Category: Rights, Justice, & Judgement

The world can learn from how Norway treats its offenders

Source: Prisons: Too many prisons make bad people worse. There is a better way | The Economist

 

Norway has the lowest reoffending rate in Scandinavia: two years after release, only 20% of prisoners have been reconvicted. By contrast, a study of 29 American states found a recidivism rate nearly twice as high. This is despite the fact that Norway reserves prison for hard cases, who would normally be more likely to reoffend. Its incarceration rate, at 74 per 100,000 people, is about a tenth of America’s.

“Kentucky prisons were full of people we’re mad at, not people we’re afraid of,” says John Tilley, the secretary of justice in Kentucky.

for many people the aim of incarceration is to reduce the harm caused by criminals. Prisons can do this in three ways. First, they restrain: a thug behind bars cannot break into your house. Second, they deter: the prospect of being locked up makes potential wrongdoers think twice. Third, they reform: under state supervision, a criminal can be taught better habits.

On the first count, most prisons succeed, but at a cost.
…
To deter would-be criminals, what matters most is not the severity of the penalty but the certainty and swiftness with which it is imposed.
…
Even when the police are effective, criminals are often undeterred. They are typically impulsive and opportunistic, picking fights because they are angry and grabbing loot because it is visible. Which is why rehabilitation is so important: nearly all inmates will eventually be released, and it is far better for everyone if they do not go back to their old ways.

Really, it’s best to just go read the whole thing.

Source: How Far Should Societies Go to Prevent Terror Attacks? – The Atlantic, by Conor Friedersdorf

Almost everyone is unwilling to do certain things to eliminate terrorism. And that is fortunate, for the endurance of a free society depends upon it.

The problem with [absolutist] arguments is the implication that disagreements about what policies to pursue are rooted in some people caring enough to stop children from dying horribly, and others not so much. In fact, there are deep disagreements about the likely effects of many policies. And while the willingness to adopt some policies even though dead children will result is real, it is also universal; if you favor allowing cars to drive faster than 25 miles per hour, or allowing kids to ride in them, then you are willing to say that a certain amount of deaths are the price we pay to live as we want.
…
To put it so bluntly is politically incorrect. But to hold the contrary position, that we will pay any price to end terrorism, is morally monstrous and incompatible with the Constitution.

No free society could survive the latter posture.

For many Americans, myself included, the Iraq War was not a counterterrorism success. It was a conflict that killed many more Americans than died on September 11, 2001; and the instability that it spawned was a major root cause of the rise of ISIS. The bipartisan consensus against more ground invasions in the Middle East is not rooted in an unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices to reduce terrorism; it reflects a belief that the Iraq War seems to have increased rather than reduced global terrorism.

Is it even the case that the occupation of Afghanistan made Americans safer? … One also wonders how many people were radicalized into terrorism as a result of U.S. abuses in Iraq, like the ones at the Abu Ghraib prison, or by innocents killed by drones.

To be moved by an argument of the sort that [David French] offers is to be manipulated into eliding questions of efficacy and values by the specter of dead children. Don’t be led astray.

Source: How Far Should Societies Go to Prevent Terror Attacks? – The Atlantic, by Conor Friedersdorf

 

A Republic demands courage — not foolhardy and unsustainable “principle at all costs,” but reasoned courage — from its citizens. The American response should be to find some other solution to this problem if the casualty rate is unacceptable. To demand that the government “keep us safe” by doing things out of our sight that we have refused to do in much more serious situations so that we can avoid such a risk is weak and pathetic. It is the demand of spoiled children, or the cosseted residents of the imperial city.

Source: Against Waterboarding | National Review, by Jim Manzi

Each time those in power brush aside that “archaic” Constitution, those pernickety procedures, those effete unwritten norms, those annoying statutes, that carping acting attorney general, those obdurate bureaucrats, those so-called judges, those whining lawyers, those ungrateful citizens, those undeserving aliens, they bring the nation closer not just to injustice but to catastrophe.

Source: Sally Yates’ Testimony and the Legal Fight Over the Travel Ban – The Atlantic by Garrett Epps

Source: Orleans Parish prosecutors are using fake subpoenas to pressure witnesses to talk to them | The Lens by Charles Maldonado

The DA’s office is sending notices labeled “subpoena” to witnesses, threatening jail time if the person ignores them. But they’re not real subpoenas. An assistant district attorney says they’re meant to persuade people who may ignore a simple letter.

after The Lens told Bowman that our story would report that legal experts say the practice could be illegal, The New Orleans Advocate reported that the DA’s office had announced it would end the practice

you are not qualified to know whether you are innocent of wrongdoing under federal criminal law

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is “within the jurisdiction” of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is “within the jurisdiction” of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984).

the only avenue for reform with respect to Section 1001 is in Congress

you can politely decline to be interviewed by the FBI agent. Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that “my attorney will be in contact with you.” If the agent persists, say that you will not discuss anything without first consulting counsel. Ask for the agent’s card, to give to your attorney. If you have not yet hired a lawyer, tell the agent that “I want to consult a lawyer first”

The absolutely essential thing to keep in mind is to say nothing of substance about the matter under investigation. It is preferable to do this by politely declining to be interviewed in the absence of counsel. … It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent.

You are not obliged to explain your decision to anyone.

I am not suggesting that you should obstruct the FBI or invariably decline to answer an agent’s questions. … Neither am I suggesting that it is generally acceptable to be interviewed by federal agents as long as your attorney is present. In fact, it is usually unacceptable and is often quite risky.

Source: How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents – FindLaw by Solomon L. Wisenberg