Uncategorized

i got the following email from the spouse of someone convicted long ago for a drug offense. with her permission, i’m reprinting it in full.

her first-hand account of the impact of collateral sanctions — even supposed “no-brainers” such as firearms restrictions — offers an important perspective on a set of contentious issues.

i attended this one a few years ago and learned much from the good folks and their good ideas. via howie:

Invitation and Call for Proposals
Midwest Law and Society Retreat
September 19-20, 2008 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Hosted by the Institute for Legal Studies

INVITATION Faculty, independent scholars, and graduate students are cordially invited to the fourth Midwest Law and Society Retreat, a biennial event to be held at the University of Wisconsin on September 19-20, 2008. Sessions will take place at the Pyle Center, 702 Langdon Street, Madison.

ABOUT THE EVENT In Fall 2002 the Institute for Legal Studies organized an interdisciplinary retreat that brought together faculty and graduate students from the region’s diverse social science and law programs for a weekend of intellectual exchange and community building. By popular demand, subsequent sessions convened in 2004 and 2006. (Programs can be viewed at http//law.wisc.edu/ils/midwestlaw.html.)

The 2008 Retreat will continue to offer opportunities for participants to share research ideas, discuss professional issues, receive feedback on works in progress, and develop future projects with regional colleagues. However, this year we expect to place somewhat less emphasis on the traditional ‘paper presentation’ panel, and more emphasis on panels that deal with broad research issues, professional development, and the future of the field. We encourage people to consider presenting on these topics, or just coming to the retreat to join in the discussion. To ensure that the conference remains informal and personal, attendance will be limited to 75 people. Early registration is strongly encouraged.

KEYNOTE AND OVERVIEW The opening session will begin at 300 pm on Friday, September 19th, with a keynote address by Erwin Chemerinsky, inaugural Dean of the Donald Bren Law School at UC-Irvine, who will discuss his plans to make law and society one of the focal points of the Irvine curriculum. The Retreat will continue through Saturday afternoon, and will include group meals for dinner on Friday and lunch on Saturday.

Proposal Deadline June 1, 2008.

via criminal defense attorney jeralyn merritt:

richard crawford, a communications prof and past president of the american society of trial consultants, lists his top ten myths about jury trials in today’s rocky mountain news.

1. Your only chance as a defendant is to have lots of money.

This is largely false, primarily because as many as 80 percent of those charged with a crime are rigorously defended by public defenders or court-appointed attorneys. Believe it or not, if you have just enough money to hire your own trial lawyer, you might end up with a less effective defense lawyer than if you had very little money and were lucky enough to live in Colorado and receive representation from a career and free public defender.

2. Innocence will protect you in a criminal trial.

Regrettably, this is usually not the case. Specifically, for anyone who faces a jury, there is roughly an 85 percent chance that the trial will end up with a conviction. Tim Masters just might have something to say on this subject. Studies indicate that from 7 percent to 10 percent of those in prison today are actually innocent persons who got caught in this process.

3. Lawyers prefer jurors with little formal education.

The answer here is that it depends. There are instances like the recent Nacchio case when the issues are sufficiently complicated that both sides prefer very bright jurors. And, yes, there are other instances when the defendant is a barroom fighter of sorts and the defense would prefer to have jurors just like him who can identify with him.

4. Defendants should always take the stand in their own defense.

While all defendants have the absolute right to testify on their own behalf, frequently they do not exercise that right. And there is no doubt but that jurors often reason: “If he didn’t do it, why doesn’t he take the stand and say so?” On the other hand, there is a long list of very good reasons why a particular defendant should say nothing during his or her trial. For example, an innocent defendant may have once been convicted of a felony and the jury would learn that prejudicial fact only if that defendant decided to testify.

5. Juries sometimes find defendants innocent.

No, this cannot happen anywhere in these United States. “Guilty” or “not guilty” are the only two options open to an American jury. Sometimes juries believe that a defendant committed the act as charged, but that it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state, so they vote “not guilty” as a way of saying, “not proved.” Sometimes juries think a defendant did not commit any crime and they vote “not guilty,” meaning “innocent.”

6. Defense lawyers who defend those they know to be guilty are unethical.

No, a person charged with a crime is never guilty unless and until a jury has said so and a judge has affirmed same. Our Constitution guarantees everyone the right to a vigorous defense or testing of the evidence and it would actually be illegal and unethical if a defendant were denied this right.

7. A trial is about discovering the truth.

No, the truth may be that a good young man broke the law when he went for the first time with a group who committed a robbery. But Justice might say he should get another chance. The truth may be that a wife killed her violent husband, but Justice might say she should not give up her freedom for that act. Trials are always about Justice and the truth may be a part of getting there, but Justice is the goal.

8. Jurors deliberate in the classic sense until they reach their final verdict.

The requirement for a unanimous verdict means that jurors usually only deliberate during the first stages of their time together. Ninety percent of the time, the majority overcomes the minority in order to get that unanimous verdict. Make no mistake about it, eight or nine jurors can and do exert enormous pressure on three or four holdouts to get a verdict that will wrap it up and get everyone home.

9. Evidence drives the outcome of jury verdicts.

Actually, when the evidence on either side of a case is overwhelming, a verdict can be pretty predictable. The reality is, however, that deals are almost always struck when one side or the other has a huge evidence advantage. Thus, since a majority of trials could go either way, the final verdict is often determined by nonevidentiary factors. Two such factors include the quality of the lawyers and the pro-conviction predisposition of most jurors.

10. When a jury votes guilty, that is final.

No verdict is ever final until the judge says so. In fact, although it is rare, the trial judge can set aside a guilty verdict with the tap of his or her gavel. Of course, any guilty verdict can also be appealed to a higher court.

have you heard of soc or crim students taking performance-enhancing drugs for their exams or prelims?

olin kerr at volokh tries to get a handle on law students’ use of adderall and ritalin to boost performance for studying and exams. here is the extent of use, according to volokh readers:

*It is very rare or never happens: 16% (75)
*Some students use them, but it is uncommon: 37% (175)
*It is common, but fewer than half have used them: 26% (120)
*About half of students have used them: 6% (29)
*More than half have used them: 7% (34)
*Most law students have used them: 4% (21)
*Pretty much everybody does it: 3% (13)

the chronicle of higher education offers a fine article on some of the difficulties facing prison researchers. the minnesota department of corrections and the university’s internal review board have been very supportive of my research, so i’m counting my blessings.

a city pages blogger just popped me between the eyes with this lively photo of block e in ’73, guaranteed to bring sweet and sour memories for old minnesotans. back then, it was seedy, sexy, scary, showy, and skeezy. today? not so much.*

as a west st. paul kid, i recall wide-eyed and wonderful trips to this part of hennepin avenue. then, as an intern investigator with the public defender, i spent more time with the area’s crime. though i saw too much trouble there to really romanticize the place, moby’s big electric sign still brings a li’l electric charge.

tom waits wrote the block’s official soundtrack in r-rated tributes such as ninth and hennepin and christmas card from a hooker in minneapolis. if i squint hard enough through today’s spring snow, i can almost see the drunks, punks, and hustlers of old hennepin from my office window.

waits is great, but the scene puts me in mind of atmosphere’s contemporary tales of junkie redemption and minneapolis pride.

*for further study, james lileks offers a fine historical photo essay.

in snyder v. louisiana, the u.s. supreme court has overturned a murder conviction based on racial discrimination in jury selection. i haven’t been following the court very closely these days, but i think the 7-2 decision might come as a surprise.

here’s jeannie shawl‘s story and helpful links at jurist:

The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a Louisiana death sentence should be overturned because the trial judge “committed clear error” in ruling on the defendant’s objection to a prosecution peremptory jury challenge, which the defendant argued was based on race. The ruling came in Snyder v. Louisiana, where Allen Snyder was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder. The Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to let Snyder’s conviction stand.

The Snyder case gained notoriety when the prosecutor drew comparisons between the proceeding and the trial of OJ Simpson during sentencing when urging the jury to impose the death penalty. Snyder had argued that the prosecutor improperly used the comparison to create a race-based rationale for imposing the death penalty, but that issue was not addressed by the Supreme Court. Read the Court’s opinion per Justice Alito, along with a dissent from Justice Thomas. AP has more. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.

The Low Road

What can they do
to you? Whatever they want.
They can set you up, they can
bust you, they can break
your fingers, they can burn your brain with electricity,
blur you with drugs till you
can’t walk, can’t remember, they can
take your child, wall up
your lover. They can do anything
you can’t stop them
from doing. How can you stop
them? Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can
take what revenge you can
but they roll over you.

But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.

Two people can keep each other
sane, can give support, conviction,
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organization. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fund raising party.
A dozen make a demonstration.
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.
It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.

–Marge Piercy, from The Moon is Always Female.

i’m not going to argue that convicted sex offenders should be the first in line for student financial aid*, but i’d like to offer a few snarky comments on today’s associated press story on college aid for sex predators.

c’mon the story practically writes itself: take a stigmatized deviant group, document some group members deriving a benefit from a government program, record the sanctimonious outrage of an obscure legislator, and start those fingers a-waggin’.

MADISON, Wis. – James Sturtz is not your ordinary college student struggling to pay tuition. The 48-year-old rapist is one of Iowa’s most dangerous sex offenders, locked up in a state-run treatment center for fear he will attack again if released.

intriguing lead, but it glosses over the whole civil commitment issue. see, mr. sturtz was sent to prison and completed his sentence. he remains locked up for fear he will attack again, but he’s supposed to be a patient in a treatment center rather than an inmate in a prison. are readers so accustomed to sweeping punishments that treament centers have become synonymous with prisons?

Yet he has received thousands of dollars in federal aid to take college courses through the mail. Across the nation, dozens of sexual predators have been taking higher education classes at taxpayer expense while confined by the courts to treatment centers. Critics say they are exploiting a loophole to receive Pell Grants, the nation’s premier financial aid program for low-income students.

somebody seems to be exploiting a loophole in this case, but i’m not sure the guys in the treatment center are the ones to blame. had they been released after fulfilling the obligations of their criminal sentences, they’d be eligible for pell assistance, but they were involuntarily committed to an indefinite spell of treatment. and just how many cases of pell-abusin’ sex offenders are we talking about here? dozens implies something more than twelve, but there is little evidence to suggest great expenditure or abuse.

Prison inmates are ineligible for Pell Grants under a 1994 law. Students convicted of certain drug offenses are also ineligible. But sexual predators qualify once they are transferred from prison to treatment centers.

this is a “last shall be first” passage, implying that sex offenders are the least deserving among the undeserving. the article doesn’t ask whether prisoners should be eligible for student aid, or whether students should continue to lose assistance because they have been convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession.

“This is the most insane waste of taxpayer money that I have seen in my eight years in Congress,” said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who is pushing to stop the practice… Keller’s plan would affect 20 states that allow authorities to hold violent sex offenders indefinitely after they have served their prison sentences. He predicted the measure would save taxpayers millions.

i won’t quibble with representative keller’s math, but i’m not convinced that cutting off such aid would save millions. let’s say three dozen inmates have received pell grants. the average award would have to be about $56,000 for us to save $2,000,000. since the maximum pell award is $4,310, however, we’d need at least 464 recipients to get near two million.

the bigger issue here is that 20 states hold people indefinitely after they have served their prison sentences. the representative is justifiably concerned about money, but he might also want to take a close look at the per diems on these treatment centers. many more millions could be saved by the judicious release of a small number of these people after they have done their time.

…At the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wis., six patients are getting Pell Grants, and others did so in the past. Some patients used their grants for living expenses that were already being covered by the state’s taxpayers, according to administrators.

“I think that the current practice — which results in large checks being sent to the patients for living expenses — is pretty much indefensible,” director Steve Watters wrote in an e-mail to an aide last year.

In Iowa, 14 offenders in the Cherokee Mental Health Institute have received Pell Grants in recent years, said administrator Jason Smith. He said nine of them dropped courses after receiving money.

i’d agree that the current practice is indefensible, since administrators should be able to determine whether the money is being spent on educational expenses. on the other hand, it is not unprecedented for students to drop courses after receiving financial aid, especially in the absence of academic advising or support.

So far, none of the 72 predators in the Iowa center has been released since it opened in 1999. Sturtz admitted he is not ready for freedom anytime soon.

“It wasn’t about the money for me, man. It was about the education,” he said. “God knows I’m going to need all the help to get a job.”

now we’re getting somewhere. although these sex offenders are purportedly in treatment, we know that they will never be released. i’ve got no sympathy for those convicted again and again for horrible crimes. nevertheless, when mr. sturtz talks about getting a job on the outside, i can’t help but think, “the poor sap still believes he might actually get out.”

right now, sex offenders are stuck in a creepy constitutional no-man’s land between legal punishment and medical-treatment-without-parole. there may be no easy answer that would preserve both public safety and individual rights, but i’d suggest the following: give ’em lengthy but indeterminate sentences, with the range determined by a legislature and/or sentencing commission, in-prison treatment, and — if treatment goes well and a qualified board so rules — a realistic hope of discretionary parole.

*seriously, mr. o’reilly. i’m not going to argue this position, so your producers can just stop calling about it.

according to bloomberg news, the vatican has crafted a brand new list of seven social sins to complement the seven cardinal vices catalogued in the sixth century.

such lists can sometimes reveal changing conceptions of deviance and conformity and emerging areas of normative consensus or conflict. but this new list is way broader than, say, the ten commandments or even the most expansive criminal code. according to bishop gianfranco girotti,

“You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord’s name in vain or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos.”

whoa! since i’m sort of in the business of carrying out morally debatable experiments, i’m hardly an unbiased observer. nevertheless, the seven new social sins are:

1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

hmmm. these all look a bit like hubris to me — as though the church is calling out modern men and women for tampering with god’s plan for our bodies and our social and physical environment. i’m also seeing way too much overlap between the new list and the old one.* maybe i’m thinking like a lawyer, but wouldn’t the church be safer in identifying the new sins as concrete representations of broad concepts identified centuries ago?

for example, i’d categorize excessive wealth and creating poverty as greed; drug abuse, pollution, and fostering inequality as gluttony; and, stem cell research as pride. i’m a little stuck on how to categorize birth control, but the harried father in me might define it as a combination of lust plus sloth.

in any case, i’m guessing that these seven social sins won’t have the same legs as the seven cardinal vices. while it is relatively easy to gain social consensus against abstractions such as lust and gluttony, i’d expect a good bit more conflict over concrete behaviors such as drug use and birth control.

*the original seven deadly sins are pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth.