Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Texas Eradicates Juvenile Truancy as Crime
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Prosecutors Have Too Much Power in America
Prosecutorial powers are burgeoning in America, where prosecutors and judges have seen their powers exponentially rising over the last few decades — especially since the early 1980’s and the advent of the fictitious “Tough on Crime” campaign.
It’s become so imbalanced, that they’re almost monarchs within the courtroom with little fear of reprimand for any wrongdoing whatsoever. Prosecutors determine bail, the charge, the conviction (almost always via a coerced plea bargain), and the sentence.
He signed the bill into law on March 8, 1973. These laws mandated
harsh sentences for possession of drugs, and in some cases, mandatory
minimum sentences. Individuals caught selling 2 ounces of drugs (even
marijuana) would receive a mandatory 15 years in prison.
This also resulted in the modern-day “650-Lifer Law”, which says that one convicted of selling over 650 grams (about 23 ounces) of cocaine or any hard opiate shall be sentenced to life without parole. The impetus for the enacting of these laws can almost assuredly be traced back to Richard Nixon, who introduced the idea of “Tough on Crime” along with stiff drug sentencing.
Since Rockefeller had presidential aspirations, he viewed the enacting of these laws would boost his national public profile.
But the real boon for prosecutors came in the 1980’s, when Tough on Crime was finally stated in the Presidential State of the Union address, thus giving politicians a platform to run on.
All of the provisions that came from the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, as well as vestigial effects from the Rockefeller Drug Laws are what led to America's prison epidemic.
We must enact legislation that severely limits the powers of the prosecutor, and that restores the checks and balances sorely lacking in America's criminal justice system.
It’s become so imbalanced, that they’re almost monarchs within the courtroom with little fear of reprimand for any wrongdoing whatsoever. Prosecutors determine bail, the charge, the conviction (almost always via a coerced plea bargain), and the sentence.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws
Prosecutors gained a lot of power beginning with the Rockefeller Drug Laws, passed in 1973 in the state of New York, where Nelson Rockefeller was Governor.
This also resulted in the modern-day “650-Lifer Law”, which says that one convicted of selling over 650 grams (about 23 ounces) of cocaine or any hard opiate shall be sentenced to life without parole. The impetus for the enacting of these laws can almost assuredly be traced back to Richard Nixon, who introduced the idea of “Tough on Crime” along with stiff drug sentencing.
Since Rockefeller had presidential aspirations, he viewed the enacting of these laws would boost his national public profile.
But the real boon for prosecutors came in the 1980’s, when Tough on Crime was finally stated in the Presidential State of the Union address, thus giving politicians a platform to run on.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
On October 12, 1984, Ronald Reagan signed the bipartisan-supported Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 into law. The bill was sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. There were many things included in this bill that would have long-term consequences still in place today, including (but not limited to):- The Sentencing Reform Act
- The U.S. Sentencing Commission
- The Bail Reform Act
All of the provisions that came from the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, as well as vestigial effects from the Rockefeller Drug Laws are what led to America's prison epidemic.
We must enact legislation that severely limits the powers of the prosecutor, and that restores the checks and balances sorely lacking in America's criminal justice system.
President Obama Visits El Reno Correctional to Address Justice Reform
We send far too many people to prison. This is costing The Other 98%
dearly, as lives are shattered and Americans, naive to our prison
epidemic, fund the lavish lifestyles of those in the prison industrial
complex.
https://nationalcdp.org/americas-prison-epidemic/
“When they describe their youth and their childhood, these are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made. The difference is they did not have the kinds of support structures, the second chances, the resources that would allow them to survive those mistakes.”
"Three whole-grown men in a 9-by-10 cell … overcrowding like that is something that has to be addressed.”
FULL video of President #Obama speech from Federal Correctional Institution - El Reno, OK, on Thursday, July 16, 2015.
#MassIncarceration #JusticeReform #PrisonReform
https://nationalcdp.org/americas-prison-epidemic/
“When they describe their youth and their childhood, these are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made. The difference is they did not have the kinds of support structures, the second chances, the resources that would allow them to survive those mistakes.”
"Three whole-grown men in a 9-by-10 cell … overcrowding like that is something that has to be addressed.”
FULL video of President #Obama speech from Federal Correctional Institution - El Reno, OK, on Thursday, July 16, 2015.
#MassIncarceration #JusticeReform #PrisonReform
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
America's Plea Bargain Epidemic
The plea bargain epidemic in America has resulted in enormous upsurge in
prosecutorial powers, has taken away much discretion from judges, and
has rendered defense lawyers virtually helpless (and in many instances,
feckless).
The founding fathers of America’s Constitution had a plan in mind.
They
wanted to craft a legal system that would spare future generations from
the tyranny that colonialists experienced under British rule. They
wanted a system of checks and balances; a system of fairness; a system
where the accused may confront their accuser in a court of law with a
fair arbiter of the court; a system where Americans wouldn’t be detained
indefinitely. Lastly, the framers of our Constitution wanted to ensure
that no one entity or agency has too broad of an authoritarian power.
Today, in the year 2015, the founding fathers of America must be rolling in their graves.
In short, many plea bargains in America, today, are coerced plea bargains. prosecutors have now become judge, jury, and executioner. Judges can exercise little discretion these days, and if they dare use powers granted by the Constitution to exert their authority to provide (perceived) leniency for a defendant, the judge will be pilloried in the court of public opinion — which, in cases of state judges, means facing an outraged voting populace.
Additionally, the Constitution mandates that at the trial, the accused
will have the assistance of defense counsel who has the right to
confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the
accused’s behalf. The accused may only be convicted if an impartial
jury of his peers is unanimously of the opinion that he is guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt of the charges filed by the state, and states as
much — publicly — in its verdict.
The drama ingrained in these guarantees is routinely portrayed in movies and television programs as a fierce, open battle played out in public before a jury presided over by an unbiased judge. But this is all fantasy. In practical reality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated in secret behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is almost exclusively determined by the prosecutor alone.
Then Richard Nixon happened.
Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, and badly wanted to pass Tough on Crime laws. But Nixon ran his campaign on the Federalist platform, and had a duty to honor states’ rights. It wasn’t until 1980 that “Tough on Crime” was first mentioned in the State of the Union address by new President Ronald Reagan. Once politicians of all parties learned that this was a winning ticket, the plea bargain became a staple of the American criminal justice system.
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 gave prosecutors wide latitude to detain defendants indefinitely without bail — precisely what the framers of our Bill of Rights did not want. A prosecutor could simply make the claim to a judge that the defendant was a flight risk, or the defendant was a danger to society.
This is hypocritical in nature, as it can be argued that anybody charged with a crime can be perceived as a potential danger to society. So, in effect, more powers, and broader powers were shifted to the prosecutor, where they could remand basically anybody they wanted to charge to the county jail, indefinitely. This practice continues today.
What was the solution? The solution became the modern-day plea bargain and along with it, an enormous increase in prosecutorial powers.
With a plea bargain, a prosecutor could charge a defendant with the
most severe of crimes — even if the defendant’s alleged actions didn’t
fit the definition or the nature of the crime. The prosecutor could now
effectively frighten the defendant with an extraordinary length of time
in prison. Or the defendant could acquiesce, agree to a plea bargain
crafted primarily by the prosecutor and behind closed doors. This way,
the prosecutor could secure an easy conviction, remain Tough on Crime,
and save the government the cost of going to trial.
But occasionally, the public — completely sold on the Tough on Crime phenomenon — would perceive a prosecutor as soft if the plea bargain seemed too lenient. Prosecutors found a solution. Simply ignore the burden of “likelihood of a conviction” necessary to charge, and charge the accused with the highest crime possible — even if it didn’t fit the nature of the alleged crime.
In fact, this became a federal mandate, and soon many states would adopt the same mandate. This solved a few problems:
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, of the cases they found to be bogus, roughly 10% of those cases were resolved via a plea bargain.
Simply put, this means that the accused chose to were coerced into a
plea bargain for a lesser sentence, lest they put their faith into the
crapshoot known as the American trial, where anything can happen. If a
defendant dares roll the dice, the defendant may be convicted — even if
innocent of the charges filed by the state — and once convicted, will be
sentenced to a much greater term than originally entertained by the
prosecutor’s plea bargain.
The American plea bargain epidemic is actually a coerced plea bargain epidemic. Cases like Steven Castanedo are omnipresent.
The founding fathers of America’s Constitution had a plan in mind.
Today, in the year 2015, the founding fathers of America must be rolling in their graves.
Growing Prosecutorial Powers
In the post World War II era, and in particular, since the launch of the Tough on Crime campaign in 1980, prosecutors have seen their powers grow to a point where they are de facto monarchs of the courtroom. As we at the NCDP have preached, prosecutors dictate the charge, and often dictate if bail will be administered and if so, for what amount. Prosecutors have unfettered latitude over whether or not the accused will be convicted, and when convicted, how much time the defendant will serve.In short, many plea bargains in America, today, are coerced plea bargains. prosecutors have now become judge, jury, and executioner. Judges can exercise little discretion these days, and if they dare use powers granted by the Constitution to exert their authority to provide (perceived) leniency for a defendant, the judge will be pilloried in the court of public opinion — which, in cases of state judges, means facing an outraged voting populace.
The Pervasiveness of Plea Bargains
The 6th Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
The drama ingrained in these guarantees is routinely portrayed in movies and television programs as a fierce, open battle played out in public before a jury presided over by an unbiased judge. But this is all fantasy. In practical reality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated in secret behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is almost exclusively determined by the prosecutor alone.
The Lead-Up to Plea Bargains
But it wasn’t always this way and isn’t in many countries. Prior to the civil war, plea bargains were essentially non-existent. Since the converging of cultures and a subsequent spike in violence, courts became burdened with too many criminal cases. The plea bargain was an easy way to resolve the matter while saving valuable time and resources. Nevertheless, few cases were resolved by the usage of a plea bargain.Then Richard Nixon happened.
Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, and badly wanted to pass Tough on Crime laws. But Nixon ran his campaign on the Federalist platform, and had a duty to honor states’ rights. It wasn’t until 1980 that “Tough on Crime” was first mentioned in the State of the Union address by new President Ronald Reagan. Once politicians of all parties learned that this was a winning ticket, the plea bargain became a staple of the American criminal justice system.
Congress Becomes Involved
On October 12, 1984, Ronald Reagan would sign the bipartisan-supported Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 into law. The bill was sponsored by senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina in 1983. There were many things included in this bill that would have long-term consequences still in place today, including:- The Sentencing Reform Act
- The U.S. Sentencing Commission
- The Bail Reform Act
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 gave prosecutors wide latitude to detain defendants indefinitely without bail — precisely what the framers of our Bill of Rights did not want. A prosecutor could simply make the claim to a judge that the defendant was a flight risk, or the defendant was a danger to society.
This is hypocritical in nature, as it can be argued that anybody charged with a crime can be perceived as a potential danger to society. So, in effect, more powers, and broader powers were shifted to the prosecutor, where they could remand basically anybody they wanted to charge to the county jail, indefinitely. This practice continues today.
The Birth of the Plea Bargain Epidemic
The sentencing guidelines set forth in the CCCA of 1984 paved the way for prosecutors to charge defendants with crimes that involved mandatory minimum sentences, or had severe sentencing guidelines. Until this period, many defendants were still going to trial, costing the government time and money. With the Tough on Crime campaign in full force by this time, however, there was no turning back. Prosecutors needed to continue to charge people with crimes, and when they do, the charges needed to be as severe as possible.What was the solution? The solution became the modern-day plea bargain and along with it, an enormous increase in prosecutorial powers.
But occasionally, the public — completely sold on the Tough on Crime phenomenon — would perceive a prosecutor as soft if the plea bargain seemed too lenient. Prosecutors found a solution. Simply ignore the burden of “likelihood of a conviction” necessary to charge, and charge the accused with the highest crime possible — even if it didn’t fit the nature of the alleged crime.
In fact, this became a federal mandate, and soon many states would adopt the same mandate. This solved a few problems:
- Prosecutors could now secure convictions quickly and expediently, allowing for them to stuff their dockets with more and more cases, as new “tough on crime” bills were passed into law, and they were able to charge more and more people with crimes.
- Prosecutors, by overcharging, could now frighten the accused with a cruel and unusual sentence should they dare go to trial. This gave the prosecutor the necessary capital to construct a plea bargain that the accused would accept, but a deal that would still be perceived as “tough on crime” by the voting populace. Essentially, the defendant is coerced into agreeing to the plea bargain.
- This took much discretion away from judges; while a judge can refuse a plea deal, it’s not something that’s routine. What is routine, however, is a judge accepting a plea bargain under the presumption that it was negotiated in good faith by both the prosecutor and defense counsel.
- This gave prosecutors enormous amounts of power, as prosecutors could now decide who to charge, what to charge them with, and what sentence to sentence them to. Prosecutors, in all practical purposes, became (and to this day, are still) authoritarian dictators within the courtroom.
The Plea Bargain Epidemic Today
In 2013, almost 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate and receive immunity).
According to a study by the National Center For Due Process, of
cases that were not outright dismissed, 97.2% of federal cases were
resolved through a plea bargain in 2014. Similarly, 95.5% of state cases
were resolved through a plea bargain.
While this saves the state valuable time, money, and resources, the
expense of this plea bargain epidemic is far too overlooked by the
American public.
The American plea bargain epidemic is actually a coerced plea bargain epidemic. Cases like Steven Castanedo are omnipresent.
And this is precisely what prosecutors want: complete authoritarian
power, with their friendly and acquiescing judges having less power,
defense attorneys have minimal influence, and the accused having
absolutely no say in their own outcome.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Life Sentences in America
The USA has over 160,000 prisoners serving life terms. This means the United States has roughly 12 times as many lifers as any other country, and it's part of the reason why America houses an alarming one-quarter of the world's prisoners within its own borders.
See this comparative, interactive statistical map:
https://nationalcdp.org/life-sentences/
#MassIncarceration
See this comparative, interactive statistical map:
https://nationalcdp.org/life-sentences/
#MassIncarceration
Friday, March 20, 2015
Conjugal Visits in America
Conjugal visits in America are rare. Very rare. The lack of conjugal visits punishes the loved ones of inmates, who have done nothing wrong.
They also promote rehabilitation, family ties, and reduce recidivism. In fact, only 4 states in America (California, Washington, New York, and Connecticut) grant the privilege of a conjugal visit, and the inmate must pass a rigorous series of tests in order to qualify — as does the visitor’s spouse and/or family member.
A conjugal visit is not merely to have sex, but rather to provide private time that a prisoner may spend with a spouse or, in California and New York, a registered domestic partner.
The idea behind such visitation is to allow inmates to have intimate contact with their spouses in an effort to promote rehabilitation, strengthen family ties, encourage good behavior and improvement, and reduce recidivism for those not serving life sentences.
Depending on the state’s extended family visitation program, a conjugal or extended family visit may last from as little as one hour (in Mississippi, prior to the state terminating them in 2014) to 48 hours (in Washington).
Learn more about conjugal visits, and why -- if they're proven to rehabilitate, promote good behavior, strengthen family ties, and reduce recidivism -- they're only allowed in 4 of America's 50 states.
https://nationalcdp.org/conjugal-visits/
They also promote rehabilitation, family ties, and reduce recidivism. In fact, only 4 states in America (California, Washington, New York, and Connecticut) grant the privilege of a conjugal visit, and the inmate must pass a rigorous series of tests in order to qualify — as does the visitor’s spouse and/or family member.
A conjugal visit is not merely to have sex, but rather to provide private time that a prisoner may spend with a spouse or, in California and New York, a registered domestic partner.
The idea behind such visitation is to allow inmates to have intimate contact with their spouses in an effort to promote rehabilitation, strengthen family ties, encourage good behavior and improvement, and reduce recidivism for those not serving life sentences.
Depending on the state’s extended family visitation program, a conjugal or extended family visit may last from as little as one hour (in Mississippi, prior to the state terminating them in 2014) to 48 hours (in Washington).
Learn more about conjugal visits, and why -- if they're proven to rehabilitate, promote good behavior, strengthen family ties, and reduce recidivism -- they're only allowed in 4 of America's 50 states.
https://nationalcdp.org/conjugal-visits/
A Message for Chenango County, NY, Prosecutor Joe McBride
A message for Chenango County (NY) Prosecutor Joe McBride.
You have stripped the citizens of Chenango County, NY, of their constitutional civil liberties. You have duped the men and women in uniform into believing it's their duty to protect and serve your office & your political interests rather than the people of Chenango.
You turned a car accident into a trumped-up, media-driven murder case, a small-town circus atmosphere, and put an innocent man, Peter Wlasiuk, in prison for 25 years to life.
You lied to the family and friends of Patty Wlasiuk, and then paraded yourself around the city of Norwich and beyond as a champion of justice while on the campaign trail. And you still lost.
You're no champion of justice, Mr. McBride . You're a white collar criminal who has no place in any public office -- anywhere.
You're being investigated, Mr. McBride, and you're being watched. It will not be long until Chenango County is handed down where it belongs: to the people of Chenango County.
It's time for the people of Chenango to bring justice to Patty and her family, Peter, his beloved daughters, and to all residents of Chenago County.
https://cases.nationalcdp.org/joe-mcbride/
You have stripped the citizens of Chenango County, NY, of their constitutional civil liberties. You have duped the men and women in uniform into believing it's their duty to protect and serve your office & your political interests rather than the people of Chenango.
You turned a car accident into a trumped-up, media-driven murder case, a small-town circus atmosphere, and put an innocent man, Peter Wlasiuk, in prison for 25 years to life.
You lied to the family and friends of Patty Wlasiuk, and then paraded yourself around the city of Norwich and beyond as a champion of justice while on the campaign trail. And you still lost.
You're no champion of justice, Mr. McBride . You're a white collar criminal who has no place in any public office -- anywhere.
You're being investigated, Mr. McBride, and you're being watched. It will not be long until Chenango County is handed down where it belongs: to the people of Chenango County.
It's time for the people of Chenango to bring justice to Patty and her family, Peter, his beloved daughters, and to all residents of Chenago County.
https://cases.nationalcdp.org/joe-mcbride/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)