Posts

When Sending People to Jail, Criminal Intent Matters

/0 Comments/in , /by

Can a person go to jail for a crime that he had no intent to commit, and that the government admits he did not know would occur?

Jack and Peter DeCoster, father and son executives of the Quality Egg business, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider their jail sentences for a crime committed by someone else without their knowledge: Selling eggs contaminated with salmonella.

The Outbreak

The DeCoster family was one of the largest egg producers in the United States, with 100 barns housing 5 million egg-laying hens. In 2010, a Salmonella outbreak that caused nearly 2,000 reported consumer illnesses was traced to their Iowa-based farms at Quality Egg, LLC.

The family business had a poor environmental and public health record with several past regulatory violations. But their business was booming until the 2010 outbreak, when about 550 million eggs were recalled.

The Sentence

In 2014, the DeCosters pleaded guilty to introducing adulterated (i.e. contaminated) eggs into interstate commerce, in violation of federal law.

Under the food adulteration provision (21 U.S.C. § 331) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, “[t]he introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded” is prohibited.

The statutory penalty allows for fines and up to one year’s imprisonment.

The family and business paid $7 million in total fines under their plea agreement. Consumers also hit the business with a myriad of lawsuits seeking money damages. In 2011, the DeCosters reached settlements with at least 40 victims, some of whom reportedly received around $250,000.

The family’s loss of their business would seem to be a fair price to pay for sloppy operations that ended up making customers sick. The financial remedies they were forced to pay effectively bankrupted Quality Egg.

But in addition, both Jack and Peter DeCoster were sentenced to serve three months in prison.

This sentence, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld, represents a dangerous misstep in the law of criminal liability for corporate supervisors.

As Judge Arlen Beam writes in his dissenting opinion, the government conceded that the DeCosters “did not know that any eggs distributed by Quality Egg at any relevant times ‘were, in fact, contaminated with Salmonella,’” and that “no person associated with Quality Egg had knowledge of salmonella contamination at any relevant time.”

The Appeal

In challenging only their prison sentences, not their convictions, the DeCosters explained that they had no knowledge of the harmful conduct.

They argue that, absent any level of criminal intent, their prison sentence for the offense of food adulteration authorized by statute (21 U.S.C. § 333) violates the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In their defense, the DeCosters note that they periodically conducted salmonella tests of their eggs even before they were under any obligation from the government to do so. They relied on expert advice from food-safety consultants at the University of Georgia and in private practice to develop their Salmonella testing program, which was conducted by a third-party.

Thousands of environmental tests conducted on Quality Eggs products yielded satisfactory results in the years leading up to the 2010 Salmonella outbreak.

Still, the relevant statute that criminalizes supplying adulterated eggs is silent on criminal intent. It does not require that management ever knew of the possible danger. The DeCosters violated the statute and were subjected to criminal liability under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine.

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

Depending on the outcome of the DeCosters’ appeal, the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine could become a more significant cause for concern among employers. The doctrine holds employers criminally liable for the bad acts of their employees, even if the former has no knowledge whatsoever of the alleged unlawful acts.

Traditionally, Anglo-American law required proof of some mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) standard, also known as a criminal intent standard, which specifies, as the influential English legal scholar William Blackstone wrote, that “an unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all.”

The United States Supreme Court has recently breathed new life into the old presumption that criminal statutes should be construed to require proof of criminal intent even when a statute is silent on the issue.

This Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine lingers on, in tension with that fundamental mens rea requirement, allowing convictions of supervisors on the basis that alleged misconduct took place “on their watch.”

In United States v. Park (1975), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of John Park, the president of a national food chain who failed to prevent food safety violations.

Park entrusted compliance with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to a district vice president and his employees who failed miserably in their duties by allowing food to be contaminated by rodents.

Although the results of noncompliance were dangerous to the public, Park had no personal involvement in, or intention behind, any violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requirements.

Still, the Supreme Court credited him with responsibility for “the entire operation of the company” that was under his oversight, and upheld the criminal fine levied against him.

While the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine served as the basis for a criminal conviction without a showing of intent in United States v. Park, it is an open question whether a person may be incarcerated for an unwitting offense under the doctrine.

What’s at Stake

In challenging their prison sentence, the DeCosters rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Staples v. United States (1994), which instructs that a court should look at the potential penalty before deciding whether it is constitutionally permissible for a statute to lack a mens rea standard.

There, the Supreme Court reiterated that imposing “a small pecuniary penalty [on] a person who has unwittingly done something detrimental to the public interest” is reasonable, but incarceration for an unwitting defendant is entirely different.

The DeCosters’ three month prison sentence represents one small stint for man, one giant leap backward for the law. Other federal courts have reasoned that “the imposition of severe penalties… for the commission of a morally innocent act may violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Heritage scholars have argued elsewhere that incarceration for such an offense could violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Arlen Beam wrote in his dissenting opinion in the DeCosters’ case that “there is no precedent that supports imprisonment without establishing some measure of a guilty mind on the part of [the DeCosters], and none is established in this case.”

The DeCosters are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case and rule that the Constitution forbids the imposition of a jail sentence for an unintentional violation of a law that lacks a mens rea standard.

A failure to remedy the lower courts’ reasoning in the DeCoster case could cast the specter of a jail sentence for employers over everyday business activities that they have no involvement in whatsoever. (For more from the author of “When Sending People to Jail, Criminal Intent Matters” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How My Husband Ended up in Jail After Walking Our Dog

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the record, I told you so, Peter!

In 2007, my British husband got a ticket for walking our dog Henry without a leash in Washington, D.C. The National Park Service made it impossible to pay the ticket. So, a newly minted citizen, Peter said he’d wait for his day in court.

I told him that was most unwise and that he could end up in jail.

I was right.

Overcriminalization is a serious issue in our country, and while Peter’s experience was trivial, it describes a terrible (yet hilarious) day.

Here’s an excerpt from my new book, “Let Me Tell You About Jasper.” This story is written by Peter, explaining how he ended up in jail while I was working at the White House. When he was given his “one phone call” from jail, I was in the Oval Office briefing the president. True story.

With that, I give you: my husband, the off-leash criminal.

It’s all Henry’s fault! My brush with the law started around 7:15 p.m. on Nov. 15, 2007, when I took Henry to Lincoln Park. I parked across the road and was walking in the park with him; the park was deserted apart from a few other dog owners there, and we chatted about our dogs as the darkness settled around us.

We were standing near the Lincoln statue when we noticed headlights entering the park toward the far end, and we saw a police car racing down the middle of the park toward us.

We soon realized the reason for the rapid approach: It was the Park Police and our dogs were off-leash. Everyone immediately called their dog and reached in their pockets for their leash. I did the same, but alas—no leash! I had left it on the seat of the car.

I quickly turned away and, with Henry walking extremely close, started to leave the park.

“You! Stop!” I heard. I turned and sure enough, the policeman had leapt from his car and was advancing rapidly toward me. Busted!

I explained to Officer Smith that I had left my leash in the car and was returning for it, so he asked for ID, then instructed me to wait while he went to the car. He took a few minutes, presumably checking I was not a serial dog-off-leash scofflaw and returned to write the ticket.

I tried to make light of the situation and joke with Officer Smith, but he was all business. No response, no smile, no pleasantries in reply to mine.

I duly received my ticket and was told that I could pay at any of the stations listed on the back. I informed Officer Smith that there were some suspicious squirrels at the end of the park that he might want to check on, and returned to my car.

Okay, I got a ticket. I was in the wrong, I broke the law, and I am not arguing with that. I had 15 days in which to pay and so on Nov. 24 I reported to First District Substation on E Street SE in Washington, D.C., as listed on the back of the ticket.

I was informed that they did not accept the payments anymore, and my inquiry as to where they thought I might be able to pay was met with a disinterested shrug and the words “Park Police headquarters.”

I returned home and, as we were leaving town for a couple of days, I decided to call the Park Police headquarters on Ohio Drive SW to check whether they accepted payment, or ask where I should mail the check, as the ticket stated, “You may mail in the collateral” but did not state where to mail the payment, how to make the payment, or to whom the payment should be made. However, all I got was an answering machine; an hour later I got the same. Are you starting to see a pattern here?

I have since learned that the ticket I received with both wrong and missing information had been incorrect for six years. A friend got a ticket six years prior and the station on E Street SE did not accept payment then.

So I duly wrote a check made out to U.S. Park Police and mailed it to the headquarters, with a letter explaining that their ticket contained wrong and insufficient information.

I also stated, “I know that the job of ticketing dog owners whose dog is off-leash is highly important—especially in time of war and terror threats, not to mention D.C.’s soaring crime rate. However, if someone at your department could see their way to having a ticket written in competent language with correct information, perhaps we might feel our taxes are not being totally squandered.”

They received my letter and did not reply for 12 days before stating that my payment was unacceptable and that I should send a money order to the D.C. Court.

By the time I received the letter it was already 10 days past the cutoff date and the ticket stated that this would “result in the case being presented at the District of Columbia Superior Court for disposition.”

Given that I had made three attempts to pay, and some information on the ticket lacked sufficient details while other information was just plain wrong, I decided to have my day in court. I wanted to explain to the judge just how apathetic/indolent/incompetent the Park Police are with their tickets. And as a newly minted citizen (for all of about two months), I knew it was my right!

I was therefore awaiting notice to attend court, but did not hear anything for some time. Given that the Park Police are apparently incapable of producing a competently written ticket, this didn’t surprise me.

However, upon returning from a business trip in April, I found a letter inviting me to go to the police station on Fourth Street SW so that they could process me through court on the same day. This was part of “Operation Clean Slate.” (I’m not kidding or exaggerating.)

On Wednesday the 18th I went to the station but was told it was too late for processing that day and was asked to return early the next morning, preferably before 7 a.m. When I asked how long the process would be, I was told, “Oh, an hour and a half, maybe two hours.”

So on the 19th I arrived at the station at 6:45 a.m. and was promptly arrested! The arresting officer asked what had happened and he shook his head in amazement. “They issued a warrant for that?” he asked incredulously. “Why didn’t you go to the court and pay the fine?”

Oops! That’s something else not mentioned on the ticket—apparently the Park Police expect citizens to be psychic. So during the 12 days my letter was sitting in the Park Police headquarters being ignored, they had gone ahead and issued a warrant.

My belongings and belt were taken and I was placed in a cell. Now, I am a normal, law-abiding person. I’ve never been in a cell in my life, and my reaction was somewhere between surprise and fascination. It was just like the TV shows. The fact that I knew a judge would release me as soon as I was through the court proceeding meant that I was never worried—this was in no way a long-term situation—but it was strange to know that I could not leave if I wanted to.

I no longer had any control over my own freedom, and while awaiting transportation to the court I contemplated how awful it must be for someone who knows they will be incarcerated for a long time. It doesn’t matter how many times you see it on the TV; it’s different when you are there yourself. I was tempted to ask if I could get a tattoo of Henry on my shoulder to mark the occasion.

However, when the other prisoners were taken to court and I remained there, I inquired as to why and was told that, as I was a Park Police case, I must await a Park Police officer.

Of course nobody turned up from the Park Police station for a couple of hours, so I sat and waited patiently, counting the tiles on the floor (8,280) and finding the whole situation actually quite amusing. Though by this time I knew that the parking meter was running out for my car; so much for a couple of hours.

Finally, the Park Police arrived and it was none other than my old nemesis Officer Smith! He searched me again and, after handcuffing me, led me to his car. At least I sat in the front so it wouldn’t look like I had been arrested if anyone I knew saw me.

When he got into the driver’s seat, I said, “When you put me in the car, weren’t you supposed to put your hand on my head, like they do in the movies?” He did not respond.

I tried making conversation with Officer Smith but the responses were monosyllabic and usually one word. I tried making jokes, but they fell on deaf ears. All business, this guy (or maybe the squirrel jibe was still rankling him).

Upon arrival at the headquarters building, I was taken to another cell and the cuffs were released, then after five minutes Officer Smith brought me out and cuffed me to a wooden bar while he filled in the necessary paperwork. It’s probably just as well he did, because by this time I was considering fleeing.

If I could just overpower this young, fit, armed officer and steal his ID to open the door before anyone noticed—the place was after all virtually empty—I could be free! I could see the headlines: Leashless Dog Walker Stalks D.C. parks.

I knew I was also allowed to call my wife, but I was a little afraid to. Dana had warned me several times about getting that ticket paid, and when I told her I was going to exercise my rights she told me I was going to be arrested. I didn’t believe her. Now I was going to have to call her at the White House, where she was the acting press secretary and surely “didn’t need this crap.” Her White House voice can still scare me to this day.

So I said to Officer Smith that I would like to make a call. He looked at me blankly.

“I’ve seen the movies. I know my rights,” I said with a smile.

He grudgingly obliged.

When I called the press office, her assistant press secretary Carlton Carroll answered the phone. He said she was in the Oval Office and asked if I wanted to interrupt the meeting. Over my dead body! So I asked him to leave her a message, which he promptly emailed. She saw a message came in and snuck a peek at her messages. All it said was that I had been delayed and that she needed to arrange for the dog walker to come take care of Henry.

She later told me that she knew immediately. “That jerk’s been arrested.” (Right on both counts.)

More handcuffs, another car, and I was soon at the court building, where, once Officer Smith was sure we were behind locked doors, I was handed over to the processing officers.

Form-filling and fingerprinting followed; however, these fellows, while highly professional, were a lot more relaxed. When they asked the reason for my arrest and I told them “walking my dog without a leash,” the response was hilarity. I think I was the first, as it took them some time to find the nearest category for me on the computer!

When they stopped laughing, a mature officer of some years’ service also told me, “This is ridiculous.” He explained that most officers would have used their initiative, had the warrant delayed for a couple of days, and made a call, or even visited me to tell me to go to the court and pay.

Still, we enjoyed the humor of the situation and made a few wisecracks, while they fed me cheese sandwiches and lemonade and, after 10 minutes in my third cell, I was cuffed again and placed in the back of yet another car to be taken to the Superior Court building a couple of hundred yards away.

By this time, it was early afternoon, and the officer driving told us he was rushing so that we would be processed that afternoon. He explained that if we weren’t processed that day it would mean an overnight stay. Now it wasn’t quite so funny!

When he asked the reason for my arrest and I told him, it resulted in the same outburst of disbelieving laughter. “Are you serious? You were arrested for that?”

So now I arrived at the Superior Court, where the handcuffs were finally removed, only to be replaced with leg shackles! “If my friends could only see me now,” I thought with a wry smile.

Following another search, I found myself in the fourth cell, one I shared with 20 others.

A couple hours more cell time and after three court-appointed attorneys shared the humor of the situation and expressed their disbelief that an arrest had been made for this, I found myself in front of the judge.

I explained what had happened and even the judge smiled. With my English accent, I was clearly a relative newcomer to the United States, and I had made three attempts to pay via a Park Police system that I described to him as blatantly incompetent, but it had not been possible given the inadequate information they provided.

The judge told me that this should not have happened and that I should not have been there that day. I held up my manacled leg and said, “Well, your honor, it’s been a very interesting day and I’ve had a good insight into the U.S. judicial system.” He smiled and said, “Welcome to America!”

Upon payment my record would be expunged, and I left the court a free man. I had to collect my belongings from the Park Police station the next day—they had told me that after 3 p.m. the office would be closed. I hope nobody went there to pay a fine that afternoon.

As my car keys were with the belongings, I walked there with Henry on a delightful April morning. (On the leash all the way, I would add! Well, most of it—)

Oh, and the good news was—I did not get a parking ticket after being off the meter all the previous day! But if I had, I would have paid that ticket right away.

This is an excerpt from Dana Perino’s new book “Let Me Tell You About Jasper,” courtesy of Twelve Books.

(For more from the author of “How My Husband Ended up in Jail After Walking Our Dog” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jailbreak Caucus Admits They Are Pushing ‘Willie Horton’ Bill

/1 Comment/in , /by

maxresdefault (91)In case you thought Republicans had abandoned their push for the jailbreak legislation being promoted by the far left, think again. They are moving full steam ahead with the bill (S. 2123 and H.R. 3713) this spring after reaching a supposed compromise.

In a stunning admission that their bill would result in Willie Horton-style prison releases, the Washington Examiner is reporting that after removing the provision lowering sentences for convicted firearms felons, proponents of the bill still recognize the dangers of this legislation… but are proceeding anyway. As the Examiner noted:

‘You’re never going to eliminate the Willie Horton type of situation, the political ads aside, of somebody coming out [of prison] and committing a crime,’ the GOP Senate said. ‘It’s the nature of the human being. You’re never going to have 100 percent certainty, that’s never going to happen. But it would be a shame to just not ever do any sentencing reform, any criminal justice reform, because of that.’

First they told us the original draft (my analysis of which can be viewed here) was designed only for “nonviolent drug offenders.” Then when they were called out for the firearms felon provision, they removed it, but assured us the rest of the bill would only apply to low level criminals. Now, they are admitting that, yes, indeed this bill will likely result in the release of violent criminals, but… we need criminal justice reform at all costs! Doesn’t this remind you of “comprehensive immigration reform” as an end in itself?

In reality, they have good reason to fear a Willie Horton situation. As we’ve noted throughout our coverage of this issue, most drug offenders in federal prison are either illegal aliens, heavy duty drug dealers, or have rap sheets full of other violent offenses. The comments expressed by this GOP leadership aid echo the thoughts of Senator Durbin (F, 2%), a key sponsor of this bill. As reported by the LA Times last year, Durbin admitted they were playing Russian roulette with the security of their constituents, but the greater cause was worth the risk: “This is dangerous business for a politician. We are going to release people, but we don’t know what they are going to do. We may be held personally accountable. But if we use that as our inspiration we will never touch the sentencing laws.”

Further disquieting is the fact that many of those serving time for “low level” drug offenses are illegal aliens and a number of those who would be eligible for juvenile sentencing leniencies under title II of the Senate bill are MS-13 gang members. An MS-13 member who was convicted of murder when he was 17 years old and has served 19 years in federal prison could be let out on the streets with the flick of the wrist from a liberal judge. There is no provision in this bill to mandate the deportation of these individuals, which means many of them will be released into our communities.

When the back-end leniencies in title II are combined with the front-end leniencies on sentencing in title I, this bill could result in a major heroin dealer from a drug cartel serving just two years as opposed to the 10 years mandated by current law.

In my upcoming book, “Stolen Sovereignty,” I warn how the federal judiciary has become even more liberal than they were in the ‘70s, which served as the original impetus for mandatory minimums. This bill is the first step to ending all mandatory minimums, which is the end goal of those promoting the criminal lobby. Eradicating mandatory minimums at a time like this would result in chaos.
Not only is this effort a disastrous policy pursuit, it reflects tone-deaf politics. The relentless push for prison releases comes at a time when the percentage of Americans concerned about growing crime is higher than at any point since after 9/11. Leave it to Republicans to help the far left promote Willie Horton legislation at a time when Americans are clamoring for law and order. (For more from the author of “Jailbreak Caucus Admits They Are Pushing ‘Willie Horton’ Bill” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Stick a Fork in the Willie Horton Jailbreak Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

After Islamic terror and immigration, the rise in domestic crime constitutes the third leg of Obama’s war on our sovereignty, security, and society. For the first time in over two decades, violent crime is on the rise; yet instead of clamping down on crime, there is now a bipartisan consensus to join the far left and dismantle some of the tough-on-crime laws that have worked so well over the past few decades.

Instead of fighting Obama on immigration, Iran, and illegal executive actions, a number of Republicans are expending all of their energy and political capital working with far-left groups to pass the “Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015” (S.2123). With the growing spike in crime, this retroactive jailbreak bill is now on life support. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) deserves a lot of credit for leading the fight to sink this bill. And for good reason.

There’s some disagreement in the criminology field over why crime has fallen so much since the early ‘90s, but everyone agrees there are clearly some long-term macro factors fueling the precipitous decline. Perforce, the fact that the FBI is reporting a 6.2% increase in homicides nationwide for the first six months of 2015 is a big deal because it goes against the grain of these strong countervailing factors pushing the trend in the other direction. In the nation’s 25 largest cities, the murder rate jumped 14.6% in 2015, which is the largest single-year spike since 1960, according to the left-leaning Marshall Project.

Radical pro-criminal groups, such as The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, are now panicking for fear that recent news will scuttle their jailbreak bill. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) even reassured one of their leaders that he is still committed to the cause of jailbreak.

And in case you thought the Senate criminal injustice bill was not the new gang of eight, La Raza would like you to know they want this bill passed…now!

Recidivism: Not Just about victimless, non-violent drug offenses.

Obviously, the war on cops looms large in creating incentives for criminals to strike, but the recidivism of the large numbers of criminals released from jail in recent years is certainly not helping. Over the past nine years, the Sentencing Commission has repeatedly imposed retroactive reductions in sentences for federal drug felons, culminating with the announcement last year 46,000 drug traffickers would be released from federal prison as a result of their latest actions. Now we are seeing the tragedies resulting from the release of career criminals.

Despite the fallacious talking points about “non-violent drug offenses,” those serving time in federal prison are often incorrigible. As Tennessee’s First District Attorney General Tony Clark recently said regarding the uptick of recidivism in eastern Tennessee resulting from the jailbreak policies, “most of the drug dealers are armed, most of them use violence, people are killed over drugs, so to say that drug dealing, just because they’re incarcerated for a non-violent drug offense I think is a misnomer. And it’s a mistake.”

Consider the following recent examples:

“The man charged with killing an ex-girlfriend and two of her children in a North Side stabbing rampage early on Tuesday likely would have been deep into a 12 1/2-year federal prison sentence if sentencing guidelines for convicted crack dealers had remained unchanged. Wendell L. Callahan, 35, twice benefited from changes in federal sentencing guidelines, which reduced his sentence by a total of more than four years, from the 150 months he was first given in 2007, to 110 months in 2008 including time served, and 100 months in 2011.” [Columbus Dispatch, 1/13/2016]

In June 2013, Devon Saunders was sentenced to 41 months in prison for dealing crack cocaine and six years of supervised release thereafter. He was released last November by a judge who applied the early release guidelines from the Sentencing Commission. Just two months later he was arrested in Pittsburgh for possession of heroin and ….second-degree robbery. So much for the victimless crime.

Another big dimension of the fight to “reduce prison population at all costs” is the transfer of violent criminals to halfway houses. Earlier this month it was reported that a violent criminal escaped from a halfway house and immediately went on a rampage, raping and robbing five women throughout the city. At the time, Police Chief Cathy Lanier admitted this is a growing trend and is contributing to the rise in crime in D.C. “These alternatives to being incarcerated include group homes, halfway houses, community placement with GPS tracking devices, and it’s those folks that we are seeing that are increasingly being involved in crime,” said Lanier.

Now consider that, according to the Sentencing Commission, over 11,500 inmates would be eligible for retroactive leniency under the current Senate bill. There is no telling how many prospective criminals will be affected by this legislation. Here is just one likely example, cited by Sen. David Purdue (R-GA) during the committee markup:

In 2010, Albert Burnett was convicted and sentenced for unlawful possession of a firearm for his participation in a shootout in an Illinois shopping mall. Prior to this, he was convicted in state court 5 times of murder, 2 times of attempted murder, aggravated battery, domestic battery, and twice being a felon in possession of a firearm. He served less than 4 years of his sentence for murder, a crime he committed while on parole from his 2 attempted murder convictions, before being released again on parole. [details from US v. Burnett, 641 F. 3d 894 (7th Cir. 2011)] For his federal conviction, Burnett was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment – the mandatory minimum. But under the current Senate bill, he could have his sentence reduced by 5 years. And federal prisoners generally serve only 85% of their sentences, meaning Burnett could be back on the streets by 2018.

The Great Success of Jailbreak on a state level?

Although state programs for early release make slightly more sense than release of federal criminals, don’t think that many of the people serving time in state prison on drug charges are not violent career criminals either. According to a report released last year by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 76.9% of drug offenders who were released from prison in 30 states from 2005-2010 were arrested again within five years, a quarter of them committing violent crimes.

The much-vaunted early release program in Utah, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, is in part what has fueled support for federal jailbreak legislation. But just last week, a career criminal who was eligible for early parole under this program murdered a Salt Lake City cop. He had accrued a decade-long rap sheet of charges for drugs, firearms violations, and theft—the paradigm of a career criminal eligible for early release under the proposed federal legislation. Like many of these career criminals, they might be serving time because they were convicted for a lower-level crime, but they remain dangerous criminals.

In the alacrity of some of these states to empty their prison populations at all costs, some are even letting out the wrong people. Washington cloddishly erred in calculating the sentences of eight criminals, resulting in their release. They committed numerous felonies and 19 misdemeanors shortly after their release. Several of them committed murder.

In Delaware, 71% of the 11,700 felony weapon charges filed between 2012 and 2014 were dropped and 80% of those charged with using firearms while committing crimes over the same time period were never prosecuted. They are already seeing a recidivism problem from those early releases or dropped charges, which has led to the loss of human life. Remember, the bipartisan Senate bill codifies Obama’s willful disregard of criminals who committed firearms violations [sections 104, 105 of S. 2123].

In California, voters passed Proposition 47, which dramatically reduced the penalty for drug offenses and property crimes. What are the results? Heather McDonald compiled the following data:

In the city of Los Angeles, violent crime rose nearly 20 percent through August 22, 2015, compared with the same period in 2014; property crime was up 11 percent. Shooting victims were up 27 percent. Arrests were down 9 percent. In Santa Ana, felony crime was up 33 percent in May 2015, compared with May 2014. Violent crime was up 28 percent, property crime up 43 percent, and robbery up 89 percent. In nearby Costa Mesa, violent crime increased 47 percent, and theft was up 44 percent, through late July, compared with the same period in 2014. In San Francisco, violent crime was up 13 percent, and property crime up 22 percent, through June 2015 over the previous year.”

Ironically, prison costs have increased in California, even as they released 30,000 prisoners over the past three years. The moral of the story? When you pursue reduction in prison population at the expense of public safety you reap the benefits of neither.

As we noted before, those serving time in federal prisons tend to be even worse than those released from state prisons. The Senate bill would likely release even worse offenders. The bill repeals the “Three Strikes” law, allowing early release for those convicted of three serious drug dealing offenses, offers early release to juvenile MS-13 gang members, and reduces sentences for those convicted of firearms violations while committing robberies. The general leniencies for juveniles are appalling and on par with some of the lunacy blue state legislatures have passed in states like Maryland. Taken as a whole, these categories of crimes are all associated with the most violent individuals who are capable of murder, and if released, will likely re-offend with worse offenses.

In a rare moment of candor, Senator Durbin, a sponsor of this bill, said: “This is dangerous business for a politician. We are going to release people, but we don’t know what they are going to do. We may be held personally accountable. But if we use that as our inspiration we will never touch the sentencing laws.”

Maybe he is on to something after all. (For more from the author of “Stick a Fork in the Willie Horton Jailbreak Bill” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Jails Kids for Refusing Lunch With Dad

/1 Comment/in , /by

Three Oakland County children who refused to go to lunch with their father, as part of a bitter divorce and custody battle between their parents, are spending their summer in the county’s juvenile detention center, according to court records.

“We’ll review it when school starts, and you may be going to school there,” Oakland County Family Court Judge Lisa Gorcyca told the children during a June 24 hearing, referring to the center in Waterford Township called Children’s Village, where authorities house as many as 200 juvenile offenders.

Gorcyca, who blamed their mother for poisoning the children’s attitude toward their father, ordered the children be sent to the center for defying her orders — while in court — that they go to lunch with their father.

The children — ranging in age from 9 to 14 — were deemed in contempt of court last month by Gorcyca for disobeying her orders to “have a healthy relationship with your father” . . .

“But I do not apologize for — for not talking to him because I have a reason for that and that’s because he’s violent and he — I saw him hit my mom and I’m not gonna talk to him,” the boy said, later telling the judge, “I didn’t do anything wrong.” (Read more from “Judge Jails Kids for Refusing Lunch With Dad” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Frisked, Jailed, for Not Doing This

/0 Comments/in , /by

A western Michigan woman heads to court Tuesday after being arrested for failing to renew her dog’s license.

Becky Rehr says she drove to the Kalamazoo County sheriff’s office June 23 to prove that she’s recently renewed the license for the family’s 11-year-old dog, Dexter. Rehr’s 14-year-old daughter waited in the car as her mother was arrested, fingerprinted and held for three hours, The Kalamazoo Gazette said.

“They frisked me and put me in this intake cell with all these inmates in orange jumpsuits,” Rehr said. “I was pretty nervous.” (Read more from “Woman Frisked, Jailed, for Not Doing This” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Brothers Mow Lawn for Neighbor After Learning She Could Face Jail Time for Uncut Grass

/2 Comments/in , /by

A group of young brothers in Texas stepped up to help an elderly neighbor after they discovered that she was facing jail time for the grass in her yard being too high.

The Reynolds brothers, from Riesel, Texas, reportedly saw a piece on the news about 75-year-old Gerry Suttle, who was facing jail time for the grass in her lawn being too high. The brothers soon realized that Suttle was unable to mow the lawn herself and, although they didn’t know the woman personally, decided to reach out and help.

“It’s a summer day, we don’t have season passes yet to Hawaiian Falls,” Blaine Reynolds said. “What else could we do but go out and help some people. We haven’t met her yet but she’s 75 years old and she needs some help mowing. That’s the least we could do.”

The Reynolds made their way to Suttle’s lot, mowers in tow, and began cutting the woman’s grass to help keep her out of jail. After a short time, others in the community joined in to help get the job done. In about two hours, her entire lot was cut.

“I cannot believe this,” an overwhelmed Suttle said after the amazing act of kindness. (Read more from “Brothers Mow Lawn for Neighbor After Learning She Could Face Jail Time for Uncut Grass” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Suggest Unless Supporters "Stand With President Obama," He May Go to Jail

/58 Comments/in , /by

Jail ObamaApparently, members of the President’s party are facing some pretty serious heat over King Obama’s unconstitutional-power grab this week. Appeals to the President’s support base seem to be growing in their hysteria.

For instance, in a desperate email sent to Obama supporters this morning, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) suggested that unless liberals show that they are “still standing with President Obama,” their beloved leader could end up in the slammer.

The email (shown below) has the subject line, “Impeachment? Prison??? — Sign now, stand with President Obama.” The clear implication is that unless people get behind Obama, he could be jailed.

The DCCC, which incidentally is the Democrat’s official campaign arm for Congress, claims that the Republicans are trying “to destroy the President.” And this is all due to the President’s “Constitutionally granted power to take bold steps to overhaul our nation’s broken immigration system.”

Because of the GOP “threatening lawsuits, shutdowns [and] impeachment,” and one congressman’s suggestion that “Obama be thrown in jail,” the DCCC implores Democrats to show they’re “still standing with President Obama” and “have his back.”

Given the fact that most Americans do not support Obama’s power-grab, and even members of his own party disapprove, impeachment should be on the table.

Regrettably, it’s not. Fresh out of overwhelming mid-term victories, the GOP is once again moving tepidly. Even on the issue that arguably provided their margin of success – Obamacare – leadership has stated that a vote on repeal will not even be held.

So the DCCC’s hysteria over impeachment and jail time is just a fundraising gimmick. They know, as do all Washington insiders, that the ruling class will ensure continuation of the status quo. And absent another Jacksonian or Reagan revolution, we’ll continue our slide into the dustbin of history . . .

See a full screen of the DCCC’s fundraising email HERE.