As the vote counting progresses, it appears that Kamala Harris has established a lead that would make it very unlikely that Cooley will catch up. If Harris, indeed, wins the race, that would mean that Jerry Brown will work with someone who has somewhat less traditional approaches to criminalization, law enforcement, and reentry. We’ll have to wait and see.
Damien Echols Receives New Trial: Evidence Gate Wide Open
Today, in an Arkansas Supreme Court decision that will thrill supporters of the West Memphis Three, Damien Echols received a new evidentiary hearing, in which all evidence, including the DNA evidence that exculpates him and implicates others in the murder, will be considered.
Echols and co-defendants Misskelley and Baldwin were the subjects of the documentaries Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2: Revelations. Having read much about the case, I am convinced of their innocence and very much hope that the new hearing will provide the defendants long-overdue justice.
Impending Executions?
This OC Register article comes to us via our friends at the Sentencing Blog. According to the article, seven death row inmates have exhausted their legal recourses and could potentially be executed in the near future. interestingly, the article contains a hint on the focus of anti-death-penalty litigation in the near future:
The state’s attempt to execute convicted rapist/murderer Albert Greenwood Brown, Jr., of Riverside – who has been on Death Row since 1982 — failed in September when the CDC’s only dose of the lethal-injection drug passed its expiration date. It would have been California’s first execution in five years.
Since then, CDC officials have been scrambling to find an additional source of sodium thiopental to get the executions back on track.
Last month, prison officials announced they had secured enough of the powerful drug to carry out four executions, potentially putting the seven killers who have exhausted their appeals at risk.
Opponents of the death penalty, however, are expected to challenge the propriety of how and from whom prison authorities obtained the latest batch of the drug. The CDC has declined to say where it obtained the drug. The only U.S. manufacturer of the drug can’t make more because of raw-material supply issue, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Making the source of a chemical the focal point of the death penalty debate is a further step in what I previously referred to as the farcical nature of the entire debate. And yet, it can be a last resort in litigators’ scramble to dig up arguments that have not been made yet.
The Status of Legalization: Guest Post by Brandon Yu
Our guest poster, Brandon Yu, is a Managing Editor of AllTreatment, an online rehab center directory and substance abuse information resource.
***
After much months of national attention, California Proposition 19 has failed by 8 figures in nearly a 600,000 vote difference. The Proposition, which was supposed to legalize marijuana in the state of California for recreational use, was opposed since the beginning by elected officials of both parties, including Democratic Senators Barabar Boxer and Diane Feinstein and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The federal government likewise said it would “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws vigorously against Californians that grow or sell marijuana for recreational use.
Proponents noted many benefits of legalization. The passing of the proposition would have generated $1.4 billion a year in tax revenue, resulting significant savings for state and local governments and boosting the economy in the process. Some believed it would also reduce drug-related violence and take revenue away from drug lords. However, opponents argued that it would raise the cost for programs in substance abuse due to the supposed increase in marijuana use, and that the state’s medical marijuana program would flounder since people would gain the drug through other means.
So what does the prospects look like for legalization in California, let alone the status for the country’s future?
Marijuana laws in California have grown increasingly more relaxed in the year leading up to the proposition. Though he did not support the legalization proposition, Governor Schwarzaneggar signed a bill into law that downgraded marijuana possession from a Misdemeanor to a simple Civil Infraction during his final months as governor.
Bordering states looked to California to set an example. Measures in South Dakota and Arizona had measures that advocated for medical marijuana, but both were similarly rejected. Foreign countries, particular Mexico, had also been looking to how California would react to legalization. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country had been entrenched in a drug war for the last half decade, was considering legalization in order to put money out the opposition’s pockets. The Mexican drug cartels make anywhere from $20 billion-$30 billion annually off drug trafficking alone, with marijuana comprising of 60 percent of that income. Legalization would have reduced that number dramatically by $12 billion.
Despite the setbacks, the legalization movement is stronger than ever. Marijuana legalization had been defeated before in California. In 1972 a similarly titled Proposition 19 also failed when put at the hands of voters. However, that proposition failed by a much higher margin, with a 66.5/33.5 No/Yes differential, a considerable difference than the 54/46 resulted from Tuesday.
Proponents are vowing to get a similar one on a ballot in the near future despite Proposition 19’s failure. Some exit polls have shown that some Voters think that marijuana should be legalized, in a margin of 49%-41% with 10% undecided, suggesting that voters had more issues with the wording of the proposition rather than legalization.
Recidivism Discussion on KGO
Yours truly was on the radio this week, speaking to Gene Burns on the Gil Gross show, about the CDCR recidivism report. Listen here.
Blame, Accountability, Criminalization
My amazing day at CELS ended with two papers about assigning criminal accountability and criminalizing, which were particularly thought provoking in the respective aftermaths of the Mehserle trial and the failure of Prop 19. First came Janice Nadler and Mary‐Hunter Morris’ paper The Psychology of Blame: Criminal Liability and the Role of Moral Character. Nadler and Morris conducted a series of fascinating experiments in which respondents were required to express their views on criminal culpability and causality in scenarios they were provided with; respondents were provided with some background about the offenders’ moral character, and Nadler and Morris concluded that this extraneous information colored their opinion regarding culpability. The questions from the audience yielded an excellent discussion about the situations in which moral character “leaks” into the legitimate justice system, such as in discussing an offender’s motive.
The following paper was The Plasticity of Harm: An Experimental Demonstration of the Malleability of Judgments in the Service of Criminalization, by Avani Mehta Sood and John M. Darley. Sood and Darley provided their respondents with a series of rather colorful scenarios, asking them whether they saw them as violating social norms, whether they were harmful, and whether they would criminalize them. Respondents tended to ascribe harm to situations they wanted to criminalize. Sood and Darley then proceeded to provide respondents with scenarios that did not tend to invoke a lot of harm rationales, priming half of them with an instruction according to which “U.S. courts have ruled that for something to be a crime it has to cause harm.” Respondents that were primed with this instruction tended to come up with more harm rationales for their scenarios, some of them rather creative and farfetched. The paper reminded me of the harm arguments brought up against Prop 19, and the amount of pseudo-harm arguments we have heard, and are likely to continue hearing, about same-sex marriage.
CELS is a fantastic conference, I learned a lot and had a terrific time. Now, it’s back to my students and… to the California correctional crisis.
Retributivism and Restorative Justice
The afternoon panels at CELS also featured wonderful work. First I heard Dena Gromet and John Darley’s paper Gut reactions to Criminal Wrongdoing: The Role of Political ideology. In the paper, Gromet and Darley examine whether people’s support for a retributive or restorative framework depends on reason considerations, or whether it is a gut reaction. To measure that, they conducted a survey in which they asked respondents’ opinions on victims and on offenders, assessing their support for each framework. They also inquired about their political opinion (on a conservative to liberal scale). To measure gut reactions, rather than calm reasoning, they asked respondents these questions under cognitive load (made them memorize an 8-digit number while they responded). They found that the satisfaction with restoration, whether on its own or as added to satisfaction with retributivism, goes up for liberals and down for conservatives with cognitive load. Their conclusion was, therefore, that liberals and conservatives have different intuitive reactions to serious crime: Liberals endorse restoration while conservatives favor retribution.
This paper was followed by Tyler G. Okimoto, Michael Wenzel and N.T. Feather’s paper Conceptualizing Retributive and Restorative Justice. Drawing on differences in conception of justice, Okimoto, Wenzel and Feather administered a survey in which they asked respondents a series of question to establish the extent to which they subscribed to two alternative views of justice: the need to empower the victim and degrade the offender, versus the need to heal relationships and reassert consensual social values. They generated a scale that allows measuring where respondents lie along a spectrum of retributive to restorative justice.
Incarceration Length and Recidivism
This morning at CELS I heard a paper by David Abrams titled Building Criminal Capital vs Specific Deterrence: The Effect of Incarceration Length on Recidivism. Abrams sought to figure out what sort of relationships existed between incarceration and recidivism. These sort of studies often present serious challenges, because length of incarceration might reflect other factors about the defendants that might predict recidivism later on. However, Abrams built on an opportunity to control for that, since defendants were randomly assigned to public defenders of differing attorney ability. Attorney ability therefore allowed him to instrument for sentence length. The findings were that the relationship between sentence length and incarceration was not linear. For the lowest sentences, the relationship is negative; it becomes positive for an intermediate sentence length, and then negative for the longest sentences. The conclusions tie the findings with theories of criminal capital formation and with specific deterrence.
Re-Entry, Housing, and the Job Market
I am at the 5th Conference on Empirical Legal Studies at Yale University, and have heard two interesting presentations on re-entry.
Amanda Geller and Marah Curtis’ paper A Sort of Homecoming: Incarceration and the Housing Security of Urban Men compares the housing status of previously incarcerated and non-incarcerated fathers in fragile, poor families. Using a database formed for studying fragile families, Geller and Curtis compare how fathers fare during their child’s infancy in terms of housing. As measures of housing, they use not only eviction, but also other measures mortgage default and living with others. They find that formerly incarcerated fathers have more trouble finding a stable housing situation, and while some of this difficulty is attributed to lack of income, it does not explain away all the difficulty.
Charles Loeffler’s paper The Effects of Imprisonment on Labor Market Participation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment compares the job status of convicted people who were sentenced by high-incarceration and low-incarceration judges. Suprisingly, Loeffler finds that the former tend to fare better in the job market–but only temporarily. This finding might be explained in three main ways: Parole agents do a better job than, say, probation officers in finding jobs for formerly incarcerated people (but not good enough to provide enduring employment); incarceration breaks inmates’ ties to their former environment and therefore requires them to shift to the “covered” economy; or, inmates simply age out of crime while in prison.
The Post-Election Post
In the grand tradition we started in the 2008 elections, I’d like to offer some reflections about some of the results.
The first issue on the agenda is the meaning of Jerry Brown’s election for governor, especially if accompanied by Kamala Harris as Attorney General (an outcome which is still uncertain as I write this). As we said earlier in the race, while there are plenty of corrections-related reasons to be relieved that Meg Whitman will not be commanding our ship, Jerry Brown’s platform in these matters is not particularly innovative or efficient. Some have made much of his personal distaste for the death penalty and have predicted that, as part of a team with Kamala Harris, the institution may be abolished or at least halted de facto. Brown’s behavior during the countdown toward Albert Brown’s execution does not appear to predict such an outcome. It remains to be seen what sort of relationship Brown forges (or rekindles) with CCPOA, and what his position might be on Plata/Coleman, which he litigated fiercely against petitioners as Attorney General.
We then have the failure of Prop 19, which I decline to read as stemming from fear or demonization of marijuana users. Much of the feedback I received after publicly endorsing Prop 19 had to do with people who in principle supported legalization but thought the initiative was poorly designed and would lead to chaotic local regulation and, possibly, to “corporatization” of pot. I found it curious that the concerns about possible “corporatization” exceeded, for some, the concerns about racist oppressive enforcement, but to each their own. The lesson to be learned here is, perhaps, that the initiative process is not a good place for such reforms, and given the broad public support for the idea of legalization, creating an appropriate legal framework should be left to professional legislators.
Finally, a municipal disappointment was the disheartening passage of Prop L, the sit/lie ordinance. We blogged extensively here, here, here and here about the punitive and classist animus behind this initiative and are dismayed to see it come to life. Our hope is that the police will act sensibly in enforcing this measure.