so there is some rounding error, but they are good enough for a quick take.
Putting the rates in a spreadsheet and calculating the percent change for each year over the previous year, we see that only twice in over a half century has the rate jumped double digits in one year and once just a tad below that threshold. Those three years were 1966-1968, when crime was rising at a horrific rate.
We have never had a double-digit drop, but several years come close.
The standard deviation for the changes is 5.9%. This year's change is not quite two standard deviations from the mean, but it's close. (The mean is near zero.)
In plain English, this is a very unusual one-year jump, although not unprecedented.
Since policing is a problem, the police should be removed from communities altogether, according to Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza.
Garza argued that the United States gives too much respect to police officers, explaining that when police do wrong, a few bad cops are blamed, rather than a "corroded and corrupt system."
"Quite frankly, many of our [Black Lives Matter] members are continuing to investigate what it would mean to have police-free communities. I think what we've continued to see over time is that no moral appeal is actually stopping the deaths of black people, whether they be armed or unarmed." Garza told Complex.
I believe BLM is the most audaciously lying social movement I have seen in my forty-some years as a lawyer and law professor. The murder rate got cut by more than half in the two decades (1992-2012) in which the number of police in this country rose substantially. Since blacks are disproportionately murder victims, they were disproportionately beneficiaries of the decreased murder rate.
Prop 47 Causing DNA Database to Dwindle: California's criminal DNA database is starting to dwindle, and officials attribute the drop to Proposition 47. Joe Khalil of Fox40 reports that Prop. 47, which was approved by voters in 2014, reclassified eight specific drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and individuals who commit these crimes are no longer required to provide a DNA sample to the state. In the first year after Prop. 47's implementation, felony narcotics arrests plummeted to 11,596, down from more than 36,376, and arrests involving dangerous drugs fell from 85,931 to 22,712, according to FBI data. In that first year, an estimated 250,000 would-be DNA samples were never collected, says Assemblyman Jim Cooper. Officials fear that this will hamper cold case investigations in California. Just this month, the DNA of William Harbour entered into the state's database in 1997 after he was arrested for felony drug crimes, connected him to the murders of two young girls some 43 years earlier. If arrested today for the same drug crimes, Harbour's DNA would not be collected.
Death Penalty Phase of OH Murder Trial Begins: The sentencing phase for the double murder trial of an Ohio man began Monday morning after the jury reached a verdict over the weekend. Jordan Bowen of WDTN reports that the jury will now decide if Harvey Lee Jones, 37, should get the death penalty for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Carly Hughley, 32, and her friend, Demetrius Beckwith, 29, over three years ago. Jones shot the two victims to death in January 2013 in the presence of he and Hughley's then-10-year-old son. Jones was found guilty on Saturday of a total of eight counts, including four counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of aggravated robbery.
Last week, I noted a SurveyUSA poll showing the repeal proposition "trails by 16 points today and is headed for defeat." Also noted the same day was a USC/LA Times/SurveyMonkey poll showing Prop. 62 down by 11%. Neither of these polls asked about the reform measure, Prop. 66.
Now we have a poll done by Field and IGS, the same organization as the first poll above, that has a dramatically different result. This one shows repeal at 48% yes, 37% no, and 15% undecided, while the reform measure is at 35% yes, 23% no, and 42% undecided.
As Seinfeld would say, what's up with that? Has there been a dramatic shift in public opinion since the first IGS poll? Not likely, given the essentially consistent results on 62 in the other two recent polls.
When I see dramatic differences like this in polls, the first thing I suspect is wording of the questions.
(a) William Rehnquist
(b) Antonin Scalia
(c) Roger Taney
(d) Earl Warren
I agree with what Professor Amar says about the exclusionary rule, but not so much what he says about the Justices. He begins by noting the difference between cases where the Court was focused on the substantive Fourth Amendment question and cases where it focused on the exclusionary remedy:
In countless cases over the last forty years, the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment was violated by the facts at hand, and has thus ordered or upheld evidentiary exclusion.... But whenever the modern Court has squarely focused on the exclusionary rule itself - giving express thought to whether the rule's contours should be widened or narrowed - the Justices have almost always ruled against the rule, and have done so in case after case dripping with implied or express contempt for it.This contempt is well founded:
The exclusionary rule has no sound footing in any originalist legal source material. None. Nothing in the text as originally understood supports it; no framer ever endorsed it; no judge in America for the first century after independence ever followed the exclusionary rule or any genuine prototype of it. On one of the very few occasions when a lawyer tried to argue for exclusion before 1876, the lawyer was laughed out of court by America's preeminent jurists, led by Joseph Story.A bit of rhetorical exaggeration there. Laughing wasn't Justice Story's style. But he did make very clear that the exclusionary argument had no basis in the law at that time. My brief in Utah v. Strieff has more on this.
Mapp v. Ohio, the case that imposed the exclusionary rule on the states, was wrongly decided as an original matter. A long string of decisions has chipped away at it, limiting the damage it does to some extent, but the case has not been overruled. Why not, and what of the future?
What's the lesson here for Americans? This past weekend's terrorist attacks hold at least two. One is that there is a benefit for a society that allows competent and responsible adults to carry guns, like the off-duty police officer who shot the knife-wielding jihadist in St. Cloud, Minn. Another is that there is an equal benefit in the surveillance methods that allowed police in New York and New Jersey to swiftly identify and arrest Mr. Rahimi before his bombing spree took any lives.
These are lessons the political left in this country doesn't want to hear, lest they unsettle established convictions that weapons can only cause violence, not stop it, and that security is the antithesis of, not a precondition to, civil liberty.
Victim impact statements (VIS) are long-disfavored among legal commentators for allegedly injecting unnecessary, negative emotion into sentencing at the expense of the defendant, with ambiguous informational benefits to the sentencing body. Most traditional arguments both for and against VIS turn on purely retributive or utilitarian grounds. This essay takes up the Stanford sexual assault victim's statement to propose an expressive framework for understanding the function of VIS, which resolves much of the theoretical confusion surrounding the traditional justifications. I show how the expressive goals of criminal punishment have long been distorted by the mediation of traditional news reporting. I then analyze the legal relevance of the particular criminological values expressed in the Stanford statement to show how unmediated victim narratives may counterbalance media distortion, particularly in the age of social media transmission. I conclude that the criminal justice system better serves its expressive function by formally incorporating VIS into sentencing.
Nationally, the murder rate is projected to increase 31.5 percent from 2014 to 2016 -- with half of additional murders attributable to Baltimore, Chicago, and Houston.
Ahmad Khan Rahami, the man suspected in bombings in New York and New Jersey, is now in custody after a shootout with police, sources said.The shootout happened Monday in Linden, New Jersey. Rahami was shot and was taken to an ambulance in a stretcher with his right shoulder bloodied and bandaged.Two officers were hit in the shootout with Rahami, the mayor of the nearby city of Elizabeth said. One officer's vest was struck, and the other was shot in the hand.
A bomb exploded early Monday near a train station in Elizabeth, New Jersey as police attempted to disarm it with a robot. No injuries were reported. This follows a weekend of violence including a knife assault at a shopping mall in Minnesota and other bombings in New Jersey and New York City. "It's a miracle no one was killed, but the timing and nature of the attacks rightly have investigators looking for evidence of Islamist or other terrorist links," notes the editorial board.
Some of those votes may go to Gary Johnson and the Libertarians. In a very close election, the votes for Johnson and Jill Stein could throw the election to Donald Trump. The argument for a landslide unity vote could convince some of those to do the right thing.So there you have it. It's not an invention of "right-wing media." The Communist Party says voting for Hillary Clinton is doing the right thing.
Any repudiation of this endorsement from the Clinton camp? I could not find one through a Google search or on the campaign website. If anybody can find one, please post a link in the comments.
I have my doubts about SurveyMonkey's method, and I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Self-selected samples are dicey, even when "corrected" for demographic factors. Nate Silver and crew at 538 rate SurveyUSA an "A" and SurveyMonkey a "C-." Even so, when multiple sources give you more-or-less consistent results, it does boost confidence in those results.
There is an interesting contrast in the two polls on the age crosstab.
"Proposition 62, which would end the death penalty in CA and replace it with life in prison, trails by 16 points today and is headed for defeat."
The overall result is 36% yes, 52% no, 12% undecided. They did not poll on Prop. 66, the reform initiative. The poll has some interesting crosstabs, and some quirky ones.
James Taranto at the WSJ and Jonah Bennett at the Daily Caller report on how easy it was to "troll" journalists with a fake story merely by providing a supposed connection between Donald Trump and white supremacists. Bennett quotes one of the hoaxers:
This is why it is so important to have a diversity of viewpoints in both journalism and academia and why it is so dangerous and harmful that both of these professions have a badly skewed distribution. Claims need to scrutinized whichever side of the aisle they serve, and we would have more thorough and complete scrutiny if we had a better balance of viewpoints.
"Basically, I interspersed various nuggets of truth and exaggerated a lot of things, and sometimes outright lied -- in the interest of making a journalist believe that online Trump supporters are largely a group of meme-jihadis who use a cartoon frog to push Nazi propaganda. Because this was funny to me," Swift told TheDCNF.
"The idea that every major Trump supporter online is secretly a neo-Nazi, for one. I mean, it's just not true. But it's the kind of thing that a journalist will readily believe."
A major criminal-justice overhaul bill seemed destined to be the bipartisan success story of the year, consensus legislation that showed lawmakers could still rise above politics.
Then the election, Donald J. Trump's demand for "law and order" and a series of other political calculations got in the way.
Senate Republicans divided on the wisdom of reducing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Other Republicans, unhappy that President Obama was reducing hundreds of federal prison sentences on his own, did not want to give him a legacy victory. A surge in crime in some urban areas gave opponents of the legislation a new argument.
Now, the Senate authors of the legislation say it is effectively dead.
"I do believe it is over," said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No .2 Democrat in the Senate, who put considerable effort into difficult negotiations with Republicans to strike a compromise. "We missed an opportunity."
I agree with Senator Durbin that the Senate missed an opportunity -- an opportunity to multiply the Wendell Callahan scandal and endanger the country.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, is turning 83 on Saturday and he celebrated in his favorite way: by running six miles.
The senator traditionally runs from his townhouse in Arlington, Va., to the Capitol on his birthday, The Des Moines Register reported in 2014. On Thursday morning, he posted a photo on Instagram of his running watch showing that he ran 6.23 miles in an hour and 31 minutes. That's a little bit under 15 minutes a mile. At almost 83 years old.
A former Ohio mayor indicted on rape charges reportedly confessed that he had sex with a child -- a young girl, who, the man claimed, was a willing participant.
Court records filed Monday describe conversations in which Richard Keenan -- who briefly served as the mayor of Hubbard -- talked to several people, including his wife and a pastor, about alleged assaults that occurred over the course of two years, beginning in 2013, when the girl was 4.
The 65-year-old Keenan, who once described himself as a man of faith, was indicted last month on eight counts of gross sexual imposition, eight counts of rape and four counts of attempted rape.
Remember this when someone claiming to be "a man of faith" starts holding forth on, say, the immorality of the death penalty. Faith is (in my personal opinion) a constructive and sometimes miraculous force, but it does not, in this country, have any additional weight in arguments about secular law.
President Obama has charted new levels of executive defiance, but even he hasn't refused to obey a Supreme Court ruling. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has sought to follow Mr. Obama's executive hubris, and now he's gone further and is acting in contempt of the court that has rebuked him.
In July the Virginia Supreme Court struck down his executive order restoring voting rights to 206,000 felons. Under Virginia law the Governor can grant clemency on an individual basis. But the justices wrote that "Governor McAuliffe's assertion of 'absolute' power to issue his executive order" runs "afoul of the separation-of-powers principle" in the Virginia constitution. The individual clemency power, the court admonished, "does not mean he can effectively rewrite the general rule of law."
Mr. McAuliffe replied that he "cannot accept" the ruling...He has since acted on his defiance by restoring rights to some 13,000 felons who had already registered to vote when the state Supreme Court's decision invalidated his executive order.
If anyone on the Left has denounced McAuliffe for his open defiance of the rule of law, I haven't heard about it. But being pro-criminal in Leftist culture means never having to say you're sorry, court order or no court order.