Friday, November 12, 2010
National Parole Resource Center Receives New Funding
The National Parole Resource Center (NPRC), a partnership of the Association of Paroling Authorities International and the Center for Effective Public Policy, funded by the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA), is pleased to announce that they have received additional funding from BJA to support the work of NPRC. To read more about this additional funding click HERE
NIC Core Competencies Document Now on Web
The National Institute of Correction’s publication entitled Core Competencies: A Resource for Parole Board Chairs, Members and Executive Staff is now available on the NIC website. To view this excellent piece of work on an extremely important issue click HERE .
Monday, November 8, 2010
APAI Website Updated
The APAI website has been updated to include an updated membership form, the October 2010 Newsletter, and updated 2011 Annual Training Conference information such as registration fees. Visit the website HERE!
A no-pardon Justice Department
President Obama should rely more on his own moral judgment than the Justice Department's in making clemency and pardon decisions.
The Times' well-intentioned Oct. 30 editorial bemoaning that fact that President Obama hasn't yet granted any pardons or commutations, in which the editorial board correctly notes that the president is "aided in such decisions by the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department," betrays a profound misunderstanding of the role the pardon office plays in the clemency advisory process. In particular, The Times writes, "Ideally, presidents would give great deference to the pardon attorney's recommendations and take a liberal view of the clemency power, exercising it often and on the basis of clear standards."
This assertion is hopelessly confused. In fact, the problem in the vast majority of garden-variety clemency cases — those involving ordinary applicants for whom a grant of clemency would not cause any public controversy — is precisely that recent presidents have given far too much deference to the pardon attorney's office. Having spent more than 10 years as a staff attorney in that office, I can say with some authority that the prevailing view within the Justice Department is that the pardon attorney's sole institutional function is to defend the department's prosecutorial prerogatives. There is little, if any, pretense of neutrality, much less liberality. On this parochial view, the institution of a genuinely humane clemency policy would be considered an insult to the good work of line prosecutors. Read More...
The Times' well-intentioned Oct. 30 editorial bemoaning that fact that President Obama hasn't yet granted any pardons or commutations, in which the editorial board correctly notes that the president is "aided in such decisions by the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department," betrays a profound misunderstanding of the role the pardon office plays in the clemency advisory process. In particular, The Times writes, "Ideally, presidents would give great deference to the pardon attorney's recommendations and take a liberal view of the clemency power, exercising it often and on the basis of clear standards."
This assertion is hopelessly confused. In fact, the problem in the vast majority of garden-variety clemency cases — those involving ordinary applicants for whom a grant of clemency would not cause any public controversy — is precisely that recent presidents have given far too much deference to the pardon attorney's office. Having spent more than 10 years as a staff attorney in that office, I can say with some authority that the prevailing view within the Justice Department is that the pardon attorney's sole institutional function is to defend the department's prosecutorial prerogatives. There is little, if any, pretense of neutrality, much less liberality. On this parochial view, the institution of a genuinely humane clemency policy would be considered an insult to the good work of line prosecutors. Read More...
Ankle monitors: a high-demand accessory for minor criminals: In Allegheny County, 925 wait for ankle bracelets
Electronic monitoring devices, black anklets made of rubber and plastic, are not exactly coveted, but in Allegheny County they are certainly in high demand.
Last week, about 1,200 people were wearing the monitoring units, mostly used to enforce house arrest for those convicted in Common Pleas Court of minor criminal offenses. Another 925 people were waiting for them.
The electronic monitoring waiting list started ballooning about a year ago, about the same time the court introduced a program to expedite minor cases. Read More...
Last week, about 1,200 people were wearing the monitoring units, mostly used to enforce house arrest for those convicted in Common Pleas Court of minor criminal offenses. Another 925 people were waiting for them.
The electronic monitoring waiting list started ballooning about a year ago, about the same time the court introduced a program to expedite minor cases. Read More...
Schwarzenegger veto of killer's parole overturned
The state parole board has approved Michael McDonald's release three times and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed it each time, saying the convicted murderer showed a "lack of insight" into his crime because he still insisted he was innocent.
But a state appeals court says that neither the governor nor the board can insist on a confession before paroling a prisoner who, based on the evidence, is not dangerous. Read More...
But a state appeals court says that neither the governor nor the board can insist on a confession before paroling a prisoner who, based on the evidence, is not dangerous. Read More...
Reforming Sex Offender Laws: California's Chelsea's Law rethinks the way state manages sex offenders who will return to society
After the rape and murder of Chelsea King, a San Diego County teenager, California legislators decided they had to do something. Amid the emotions of the tragedy, they passed a rational, thoughtful law.
That was an unexpected outcome, because many of the approaches that states take to prevent sex crimes are based more on fears than hard evidence. That’s as true in California as any other place. There, with the support of most of the state’s key politicians, voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative, known as Jessica’s Law, that barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, day-care centers, parks or churches. Read More...
That was an unexpected outcome, because many of the approaches that states take to prevent sex crimes are based more on fears than hard evidence. That’s as true in California as any other place. There, with the support of most of the state’s key politicians, voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative, known as Jessica’s Law, that barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, day-care centers, parks or churches. Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)