it's a shameful policy that needs to be overhauled. there's an abundant amount of research explaining the salient differences in brain anatomy and decision-making process between children and adults, yet we ignore it to be "tough on crime."

As a college educated, non-ex-con, it's hard enough right now to get a job. An ex-con, even though he or she may be completely reformed, must find it damn near impossible to find a job they can live off of.

Which leads me to models of reform for the juvenile system - I'd check out the missouri model, that you can read about here: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=288904.

I'd also look at the places who are moving to relying on risk based assessment to determine what kinds of treatment a kid needs. The Annie Casey Foundation website has a lot of information on the impact of their JDAI policy. I'll post some more links in a minute to specific policies that have proven to work. And again, these are to help the juveniles before they get to the point of murder.

one of the central questions that you have to ask yourself is an extremely easy one to answer: what is the race of the litigant - or litigants - in a particular case?
this court has developed a disturbing pattern of being extremely sympathetic to white litigants, while not being so sympathetic to african-american or other minority litigants.
this may have a lot to do with the fact that there has not been a voice for african-americans on he bench for about 20 years.
at least ginsberg is present to voice the concerns of women.

I know none of these things make me an expert - but those things, and the dozens of folks I know who were certified. The young boy I know who received an Lnote at 14 for raping an older woman makes me qualified. (a despicable crime I know, but I'm not so certain the people arguing it was just would have wanted to be him in the cell with the dudes hovering over him.)

The kid who got 56 years for an attempted capital murder where no gun was fired. I think my knowledge of these real lives give me a right to run off my mouth - and like I said in the post, it's complicated - but I've done some of the work to understand the issues. And I want you to challenge me so that I'm forced to better understand the issue, so that I'm a more effective advocate for the change I want to see.

i have to disagree with you. I feel like that's the line politicians sell us, that's the line that teachers sell us, and that most other people who want a strangle hold on the conversations that affect us all. But this is the thing, we can talk about who is qualified to say what, or we can talk about the thing. My whole thing now and always is, if you know more than me, or can offer an insight that I can't see because I didn't go to law school - offer that. We'll all judge whose comments has merits, and I will learn something and use it later.

I could go to law school tomorrow. I could be a law student right now. But what has to be relevant is what I say as a lawyer, law student, layman or what have you.

Also, believe me - it is not my personal experiences that make me qualified to speak on anything. I can name a hundred people right now who I wouldn't considered qualified to speak on prison who are in prison - and I know you can name a few incompetent lawyers or what have you. What makes any of us qualified is what we have to say, how long we've thought on it, how many perspectives we have brought into our opinions.

But the larger point is we have to wrestle with ideas, once the speaker has shown a modicum of credibility. I think I've shown a trace of sense in my posts. And I want someone to wrestle with that. Also, who says the person who is the lawyer is disinterested? They might be as passionate as I am - and I mention that because you mentioned the characteristic "disinterested" as if it suggested a lack of bias.

Right now, I am the interested guy speaking on the behalf of others. I have no personal stake in this - no more than any of us has as a citizen.

A judge who makes a decision based on risk based assessments wouldn't be coddling violent, dangerous thugs - and the real story is that violent offenders make up a small number of the juveniles in the system anyway. A lot of kids get locked up on status offenses.

I guess I think we should apply an equal amount of pressure on judges to follow policies that make communities safer, and that acknowledge that often the offenders will be released back into society.

Also, see how the conversation has shifted to violent offenders? It's because it's easy to frame locking up all these folks around violence, when the majority of people incarcerated aren't violent. Even with the JLWOP issue - a life with parole sentence will still leave the community safe, but would leave a sliver of hope. And a life sentence that caps at 40 years - do you think someone does 40 years in prison to come home and re-offend?

but your contention that you can gain - and have - the same kind of knowledge that an attorney gains is simply literally impossible.
literally impossible.
you cannot sit in a judge's chambers during a pre-trial conference and watch a judge's body language tell you everything you need to know about his/her view or posture on a particular case.
you cannot maintain relationships with prosecutors or judges or other counsel that inform you about cases in ways that are often conveyed in non-verbal ways. attorneys and judges are very adept with this type of communication because one certainly doesn't want to commit certain communications on paper, because that might later come back to haunt you.
you cannot have the experience of negotiating with another attorney on matters that impact the freedom of another person.
you cannot understand the experience of actually trying a case in front of a jury and benefit from the knowledge one gains from that experience.
you cannot stand in front of a court of appeals panel and understand a case after going through that crucible.
of course, you may be perfectly capable of going forward and gaining the credentials that would allow you to gain that knowledge and experience. i would never imagine that anyone was not capable of doing so.
but the idea that a layperson, someone who doesn't experience what i've just noted - along with an entire range of endeavors that only lawyers can engage in - can somehow gain knowledge that can only be gained through experience, well that is just dead wrong.
experience matters.
experience provides one with a certain kind of knowledge that reading books or imagining simply cannot provide.
while i do not think that "the law" is this mystical realm where only the exalted few can enter and decipher its hidden meanings, there are certain practical things that lawyers do routinely that provide knowledge that non-lawyers simply cannot gain.
it's not better or worse knowledge; it's just different.

And with regard to the tired old canard that politicians just want people to believe that they need lawyers to navigate the legal system: I'd like to see you successfully argue a complex commercial litigation in a federal court.

This is the rule because the majority of Americans know that while they are out working for a living people other than them are going to be making the decision about who gets parole. They suspect the people making those decisions will tend to be similar to the actvists who claim Mumia is a political prisoner, or the lawyers who trip over themselves to defend terrorists, or the Ivy Law Professors who spend their effort badmouthing America. And they don't trust these people to care enough about public safety.

They believe this because we already watched it happen, and it's the same reason many jurisdictions have minimum sentences and/or three strikes rules. When the public found out about furloughs, criminals serving ridiculously short sentences, and virtually automatic parole they decided those within the system couldn't be trusted. So they took discretion out of their hands.

Desiring safety is demogogic. Calling a desire for safety "somethat racist" is what exactly? I can't decide if this is funny or sad. FYI, there are racist methods to emphasize safety, or you might play on racist fears. But by itself a desire for public safety is not racist. Your claiming so reveals how little you understand the issue that you cannot separate the base issue from other events.

And you might read closer. I said the point was to remove the discretion of the lawyers. You respond that they don't like it, as if this somehow proves something. Of course they hate it.

You assertions that there never was a problem are simply propoganda that allow you to claim anyone to your right are racist. Grow up. If you want to claim the problem was overstated at least you have an opinion to support. Saying it doesn't exist just further (see first paragraph) illustrates how fringy your beliefs are.

And last, try to understand the comment. This is why we have these rules. Your desire for different rules, or belief that they are unreasonable, is beside the point.

I didn't say the insiders were believed to be categorically all activists. I said people suspect legal system insiders will tend to be more like the groups identified than themselves.

Why? First, most people don't want to work with criminals. It's dangerous and most criminals are not pleasant people. It's much more satisfying to write computer software or teach third grade. So who takes these jobs? People who have few other choices, people who gain intangibles others don't, and people who are more comfortable around criminals than most. Activists who think criminals are victims rather than victimizers probably meet both these last criteria.

And second, because that's what they've watched happen before. When truth in sentencing was an issue (which didn't mandate sentencing) who fought it? Activists and insiders, many of whom were both.

"so...you take discretion from trained professionals who have devoted their lives to certain career paths and you give it to any idiot who can draft a voter initiative and convince some rich guy to fund a massive campaign to pass it?"

Yes, this is exactly what ocurred. It is in fact a terrible solution, one that the public feels was forced on them by these "trained professionals" violating the public's trust.

And the rest of your screed shows why the public won't trust the fringe left on this matter. You blather on about racism this, Republicans that, but not one word about fixing the system. You have not one thing to offer. The public is never going to trust its safety to anyone as unserious as you.

"I tend to think legal system insiders will tend to be more like the groups identified than themselves."
-why would you think that the John Does of the world would think that parole officers, who hold steady jobs and support their families would resemble murderers more than them?

-Second, parole officers are generally not lawyers.

-parole officers are people who "gain intangibles most don't?" I don't understand what this means. Do you mean affirmative action cases? (because I thoroughly disagree with affirmative action in principle).

Frankie said it is stupid to take discretion away from trained professionals and invest that power in ballot initiatives. You seem to criticize this observation, but then say "this is exactly what occurred." Now, riddle me this: how was depriving trained professionals of discretion a policy change "forced" upon the public BY trained professionals? Are you suggesting they were attempting to abandon their own authority?

These "trained professionals" refused to enforce the laws as the public desired. The public was forced to find a solution that could not be subverted by them, so they used what was available.

Frankie seems to believe that the opinions of "trained professionals" are beyond reproach, but I think he'll have a tough sell on that. I wonder if he applies that principle to all industries, or if this is a tacit admission that legal system insiders run left.

It is less than optimal to use a ballot initiative, or even a more normal political process. Even people who voted for it recognize that. But they felt it was better that the alternative. Returning to the old (non)enforcement policies is not going to fly. To improve the system the insiders need to regain the trust of the public. And it seems obvious that these insiders are never going to regain the trust of anyone when they and their allies are claiming anyone concerned about public safety is "somewhat racist".

I don't understand your non-sequitur about how if frankie does not admit that all people with formal training in a field do not admit that their opinions are just as good as those without training it proves that the "legal insiders" are all leftists.

And more generally, why do you think all "legal insiders" are leftists? Last time I checked, we came in all flavors. Last time I checked, John Yoo and David Addington and Jay Bybee were some of the most powerful lawyers in the country, writing some of the most conservative legal opinions in the country. Don't tell me we're all leftists, that dog won't hunt montseignur.

But I would like to contribute one broader point. Which is that this dichotomy that people like to create between "people who care about public safety" and "liberals who just want to coddle criminals" is an utter and total canard. For example, mj, who writes above that the American people "don't trust these people [read: lawyers who work to defend criminal defendants' constitutional rights] to care enough about public safety."

People like to accuse an imagined "left wing" of "coddling criminals" at the expense of "public safety." But of course we all want to live in safe communities. And that is precisely why some people on all ends of the political spectrum have serious concerns about our current criminal justice system. The fact is that putting people in prison does not make anyone safer. Prison is criminogenic. Statistics bear this out. Once people go to prison, they become more likely to commit additional crimes. This is especially true, of course, for low-level nonviolent drug offenders who may have never been violent, but then got sent to prison where violence is learned.

Even with violent offenders, the reality is that most people who go to prison do eventually get out. And the prisons we have are basically set up to ensure that once those prisoners do get out, they will be basically unemployable, ostracized from society (e.g., can't vote in many places), often undereducated, often undertrained, etc. Hence, more likely to turn to crime, if only because they may feel they don't have anything to lose by it, and/or don't have any good options. Now, maybe you don't think people's circumstances affect their likelihood of committing crime; you think criminal behavior is 100% a choice that can be made out of free will. You are free to have that opinion, but it's simply not backed up by the statistics.

Everyone wants to live in safer communities -- we need to confront the fact that the way to do that is emphatically not to put more people in prison for longer. If you think that the answer to crime is longer and stiffer prison sentences for everyone -- then you need to honestly admit that what you care about is revenge, not safety. If you really care about safety, then you need to honestly admit that longer and stiffer prison sentences for everyone are not the solution.

I recommend that everyone read this article by William Stuntz:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/157ehmas.asp

Stuntz cannot be easily categorized using the facile terms that many in the blogosphere prefer. He's a Harvard Law professor, and an evangelical Christian -- not a typical combo. And he's hardly soft on crime. But he points out many troubling facts. I'd love to copy his whole article here if I could, but for now, here are just two statistics to mull over:

(1) "The black imprisonment rate in 2000 was roughly one-third higher than the rate at which citizens of the Soviet Union were confined to the gulag's camps in Stalin's last years (when the camps' population peaked). If America's jail population is included, the black incarceration rate is nearly double the Soviet rate of confinement circa 1950."

Stuntz argues that such high incarceration rates do not effectively deter crime -- when incarceration is that routine for a population, it loses its stigma (which is not to say it is not tragic). Now, me personally, I'd submit we also need to confront that regardless of what we may think about penology or the purposes of criminal justice, a regime that imprisons a certain discrete segment of the population at these rates has something rotten in its core on a more basic, democratic legitimacy level. But again, we don't even need to go into all of that because we can stick to the common ground of utilitarian arguments, and there, the bottom line is this: incarceration rates this high do not deter. They do not make anyone safer.

(2) "The murder rate in the United States is about the same as in 1966; the imprisonment rate is almost five times the rate in 1966. Apparently, it takes five times as much punishment to achieve the deterrent effect prison terms had more than 40 years ago."

When you actually look at the numbers, it becomes clear that massive incarceration does nothing to keep us safer, and if anything, makes our communities less safe. So to try to make this a debate about "public safety" vs. anything else is just a canard, and counterproductive.

The public did have several options in the political process, and at different times and places used them all. But if you don't trust the DA candidates to follow through on their promises, an attractive option is limiting their ability to break them.

I didn't say legal insiders are all leftists, I said that they run, or tend to be, left. I noted it because the thread evolved to imply that somehow it is inconceivable that opinions of "trained professionals" are questioned. The implication seems to be that this group is completely comprised of solonic professionals and us mere mortals simply have to accept their rule. And I wonder what it is about this particular group of industry professionals that makes people believe this. For example, I suspect few people who accept this statement about the legal system would accept the same statement regarding the financial industry.

Do I think parole officers face more dangerous circumstances than Joe or Jane insurance claim processor? Of course, any involvement with criminals increases your risk by putting you on their radar. I don't necessarily think this risk is huge. But I think you're overselling your point. First, these features don't have to be true of every position in order to cause disproportionate results. And second this doesn't address the idea that workign with criminals is seen as unpleasant by most people.

By insiders I mean people who run the system, not criminals. I'm saying the public believes the group that runs the system will tend to include more activists and grandstanders than the public at large. And since this group will have a disproportionate effect on enforcement, they don't trust them to make the decisions the public prefers.

Intangibles is not a reference to affirmative action. I'm referring to people who gain non-material rewards. A lawyer might use his time with project innocence to enhance an expected political future. An activist might feel that parole work is a contribution for social justice.