Wednesday, February 3, 2010
New Approach to Punishing Child Porn Possessors
The New York Times has an article today detailing a novel approach to dealing with individuals convicted of possessing child pornography. Lawyer James Marsh represents "Amy," a woman who was abused by an uncle who documented and posted his crimes to the internet. The series of photos and videos are popular and are often found in the personal collection of individuals accused of possessing child pornography. Mr. Marsh devised a method for Amy to secure restitution for her suffering, demanding payment from any individual who is found to have the images in his possession. Under a theory of joint and several liability, Mr. Marsh claims that every guilty party should be ordered to pay the full amount of the restitution ($3.4 million) and then be permitted to sue co-defendants for their respective share of the total. The approach has provoked mixed responses from the legal community.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Citizens United, President Obama and Justice Alito
The last 10 days or so have been pretty big from a legal/political standpoint. We had what could be a huge decision from the Supreme Court, and also the State of the Union address from President Obama. To make matters even more interesting, certain occurrences during last night's speech could very well inflame the issue even more. Full disclosure: I did not watch the speech last night. For one thing, I was working. More importantly, I'm dreadfully tired of talk with no action. Besides, surely I can get an unbiased, non-partisan account of what happened from the myriad news sources on the television and the interwebs...
In any case, during the speech President Obama expressed his disappointment in the Citizens United case and lamented what he saw as the likely outcome of the decision. That a sitting president has a bone to pick with a Supreme Court decision is not really news. Some outlets suggest that the forum for said criticism was unconventional. However, the reaction from Justice Alito, sitting front and center for all the cameras to see, clearly indicated that he didn't take kindly to the criticism. At first he appears to be struggling with a vile taste in his mouth, after which it looks like he mouths the words "not true." What exactly he was referring to as "not true" is open for debate.
That a Supreme Court justice would react to anything said during a president's speech is highly unconventional and raises some interesting questions about the court's alleged apolitical-ness (a real word? probably not). Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has an interesting article today discussing the situation and what it means for a court that already credibility issues in the eyes of the public.
Also, since Murphy has yet to treat the Citizens United case directly, here are two articles discussing the legitimacy of the decision. One of them is another article from Greenwald, concluding the decision was at least partially correct. The other is from Lawrence Lessig and is a response to Greenwald's column.
In any case, during the speech President Obama expressed his disappointment in the Citizens United case and lamented what he saw as the likely outcome of the decision. That a sitting president has a bone to pick with a Supreme Court decision is not really news. Some outlets suggest that the forum for said criticism was unconventional. However, the reaction from Justice Alito, sitting front and center for all the cameras to see, clearly indicated that he didn't take kindly to the criticism. At first he appears to be struggling with a vile taste in his mouth, after which it looks like he mouths the words "not true." What exactly he was referring to as "not true" is open for debate.
That a Supreme Court justice would react to anything said during a president's speech is highly unconventional and raises some interesting questions about the court's alleged apolitical-ness (a real word? probably not). Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has an interesting article today discussing the situation and what it means for a court that already credibility issues in the eyes of the public.
Also, since Murphy has yet to treat the Citizens United case directly, here are two articles discussing the legitimacy of the decision. One of them is another article from Greenwald, concluding the decision was at least partially correct. The other is from Lawrence Lessig and is a response to Greenwald's column.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Positive Signs for Criminal Justice Reform
The New York Times website has an interesting article examining some new and novel approaches to law enforcement, criminal punishment and community outreach. With states facing increasingly tight budgets, the expanding prison population has become a serious issue in the search to trim expenses. Far too often the answer in these situations is to cut programs and services in the jails and prisons themselves, creating deplorable conditions for inmates and opening states and municipalities to charges of constitutional violations.
As an alternative to dubious cost-saving measures in corrections facilities, some criminal justice scholars have begun to assess current punishment and deterrent schemes in hopes of developing more effective methods of keeping people out of the facilities all together. The Times article looks at several projects formed by scholars and judges designed to increase consistency, certainty and fairness in the criminal justice system.
In one study, researchers brought together parties on both sides of the system; the police, lawbreakers and potential lawbreakers, and members of the community. At these meetings, individuals who might find themselves afoul of the law were informed that infractions would result in swift and certain punishment. By removing the often arbitrary and capricious nature common to the criminal justice system, officials were able to foster a perception of fairness in the minds of the potential lawbreakers. That perception of fairness and certainty appears to have led to reduced crime rates.
Although these studies and pilot programs have been limited to specific cities and neighborhoods, the results are promising. Furthermore, the approach advocated by these programs "should appeal to liberals (it doesn’t rely on draconian prison sentences) and to conservatives (it stresses individual choice and moral accountability)." Hopefully the appeal is powerful enough to bring about the changes to our criminal justice system that are so desperately needed.
As an alternative to dubious cost-saving measures in corrections facilities, some criminal justice scholars have begun to assess current punishment and deterrent schemes in hopes of developing more effective methods of keeping people out of the facilities all together. The Times article looks at several projects formed by scholars and judges designed to increase consistency, certainty and fairness in the criminal justice system.
In one study, researchers brought together parties on both sides of the system; the police, lawbreakers and potential lawbreakers, and members of the community. At these meetings, individuals who might find themselves afoul of the law were informed that infractions would result in swift and certain punishment. By removing the often arbitrary and capricious nature common to the criminal justice system, officials were able to foster a perception of fairness in the minds of the potential lawbreakers. That perception of fairness and certainty appears to have led to reduced crime rates.
Although these studies and pilot programs have been limited to specific cities and neighborhoods, the results are promising. Furthermore, the approach advocated by these programs "should appeal to liberals (it doesn’t rely on draconian prison sentences) and to conservatives (it stresses individual choice and moral accountability)." Hopefully the appeal is powerful enough to bring about the changes to our criminal justice system that are so desperately needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)