Violence Against Women

 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act

Kay Farley from the National Center for State Courts reports that, on November 30, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Violence Against Women Act of 2011 (S. 1925).  As introduced, the reauthorization level is 19% lower than the 2005 reauthorization level.  It is unknown, however, whether the reduction will have an impact as the VAWA-related grants have never been funded at the full authorization level.

In addition to the authorization level decrease, the bill includes a number of policy changes.

  • Some grant programs are consolidated in an effort to improve and expand the most effective programs.  Of note is the proposed consolidation of two court-related training grants into the Court Training and Supervised Visitation Improvements grant program.  Funds may be used for the following activities:
    • Supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange programs;
    • Development of legislation, policies, and best practices for improving civil and criminal functions, responses, and practices, and procedures;
    • Education for court-based and court-related personnel and child protective service workers;
    • Resources in juvenile court matters;
    • Enable courts, court-based or court-related programs to develop and enhance court infrastructure, programming, information storage and information sharing, education and outreach programs, and other projects;
    • Civil legal assistance;
    • Collect data and provide training and technical assistance to improve the capacity of grantees and communities; and
    • Training and education for judges, court personnel, attorneys, child welfare personnel, and legal advocates in the civil justice system.
       
  • Three changes are made to the STOP grant program – (1) the application process is streamlined by substituting a requirement for the development of an implementation plan for some the documentation currently submitted to the Office on Violence Against Women, (2) coverage under the grant is expanded to include male victims and persons victimized because of their sexual or gender orientation, and (3) a 25% set-aside is established for responding to sexual assault crimes.  
     
  • Under the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforce Protection Orders grant program, applicants will be required to certify that they do not charge victims for costs associated with the modification, enforcement, or dismissal of a protection order.
  • The measure also provides for training to prevent homicide resulting from domestic violence.  The legislation encourages screening of victims for warning signs and providing immediate intervention for those at risk of homicide.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to schedule a mark-up session on S. 1925 in January 2012.  A reauthorization bill has not been introduced in the House yet.

A Great Article by Michael Wolf

Michael Wolf served for many years on the Missouri Supreme Court, and at one point was that state’s Chief Justice. There are few judges in the United States that are his equal when it comes to writing interesting and thoughtful commentary…he was afterall, at one point a journalist.  Commentary by him should be of interest to a lot of judges, and thankfully, he has a new article:

 Missouri Provides Cost of Sentences and Recidivism Data: What Does Cost Have to Do with Justice? (Federal Sentencing Reporter, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission in 2010, which has an information-based sentencing information system, added two items of information to its Web-based Automated Sentencing Information feature: (1) the cost of each sentencing option and (2) the recidivism rate for offenders – with similar risk factors – who received sentences for the same offense or category of offenses. Because sentencing decisions in Missouri are discretionary, judges are free to use or to disregard the information. For many offenses, however, it is possible for an advocate to argue or for a judge (or the public) to conclude that a more harsh sentence not only may cost more, but may be followed by a higher rate of re-offending than a less severe punishment.

High on Drug Courts

Drug courts  work, the GAO says in a new report.

The Government Accountability Office reviewed evaluations of adult drug courts, and found that “drug-court program participation was generally associated with lower recidivism.” The GAO stated that:

“…analysis of evaluations reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug-court program participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison group members drawn from criminal court, with differences in likelihood reported to be statistically significant for 18 of the programs.”

There are currently over 2,500 drug courts operating nationwide, of which about 1,400 handle adults. Typically, they involve defendants waiving a right to trial and entering treatment programs. In one study cited by GAO, participants in a Sacramento Drug Court were 20 percent less likely to be rearrested within two years of their participation than drug users handled through conventional courts.

Read more: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/#ixzz1g60VuiUf

Effective Advocacy for Defendants Charged with Misdemeanors

There is a new and interesting article entitled : Why Misdemeanors Matter: Defining Effective Advocacy in the Lower Criminal Courts written by Professor Jenny Roberts, American University, Washington College of Law

UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 45, 2011, American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2011-32 . The Abstract summarizes the article:       

Most individuals accused in our nation’s criminal courts are not charged with murder, rape, drug sales, or even less serious felonies. The vast majority of charges are in the lower courts, for misdemeanors such as marijuana possession, driving with a license suspension for failure to pay tickets, assault, disorderly conduct, or public intoxication. Misdemeanor adjudications have exploded in recent years, with one recent study estimating that the volume of misdemeanor cases nationwide has risen from five to more than ten million between 1972 and 2006. At the same time, violent crime and the number of felony cases across the country have decreased markedly.

A common misperception is that misdemeanor charges might lead to a night in jail and the punishment of going through the process – often requiring a number of court appearances – culminating in dismissal, deferred adjudication, or a quick guilty plea with community service, a fine, or perhaps some small amount of jail time. Yet the consequences of even the most “minor” misdemeanor conviction can be far reaching, and include deportation, sex offender registration, and loss of public housing and student loans. In addition, criminal records are now widely available electronically and employers, landlords, and others log on to check them. These “collateral consequences” of a misdemeanor conviction are often more dire than any direct criminal penalty.

What often stands between an individual and an avoidable misdemeanor conviction, with its harsh effects, is a good lawyer. Yet a profound crisis exists in the lower courts, brought about by a widespread lack of zealous representation for indigent people charged with misdemeanors. Many individuals charged with low-level crimes receive representation from defense attorneys with overwhelming caseloads, in a criminal justice system singularly focused on rapid finality in the large numbers of docketed cases. Despite this urgent situation, the body of scholarship on the right to effective representation and the indigent defense crisis has largely ignored misdemeanors. This Article describes how ineffective-assistance jurisprudence is undeveloped for misdemeanors and how published professional standards for defense advocacy have failed to address misdemeanors. There is almost no guidance about proper norms for this distinct category of cases. This Article calls for responses to the misdemeanor representation crisis   from the three groups situated to make a difference in this area, based on their particular institutional competencies: the judiciary, the defender community, and professional organizations that draft standards for practice. Without proper administration, including effective defense representation, the current approach to mass misdemeanor processing and prosecution significantly impedes substantive justice for the individual, public perception of justice, and public safety.  you can find the article at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1963788

The Provision of Lawyers for the Indigent Defendant

Budget cuts and chronic underfunding have plagued the criminal justice system and been particularly harsh on services for indigent criminal defendants. A new anaylysis found that  Pennsylvania is  defaulting on the Sixth Amendment. On December 8, 2011, Pennsylvania’s Joint State Government Commission issued its report, A Constitutional Default:

Services to Indigent Criminal Defendants in Pennsylvania, concluding that public defense providers labor “under an obsolete, purely localized system,” and that the structure of services “impedes efforts to represent clients effectively.” The report mentions several concerns, including the fact that many of Pennsylvania’s counties are so burdened with excessive caseloads that public defenders are effectively prohibited from providing indigent defendants with adequate representation. And Pennsylvania is not alone. Public Defender’s offices in states such as Tennessee, and Missouri have filed suit against their state governments because their caseloads have become so overwhelmingly large. In August a similar critical report was issued analyzing the Utah system for providing lawyers from indigent defendants. Neither Utah nor Pennslvanis provide any state funding for indigent defendants and rely exclusively on local funding.

Looking at the Illinois Juvenile Justice System and Asking, “What Does My Court Look Like?”

“Illinois’ juvenile justice system is failing”, a new state report says.  Here are the basics:  Illinois’ juvenile justice system is failing to rehabilitate offenders and help them return to life in their communities.

More than half of the people released from the State Department of Juvenile Justice facilities are later incarcerated again in the juvenile system, according to the study by the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission. The report also says the state’s juvenile justice system “is, in many ways, the ‘feeder system’ to the adult criminal justice system and a cycle of crime, victimization and incarceration.”

The commission was ordered by law to develop recommendations to help youth offenders successfully transition back into their communities.

The commission’s members found “a system that is in desperate need of an overhaul,” said its chairman, Judge George W. Timberlake, retired chief judge of the 2nd Judicial Circuit.  Incarcerating a juvenile offender for one year in a state youth facility costs more than $86,000, according to the report.  In contrast, community-based rehabilitation programs that the report says are more effective cost $3,000 to $8,000 per person a year.

The juvenile justice system also fails offenders once they are released from custody, the report says. About 40 percent of incarcerated juvenile offenders are being held for parole violations such as skipping school or violating curfew, behavior that “likely poses no threat to public safety” and taxes the system’s resources, according to the report.

Rather than locking up children for relatively minor parole violations, the youth parole system should rely on re-entry strategies that are better tailored to juveniles’ needs, the report says.

 

 

 

 

A Little Known Fact About Mary Celeste

Since the American Judges Association blog was created, we have tried to keep abreast of cutting edge news and things of a more historical nature. Judge Mary Celeste served as one of the Association’s hardest working presidents and continues to contribute by spearheading the mid-year symposium in Nashville, but few members may know this about her lineage.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2011/12/the_mary_celeste_the_unluckiest_ship_to_ever_sail_the_seven_seas_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=home_multiline

What’s So Hard About Regulating Supreme Court Justices’ Ethics? — A Lot – The Brookings Institution

There are few observors of the federal court system with comparable experience but even fewer with as much insight and wisdom as Russell Wheeler. He presently serves as a Visiting Fellow on Governance Studies for the Brookings Institute.

Russell Wheeler is an expert on various aspects of U.S. courts, especially federal courts, including the selection of judges; the relationship between those courts and the other branches of government, and with the press; and ethical constraints on judicial behavior. His current research includes  the structure and operation of the immigration courts in the Department of Justice. He is a former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, research and education agency for the federal court system

He recently wrote a very interesting commentary entitled, What’s So Hard About Regulating Supreme Court Judicial Ethics? —A Lot

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1128_courts_wheeler.aspx

Isolation vs. Solitude, by Chuck A. Ericksen, Ed.D.

“The transition from practicing lawyer to judicial officer involves

a journey into loneliness.” [i]

            An inherent characteristic of judging is that it is a profession which occurs in high degree of isolation.  Single judge courts physically isolate many judges from their peers and in multiple judge courts, where workloads limit the extent of social interaction, a high degree of psychological isolation exists. Judicial education can provide an opportunity for interaction among judges which can ease this sense of isolation.  It is extremely important to share this perspective with new judges and to ensure that as careers progress judges do not drift away from networking and collegiality that education and judicial associations provide. 

            Ironically, in today’s busy world we have loneliness, but rarely solitude. I believe a wellness lifestyle requires a healthy balance between staying connected to community and seeking solitude. Henry Nouwen wrote extensively on the subject of solitude and community. Nouwen insisted that solitude is indispensable to a balanced life. He called solitude “the furnace of transformation…where the old self dies and the new self is reborn.”  But for many who are in positions of leadership, solitude seems on the surface to be less productive. Judges, like leaders in many domains experiencing increasing demands on their time, have been conditioned to think that success is dependent on working, achieving and doing.  However, without solitude and moments of quiet reflection it is easy to get into the perpetual trap of busyness that leads to fatigue, burnout and less productivity.  The solution to busyness is not isolation but the regular practice of seeking solitude through morning or evening rituals such as setting aside time to  reflect,  journal, or meditate, or engaging in other wellness activities such as running, listening to music,  or engaging in a hobby. Finally, many leaders I have talked with are consciously turning off the computer to prevent the temptation to constantly stay connected!

Chuck A. Ericksen, Ed.D.

 


[i] Australian Justice Michael Kirby cited in Stephens, 1995, p. 3.

A Guest Commentary from Judge Lloyd Zimmerman

Judge Lloyd Zimmerman serves on the Hennepin County District Court bench. His commentary originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Rather than simply provide an excerpt and a link, the commentary is printed in full. Comments posted on the Star Tribune web site far exceed two hundred. almost all are very positive. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/134428683.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#co Judge Zimmerman wrote, “After I published a love story in the New York Times last month about how I presided over the wedding of a dying Minneapolis man to his partner of 38 years, I received deeply emotional letters from all over the country. A letter from a mom in Boston, describing her 2-year-old son saying: “Mommy, why are you crying into your oatmeal?”

From a doctor in Dallas, writing: “if there’s a typo in this letter, plese [sic] forgive me; I couldn’t see through the tears.”

But today I am writing about a voice mail from a south Minneapolis woman named Liz. In a quiet voice, she said that neither she nor her partner of 12 years, Jeanne, could ask a Minnesota judge for a deathbed wedding.

Same-sex weddings are barred, and a 2012 ballot measure could amend the Minnesota Constitution to keep such weddings illegal for generations.

Judges usually don’t comment in newspapers about legal matters; we have engrained habits of judicial reserve and modesty. I am writing, however, not about the law, but about love, family and understanding.

I think of Elie Wiesel, the author and Holocaust survivor, who wrote, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

I know a little about justice. I’ve labored in the trenches of justice, as a lawyer or judge, for more than 33 years.  For more than two decades, it’s been illegal in Minnesota to deny someone a job, housing or services because of their sexual orientation.

It’s also illegal to shut the door on someone’s hope for a job or an apartment because of their race, color, religion, national origin, disability or age.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful in Minnesota almost everywhere but the private sanctuary: our homes.

I’m guessing that most of us wouldn’t tolerate the government limiting our choices for spouses.

We can marry anyone under Minnesota law, provided that we wait five days after getting a wedding license, that we certify we are “no nearer of kin than the first cousins once removed,” that we attest that “neither of us has a spouse living,” and that we verify that “one of the applicants is a man and the other a woman.” We can marry someone 40 years younger, or older; someone heavier, darker, lighter; someone with a great sense of humor or who can’t crack a joke.

We can solemnly vow to love and hold each other ’til death do us part,” and then divorce, six months later, as long as one person is a man and the other a woman.

We wed in front of judges, ministers, rabbis and friends recently ordained through the Internet. We promise with good intention to marry “for as long as you both shall live.”

But we’re not prescient, and the law allows us to be human and fallible. About one-third of our marriages end in divorce. The courts, sometimes ahead of their day, sometimes behind, have been the last refuge of human dignity. The state and federal Constitutions remain the ultimate bastions of individual freedoms.

They provide a sanctuary for liberty, not a cage.

Some say it is “unnatural” for gay or lesbian couples to marry each other. The same was said for marriages between blacks and whites, Jews and Christians, Finns and Swedes. In some families, that is still true.

My own father, born before World War I, took a long time to accept the decision of my twin sister, Nancy, to marry a black man. For years, he would not allow her name to be spoken.

He didn’t get to see his grandson Ty, now a responsible father of his own four children, grow up. He never got to know the kind heart and playful humor of Nancy’s (now former) husband, Scott.

In time, my dad changed his mind, asked forgiveness and was forgiven. Wounds healed; our family was repaired.

This lesson, and saving my sister from a suicide attempt over her pain, was hard. It taught me how even my own dad, a man otherwise honorable and moral, could harbor prejudice.  Can we get past the idea of what a married couple should look like? A family? The idea that every child should have a mom and dad or — heaven forbid — two moms or two dads?

Almost half of Minnesota families don’t have a mom and dad living in the same home.

Some kids don’t have either parent. Those kids live with grandparents or in foster homes. They grow up hoping someone will find them worthy of love.

Judges preside over adoptions, so I got to see what “kind of people” took home the kids no one else would: the little boy with a respirator, a colostomy bag, a big smile and an Afro; his younger sister, with cerebral palsy; their cousin, with severe behavioral disorders and a feeding tube.

There would be balloons, flowers, smiles and hugs in the courtroom, the place where we celebrated these events — made them legal. Often, these “throwaway” kids were rescued, taken home to be loved, by two moms or two dads.

Those kids could then eventually marry into a family in front of a judge and get an official certificate saying it was legal; it was just their parents who could not.  Our neighbors who can’t legally marry take out the garbage, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, coach hockey, burn the turkey.

They’ll help you sell your home, check your X-ray, serve your coffee at the local cafe, and remember your name (and whether you like cream and one sugar).

They teach your kids, get you out of jail if you need a lawyer, help you survive cancer or a heart attack, and provide your hospice care — whispering loving things in your ear and helping you cross the divide.

Maybe your child, or grandchild or best friend have not yet “come out” to you. Or maybe you haven’t come out to them — or to yourself.

Most of us just want someone to hug us when we’re happy or sad, to inhale life’s problems, to hold our hand when we get that unexpected diagnosis and to answer “yes” to a question embedded in our soul: “Do you promise to love and care for each other, in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for better or worse, for as long as you both shall live?  Some of us are lucky enough to have found the partner who loves us enough to say, “I will.”

I have a life partner named Becky, my wife of almost 30 years. She helps me breathe after a day of hearing other people’s saddest problems, pretends to laugh at my jokes, and walks around the lake without making me say a word, holding my hand.

Why should this be denied to us if Becky were a “Bob?”

For Thomas, featured in the New York Times story, it was the one thing he needed before he could die in peace — to hear the woman he loved say in front of a judge: “I do.” I met Liz for the first time a couple weeks ago, on a Tuesday evening at the Anodyne coffee shop, on Nicollet near 43rd Street in south Minneapolis. We’d planned to meet briefly, but parted after hours.

I didn’t know Liz when she left a simple, poignant voice mail on my phone one Saturday morning in late October. I knew the Bible said to “love thy neighbor.”

Liz was my neighbor, someone I’d never met and didn’t know. Now she’s my friend.

Her quiet presence reminded me of the philosophy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of the street named after him in St. Paul where you address your mail when you send something to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the place where the building reads “Equal justice under law.”

Liz wants to enjoy the love and understanding we all deserve.

She wants to be able to look in the mirror, at Jeanne, to have a married life, to legally proclaim: “We are family.”

To be able to say: “I am somebody.”

* * *

Lloyd Zimmerman is a Hennepin County district judge. His New York Times essay was reprinted in the Star Tribune on Oct. 29 as “And, reader, I married them.”