DOCSLIB.ORG

LONG ROAD to NOWHERE How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LONG ROAD to NOWHERE How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration February 2021 About the SPLC Action Fund The SPLC Action Fund is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people. For more information about THE SPLC ACTION FUND www.splcactionfund.org © 2021 Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC ACTION FUND // LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE 2 LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration February 2021 “The nature of the criminal justice system has changed. It is no longer primarily con- cerned with the prevention and punishment of crime, but rather with the management and control of the dispossessed.” —Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow SPLC ACTION FUND // LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE 4 INTRODUCTION The Deep South is the epicenter of mass in- Texas and California. However, unlike Cal- carceration. The United States incarcerates ifornia and Texas, Florida still adheres to a more people per capita than any other coun- “Truth in Sentencing” rule requiring incar- try, with prison populations growing by 86% cerated people to serve at least 85% of their between 1990 and 2019. For Southern states, sentences, regardless of any demonstration prison populations exploded by 127% during of rehabilitation. Florida’s abolishment of that same period.1 During this time in histo- parole for crimes after October 1983 also ry, America implemented “tough on crime” makes it nearly impossible to decarcerate policies that responded to public health is- in the manner of other states. As a result, sues like the drug epidemic with incarcera- Florida has grown to have the oldest prison tion instead of rehabilitation. Laws for even population in the South, a group whose care nonviolent crimes became more punitive is increasingly expensive. with longer sentences, and people of color Louisiana, on the other hand, has been were disproportionately pushed into pris- known as the “incarceration capital of the ons with little hope for parole. world” for consistently having incredibly Today, incarceration rates for Latinx and high incarceration rates. A large factor is Black people are more than two and five the number of people serving life sentences times the incarceration rate of whites, re- without the possibility of parole, including spectively.2 The commitment to the “tough juveniles. Life-without-parole sentencing, or on crime” narrative led to significantly over- “LWOP,” has permanently locked over 4,500 crowded prisons, which not only put a strain people in Louisiana’s prisons, with an addi- on state budgets, but also created human tional 1,300 serving “virtual life” sentences rights challenges regarding how to maintain of more than 50 years — altogether making a safe and healthy prison environment. up one of every five incarcerated people in Three Southern states in particular — Al- the state. Louisiana currently holds more abama, Florida, and Louisiana — exemplify people with LWOP sentences than Alabama, how prison populations have grown to be Georgia, New York, and Texas combined. problematic in three unique ways. Alabama The lack of early prison release is just one is home to the most overcrowded prisons in of many contributors to mass incarceration the country, currently at 151% of capacity.3 in the South — an issue that presents itself Alabama’s prison crisis has drawn attention in varying ways across the states. Likewise, from U.S. Department of Justice investiga- the solutions also vary — from expanding tions twice within a 15-month period, and parole eligibility and making it retroactive, led to a recent lawsuit concerned with how to increasing incentives for rehabilitation severely overcrowded prisons contribute to credits, to recalibrating triggers for LWOP unsafe, unsanitary, and increasingly violent sentences. A sensible approach to decarcer- conditions.4 Even after sentencing reforms ation in the South would not only make were passed in 2017, recent legislation con- prisons safer and less expensive, but would cerning the Alabama Board of Pardons and also create opportunities to reinvest savings Paroles has severely diminished the parole in other priorities. This report will investi- chances of currently incarcerated people. gate the impact that overincarceration has Florida, with over 95,000 imprisoned had in three Southern states, and provide people, has the third-largest prison popula- recommendations on how each state can tion of any state in the country, behind only address the issue through policy change. SPLC ACTION FUND // LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE 5 ALABAMA America’s Most Overcrowded Prisons Background The risks of severely overcrowded prisons In January 2015, the Alabama Department are well-documented, especially regarding of Corrections (ADOC) packed 24,770 in- increased suicide attempts, violence between carcerated men and women into a prison incarcerated people, and violence toward system designed for only 13,318 — 186% of staff.9 However, when starting at 186% of ca- capacity.5 Such overcrowding created prob- pacity, Alabama did not have the financial lems with public health and prison safety resources to simply build its way out of the that drew scrutiny from multiple fronts, overcrowding with new prison construction. including litigation over insufficient med- After deliberation from former Gov. Robert ical and health care, and two Department Bentley’s task force charged with researching of Justice reports finding widespread vio- solutions, decarceration became as much of a lence and abuse.6 In April 2015, a prison re- necessity as building new prison space. As a volt at the St. Clair Correctional Facility left result, Alabama passed SB 67, a reform mea- 15 people injured, following a year where sure that reclassified sentencing for some the Equal Justice Initiative filed a lawsuit nonviolent offenses and added efficiencies to claiming detainment at St. Clair was akin to the state parole board.10 From 2016 to 2018, cruel and unusual punishment.7 In Decem- the first two years of SB 67’s enactment, the ber 2020, the Department of Justice also state in-house prison population decreased filed a lawsuit claiming that Alabama’s dan- by over 3,200 people — a 13% decline.11 gerously overcrowded prison conditions However, in 2019 the Legislature passed are unconstitutional.8 HB 380, allowing the governor to appoint a Parole Applications Granted in Alabama Figure 1 Paroles Granted Parole Applications 4,500 60% 54.2% 4,000 53.3% 48.1% 50% 3,500 3,000 40% 2,500 31.3% 2,000 30% 1,500 19.5% 1,000 20% 500 3,108 3,847 3,732 1,337 518 0 10% FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Paroles Granted % of Parole Applications SPLC ACTION FUND // LONG ROAD TO NOWHERE 6 director over the Alabama Bureau of Pardons Difference in ADOC Prison Admissions vs. Releases Figure 2 and Paroles (ABPP), requiring more time served before parole eligibility, and establish- Number of Prison Admissions Minus Prison Releases ing strict protocols for any early release con- -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 sideration12 — all preceded by the governor’s declaration of a 75-day moratorium on parole releases.13 The passage of HB 380 ushered in JAN 2018 -104 tighter scrutiny of the ABPP under Gov. Kay FEB 2018 -213 MAR 2018 -58 Ivey’s first appointed parole board director, APR 2018 -263 Charles Graddick — making it rarer for parole MAY 2018 54 JUN 2018 -72 hearings to be held at all, much less for parole JUL 2018 19 AUG 2018 -29 to be granted. Graddick, a former Alabama at- SEP 2018 -59 torney general who became notorious for his (Parole moratorium) OCT 2018 167 NOV 2018 107 tough-on-crime rhetoric, instituted an addi- DEC 2018 91 JAN 2019 2 tional two-month parole moratorium imme- FEB 2019 172 14 diately upon taking office. MAR 2019 62 APR 2019 163 Consequently, parole grants went from MAY 2019 175 3,732 in FY 2017-18 (53.3% of applicants), JUN 2019 79 JUL 2019 129 to only 518 in FY 2019-20 (19.5% of appli- AUG 2019 203 15 (HB 380 enacted) SEP 2019 108 cants). Far fewer paroles were granted, OCT 2019 147 even for elderly people, who are most vul- NOV 2019 -13 DEC 2019 65 nerable in the coronavirus pandemic, and JAN 2020 170 16 FEB 2020 95 least likely to pose a public safety threat. (COVID-19 closes courts) MAR 2020 -274 At the same time, the few people granted APR 2020 -458 MAY 2020 -324 parole were more than twice as likely to be JUN 2020 -566 white as Black, making the already stark ra- JUL 2020 -435 AUG 2020 -468 cial disparities of Alabama’s prisons even more pronounced.17 With a halt on paroles, Alabama’s prison population increased for the first time in six years as the rest of the 18 nation was trending downward. In response to overcrowding issues and Scope of the Problem dilapidated facilities, Gov. Ivey proposed to build three new privately constructed With Alabama’s prison population now on men’s prisons in 2021, providing around an an upward trajectory, the problem of pris- additional 10,000 beds to be leased to the on overcrowding resurfaces as a major con- 19 cern. In March 2018, ADOC had to close the state, costing $2.6 billion over 30 years. Draper Correctional Facility, which had aged Afterwards, ADOC would then lose beds beyond repair, raising environmental and by eventually decommissioning and/or safety concerns. In January 2020, the depart- repurposing its older facilities as early as 20 ment announced plans to close an additional 2023. Though it is not yet known which 1,010 beds at the Holman Correctional Fa- facilities would be closed, Alabama would cility — further decreasing available prison lose over 4,400 beds if it were to close its space.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Death Penalty Issues Michael Meltsner
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 1 Issue 3 Fall Fall 1983 Current Death Penalty Issues Michael Meltsner Marvin E. Wolfgang 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 Michael Meltsner, Marvin E. Wolfgang, Current Death Penalty Issues, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 659 (1983) This Symposium 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. 0091-4169/83/7403-659 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 3 Copyright 0 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printedin US.A. INTRODUCTION In 1976, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld state capi- tal sentencing laws on the assumption that explicit sentencing guide- lines, separate sentencing hearings and automatic appellate review of all death sentences would remove the substantial risk of arbitrariness of previous capital punishment sentencing schemes.I Eight years later, the premises supporting the constitutionality of the new laws appear to have little practical currency. That a set of scholarly contributions from law- yers, criminologists, and other investigators would uncover flaws in the operation of the death-case legal system is not surprising; earlier re- search into the operation of the discretionary death penalty systems raised significant doubts about the reliability, fairness, and necessity of capital punishment and contributed to the Court's landmark 1972 deci- sion in Furman v.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions
    Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions The National Death Penalty System is Seriously Flawed Resulting in Wrongful Convictions and Death Sentences • More than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. Experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In other words, over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious enough to warrant a reversal. • The federal government would not tolerate an error rate of 68% for any other government function - such as product safety or processing social security claims. Yet it allows this margin of error in the system that can take a person’s life. Only a moratorium puts an immediate halt to the risk of an innocent person being executed. • The error rate for capital cases is much higher than for other types of cases. At the direct appeal stage, serious or reversible error is detected in about 12 to 20% of the non-capital criminal cases that are appealed. • High error rates exist throughout the country and are not limited to certain states. Over 90% of states that have the death penalty have error rates of 52% or higher. 85% have error rates of 60% or higher. Three- fifths have error rates of 70% or higher. This is not an isolated problem but is universal in all death penalty states.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Tate
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAMES TATE (SC 16311) Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js. Argued March 13Ðofficially released May 22, 2001 Counsel Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Eileen McCarthy Geel, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Innocent a Possible Verdict in a Criminal Trial
    Is Innocent A Possible Verdict In A Criminal Trial diddleCarotenoidCreepiest imprecisely Hank Chase kowtow whileIslamises indefiniteher eiderdownperceptually Richy so worths or theoretically outspan that thirsts. tempestuously that Dorian equiponderates when Ibrahim isvery blistered. downstream. Aldo still Costs of doing charity with not proven currently outweigh possible benefits. The shade then enters a judgment based on the verdict and avoid jury is released from playing If seen not guilty the defendant in certain criminal lawsuit is released. Clear My evidence What and on his Criminal Record LegalMatch. Did not openly available from retrieving information is innocent a verdict criminal trial in court practice, if the new jersey are not an electronic register. Means that if there ever two reasons given has the ultimate and iron are possible explanations. A The verdict in every person action ever be general. Both a verdict criminal trial is in some cases? That I thought some have resulted in cotton not guilty verdict had the Defendant gone to trial. Does not not guilty go on item record? Or her liable in american criminal than the results from the act trial but likely be applied. In practice criminal trial its burden if proof required of the prosecutor is to prove criminal guilt. If the defendant is found guilty the judge in may case will decide on sentence. Criminal Justice System The Trial in County WA. Anyone accused of fiction crime is presumed under the law but be innocent however they plead. Once a better trial has begun but turn it goes quickly the clean it's penalty for a defendant to obtain may not-guilty verdict from his judge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH
    United States HUMAN The Price of Freedom RIGHTS Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City WATCH The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Copyright © 2010 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org December 2010 ISBN: 1-56432-718-3 The Price of Freedom Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 7 I. The Bail Process ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District Of
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 09-43-SLR ) PAUL E. PAVULAK, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this 13th day of October, 2011, having sentenced defendant Paul E. Pavulak to imprisonment for a life term, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e), and given the complexities of the statutory scheme implicated by the charges of conviction, the court has determined to supplement its remarks made in open court by the following statement of reasons. 1. The statutory sentencing scheme for the crimes of conviction include the following: a. As to Count One, failure to register as a sex offender, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a): The maximum penalties that could be imposed by statute for this offense include 10 years of imprisonment, followed by a minimum of 5 years of supervised release (up to a lifetime term of supervised release), a $250,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. b. As to Count Two, possession of child pornography, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(8) & (b)(2): The maximum penalties that could be imposed by statute for this offense include a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment (up to 20 years of imprisonment), followed by a minimum of 5 years of supervised release (up to a lifetime term of supervised release), a $250,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. c. As to Count Three, attempted production of child pornography, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (a) & (e):1 The maximum penalties that could be imposed by statute for this offense include a minimum term of 35 years of imprisonment (up to life imprisonment), followed by a minimum of 5 years of supervised release (up to a lifetime term of supervised release), a $250,000 fine and a $100 special assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • (In Re: State of Alabama V. Calvin Cornelius Barnes) 1180802 SUPREME COURT
    Alabama v. Barnes (Ala. 2020) Ex parte Calvin Barnes bound over to the grand jury. In May 2017, the grand jury returned an indictment against Barnes (In re: State of Alabama for murder. Barnes's bail obligation was v. transferred to the circuit court pursuant to Rule Calvin Cornelius Barnes) 7.6(a), Ala. R. Crim. P. Barnes was arraigned before the circuit court on July 21, 2017. The 1180802 circuit court set the case for trial on February 26, 2018. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA In November 2017, Barnes moved for an OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020 evidentiary hearing seeking to establish immunity June 5, 2020 from prosecution on the basis that he was acting in defense of others under § 13A-3-23(d), Ala. Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision Code 1975, at the time of the killing.1 Barnes before publication in the advance sheets of alleged Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Page 3 Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229- that he shot the victim, who was his wife's 0649), of any typographical or other errors, in brother, when the victim was attempting to break order that corrections may be made before the into Barnes's house. The circuit court held a opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. hearing on January 31, 2018, on the issue of Barnes's immunity, and, following that hearing, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS the circuit court entered an order finding that CORPUS Barnes had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of lethal force was justified.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IX the STATE PAGES
    Section IX THE STATE PAGES THE FOLLOWING section presents information on all the states of the United States and the District of Columbia; the commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands; the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands; and the United Na­ tions trusteeships of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Belau.* Included are listings of various executive officials, the justices of the supreme courts and officers of the legislatures. Lists of all officials are as of late 1981 or early 1982. Comprehensive listings of state legislators and other state officials appear in other publications of The Council of State Governments. Concluding each state listing are population figures and other statistics provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, based on the 1980 enumerafion. Preceding the state pages are three tables. The first lists the official names of states, the state capitols with zip codes and the telephone numbers of state central switchboards. The second table presents historical data on all the states, commonwealths and territories. The third presents a compilation of selected state statistics from the state pages. *The Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Belau (formerly Palau) have been administered by the United Slates since July 18, 1947, as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPl), a trusteeship of the United Nations. The Northern Mariana Islands separated themselves from TTPI in March 1976 and now operate under a constitutional govern­ ment instituted January 9, 1978.
    [Show full text]
  • SC02-420 Marshall Vs. Moore
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA MATTHEW MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Case No. SC 02-420 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________________________/ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MARSHALL’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN LIGHT OF BOTTOSON v. MOORE AND KING v. MOORE MARSHALL’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO FLORIDA’S CAPITAL SENTENCING STATUTE BASED UPON RING V. ARIZONA IS PROCEDURALLY BARRED AND MERITLESS Marshall asserts that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme and in particular, its override provision, is unconstitutional in light of Ring v. Arizona, 122 S.Ct. 2443 (2002) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). According to Marshall, there are three “elements” to capital murder which must be found by the jury before a defendant can be deemed “death eligible”: (1) the finding of an aggravator, (2) the finding that the aggravator is of sufficient weight to justify a death sentence, and (3) the finding that the mitigation does not outweigh the aggravation. Consequently, Marshall asserts, “death eligibility” does not occur at guilt-phase when there is a conviction for first-degree murder, but rather, at sentencing, 1 after the three “elements” have been found by a jury. Marshall contends that judicial overrides of life recommendations run afoul of the Sixth Amendment because the jury did not find the requirements for “death eligibility.” Even if “death eligibility” occurs at guilt-phase, Marshall continues, “no such determination of eligibility was made by [his] jury” because he was convicted of first-degree murder only and the jury recommended life. As such, he contends, his jury made “no ‘findings’ with respect to any facts which would make [him] eligible for the death penalty.” (Pet.
    [Show full text]
  • 144286NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. , " r-h , ~,,;- "-if "'. -:-:;:;:-' .:",:,-' ,~-- , , ~'~~" - . ~.. ~ " ," . ,'" , ,0 ... ~. :--, =s.... -1-'_ .. <, - "un:t ':Dl:'";,~",, !l0f - j; t' t",' '- ,~: ' \' "2etl, ' 'r)l \;,,: 'iUie 'Gin .. ,l;) ',e' ;,Clft, " \ l .; ,';.: " 'q' ~ , :. !,,'mii ' I ~ ':,t,;"lj}' f~ '>~.j ,,'-:en (. ::t.. I ---,---------------- I I INTRODUCTION I In the final quarter of 1991, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported a twelve I percent increase in total drug-related emergency room visits. The National Institute on Drug I Abuse (NIDA) indicated a rise in heroin and cocaine use in their household survey. There is work to be done and many battles yet to be waged on the community corrections front of this I drug war. I It is an accepted fact within the criminal justice system that drug addicts participate in more I criminal activity when they are under the influence of drugs. Drug use is, in itself, a ·1 criminal act. Strict monitoring of drug use is necessary to ensure the success of community- I based correctional supervision. I Drug testing, or urinalysis, has proven to be an important tool in monitoring offenders who I are supervised in the community. Drug testing of probationers and parolees has often met with legal challenges in the past. These challenges have generally been successfully defeated. I In order to anticipate and combat these challenges, it is crucial for professionals to have the ,I most comprehensive and current legal information at their disposal. ,I Drug testing has generally been upheld by the courts as an appropriate condition of ~I probation/parole, particularly where the underlying offense is related to drug use.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to a Fair Trial"
    International Symposium "The Right to a Fair Trial" Max Planck Institut für Ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht Heidelberg, Germany 31 January - 3 February 1996 "Fair Trial Standards in the United States of America" by Richard S. Frase Professor of Law University of Minnesota REVISED VERSION, May 1996 A. Introduction Most of the fair trial guarantees contained in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights instruments are protected by law in the United States. Nevertheless, a number of problem areas remain. The following report first provides background information on the structure of courts and criminal laws in the U.S. It then addresses each of the issues of criminal justice identified in the U.N. Questionnaire on the Right to Fair Trial. The impact of global and regional human rights instruments in the U.S. is then examined, followed by some concluding remarks on the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. approach, and the lessons to be learned from the United States' two-hundred-year-long struggle to improve fair trial standards in criminal cases. B. The Structure of Criminal Courts in the United States 1. State and Federal Courts and Crimes. The United States has a federal system of government, in which the power to define and punish criminal offences is exercised by each of the 50 states and also by the federal government. Each state is a sovereign entity, exercising broad police powers; the federal government is, in principle, a limited government exercising the "enumerated" powers specified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution confers no general police power on the federal government, but does grant Congress the authority to enact laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the central government's enumerated powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Fraud Heaven and Tort Hell: the Business, Politics, and Law of Lawsuits
    Between Fraud Heaven and Tort Hell: The Business, Politics, and Law of Lawsuits by Anna Johns Hrom Department of History Duke University Date: _______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Edward J. Balleisen, Supervisor ___________________________ Sarah Jane Deutsch ___________________________ Philip J. Stern ___________________________ Melissa B. Jacoby ___________________________ Benjamin Waterhouse Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of Duke University 2018 ABSTRACT Between Fraud Heaven and Tort Hell: The Business, Politics, and Law of Lawsuits By Anna Johns Hrom Department of History Duke University Date: _______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Edward J. Balleisen, Supervisor ___________________________ Sarah Jane Deutsch ___________________________ Philip J. Stern ___________________________ Melissa B. Jacoby ___________________________ Benjamin Waterhouse An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of Duke University 2018 Copyright by Anna Johns Hrom 2018 Abstract In the 1970s, consumer advocates worried that Alabama’s weak regulatory structure around consumer fraud made it a kind of “con man’s heaven.” But by the 1990s, the battle cry of regulatory reformers had reversed, as businesspeople mourned the state’s decline into “tort hell.” Debates
    [Show full text]