Starting at 10am, Jones v. Davis, the case in which the death penalty in California was declared unconstitutional because of the delays, streams live here:
If you're at Hastings, join me at my office at 10am. If not, tune in to the blog later today for fresh commentary.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Friday, August 21, 2015
Upcoming Event! Juveniles in Adult Institutions
We're happy to invite you to a film screening and discussion of juveniles doing time in adult prisons.
RSVP via this link.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Jones v. Chappell Oral Arguments Coming Up at the Ninth Circuit
Remember Jones v. Chappell?
At the time we were very excited: A federal District Court judge, Judge Cormac Carney of Orange County, declared the death penalty in California unconstitutional because of the decades-long delay in its administration. In fact, we were so excited that we organized a public petition to the Attorney General, asking her not to appeal the decision. We got some press and support from more than 2,000 signees (thank you!) and there were even a few surreal plot twists. Much to our disappointment, the Attorney General decided to appeal the decision.
On August 31, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case (now called Jones v. Davis--change of wardens). CCC will be there to report. If you want to read up a bit in the meantime, here's the amicus brief submitted by Death Penalty Focus.
At the time we were very excited: A federal District Court judge, Judge Cormac Carney of Orange County, declared the death penalty in California unconstitutional because of the decades-long delay in its administration. In fact, we were so excited that we organized a public petition to the Attorney General, asking her not to appeal the decision. We got some press and support from more than 2,000 signees (thank you!) and there were even a few surreal plot twists. Much to our disappointment, the Attorney General decided to appeal the decision.
On August 31, the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case (now called Jones v. Davis--change of wardens). CCC will be there to report. If you want to read up a bit in the meantime, here's the amicus brief submitted by Death Penalty Focus.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
BREAKING NEWS: Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Death Penalty Unconstitutional
Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, in a broad retroactive decision that removed all 11 inmates from death row and into general population. The Hartford Courant reports:
The majority decision, written by Justice Richard N. Palmer, found a host of flaws in the death penalty law, which banned "prospective" death sentences, those imposed after the effective date of the law. But the majority wrote that it chose to analyze capital punishment and impose abolition from a broad perspective.
After analysis of the law and "in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
""For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies prior to April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."
Congratulations, Connecticut! Come on, California Supreme Court!
The majority decision, written by Justice Richard N. Palmer, found a host of flaws in the death penalty law, which banned "prospective" death sentences, those imposed after the effective date of the law. But the majority wrote that it chose to analyze capital punishment and impose abolition from a broad perspective.
After analysis of the law and "in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
""For these reasons, execution of those offenders who committed capital felonies prior to April 25, 2012, would violate the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."
Congratulations, Connecticut! Come on, California Supreme Court!
Friday, August 7, 2015
Good News on Health Care for Transgender Inmates
Today a settlement was reached in Quine v. Brown, a case involving housing and healthcare for transgender inmates. The Transgender Law Center reports:
Today, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reached a groundbreaking settlement with Shiloh Quine, a transgender woman held in a men’s prison, to move her to a women’s facility and provide medical care, including gender-affirming surgery, determined necessary by several medical and mental health professionals. In the settlement, the state also agreed to change its policies so that transgender prisoners can access clothing and commissary items consistent with their gender identity. The state also affirmed that it is revising its policies regarding transgender inmates’ access to medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, including surgery.
“This historic settlement is a tremendous victory, not just for Shiloh and transgender people in prison, but for all transgender people who have ever been denied medical care or basic recognition of our humanity just because of who we are,” said Kris Hayashi, Executive Director of Transgender Law Center, which represented Shiloh along with pro bono counsel from the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. “After years of unnecessary suffering, Shiloh will finally get the care she desperately needs – and transgender people nationwide will hear a state government affirm that our identities and medical needs are as valid as anyone else’s.”
Today, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reached a groundbreaking settlement with Shiloh Quine, a transgender woman held in a men’s prison, to move her to a women’s facility and provide medical care, including gender-affirming surgery, determined necessary by several medical and mental health professionals. In the settlement, the state also agreed to change its policies so that transgender prisoners can access clothing and commissary items consistent with their gender identity. The state also affirmed that it is revising its policies regarding transgender inmates’ access to medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, including surgery.
“This historic settlement is a tremendous victory, not just for Shiloh and transgender people in prison, but for all transgender people who have ever been denied medical care or basic recognition of our humanity just because of who we are,” said Kris Hayashi, Executive Director of Transgender Law Center, which represented Shiloh along with pro bono counsel from the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. “After years of unnecessary suffering, Shiloh will finally get the care she desperately needs – and transgender people nationwide will hear a state government affirm that our identities and medical needs are as valid as anyone else’s.”
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
BREAKING NEWS: 50,000 New Voters in 2016!
Just in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a legal team comprised of various rehabilitation and reentry organizations has triumphed in returning the right to vote to 50,000 men and women who are under mandatory supervision!
A little bit of background: The California Constitution disenfranchises felons who are "imprisoned or on parole". In League of Women Voters of California v. McPherson, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that these categories did not include people who were in jail as a consequence of violating felony probation. After Realignment, thousands of non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual felons were sentenced to jail terms. A prior litigation effort on their behalf was unsuccessful (though we raised some important questions that were left unanswered.)
The current litigation effort was more modest, but also perhaps more realistic, seeking to restore the right to vote not to all realigned felons, but only to those under mandatory supervision. Folks under supervision serve time on the outside, under conditions strongly resembling probation. The prospective voters' advocates were successful on the first round. The former Secretary of State appealed, and just as the parties were ready to go forward, the current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, withdrew his appeal, with the outcome that voting is restored. And here's what Secretary Padilla had to say--here at CCC we wholeheartedly concur:
“Passage of the Voting Rights Act was not easily won,” Secretary Padilla said. “People marched. People struggled. People died. They bravely sacrificed for each other – for friends, family, for our country so that each of us could be empowered with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in our democracy.”
“Civic engagement and participation in the election process can be an important factor helping former offenders reintegrate into civil society. If we are serious about slowing the revolving door at our jails and prisons, and serious about reducing recidivism, we need to engage—not shun—former-offenders. Voting is a key part of that engagement; it is part of a process of becoming vested and having a stake in the community,” Padilla added.
“The United States Supreme Court eloquently proclaimed, “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
“Our California Supreme Court has made similar pronouncements: “No construction of an election law should be indulged that would disenfranchise any voter if the law is reasonably susceptible of any other meaning.”
“Today’s announcement is in line with these statements, the arc of California history, and the spirit of the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said.
See you at the ballot, fellow Californians!
A little bit of background: The California Constitution disenfranchises felons who are "imprisoned or on parole". In League of Women Voters of California v. McPherson, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that these categories did not include people who were in jail as a consequence of violating felony probation. After Realignment, thousands of non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual felons were sentenced to jail terms. A prior litigation effort on their behalf was unsuccessful (though we raised some important questions that were left unanswered.)
The current litigation effort was more modest, but also perhaps more realistic, seeking to restore the right to vote not to all realigned felons, but only to those under mandatory supervision. Folks under supervision serve time on the outside, under conditions strongly resembling probation. The prospective voters' advocates were successful on the first round. The former Secretary of State appealed, and just as the parties were ready to go forward, the current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, withdrew his appeal, with the outcome that voting is restored. And here's what Secretary Padilla had to say--here at CCC we wholeheartedly concur:
“Passage of the Voting Rights Act was not easily won,” Secretary Padilla said. “People marched. People struggled. People died. They bravely sacrificed for each other – for friends, family, for our country so that each of us could be empowered with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in our democracy.”
“Civic engagement and participation in the election process can be an important factor helping former offenders reintegrate into civil society. If we are serious about slowing the revolving door at our jails and prisons, and serious about reducing recidivism, we need to engage—not shun—former-offenders. Voting is a key part of that engagement; it is part of a process of becoming vested and having a stake in the community,” Padilla added.
“The United States Supreme Court eloquently proclaimed, “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
“Our California Supreme Court has made similar pronouncements: “No construction of an election law should be indulged that would disenfranchise any voter if the law is reasonably susceptible of any other meaning.”
“Today’s announcement is in line with these statements, the arc of California history, and the spirit of the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said.
See you at the ballot, fellow Californians!
Sunday, August 2, 2015
College Education Grants for Inmates Restored
Pell grants for inmates pursuing college education, which were terminated during the Clinton administration, have been renewed! The Wall Street Journal reports:
The plan, set to be unveiled Friday by the secretary of education and the attorney general, would allow potentially thousands of inmates in the U.S. to gain access to Pell grants, the main form of federal aid for low-income college students. The grants cover up to $5,775 a year in tuition, fees, books and other education-related expenses.
Prisoners received $34 million in Pell grants in 1993, according to figures the Department of Education provided to Congress at the time. But a year later, Congress prohibited state and federal prison inmates from getting Pell grants as part of broad anticrime legislation, leading to a sharp drop in the number of in-prison college programs. Supporters of the ban contended federal aid should only go to law-abiding citizens.
Between the mid-1990s and 2013, the U.S. prison population doubled to about 1.6 million inmates, many of them repeat offenders, Justice Department figures show. Members of both parties—including President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky—have called for a broad examination of criminal justice, such as rewriting sentencing guidelines.
A 2013 study by the Rand Corp. found that inmates who participated in education programs, including college courses, had significantly lower odds of returning to prison than inmates who didn’t.
Some congressional Democrats have proposed lifting the ban. Meanwhile, administration officials have indicated they would use a provision of the Higher Education Act that gives the Education Department the authority to temporarily waive rules, such as the Pell-grant ban, as part of an experiment to study their effectiveness.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Loretta Lynch are expected to announce the program, which likely would last three to five years to yield data on recidivism rates, at a prison in Jessup, Md., on Friday. Key details aren’t yet clear, such as which institutions and what types of convicts would be allowed to participate.
I really like this administration's focus on rehabilitation and return-on-investment strategies. I hope Obama will manage to accomplish as much as possible in this arena before the election in 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)