Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "election"
Presidential Race Saw Sharp Differences on Criminal Justice Issues
Along with bitter personal attacks and accusations of criminality, this year’s presidential campaign highlighted sharp differences in perspective and policy preferences between major party candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Before we begin to get too deep into speculation over how the newly elected president will proceed in these areas, it’s probably useful to review some of the major controversies the candidates dealt with the area of criminal justice.
Crime Rate: What Direction Is It Heading?
As the nominee of the party out of power (until he takes office in 2017), Republican Donald Trump could be expected to criticize incumbent Democrats’ record on crime, and he quickly seized on what he maintained was an “out of control” crime rate. In a bid to establish himself as the “law and order” candidate, he charged the administration had drastically reduced criminal enforcement. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, defended the record of the Obama administration in fighting crime, even claiming in a July appearance at Columbia University that crime had reached “historic lows.”
Judging by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most recently issued crime statistics, however, there appears to be at least an element of truth in each candidate’s claims. The agency’s Uniform Crime Reporting System show a national 3.9 percent rise in violent crimes between 2014 and 2015, with a greater than 10 percent increase in murders, and even more extreme increases in Chicago and some other areas.
At the same time, however, the UCR system is far from perfect, since about 30 percent of police agencies opt not to send in their statistics, making comparisons inexact. Further, looking at longer periods than just a year-to-year comparison, crime rates have generally been declining, so an apparent recent spike may be just a tapering off long-term declines.
What Changes Should Be Made in Sentencing and Prison Policies?
Reducing sentences for drug offenses was a central feature of the Clinton campaign’s platform on crime, calling for cutting in half present-day mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, making retroactive legislation that reduced sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine, and no longer considering previous nonviolent drug convictions as plus factors in sentencing decisions. Despite his anti-crime speeches, Trump was far less specific on his proposals in the area.
The candidates also differed sharply on the issue of using private prisons for federal inmates: Clinton supported the Obama decision to phase them out for the Bureau of Prisons, while Trump indicated general support for federal prisons being privately owned and operated.
Ought Ex-Felons’ Voting Rights Be Restored?
Mirroring the controversy in Virginia, where Gov. Terry McAuliffe – the head of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign – sought to issue a blanket restoration of voting rights to ex-felons who had completed their sentences, candidate Trump called such proposals “crooked politics,” accusing Democrats of having political advantage as their real motive for seeking that change.
In contrast, the platform on which Hillary Clinton ran called not only for voting rights restoration, but also for “ban the box” legislation and a presidential executive order requiring federal contractors and employers not to screen out job applicants with criminal records.
Crime Rate: What Direction Is It Heading?
As the nominee of the party out of power (until he takes office in 2017), Republican Donald Trump could be expected to criticize incumbent Democrats’ record on crime, and he quickly seized on what he maintained was an “out of control” crime rate. In a bid to establish himself as the “law and order” candidate, he charged the administration had drastically reduced criminal enforcement. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, defended the record of the Obama administration in fighting crime, even claiming in a July appearance at Columbia University that crime had reached “historic lows.”
Judging by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most recently issued crime statistics, however, there appears to be at least an element of truth in each candidate’s claims. The agency’s Uniform Crime Reporting System show a national 3.9 percent rise in violent crimes between 2014 and 2015, with a greater than 10 percent increase in murders, and even more extreme increases in Chicago and some other areas.
At the same time, however, the UCR system is far from perfect, since about 30 percent of police agencies opt not to send in their statistics, making comparisons inexact. Further, looking at longer periods than just a year-to-year comparison, crime rates have generally been declining, so an apparent recent spike may be just a tapering off long-term declines.
What Changes Should Be Made in Sentencing and Prison Policies?
Reducing sentences for drug offenses was a central feature of the Clinton campaign’s platform on crime, calling for cutting in half present-day mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, making retroactive legislation that reduced sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine, and no longer considering previous nonviolent drug convictions as plus factors in sentencing decisions. Despite his anti-crime speeches, Trump was far less specific on his proposals in the area.
The candidates also differed sharply on the issue of using private prisons for federal inmates: Clinton supported the Obama decision to phase them out for the Bureau of Prisons, while Trump indicated general support for federal prisons being privately owned and operated.
Ought Ex-Felons’ Voting Rights Be Restored?
Mirroring the controversy in Virginia, where Gov. Terry McAuliffe – the head of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign – sought to issue a blanket restoration of voting rights to ex-felons who had completed their sentences, candidate Trump called such proposals “crooked politics,” accusing Democrats of having political advantage as their real motive for seeking that change.
In contrast, the platform on which Hillary Clinton ran called not only for voting rights restoration, but also for “ban the box” legislation and a presidential executive order requiring federal contractors and employers not to screen out job applicants with criminal records.
California Voters Vote to Keep, Speed Up State’s Death Penalty
This year’s election gave California voters 17 ballot propositions to consider. Two initiatives took starkly different approaches to the state’s death penalty, offering voters what was widely described as an “end or mend” choice.
Proposition 62 sought to abolish the death penalty in California state courts, making life without parole the most severe sentence they could impose. In contrast, Proposition 66 called for retaining the death penalty while limiting and speeding up appeals of convictions in capital cases.
The Golden State has a fairly long and complex history with capital punishment. In 1972, a court ruling halted executions, only to see voters approve a ballot initiative reinstating the death penalty and more specifically defining the special circumstances in which it can be used. A 2006 decision by a federal judge in San Jose found fault with the way the state was carrying out lethal injections. After a botched lethal-injection execution in Oklahoma caused a Death Row convict obvious, intense pain, the judge ordered what was supposed to be a temporary moratorium on executions, and required that future executions have a doctor or other qualified health practitioner be in attendance to ensure the condemned prisoner had been adequately sedated.
Medical societies argued their ethics prevented members from participating in executions, and the ensuing impasse and other difficulties — such as difficulty obtaining the drugs used in lethal injections —blocked all executions in the state for the next 10 years. As a result, there are now about 750 residents on San Quentin’s Death Row.
Opponents of capital punishment argued Proposition 62 could, within a few years, reduce state spending by about $150 million annually, by eliminating now-automatic direct appeals to the state Supreme Court of death sentences, and reducing many other death sentence appeals to state and federal courts, which can delay death sentences by years or even decades. Four years ago, by a 52 to 48 percent margin, California voters rejected a similar initiative to abolish the death penalty.
Proposition 62 actually received a lower percentage of positive votes (46.1 percent) than the 48 percent for the 2012 repeal effort, while opponents — drawing almost 54 percent of the vote, compared with 52 percent in 2012 — did better. This year’s repeal initiative garnered often-slim majorities in just 15 of the state’s 52 counties. It drew 60 percent or more favorable votes in just four counties (San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and Santa Cruz), but amassed negative votes of 70 percent or more in about a dozen other counties.
Competing initiative Proposition 66, on the other hand, explicitly retains the death sentence and limits appeals by revising post-sentencing procedures. Approved by about 51 percent of voters, it embodies the Death Penalty Savings and Reform Act, which directs California courts to adopt rules to expedite legal appeals in death sentence cases, sets new time limits for appeals and would draft lawyers to handle those limited appeals.
But a lawsuit filed by a former state attorney general against state officials the day after the election seeks to keep Proposition 66 from taking effect, arguing it conflicts with the state constitution by interfering with inmates’ rights to bring — and state courts’ powers to hear — appeals of death sentences. A decision on whether that challenge will be heard could come soon.
Proposition 62 sought to abolish the death penalty in California state courts, making life without parole the most severe sentence they could impose. In contrast, Proposition 66 called for retaining the death penalty while limiting and speeding up appeals of convictions in capital cases.
The Golden State has a fairly long and complex history with capital punishment. In 1972, a court ruling halted executions, only to see voters approve a ballot initiative reinstating the death penalty and more specifically defining the special circumstances in which it can be used. A 2006 decision by a federal judge in San Jose found fault with the way the state was carrying out lethal injections. After a botched lethal-injection execution in Oklahoma caused a Death Row convict obvious, intense pain, the judge ordered what was supposed to be a temporary moratorium on executions, and required that future executions have a doctor or other qualified health practitioner be in attendance to ensure the condemned prisoner had been adequately sedated.
Medical societies argued their ethics prevented members from participating in executions, and the ensuing impasse and other difficulties — such as difficulty obtaining the drugs used in lethal injections —blocked all executions in the state for the next 10 years. As a result, there are now about 750 residents on San Quentin’s Death Row.
Opponents of capital punishment argued Proposition 62 could, within a few years, reduce state spending by about $150 million annually, by eliminating now-automatic direct appeals to the state Supreme Court of death sentences, and reducing many other death sentence appeals to state and federal courts, which can delay death sentences by years or even decades. Four years ago, by a 52 to 48 percent margin, California voters rejected a similar initiative to abolish the death penalty.
Proposition 62 actually received a lower percentage of positive votes (46.1 percent) than the 48 percent for the 2012 repeal effort, while opponents — drawing almost 54 percent of the vote, compared with 52 percent in 2012 — did better. This year’s repeal initiative garnered often-slim majorities in just 15 of the state’s 52 counties. It drew 60 percent or more favorable votes in just four counties (San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and Santa Cruz), but amassed negative votes of 70 percent or more in about a dozen other counties.
Competing initiative Proposition 66, on the other hand, explicitly retains the death sentence and limits appeals by revising post-sentencing procedures. Approved by about 51 percent of voters, it embodies the Death Penalty Savings and Reform Act, which directs California courts to adopt rules to expedite legal appeals in death sentence cases, sets new time limits for appeals and would draft lawyers to handle those limited appeals.
But a lawsuit filed by a former state attorney general against state officials the day after the election seeks to keep Proposition 66 from taking effect, arguing it conflicts with the state constitution by interfering with inmates’ rights to bring — and state courts’ powers to hear — appeals of death sentences. A decision on whether that challenge will be heard could come soon.
