Do you know someone who can't get financial aid for college due to a drug conviction? The John W. Perry Fund is awarding scholarships to help.

Federal law provides:

Section 484, subsection r of the Higher Education Act of 1998 (HEA) delays or denies federal student financial aid eligibility to applicants with any misdemeanor or felony drug conviction. Applicants with a single possession conviction lose eligibility for one year from conviction date; those with a second possession conviction or one sales conviction lose eligibility for two years; and three possession convictions or two sales convictions cost an applicant eligibility indefinitely.

Students enrolling in an approved drug treatment program can regain eligibility upon completing it. However, the measure neither provides funds for these generally expensive programs, nor distinguishes between mere use and true substance abuse. Would-be students who merely experimented with marijuana, for example, might be unable to find a program willing to accept them; or instead, might take up scarce slots needed by actual addicts seeking help.

The application process is fully explained on the site. Here are some details:

Howard Dean on Larry King Live last night, in response to a caller (via Lexis):

KING: Santa Cruz, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi Governor Dean. My question to you is, given your medical background and your view on states rights, in your opinion, what should the federal government do about medical marijuana?

DEAN: I don't think they should throw people in jail in California, but I think do think -- here's what I think. I think the process by which medical marijuana is being legalized is the wrong process. I don't like it when politicians interfere in medicine. It's why I am very pro-choice. Because I don't think that is the government's business. So what I will do as president is, I will acquire the FDA within first 12 months to evaluate marijuana and see if it is, in fact, a decent medicine or not. If it is, for what purposes -- for certain purposes, and I suspect it will be for cancer patients and HIV/AIDS patients. And it should be allowed for that. But I suspect it will not be allowed for things like glaucoma. But we have to do the FDA studies. I think marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process and there shouldn't be a special process which is based on politics to legalize it.

Boston Globe Columnist Cathy Young expounds on rape-shield laws today, and is one of the first we've seen in recent weeks to outline issues of fairness to the accused.

After providing concrete examples, she concludes, justly in our view:

Many feminist groups fiercely resist any weakening of rape shield laws, including a recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling which allows evidence of past sexual contact between the accuser and the accused to be used at trial.

Yet feminism should be about equal justice, not just the advantage of women. Women who come forward with charges of rape should not be treated as liars or sluts, but neither should they be given automatic credibility. Being sexually assaulted is a terrible ordeal - but so is being falsely accused.

A few weeks ago we told you about a prosecutor in North Carolina who is claiming meth is a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' and prosecuting drug offenders under the state anti-terrorism laws. One of our complaints was:

This is nothing but a desperate attempt by frustrated law enforcement officials to fit a square peg in a round hole. No one supports meth labs, but if the North Carolina drug laws aren't sufficiently punitive for prosecutors and cops, they should take it to the legislature and pass a stricter law, rather than stretching an existing law past its common meaning and intended use.

Instapundit writes about it today, saying the prosecutor should be fired. Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about it:

I generally support many of the recent anti-terrorism laws, but one serious argument against them has always been that they won't be limited to terrorism, but will apply in situations whether the extra penalties or lowered protections that the anti-terrorism law provides are unjustified. This seems like an excellent example of this tendency; and it should also remind us more generally to be cautious when we hear assurances (even sincere assurances) that some broadly written law won't really be interpreted literally: In our fairly decentralized systems, local officials (or, for civil statutes, plaintiffs and their lawyers) often have ample incentive to push the envelope.

Glad to see Glenn and Eugene are on our side on this one!

Jay Caruso of The Daily Rant writes critically of a new law in Illiniois, reportedly the first in the country, that provides that if one partner changes his/her mind after intercourse has begun, and the other partner doesn't stop, it's rape.

To show how such a law can be misapplied, consider this California Supreme Court ruling in January, which we think borders on the ridiculous: A 17 year old female engaged in admittedly consensual intercourse with a juvenile teenage male. During the act, the female said she wanted to go home. She didn't say "stop" or "no," only that she wanted to go home. The juvenile male was convicted of rape, and the California Supreme Court upheld it.

The dissenting justice? Janice Rogers Brown, now nominated by Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and considered to be a contender for a Supreme Court vacancy. Liberals oppose her as a Clarence Thomas clone. We have criticized her, for that and other reasons. But her dissent in this rape case is the only voice of sanity:

The majority provided no guidance about what constitutes withdrawal of consent and what amount of force turns consensual sex into rape. The majority relies heavily on [the defendant's] failure to desist immediately, but it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force? And even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?"

Rogers Brown argued:

...prosecutors should still have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a victim clearly communicated withdrawal of consent, and the perpetrator exercised some degree of force.

She noted that the victim in John Z. had enjoyed the sex, had simply said she had to go and had never overtly told John Z. she didn't want to keep having sex.

We agree that as a matter of legal principle, if prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was withdrawn after the act begins. and that the withdrawal was clearly and unequivocally communicated to the partner, who then forcibly continued, it's rape. But that's a tough burden for prosecutors, and that's why they rightfully are reluctant to file such charges.

But we just can't see how "I want to go home" is a clear and unequivocal "no" or "stop" or "stop now" that a teenage boy is supposed to understand means a withdrawal of consent.

Update: We edited the post as to age. The girl was 17 not 19 as we originally said, and the boy was a juvenile, not necessarily 15.

Jeb Bush must be getting nervous already about getting re-elected. Today he criticized the White House for returning 12 Cubans to Cuba after their boat washed ashore in the U.S. The 600,000 members of the Cuban-American community in Miami are not pleased with President Bush, to say the least. The Cuban-American vote for Bush-Gore in the 2000 election is credited by many with being a determinative factor in that election.

Some months earlier, three men who had hijacked a ferry boat were executed in Cuba. A little background. Since Clinton, the U.S. has had a "wet foot, dry foot" policy with respect to Cubans, and only Cubans. If they make it to land, they get to stay in the U.S. If they get caught in the water, they are returned to Cuba. [Compare this to Haitian policy, where all Haitians are returned, whether they make it ashore or not.]

Several Democratic presidential contenders have sided with the exile groups, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who said the decision was "an abandonment of American values" during a visit to South Florida this week that included a stop in Little Havana here.

In his remarks to The Herald, Governor Bush said: "Despite the good intentions of the administration to negotiate the safety of these folks, that is an oppressive regime and given the environment in Cuba, it's just not right" to send them back. He also hinted that the White House would modify its Cuban policy before the presidential election.

Jill Bratina, a spokeswoman for Governor Bush, reiterated his statement today. She said the governor had not discussed the decision with his brother, but had asked high-ranking officials in the administration to review it. "The governor agrees with the president's policies on Cuba and feels that the president has been a strong advocate for the people of Cuba," she said, but added that "unfortunately, in this instance it was not an appropriate decision."

Update: According to this article appearing July 31 in a Cuban newspaper, the three who were executed were the hijackers of a ferry carrying the asylum-seekers.

Via Ebay, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is offering a week's lodging at a villa in Southern France.

Help support NORML's efforts to reform marijuana laws by spending time relaxing in the south of France with your closest friends. This exciting auction offers you the opportunity to get away from it all for a week in the rustic wine growing village of Armissan, just seven kilometers from Narbonne and the beautiful beaches of the Mediterranean Sea.

An article buried in today's New York Times, Red Ink in States Beginning to Hurt Economic Recovery, contains this gem:

Minnesota even came up with a new one: public defenders are no longer furnished free; defendants now pay $50 or more.

We haven't heard of this before. It is very troubling. Thoughts?

Update: NLADA has more:

Under this new law every public defender client in Minnesota -- normally allowed counsel free of charge -- will be saddled with a "copay" to be assessed from a rigid schedule. In district court, clients will incur debts of $200 for a felony, $100 for a gross misdemeanor and $50 for a misdemeanor. In juvenile court, clients will incur debts of $100 for a juvenile adjudication and $200 for a child protection adjudication. The law imposes this obligation at the time a public defender is appointed, and there is no provision for its waiver in the case of undue financial hardship.

The problem with the law lies in its flat-rate schedule and the removal of the judge's discretion to determine whether the copay would work a manifest financial hardship upon the defendant. Absent a fair, means-tested rate schedule, the public defender copays will really become application fees that many will be unable to pay. These copays will lead some truly indigent people to choose to forgo counsel.

There was already a law on the books that assessed a reasonable $28 copay for public defender clients, and allowed the judge to waive that fee based on indigency or hardship. There is also a current means-tested recoupment statute, allowing for a portion of a person's net income to be repaid. Those statutes are constitutional, and fair. But imposing a flat fee upon a desperate applicant, whether or not he can afford it, degrades that which is fundamental and essential to fair trials in our nation -- the right to counsel.

Seniors with dementia have become a growing problem in the criminal justice system. The Washington Post examines the struggle between recognizing that seniors with dementia and other brain disease need treatment, not prison, and the need of society to be protected from those who cause harm.

People with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of mental deterioration are increasingly getting entangled with law enforcement. That has police, prosecutors, judges, psychiatric workers and caregivers struggling to balance the humane treatment of a vulnerable but volatile segment of the populace against the need to protect the public.

"It's a problem, and a problem that's only going to grow," said Max B. Rothman, executive director of the Center on Aging at Florida International University in Miami. "As the baby boomers age, it's going to become an even bigger problem."

Echoing a long-running debate over the mentally ill and disabled, the matter also is raising thorny issues about how to determine when people in the throes of slow mental decline are no longer culpable for their actions.

...."When they get into the legal system, the system often doesn't know how to handle it," said Donna Cohen, a professor in the Department of Aging and Mental Health at the University of South Florida. "Yes, older people with dementia may do something that's hurtful. But throwing them into a cell . . . is not the way to handle it. It's inhumane."

This is a sad article to read, but please do, because it is an issue we will be hearing far more about as the aging population expands.

Jonathan Shapiro, a onetime newspaper reporter and a former federal prosecutor in Washington and Los Angeles, writes an impressive op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times explaining why mug shot photos incriminate the accused and should not be freely available.

In Attorney General Opinion No. 03-205 issued last week, Lockyer allows police, district attorneys and sheriffs to release mug shots of defendants at their discretion, giving clear license to a practice that the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the federal Justice Department and almost all other law enforcement offices frown upon.

Mug shots are more than just embarrassing photos. They are potentially prejudicial pieces of evidence. ...Lockyer must know that the state bar prohibits attorneys from making statements or releasing information that might unduly color the opinions of potential jurors. Prosecutors are specifically bound to refrain from leaking information that could violate a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.

Go read the whole thing.

(update: link now working)

Received from Rob Kampia, of the Marijuana Policy Project:

Wednesday, July 23, the U.S. House of Representatives surprised the nation by voting 152-273 on an amendment that would have prevented the DEA and the U.S. Justice Department from spending any more money to raid and prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers. This is the first time in the history of the country that the full House or Senate has voted on legislation to end the federal government's war on medical marijuana.

Today's vote was closer than anyone had expected, in large part because of the letters that members and allies of the Marijuana Policy Project have been faxing to their U.S. representatives. MPP -- in conjunction with the American Liberty Foundation, Americans for Safe Access, Change the Climate, Drug Policy Alliance, Drug Reform Coordination Network, and the Libertarian Party -- generated tens of thousands of faxes, e-mails, and phone calls to Capitol Hill in the past few days, showing U.S. House members for the first time the collective strength of the medical marijuana grassroots movement.

I want to publicly thank U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sam Farr (D-CA) for sponsoring the amendment and giving strong speeches on the House floor yesterday in support of today's vote.

From MPP's website:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted today to allow the Bush administration's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to continue raiding and arresting seriously ill medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states that allow the medical use of marijuana. Nevertheless, patients and advocates were cheered by the growth in the number of congressional allies since the last House vote on medical marijuana in 1998 -- and by the fact that more than two thirds of House Democrats voted to protect patients. The overall vote was 152 in favor, 273 opposed, and 10 not voting.

Here's some info on the MPP:

Petty crimes, high stakes. One Seattle defender is on a mission to change that.