Does Knowing the Costs of the Death Penalty Change Anyone's Mind About Supporting Capital Punishment?: Last Friday, Doug Berman wondered on Sentencing Law and Policy whether it was "true that nobody's view on the death penalty can be influenced by its costs?" Berman's post was reacting to a piece in the Lincoln Journal Star by JoAnneYoung's reporting that the Nebraska legislature had failed to authorize a $50,000
study of what it costs to have a death penalty in Nebraska. Apparently, the Nebraska legislature failed to authorize a bill that would have approved the study, even though the cost of capital punishment in Nebraska has never been studied. Omaha Senator Brenda Council, an opponent of capital punishment, introduced the LB 1105, but it was rejected 22 - 22, last Thursday. One Senator, and capital punishment supporter, Scott Lautenbaugh, stated that no matter what a study showed, it would not change minds about the
death penalty in the Nebraska Legislature, which is solidly in favor of
capital punishment. While Berman disagrees with Lautenbaugh, and sees value in conducting the study, Lautenbaugh's belief that a study won't change anyone's mind has some merit. Our experience with these studies is that they are usually captured by people with an agenda who produce an inflated estimate and do not look critically at what costs are actually necessary.
President Obama Uses Recess Appointment Power: At Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram reports on the President's decision to use his recess appointment power to appoint 15 stalled nominees. Ingram's post provides a list of recess appointments, including Alan D. Bersin, Governor Schwarzenegger's former-Secretary of Education, for the Department of Homeland Security. Ingram also reports that "[n]ot included in the list are several nominees for the U. S. Department of Justice, including Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University at Bloomington, for the Office of Legal Counsel." Jonathan Adler follows up today with a post on Volokh Conspiracy, discussing whether the President's appointments were prompted by Chief Justice John Roberts. Apparently, during last Tuesday's arguments in New Process Steel v. NLRB, the Chief Justice asked why the recess appointment power could not be used if the National Labor Board were reduced to a single number. Adler doubts that the exchange had much to do with the Obama administration's decision.
Legal Team Divided Over Anti-Terror Tactics: On Volokh Conspiracy, Kenneth Anderson points to a piece in today's New York Times reporting that the "lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of legal briefs." The article, by Charlie Savage, reports that lawyers cannot agree on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. On March 13, 2009, the Justice Department modestly proposed that the president be able to "detain without trial only people who were part of Al Qaeda or its affiliates, or their 'substantial' supporters." "But behind closed doors," some members "criticized the notion that the United States could also consider mere supporters, arrested far away, to be just as detainable without trial as enemy fighters." The debate has been furthered by a ruling from appeals court judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett M. Kavanaugh that declared that the laws of armed conflict did not limit the president's war powers.
Geography of Criminal Behavior: At CrimProf Blog, Kevin Cole posts a link to Adam Benforado's SSRN article discussing the "unappreciated but vital parallels, connections, and patterns concerning the ways in which physical space - and the meanings that we attach to spatial elements - affect (1) the proximate decision to commit a crime, (2) the likelihood a given person will become a criminal, (3) the experience of victimization, (4) the way in which policing is conducted, (5) what a crime is and how it is prosecuted, and (6) the consequences of being convicted."
President Obama Uses Recess Appointment Power: At Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram reports on the President's decision to use his recess appointment power to appoint 15 stalled nominees. Ingram's post provides a list of recess appointments, including Alan D. Bersin, Governor Schwarzenegger's former-Secretary of Education, for the Department of Homeland Security. Ingram also reports that "[n]ot included in the list are several nominees for the U. S. Department of Justice, including Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University at Bloomington, for the Office of Legal Counsel." Jonathan Adler follows up today with a post on Volokh Conspiracy, discussing whether the President's appointments were prompted by Chief Justice John Roberts. Apparently, during last Tuesday's arguments in New Process Steel v. NLRB, the Chief Justice asked why the recess appointment power could not be used if the National Labor Board were reduced to a single number. Adler doubts that the exchange had much to do with the Obama administration's decision.
Legal Team Divided Over Anti-Terror Tactics: On Volokh Conspiracy, Kenneth Anderson points to a piece in today's New York Times reporting that the "lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of legal briefs." The article, by Charlie Savage, reports that lawyers cannot agree on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. On March 13, 2009, the Justice Department modestly proposed that the president be able to "detain without trial only people who were part of Al Qaeda or its affiliates, or their 'substantial' supporters." "But behind closed doors," some members "criticized the notion that the United States could also consider mere supporters, arrested far away, to be just as detainable without trial as enemy fighters." The debate has been furthered by a ruling from appeals court judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett M. Kavanaugh that declared that the laws of armed conflict did not limit the president's war powers.
Geography of Criminal Behavior: At CrimProf Blog, Kevin Cole posts a link to Adam Benforado's SSRN article discussing the "unappreciated but vital parallels, connections, and patterns concerning the ways in which physical space - and the meanings that we attach to spatial elements - affect (1) the proximate decision to commit a crime, (2) the likelihood a given person will become a criminal, (3) the experience of victimization, (4) the way in which policing is conducted, (5) what a crime is and how it is prosecuted, and (6) the consequences of being convicted."
Leave a comment