"Adult Time for Adult Crimes": That's the title of David L. Hudson Jr.'s ABA Journal article on Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida. Hudson's article discusses whether the Supreme Court will decide that its reasoning in Roper v. Simmons - that juvenile defendants are fundamentally different from adult defendants - extends from the death penalty to life without parole. The article quotes representatives from several of the groups that authored amicus briefs for the cases, including CJLF's Kent Scheidegger. CJLF's amicus brief in Graham and Sullivan can be found here - our thoughts on Roper begin on page 12.
Resentencing a "Good" Prisoner: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts on a Wichita, Kansas hearing that could lead to a longer sentence for convicted nurse Linda Kaufman. Kaufman and her husband were convicted in 2006 of defrauding and abusing the mentally ill residents of the home where she worked and provided care. Kaufman was sentenced to seven years, but now U.S. District Judge Monti Belot is reconsidering factors that could lengthen the seven-year prison sentence he originally imposed on Kaufman. Yesterday, in a two hour hearing one of the home's victim's stated Kaufman should be resentenced and held accountable for what happened there. Kaufman, on the other hand, argued that she did not deserve a longer sentence because she has done a lot of volunteer activities and coexisted peacefully with other inmates. In his post on the case, Berman wonders "whether readers think Linda Kaufman's positive behavior while incarcerated can (or should or must) be a significant consideration in her resentencing in light of Booker and the terms of 3553(a)[?]"
Crime Spending and Social Costs: Mark Kleiman continues his guest-blogging on Volokh Conspiracy with a post on "Benefits and costs: crime, crime avoidance, crime control." In his post, Kleiman argues that society's crime-avoidance behavior - placing deadbolts on doors, moving to low-crime neighborhoods - "impose costs on others beyond shifting crime risk." He believes this behavior sustains concentrated poverty, and that we can better control crime if we spend money on providing "services, where it works," instead of using threats or imposing punishment. Kleiman's post is interesting in that he initially points out that we are self-serving creatures (we choose to place alarms on our houses even when it may mean our neighbor gets robbed), but then goes on to infer that we cannot effectively deter crime by imposing harsh punishments or threatening offenders. Aren't offenders self-serving creatures too?
Resentencing a "Good" Prisoner: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts on a Wichita, Kansas hearing that could lead to a longer sentence for convicted nurse Linda Kaufman. Kaufman and her husband were convicted in 2006 of defrauding and abusing the mentally ill residents of the home where she worked and provided care. Kaufman was sentenced to seven years, but now U.S. District Judge Monti Belot is reconsidering factors that could lengthen the seven-year prison sentence he originally imposed on Kaufman. Yesterday, in a two hour hearing one of the home's victim's stated Kaufman should be resentenced and held accountable for what happened there. Kaufman, on the other hand, argued that she did not deserve a longer sentence because she has done a lot of volunteer activities and coexisted peacefully with other inmates. In his post on the case, Berman wonders "whether readers think Linda Kaufman's positive behavior while incarcerated can (or should or must) be a significant consideration in her resentencing in light of Booker and the terms of 3553(a)[?]"
Crime Spending and Social Costs: Mark Kleiman continues his guest-blogging on Volokh Conspiracy with a post on "Benefits and costs: crime, crime avoidance, crime control." In his post, Kleiman argues that society's crime-avoidance behavior - placing deadbolts on doors, moving to low-crime neighborhoods - "impose costs on others beyond shifting crime risk." He believes this behavior sustains concentrated poverty, and that we can better control crime if we spend money on providing "services, where it works," instead of using threats or imposing punishment. Kleiman's post is interesting in that he initially points out that we are self-serving creatures (we choose to place alarms on our houses even when it may mean our neighbor gets robbed), but then goes on to infer that we cannot effectively deter crime by imposing harsh punishments or threatening offenders. Aren't offenders self-serving creatures too?
Leave a comment