California Proposition 36

Proposition 36, a ballot initative in California meant to ameliorate harsher elements of CA's three strikes law, was approved last night. The media hasn't paid much attention yet (people appear to be more caught up in gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana), but it's wonderful news and will lead to a much more just policy for repeat offenders.

Specifically, the proposition modifies the three strikes law so that it only applies when an offender's third conviction is for a serious or violent crime (i.e. no more Ewing v. California), and it allows judges to re-sentence convicts who were incarcerated under the harsher three strikes law. As many as 3,000 of the current 8,800 inmates serving life under the three strikes law could be resentenced[1], which would - on top of rectifying thousands of appalling sentences - save the state gobs of money.

Curiously, Proposition 34, which would have repealed the death penalty, did not pass. Prop 36 won the majority of the vote in every single county [2], while Prop 34 lost by wide margins in most counties, only garnering most of the vote in urban centers along the cost [3].

A gym full of voters, not prisoners. From SFGate.





Criminal Justice in New Orleans

Before Katrina, and in its wake, the criminal justice system in New Orleans was a total mess. It didn't succeed in ensuring public safety, it didn't produce just outcomes, and it did both of those things at an exorbitant price. Over the last few years, a number of people have worked hard to alter the status quo. The NOLA PBS affiliate is running a three-part series detailing aspects of that effort. Watch the first installment here.

School to Prison Pipeline

On October 24th, the Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against against Meridian and Lauderdale County in Mississippi for maintaining a regimen of school discipline that includes incarceration at a detention center 80 miles away. The list of offenses that a student can be incarcerated for include flatulence and dress code infractions. Need I even note the complete absence of due process? The Washington Post has a more here.

Shaken Baby Syndrome

First of all, let me apologize for the long hiatus. A period of intense inquiry into graduate school and Hurricane Sandy are largely to blame...

Over at Slate, Emily Bazelon has an interesting piece about a criminal case in Arizona that has recently been overturned. It seems that the scientific consensus behind what signs and symptoms indicate that has a baby has been shaken has frayed (in some cases, at least). Take a look.

Criminal Law and Science

In Superstition and Force, Henry Charles Lea relates the story of Joannes Demarest, a coroner in Bergen County, NJ in 1767. Demarest and a coroner's jury were tasked with inspecting the body of Nicholas Tuers and determining whether he had been murdered. At the time, a common superstition held that if a murderer were to touch the body of his victim, the corpse would bleed. One of the jury members decided there was nothing to do in this case but submit Harry - a slave and the prime suspect - to this ordeal (commonly known as bier right). The jury member touched Tuers body; nothing happened. When Harry touched the body, though, it bled. Demarest, by his own admission a skeptic, asked for the experiment to be repeated and reported that, upon Harry's touch, the corpse did indeed bleed from its nostrils.

Bier Right (sketch) by Jeno Gyarfas (1857-1925). Taken from Wikimedia Commons.

The use of bier right was not uncommon, nor was it restricted to the 18th Century. Lea mentions a number of examples of bier right that occurred after the Civil War, as well as one case in 1860 where relatives of the deceased begged the coroner to exhume the body so that they might test the guilt of a suspect. Thankfully, their exhortations went unheeded.

Before I lose too many readers, I ought to clarify: I don't mean to make a direct analogy between practices like bier right and the sciences that are currently applied in criminal law. Bier right and other more ancient ordeals were superstitions perpetuated by tradition and religion. These methods were based on a stubborn belief in the supernatural, and, though they persisted for quite a long while, they were critiqued and discouraged even in their own time. In fact, in 1215 Pope Innocent III forbade Catholic clergy from administering the ordeals of boiling water (in which a person would fish around in a cauldron of boiling water for a small stone or ring - their innocence being determined by whether god protected them from severe burns) and hot iron (in which a person would carry red-hot iron for a small number of steps). Historical records indicate that the clergy didn't pay much mind to Innocent III's edict.

Pope Innocent III: thwarted reformer. Taken from Wikipedia.

There may not be a directly analogy between atavistic ordeals - buttressed by blind belief - and modern science, but there is one parallel worth pointing out. Like trials by ordeal, science (as presented in courtrooms) is a form of evidence that refuses doubt. This is true for a number of reasons. The error rates of particular branches of forensic science have never been determined. Juries made up of laypeople (not to mention judges!) may not have the education or training to question the evidence that experts present. Defendants may not be able to afford experts of their own or a lawyer well versed in crossing experts.

Any evidence labelled scientific and any witness admitted as an expert immediately gain serious credibility and value. The failure to interrogate what passes for science in criminal courtrooms puts innocent people in jail and creates (even more) disparate outcomes for poor and rich defendants.

In the coming weeks, I'll be writing a series of articles about different applications of science in criminal law. As a teaser, let me leave you with three links.

(1) An article in the NY Times about "behavior analysis" as practiced by the TSA. 

(2) A piece by NPR's Alix Spiegel about the misuse of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a test designed to diagnose psychopathy that is now used by several states (including California) as a major factor in parole hearings.

(3) David Grann's tragic article about Cameron Todd Willingham and the role that arson investigators played in his wrongful conviction. If you're going to click one link, choose this one.

Thanks for reading.

J

Taken from Cameron Todd Willingham - Innocent and Executed.

Confidential Informants

Over at The New Yorker there's an incredible article by Sarah Stillman about the use of young confidential informants by Narcotics Units. The piece highlights the tragic human cost of a system characterized by misaligned incentives and a paucity of oversight. The silent question that haunts the heartrending stories Stillman tells is 'what did these people die for?' The American war on drugs is expensive, consuming dollars and lives on an astounding scale, and its value is (at best) unclear, particularly when one examines the effect of decriminalization policies that countries like Portugal have put into place.

Brown v. Plata, Part II

On Saturday, the NY Times published an op-ed about the current state of California's effort (or lack thereof) to meet the mandated population limit affirmed by Brown v. Plata. Interestingly, the article mentions a movement to reform the state's three strikes law. The proposed changes would prevent harsh sentences like the one handed down in Ewing, where a defendant was given 25 years to life for stealing $399 worth of golf clubs.
 
I apologize for last week's brief hiatus. There should be one or two more extensive posts up by next Monday.

Thanks for reading.

J