Oldest condemned man dies at 94

Elderly outlaw's competency remained at issue

Like so many Depression-era outlaws, the infamous Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker met early deaths, gunned down in a police ambush at the ages of 26 and 23. Among the few from that era to beat the hangman's noose was Viva Leroy Nash, the oldest death row prisoner in the United States, who died last week of natural causes.

Imprisoned for most of his adult life, Nash lived long enough to become both psychotic and demented, according to his lawyers; he was also deaf and almost blind. At the time of his death, his competency to participate in post-conviction habeas proceedings was on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Forensic psychiatrist Barry Morenz of the University of Arizona had evaluated Nash and opined that the old outlaw suffered from a delusional disorder. His symptoms included paranoid and grandiose delusions as well as auditory hallucinations. Dr. Morenz also noted worsening cognitive problems and memory impairment.

In the landmark case of Oscar Gates (formally known as the Rohan case), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that a death row prisoner has a right to be competent during post-conviction appeals, so that he may advise and consult with attorneys regarding issues that might arise. The standard is somewhere between the higher level of competency required to stand trial and the very low, so-called "Ford" competency standard required for execution.

In 2007, the appellate court applied this holding to Nash's case, granting a death penalty stay until Nash's ability to communicate rationally with his counsel could be evaluated and litigated. The government was appealing that ruling when Nash died.

A lengthy account in Phoenix' New Times last year was skeptical of Nash's incompetence claim. It described the self-educated convict as "intelligent and well read" and "a consummate jailhouse lawyer" who in the 1960s won "certain procedural safeguards for inmates" in a ruling that almost made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But then again, maybe advancing age and years of supermax confinement finally did him in. After all, more than one out of three people in their 90s has a dementia. And long confinement in solitary housing eventually drives even the strongest mind "stir crazy."

Life at Nash's final residence, the austere supermax Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, is an invisible form of torture. With Arizona "at the vanguard of the country's correctional zeitgeist in stripping away inmate privilege," according to a critical report in The Tucson Weekly, long-term lockdown in the unit is the state's "version of a straitjacket." Devoid of human connection, prisoners in such environments not uncommonly take to self-stimulating behaviors that is rare in other contexts -- sculpting figurines out of feces, masturbating in public view, or gouging their flesh and playing with it.

Craig Haney, an expert on the psychological effects of long-term solitary confinement, called the Arizona supermax one of the most severe. "Solitary confinement has been around for a long time," Haney told the Weekly. "What's different about these supermax units is that the technology of the modern correctional institution allows for a separation, almost a technological separation, of inmates from the social world around them in ways that really weren't possible in the past."

Under these conditions, if a condemned prisoner's appeals drag on long enough, it is almost inevitable that his mind will deteriorate to the point that he needs a forensic evaluation of his competency to rationally communicate with his attorney. So, if other Depression-era outlaws had survived long enough, we forensic practitioners may have gotten a chance to glimpse back into a bygone era through their eyes as well.

A wild and colorful life

It surely would have been interesting to interview this old man who talked like he had just stepped out of an Old West movie. Born in Salt Lake City's rural south side in 1915, during Prohibition, the "wild child" dropped out of school in the seventh grade and embarked on a life of crime.

During the Roaring Twenties he and a gang of other boys burglarized warehouses. In his mid-teens, armed with a gun, he caught an outbound boxcar and, like millions of other dispossessed young men during the Great Depression, set off "to seek his fortune," according to a laudatory 2005 account in the New Criminologist that referred to him as "a living legend." The account was based in part on more than 200 pages of handwritten memoirs.

By age 17, he was serving time at an industrial school for juveniles in Ohio for car theft. He escaped, did an armed robbery, and was sentenced to 30 months at Kansas' notorious Leavenworth Penitentiary, where he has said that a Mafia don tutored him in jewelry store heists.

Paroled in 1934, he fathered his only child (who died 21 years ago) and resumed his life of crime, with robbery sprees in Utah, Georgia, Alabama, and who knows where else. He was imprisoned in 1936 after a bungled robbery with his younger brother. Next arrested in 1946 in Alabama for check-kiting, he escaped from jail and reportedly fled to Mexico with a large sum of stolen money.

But his outlaw ways were catching up to him, and he spent most of his ensuing years in prison. He did a 25-year stretch for the 1947 shooting of a Connecticut police officer (who lived). In 1977, he was sentenced to two life terms for a robbery-murder. Somehow, he was placed on a prison work crew from which he escaped in 1982. Just three weeks later, he did the crime for which he was sentenced to die in 1983 -- a robbery-murder at a Phoenix coin shop.

Although his appeals have focused on his poor legal representation at his 1983 trial, given his litany of crime and the callous way that he executed his final victim it is doubtful than any jury would have voted to spare his life. Yet he managed to outlive men who were sent to death row long after he arrived, and ultimately he managed to die of natural causes.

Some have intimated that the state itself was dragging its heels, to avoid the spectacle of killing a dottering old man. With California and Alabama getting flak for recent executions of a 76-year-old and 74-year-old, respectively, just think of the clamor over the killing of a blind, deaf, crippled, demented and mentally ill 94-year-old.

So ends another chapter in America's love-hate relationship with capital punishment.

Hat tip: Kathleen

Photos: Bonnie Parker, circa 1932, credit Wikipedia Commons; Nash about 20 years ago, credit Arizona Department of Corrections; Arizona State Prison at Eyman, courtesy Department of Corrections

The high court and "selective empathy"

In a previous blog post, I briefly referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion in Porter v. McCullum. The high court unanimously reversed a death verdict because the defense attorney failed to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of the trial.

George Porter Jr. was convicted of shooting his former girlfriend and her new lover to death. The potentially mitigating evidence that the jury didn't get to hear included military heroism during the Korean War, post-war adjustment problems, childhood victimization, a brain abnormality, inadequate schooling, and limited literacy.

The decision was widely hailed by death penalty opponents and veterans' groups. But Linda Greenhouse, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who covered the Supreme Court for the New York Times for 30 years and now teaches at Yale Law School, says the decision raises an important question about equity:

Is selective empathy better than no empathy at all?

Greenhouse was struck by "the sympathy that all nine justices displayed for a man who, in the fullness of his adulthood and after promising a friend that she would soon be reading about him in the newspaper, stole another friend’s gun and shot two people to death in cold blood."

She contrasted this with the court's unanimous opinion just last month in another case alleging inadequate representation and failure to adequately pursue mitigation themes in a death case. That case involved Robert Van Hook, also a military veteran, who robbed and murdered a man he picked up in a gay bar. In a decision that "sent chills down the spine of death-penalty opponents," the high court overturned an appellate reprieve, paving the way for Van Hook's execution.

Comments Greenhouse:

Setting the Porter and the Van Hook cases side by side, what strikes me is how similarly horrific the two men's childhoods were -- indeed, how common such childhoods were among the hundreds of death-row inmates whose appeals I have read over the years and, I have to assume, among the 3,300 people on death row today. It is fanciful to suppose that each of these defendants had lawyers who made the effort to dig up the details and offer these sorry life stories to the jurors who would weigh their fate.

I don't make that observation to excuse the crimes of those on death row, but only to underscore the anomaly of the mercy the court bestowed this week on one of that number. Am I glad that a hapless 77-year-old man won't be put to death by the State of Florida? Yes, I am. Am I concerned about a Supreme Court that dispenses empathy so selectively? Also yes.

The full essay, well worth your perusal, is online HERE.

Adolescent immaturity reduces culpability, say researchers

APA amicus brief in two upcoming high court cases
on life without parole for juveniles

Adolescents may not possess the maturity to be held to adult levels of responsibility for violent crimes, according to an article in the current issue of American Psychologist by Laurence Steinberg, a professor of developmental psychology at Temple University, and colleagues.

"Adolescents likely possess the necessary intellectual skills to make informed choices about terminating a pregnancy but may lack the social and emotional maturity to control impulses, resist peer pressure and fully appreciate the riskiness of dangerous decisions," Steinberg was quoted in Science Daily as saying. "This immaturity mitigates their criminal responsibility."

The researchers studied the differences in various cognitive and psychosocial capacities among 935 research participants, ages 10 to 30. Significant differences in mature decision-making were found between the 16- to 17-year-olds and people just four or five years older.

"It is very difficult for a 16-year-old to resist peer pressure in a heated, volatile situation," Steinberg said. "Most times, there is no time to talk to an adult to inject some reason and reality to the situation. Many crimes committed by adolescents are done in groups with other teens and are not premeditated."

Two friend-of-the-court briefs filed by the American Psychological Association in cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court spurred questions about differences between cognitive and interpersonal maturity and the apparent inconsistency between APA's positions in the two cases. In its amicus brief filed in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the case that abolished the juvenile death penalty, APA presented research showing that adolescents are developmentally immature in ways that are relevant to their criminal culpability. In an earlier brief filed in Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990), which upheld adolescents' right to seek an abortion without parental approval, APA presented research regarding cognitive abilities that bear on medical choices, showing that adolescents are as mature as adults.

The APA differentiated these two scenarios by looking at the decision-making processes required for each situation. In the Hodgson case, APA described adolescents as being competent to make informed and sound health care decisions. In the Roper case, APA characterized adolescents as too short-sighted and impulsive to warrant capital punishment, no matter what the crime.

These issues are likely to be at the forefront of two U.S. Supreme Court cases -- the cases of Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham -- slated to be heard this month, involving the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole. Sullivan, now 33, was 13 years old when he and two older boys broke into a home, where they robbed and raped an elderly woman. After a one-day trial, Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. The APA has filed an amicus brief presenting relevant research, including Steinberg's most recent study, to the court.

Adolescents' legal rights, said Steinberg, should be guided by accurate and timely scientific evidence on the nature and course of psychological development. "It is crucial to understand that brain systems responsible for logical reasoning and basic information processing mature earlier than systems responsible for self-regulation and the coordination of emotion and thinking," he said.

Further resources:

Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, Jennifer Woolard, Sandra Graham, Marie Banich. Are Adolescents Less Mature than Adults? Minors' Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA 'Flip-Flop'. American Psychologist, 2009; Vol. 64, No. 7.

Supreme Court to consider juvenile 'lifers': Does life without parole for minors who didn't kill constitute cruel and unusual punishment? By David Savage, Los Angeles Times (Sept. 28, 2009)

FRONTLINE: When Kids Get Life.

Court roundup: Lots of action this week

In addition to the high-profile competency hearing in Iowa that I blogged about yesterday, this week featured lots of other legal happenings of relevance to forensic psychology. Issues included:

• The Zoloft defense
• Repressed memory
• Transsexual prisoners
• Child pornography sentencing

Here are some highlights, with links so you can read more if you are interested:

"Zoloft made me do it"

In a New York trial that is drawing national attention, a defendant is blaming a 2006 attack on his girlfriend on symptoms of withdrawal from the antidepressant Zoloft.

To bolster his defense, Brandon Hampson is expected to call Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a Harvard Medical School graduate. Dr. Kruszewski testified at a pretrial hearing that Zoloft can cause "significant side effects," including agitation, aggression and grandiosity.

It's going to be yet another case of dueling experts: An associate clinical professor at Harvard is expected to testify that "Kruszewski's opinion is not generally accepted by experts in the field and was based on flawed research methods," according to an article by Vesselin Mitev in the New York Law Journal. In an unusual payment arrangement, Pfizer (the drug's manufacturer) will compensate Dr. Douglas Jacobs $7,500 for his testimony.

The trial harkens back to a rash of cases in which violence and suicidality were attributed to the effects of Prozac. Severe side effects from withdrawal from other antidepressants such as Paxil are well documented.

Transsexual prisoner rights

In a history-making ruling in the United Kingdom, a preoperative male-to-female transsexual has won the right to be housed in a women's prison. The prisoner, known only as "A," will have to be housed in segregation. "A" is serving a life sentence for killing a boyfriend and trying to rape a woman.

Under the ruling by a judge on London's High Court, holding "A" in a men's prison is a breah of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Telegraph of UK has the story. My March 2008 post on transgender prisoners is here.

Repressed memories under assault

The infamous priest Paul Shanley of Boston, one of the central figures in the clergy sex abuse scandal, is back in court challenging his conviction by claiming that theories of repressed memories are not reliable or valid.

Shanley was convicted after a 27-year-old man claimed the priest had regularly raped him when he was just six years old, but that he blocked out the memories for two decades until he saw media reports about the clergy scandal unfolding in Boston.

Reports Denise Lavoie of the Associated Press:

Shanley's lawyer, Robert Shaw Jr., argues that Shanley deserves a new trial because the jury relied on misleading, 'junk science' testimony about repressed memories by prosecution witnesses. 'His conviction rests upon a theory that is false, that has not been shown to exist and has been rejected by the scientific community,' Shaw said. 'They needed repressed memories to normalize for the jury what was otherwise an extraordinary assertion - that he could be completely oblivious that this ever happened and then remember it 20 years later."

The appeal, to be heard by Massachusetts' high court, "is being closely watched by experts on both sides of the issue," Lavoie reports. "Nearly 100 scientists, psychiatrists and researchers have signed a friend-of-the court brief denouncing the theory of repressed-recovered memories. Another group has submitted a brief supporting the theory."

Judges protest child porn sentencing

Federal judges testified before a U.S. Sentencing Commission in Chicago about severe mandatory sentences for child pornography possession. Astonishingly, the punishment for watching a single video can be higher than that for raping a child repeatedly over many years, one judge testified.

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has coverage.

Brave judge tosses sexual assault conviction

Jessica's Law: Cruel and unusual punishment?

Jurors in criminal cases are generally kept blind as to the punishment that will be imposed if they find someone guilty. For that reason, one juror was dismissed during deliberations in a trial in Sonoma County, California, when he learned the potential outcome. The juror said he could not sleep once he realized that his guilty vote on a sexual assault charge could send the young defendant to prison for life.

Apparently, the judge in the case was similarly troubled.

Instead of sentencing 24-year-old Jaime Hernandez Gonzalez to life in prison yesterday, Judge Gary Medvigy dismissed the jury's conviction of assault with the intent to commit a sex crime during a burglary. He replaced it with a lesser conviction, residential burglary, which carries a maximum of six years in prison.

But the judge -- a former prosecutor and an Army reserves brigadier general who was decorated for his service in Iraq -- didn't stop there. In tossing the conviction, he read a lengthy statement questioning prosecutors' commitment to justice in light of the facts of the case.

Sentencing a young man with no prior criminal record to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime that involved no violence or completed assault is so "grossly disproportionate" that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the judge ruled.

In the rather bizarre case, Gonzalez entered a home through an unlocked sliding door, stripped naked, and accosted two sleeping women, removing the pajama bottoms of one. When the women screamed and ran away, Gonzalez fled too. The women testified that Gonzales appeared "zombie-like" or "comatose" during the assault, even when they screamed at him.

The judge slammed the 2006 Jessica's Law expansion under which Gonzalez was convicted, which mandates life imprisonment for sexual assault during a burglary, as "poorly drafted." He said it may be so overly broad as to be unconstitutional, because it requires the same punishment for crimes "involving minimal misconduct" as those involving severe violence and danger.

The District Attorney’s Office expressed outrage and threatened an appeal.

Meanwhile, the legal community in sleepy Sonoma County was abuzz over the judge's highly unusual action, according to news reporter Lori Carter, who covered the trial for the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat. Carter quoted a veteran attorney as calling the decision "gutsy":

"A lot of judges wouldn't do that because of politics. They're worried about reelection," said defense attorney Walter Risse.

Medvigy's conscientious stance will definitely cost him. The public hysteria over sex offending is manifested in the online comments to the Press-Democrat coverage, with vitriolic attacks and calls for the judge's ouster far overshadowing the few attempts at rational discourse.

The Press-Democrat article and related background coverage is HERE.

Photo credit: Press-Democrat

Hat tip: Tim Derning

Veteran with PTSD won’t do time for robberies

Last month I wrote about the potentially landmark case in which an Army veteran was found insane in the armed robbery of a pharmacy. Sargent Binkley said he robbed that pharmacy and one other of painkillers to cope with his symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Yesterday, Sargent pleaded no contest in a separate San Francisco Peninsula robbery committed during the same time period, in exchange for a promise of probation. He had faced at least 12 years in prison.

Binkley cannot be formally sentenced until state hospital doctors find him sane and no longer dangerous. The ability of the white West Point graduate and former Eagle Scout to garner sympathy among jurors and prosecutors bodes well for his stay at the hospital. If I had to bet, I would predict state hospital psychiatrists will agree to a quick release.

Armed robbers are rarely found insane when their crimes appear rational, goal-directed, and premeditated. Additionally, California law does not allow for an insanity verdict based on addiction alone.

The defense had argued that Binkley was traumatized by two events -- guarding a mass grave in Bosnia and shooting a teenager during a Honduran drug raid. Prosecutors countered that Binkley exaggerated his military service and that his claim of involvement in drug interdiction in Honduras was pure fantasy. Further, they said, his addiction to pain pills stemmed not from military-related activities but from a hip injury incurred while he was running away from a production assistant for the Fox reality TV show "Temptation Island" after a bar fight.

The trial featured dueling psychiatric experts who agreed that Binkley suffers from PTSD, but disagreed on whether his symptoms were of sufficient magnitude as to render him insane, or incapable of knowing right from wrong at the time of the robberies.

The case comes amid growing interest in the plight of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders acknowledge that multiple deployments in particular put a severe strain soldiers and their families, and can increase the likelihood of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

To handle a wave of arrests of soldiers, special courts for veterans are opening in several states, including Arizona.

Related stories:

Insanity verdict for soldier with PTSD: Case heralded as landmark for traumatized veterans (blog post, Jan. 14, 2009)

Ex-Army captain won't do time for two holdups (San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2009)

Focus on violence by returning GIs (New York Times, Jan. 2, 2009)

New court is sought to aid vets charged with crimes (Arizona Republic, Jan. 6, 2009)

Reaching out to returning vets (Wisconsin Law Journal, Feb. 6, 2009 – subscription required)

Implications of PA case for juvenile courts

Today's New York Times has coverage of the astonishing case that I blogged about yesterday, on the two juvenile judges in Pennsylvania who were accepting kickbacks to send children to jail. Of interest to my readers, the case is calling public attention to juveniles' right to an attorney.

Children have a constitutional right to legal representation under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1967. But in Pennsylvania and at least 20 other states, they can waive this right. Some say juveniles should be required to have a lawyer when they appear in court, as is the law in three states (Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina).

"The juvenile system, by design, is intended to be a less punitive system than the adult system, and yet here were scores of children with very minor infractions having their lives ruined," Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, told the Times. "There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down."

Last year, according to the Times story, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by the Juvenile Law Center about more than 500 juveniles who had appeared before Judge Ciavarella without legal representation. The court originally rejected the petition, but recently reversed that decision.

Given the secrecy surrounding juvenile court proceedings, some are also calling for greater public access - a double-edged sword that may cause unintended negative consequences, in my opinion. As the former director of the state's Office of Juvenile Justice pointed out, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are already present in court and sworn to protect the interests of children; "it’s pretty clear those people didn't do their jobs."

The excellent followup article is here.

Photo credit: publik16 (Creative Commons license)

Children serving life without parole: “Cruel and unusual?”

Test your knowledge:

1. In the entire world, how many children are serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed when they were 13 years old?

2. In what countries are those cases?

3. How many of those cases involve crimes in which no one died?

Answers: (1) There are only eight in the entire world. (2) All eight are in the United States. (3) Only two did not commit a murder. Both are Black, and both are in Florida.

In yesterday's New York Times, Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak reports on one of those two. Joe Sullivan, now 33, is serving life for the 1989 rape of a 72-year-old woman. As Liptak reports it:

The victim testified that her assailant was "a colored boy" who "had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small." She said she "did not see him full in the face" and so would not recognize him by sight. But she recalled her attacker saying something like, "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you." At his trial, Mr. Sullivan was made to say those words several times. "It's been six months," the woman said on the witness stand. "It's hard, but it does sound similar."

Sullivan's trial lasted only one day. His lawyer, later suspended from practice, made no opening statement. Biological evidence was collected from the victim but was not presented at trial and has since been destroyed.

Now, in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Equal Justice Initiative argues that Sullivan’s life sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution’s 8th Amendment.

People can argue about whether imprisoning a 13-year-old for life is cruel, comments Liptak, but "there is no question that it is unusual."

Liptak's column is here.

Further resources:

Equal Justice Initiative report, "Cruel and Unusual," on 13- and 14-year-old children sentenced to life in prison

Photo credit: Equal Justice Initiative. Hat tip: Jane.

New Year’s Briefs – Part I

Signs of the times?

Happy New Year to all of my loyal subscribers and readers. As usual, a lot is going on and I have had little time to blog. But here are a few highlights, with more to follow.

California strikes draconian sex offender sentence

Imagine serving the rest of your life in prison for missing a bureaucratic deadline. That's what happened to Cecilio Gonzalez under California's three-strikes sentencing law, when he was three months late one year on his annual sex offender registration with the police. Registration infractions usually carry a maximum sentence of three years, and the prosecutor had originally offered Gonzalez a two-year term. He ended up with life because he decided to take the case to trial, acting as his own attorney. That's cruel and unusual punishment, a California appellate court ruled, because the punishment was grossly disproportionate to his "entirely passive, harmless and technical violation of the registration law." It is unclear what effect the ruling may have on other 3-strikes cases, given that California's Supreme Court has declined two challenges by men whose third strikes were shoplifting - in one case videotapes and in another case golf clubs. The L.A. Times has the full story.

Spotlight on violent vets

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who come home and wreak havoc on their communities are a topic of mounting alarm around the United States. In Fort Carson, Colorado, for example, nine combat soldiers have been accused of killing people in the past three years; sexual assault and domestic violence cases are also up sharply. The New York Times has a follow-up story to its initial coverage a year ago, which traced many homicides by combat veterans to war-related trauma and the stress of deployment. As the Times notes, even military leaders are starting to acknowledge that "multiple deployments strain soldiers and families, and can increase the likelihood of problems like excessive drinking, marital strife and post-traumatic stress disorder."

Judges have also noticed the upsurge and in several jurisdictions around the country they are joining with local prosecutors, defense attorneys, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials to set up special veterans-only courts. The judges say trauma-related stress, brain injuries, and substance abuse are contributing to the rash of crimes. They are hoping the innovative courts can help rehabilitate veterans and avoid convictions that might cost veterans their future military benefits, according to a report in the National Law Journal.

Renewed calls for prison reform

With more than 1 in 100 Americans now behind bars, there are additional signs that some policy makers are getting fed up. Driving the trend may be the current economic downturn. As blog guest writer Eric Lotke pointed out last month, and as more and more people are finally noticing, the money being spent on prisons could be better spent on social programs. As the Virginian-Pilot editorialized:

In prosperous times, state and federal lawmakers wanting to polish their get-tough-on-crime image pass bills putting more people in prison and keeping them longer for offenses such as drunken driving, drug possession and dog fighting. When the economy tanks, those mandatory sentencing laws stay in place, and budget cuts instead dig into drug treatment and job-training programs.

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is getting quite a bit of ink in his vigorous calls for prison reform, and editorials are urging other members of Congress to "show the same courage and rally to the cause."

Perhaps with Barack Obama in the White House, the time will be ripe to reverse course. As we forensic psychologists know, this would be good news for the mentally ill, who make up a large proportion of the millions of Americans behind bars. Indeed, a new study coming out of Texas shows that mentally ill prisoners are not only more likely than others to go to prison, but they are far more likely to recidivate. This "revolving-door" phenomenon owes to a lack of community treatment options, massive downsizing of state hospitals, and a legal system that virtually ignores psychiatric issues. As a result, "many people with serious mental illness move continuously between crisis hospitalization, homelessness, and the criminal justice system," noted the authors of the study, published in this month's American Journal of Psychiatry. The study, "Psychiatric Disorders and Repeat Incarcerations: The Revolving Prison Door," is available upon request from lead researcher Jacques Baillargeon of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health at the University of Texas.

Willie Bosket: Tale of a wasted life

Imagine spending one day all alone in a 9-by-6-foot room.

Now, imagine spending one week in that room. How about one year? It seems almost unbearable.

But Willie Bosket hasn't been in that room for just a day or a week or a year. He has spent two entire decades there, and he is scheduled to be there for another four - until the year 2046. In fact, since the age of 9, the 45-year-old New Yorker has been locked up for all but about two years of his life. He gets three showers a week, plus one hour a day of solitary "recreation."

If that is not torture, I don't know what is.

As today's New York Times describes him, the man who at age 15 killed two people on a New York subway is "a paradox, a man of charm and extraordinary intelligence but also of inexplicable fits of rage." His story also exemplifies the human spirit at its most enduring:

Despite his bleak situation, Mr. Bosket refused to concede defeat: "I'm not broken down and never will be."
His life has always been empty, he said. "I grew up with nothing," he said. "I was born with nothing. I still have nothing. I will never have nothing. Forty-five years of living the way I have lived, I like 'nothing.' No one can take 'nothing' from you."

"I've become so callous to the poking of the sword that, literally, instead of bleeding to death, the blood was drained and I became absent of concern, void of emotions, cold - plain cold to the degree that not much affects me anymore," he said.

Yet Mr. Bosket did hint at something of a life of suffering.

"If somebody came to me with a lethal injection, I'd take it," he said. "I'd rather be dead."

The full story, "Two Decades in Solitary" by John Eligon, is here. If Bosket's name sounds familiar, it is because he is rather infamous. It was his case that led to New York's law allowing children to be tried as adults. His family is the subject of a controversial 1995 book by journalist Fox Butterfield, All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence (available in a new paperback edition this year) that traces the family's descent from slavery in South Carolina. The Crime Library also has an online version of Bosket's life story. The prisoner portrait above was drawn by his father, Butch, when he was an inmate at the Wiltwyck School for Boys as a child; by the time his son Willie was born, Butch himself was already serving life in prison.

Calif. ruling: Release rehabilitated prisoners

California has a long reputation of denying parole to all "lifers," no matter how old, sick, or demonstrably rehabilitated. Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger has been slightly more lenient than his Democrat predecessor, releasing 192 lifers as compared with Gov. Davis' 9 - but that's still only about one percent of the 16,000 who were eligible.

This week, however, for the first time in recent history, the state's high court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case, upholding the July 2007 release of a woman who had fatally shot and stabbed her lover's wife with a potato peeler. The state's parole board had approved the release of Sandra Davis Lawrence four times since 1993, but three governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, overturned the board's decisions. Lawrence spent almost 24 years in prison.


In its 4-3 ruling, the court cited "overwhelming" evidence of Lawrence's rehabilitation while in prison and her suitability for parole, and said parole decisions must be based on evidence of present danger to the public and not merely the brutality of a crime.

The standard, ruled the Court, is as follows:

The Board or the Governor may base a denial-of-parole decision upon the circumstances of the offense, or upon other immutable facts such as an inmate’s criminal history, but some evidence will support such reliance only if those facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is not merely whether an inmate’s crime was especially callous, or shockingly vicious or lethal, but whether the identified facts are probative to the central issue of current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the [Parole] Board or the Governor.

UC Irvine Law Professor Carrie L. Hempel, who represented Lawrence as part of a legal clinic at USC, said the court's decision "sends a clear message to prisoners that . . . if they work really hard to rehabilitate themselves they are going to get some justice."

The Los Angeles Times has in-depth coverage. The full ruling is HERE. Photo credit: L.A. Times.

- Hat tip: Sentencing Law & Policy

Australia: "Circle sentencing" ineffective

Speaking of restorative justice . . .

A restorative justice approach that involves the Aboriginal community in sentencing of Aboriginal offenders has no effect on recidivism risk, according to a new study.

"There was enormous hope that if Aboriginal offenders were brought before members of their own community, they would sit up and take more notice than if they were brought before a white magistrate or a white judge," said Don Weatherburn of Australia's Bureau of Crime Research and Statistics.

More important to reducing crime, he said, are treatment programs for the endemic drug and alcohol problems facing the Aboriginal community.

Of course, as pointed out by Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy, "the value of community involvement in the sentencing process may have benefits that cannot be measure just through recidivism rates."

The study, "Does circle sentencing reduce Aboriginal offending?" by Jacqueline Fitzgerald, is online in the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Reseach publication Crime and Justice Bulletin. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also has coverage.

Imprisoning LeFevre a costly, senseless ritual

Guest essay by Daniel Macallair*

Few examples better illustrate the vindictive nature of the American criminal justice system than the case of Susan LeFevre.

On April 24, LeFevre was arrested by federal marshals at her San Diego home 32 years after she walked away from a minimum security prison for nonviolent offenders in Michigan. At the time of her escape, she had just begun serving a 10- to 20-year sentence after she and a male companion pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to sell $200 worth of heroin to an undercover police officer.

Despite having no criminal record, the 19-year-old college student faced a crusading judge and the first wave of harsh drug laws. For a crime that may have resulted in probation in a neighboring jurisdiction, LeFevre received the maximum possible prison sentence.

Now a 52-year-old law-abiding mother and housewife, LeFevre has returned to Michigan where justice and corrections officials have stridently vowed that she will face the wrath of the criminal justice system.

While walking away from a prison sentence is never justified, the case raises troubling questions about the American criminal justice system and the purpose of imprisonment.

According to a recent study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the U.S. has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. With just 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners.

Even more startling, the U.S. jail and prison population for drug offenses (458,131) exceeds the European Union's jail and prison population for all offenses (356,626).

The reason why the United States imprisons 740 out of every 100,000 citizens compared to Europe's rate of 110 per 100,000 is the size of its prison establishment and the acceptance of imprisonment as a sentence for both violent and nonviolent offenders. Other countries choose to use prison sentences very sparingly on the understanding that prisons are cruel and brutalizing places that should be reserved for only the dangerous. Instead, European countries prefer to rely on penalties such as day fines that are tied to the individual's income....

LeFevre's imprisonment will cost the state of Michigan more than $300,000 during the next 10 years. This does not include any additional periods of imprisonment imposed for her earlier escape. Many in the prison establishment will argue that requiring LeFevre to serve her sentence is necessary to demonstrate the criminal justice system's resolve and to deter others from similar actions. Others argue that special treatment for LeFevre cannot be justified since special considerations are not extended to other inmates.

Effective criminal justice systems measure their success by the number of people successfully returned to the community, not the number of inmates maintained in prison. Incarcerating individuals such as LeFevre who pose no danger to society and who are forced to leave behind children and spouses simply renders her punishment a costly and senseless ritual.

In this instance, society would be best served by allowing LeFevre to return home, leave the past behind and continue her productive life.

*Reprinted with the written permission of the author. Originally posted on the Saginaw (Michigan) News online edition. Daniel Macallair is executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and teaches criminal justice at San Francisco State University.

Presidential hopefuls' criminal justice stances

Despite growing public awareness of the drastic costs of current policies, criminal justice issues have received little attention in the U.S. presidential debates. To rectify this, the nonpartisan Sentencing Project has prepared a handy 11-page pdf guide that provides the positions of frontrunners McCain, Obama and Clinton on nine key criminal justice issues, including sentencing policy, prisoner reentry, the death penalty, and felony disenfranchisement. The guide is available here.

Incarcerex: One nation, behind bars

With none of the front-running presidential candidates challenging the United States' long-running incarceration mania, INCARCEREX (click on either that capitalized title or on the picture to the right) is an incredibly timely video.

Also timely is today's pull-no-punches editorial in the Detroit Free Press, "One Nation, Behind Bars," which goes like this right here:

The U.S. prison population, the world's largest, has grown nearly eightfold over the past 35 years and now costs taxpayers at least $60 billion a year. An eye-popping report released last week by the Pew Center on the States found that, for the first time, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison. And that figure doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of people who are on probation and parole.

What is the goal here? Is there a smarter way to get there? What are we as a society getting in return for all this money? What is this massive and growing penal system accomplishing?

Before the nation hits two in 100 behind bars, which seems inevitable, it's time for a national debate on corrections and criminal justice policies that will lead to a more rational, humane and cost-effective system. The nation has gotten far too little for its enormous investment in locking people up. Violent crime rates are higher than they were more than three decades ago, when tough-on-crime policies, including mandatory sentencing laws, created a prison-building boom.

States can no longer afford to divert so many resources from education, health care and other pressing needs. Michigan, for example, with one of the nation's highest incarceration rates, spends $2 billion a year on corrections, or 20% of its general fund. It is one of four states spending more on corrections than higher education. In today's economy, spending more on prisons than college is a recipe for failure.

Nor can the nation ignore the human costs of mass incarceration. Nearly half of the 2.3 million adults locked up are African Americans, who make up less than 13% of the U.S. population. A stunning one in nine black males between the ages of 20-34 is behind bars.

The large numbers of people incarcerated may well increase crime rates. Prison culture has become a norm in some urban neighborhoods, with more than 600,000 people a year returning home from prison and jails. They come back poorly educated, lacking job skills, and socially and legally disabled by felony records. One in 14 African-American children has a parent who is incarcerated, greatly increasing the chances that they, too, will grow up to go to prison.

The good news is that budget pressures are forcing states, including Michigan, to take steps to control their prison populations. On average, Michigan incarcerates at a 40% higher rate than surrounding Great Lakes states. But Michigan was also one of 14 states where prison population dropped over the past year. The state's prisoner re-entry program has reduced recidivism; in some cases, parole rates have gone up.

Michigan is also considering other initiatives, including sentencing reforms that divert more low-level offenders into community programs and releasing more severely sick or dying inmates who pose no risk.

All states must consider greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders, as well as repealing harsh drug laws and mandatory sentencing policies, including three-strike laws, which result in unreasonably long prison stays.

Unacceptably high incarceration rates tear at the nation's social fabric and take public money from education, health care, transportation and other vital needs. Nor have they significantly reduced crime. It's time to re-examine the policies that have made us the incarceration nation.

Hat tip: Sentencing Law & Policy blog

Cautionary notes on last week's sentencing reforms

While some are heralding last week's federal sentencing reforms as the biggest civil rights development since Brown v. Board of Education back in 1954, others are less sanguine. The excellent Sentencing Law & Policy blog summarizes two cautionary opinion pieces, one by James Oliphant of the Chicago Tribune and the other by Adam Liptak of the New York Times.

Oliphant's piece, "New drug rules won't crack many jail doors," starts out:

When the U.S. Sentencing Commission last week reduced sentences for imprisoned crack cocaine offenders -- reversing years of policy that treated crack far differently from powder cocaine -- the Justice Department and police groups bitterly criticized the action, warning of a flood of criminals rushing out onto America's streets....

But many experts say the reality is not so dramatic. Fewer than 3,000 prisoners nationwide will be immediately eligible for the relief. All have already served considerable time. Each eligible prisoner will have to petition the court for freedom -- and the Justice Department can oppose those petitions. Few offenders with violent histories are likely to be released.

Adam Liptak's column, "Whittling Away, but Leaving a Gap," begins:

There was an avalanche of sentencing news last week. The Supreme Court gave trial judges more power to show mercy, the United States Sentencing Commission gave almost 20,000 prisoners doing time on crack cocaine charges a good shot at early release, and even President Bush commuted a crack sentence.

The net effect: tinkering. The United States justice system remains, by international standards at least, exceptionally punitive. And nothing that happened last week will change that.

Prison for consensual teen sex "cruel and unusual," Georgia high court rules

In a case that garnered international attention, Georgia's Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of a young African American man serving a 10-year prison sentence for consensual oral sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend when he was 17.

The court overturned Genarlow Wilson's conviction on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Wilson's 2005 conviction had sparked outrage. In its wake, the Georgia legislature reduced consensual sex between minors from a felony to a misdemeanor punishable by no more than one year in prison. But Genarlow remained in prison because the legislative change did not apply retroactively to him.

Among those who lobbied to free him were an ex-Georgia governor, former President Jimmy Carter, and even some of the jurors who convicted him.

Amazingly, the state high court ruling was a bare majority, with three out of four justices voting to uphold the draconian sentence. Genarlow has already served more than two years in prison.

The court's decision and press release are available online. Wikipedia has lots of additional background information on the case.

"Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?"

Unebelievably, that is the title of a Congressional hearing tomorrow morning.

Legislators, it seems, are finally noticing the staggering costs of mass incarceration, estimated at more than $200 billion per year.

The Joint Economic Committee wants to know why the United States has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, when we are only 5 percent of the world's population. It plans to explore this question, as well as ways to address incarceration "that responsibly balance public safety and the high social and economic costs of imprisonment."

About time, huh? I sure hope this is part of the pendulum swing that I've been predicting here!

The JEC announcement, along with transcripts of the statements by some of the expert witnesses, is here. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, who organized the hearing, has some good data, charts, and graphs at his website.

Hat tip to Sentencing Law & Policy for alerting me to this hearing.

Study: When criminal label closes doors, felons more likely to reoffend

I recently posted about a new book, Marked, that describes the employment consequences of a criminal conviction.

Now comes a large-scale study out of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University with similar findings:

A convicted felon sentenced to probation for a violent, property or drug felony is more likely to re-offend within two years if he or she leaves court with an official "convicted felon" label and its barriers to employment and civil rights, according to a landmark study of nearly 96,000 probationers.

More information on the study, including a link to the article in the August issue of Criminology, is online.

New report on racial disparities in sentencing

The Sentencing Project has issued a new report, “Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity.” The study found that African Americans were incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites and Latinos at nearly double the rate. The 23-page report is based on data from five states in the Northeast and Midwest. The report recommends “addressing disparities through changes in drug policy, mandatory sentencing laws, reconsideration of “race neutral” policies, and changes in resource allocation.”