by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 4, 2025 1:54 pm
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia has this press release announcing this study in the Journal of Criminal Justice regarding the effect of sentence length on recividism. Overall, studies on this issue have mixed results and generally show little effect either way, as Elizabeth Berger and I describe in this article, which is cited in the new article.
Here is the abstract: Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 28, 2025 10:06 am
US DEA Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered in Mexico in 1985. Now Mexico has extradited drug boss Rafael Caro Quintero, who is wanted for the crime, along with 28 others. Santiago Pérez and José de Córdoba have this story in the WSJ.
Better late than never.
It would be understandable for a country to refuse to extradite its citizens if it had a functioning justice system that could and would impose a just punishment domestically. But that is not the case in Mexico when it comes to the drug gangs. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 25, 2025 3:15 pm
Paul Cassell has this post with the above title at the Volokh Conspiracy. No prizes for guessing the answer. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 25, 2025 11:13 am
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued two decisions in civil cases that we have been following but not participating in. The decisions involve exhaustion of administrative remedies in civil rights suits and attorneys fees for a party who gets a preliminary injunction in a case that is subsequently rendered moot. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 25, 2025 8:09 am
A short-handed and divided U.S. Supreme Court today decided the case of Glossip v. Oklahoma, taking the side of convicted murderer Richard Glossip. The Oklahoma Attorney General had taken his side as well. CJLF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of upholding the state court decision. The Court also appointed an amicus to make the argument the state AG should have made.
A bare majority of the Court held that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision did not rest on adequate and independent state courts and further found that Glossip had established his claim that the state had used and failed to correct perjured testimony, despite serious factual questions on the latter point. Rather than simply send the case back to state court for an evidentiary hearing, the Court ordered a new trial.
Justice Barrett concurred on the first point, partly concurred on the second, and dissented on the third. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the entirety. Justice Gorsuch was recused, having participated in the case during his time on the Tenth Circuit. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 19, 2025 6:09 pm
The University of Portsmouth, England, has this press release announcing this unsurprising result. “New research has revealed that alcohol can impair the ability of eyewitnesses to accurately recall a suspect’s facial features, particularly key details such as the eyes, nose, and mouth.”
It’s easy to laugh and say “of course” (and I did), but there is some value in research that confirms the obvious. Every once in a while such efforts actually contradict the obvious, and those incidents are important in the progress of science. The research also fills in some details that are not quite so obvious. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 12, 2025 6:45 pm
San Francisco DA Brooke Jenkins has been publicly criticizing judges there for excessively lenient sentences. Not surprisingly, she has been getting blowback for that. But it is an important public issue, worthy of public debate. Bob Egelko has this story in the SF Chronicle.
In one recent statement, Jenkins said, “The majority of (San Francisco) judges do not treat drug dealing as a serious crime despite repeat offenses, and the grave consequences visited upon our communities, and the drug dealers therefore do not fear incarceration, or any significant consequence.”
Here are a few specific cases of overly lenient sentences: Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 7, 2025 4:00 pm
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Counterman v. Colorado that if a stalker is prosecuted on the ground that his communications are threats, the prosecution must show a mental state of at least recklessness regarding the threatening nature of the communications. At the time, I thought it was unfortunate that the case went up as a “threats” case because there was a much better basis available. See this post. With stalkers, it is usually not so much the threatening content of the communication that is the problem, but rather the extreme persistence even after they have been told to buzz off. A long series of cases gives the government much more latitude to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech. The failure of the majority opinion to address this raised a danger that stalkers could get off when the case cannot be made that the speech amounts to a threat and the stalker knows or should know that.
Sure enough, this happened in Colorado, with the trial judge acquitting the stalker. But in Colorado the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeals to disapprove the trial court’s ruling for future cases, even though this perpetrator cannot be retried. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 6, 2025 4:19 pm
The U.S. Attorney General’s memorandum Reviving the Federal Death Penalty and Lifting the Moratorium on Federal Executions, February 5, is available here.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 3, 2025 5:21 pm
The U.S. Senate voted this evening to break the filibuster on the nomination of Pamela Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General. The vote was 52-46. Senators Graham and Fetterman did not vote. It is not clear whether they were present. Ms. Bondi should be confirmed when the substantive vote is taken.
Update: Pamela Bondi was confirmed as Attorney General on February 4 by a 54-46 vote.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED