Prison Nation continues to grow.

The number of inmates in adult correctional facilities in the United States has topped two million for the first time, the Census Bureau said yesterday.

It isn't exactly cheery news that there are more people residing in prison than in nursing homes, or that there are slightly fewer living in prison than in college dormitories. The most shocking comparison is this one:

Among people living in group quarters, whites were almost twice as likely to be living in a dormitory than a prison, while Asians were nine times more likely to be in a college dorm than in prison. But blacks and Hispanics were about three times as likely to be imprisoned than to be living in a dormitory.

The Bureau of Prisons has never been responsive to groups that advocate for prisoners' rights, but it turns out that BOP listens to Republicans and evangelical talk show hosts. The Bureau reversed its decision (reported here) to purge prison chapel libraries of all religious texts that aren't on a government-approved list. The new plan seems to be a selective purge.

In an e-mail message Wednesday, the bureau said: “In response to concerns expressed by members of several religious communities, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to alter its planned course of action with respect to the Chapel Library Project. The bureau will begin immediately to return to chapel libraries materials that were removed in June 2007, with the exception of any publications that have been found to be inappropriate, such as material that could be radicalizing or incite violence. The review of all materials in chapel libraries will be completed by the end of January 2008.”

What standards will govern the determination that a religious text is "inappropriate"? Will those decisions be free from religious bias? Don't expect BOP to answer those questions.

more...

Various provisions of the Patriot Act offend the Constitution. Today, federal District Court Judge Ann Aiken focused on the Act's attempt to circumvent the requirement that warrants to search for evidence of suspected criminal activity must be based on probable cause. The Constitution prevailed (pdf).

The case arose out of the FBI's unfounded suspicion that Brandon Mayfield orchestrated a train bombing in Madrid. Mayfield's odyssey is chronicled in these TalkLeft posts. Mayfield brought a lawsuit that, among other things, asked the court to declare the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

Before the Patriot Act, the law allowed the government to obtain a surveillance order from the FISA court when it certified that the primary purpose of surveillance was the gathering of foreign intelligence information. A search primarily intended to uncover evidence of a domestic crime required a showing of probable cause. The Patriot Act authorized a FISA surveillance order when the the executive branch certified that a significant purpose of surveillance was foreign intelligence gathering, even if the surveillance primarily furthered an ordinary criminal investigation.

Judge Aiken identified the constitutional dilemma:

Significantly, a seemingly minor change in wording has a dramatic and significant impact on the application of FISA. A warrant under FISA now issues if "a significant purpose" of the surveillance is foreign intelligence. Now, for the first time in our Nation's history, the government can conduct surveillance to gather evidence for use in a criminal case without a traditional warrant, as long as it presents a non-reviewable assertion that it also has a significant interest in the targeted person for foreign intelligence purposes.

More ...

I'm gonna live blog the Democratic Presidential Debate taking place this evening at Dartmouth College. Or at least as long as I can stand it. It will be broadcast on MSNBC. It starts at 9.

Predict who you think will have a big night tonight. Here's my prediction - Chris Dodd goes after Hillary and Obama on the Iran resolution passed today by the Senate and will press Biden to commit to not funding the Iraq Debacle. Leadership NOW!

After 43 hours of deliberation, the jury considering Phil Spector's fate could not reach a unanimous verdict. (More on the drama surrounding the deliberations here.) Unable to reconcile the differences that led to a 10-2 vote (presumably for conviction), the jury declared itself hopelessly deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial.

The prosecution says it will retry Spector. Second trials often favor the prosecution, since the state has now previewed Spector's defense. In the meantime, Spector remains free on bail, his presumption of innocence intact.

The judge who will decide whether Larry Craig can withdraw his guilty plea isn't making that decision today. He won't decide until next week, after Sen. Craig's tentative resignation date of September 30. Will the delay affect Craig's decision to resign? Apparently so.

“Today was a major step in the legal effort to clear my name,” Craig said in a statement. “The court has not issued a ruling on my motion to withdraw my guilty plea. For now, I will continue my work in the United States Senate for Idaho.”

Translation: For now I will continue to be ineffectual until the court denies my motion.

to this:

The Defense Department is seeking an additional $42.3 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total request for 2008 to nearly $190 billion, according to prepared testimony Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is to present to Congress this afternoon.

No funding past a date certain. The Iraq Debacle must end. Only the Congress can do it. By NOT funding the Iraq Debacle.

Just say no.

Wasting time, good will and attempting to wreak havoc, the original Lieberman-Kyl Amendment on Iran was tantamount to granting President Bush the power to wage war against Iran. Still wasting time and attempting to wreak havoc, the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment was gutted of its war authorizing provisions, but remained provocative, unnecessary and stupid. It should have been voted down. It was not. It passed. Among the Ays was Senator Hillary Clinton. Among the Nays were Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Absent was Senator Barack Obama.

I liked a lot of the new diaries, but these stood out to me:

Will Life Imitate Art?, by Kristin Levingston of Brennan Blog, about a cop, Charles Crew, returning to the justice system that wrongly convicted him of murder, along with discussion other matters.

A Profile of Lula, by Randinho, discussing a NYTimes piece on the labor leader/political dissident who rose to become the President of Brazil.

A Systems Analysis of Iraq, by John Horse, discussing the an analytical systems approach to evaluating the Iraq failures.

More great stuff in the recommended and recent diary lists. Check it out.

While decrying what he terms "poll literalism," Kevin Drum then engages in a curious bit of poll hypotheticalism:

First, withdrawal from Iraq. A recent New York Times poll showed that 65% of respondents want to withdraw either some or all of our troops from Iraq. Hooray! The country is with us! But then the Times asked a followup question: "What if removing troops meant Iraq would become more of a base of operations for terrorists, then would you still favor removing U.S. troops from Iraq, or not?" Guess what? Of that 65%, only 30% still favored removal. That's a huge drop based on a single hypothetical, and in a real campaign that hypothetical would practically blanket the airwarves. It wouldn't convince everyone, of course, but it would probably convince a sizable chunk. The odds are that in real life — i.e., during a campaign

It would probably convince a sizable chunk? How does Kevin know this? Excuse me, this is ridiculous use of polling. Can we do one with a Democratic hypothetical and see what the results would be? Of course not. What Kevin is pointing to is actually push polling. Push polling is not ACCURATE polling and it is impossible to draw any conclusions from it. But Kevin sees value in it, as he then defends the Biden push poll that Celinda Lake performed:

Warren Jeffs isn't exactly a likeable guy (yes, that's an understatement), but the notion that he became an accomplice to rape by orchestrating the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her cousin stands on questionable legal footing.

University of Utah law associate professor Daniel Medwed said he was "mildly surprised" at the verdict. He said he thought the facts of the case were not a perfect fit for the charges, and that lesser charges - possibly solemnizing an illegal marriage - might have been more appropriate. "Feeling he had done something wrong is a little bit of a stretch to saying he was an accomplice to rape," Medwed said.

The jury in Jeff's case was nonetheless convinced, finding him guilty yesterday. Whether the conviction will withstand an appeal is an interesting question.

Another appellate issue may be lurking in this bit of news:

The jurors, who began their deliberations on Friday after a week of testimony, announced in a note on Monday that they were deadlocked on one of two charges. The judge, James L. Shumate, pressed them to continue, and then early on Tuesday, for reasons the court did not explain, an alternate juror was substituted for one of the original panel members. A unanimous verdict came a few hours later.

All we know at this point is the court's official explanation: "there was an event with a juror."

Taking another time-out from the serious issues of the day, Congress held a hearing to complain about music lyrics that "exploit violence and sexism for profit." As if television doesn’t. Here’s a voice of sanity:

At least one performer at the hearing told lawmakers that rap music had been unfairly singled out as a scapegoat for deeper social problems. "Gang violence was here before rap music," said David Banner, a rapper who records for Universal Music and whose real name is Levell Crump. "I can admit that there are some problems in hip-hop, but it is only a reflection of what is taking place in our society. Hip-hop is sick because America is sick."

If Congress wants to be taken seriously, it should focus on the underlying societal problems of racism and sexism and inequality and poverty, not on the reflection of those problems in rap or hip-hop.