Indefinite Detention Proposed to White House: In a Politico.com article Josh Gerstein reports that the White House might consider endorsing a law that would allow for indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists. According to Senator Lindsey Graham (R - S.C.) this law seeks to alleviate some of the pressures created by the deadlock in Congress over President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Last summer, White House officials said they had ruled out seeking a "preventive detention" statute as a way to deal with anti-terror detainees, saying the administration would hold any Guantanamo prisoners brought to the U.S. in criminal courts or under the general "law of war" principles permitting detention of enemy combatants. Asked whether the White House is again considering a preventive detention statute, spokesman Ben LaBolt said: "Senator Graham has expressed interest in habeas reform and other policy ideas. We will review constructive proposals from Senator Graham and other Members of Congress that are consistent with the national security imperative that we close Guanatanamo and ensure the swift and certain justice the families of victimes have long deserved."
"Justice Kennedy on Prisons": The New York Times posted an editorial today commenting on Justice Anthony Kennedy's criticism of California's excessive prison sentences and its three-strikes law. In an address to Pepperdine University law students, Justice Kennedy took special aim at the three-strikes law, which puts people behind bars for 25 years to life if they commit a third felony, even a nonviolent one. The editorial praises Justice Kennedy's criticism, but then argues "[m]uch of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme Court which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote." In Ewing v. California, parolee, Gary Ewing, was sentenced to 25 years to life for shoplifting three golf clubs from a golf pro shop. He had previously been convicted of four serious or violent felonies. Mr. Ewing challenged his sentence before the Supreme Court as a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Kennedy in the majority, the court rejected the challenge. Interestingly, Justice Kennedy joined O'Connor's opinion in Ewing. That opinion found that Ewing's sentence was justified by California's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and that the sentence was amply supported by Ewing's long, serious criminal record. Ewing been convicted of numerous offenses, served nine separate prison terms, and committed most of his crimes while on probation or parole. CJLF's brief for Ewing is available here.
With its "blame" comment, the NYT is characteristically clueless on the distinction between agreeing with a statute as a matter of policy and holding that it lies within the power of the people to enact.
"Justice Kennedy on Prisons": The New York Times posted an editorial today commenting on Justice Anthony Kennedy's criticism of California's excessive prison sentences and its three-strikes law. In an address to Pepperdine University law students, Justice Kennedy took special aim at the three-strikes law, which puts people behind bars for 25 years to life if they commit a third felony, even a nonviolent one. The editorial praises Justice Kennedy's criticism, but then argues "[m]uch of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme Court which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote." In Ewing v. California, parolee, Gary Ewing, was sentenced to 25 years to life for shoplifting three golf clubs from a golf pro shop. He had previously been convicted of four serious or violent felonies. Mr. Ewing challenged his sentence before the Supreme Court as a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Kennedy in the majority, the court rejected the challenge. Interestingly, Justice Kennedy joined O'Connor's opinion in Ewing. That opinion found that Ewing's sentence was justified by California's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and that the sentence was amply supported by Ewing's long, serious criminal record. Ewing been convicted of numerous offenses, served nine separate prison terms, and committed most of his crimes while on probation or parole. CJLF's brief for Ewing is available here.
With its "blame" comment, the NYT is characteristically clueless on the distinction between agreeing with a statute as a matter of policy and holding that it lies within the power of the people to enact.
Leave a comment