Federal Judge Blocks LA Gang Injunctions: Twenty-one years after the California Supreme Court upheld the use of public nuisance injunctions to clear street gangs from residential neighborhoods, a federal district judge has blocked them until she rules on a pending lawsuit by the ACLU which claims the injunctions are unconstitutional. James Queally of the Los Angeles Times reports that Chief U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips is the first judge to block the injunctions since there were initiated in the late 1980s to prevent street gangs from claiming neighborhoods as their "turf", blocking streets, blasting music, breaking into cars and intimidating residents. By declaring specified members of a gang a public nuisance and prohibiting them from congregating in a particular neighborhood, the injunctions gave police the authority to detain, question, search and arrest gang members. The use of these injunctions had a dramatic impact on the quality of life in former gang-infested neighborhoods, reducing crime and restoring piece for those who lived in them. In 1995, CJLF filed an amicus brief in Gallo v. Acuna, encouraging Cailfornia's highest court to reject an ACLU challenge to the use of an injunction to drive a gang out of the San Jose neighborhood of Rocksprings. After the court upheld the injunction, the Los Angeles City Attorney began a successful effort to secure similar injunctions for many LA neighborhoods. The city may appeal Judge Phillips' order.
Long Knives Out For Sentencing Commission Pick: The Marshall Project, a New York based nonprofit that campaigns for pro-defendant sentencing policy, is vigorously opposing the appointment of Georgetown Law Professor William Otis to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In a piece released yesterday, Justin George writes that "Otis' nomination......is regarded by critics as putting a fox in the henhouse." Otis's support for mandatory minimums puts him at odds with "most researchers" who, while acknowledging that they have "played some role" in reducing crime, came at a high cost in dollars, damaged communities and racial inequity. He leaves out the hundreds of thousands of fewer crime victims due to progressive sentencing over the last 20 years. Among the largest beneficiaries were law abiding people of color.
Long Knives Out For Sentencing Commission Pick: The Marshall Project, a New York based nonprofit that campaigns for pro-defendant sentencing policy, is vigorously opposing the appointment of Georgetown Law Professor William Otis to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In a piece released yesterday, Justin George writes that "Otis' nomination......is regarded by critics as putting a fox in the henhouse." Otis's support for mandatory minimums puts him at odds with "most researchers" who, while acknowledging that they have "played some role" in reducing crime, came at a high cost in dollars, damaged communities and racial inequity. He leaves out the hundreds of thousands of fewer crime victims due to progressive sentencing over the last 20 years. Among the largest beneficiaries were law abiding people of color.
The credibility of the Marshall Project is near zero. A recent article called the "Recidivism Trap" exemplifies:
Marshall seeks to define the time-honored measure of recidivism (staying free of crime following a CJ intervention) out of existence implying that it is a nasty standard too difficult to meet.
Instead, they suggest lowering the standard to one of desistance. This is the more convenient concept that pats the CJ system on the back if an offender who has a robbery history starts committing thefts or other offenses or a burglar who reduces his crime rate from 5 crimes a year to only one burglary.
This is the mindset that opposes Bill Otis' nomination and unfortunately holds sway in much of the progressive media.