New Article on "Race, Death and Disproportionality": At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts this link to Scott Howe's SSRN article discussing "racial bias in capital selection." Howe, of Chapman University School of Law, argues that the Eighth Amendment requires examination of "[s]tatistical studies showing unconscious racial bias in capital selection[.]" He seeks to show "why
statistical studies concerning race bias in capital selection have
limitations as proof but also strong suggestive power that some death
sentences amount to 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" He seeks to show how these studies will influence the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions in the future. Howe's article does not appear as though it will give much insight into what the Supreme Court will do with these studies. The Baldus study was rejected as grounds for overturning Georgia's death penalty in McCleskey v. Kemp because McCleskey had failed to show Georgia acted improperly, and with a discriminatory purpose, in his case.
Criticism of Sex Offender Article: On Sex Crimes yesterday, Corey Rayburn Yung posted a link to Wendy Murphy's opinion piece "Sex Offender Laws Flawed But Critical." In her op-ed, Murphy criticizes the Economist article, "America's Unjust Sex Laws," as a "puff piece about how sex offenders are treated unfairly and sex offender registries are barbaric." She writes that the Economist article did not reveal all of the relevant facts and "misse[d] the most important point of all - that the American legal system has historically perpetuated sexual violence by disproportionately failing to redress violence against women and children...." Yung agrees with Murphy that the American legal system has failed and continues to fail women and children in regards to sexual violence, but counters that because the problems in the the system are at the law enforcement and trial phases of criminal justice, increasing collateral restrictions on sex offenders does nothing to correct those deficiencies. In another, somewhat related post on sex offender registries, CrimProf Blog posts the lead-in to a New York Times article by Monica Davey on how the case of Phil Garrido, "Shows Limits of Sex Offender Alert Programs."
Supreme Court Retirement Speculation: At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on an Associated Press story that has bloggers wondering whether Justice Stevens will be retiring next year. Apparently, Justice Stevens has hired only one clerk for the October 2010 term, which contradicts his custom of hiring his full complement of four clerks for the term that begins a year hence. Mauro states that such speculation is often "inaccurate," but those who have clerked for the Justice in the past believe the move is telling, particularly since Justice Stevens will be 90 next year. Doug Berman also posts on the story at Sentencing Law and Policy, as does Jan Crawford Greenburg at Legalities. Greenburg points out that the reporter who broke the story, Mark Sherman, is the same reporter who let us know in April that Justice Souter hadn't hired any new clerks for the October 2009 term.
Off topic News Article on Unlikely Amicus Bedfellows: On Saturday New York Times writer Adam Liptak reported on the Supreme Court's decision to hear a new argument in the First Amendment case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Arguments are scheduled for September 9th. The case centers around "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary prepared by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United. The issue is whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers. Liptak reports that the court's order calling for re-argument "has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs," and has the ACLU aligned - surprisingly - with the National Rifle Association. The ACLU's usual allies have taken a different stance, arguing that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse. According to Liptak, the strange ACLU-NRA alliance comes from the ACLU's long supported position that regulation of corporate campaign spending may violate the First Amendment. He reports several others in the civil rights community disagree with this position.
Criticism of Sex Offender Article: On Sex Crimes yesterday, Corey Rayburn Yung posted a link to Wendy Murphy's opinion piece "Sex Offender Laws Flawed But Critical." In her op-ed, Murphy criticizes the Economist article, "America's Unjust Sex Laws," as a "puff piece about how sex offenders are treated unfairly and sex offender registries are barbaric." She writes that the Economist article did not reveal all of the relevant facts and "misse[d] the most important point of all - that the American legal system has historically perpetuated sexual violence by disproportionately failing to redress violence against women and children...." Yung agrees with Murphy that the American legal system has failed and continues to fail women and children in regards to sexual violence, but counters that because the problems in the the system are at the law enforcement and trial phases of criminal justice, increasing collateral restrictions on sex offenders does nothing to correct those deficiencies. In another, somewhat related post on sex offender registries, CrimProf Blog posts the lead-in to a New York Times article by Monica Davey on how the case of Phil Garrido, "Shows Limits of Sex Offender Alert Programs."
Supreme Court Retirement Speculation: At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports on an Associated Press story that has bloggers wondering whether Justice Stevens will be retiring next year. Apparently, Justice Stevens has hired only one clerk for the October 2010 term, which contradicts his custom of hiring his full complement of four clerks for the term that begins a year hence. Mauro states that such speculation is often "inaccurate," but those who have clerked for the Justice in the past believe the move is telling, particularly since Justice Stevens will be 90 next year. Doug Berman also posts on the story at Sentencing Law and Policy, as does Jan Crawford Greenburg at Legalities. Greenburg points out that the reporter who broke the story, Mark Sherman, is the same reporter who let us know in April that Justice Souter hadn't hired any new clerks for the October 2009 term.
Off topic News Article on Unlikely Amicus Bedfellows: On Saturday New York Times writer Adam Liptak reported on the Supreme Court's decision to hear a new argument in the First Amendment case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Arguments are scheduled for September 9th. The case centers around "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary prepared by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United. The issue is whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers. Liptak reports that the court's order calling for re-argument "has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs," and has the ACLU aligned - surprisingly - with the National Rifle Association. The ACLU's usual allies have taken a different stance, arguing that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse. According to Liptak, the strange ACLU-NRA alliance comes from the ACLU's long supported position that regulation of corporate campaign spending may violate the First Amendment. He reports several others in the civil rights community disagree with this position.
Leave a comment