Criminal Justice

  • August 13, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Nkechi Taifa, senior policy analyst for civil and justice reform at the Open Society Foundations and convener of the Washington-based Justice Roundtable

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced significant steps today at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco to correct the deepest, costliest and worst aspects in our criminal justice system. The reforms he outlined in remarks entitled, Smart on Crime, were a long time coming for the criminal justice advocacy community.

    Although Congress recently approved legislation to help prisoners re-enter society and to reduce the infamous disparity between crack and powder cocaine, previous Presidents and Congress have never addressed the root causes of mass incarceration. These unjust laws and policies that drive up the U.S. prison population include inflexible front-end decisions that define who goes to prison and for how long, as well as stubborn back-end choices that impede early release.

    Today, in the fifth decade of both the March on Washington and the War on Drugs, the Attorney General has ushered in a revolutionary moment by advancing the policy discussion around widespread incarceration that has cost billions of dollars without making society any safer, and reducing flaws of a system that sends too many people of color to prison.

    The policies outlined in Holder’s speech will recalibrate the federal criminal justice system by correcting obstacles, inefficiencies and inequities and transforming law enforcement strategies so they alleviate, rather than exacerbate, harsh punishment.

  • August 13, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Stephen Wermiel, Professor of Practice, American University Washington College of Law

    Attorney General Eric Holder touched off a new chapter in his Justice Department tenure yesterday by unveiling a set of far-reaching and important criminal justice reforms that supporters of the Obama administration have long awaited. Holder’s speech captured the attention and fired up the spirit of an otherwise somewhat lethargic American Bar Association annual meeting in San Francisco. Holder expressed what is likely the strongest, clearest vision yet from the Obama administration and one that his admirers have hoped would be part of his legacy: “Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. And many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems, rather than alleviate them.”

    Of important note is that a number of the things Holder discussed can and apparently will be done within the Executive Branch and do not require consideration or approval by a Congress incapacitated by partisan gridlock. Specifically, Holder has instructed federal prosecutors to change the way they bring drug charges against individuals who commit low-level offenses and who have no ties to gangs, drug cartels or organized crime. Federal law mandates the use of mandatory minimum prison sentences for some drug crimes, and changing the law would require Congress to act. Holder noted that there is bipartisan support in the Senate to reform mandatory minimums for drug offenses. But Holder can act on his own and now has done so to urge federal prosecutors to exercise discretion by charging different crimes that do not trigger mandatory minimums and that, as Holder said, will better reflect the severity of the misconduct without draconian excessive criminal sentences.  This is an important recognition of the major shortcomings of the decades-old war on drugs that has consumed billions of dollars in law enforcement budgets and tens of thousands of lives ruined by prison terms that were out of proportion to the crime or the nature of the individual. Holder also said U.S. attorneys will be urged to make greater use of drug diversion programs as alternatives to incarceration.

    Another very important recognition by Holder followed on the heels of President Obama’s remarks on the Trayvon Martin case last month. Holder told the ABA “that young black and Latino men are disproportionately likely to become involved in our criminal justice system – as victims as well as perpetrators.” He added, “We also must confront the reality that – once they’re in that system – people of color often face harsher punishments than their peers.”  The racial injustice of the criminal justice system is a subject that needs urgent attention from Holder and other leaders.

  • August 13, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Alex Kreit, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego. Kreit is author of the casebook, Controlled Substances: Crime, Regulation, and Policy and the ACS Issue Brief, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy.”

    Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new charging policy that has the potential to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences in many drug cases. Holder’s Aug. 12 announcement marks the most significant policy change in what has been, until now, a largely rhetorical shift away from the failed war on drugs

    The new prosecutorial guidelines are aimed at one of the most disgraceful and frequently criticized features of drug war-era mandatory minimum sentencing: tying punishments to drug type and quantity in low-level cases.  The practice began with a hastily drafted law passed by Congress in 1984, at the height of drug war fervor.  The measure sought to increase and standardize punishments in federal drug cases through mandatory minimum penalties.  Legislators claimed that the law would create a two-tiered penalty structure, subjecting so-called “serious” drug traffickers to five-year minimum sentences and “major” traffickers to ten-year prison terms.  (These mandatory penalties can increase to 20-years or even life for defendants with prior felony drug convictions.)

    The problem is that while Congress referred to “serious” and “major” traffickers in debating the mandatory minimum provisions, the five- and ten-year penalties are “triggered not by role but by drug type and quantity instead.”   And, it turns out; drug type and quantity are a poor measure of a drug offender’s culpability. 

    Take drug couriers for example.  Drug couriers are considered expendable by drug organizations.  Most are addicts or otherwise down-on-their luck.  In San Diego, where I live, drug organization recruiters seek out homeless people for this job just a few blocks from the heart of downtown.  They might be paid $1,500 to transport hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of drugs across the border. 

  • August 5, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Brandon L. Garrett. Since the 2011 publication of Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Professor Garrett has written widely on issues of criminal procedure, forensic science, and the law. Below, he outlines three recent Supreme Court rulings whose importance has been overshadowed by the term’s several high profile and historic decisions. This piece is cross-posted on the Harvard University Press Blog.

    With the past Term’s Supreme Court’s decisions behind us, commentators, scholars, and judges, are still processing the implications of the major decisions on race, voting rights, and same sex marriage. Understandably less noticed have been three decisions with real implications for criminal justice. In cases concerning the procedural barriers to relief when evidence of innocence arises after conviction, the expanded collection and storage of DNA, and the conduct of police interrogations, the Court issued rulings that bear on the accuracy of our criminal justice system.

    First, the Court continues to recognize that innocence should be an important consideration for federal judges reviewing prisoners’ habeas petitions. In McQuiggan v. Perkins, the Court recognized for the first time that evidence of a prisoner’s innocence can provide an exception to the restrictive one-year statute of limitations imposed in 1996 by Congress in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). However, the Court somewhat gratuitously emphasized that this innocence exception would be “severely confined” and that the class of prisoners able to show that a jury presented with new evidence would be likely not to convict may be quite small.

  • July 22, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman, Director and Head of False Claims Group, Grant & Eisenhofer.

    A few weeks ago I wrote a piece published in The Lawyer, a London based legal paper. My column, which questioned whether Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, drew passionate comment from those, like myself, who are counsel for individuals who are called whistleblowers because they have questioned corporate and government misconduct including lies. The discourse has caused me to continue to ponder the issue.

    The question of whether an individual is indeed entitled to be called a whistleblower is not just a matter of academic discourse. Whistleblowers are generally entitled to protection from retaliation and, under laws like the U.S. False Claims Act and the Dodd-Frank Amendments; they may even be entitled to a bounty. Setting aside the legal issue, those who properly question immoral processes, laws, or conditions, are in some circles considered heroes. And so this is also about who we place on a pedestal as beacons of ethics, integrity, and plain guts. 

    For me there are two components to the analysis of who is a "whistleblower”: (1) the reason for questioning a practice or law, an effort which may involve the disclosure of private or confidential information, and (2) the method for doing so.

    Merely making public private information - no matter how interesting the information may be - is not by itself a colorable act of whistle blowing unless there is some greater moral or societal purpose to be addressed. Then, of course, there is the question of the process employed to "blow the whistle."