Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission Publishes Report on Mandatory Minimums: Yesterday at Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posted portions of Riley Yates' article discussing the Pennsylvania Commission's study on the impact of mandatory minimums. Yates' piece, in Pennsylvania's The Morning Call, reports that the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission is now advocating that the state repeal its drug-free zone law and raise the threshold of cocaine needed to trigger enhanced penalties for trafficking from 2 to 5 grams. The Commission's recommendation is a break from the tough-on-crime laws enacted in the 1990s. Critics of these laws claim they are clogging prisons, breaking state budgets and failing to address the problems they aim to address. But prosecutors in Pennsylvania see things differently. Yates reports that Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli supports Pennsylvania's mandatory minimums because they are useful in reaching plea deals - which also save the states the cost of trial. Another Assistant District Attorney, Michele Kluk, also believes that in some cases mandatory minimums are appropriate in cases when the defendant is not willing to admit responsibility.
Justice Stevens Sees Himself as a "Judicial Conservative": Today at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr posts on Justice Stevens personal belief that he is a "judicial conservative." Kerr has posted his views on Justice Stevens' self-perception before. Back in 2007, Kerr opined that Justice Stevens may be referring to the beliefs of the 1960s and 1970s that judicial liberals "favored the courts bringing about dramatic changes to the foundations of American law," and "judicial conservatives were the folks who favored resisting those changes." Kerr then references this weekend's USA Today interview with the Justice, and his statement that "You can be a conservative by deciding cases narrowly and paying attention to (precedent)." Kerr thinks this comment "suggest[s] that," Justice Stevens may believe "a Justice could consistently vote to try to make the law more aligned with the views of political liberals, but as long as he did so mostly in relatively small steps and by 'paying attention' to precedent..."
Justice Stevens Sees Himself as a "Judicial Conservative": Today at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr posts on Justice Stevens personal belief that he is a "judicial conservative." Kerr has posted his views on Justice Stevens' self-perception before. Back in 2007, Kerr opined that Justice Stevens may be referring to the beliefs of the 1960s and 1970s that judicial liberals "favored the courts bringing about dramatic changes to the foundations of American law," and "judicial conservatives were the folks who favored resisting those changes." Kerr then references this weekend's USA Today interview with the Justice, and his statement that "You can be a conservative by deciding cases narrowly and paying attention to (precedent)." Kerr thinks this comment "suggest[s] that," Justice Stevens may believe "a Justice could consistently vote to try to make the law more aligned with the views of political liberals, but as long as he did so mostly in relatively small steps and by 'paying attention' to precedent..."
Leave a comment