DOCSLIB.ORG

Arguments Against the Use of Recidivist Statutes That Contain Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arguments Against the Use of Recidivist Statutes That Contain Mandatory Minimum Sentences University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 5 Issue 1 Fall 2010 Article 7 January 2010 Arguments against the Use of Recidivist Statutes That Contain Mandatory Minimum Sentences Anthony Nagorski Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Anthony Nagorski, Arguments against the Use of Recidivist Statutes That Contain Mandatory Minimum Sentences, 5 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 214 (2010). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol5/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF RECIDIVIST STATUTES THAT CONTAIN MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES ANTHONY NA GORSKI ABSTRACT The goal of this article is to answer the question: Why have more states not enacted habitual offender statutes after the initial legislative enactment boom of these statutes in the 1990s? The focus of this article is on habitual offender laws, most notably Three Strikes laws, which provide for mandatory minimum sentences imposed upon a defendant after a certain number of prior offenses have been committed. Focusing specifically on Three Strikes laws limits the scope of this analysis regarding habitual offender statutes because it leaves out arguments associated with the discretionary decisions of judges and prosecutors within such statutes. Repeat offender statutes that carry mandatory minimum sentences are inherently unfair to defendants. Additionally, these laws are being reevaluated in an effort to cut costs. The punishment a defendant serves under a recidivist statute may be disproportionate to the actual offense committed. These statutes also unfairly impose a punishment for a defendant's prior offenses for which they have already been punished, essentially punishing a defendant for his status as a "criminal." These statutes create unfair penalties for defendants, fail to deter criminals, overcrowd prisons, and lack any traditional criminal justice rationale for their existence. Such statutes are an ineffective way to deter crime and they impose sentences that are unfair to defendants. I INTRODUCTION Recidivist statutes, also termed habitual offender laws, significantly increase the prison sentences handed down to persons convicted of a violent crime or serious felony. In fact, these statutes require that those offenders be given a prison sentence of a significant number of years (usually twenty- five years to life), rather than a lesser punishment possible in sentencing circumstances where a Three Strikes statute is not considered. This paper J.D. Candidate 2011, University of St. Thomas School of Law; Symposium Director, Journal of Law and Public Policy. No. 1] Arguments Against the Use of Recidivist Statutes focuses only on those habitual offender laws that require a mandatory minimum sentence. Any reference to habitual offender statutes, or Three Strikes laws, in this paper applies only to those statutes which contain mandatory minimum sentences. Focusing solely on this specific type of habitual offender law limits the scope of the analysis and leaves out any arguments related to discretionary decisions made with regard to recidivist laws. Three Strikes laws are statutes "prescribing an enhanced sentence, esp[ecially] life imprisonment, for a repeat offender's third felony conviction."' These statutes have been called into enactment by state and federal legislatures in an attempt to answer the question: "How do we deal with those individuals who refuse to be rehabilitated and deterred from committing future crimes?"' Economic theory holds that, all else equal, a person is less likely to commit a crime when the expected costs for committing that crime increase.3 The additional prison terms called for by recidivist laws increase the expected costs for persons who commit new crimes subsequent to a prior conviction for a crime defined within the statute. These laws were especially tempting to enact given the repeated statistic that six percent of criminal offenders commit nearly seventy percent of all crimes, and six percent of violent offenders commit seventy percent of all violent crimes.4 It would seem logical that enacting a law which both deters new criminals and keeps repeat violent offenders locked up for longer periods of time would decrease the overall crime rates. It was precisely this logic that helped recidivist laws increase in popularity in the 1990s. In 1999, twenty- six states and the federal government had enacted laws that were considered Three Strikes laws in an attempt to fird a way to decrease skyrocketing 1. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 719 (3d pocket ed. 2006). 2. Daniel Lungren, Letter to the Editor, Financial Costs of "3 Strikes Law," L.A. TIMES, Jan. 10, 1996, at B8 (stating claim by California Attorney General Daniel Lungren that the state's Three Strikes law is "having an immediate impact on the 7% of all criminals who commit between 50% and 70% of all crimes"); see also Bill Jones, Impact of "Three Strikes" Draws Praise, Criticism: Pro Evidence Shows Law is Working, FRESNO BEE, Jan. 21, 1996, at B7 (reporting that California Secretary of State who co-sponsored the Three Strikes law stated that 6% of criminals are responsible for 70% of the state's crime); cf, Mario M. Cuomo, "Three Strikes, " Two Views: Harsh, Sure, But Fair,N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 29, 1994, at A19 (stating that a Three Strikes law "would give us a heavy hammer to use against these career criminals"); Timothy Egan, A 3-Strike Law Shows It's Not as Simple as It Seems, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 15, 1994, at Al (describing claims by proponents that Washington's Three Strikes law will remove from society a core group of incorrigible violent criminals). 3. See, e.g., Gary S. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 J. POL. ECON. 169 (1968); Isaac Ehrlich, Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and EmpiricalInvestigation, 81 J. POL. ECON. 521 (1973). 4. Linda S. Beres & Thomas D. Griffith, Do Three Strikes Laws Make Sense? Habitual Offender Statutes and Criminal Incapacitation,87 GEO. L.J. 103 (1998); see e.g., Cuomo, supra note 2 (stating that studies have indicated that 15% of offenders are responsible for 85% of personal injury offenses); and Egan, supra note 2 (noting claim by supporters of Washington state's Three Strikes law that federal statistics show 6% of criminals commit 70% of crimes). 216 UNIV. OF ST. THOMAS JOURNAL OFLA W& PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. V crime rates.5 Today, twenty-four states still have Three Strikes laws, but many are continuing to search for ways to decrease prison costs and are offering clemency to individuals previously sentenced to life in prison for nonviolent crimes under recidivist statutes.6 The United States Supreme Court held that various repeat offender statutes are constitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and has rarely overturned a sentence under a Three Strikes law. However, nearly half of the states have yet to pass a Three Strikes statute, and many have amended current recidivist statutes to make them less severe. Also, no new state has passed a Three Strikes law since 1995.1 Recidivist statutes containing mandatory minimum sentences are unjust because they impose a punishment for a defendant's prior offenses. For this reason, the punishment a defendant serves under a recidivist statute is often grossly disproportionate to the actual offense the defendant committed. These statutes are unjust to a defendant because they punish the defendant based on his status as a repeat criminal and not based on his commission of a new crime. Three Strikes laws not only impose unfair penalties upon defendants, but they also fail to deter criminals, overcrowd prisons, and lack traditional criminal justice rationale for their existence. II. OVERVIEW OF NOTABLE AND CURRENT RECIDIVIST STATUTES The United States codified its career offender statute in 18 U.S.C.A. §4B 1.1, which reads: (a) A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.8 This statute was enacted in November of 1987 with multiple amendments made to it throughout the 1990s; the most current amendment passed as recently as 2002.' The statute requires that a defendant's third conviction be a crime of violence or a controlled substance crime.10 It also requires that the defendant have at least two prior felony convictions for 5. Mike Reynolds, States with Three Strikes Laws, Three Strikes and You're Out: Stop Repeat Offenders, http://www.threestrikes.org/3strikestates.html (last visited Nov. 10, 2010). 6. Matt Kelly, Revisiting Three-Strikes Laws, CHANGE.ORG, Aug. 11, 2009, http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/revisitingthree-strikeslaws. 7. See supra note 5. 8. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4B1.1 (West 2007). 9. Id. (see Historical Notes). 10. Id. No. 1] Arguments Against the Use of Recidivist Statutes either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense in order to be sentenced as a career offender." The federal career offender law punishes fewer individuals each year and is less severe in its punishments than California's Three Strikes laws, as is illustrated below. However, it is important to note that the federal government of the United States has taken a position in support of repeat offender laws. Between December 1993 and January 1996, twenty-four states enacted some version of the Three Strikes law.'" The original Three Strikes law, passed in the state of Washington, ordered that individuals "who are convicted of the 'most serious offenses' on three occasions be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole."' 3 Other states soon followed by enacting similar versions of the Washington law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jason D. Sinnett V. State of Indiana
    MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jason D. Sinnett Theodore E. Rokita Branchville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Catherine E. Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Jason D. Sinnett, March 26, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1406 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan M. Appellee-Plaintiff. Brown, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D02-1808-F5-5640 Mathias, Judge. [1] Jason D. Sinnett appeals the Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Sinnett argues that the trial court imposed an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 1 of 8 impermissible double enhancement when it sentenced him for both Level 5 felony auto theft—enhanced to a Level 5 because he had a prior unrelated felony auto theft conviction—and for being a habitual offender. [2] Concluding that the trial court did not err when it sentenced Sinnett, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] In August 2018, Sinnett was charged with Level 6 felony auto theft and Level 5 felony auto theft because Sinnett had a prior unrelated auto theft conviction. Specifically, the State alleged Sinnett was convicted of auto theft in 2013 under cause number 29C01-1307-FC-5883.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitually Offending the Constitution: the Cruel and Unusual Consequences of Habitual Offender Laws and Mandatory Minimums
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GMC\28-1\GMC102.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-NOV-17 13:27 HABITUALLY OFFENDING THE CONSTITUTION: THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL CONSEQUENCES OF HABITUAL OFFENDER LAWS AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS Abigail A. McNelis* INTRODUCTION Lee Carroll Brooker will die before seeing another day of free- dom.1 At the age of seventy-six years old, the disabled veteran cur- rently sits in prison, waiting out the remainder of his days, serving a mandatory life sentence for a non-violent drug charge.2 In 2011, Brooker received a life sentence for a marijuana conviction.3 As a veteran suffering from chronic pain, Brooker grew marijuana plants behind his son’s home.4 Brooker intended the marijuana only for per- sonal use.5 During an unrelated home search, police recovered less than three pounds of marijuana plants, which included unusable pieces such as stalks and vines.6 On July 20, 2011, Investigator Ronald Hall of the Dothan Police Department obtained written consent from Brooker’s son, Darren, to search the family home.7 Darren consented to the search in connec- tion with an investigation into stolen bicycles.8 While searching the house, investigators discovered a smaller growing operation in an upstairs bedroom.9 Investigators decided to search outside the prem- ises, and Brooker confirmed the presence of additional plants behind the home.10 The multiple investigators on the scene discovered sev- * Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, J.D. expected, 2018. 1 See Ex parte Brooker, 192 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2015). 2 Editorial, Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Dearborn-Local-Rules.Pdf
    CRIMINAL RULES LR15-CR-1 BAIL In all criminal matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Dearborn Circuit Court, Dearborn County Superior Court No. 1, and/or Dearborn Superior Court II, in which an arrest has been made and misdemeanor, felony or murder charges are pending, the following bond schedule shall apply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. A. A PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL OFFENSES IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO POST BAIL WITHOUT PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE A JUDGE AT AN INITIAL HEARING AND THE BOND SCHEDULE DOES NOT APPLY 1. Any person charged with Murder; 2. Any person charged with any Class A, B, or C Felony or Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Felony; 3. Any person charged with a crime involving Domestic Violence which shall include the felony or misdemeanor offenses of Domestic Battery, Strangulation, Battery on a Child, Intimidation, Confinement, Invasion of Privacy or Stalking 4. Any person arrested for Resisting Law Enforcement, Battery on a Police Officer, or Escape from Home Detention Program; 5. Any person arrested for Non-Support of a Dependent Child; 6. Any person charged with Habitual Offender or is shown to have two (2) or more prior felony convictions; 7. Any person currently on probation or parole; 8. Any person currently on Southeast Regional Community Corrections Road Crew, Work Release, or In Home Incarceration; 9. Any person currently on release on bond for a Level 1,2,3,4,5 or 6; or A, B, C, or D Felony offense; 10. Any person charged with Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated who has two (2) or more prior Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated convictions; 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence Without Parole Is Disproportionate Elizabeth M
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 11 Issue 4 Fall Fall 1983 Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate Elizabeth M. Mills Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth M. Mills, Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1372 (1983) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/83/7404-1372 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 4 Copyright C 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printedin US.A. EIGHTH AMENDMENT--CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: HABITUAL OFFENDER'S LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE IS DISPROPORTIONATE Solem v. Helm, 103 S. Ct. 3001 (1983). I. INTRODUCTION In Solem v. Helm,' the Supreme Court, for the first time, held a sen- tence of imprisonment to be cruel and unusual because it was dispropor- tionate to the crime committed. The Court overturned a life sentence without parole imposed under a recidivist statute on a defendant who had been convicted of seven relatively minor felonies. The Court held that the sentence was disproportionate and thus violated the eighth 2 amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitual Offender Laws: a Reconsideration
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 Article 5 10-1-1971 Habitual Offender Laws: A Reconsideration Daniel Katkin University at Buffalo Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel Katkin, Habitual Offender Laws: A Reconsideration, 21 Buff. L. Rev. 99 (1971). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol21/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HABITUAL OFFENDER LAWS: A RECONSIDERATION DANIEL KATKIN* I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE ecidivism is a comparatively new social problem. Prior to the movement for penal reform in England (1750-1833) even the most trifling offenses were punishable either by hanging or by imprisonment which was considered to be only a slightly more protracted death.' Thus, while there were unquestionably hab- itual criminals, there were few whose careers were not ended by a first conviction. By the end of the nineteenth century this unexpected conse- quence of reform-the presence of the habitual criminal-was clearly recognized and attention was focused on the resultant issues of social protection and deterrence.2 The concept of pre- ventive detention for repeated offenders was initially suggested in the Gladstone Committee Report of 1895,3 which is generally regarded as a landmark in the history of progressive penology.4 While the Committee urged the acceptance of rehabilitation as a goal of the penal system,5 it was skeptical about the capacity for reformation of recidivist offenders: There is evidently a large class of habitual criminals-who live by robbery and thieving and petty larceny-who run the risk of comparatively short sentences with comparative indifference.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Strikes and You're Out: the Implementation and Impart of Strike Laws
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Three Strikes and You’re Out: The Implementation and Impart of Strike Laws Author(s): James Austin Ph.D. ; John Clark ; Patricia Hardyman Ph.D. ; D. Alan Henry Document No.: 181297 Date Received: March 6, 2000 Award Number: 96-CE-VX-0009 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. “THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT” THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF STRIKE LAWS Submitted by James Austin, Ph.D. John Clark Patricia Hardyman, Ph.D. D. Alan Henry -,, . ...’, ... b ;. .., 1. - ..., This project was supported by Grant No. 96-CE-VX-0009awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What? Richard S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2005 Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What? Richard S. Frase Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frase, Richard S., "Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What?" (2005). Minnesota Law Review. 668. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/668 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality"Relative to What? By Richard S. Fraset Introduction .............................................................................. 572 I. A Short History of Prison-Duration Proportionality in the Suprem e Court ..................................................... 576 A . R um m el v. Estelle .................................................... 577 B . H utto v. Davis .......................................................... 578 C . Solem v. H elm .......................................................... 579 D. Harmelin v. Michigan .............................................. 581 E. Ewing v. California.................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sex Offenses and the Statutory Consequences
    Sex Offenses and the Statutory Consequences March 2014 Terri S. Morrison, First Assistant Legal Counsel, Colorado Judicial Department This document was prepared by Terri Morrison, First Assistant Legal Counsel for the Colorado Judicial Department and it is intended to demonstrate the numerous combinations that are created by the consequences of a plea or finding of guilty to each sex offense. It is not intended to be legal advice or exhaustive of all issues pertaining to sex offenders in Colorado. The following categories are used to demonstrate the combinations: Sex Offender Registration Requirements; Lifetime/Indeterminate sentences to DOC or Probation—For offenses occurring on or after November 1, 1998; Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) as part of a Probation sentence; and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) assessment and findings. The chart does not cover all sentencing outcomes that may be controlled by factors such as: A defendant’s non-eligibility for probation based on prior criminal offense (§18-1.3-201); Effects of defendant’s criminal history on sentencing; Crimes of Violence (COV) (unless the offense cross-references to the COV statute); Charges of Habitual Offender or Habitual Sex Offender against Children NOTE: All SOISP eligible offenders are not subject to lifetime/indeterminate but all persons who are subject to a lifetime/indeterminate sentence are subject to SOISP if sentenced to probation. The chart and the summary after have been modified to reflect changes made by: SB 06-22, adding attempts,
    [Show full text]
  • Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected Against Excessive Punishment Cameron Jay Rains
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 55 | Issue 2 Article 8 12-1-1979 Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected against Excessive Punishment Cameron Jay Rains Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cameron J. Rains, Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected against Excessive Punishment, 55 Notre Dame L. Rev. 305 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol55/iss2/8 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment-Is the Habitual Offender Protected Against Excessive Punishment? Rummel v. Estelle* I. Introduction In its 190-year history of construing the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the eighth amendment, the Supreme Court has rarely focused on ex- cessively long sentences. Consequently, the circuits are in conflict as to the proper standard of review in assessing eighth amendment challenges.1 In par- ticular, disagreement exists on whether parole probability should be considered when analyzing the severity of a sentence. Additionally, with respect to recidivist statutes, 2 there is disagreement as to how germane the nature of the individual underlying offenses is when judging the constitutionality of the penalty imposed. In Rummel v. Estelle,3 the Fifth Circuit faced the issue whether Texas' recidivist statute "as applied" to William Rummel was violative of the eighth amendment's prohibition against excessive punishments.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 11 Number 1 Miami Law Quarterly Article 15 10-1-1956 Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws Iva W. Kay Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Iva W. Kay Jr., Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws, 11 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (1956) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol11/iss1/15 This Case Noted is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES questionable, even in light of this decision, whether Florida would apply the felony-murder doctrine where the deceased is a co-felon. Prior to the instant case, the only cases holding the doctrine applicable to the death of a co-felon, were those in which a co-felon either accidently caused his own death 17 or was unintentionally killed by another felon.", The principal case presents a far-reaching application of the felony murder doctrine, for it is, as far as can be ascertained, the first time the doctrine has been applied where the victim of a felony justifiably kills a co-felon. The majority based its decision on the concept that the death of the co-felon was the natural consequence of the felonious act. But, how can one be guilty of murder for a killing that was unquestionably a justi- fiable homicide? Here, the deceased was a perpetrator of the robbery whose death was certainly not in furtherance of the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter of Nolan
    Interim Decision #3043 MATTER OF NOLAN In. Deportation Proceedings A-35298972 Decided by Board January 26, 1988 (1) The pardon issued automatically to the respondent as a first felony offender pur- suant to Article 4, section 5(EX1) of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974 upon completion of his sentence does not satisfy the requirements of section 241(bXl) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(bXl) (1982), and therefore does not excuse deportability under section 241(aX4) of the Act, because the pardon is neither full nor unconditional and because it was not issued by the Governor or an otherwise constitutionally-recognized executive body of Louisiana. (2) The availability or unavailability of a pardon under state or federal law, or the existence or nonexistence` of a qualifying pardoning authority, is not determina- tive of whether an offense constitutes a "crime" within the ambit of section 241(aX4) of the Act. Matter of Cevallos, 12 I&N Dec. 750 (BIA 1968), overruled. CHARGE: Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX4) [8 U.S.C. §1251(aX0—Crime involving moral turpitude ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Nelson Smith, Esquire George W. Katz 725 First City National Bank Building General Attorney El Paso, Texas 79901 BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members This case is before its on motion of the respondent to reopen in order to terminate the proceedings based on the existence of new evidence not available at the time of the original hearing. The motion will be denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Strikes the Wrong Way to Justice a Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!Ender Legislation
    Charles Institute for Hamilton Houston Race & Justice H A R V A R D L A W S C H O O L Three Strikes The Wrong Way to Justice A Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!ender Legislation 1 2 Charles Institute for Hamilton Houston Race & Justice H A R V A R D L A W S C H O O L Three Strikes The Wrong Way to Justice A Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!ender Legislation A Policy Report of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice: Harvard Law School Released June 26, 2012 This report provides critical information to the public and to Massachusetts state legisla- tors about the likely long-term impact of the proposed changes to Massachusetts’ Habitual O!ender Law (S 2080 AND H 3818). These changes are currently being debated in the Legislature’s Conference Committee. At a time when many states are moving to repeal or amend their “three strikes” laws in order to take a more balanced approach to public safety, Massachusetts has inexplicably chosen to move in the “wrong direction.” The report o!ers a detailed analysis of the most problematic provisions of the bills that are almost certain to cost taxpayers far more than originally estimated, increase the likelihood of unnecessarily lengthy prison sentences for low-level o!enders, further burden an already severely overcrowded prison system—put- ting employees and prisoners at risk—and divert precious state resources away from edu- cation, basic services, infrastructure improvement, and job creation. The legislation will almost certainly further exacerbate the stark racial disparities that characterize the state’s prison population.
    [Show full text]