Sentencing guidelines

  • October 31, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Happy Halloween from ACS! Here is your daily roundup of legal news from around the web:

    Ed Pilkington discusses in The Guardian the troubling story of a “born and raised” Texan who will not be allowed to participate in the upcoming elections because of a Texas voter ID law. “What’s happening here is that the state of Texas is using tax dollars consciously to suppress their own voters. It’s absolutely about intimidation,” explains Abbie Kamin of the Campaign Legal Center in the story.

    In Slate, John Paul Rollert looks at how Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushes the other Supreme Court justices past their comfort zones.

    Ronald J. Sheehy argues in Salon that the Supreme Court has created a system in which the impact of institutional racism is ignored.

    The New York Review of Books features a story from Jed S. Rakoff on the problem of plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system.

    Nina Totenberg questions in NPR the claim of the Justice Department that it can cut off internet or cable and then pose as repairmen to search a home.

  • September 17, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Congratulations to Mary L. Bonauto, member of the ACS Boston Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors, and Jonathan Rapping, member of the ACS Georgia Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors, on their selection as a 2014 MacArthur Fellow (commonly known as the MacArthur Genius award).

    Happy Constitution Day! Dahlia Lithwick of Slate examines the holiday and whether the celebration is itself unconstitutional.

    In The New York Times, Adam Liptak previews an upcoming Supreme Court case that examines the privacy of statements made during jury deliberations.

    Brian Bakst of The Associated Press reports on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent comments that a ruling on same-sex marriage from the U.S. Court for the Sixth Circuit could influence when the Supreme Court weighs in.

    In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin explores how the standard of “undue burden” is disappearing from abortion rights debates and cases.

  • August 11, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    The Editorial Board of The Washington Post calls for a removal of politics from judicial selection, “[t]he application of due process and the maintenance of Americans’ civil rights should be more isolated from the pressures of majoritarian elections.”

    Ari Berman writes for The Nation on the recent decision from the U.S.  District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina that denies a preliminary injunction to block provisions of one of the strictest voting laws in the country.   

    The Atlantic’s James Hamblin argues against a Florida law that bans doctors from talking about firearm safety with their patients.

    Abbe R. Gluck writes in Politico on the inconsistencies in the interpretation of Affordable Care Act found between the 2012 constitution challenge and the recent Halbig case. These inconsistencies seem to challenge the Halbig verdict and its reasoning.

    In The New York Times, Sonja B. Starr discusses the unfair and potentially unconstitutional practice of evidence-based sentencing. 

  • August 4, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Reuben A. Guttman, Director, Grant & Eisenhofer; Member, ACS Board of Directors

    *This post originally appeared on The Global Legal Post.

    The ‘Hide No Harm Act’ is to be welcomed but why should corporate offenders be treated any differently from street criminals.

    'The Hide No Harm Act' puts a duty on a corporate officials not to knowingly conceal a corporate action that would pose a danger of death or injury to consumers and workers. United States Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Bob Casey (D- Pennsylvania) have introduced legislation that, according to their press statement, 'would  make it a crime for a corporate officer to knowingly conceal the fact that a corporate action or product poses a danger of death or serious injury to consumers and workers.' The Senators call the Bill the 'Hide No Harm Act.' According to Senator Blumenthal 'this measure would criminally punish corporate officials who conceal that a product is dangerous.'  The proposed legislation would impose penalties of up to five years in prison because – as the Senators noted in their press statement – concealment by corporations has 'resulted in deaths and injuries.'

    Kudos to the three Senators for introducing this legislation. But wait just a second – I thought it was already a crime to intentionally injure or even negligently kill someone. Do not most, if not all, of the State penal codes make negligent homicide a crime? Surely the three Senators do not mean to say that absent this legislation, there is no vehicle – at least for some state prosecutors – to initiate a criminal prosecution of corporate officials who place revenue over safety and cause injury or death?  

    Do not misunderstand what I mean; the Hide No Harm Act is needed. In an age where we depend on corporations to provide the basic necessities of life, including food, health care, transportation and energy, the proposed legislation is an attempt to punish those who – perhaps for direct, or even indirect, economic gain – have compromised the delivery of life’s essentials and placed workers and consumers at peril. This legislation will be a powerful tool for federal prosecutors. And like any new tool, someone may pick it up and try it.  

    Corporations are fictions

    Yet, while the legislation is a positive step, it is thought provoking. Corporations, of course, are what lawyers call fictions; it is those individuals who control them that steer these global enterprises toward wrongdoing. Often these titans of capital do so because it is in their own economic interest. In an era where multinationals from drug companies to auto makers have knowingly concealed the risks of their products or the deficiencies of their services, why have state prosecutors been reluctant to pursue individual culprits with zeal? It is almost as if there is an unwritten rule that those who commit crimes in the course of their employment should be treated differently from the street criminal whose crime is so transparent that there actually may be a 'smoking gun'.  

  • February 26, 2014

    by ACS Staff

    On Mar. 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that will decide whether Freddie Hall should be on death row.  In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Prof. Marc Tasse argues that Florida’s standard for evaluating intellectual disability in death penalty cases is “unscientific and a breach of Hall’s constitutional protection as mandated in Atkins v. Virginia.” For more on Hall v. Florida, please see analysis by Prof. John H. Blume at ACSblog.
     
    Consumers were victorious Monday when the high court rejected an appeal from washing machine manufacturers in a class-action lawsuit. Writing for Slate, Emily Bazelon explains why the decision is “surprising and good news.” 
     
    Republicans are calling for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers. ReutersDavid Schwartz reports on growing frustration in the Grand Canyon State.
     
    The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Adam Liptak at The New York Times reviews Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
     
    On the second anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death, Charles D. Ellison of The Root reflects on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.