Right / Left cooperation on criminal justice reform

While the political rhetoric of "law and order" often separates liberals and conservatives, the question of the substantive effects of criminal procedure have always suggested room for common cause between liberal critics of police procedures and sentencing and conservative/libertarian concerns with expanding state power. Today's New York Times has an interesting piece previewing 6 upcoming Supreme Court cases that deal with criminal justice issues and includes many quotes from across the political spectrum advocating for significant reform in this area. This is all quite relevant to yesterday's class discussion of law and order and the questions we will discuss next week as well.

Dog sniff lineups

Should an identification of a suspect's scent by a dog in a "scent lineup" be enough to imprison someone? Enough to convince a suspect to agree to a plea bargain?

In several of the cases that were based on Deputy Pikett’s dogs, however, the scent lineups appear to have provided the primary evidence, even when contradictory evidence was readily available. Mr. Bickham spent eight months in jail after being identified in a scent lineup by Deputy Pikett’s dogs, until another man confessed to the killings. In an interview, Mr. Bickham scoffed at the accusation that he had taken part in three murders, noting that he has been hobbled by bone spurs and diabetes and is partially blind.

Ronald Curtis, another Houston man jailed on the basis of Deputy Pikett’s dogs, was released from jail nine months after being accused of a string of burglaries. Store videos showed that the burglar did not resemble him. “Nobody was listening,” Mr. Curtis said.

The plea: follow up

We are left hanging at the end of The Plea as to what will happen to two of the documentary's subjects. A quick google gave me this 2005 New York Times profile of the filmaker Ofra Bikel which talks about several of the cases. Gampero and Jarrett each received parole after the airing of the documentary which appears to have had significant effect on their cases.

Did Texas execute an innocent man?

In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, it looks like they did. Texas's governor Rick Perry has done quite a bit to obstruct an investigation into the case, and recent statements by Willingham's lawyer raise many questions about whether Willingham received competent legal advice during his trial. Note also that Willingham refused a plea bargain that would have resulted in life imprisonment.

Link dump

Ok, ok, I have been totally remiss in keeping up the blog, for the 3 of you who check once in a while. Here are some recent events, articles, or cases of note.

The Supreme Court has accepted Kiyemba v Obama which will determine whether or not federal courts have the authority to order the release of detainees following Boumediene.

Is the rate of violent crime determined by levels of lead poisoning? Economist Rick Nevin argues that the drop in violent crime in the 1990s can be explained by bans on leaded gasoline and reductions in lead paint, and finds similar results in 9 different countries tied directly to the timing of lead reductions. While this may be similar to the widely publicized, and criticized, argument in Freakanomics that legalized abortion lead to the drop in violent crime, the fact that Nevin finds these results in 9 different countries, and the medical evidence on the effects of lead as a powerful neurotoxin, makes a strong case for his findings. If Nevin is correct, then it would seem we should divert as much money as possible from prisons to lead abatement programs. How likely is that?

Americans' perceptions of the crime rate used to correlate pretty closely with actual crime rates. When crime rates went up, people thought they were going up, and when they went down, people thought crime was going down. But since 2001, perceptions and reality no longer correlate. Why? No one seems to know.

The Supreme Court is hard to study due to all the secrecy surrounding the justices and their deliberations. Very little material ever becomes public, and even when it does it may or may not shed much light on key cases. When Justice Stevens retires, the papers of Justice Potter Stewart, who retired in 1981, will finally become available. While there may be some new information about deliberations over key cases during his tenure, we won't know until we see them. Maybe your grandchildren will get drive their flying cars to New Hampshire to study Justice Souter's notes on Bush v Gore sometime during the Malia Obama presidency because they won't be opened to the public until 2059.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a lot of business cases this term, and it may be interesting because there is speculation that Justice Sotomayor may be the first economic progressive on the court in a long time (Clinton's nominees are considered business friendly moderates) although no one is really sure how she will vote in these business cases. She has already asked some searching questions about the practice of treating corporations as artificial persons having the same rights as actual human people.

Republicans in the Senate have pretty much shut down the judicial confirmation process.