Monthly Archive: March 2024

Newsom Mainstreaming Condemned Murderers

California Governor Gavin Newsom plans to transfer 457 murderers, whose death sentences he postponed, out of San Quentin’s death row and into other prisons across the state. Hannah Wiley of the Los Angeles Times reports that the murderers will be released into the general population at two-dozen high-security prisons where they will have access to more rehabilitative programs and treatment services.  The  goal is to complete these transfers by this summer.  The effort to close down death row follows the Governor’s vision of transforming San Quentin into a Scandinavian-style campus where inmates would be allowed to wear their own clothes and cook their own food while attending classes and participating in job training programs. One wonders how safe it is going to be for the inmates serving time in the prisons where the state’s worst murderers are transferred.

Continue reading . . .

New York’s Formula For More Juvenile Crime

As serious and violent crime is slowly retreating from their 2022 highs, juvenile crime has sharply increased.  Liberty Unyielding has this article examining what happened in New York after the legislature passed the”Raise the Age” law in 2017.  That law reduced the punishment for 16 and 17-year-old criminal offenders.  The Albany County District Attorney David Soares, who immigrated to the U.S. from Africa, witnessed the impact of that law.

“Since that law passed, youth gun crime statewide has doubled—and youth gun victimization has nearly tripled. About 75 percent of violent felony cases now get handled in family court, which returns teens to the streets, where they often commit new crimes or become victims themselves of tit-for-tat gang warfare. “We witnessed the murder of a young man at the hands of another young man that had gone through the family court Raise the Age process . . . a minimum of three times,” Soares told local legislators in July. This was a system that was never designed to handle or deal with violent—super, super violent—youth.”

Continue reading . . .

Georgia Resumes Executions

In 1993, Alicia Lynn Yarbrough died in a nightmare scenario. The ex-boyfriend who wouldn’t go away broke into her home with two accomplices and abducted her at gunpoint, leaving her baby unattended in the house. The three men later gang-raped her, forced her back into the car, and drove to another location. Willie James Pye then forced her to lie face down and shot her three times. There is no doubt of guilt. The accomplice’s confession is confirmed by DNA. Long overdue justice was finally carried out last night, the first execution in Georgia since the pandemic. Continue reading . . .

Flying Under the Influence

Gareth Vipers reports for the WSJ:

A Delta Air Lines pilot was sentenced to 10 months in jail for turning up for a flight more than two-times over the aviation alcohol limit.

Lawrence Russell Jr. was caught trying to board a plane with two bottles of Jägermeister in his carry-on luggage, one of which was half empty, according to court filings released Tuesday. Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Copes with Sloppy Drafting in the First Step Act

In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act to water down federal sentencing law. I was critical of many provisions of the act at the time, see here, here, and here, though I did agree that some sentences were too harsh and could use a bit of moderation. Mandatory minimums were particularly under assault. I believe they serve a useful function, but some were overboard.

The previous version of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) had a safety valve allowing judges to let a defendant off from an otherwise mandatory minimum for certain drug crimes if all five of its listed requirements were met. The criminal history requirement was very narrow, and there is no doubt that the 2018 Congress wanted to open the door wider. But how wide? Unfortunately, the drafting of this section was sloppy, and today the Supreme Court disagreed sharply on how to read it. The case is Pulsifer v. United States. Continue reading . . .

Deja Vu All Over Again

A March 4 article by By Paul Demko, Jeremy White and Jason Befferman published in POLITICO reports that liberal Democrat politicians in some of the nation’s most progressive cities are abandoning the soft-on-crime policies that they vigorously supported a few years ago. Back in 2020, as the George Floyd riots were tearing up these same cities, politicians running New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles and San Francisco were insisting that sentences for so-called “low level” drug and theft related crimes be reduced, that cash bail be eliminated and that criminals, including violent gang members, be released early to rehabilitation programs. The motivator for these policies was the systemic racism narrative promoted by progressive academics, non-profits like Black Lives Matter, race-baiting politicians and the national media. While this narrative had been pushed since the 1990s, it got major traction after Floyd’s death as deep blue cities reflexively cut police budgets, elected pro-defendant prosecutors and swept away consequences for crime. Then something happened.

Continue reading . . .

Racial Injustice Becomes the Law in California

In 2020, while most Californians were struggling with Governor Newsom’s pandemic lockdown and George Floyd rioters were tearing up our cities, the Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed AB 2542 into law. In the Monday, March 4 Wall Street Journal, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald wrote, that under the new law (the California Racial Justice Act), “every felon serving time in the state’s prisons and jails can now retroactively challenge his conviction and sentencing on the ground of systemic bias.”

“To prevail, the incarcerated prisoner need not show that the police officers, prosecutors, judge or jurors in his case were motivated by racism or that his proceedings were unfair. If he can demonstrate that in the past, criminal suspects of his race were arrested, prosecuted or sentenced more often or more severely than members of other racial groups, he will be entitled to a new trial or sentence.” Continue reading . . .

Cal. Supreme Ct. Upholds Life-Without-Parole for Young Adult Murderers

A California law, enacted directly by the people, provides that the crime of first-degree murder with special circumstanhe ces committed by an adult is punishable by death or life in prison with no possibility of parole. Yet Tony Hardin, who committed a vicious murder at age 25, claimed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that he be considered for parole anyway because others who committed lesser degrees of murder at the same age are eligible for “youth offender parole” under California law. A California Court of Appeal panel actually bought that. The California Supreme Court rejected this claim in a 5-2 decision yesterday, reversing the Court of Appeal. Continue reading . . .