Archive for May 6, 2007
What really grinds my gears
May 6th
Update: Mark Bennett adds his thoughts.
Warning: this is a rant. This has been festering inside me for quite a while now. Occasionally, I will try habeas corpus cases. Some of them will be challenges to pleas, enforcement of plea agreements and then the usual ineffective assistance claims. What really grinds my gears is the lack of co-operation from trial counsel. It seems as though there is a certain percentage of attorneys that don’t like it when their former clients file petitions for writ of habeas corpus alleging IAC.
Why? Isn’t it supposed to be about the client? Isn’t that the bottom line? My view has always been that IAC claims don’t mean that I’m a bad lawyer; merely that someone else sees something that I didn’t do. If that will help my client, I am all for it. I just don’t understand that mentality. I’ve had attorneys fail to turn over files, turn over files that are about 2 cms thick, refuse to cooperate prior to the hearing – even testify adversely to the client to save face [I'm obviously not advocating blindly "falling on the sword", but c'mon].
If you are ever the focus of a habeas petition, talk to the habeas lawyer. Another thing that does is gives the habeas attorney information. Clients claim many things; you might be able to help the habeas lawyer sort out the colorable claims from the frivolous ones.
I don’t know, it just grinds my gears. On that note, enjoy this video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5NpCuqMwzo[/youtube]
The Motions some people file
May 6th
Here’s something to make you chuckle this Sunday morning:
On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled “Motion to Kiss My Ass” (Doc. 107) in which he moved “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother f[...] you.”
Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (1996). Awesome 
Behind the picket fence
May 6th
Today’s Sunday Globe Magazine has a wonderfully insightful and detailed article on residency restrictions and their effectiveness.
The residency laws bring up serious civil liberties concerns, including that these measures apply to convicts after they have been punished and released and served their parole, and that in many cases, homeowners are exempt while renters may be required to move. And then there’s the fact that this type of post-release regulation doesn’t exist for other criminal classes: We don’t prohibit arsonists from living near gas stations.
But a less-discussed argument against the laws is that they don’t actually work to prevent sex crimes against children. Studies have shown, for example, that the majority of these crimes are perpetrated by family members or acquaintances, that many sex crimes are never reported, and that sex offenders often molest outside the area where they live. Some scholars go so far as to say that the measures could put children in greater danger, not less – because the sex offenders go underground, because therapy works to prevent re-offense, and because limited resources are wasted enforcing the laws. “There is no evidence that residency restrictions work, and there are some pretty good arguments why they are not likely to be effective,†says David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. “No one who has any real professional experience in the management of sex offenders thinks these laws make much sense.â€
The article traces the history of Megan’s Laws and the recent residency restriction laws, has quotes from legislators, LEO, parents, offenders, psychiatrists and professors, and cites the recent Bureau of Justice Statistics. It attempts to dispel some of the myths surrounding these laws.
The public also needs to know that children are getting safer. According to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services, sex crimes of all kinds have dropped substantially since the mid-1990s, after increasing between 1977 and 1991. Between 1991 and 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, substantiated sexual abuse cases dropped by 51 percent. The decline, says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, is due to the increased incarceration of sex offenders, more intervention and prevention efforts, and better mental health treatment, including more widespread use of antidepressants and other psychiatric medicines. Residency restrictions didn’t do a thing to help.
Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions
Megan’s law may not have had much of an impact
May 6th
Phase one of the federally funded NJ study of the effectiveness of Megan’s Law is complete and the results are interesting.
A declining trend of sex attacks on children began before the law took effect and has continued, raising the suggestion that New Jersey’s Megan’s Law – one of the first laws of its kind in the nation – may not have influenced the trend, researchers say.
“We don’t know whether Megan’s Law really works,” said Witt [a consultant on the study], who helped create the risk-assessment system used by New Jersey’s courts to classify sex offenders.
“Just a few studies have looked at whether community notification laws are effective,” he said. “I believe they have very little effect.”
The first phase charted sex offenses in the decade before 1994 and the decade after.
Researchers said they were surprised to find that a steady decline in sex crimes across New Jersey had begun in 1991 – three years before Megan’s Law.
Sex offenses against children have also declined since Megan’s Law was enacted, but there has been no way to know whether that’s because of the law.
“Sex-offender rates are down, and we can’t attribute it to Megan’s Law,” said Kristen Zgoba, a Corrections Department researcher leading the study. “Is it worth the amount of money and manpower we’re pouring into it?”
Nationally, sex offenses against children fell 49 percent between 1990 and 2004, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. Meanwhile, the broad category of violent crime in the United States also plunged, according to government figures.
If only more states were to conduct such a study, so we can get a better idea of whether Megan’s Law does lead to reduction in crime. I suspect that even if there is a decline that can be attributed to Megan’s Law, it will be negligible.
recent comments