Sentencing Class @ OSU Moritz College of Law

A new home for an old class blog

recent posts

about

  • National and Ohio drunk driving harms data for sentencing exercise

    There are lots of sites worth checking out concerning the scourge of drunk driving, and this webpage from The Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility has lots of helpful links to lots of helpful data.  For example,this page has a really nice simple chart highlight that drunk driving death nationally in recent years have been around 10,000 per year, which is about 1/3 less than the yearly average a decade ago.  This decline in deaths arguably proves that tougher criminal laws work as this decline correlates with more states adopting .08% BAC as the legal limit AND with more states requiring ignition locks as punishment for DUI offenses.

    But "only" 10,000 DUI deaths each year still means that, on average, more than 25 persons are killed by a drunk driver every single day in the US.  This website with official Ohio highway stats reveals that Ohio has averaged more than 400 drunk driving deaths per year (meaning more than one per day).  As I mentioned in class, these number are only slightly lower than the total number of deaths from intentional homicide: roughly, the US has averaged about 14,000 murders and Ohio has averaged around 500 murders per year in recent years.  

    Ohio's current penalties for drunk driving (called OVI) are effectively outlined on this webpage, and  Senator Madd, the new head of the Judiciary Committee, made reducing drunk driving deaths and injuries a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.  He also knows that, as explained on this MADD webpage, roughly "one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders.  At any given point we potentially share the roads with 2 million people with three or more drunk driving offenses.  Taking away their licenses isn’t enough; 50-75% of them drive anyway." 

    Senator Madd is eager to work with any and everyone on legislation to make Ohio's roads and all its citizens safer.  He sees some potential merit in both the RID and TOUGH bills that have been proposed, but he is eager to get some additional input from fellow legislators about the best ways to move forward on these fronts.

  • Reminders and updates … about class and sentencing cases we have been following

    I hope everyone enjoyed Spring Break as much as I did and also that everyone is looking forward to an exciting final month of our sentencing class.  This post provides a couple of reminders about on-going activities as well as some updates that might be of interest as we close out March sentencing madness:

    1.  Everyone has a chance to submit an extra mini-paper this week (requirements outlined here), ideally by 12noon on Monday, March 23.  The required prompt: "What topic(s) are you eager for us to discuss in class more before the end of the semester?"  Recall that, though all students are required to submit at least three mini-papers before the end of the semester, extra credit will be rewarded to those who submit more than the minimum.

    2.  This week in class, we will focus on what should be "the offense"  for sentencing purposes.  Specifically, should only the formal specifics of the offense of conviction be considered at sentencing (the "charge offense") or should sentencing involve at least some real specifics of how the offense was actually committed (the "real offense").   As you consider this seemingly basic question, review your prior efforts sentencing Rob Anon prior to modern reforms and under the federal sentencing guidelines.   Did the charge offense or the real offense matter more to you when sentencing in the discretionary pre-guideline world?  How about in the guideline world?  And what does the US Constitution have to say about this according to the Supreme Court in the Watts case?  

    3.   You may recall we talked earlier in the semester about the upcoming sentencing of former Connecticut Gov John Rowland.  Here is how that turned out:  Former Governor John Rowland Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison.  In addition, we have been following death penalty debate in Pennsylvania, and here is an interesting "who" development on that front: "Victim's wife: Keep me out of death penalty fight"

  • Links to all the key guidelines for modern FSG sentencing of Rob Anon

    With apologies for the delay, I will now finally through this post provide some hints and help for sentencing Rob Anon under the modern federal sentencing guidelines.  Here are links to the key provisions of the "official" on-line version of the now-applicable US Sentencing Guidelines as provided on the US Sentencing Commission's website:

    I highly encourage class members to start working through these "basic" federal guideline sentencing materials on their own (and then use the comments to express frustration) before looking for any more sentencing help.  That said, if (when?) you want/need some more help, here is a link to a worksheet created by the US Sentencing Commission intended to aid in the guideline sentencing process:

    As you work through this assignment, please feel free use the comments to express what it feels like to sentence in the federal system now that a whole lot of law has been brought into the process.   

    Though I continue to hope I am doing a good job with my low-stress, high-learning class mantra, it is very important in my view for everyone to get through the Rob Anon guideline sentencing experience ASAP; having done so will be essential to getting the most out of our classes the rest of this month. If you have already done this exercise, do it again and/or review your work.  If you have not done it yet, please do. 

  • More evidence that the death penalty will keep pulling us back in…

    To paraphrase the most memorable line from the least memorable Godfather movie, just when I thought we could be done with our discussions of the death penalty and who sentences, the media and the US Supreme Court keep pulling us back in.  Specifically, check out these recent notable posts from my main blog:

  • Pre-Monday reminder of Monday deadlines and events

    Just a quick note to remind everyone that…

    1.  If you are submitting a mini-paper this week (requirements outlined here), it is due by 12noon on Monday, March 9.   The suggested prompt was "could/should the law consider the subjective experience of imprisonment in some way," though you are always welcome of write on any topic of interest and relevance to recent class readings/discussion/activity.

    2.  Speaking of recent class readings/discussion/activity, you should be spending some time trying to figure out how to sentence Rob Anon pursuant the the federal sentencing guidelines.  Here is a first "hint" with more to come in a subsequent post: Entire 2014 Federal Sentencing Guidelines linked via USSC

    3.  At noon in the Public Service Law Center is a lunch with Allen Bohnert, Moritz Class of 2006 (profiled here).  The lunch is a brown-bag affair, but I will treat for lunch for a few students who let me know ASAP that the would be interested to come with me and Allen to eat at Eddie George's after the talk. 

  • Seeking reflections/reactions to today’s pre-reform federal sentencing exercise

    We will talk on Thursday about the experience of sentencing Rob Anon under the pre-reform discretionary federal sentencing system, but I wanted to start the process of reflection on the pre-reform system with this post and a place for comments. 

    Did your experience strengthen your understanding for Judge Frankel's concerns and call for reform? 

    What aspects of the sentencing experience surprised or concerned you the most?

  • Some more on prisons past, present and future

    This post provides a space for discussion of last week's video about Eastern State Penitentiary and more generally about prisons as out modern default sentencing "output."  If you are interested in learning more about Eastern State, check out this terrific website.   Notably, in recent years ESP has been trying to incorporate more modern art and education into its tours; it is working now on an ambitious new exhibit for 2016 titled "Prisons in the Age of Mass Incarceration."

    In addition, there are lots of other (in)famous prisons that tell stories about not only American crime and punishment, but also stories about America.  A number of notable Ohio-centric stories to be found within in this history, as documented by this book entitled "Central Ohio's Historic Prisons," which is summarized this way:

    With the opening of the Ohio State Reformatory in 1896, the state legislature had put in place "the most complete prison system, in theory, which exists in the United States."  The reformatory joined the Ohio Penitentiary and the Boys Industrial School, also central-Ohio institutions, to form the first instance of "graded prisons; with the reform farm on one side of the new prison, for juvenile offenders, and the penitentiary on the other, for all the more hardened and incorrigible class."  However, even as the concept was being replicated throughout the country, the staffs of the institutions were faced with the day-to-day struggle of actually making the system work.

    The Ohio State Reformatory referenced in this passage is located in Mansfield, and is now an historic site.   I urge everyone to take a virtual tour via this huge photo gallery.  And if you are ever looking for some web-surfing fun, check out these additional links to some good sites about some of the United States' most (in)famous prisons:

    Notably, a few years ago, students had a lot to say in the wake of watching the ESP video, and you might be interested to read these 2011 student comments about prison history. This coming week, we will be shifting back into a discussion of sentencing law and the (non-capital) sentencing process, but everyone should keep thinking about both the theory and practices of imprisonment as a form of punishment as we get into the nitty-gritty of modern sentencing doctrines.

    Also, of course, everyone should be thinking not just about the past and present of prisons, but also the future.  To that end, check out this forward-looking video:

  • Various posts on the subjective experiences of punishment from SL&P (and a timely article about prison rape)

    Following up on today's class discussion (and tomorrow's video) concerning imprisonment and the subjective experiences offenders may face, here are various posts of note from the archives of Sentencing Law & Policy:

    These posts are a mix of links to serious academic articles and interesting real-world cases on some topics we covered in class.

    Finally, I just noticed that The Atlantic has this lengthy new article about another part of the subjective experience of imprisonment for many.  The piece is headlined "Rape in the American Prison: In 2003, Congress passed legislation to eliminate sexual assaults against inmates.  One young man’s story shows how elusive that goal remains."

  • Some notable gubenatorial capital developments

    Though I am eager to start migrating our class discussions away from capital sentencing and punishment to non-capital sentencing and punishments, the notable death penalty news keeps coming.  Specifically, check out these two recent posts from my main blog:

    As always, I am eager to hear student reactions to these developments and others in the comments or elsewhere.

  • Would you urge out-going Oregon Gov Kitzhaber to commute all death sentences?

    The question in the title of this post is a (slightly modified) version of what I have asked here at my main blog, where I also link to commentaries urging mass commutation by two law professors and by a retired assistant director of institutions and superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary.

    Notably, back in November 2011, Gov Kitzhaber placed a moratorium on all executions in his state and his statement in support of this decision can be accessed at this link.  I wonder if you find it more or less compelling and effective than the statement made by Pennsylvania Gov Wolf a few days ago. 

  • Speaking of “who” and the death penalty…

    check out what new Pennsylvania Gov Tom Wolf did on Friday the 13th.  Turns out it was a lucky day for those on death row in the state.

    Thoughts?  The Marshall Hypothesis as applied by a Governor?

  • Two fascinating new Ohio “who” sex offense sentencing stories

    As mentioned in class, this week and next our class discussions will migrate from the basics of modern capital sentencing to the basics of modern non-capital sentencing.  And, as the Coker and Kennedy cases highlight, all modern capital cases now involve only the crime of murder even though any number of sex offenses often lead legislatures to make special (and severe) sentencing laws and rules.  On the topic of sex offenses, and with unique aspects of the "who" story in the mix, I recommend everyone check out these two new stories from my main blog concerns sentencing developments in our own state of Ohio:

    Ohio Supreme Court finds multiple constitution flaws in mandatory sex offender sentencing process

    District Judge, to chagrin of feds, relies on jury poll to give minimum sentence to child porn downloader

  • Quick reminder of class activities for second week of February

    Just a quick note to remind everyone that…

    1.  The next deadline for submission of a mini-paper (requirements outlined here) is this coming Monday (Feb. 9) at 12noon.

    2.  You should prepare for this week's classes by:

    • (re)considering how differing state capital laws impact death sentencing discretion for the Unibomber (and others)

    • (re)reading McClesky v. Kemp (paying extra special attention to the final few paragraphs of the majority opinion rejecting the defendant's claims)

    • thinking about whether and why the Supreme Court should categorically preclude states from allowing certain criminals ever to be sentenced to death — especially once it has categorically precluded states from legislating that certain criminals must always be sentenced to death

    3.  If you are especially interested in understanding McClesky and its aftermath, the Fall 2012 issue of the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law had a lead symposium focused on "McClesky at 25."  Here are links to all the articles in the symposium:

    Anyone interested in the intersection of race and the death penalty should consider taking a quick peak at all of these article.  But, especially for future class discussion purposes, the final two pieces linked above (the long Mosteller piece and the short Scheidegger piece) may be most worth your extra reading time and attention.

  • Imaginging a (federal and mandatory?) death penalty only for mass shooters who kill more than five persons

    A helpful student alerted me to this notable accounting of mass shooting in 2014 in the United States.  Though I will not vouch for all the data, I still think it is notable (and not all that surprising) that this internet accounting of mass shootings lists 283 mass shootings in the US (roughly 5 every week of the year), and yet only 11 of these mass shootings involve five or more deaths (less than one per month on average).

    In addition to finding these data fascinating, I continue to encourage folks to cull through this list of the 53 men  who have been executed in Ohio in the modern era or this latest report from the Ohio Attorney General about the 140+ men on Ohio's death row to see how my proposed reform, if applied retroactively, would impact those past cases. 

  • Link to Ohio Supreme Court oral argument in Ohio v. Moore

    This morning (Feb 4, 2015), the Ohio Supreme Court heard argument in Ohio v. Moore to examine whether the SCOTUS 2010 Graham ruling declaring unconstitutional LWOP for juvenile non-homicide offenses should apply to a lengthy term-of-year sentence. The Justices asked many questions of both sides, and I believe only one of the seven Justices failed to ask at least one question.

    The argument lasted for approximately an hour, and here is a link to the oral argument.  I highly recommend all students interested in Eighth Amendment issues take the time to watch these proceedings.

    I suspect and fear we will not get a ruling from the Court before the end of the semester (but maybe that will be a kind of good news allowing me to ask a take-home exam question about the case).

  • Major developments on Eighth Amendment juve sentencing fronts

    Students should recall the class-preview post in which I noted two notable on-going cases concerning the Supreme Court's modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence limiting the imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders.  The end of last week and this coming week involve developments on this front:

    • Late last week, as reported in this post from my main blog, the petitioner at the center of the case SCOTUS took up to resolve whether its 2012 Miller ruling should be applied retroactively was released from prison.  In addition to providing yet another interesting story about "who sentences," the release of George Toca means that SCOTUS will need to take up a new case to resolve whether its Eighth Amendment ruling declaring unconstitutional mandatory life without parole (LWOP) for juvenile murderers should be applied retroactively.

    • The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral argument this week in Ohio v. Moore to examine whether the SCOTUS 2010 Graham ruling declaring unconstitutional LWOP for juvenile non-homicide offenses should apply to a lengthy term-of-year sentence.  Helpfully, this post at Legally Speaking Ohio provides an effective argument preview, starting with the basic fact that "Brandon Moore was sentenced to a 112-year prison term for convictions in 2002 on three counts of rape, three counts of complicity to rape, three counts of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and firearm offenses, all arising from offenses he committed when he was fifteen years old."

    I am planning to attend the oral argument, which starts at 9am on Wednesday February 4, at the Supreme Court of Ohio. Folks interested in this case can read all briefs submitted via this Ohio Supreme Court link, including this short amicus brief that I helped author for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

  • Ohio’s current capital laws and the dynamic realities of Ohio and US death penalty history

    As mentioned in class, one class activity for the coming week(s) will be to work through how modern post-Furman capital punishment laws might get applied to the (in)famous Unibomber, Ted Kaczynski.  (Ted is currently an LWOP resident at superman ADX Florence in Colorado and in the past was comically portrayed by Will Farrell).  I will not aggressively quiz anyone about doctrinal specifics, but the rest of our death penalty discussions will be enriched if you take time to analyze how Ted's case might be litigated in prominent death penalty states like Florida and Texas and Ohio. 

    We could easily spend the rest of the semester discussing the history and modern specifics of the death penalty in specific jurisdictions like Florida and Texas and Ohio and US.  I will reference this history and modern practices in class over the next few weeks, and here are some links concerning the two jurisdictions in which we operate to provide a (low-stress, high-learning) chance to discover a lot more about these matters:

    Links with background on Ohio's history and practices in the administration of the death penalty 

    Links with background on US history and practices in the administration of the death penalty 

    Based on my hope that your "who radar" is now fully operational, I would be eager to hear your views (in the comments or in class) as to which "whos" have had the most impact on the operation of Ohio's death penalty system throughout the state's history (based, perhaps, on the Ohio DRC's account of this history).

  • Deterrence research and the “life-saving” argument that the death penalty is morally required

    As I mentioned in class, some years ago Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule created a stir with a provocative article suggesting that new deterrence evidence might make the death penalty morally required for states concerned with value of life. Here is a link to this article and its abstract:

    Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs , 58 Stan. L. Rev. 703 (2005):

    Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished even if, as recent evidence seems to suggest, it has a significant deterrent effect.  But if such an effect can be established, capital punishment requires a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. The familiar problems with capital punishment — potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew — do not require abolition because the realm of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context because government is a special kind of moral agent.  The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs potentially involved in capital punishment may depend in part on cognitive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve.  The objection to the act/omission distinction, as applied to government, has implications for many questions in civil and criminal law.

    As explained in class, the suggested prompt for mini-papers to be submitted on Feb 9 is to write to a legislator who is a kind of "agnostic supporter" of the death penalty based on the research suggesting executions help to save at least a few innocent lives.

    Alternatively, if you like digging into social science research, you can write about the modern empirical debate informed perhaps by a collection of some recent data-crunching on the deterrent effect of capital punishment available via this page assembled by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.  Notably, CJLF is supportive of the death penalty; the Death Penalty Information Center is opposed to the death penalty, and it has this webpage criticizing the studies appearing on the CJLF's page concerning deterrence.

  • Quick reminder of class activities for last week of January

    Just a quick note to remind everyone that…

    1.  If you are submitting your first mini-paper this week (requirements outlined here), it is due by 12noon today (Monday, Jan 26).

    2.  You should prepare for this week's classes by (re)reading Williams v. New York and by reading McGautha v. California.  (It is sufficient to read the shortened excerpts of these cases in the casebook, but I have here provided links to the full opinion for anyone interested in reading more.  Williams in not much longer in full text, but McGautha is a lot longer.)

    3.  Our coming discussion of modern capital punishment administration in the United States is going to focus a lot on the "who sentences" question.  To that end, you should check out and reflect on the "who" aspects of these stories about high-profile on-going capital cases:

  • SCOTUS cert petition in Young v. United States asserting 15-year ACCA prison term violates the Eighth Amendment

    As mention in class, I am working on an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in Young v. United States. I just received a copy of the petition, which was filed today, and the petition's appendix includes a copy of the Sixth Circuit opinion which rejected the defendant's assertion that a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for being a felon in possession of shotgun shells violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. The full petition and appendix can be downloaded below, and here is how the petition styles the Question Presented:  

    Whether the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s “evolving standards of decency” standard bars the application of a sentencing enhancement, the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. section 924(e), to a conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1), when the defendant’s possession of the seven shotgun shells at issue was passive, innocent, and initially unwitting, when the defendant’s most recent prior felony conviction was twenty years old, and when the resulting mandatory minimum sentence is 18 times greater than the minimum sentence the defendant would have otherwise received and more than 11 times greater than the maximum sentence the defendant would have otherwise received.

    Download Young v US — Petition for Writ of Certiorari with Appendix

  • Background on discretion, disparity and discrimination in Presidential clemency

    With apologies for (once again) lecturing too much and running late, I hope that I was able in Tuesday's class to effectively lay out some of the basics of what I call the "Three Ds" of modern sentencing debates: Discretion, Disparity and Discrimination.  I got a bit behind because I was not planning to talk about Presidential clemency powers; but given that Prez Obama is giving a State of the Union Address tonight (sentencing background/commentary here), perhaps now is a good time to use clemency as a good focal point for analyzing the "Three Ds."

    On this topic, we must start with a key provision of the U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 2 provides that the President "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."   The US Supreme Court views this authority quite broadly and has repeatedly indicated that Congress cannot limit the President's discretionary use of this clemency power. 

    In addition to vesting the President with broad discretion, this clause has resulted in considerable disparity in various ways in various eras as different Presidents have used (or not used) this authority in different ways.  Most notably for modern discussion, a recent investigation by ProPublica produced these notable headlines about modern clemency realities:

    In light of these headlines and the realities they reveal about the modern exercise of Presidential clemency and discretion, disparity and discrimination, should we find this additional report comforting?:

  • Who are similar defendants sentenced for similar crimes to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and John Rowland . . . AND WHY DO WE CARE?

    As the text reveals, federal sentencing doctrines and state sentencing laws express in various ways an interest in achieving consistency in sentencing outcomes across a range of cases:  e.g.,

    • 18 US Code § 3553(a)(6) orders federal judges at sentencing to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities" among similar defendants;
    • Ohio Revise Code § 2929.11(B) provides that sentences imposed for felonies shall be "consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders." 

    Arguably, the US Constitution might be thought (at least since the end of the Civil Law) to demand consistent sentencing outcomes over a range of cases: the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, precludes governments from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    We will begin next week by discussing the normative and practical issues raised by these kinds of commitments to sentencing consistency.  Normatively, I hope students can explain why we should have a strong commitment to sentencing consistency, especially if there is reason to worry that such a commitment may complicate efforts to achieve justice in each individual case.   Practically, I hope students can explain how we can effectively determine who are, in the words of federal law, "defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct"?  Helpfully, the on-going federal cases highlighted in the questionnaire provide a real-world lens to focus concretely on these abstract questions. 

    Here is an alphabetical list of some defendants arguably similar to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (links via Wikipedia and with carnage; federal sentences they received):

    Especially given that Tsarnaev is surely most similar to all those on this list other than McVeigh, does a commitment to sentencing consistency entail that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev must get an LWOP sentence?  If a federal jury in the Tsarnaev case were to return a sentence recommendation of death, should the presiding federal judge ignore that recommendation and impose LWOP in order to "avoid unwarranted sentence disparities" among similar defendants?

    Here is an alphabetical list of some defendants arguably similar to former Connecticut Gov John Rowland (links via Wikipedia when available and federal prison sentences received):

    Given that Rowland is facing sentencing for his second federal fraud/corruption charges, shouldn't concerns about sentencing consistency demand he now get a federal sentence of at least 6.5 years if not a lot more?

    UPDATE as of 11am Monday: Kudos to those students who have already shared thoughtful comments below about the importance and challenges of achieving sentencing consistency.  

    One important additional factor in this critical debate which we will discuss in class today (and throughout the semester) is WHICH ACTORS in the criminal justice system should be especially concerned with seeking sentencing consistency and HOW PROCEDURLLY shoud greater consistency be pursued:  e.g., should legislatures be especially concerned with sentence consistency and pursue it by enacting detailed sentencing guidelines and/or should sentencing judges be especially concerned with sentence consistency and pursue it by thoroughly researching "comparables" before imposing a sentence.

    One especially notable actor in an especially notable setting that must confront these concerns a lot is a prosecutor in a jurisdiction with the death penalty.  For example, is it virtuous for an Ohio prosecutor, in the name of consistency, always pursue a capital charge for any statutory eligible murder and refuse to plea the case down to a lesser punishment (which is the stated policy of long-time Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters)?  Alternatively, as this new post on my main blog hints, should we be critical of the Colorado prosecutors in the Aurora killer James Holmes case for not being willing to take an LWOP plea given that prosecutors have often cut LWOP plea deals for other mentally-challenged mass killers like Ted Kaczynski (the Unibomber) and Jared Lee Loughner (the Tucson shooter). 

  • Basic logistics concerning mini-paper assignments/requirements

    As discussed in our first class, one course requirement is for students to author and submit at least three mini-papers throughout the semester.  Each of these mini-papers must be no more than two pages long, and the papers can be (1) thoughtful reflections on the prior two week's classes and readings, or (2) engaging discussions of an original topic/question/idea/challenge that I pose in class.

    As set forth below, the submission dates and time for these mini-papers is generally every other Monday by 12noon:

    • January 26
    • February 9
    • February 23
    • March 9
    • March 30 (extra week because of Spring Break)
    • April 13

    As also explained in class, one goal for this assignment is to engender additional inter-student substantive discourse; that is why, subject to any stated objections/concerns for certain submissions, I expect to distribute everyone's submitted mini-papers back to the class for all to read and consider.

    I will generally provide the original question/idea/challenge for certain mini-papers in class on the Tuesday right after the dates listed above and then provide links in this space to any supportive materials.  

    The first question/idea/challenge, as you may recall, is to make recommendations concerning what the new Executive Director of the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission (OCSC) ought to have the OCSC working on these days.  Here are links to some OCSC materials that can provide helpful background for this topic:

  • Our class’s (unrepresentative) initial perspectives on the death penalty

    I am grateful for the 23 students who completed and submitted the class questionnaire, and I am eager to get completed surveys placed in my faculty from anyone who has not yet submitted the form before 2pm on Thursday.  We will be sure to discuss some of the collective "results" in class, and I really appreciate all the thought that was evident in many answers.

    I was moved to do this first post about the questionnaire because I was struck (and a bit surprised) by how titled the class seems to be against the death penalty this year.  In previous years, students have come into the class fairly evenly divided on the issue, with roughly half of students saying they were categorically against the death penalty and half saying they were not.  This year, however, 19 students (of 23 submitted questionnaires ) indicted they were against the death penalty (although a few back-tracked a little bit when asked about a sentence for the Boston Marathon Bomber).

    In other words, it seems that more than 80% of our class generally oppose the death penalty, whereas Gallup polling reveals that more than 60% of people in the US generally favor the death penalty.  Especially as we engage in death penalty discussions, we should be ever minderful of this notable contrast in student viewpoints and broader US viewpoints.

    In addition to simply noting these notable facts about views on the death penalty, I am eager to hear what folks imagine to be the general views of all Moritz students and/or all lawyers as a group.  Notably, some past Gallup poll data has highlighted that persons under 30 and "nonwhite" persons comprise the groups most opposed to the death penalty, and the Moritz student population as a whole is certainy younger and more diverse than the general population.  But all lawyers as a group tend generally to reflect, demographically, the general population.  (Consequently, I would guess that our class is not extremely unrepresentative of all Moritz students but likely is quite out of line with all lawyers generally on this issue.)

    Also, on the topic of the death penalty, the first US execution in 2015 took place Tuesday night, see "Georgia executes Vietnam veteran who killed a sheriff's deputy", and Oklahoma is scheduled to carry out another execution on Thursday. 

  • Pre-Class Questionnaire for pre-class completion

    As mentioned in my e-mail to the class, your only formal responsibility before the first week of classes is to completed the short questionnaire that I have now uploaded here are a word document: 

    Download 2015 1st Class Survey

    As you will see from this document, you may want to (but need not) read pp. 1-17 in the text for some background on some of the terms used in the first question.  And the second question seeks feedback the topics listed in this class introduction post. 

    In addition, the last question asks what sentence you would impose on former Connecticut Governor John Rowland at his upcoming federal sentencing. Background on this white-collar defendant and his crime can be found in these recent articles from the Hartford Courant:

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started