Judgment Day

SCOTUSwiki provides an extensive argument preview of Kennedy v. Louisiana here. For those unfamiliar with the case, it involves the constitutionality of administering the death penalty for child rape. Here’s the bare minimum from both sides:

The Petitioner poses two questions:

1. “Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause permits a State to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penalty.”

2. “If so, whether Louisiana’s capital rape statute violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it fails genuinely to narrow the class of such offenders eligible for the death penalty.”

The State reponds with the following:

“the harm inflicted upon a child when raped is tremendous,” and “sex offenses against children cause untold psychological harm not only to the victim but also to generations to come….Execution of child rapists will serve the goals of deterrence and retribution as well as the execution of first-degree murderers.”

The preview includes links to briefs and other documents, petition and brief in opposition analysis, and an argument preview. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, April 16th.

The 58-page report, available here, “is another in the Commission's efforts to provide analysis of federal sentencing practices. This report relates to the period beginning on the date of the United States Supreme Court decision in Kimbrough v United States, ____ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007) and Gall v United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007) and afterward. That is, the data are taken from cases in which the defendant was sentenced on or after December 10, 2007. The data in this report are presented in a manner similar to portions of the Commission's Quarterly Reports.”

The Justice Policy Institute has this article today about Shelby County 's jail incarceration rate, which is currently ranked third in the country. The article states the jail, like many in America, is holding many nonviolent, poor offenders on high bails they can't pay.

 

Just days after President Bush signed the Second Chance Act, the AP is reporting Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has her own plan to reduce the number of prisoners returning to jail. Some highlights:

States would compete for $1 billion in annual grants to combat recidivism. [The plan] would "promote tough but fair" changes to probation practices and to existing programs meant to steer non-violent drug offenders away from prison.

Clinton would pay for the $4 billion initiative with savings to be identified by a commission she will assign to "identify unnecessary and outdated corporate subsidies for elimination."

Clinton's plan would hire 100,000 new police officers "to address crime, through a modernized personnel grant program." It would spend $250 million a year on "community-oriented prosecutors." 

It's no secret the Clinton campaign is struggling, and perhaps she's hoping she can win support from some of the more liberal Obama supporters.  I like the idea of the program, but hate the fact that Clinton opposed retroactive crack sentencing guidelines but supports keeping non-violent offenders out of jail. 

From The Washington Post:

President Bush yesterday reached across traditional political dividing lines to sign into law a broad program that provides federal grants for assistance to ex-convicts, pointing to his own struggle with alcohol addiction as an example of redemption.

The new law has broad support among prisoner advocacy groups, liberal criminal-justice organizations, and many Democrats who otherwise differ with Bush or his policies. It grew out of at least five years of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, partly about the participation of religious organizations in counseling financed by Washington, according to administration officials, lawmakers and others involved in the process.

The law would provide $326 million in grants to local governments and nonprofit groups for various programs aimed at departing or former convicts, including housing and medical assistance, drug treatment and employment services. Appropriations for the grants still await approval by Congress and Bush, however.

The Journal Star reports here that the state’s high court will not reconsider its decision that electrocution is unconstitutional.

In February, the court ruled electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment when considering the case of Raymond Mata Jr.

Mata was convicted for the 1999 kidnapping and killing of 3-year-old Adam Gomez of Scottsbluff. Parts of the boy’s body were found in a freezer and dog bowl at Mata’s home. Bone fragments also were recovered from the stomach of Mata’s dog.

The court said in its February opinion that evidence shows that electrocution inflicts “intense pain and agonizing suffering” and that it “has proven itself to be a dinosaur more befitting the laboratory of Baron Frankenstein” than a state prison. Nebraska was the only state with electrocution as its sole means of execution. The February ruling left the state with a death penalty, but no way of carrying it out.

Sentencing Law and Policy provides this commentary in response to the article:

"If and when the Nebraska AG seeks cert on this issue, I think the US Supreme Court would be inclined to GVR the case back to the state courts after the Justices establish a general legal standard for method of execution cases in Baze."

Vacation has limited my ability to frequently update this blog over the last two days, and will continue to do so until April 11th. Fortunately, there's always How Appealing, which provides the following (and much more):

“Ninth Circuit rejects rehearing en banc of decision immunizing from prosecution under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 false statements made by a criminal defendant to a probation officer preparing that defendant's presentence report.” The order denying rehearing en banc is here.

“S.F. ban on handguns dealt a final defeat":  Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this article, with the following intro: "The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms."

The USA Today has this article:

The Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the death penalty for child rape next week, in the case of a Louisiana man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The dispute, closely followed by state officials, social workers and defendants' rights groups, marks the first time since 1977 that the justices will consider whether rape can be punished by death. The justices said no in the case three decades ago, involving a 16-year-old married woman whom the court referred to as an adult.

Several states, including Missouri, have signaled that if the court permits the death penalty for child rape in Louisiana, they may try to enact such laws. Five states already plainly allow capital punishment for raping young children. Social workers warn that if the court sanctions the penalty for child rape, it could further discourage reporting of the crime because in the majority of child sexual assaults, the attacker is a relative or friend of the victim.

Click to read more ...

The Providence Journal has an interesting piece today on Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy.  The article is here, and, as expected, strict construction is the theme.  A few highlights:

Scalia, a core member of the court’s conservative wing, made that point to illustrate how much the confirmation process has changed and to bolster his argument for originalism — the theory that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who drafted and adopted it.

“Once upon a time,” Scalia said, justices were chosen on the basis of whether the nominees had the required legal skills, honesty and judicial temperament.

Those are still considered good qualities, but now that originalism is being elbowed aside by the idea of a “living constitution,” Scalia said, “The most important thing is whether this person will write the new Constitution that you like.”