Here's great post--The Grass Wasn't Greener-- written by a computer programmer, writer, and father of six, who was the tenant of a doomed, pot-dealing landlord. We recommend reading the whole thing.

The only thing worse than being the target of tragedy, is watching helplessly as Fate conducts a drive-by shooting. A gentle, hard-working, attentive, selfless young man died, haunted by the specter of a stiff federal sentence for a victimless crime. It’s one thing to read about such tales in a paper or on a web site – where they are, though real, tinged with the abstract. When they invade your life like this, they leave a mark that never rubs off.

Some would argue that Patric’s life was in his own hands, and that his death was his own decision. Considering that federal sentencing guidelines could have put him in jail for most of his natural life, this logic is at best myopic. Today, a man named Ron Ridenour awaits federal sentencing in Montana on charges of marijuana trafficking; he faces five to 40 years behind bars. Ridenour lucked out and drew a lenient judge, critical of mandatory sentencing, who will likely give him the minimum. We’ll never know where on the roulette wheel Patric would have landed. Stacked up against the possibility of spending 40 years in prison, death dons an attraction it wouldn’t otherwise hold for a rational man.

A judge in California has struck down a federal law prohibiting public transit carriers from displaying ads advocating the legalization of drugs:

A federal law cutting off funds to any public transit agency that runs ads calling for legalization or medical use of an illegal drug was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman of Washington, D.C., said the amendment attached to a $3.1 billion transportation measure, signed in January by President Bush, violated freedom of speech by banning messages based on their viewpoint.

The government has articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason,'' Friedman said. He prohibited the government from enforcing the funding restriction.

Totally right decision. If the Office of National Drug Control Policy can publish their anti-drug ads, the pro-legalization groups have to have the same right to publish their's.

This week's news has been filled with articles attacking the reliability of fingerprint testing as an exact identification science. TChris outlined the issue here, including pointing out Law Professor Jennifer Mnooking's articles here and here.

Here's a few more, out today:

• Can Prints Lie? Yes, Man Finds to His Dismay, by Benjamin Weiser, NYTimes

• The Wrong Man, Newsweek. Freed and cleared Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield speaks out

Whoops. An auditor for the DEA has lost his laptop with data concerning over 100 informants, including over 4,000 pages of sensitive case-file information that if delivered into the wrong hands could allow traffickers to identify the informants. The loss story sounds fishy, because first the auditor told the DEA the laptop was stolen from his car trunk while he was inside a coffeehouse, but later,

...when investigators confronted the auditor last week and questioned his account, the auditor changed his story, saying he had accidentally damaged the computer—then destroyed it and threw it away in a Dumpster to avoid embarrassment.

The DEA is reportedly "livid." Aside from the obvious reason, here's another one:

Only two years ago, the [Inspector General] IG issued a blistering report criticizing Justice agencies, including the DEA and the FBI, for failure to maintain adequate controls on sensitive items—including their laptop computers.

by TChris

It's time for fingerprint experts across the country to start sweating. Until now, jurors have been accustomed to thinking that any testimony given by a fingerprint expert is unassailable. Defense lawyers may find jurors more receptive to attacks on the accuracy of fingerprint identifications after the FBI called the connection between a partial print and Brandon Mayfield "absolutely incontrovertible" and a "bingo match."

[W]hen three top experts manage to blow such an important identification, our longstanding faith in fingerprints must be questioned. Nor is this the only such mistake to come to light in recent months. In January a Massachusetts conviction was overturned when the fingerprint identification, the cornerstone of the case, was shown to be erroneous.

Fingerprint evidence has always depended more on faith than science.

We lack good evidence about how often examiners make mistakes, nor is there a consensus about how to determine what counts as a match. Our current approach to fingerprint evidence, in which experts claim 100 percent confidence in any match, is dangerously flawed and risks causing miscarriages of justice.

Full confidence is impossible to achieve, but it sure sounds good in court. It's time for judges to start questioning the nearly automatic admissibility of fingerprint evidence, as one judge tried to do before changing his mind.

More TalkLeft coverage of fingerprint issues here.

by TChris

When it comes to criminal behavior, the motto of some seems to be: "Never forgive and never forget." Presidents and Governors are vested with the power to grant pardons because people who have lived exemplary lives for many years shouldn't bear a disproportionate burden because of a single mistake. Felony convictions and minor drug convictions prevent people from holding some jobs. Some convictions prevent people from being bonded, denying them the opportunity to seek other jobs. In some states, felony convictions take away the right to vote. Felony and domestic abuse convictions also take away the right to possess a firearm for hunting or protection. There's nothing wrong with granting a pardon to someone who demonstrates that a lawless act was an aberration in an otherwise law-abiding life, particularly when the conviction causes a needless hardship.

The fact that former South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow handed out 214 pardons is not, in itself, worthy of complaint. Executives are given that authority with the expectation that they will be exercise it wisely and mercifully.

The Government plans to spend $145 million this year on anti-drug ads. A new study shows they don't work. They may even prompt some kids to start experimenting with drugs.

The study was done by Texas State University at San Marcos psychology professors and sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project. From the news article:

Researchers Harvey Ginsburg and Maria Czyzewska, of the Department of Psychology at Texas State, said 53 college students were asked to watch several of the commercials and give detailed descriptions of the thoughts the ads generated.

Three of every four students reported the ads sparked thoughts that ran counter to the ads' message, the study showed. "For example, in response to ads linking drug use to the war on terror, the most frequent unanticipated thoughts were that marijuana should be legalized, the war on drugs has been ineffective, and that marijuana users should grow their own," said Czyzewska.

A Government sponsored study in 2002 also found that kids don't respond to the anti-drug ads:

by TChris

It's amazing that a school district couldn't arrive at this conclusion without the help of a panel appointed by the district superintendent.

Security officers in the Kent School District, the target of complaints over the discipline of black students, should no longer handcuff students or carry firearms, batons, tasers or pepper spray, a panel has recommended.

The recommendation came after the Seattle chapter of the NAACP filed several claims against the district alleging that teachers and security guards used excessive force to discipline black students.

The panel found that when security officers were called because a student hadn't followed directions, there was "little justification for physical confrontation" between the officer and the student.

It doesn't appear that the handcuffing will end soon. The superintendent complains that the recommendations included "no suggestions for alternatives to handcuffs." Here's one: don't use them.

by TChris

The threat of being busted in Louisiana for unsightly plumber's butt has ended. Background here and here.

State lawmakers refused to make it a crime to wear low-slung pants in public that expose "undergarments or ... any portion of the pubic hair, cleft of the buttocks or genitals."

No word on whether any state lawmakers want to make it illegal to trade beads for a glimpse of a breast during Mardi Gras.

by TChris

Dixie Shanahan's story isn't pretty. Her husband beat her for three days, angry that she became pregnant with their third child. He responded to her refusal to get an abortion by repeatedly punching her in the stomach. When she fled, her husband dragged her back into the house, pointed a shotgun at her and threatened to kill her.

At some point, Shanahan shot her husband. Whether she did so in response to another threatening move, or shot him in his sleep, was disputed at her trial. An Iowa jury convicted her, and a judge imposed a mandatory 50 year sentence. The judge didn't think the sentence was fair under the circumstances, but mandatory sentencing laws gave him no discretion.

The sentence, said Shanahan's attorney, was like one last beating.

Mandatory sentencing laws often lead to injustice.

But then, justice has become a rarer commodity since the "get tough on crime" movement swept the nation during the Reagan years. Declaring the courts too soft on crime, state legislators around the country decided that judgment was too important to be left to judges. They enacted mandatory sentencing guidelines that were supposed to produce tougher and more uniform sentences. Instead, those guidelines produce travesties.

It will be 35 years before Shanahan is eligible for parole.

From Drug War Rant [via Avedon Carol at Sideshow]:

The recent study comparing marijuana use in San Francisco and Amsterdam is a real blow to the drug warriors. Not only did it show that prohibition does not reduce marijuana use, there were a couple of other very interesting things in the study. The full report is now available online as text and as a pdf with graphs.

....Note that in the city where prohibition is the rule, there is significantly higher rates of experimentation with other drugs. As opposed to the gateway theory, this indicates that prohibition actually increases the likelihood of using other illicit drugs. As the study notes: The “separation of markets,” in which lawfully regulated cannabis distribution reduces the likelihood that people seeking cannabis will be drawn into deviant subcultures where “hard drugs” also are sold is one public health objective of Dutch decriminalization. Looks like their idea works better than ours.

Avedon adds: "And, as even Harry Anslinger admitted, it wasn't a "gateway drug" until it was made illegal."

by TChris

A new report (pdf) by the Sentencing Project (summarized here) reveals a shocking rise in the number of inmates serving life sentences -- an increase that wasn't justified by rising crime rates, or by any other justification beyond the "get tough on crime" mindset that has gripped politicians for more than two decades.

The number of convicted felons serving some kind of life sentence has rocketed to 127,000 nationwide -- an 83 percent jump since 1992. More than a quarter of them are ineligible for parole.

The explosion in life sentences stems in part from three-strikes laws and their variants.

In California, almost 60 percent of the lifers in a three-strikes conviction are serving the time for a nonviolent offense.

Imposing life sentences on nonviolent offenders is a waste of society's resources, including the inmate's life.