former south dakota governor bill janklow was convicted of felony second-degree manslaughter and misdemeanors for reckless driving, speeding, and running a stop sign in january 2004. “wild bill” had long boasted about his speeding and had amassed numerous citations, but this time he sped through a stop sign and his cadillac struck and killed motorcyclist randy scott.

in addition to paying a fine, janklow served 100 days in jail and resigned his seat in the u.s. house. i’m writing about him now because the south dakota supreme court decided this month to reinstate his law license. judge glen severson, writing for the high court:

“While there are public concerns regarding Janklow’s driving, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the public needs protection from Janklow’s conduct as an attorney.”

that’s the funny thing about occupational sanctions that apply broadly to all felons — they often have very little to do with public safety. in california, felons are barred from some 261 job titles. in new york, ineligible occupations include barber shop owner, boxer/wrestler, commercial feed distributor, and emergency medical technician. in florida, the list includes acupuncturist, speech-language pathologist, and cosmetologist. most convicted cosmetologists, of course, lack the means to mount an appeal to the state supreme court. one st. paul pioneer press reader reacted to janklow’s story this way:

Different standard for Janklow?
I read with interest the Jan. 6 story about former South Dakota lawmaker Bill Janklow’s triumph over adversity (“Janklow can resume his law practice”). We should all remember that this comes after being convicted for offenses resulting in a motorcyclist’s death. By contrast, an acquaintance was fired from his job as a car mechanic and was told that he couldn’t pick up a wrench for five years, provided his record remained clean. His sin? Driving while drunk. There is no defense for this behavior from anyone. I will point out, however, that Janklow has been allowed to restart his practice although he hasn’t completed his probation — all before my friend can change your oil. How many standards do we have?
PATRICK QUINN

the felons that i interviewed argued for more narrowly-tailored collateral sanctions — in housing, receipt of public assistance, student aid, voting rights, parental rights, and firearms rights in addition to occupational restrictions. for example, some would ask “what did my assault conviction have to do with voting? i could see losing my vote if i tried to rig an election or something.” janklow’s lawyers made the same argument — what did his manslaughter conviction have to do with lawyering? the standard answer, made by supporters such as george will, is that felons have shown themselves to be “untrustworthy” citizens and therefore blanket restrictions are merited. yet this logic is pushed to absurdity by the dizzying array of lifetime bans imposed on felons.

if i could reinvent the parole and prisoner reentry process, i’d like to see all collateral sanctions imposed on a case-by-case basis in a reentry court. if someone has been convicted of molesting children, then it makes good sense to restrict them from occupations (such as school bus driver) in which they have access to children. i would similarly restrict mr. janklow from driving a school bus, but would likely be sympathetic to his desire to practice law or to pick up a wrench as a mechanic once he has served his sentence. under the current system, only those felons with the information, time, and resources to mount a clemency drive will ever see their rights restored.

i posted recently about my preference for indeterminate sentences (warts n’ all) over mandatory minimums. frankly, one can find egregious miscarriages of Justice under every sentencing scheme. nevertheless, the federal drug laws take the cake. here’s the latest from law.com.

david powell, a 32-year-old with an IQ of 72, was sentenced to life-without-parole for distributing crack. he had two “nickel and dime” drug possession convictions at 16 and 17, which required judge david hurd of new york to lock him up forever on his third drug conviction. as appears to be the case for mr. powell, the full weight of such mandatories often falls upon the “mules” rather than the “kingpins.” the only way powell could have avoided a life sentence would have been to provide “substantial assistance” to the prosecution. as a small-timer, however, he couldn’t offer anything (or, more precisely, anybody) of prosecutorial value. here’s how judge hurd sees it:

“The increment of harm in this case bears no rational relationship to the increment of punishment that I must impose,” Hurd said at a sentencing proceeding last week in Utica, N.Y. “This is what occurs when Congress sets [a] mandatory minimum sentence which distorts the entire judicial process… . As a result, I am obligated to and will now impose this unfair and, more important, unjust sentence.”

aside from inJustice, such policies are expensive. although old dudes are generally much less dangerous than young dudes, it costs a lot more to lock them up. in particular, generations of californians will pay sizable medical costs for the aging prison population delivered by that state’s two- and three-strike sentencing policies. here are some conservative* back-of-the-envelope calculations from the sentencing project:

Assuming that a typical lifer is sentenced at the age of 30 and will live until 70, we can estimate conservatively that incarceration costs of $20,000 a year from age 30 to age 60 will total $600,000. From age 60 to 70, costs are conservatively at least $40,000 a year, yielding a total lifetime cost of $1 million.

whatever you think of mr. powell’s crimes, do we really need to spend a million dollars on him? and these costs don’t even consider his lost productivity over the next forty years — when he could be paying social security and income taxes. there’s a nice RAND cost effectiveness analysis by jonathon caulkins and colleagues that attempts to account for some of these complexities. here is the authors’ bottom line:

a million dollars spent extending sentences to mandatory minimum lengths would reduce cocaine consumption less than would a million dollars spent on the pre-mandatory-minimum mix of arrests, prosecution, and sentencing. Neither would reduce cocaine consumption or cocaine-related crime as much as spending a million dollars treating heavy users.

*i characterize these estimates as conservative because $20k and $40k are lower than anything else i’ve seen. it varies by jurisdiction, but i’d guess that $25k and $65k would be closer to the mark in the federal system.

i posted recently about my preference for indeterminate sentences (warts n’ all) over mandatory minimums. frankly, one can find egregious miscarriages of Justice under every sentencing scheme. nevertheless, the federal drug laws take the cake. here’s the latest from law.com.

david powell, a 32-year-old with an IQ of 72, was sentenced to life-without-parole for distributing crack. he had two “nickel and dime” drug possession convictions at 16 and 17, which required judge david hurd of new york to lock him up forever on his third drug conviction. as appears to be the case for mr. powell, the full weight of such mandatories often falls upon the “mules” rather than the “kingpins.” the only way powell could have avoided a life sentence would have been to provide “substantial assistance” to the prosecution. as a small-timer, however, he couldn’t offer anything (or, more precisely, anybody) of prosecutorial value. here’s how judge hurd sees it:

“The increment of harm in this case bears no rational relationship to the increment of punishment that I must impose,” Hurd said at a sentencing proceeding last week in Utica, N.Y. “This is what occurs when Congress sets [a] mandatory minimum sentence which distorts the entire judicial process… . As a result, I am obligated to and will now impose this unfair and, more important, unjust sentence.”

aside from inJustice, such policies are expensive. although old dudes are generally much less dangerous than young dudes, it costs a lot more to lock them up. in particular, generations of californians will pay sizable medical costs for the aging prison population delivered by that state’s two- and three-strike sentencing policies. here are some conservative* back-of-the-envelope calculations from the sentencing project:

Assuming that a typical lifer is sentenced at the age of 30 and will live until 70, we can estimate conservatively that incarceration costs of $20,000 a year from age 30 to age 60 will total $600,000. From age 60 to 70, costs are conservatively at least $40,000 a year, yielding a total lifetime cost of $1 million.

whatever you think of mr. powell’s crimes, do we really need to spend a million dollars on him? and these costs don’t even consider his lost productivity over the next forty years — when he could be paying social security and income taxes. there’s a nice RAND cost effectiveness analysis by jonathon caulkins and colleagues that attempts to account for some of these complexities. here is the authors’ bottom line:

a million dollars spent extending sentences to mandatory minimum lengths would reduce cocaine consumption less than would a million dollars spent on the pre-mandatory-minimum mix of arrests, prosecution, and sentencing. Neither would reduce cocaine consumption or cocaine-related crime as much as spending a million dollars treating heavy users.

*i characterize these estimates as conservative because $20k and $40k are lower than anything else i’ve seen. it varies by jurisdiction, but i’d guess that $25k and $65k would be closer to the mark in the federal system.

one could devote several blogs to the moral panic surrounding people convicted of sex crimes. the stories are depressing, frustrating, and creepy on many levels, so i don’t often follow up on them. but this story, sent by the blog muse last week, and this one from the weekend really caught my eye. i’ve italicized for emphasis in both excerpts.

GOV PUSHES NEW PRISON FOR PERVS by KENNETH LOVETT New York Post January 11, 2006

ALBANY – The state will build a “pervert prison” , a special maximum-security facility for the most dangerous sex offenders, it was announced yesterday. Gov. Pataki yesterday said the facility is needed to confine 500 convicted sex predators considered too likely to strike again to let back on the streets after their prison terms are over…

Frustrated that the Democrat-controlled Assembly repeatedly blocked civil-confinement legislation, Pataki late last year ordered his administration to “push the envelope” in keeping sex offenders deemed dangerous locked up by using existing law pertaining to the involuntary commitment the mentally ill.

Creating a new facility, which would open in 2009, would allow the mental-health system to keep dangerous sex offenders whose prison terms expire away from nonviolent mentally ill patients, Pataki said.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the governor is “putting the cart before the horse” since the state does not yet have a civil-confinement law on the books. “It’s interesting he’s prepared to spend money to build yet another prison, but not engage in the kind of evaluation, monitoring, supervision and treatment of high-risk offenders that all the experts agree can significantly reduce the risk or incidents of reoffense,” Lieberman said.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the sex offenders now in mental facilities were grilled yesterday by the panel of Manhattan appellate-division judges who are deciding on the constitutionality of the civil commitments. The inmates’ lawyers argue that Pataki is doing an end run around the corrections commitment procedures by having the inmates’ dangerousness evaluated by state doctors – essentially the governor’s own shills. [emphasis added].

okay, i know the story comes from the post, but here’s what catches my eye as a sociologist and criminologist:

1. dehumanizing language – isn’t the term “sex offender” stigmatizing enough? does the post really need to refer to individuals convicted of sexual crimes as “pervs” or perverts? the term is gratuitous and really imprecise to boot.

2. “after their prison terms are over” – the proposed prison is not for people serving prison sentences, but for those who have already done their time. this sort of do-over for the state has generally withstood constitutional scrutiny for sex offenders, but i’m skeptical that it would for anyone else. as the nyclu points out, states could provide evaluation, treatment, and supervision of sex offenders while they are under criminal sentences.

3. “allow the mental health system” – mental health treatment does not appear to be the primary (or secondary or tertiary) motivation here. sex offenders are deemed mentally ill because they are perceived as dangerous and the mental health system offers another avenue for incapacitating them. i would prefer to see long prison sentences of indeterminate duration, rather than a transfer of authority to the mental health system at the conclusion of a shorter sentence.

4. “push the envelope” – governor pataki must be hearkening back to his days as a top gun fighter pilot here. in this case, it sounds as though the “envelope” is the constitutional protections typically afforded criminal defendants. [what else could he mean here?]

5. “evaluated by state doctors” – however well-intentioned, one could easily imagine abuse potential in a system with no independent evaluation of dangerousness.

perhaps this is me just being paranoid — too much huxley and orwell in middle school or something. are my fears of abuse exaggerated? if so, it is tough to explain a case reported by the minneapolis strib yesterday. in recent years, minnesota has dramatically expanded its use of civil commitment proceedings for “sexually dangerous persons.” today the net has widened to the point that it captures people who were never even charged with sex crimes.

Dwayne Peterson, 25, of Mankato, Minn., has never been convicted of a sex offense or even charged with one. But after completing a prison term for kidnapping a 78-year-old man at gunpoint in 2001, he now sits in the Security Hospital in St. Peter pending civil court proceedings to commit him indefinitely to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person. Peterson wouldn’t be the first of the nearly 300 men confined under the program — from which no one has ever been permanently released — to be committed without a prior sex-crime conviction. [emphasis added]

at age 25, mr. peterson has completed his court-imposed sentence. it is no exaggeration to say that he may now spend the rest of his life behind bars for a crime that was never even brought to trial. if the allegations (of sexual activity with boys) had been brought to trial, he would almost certainly be acquitted. according to his attorney, there are “no corroborating victim-witnesses for Peterson’s accounts.”

in minnesota, as in new york, i remain convinced that the goals of such commitment proceedings are incapacitation and retribution rather than rehabilitation or treatment. the fact that none of the 300 men confined under the program has ever been released suggests as much, though i should point out that i am no expert on the inner workings of this system and have never even visited these facilities. nevertheless, i have to ask whether it is good public policy to transfer authority from the criminal Justice system to the mental health system in such cases.

just to be clear, i am not suggesting lighter sentences for sex offenders. i’m just as creeped out by the lurid description of sex crimes reported in these stories as everyone else. but i’m also creeped out by the hopeless constitutional no-man’s land in which we place individuals convicted of these acts — or simply suspected of these acts, in the case of mr. peterson. personally, i’m a believer in old-school discretionary parole and indeterminate sentences within the criminal Justice system. some will turn out much longer and some will turn out much shorter than the current mandatories. this system was also subject to abuse, of course, but it seems subject to greater reform and oversight than the far slipperier civil commitment procedures we employ today.

one could devote several blogs to the moral panic surrounding people convicted of sex crimes. the stories are depressing, frustrating, and creepy on many levels, so i don’t often follow up on them. but this story, sent by the blog muse last week, and this one from the weekend really caught my eye. i’ve italicized for emphasis in both excerpts.

GOV PUSHES NEW PRISON FOR PERVS by KENNETH LOVETT New York Post January 11, 2006

ALBANY – The state will build a “pervert prison” , a special maximum-security facility for the most dangerous sex offenders, it was announced yesterday. Gov. Pataki yesterday said the facility is needed to confine 500 convicted sex predators considered too likely to strike again to let back on the streets after their prison terms are over…

Frustrated that the Democrat-controlled Assembly repeatedly blocked civil-confinement legislation, Pataki late last year ordered his administration to “push the envelope” in keeping sex offenders deemed dangerous locked up by using existing law pertaining to the involuntary commitment the mentally ill.

Creating a new facility, which would open in 2009, would allow the mental-health system to keep dangerous sex offenders whose prison terms expire away from nonviolent mentally ill patients, Pataki said.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the governor is “putting the cart before the horse” since the state does not yet have a civil-confinement law on the books. “It’s interesting he’s prepared to spend money to build yet another prison, but not engage in the kind of evaluation, monitoring, supervision and treatment of high-risk offenders that all the experts agree can significantly reduce the risk or incidents of reoffense,” Lieberman said.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the sex offenders now in mental facilities were grilled yesterday by the panel of Manhattan appellate-division judges who are deciding on the constitutionality of the civil commitments. The inmates’ lawyers argue that Pataki is doing an end run around the corrections commitment procedures by having the inmates’ dangerousness evaluated by state doctors – essentially the governor’s own shills. [emphasis added].

okay, i know the story comes from the post, but here’s what catches my eye as a sociologist and criminologist:

1. dehumanizing language – isn’t the term “sex offender” stigmatizing enough? does the post really need to refer to individuals convicted of sexual crimes as “pervs” or perverts? the term is gratuitous and really imprecise to boot.

2. “after their prison terms are over” – the proposed prison is not for people serving prison sentences, but for those who have already done their time. this sort of do-over for the state has generally withstood constitutional scrutiny for sex offenders, but i’m skeptical that it would for anyone else. as the nyclu points out, states could provide evaluation, treatment, and supervision of sex offenders while they are under criminal sentences.

3. “allow the mental health system” – mental health treatment does not appear to be the primary (or secondary or tertiary) motivation here. sex offenders are deemed mentally ill because they are perceived as dangerous and the mental health system offers another avenue for incapacitating them. i would prefer to see long prison sentences of indeterminate duration, rather than a transfer of authority to the mental health system at the conclusion of a shorter sentence.

4. “push the envelope” – governor pataki must be hearkening back to his days as a top gun fighter pilot here. in this case, it sounds as though the “envelope” is the constitutional protections typically afforded criminal defendants. [what else could he mean here?]

5. “evaluated by state doctors” – however well-intentioned, one could easily imagine abuse potential in a system with no independent evaluation of dangerousness.

perhaps this is me just being paranoid — too much huxley and orwell in middle school or something. are my fears of abuse exaggerated? if so, it is tough to explain a case reported by the minneapolis strib yesterday. in recent years, minnesota has dramatically expanded its use of civil commitment proceedings for “sexually dangerous persons.” today the net has widened to the point that it captures people who were never even charged with sex crimes.

Dwayne Peterson, 25, of Mankato, Minn., has never been convicted of a sex offense or even charged with one. But after completing a prison term for kidnapping a 78-year-old man at gunpoint in 2001, he now sits in the Security Hospital in St. Peter pending civil court proceedings to commit him indefinitely to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person. Peterson wouldn’t be the first of the nearly 300 men confined under the program — from which no one has ever been permanently released — to be committed without a prior sex-crime conviction. [emphasis added]

at age 25, mr. peterson has completed his court-imposed sentence. it is no exaggeration to say that he may now spend the rest of his life behind bars for a crime that was never even brought to trial. if the allegations (of sexual activity with boys) had been brought to trial, he would almost certainly be acquitted. according to his attorney, there are “no corroborating victim-witnesses for Peterson’s accounts.”

in minnesota, as in new york, i remain convinced that the goals of such commitment proceedings are incapacitation and retribution rather than rehabilitation or treatment. the fact that none of the 300 men confined under the program has ever been released suggests as much, though i should point out that i am no expert on the inner workings of this system and have never even visited these facilities. nevertheless, i have to ask whether it is good public policy to transfer authority from the criminal Justice system to the mental health system in such cases.

just to be clear, i am not suggesting lighter sentences for sex offenders. i’m just as creeped out by the lurid description of sex crimes reported in these stories as everyone else. but i’m also creeped out by the hopeless constitutional no-man’s land in which we place individuals convicted of these acts — or simply suspected of these acts, in the case of mr. peterson. personally, i’m a believer in old-school discretionary parole and indeterminate sentences within the criminal Justice system. some will turn out much longer and some will turn out much shorter than the current mandatories. this system was also subject to abuse, of course, but it seems subject to greater reform and oversight than the far slipperier civil commitment procedures we employ today.

rick ruddell sends word of voting in canadian prisons on friday. incarcerated citizens have been eligible to vote in that nation since 2002, when the supreme court of canada ruled that barring prisoners from voting was contrary to the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. according to ctv, about 25 percent of 35,000 eligible prisoners were expected to cast ballots.

the story quotes conservative leader steven harper as saying, “no, I don’t agree with prisoner voting.” manitoba inmate jeff power (shown in the ctv photo at left) shaved a maple leaf and liberal ‘L’ into the side of his head. “We’re all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote.”

here in the states, i’d imagine the republicans would adopt the canadian conservative position and the democrats would be … skittish. only maine and vermont permit prisoners to vote today and the u.s. supreme court has generally permitted states to disenfranchise prison inmates, probationers, parolees, and even former felons who have completed their sentences.

rick ruddell sends word of voting in canadian prisons on friday. incarcerated citizens have been eligible to vote in that nation since 2002, when the supreme court of canada ruled that barring prisoners from voting was contrary to the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. according to ctv, about 25 percent of 35,000 eligible prisoners were expected to cast ballots.

the story quotes conservative leader steven harper as saying, “no, I don’t agree with prisoner voting.” manitoba inmate jeff power (shown in the ctv photo at left) shaved a maple leaf and liberal ‘L’ into the side of his head. “We’re all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote.”

here in the states, i’d imagine the republicans would adopt the canadian conservative position and the democrats would be … skittish. only maine and vermont permit prisoners to vote today and the u.s. supreme court has generally permitted states to disenfranchise prison inmates, probationers, parolees, and even former felons who have completed their sentences.

here’s an update on a minntalk this week and a small minnconference (minnminiconference?) next week:

1. i’m speaking with shelly schaefer on voting and the civic reintegration of former prisoners this tuesday as part of the sociology department workshop series. this one was bumped last semester for a really impressive roster of job candidates. the workshops are held in 1109 social sciences from 4-5:15 and all are welcome.

2. those interested in racial disparities in punishment and felon voting research might be more interested in silenced voices: the constitutionality and legality of felon disenfranchisement provisions on saturday, january 28 at the university of minnesota law school. law school professor carl warren is organizing the conference as part of the national civil rights moot court competition, which this year will examine johnson v. bush. all are welcome and attendance is free. attorneys can even get continuing legal education credit* if they contact the organizers in advance.

this should be really good — i know i’ll learn a lot. marc mauer of the sentencing project and race to incarcerate will be speaking on racial disparities. i’m especially eager to meet rep. keith ellison, who has introduced legislation to reenfranchise probationers and parolees. other speakers include catherine weiss of the brennan center, art eisenberg of the nyclu, and gary dickey, counsel and advisor to iowa governor tom vilsack. i’ll be doing an overview in the morning session, which will overlap with my department talk. events will be held at the minnesota law school from 9-3, but i don’t have the specific rooms yet. here’s the tentative schedule:

9:00 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.
Welcome and brief description of the facts and procedural posture of Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida, 405 F. 3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005).

9:10 a.m. to 9:50 a.m.
Overview: Felon Disenfranchisement and Democracy. Prof. Christopher Uggen, Associate Chair, University of Minnesota, Department of Sociology.

9:50 a.m. to Noon. Silenced Voices
Panelists will examine the legal, constitutional, societal and policy-making implications of felon disenfranchisement provisions; measures that have been taken to address them, e.g. executive orders, legislation; and litigation that has challenged them, e.g. Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida; ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­, 366 F. 3d 102 (2nd Cir. 2004) and Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F. 3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003). The panel will consist of:

• Catherine Weiss, Associate Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The Brennan Center represents the plaintiff’s class in the Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida;
• Art Eisenberg Litigation Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU submitted an Amicus brief in support of the Plaintiff’s position in ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­;
• Rep. Keith Ellison of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The author of legislation to restore the voting rights of people who have been convicted of felonies and who are on probation or parole;
• Gary Dickey, Jr., General Counsel and Policy Advisor to Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa who by executive order restored the voting rights of ex-felons in Iowa;
• Marc Mauer, Executive Director, Sentencing Project, Washington DC; and
• Clinical Prof. Carl M. Warren, faculty advisor to the University of Minnesota Law School’s Wm. E. McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition, will moderate the panel.

Noon to 1:00 p.m.
Break

1:00 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
Catherine Weiss , Esq. will discuss the standards and appropriate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act issues in Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida.

1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Marc Mauer author of ­Race To Incarcerate and Invisible Punishment will examine the staggering racial disparity in incarceration.

*5.6 hours of continuing legal education and judicial education credits (4.6 hours regular credit and 1.0 hours of Elimination of Bias credit) are available.

here’s an update on a minntalk this week and a small minnconference (minnminiconference?) next week:

1. i’m speaking with shelly schaefer on voting and the civic reintegration of former prisoners this tuesday as part of the sociology department workshop series. this one was bumped last semester for a really impressive roster of job candidates. the workshops are held in 1109 social sciences from 4-5:15 and all are welcome.

2. those interested in racial disparities in punishment and felon voting research might be more interested in silenced voices: the constitutionality and legality of felon disenfranchisement provisions on saturday, january 28 at the university of minnesota law school. law school professor carl warren is organizing the conference as part of the national civil rights moot court competition, which this year will examine johnson v. bush. all are welcome and attendance is free. attorneys can even get continuing legal education credit* if they contact the organizers in advance.

this should be really good — i know i’ll learn a lot. marc mauer of the sentencing project and race to incarcerate will be speaking on racial disparities. i’m especially eager to meet rep. keith ellison, who has introduced legislation to reenfranchise probationers and parolees. other speakers include catherine weiss of the brennan center, art eisenberg of the nyclu, and gary dickey, counsel and advisor to iowa governor tom vilsack. i’ll be doing an overview in the morning session, which will overlap with my department talk. events will be held at the minnesota law school from 9-3, but i don’t have the specific rooms yet. here’s the tentative schedule:

9:00 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.
Welcome and brief description of the facts and procedural posture of Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida, 405 F. 3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005).

9:10 a.m. to 9:50 a.m.
Overview: Felon Disenfranchisement and Democracy. Prof. Christopher Uggen, Associate Chair, University of Minnesota, Department of Sociology.

9:50 a.m. to Noon. Silenced Voices
Panelists will examine the legal, constitutional, societal and policy-making implications of felon disenfranchisement provisions; measures that have been taken to address them, e.g. executive orders, legislation; and litigation that has challenged them, e.g. Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida; ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­, 366 F. 3d 102 (2nd Cir. 2004) and Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F. 3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003). The panel will consist of:

• Catherine Weiss, Associate Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The Brennan Center represents the plaintiff’s class in the Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida;
• Art Eisenberg Litigation Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU submitted an Amicus brief in support of the Plaintiff’s position in ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­;
• Rep. Keith Ellison of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The author of legislation to restore the voting rights of people who have been convicted of felonies and who are on probation or parole;
• Gary Dickey, Jr., General Counsel and Policy Advisor to Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa who by executive order restored the voting rights of ex-felons in Iowa;
• Marc Mauer, Executive Director, Sentencing Project, Washington DC; and
• Clinical Prof. Carl M. Warren, faculty advisor to the University of Minnesota Law School’s Wm. E. McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition, will moderate the panel.

Noon to 1:00 p.m.
Break

1:00 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
Catherine Weiss , Esq. will discuss the standards and appropriate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act issues in Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida.

1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Marc Mauer author of ­Race To Incarcerate and Invisible Punishment will examine the staggering racial disparity in incarceration.

*5.6 hours of continuing legal education and judicial education credits (4.6 hours regular credit and 1.0 hours of Elimination of Bias credit) are available.

james frey is under siege for fabricating big chunks of his monster-selling memoir, a million little pieces. the minneapolis strib had questioned his accounts of surgery without anesthesia and a northwest airlines flight in which he was bleeding, with a hole in his cheek, and covered with “a colorful mixture of spit, snot, urine, vomit and blood.” as the smoking gun reports, frey represented the memoir as non-fiction but, to put it charitably, seems to have seriously exaggerated his experiences. here’s the short version:

“When recalling criminal activities, looming prison sentences, and jailhouse rituals, Frey writes with a swaggering machismo and bravado that absolutely crackles. Which is truly impressive considering that, as TSG discovered, he made much of it up. The closest Frey has ever come to a jail cell was the few unshackled hours he once spent in a small Ohio police headquarters waiting for a buddy to post $733 cash bond.”

i think we should give folks a little wiggle-room on their memoirs, so i feel bad for mr. frey. of course, misrepresenting one’s criminal history probably seems like a pathetic way to do masculinity, at least for those over 25. still, i won’t deny the seductions of embellishing such experiences. my juvenile delinquency students know that i’ll sometimes refer to my experiences in the system. i’ve never hidden the fact that i was arrested several times at 16 and 17 (mostly for fighting and disorderly conduct) or that i had sleepovers in jails and other secure facilities. it can be useful in showing the discrepancy between the clean flow-chart picture of the system in textbooks and the messy experience of things like juvenile intake from a kid’s perspective. but whenever i feel any semblance of “swaggering machismo” in telling such stories, i know i’m starting to embellish — because it was never like that.

the first and most important reality checks are that i never did time (and certainly not hard time in a state penitentiary), that i’ve only seen prisons as a visitor or professor, and that i felt and was perceived as a nerd at the time or, more charitably, a hipster doofus or confused kid rather than a badass or tough guy. my guess is that frey has a similar history. this is important because the real badasses sniff out a phony in a second. when i interview men and women in prison, i represent myself as a dork professor rather than someone who has “been there.” even if i wanted to sell myself as an ex-con, i couldn’t pull it off. similarly, none of my publications on crime make any mention of my own history — i’m not embarrassed, it is just way too “thin” to be of any use. it certainly affects the kinds of questions i ask and the perspectives i adopt, but it would be the height of phoniness to trade on it.

also, the memory plays tricks. for example, i think i was arrested at 17 for stupidly attacking a bouncer at the cabooze, right down cedar avenue from my current office in minneapolis. if i were writing an account of the evening for my memoirs (or blog, i suppose), it would be tempting to embellish this “fight” (which was probably over in 2.4 seconds) as some sort of gladiator-style struggle and half-remember all sorts of details from all sorts of sources. just like mr. frey, i could see myself writing about being covered with “a colorful mixture of spit, snot, urine, vomit and blood.” after 24 years, though, all i can really remember is that the band was wilma and the wilburs. i think i was handcuffed for a long time that night/morning and that it hurt, but that could have been a different night altogether. if the smoking gun investigated my blogoirs, they might discover that it was bullwinkles rather than the cabooze or, worse, that i was not arrested in hennepin county that night (hmm. was it ryan’s in ramsey county?).

i’m thinking about embellishment because my son is now a wrestler and musician — two activities that i explored at 14 too. i thought i was a pretty scrappy wrestler, but had to ask my dad whether i was really any good at it (verdict: fought like hell, but lost as much as i won). i know that i was never a good guitar player (“scrappy” probably applies here as well), though i’m sometimes tempted to embellish my experiences or abilities here too. my delinquent history hasn’t really been questioned, though those who knew me at 16 love my little joke about preparing a lifetime to “teach a course in juvenile delinquency.”

so, even if mr. frey was never the badass of a million little pieces, he probably had some experiences that were something like the events described in the book. or maybe they were stories he heard in treatment. why do we embellish our deviance? hmmm. edwin lemert noted long ago (1951) that rewards as well as penalties derive from deviant roles. rw connell explains the general swagger and jack katz explicated the specific ways of the badass. now that he’s apparently been busted, the arc of frey’s story fits goffman’s (1961) sad tale, and shadd maruna‘s redemption scripts might help us figure out his next move.

prediction: his next book is gonna be huge.