Judge Regrets Sentencing Teen to Life Without Parole

Speaking of harsh penalties, how’s 241 years in prison for a 16-year-old boy?

Well, it happened to this boy twenty years ago. The judge who sentenced him told him he’d die in prison. She told him he wouldn’t even be eligible for parole until 2091, when no one he knew would be alive, anyway.

One can forgive the judge her anger. The boy and an 18-year-old friend had robbed a group of six people and shot at two of them. The older boy led the way, but they both had a gun, and they each fired a shot. They could’ve killed someone, but no one was hurt. Then they carjacked and robbed another woman before letting her go. The 18-year-old pleaded guilty and got 30 years. He’ll be eligible for parole this year. The 16-year-old went to trial and lost. He’d already compiled a juvenile record to that point, and the judge was steamed.

But she deeply regrets her sentence now, and she’s joined the boy’s lawyers in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it.

Their argument is simple. The Court held in 2010 that it’s unconstitutional to sentence a kid who didn’t kill anyone to life without parole. Simply and logically, the same must go for a sentence that doesn’t say “life without parole” but does the exact same thing.

Feds Raise Healthcare Penalties Again

If you’re a healthcare provider who takes Medicare or another federal program, take note.

We didn’t get a government shutdown, but the budget law from last week more than doubled the civil and criminal penalties you face when the government accuses you of fraud, waste, or abuse. To see for yourself, click the link and scroll all the way down to section 50412. You need to go about three-fifths of the way down.

The maximum civil penalties have doubled and, in some cases, more than doubled. Where they used to be $2,000 per violation, they’re now $5,000; where $5,000 before, they’re now $10,000; if $10,000, they’re now $20,000; if $15,000, now $30,000; and where they were $50,000 before, they’re now $100,000. Generally, the penalties apply per violation.

The maximum criminal penalties have doubled or quadrupled. A felony charge that used to threaten five years in prison and a $25,000 fine now carries up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine. A misdemeanor charge that carried a $2,000 or $10,000 fine could now cost $4,000 or $20,000 respectively in fines alone.

These changes apply to conduct after the law was enacted on February 9, 2018.

New California Criminal Laws: Part Deux

To conclude the series, here’s the fab five we promised last week.

Kids age 15 or younger must talk to a lawyer before the police interrogate them. This is Senate Bill 395. It amended the Welfare and Institutions Code to require that kids consult a lawyer before they waive their Miranda rights. They can do the consultation in person, by phone, or by video, but they can’t waive it even if they want to. If they don’t get one, a court may exclude their statements from evidence at trial (if it gets there). But it may not as well. And there are exceptions for emergencies. The law expires on January 1, 2025.

Kids whose juvenile cases are dismissed or diverted get their records sealed. This is Assembly Bill 529. It amended the Welfare and Institutions Code to seal records from a juvenile case automatically if the case is dismissed or the kid successfully completes a diversion program. It takes these cases and treats them the same as another recent law that applies when kids complete probation.

More kids get a crack at sealing their records. This is Senate Bill 312. It amended the Welfare and Institutions Code to give kids who weren’t even eligible before a chance. It applies if you were found to have committed an especially serious or violent offense when you were at least 14 years old. Now, a court may consider your petition to seal under limited circumstances. It doesn’t apply if you were required to register as a sex offender. And your records can still be looked at by the courts or district attorney if you get in trouble again. For more on sealing juvenile records, see here.

The state continues to implement Prop 57. Remember Prop 57? It required judges to decide whether a kid age 14 or older could be prosecuted in adult court, and it promised a shot at parole for nonviolent offenders who’ve served the bulk of their sentence. But it also aimed to expand the credits an inmate could earn through good conduct or specific rehabilitative programs. Now, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is finalizing its regulations under Prop 57, and you can find more information about them here.

Your Uber, Lyft, or taxi driver can’t have a blood-alcohol level more than .04. This is Assembly Bill 2687, which passed in 2016. It amends the Vehicle Code to apply the lower limit for truckers and other commercial drivers. The law is effective July 1, 2018.

Reasonable Minds Can Differ

But they will usually find more to agree on.

Case in point: this short interview with the junior U.S. senator from Utah.

He’s considered one of the more conservative members of Congress, but he’s also part of a bipartisan group that’s pushing to reform our criminal justice system.

As a former federal prosecutor, he’s asked how he feels about the justice system and what’s changed for him over time.

He points to one case in particular that, presumably, he didn’t charge. The defendant was a man with two young children. He sold very small amounts of marijuana to an informant three times. He also owned a gun at the time, though he didn’t use it or brandish it during any of the sales. Based on those facts and the way he was charged, the man received a mandatory sentence of 55 years.

Even the sentencing judge openly criticized the sentence, but he wrote that his hands were tied under the law. He also said that it was a problem only Congress could fix.

The senator remembered those words when he got to Congress, and now he’s trying to do something about it.

Why is he doing this when he’s supposed to be a conservative Republican? That’s exactly why he’s doing it, he says.

They May Be Intelligent, But Are They Wise?

Speaking of fair shakes, here is a wise word of caution about the emerging, expanding use of computer programs to evaluate people in the justice system, whether at bail hearings, sentencings, or elsewhere.

The author is a former software engineer at Facebook who’s now studying law at Harvard. Her point isn’t that we shouldn’t use or consult these programs, but we should know what we’re getting into and proceed with caution. It’s troubling, for example, if we use programs that no one in the field fully understands—not judges, not lawyers, not probation—because the manufacturer won’t disclose a proprietary algorithm.

She says we turn to computers in part to control for our own biases, “[b]ut shifting the … responsibility to a computer doesn’t necessarily eliminate bias; it delegates and often compounds it.” That’s because these programs mimic the data we use to train them, so even the ones that accurately reflect our world will necessarily reflect our biases. Plus, they work on a feedback loop, so if they’re not constantly retrained, they lean in toward those biases and drift even further from reality and fairness. So they don’t just parrot our own biases; they amplify them. She saw this phenomenon time and again as a software engineer.

She agrees that algorithms can work for good. They’ve reportedly helped New Jersey reduce its pretrial jail population, for example.

But let’s proceed with caution, she says:

“Computers may be intelligent, but they are not wise. Everything they know, we taught them, and we taught them our biases. They are not going to un-learn them without transparency and corrective action by humans.”

California’s New Law of Fair Shakes

Whether you’re an employer or an employee, take note.

Earlier this month, California enacted the Fair Chance Act.

This means that, beginning next year, many employers can no longer ask about or look into criminal convictions until they’ve decided a person is right for the job. That means they can’t ask about convictions anymore on a job application. It also means they can’t run a background check until they’ve made a conditional offer of employment.

Also, once employers make a conditional offer and run someone’s record, they can’t deny the job based on a conviction unless they first analyze the relationship between the job and conviction. What kind of job is it, after all? Does it have anything to do with the conviction? How long ago was that, anyway? There must be a “direct and adverse” relationship between the two to justify the decision.

Employers don’t have to share their analysis with applicants, but they must advise of their decision in writing. When they do, they must identify the relevant conviction, attach a copy of the report they ran on the person, and explain that he or she has at least five business days to show why the report isn’t accurate or why they should still get the job based on rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. Employers must consider any evidence they submit. If they still decide to deny the job, they must let the person know in writing, refer him or her to any existing procedure they have for challenging it, and give them notice of the right to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

What hasn’t changed? Employers still can’t consider arrests that didn’t lead to conviction, unless charges are still pending or the arrest was for certain drug or sex offenses and the job is in a healthcare facility that requires access to drugs or patients. Nor can employers consider convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, or otherwise expunged.

The law will apply to employers with five or more employees. It exempts those who must conduct background checks by law. For more on the new law and its passage, see here and here. For the text itself, see here.

Two Tears

Two true stories, that is, of people on a sex-offender registry.

The first. Today, she’s a 34-year-old mother of two great kids. Back then, she was a teenager herself when she slept with a boy on the night of her 19th birthday party. The boy was mature enough to pursue her but, as it happened, he was 14. His mom reported her to the police the next day, and they called her in to talk. They told her if she were honest, she wouldn’t go to jail, but it’s funny how that works, because after they filed the case, she was told that she could serve 20 to 25 years if she went to trial and lost. Or she could plead guilty and serve minimal time, but she would have to register as a sex offender.

Today, she’s a good person and a mother of two great kids, but her conviction looks like child molestation on paper, and she must register as a sex offender for life. Recently, she worked to become a staff writer for a local newspaper, but then someone complained about it, and the paper let her go. No one bothered with the details. You should watch her video.

The second. He was a junior in college when he went to Miami for spring break. He met a girl there at an 18-and-over club, and they ended up hooking up. Seven months later, he got a call from law enforcement in Florida. As it happened, the girl had used a fake ID to get into the club. She was actually 15 at the time, and her mom filed a complaint when she found out. So they asked the young man to come to Miami to talk, and he agreed. He told them everything was consensual, and he assumed she was 18 or older since she was in the club. They took his statement, thanked him for his cooperation, and arrested him on the spot.

Five years later, he was homeless because he couldn’t find a job or housing given his lifetime sex-offender registration. Two years ago, almost ten years after his conviction, he failed to register his whereabouts and received three years in prison. You should read his story, too.


Lifetime Sex-Offender Registration for Kids

Do you think sex-offender registration is punishment?

What if it’s for life?

What if it’s for a 12-year-old boy?

Last week, the California Court of Appeal ruled that it’s not punishment to call a kid a sex offender for life because of something he did when he was twelve years old.

According to the court, the boy’s early years were marked by extreme neglect and abuse. He was taken from his mother at age five and shunted from one foster home to another until he was adopted.

Then, when he was twelve, he was processed in juvenile court for pushing a five-year-old boy to the ground and committing a lewd act on him. He was put on probation and ordered to enroll in sex-offender treatment.

After that, he was found to have violated his probation three times: once for hanging out with other minors without adult supervision; once for touching his adoptive sister’s breast, after which he was sent to a group home; and once more for grabbing a boy’s butt there.

At that point, the court put him in juvie and ordered him to register as a sex offender. In California, that meant he would have to register as one for the rest of his life. Wherever he moved, he would have to register with the city police or the county sheriff. If he went to college, he would have to register there, too. Even if he never moved, he would have to register again every year within five days of his birthday.

He appealed on the ground that lifetime registration for kids was cruel and unusual punishment. He also argued that it hindered public safety rather than helped it because it hurt a kid’s chance to live a normal life. Even the juvenile court had acknowledged that it “mess[ed] up the rest of their lives by hanging this tag on them.” Of course, the same could be said for adults, as we’ve explained before.

But the appellate court held that it wasn’t even punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment. The court relied on prior cases by the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to that effect. Although those cases didn’t address the question of kids specifically, this court wasn’t going to be the first to carve out an exception for them.

[Update: Beginning January 1, 2021, California will eliminate lifetime registration for many offenses, as we explain here.]

No Correlation Between Drug War and Use

According to an independent, well-regarded think tank, there is statistically no reason to think that we can reduce drug abuse by locking more people up.

The nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts spelled it out in a letter this summer to a federal commission that’s looking at ways to combat the widespread problem of opioid abuse.

Its study, which drew on data from the federal government and all fifty states, found no statistically-significant relationship between a state’s rate of incarceration and its rate of drug use, drug arrests, or overdose deaths.

Put another way, locking up more people didn’t correlate with lower rates of drug use, drug arrests, or overdose deaths. These findings held even when the study controlled for race, income, unemployment, and education. The arrest and incarceration rates came from state corrections departments and the U.S. Justice Department. The drug-usage rates came from an annual, national survey funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The overdose-death rates came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The demographic data came from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the income and unemployment data came from the U.S. Labor Department.

The more effective response to opioid abuse, says the letter, is a combination of law enforcement to curb drug trafficking; sentencing alternatives to divert nonviolent people from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce addiction; and prevention efforts like prescription-drug monitoring programs, which we wrote about last week.

Our Federal Prisons Are Fueled By Drugs

That’s the takeaway from this report by the federal courts and U.S. Sentencing Commission.

To summarize, there are almost 200,000 people in federal prison today, and almost half of them (or 48%) are there for drugs. Almost all of them (93%) are men, and the vast majority are young, minority men. The breakdown is 35% Hispanic, 35% black, and 27% white.

Here are the top five types of cases:

  1. Drugs (48%)
  2. Guns (19%)
  3. Immigration (8%)
  4. Child pornography and sex offenses (7%)
  5. Major frauds (5.8%)

For fraud cases, the median dollar loss was $800,000, in case you were wondering.

For the drug cases, here’s the breakdown among drugs:

  1. Methamphetamine (32.8%)
  2. Powder cocaine (24.2%)
  3. Crack cocaine (20.9%)
  4. Heroin (9.5%)
  5. Marijuana (8.4%)

Finally, the report shows how often people are sentenced below, above, or within the range that’s recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines. Here’s a crash course on the guidelines if you want to know how they work.

  • Half were sentenced within the guideline range (50.4%)
  • A quarter were sentenced below the range with the government’s support (24.7%)
  • One-fifth were sentenced below the range without the government’s support (21%)
  • Relatively few were sentenced above the guideline range (3.9%)

Ratings and Reviews

10.0Mani Dabiri
Mani DabiriReviewsout of 7 reviews
The National Trial Lawyers
The National Trial Lawyers
Mani Dabiri American Bar Foundation Emblem