Judges vs. juries, and the Supreme Court

Judges may decide whether a punishment fits the criminal as well as the crime. But whether a crime was committed is for the jury, not the judge, to determine.

Legal scholars long have struggled to determine the proper allocation of authority between judges and juries. But you don't have to be an expert to recognize that Allen Ryan Alleyne was treated unjustly by a federal court in Virginia.

The jury that convicted Alleyne for his role in the armed robbery of a convenience store specifically looked at the question of whether a gun was "brandished" by Alleyne's accomplice, a factor that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for any participant in the crime. The jury concluded that it wasn't (although it did agree that a gun had been "used or carried"). But when the judge sentenced Alleyne, he concluded that a gun had been brandished and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum.

Read on...

This is an editorial from the LA Times. Tom

 

Crime and conditional punishment

This is the last in a three-part series on proposed reforms to our justice system.

Until 1996, Canadian sentencing judges could impose a fine, a discharge, probation with various conditions, imprisonment or certain combinations of these. In 1996, Parliament added conditional sentences – a non-prison choice – to this list. It’s available for some cases that could otherwise have involved prison sentences of under two years; it’s never available for offenders deserving of a sentence of two years or more or who pose a danger to the community.

"House arrest” is usually one of the punitive conditions attached to conditional sentences. Hence, it’s often called “home detention.” Other conditions – punitive and therapeutic (community service and treatment, for example) – can be required. Conditional sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. And unlike prison sentences, offenders serving conditional sentences must serve their full sentences – there’s no parole or remission.

Read on...

Walkom: Chain gangs and the Tories' search for scapegoats

Scapegoats are useful political fodder. Former Conservative premier Mike Harris won power by successfully scapegoating the poor. Tim Hudak, the current Ontario Tory leader, hopes to replicate that success by campaigning against prisoners.

How else to explain Hudak’s call for what in effect would be provincial chain gangs?

Let’s be clear. The idea of forcing every provincial inmate to clean up highways or scrub down graffiti is potentially a political winner.

Most people have little sympathy for convicted criminals. In hard times, those who work for a living doubly resent anyone who doesn’t or can’t do the same.

That’s why Harris’s attack on welfare recipients was so successful. He picked his fight with the poor during one of the worst economic slumps since the 1930s.

Hudak, in his announcement Thursday, pressed all the usual buttons. He scoffed at those apocryphal prisoners who spend their time in jail watching high-definition television and learning “Zen yoga.” He said anyone in prison should have to work “just like every hard-working family out there.”

Read on...

New Briefing Paper: Deterrence – Effects of Certainty vs. Severity

We are pleased to let you know of our new publication, Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty versus Severity of Punishment by Valerie Wright, Ph.D. The report addresses a key concern for policy makers regarding whether deterrence is better achieved by increasing the likelihood of apprehension or increasing the severity of sanctions.

Overall, the report concludes that:

• Enhancing the certainty of punishment is far more likely to produce deterrent effects than increasing the severity of punishment.

• Particularly at high levels of incarceration, there is no significant public safety benefit to increasing the severity of sentences by imposing longer prison terms.

• Policies such as “three strikes and you’re out” and mandatory minimum sentences only burden state budgets without increasing public safety.

• Evidence-based approaches would require increasing the certainty of punishment by improving the likelihood of detection.

Read on...

This is from the Sentencing Project. Tom