A battle is brewing between outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan and Governor-Elect Rod Blagojevich over Ryan's continuing to grant state jobs to people even though he's leaving office next week. Today, the Illinois Senate approved Ryan's appointments.

"Gov. George Ryan's last-minute appointments to various state jobs were approved Tuesday by the Illinois Senate despite objections from the man who will take over as governor in less than a week. Gov.-elect Rod Blagojevich is exploring ways to reverse the appointments, and a lawsuit is one possibility, an aide said."

The Senate approved the three most major appointments by a vote of 47-2. Other, lower-profile appointments — many of them unpaid — were approved by similar margins.

"Ryan argues that so long as he is governor, it's his job to fill vacancies on important boards and commissions. He rejects the argument that it is wrong to saddle the new governor with people who will be making policy for years to come. In addition to making appointments that need Senate approval, Ryan has given long-term state jobs to a variety of aides and political allies."

Free today only (actually you make $50.00) on Amazon, the Motorola V-70, a savings of $350.00, but requires new service activation. (T-Mobile)

Today Only on Amazon

We bought this Motorola V-60i Cell Phone (AT&T) last week for $199.00. You can get it on Amazon today only for $49.00, with new service activation.

Today Only on Amazon

(Found via Gizmodo and Instapundit)

This is the text of the memorandum that went out December 20, 2002, to all federal judges from Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director of the Bureau of Prisons:

This memorandum informs you that the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is implementing a significant procedure change regarding inmate designations to community corrections centers (CCC) (also known as "halfway-houses"). The Bureau has had a practice of honoring some judicial recommendations to place inmates in CCCs for the imprisonment portions of their sentences. Effective immediately, this practice will no longer be followed. The Bureau will not use CCCs as a substitute for imprisonment.

This procedure change follows recent guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), finding that the term "community confinement" is not synonymous with "imprisonment." OLC has determined that the Bureau's practice of using CCCs as a substitute for imprisonment contravenes well-established case law, and is inconsistent with U.S.S.G. 5C1.1.

This procedure change will be implemented prospectively, with the following exception. Inmates designated to CCCs who, as of December 16, 2002, had more than 150 days remaining to serve on their prison terms, will be re-designated by the Bureau to prison institutions.

(Received from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, courtesy of Howard O. Kieffer, Executive Director, Federal Defense Associates )

A new death penalty study finds that in Maryland, blacks are more likely to be sentenced to death if their victims are white. The study was commissioned in 2000 by outgoing Governor Parris Glendening. "Criminologist Ray Paternoster found that the race of the defendant was not significant in death penalty-eligible cases, but wrote that the race of the victim proved a major factor in determining whether prosecutors sought the death penalty."

From the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty ( NCADP):

The study, conducted by the University of Maryland criminologist Ray Pateroster, found that black offenders who kill white victims are most likely to receive the death penalty. Of the 12 people currently on Maryland's death row, eight are black and four are white, and every person on death row was convicted in connection with the murder of a white victim. This is despite the fact that in recent years, about 80 percent of homicides in the state of Maryland involve black victims.
"Race plays a key role in who is sentenced to death across the United States in general and in Maryland in particular," said Steven W. Hawkins, NCADP executive director. "Our criminal justice system is supposed to be colorblind, but as this study shows, it is the exact opposite. Somehow, our system seems
to value the lives of white victims more than it does black victims."

The study also found tremendous geographic bias in how prosecutors seek the death penalty. About three-fourths of the people on Maryland's death row were prosecuted in Baltimore County, a largely suburban area that surrounds the city of Baltimore. Yet Baltimore County accounts for only 7 percent of Maryland's homicides. Prosecutors in most Maryland counties do not even seek death sentences, perhaps over concerns over cost and perhaps over concerns about
prevailing community sentiment.

"We know that geographic bias plays a role in the death penalty nationwide," Hawkins said. "In 2002, for example, only 13 states carried out executions -- a modern day low. This geographic bias seems even more pronounced in Maryland, where people prosecuted in Baltimore County are many times more likely to face a possible death sentence than people prosecuted in Montgomery or Prince George's County, or in the city of Baltimore."

Let's hope this bodes well for Maryland retaining its moratorium on the death penalty.

Update: The 79 page Executive Summary of the report is here. An e-mail from the Justice Project advises that "the report will be used to call for the state's General Assembly to pass a legislative moratorium on the death penalty. Gov.-elect Ehrlich has stated previous to the report's release he will terminate the moratorium upon his upcoming inauguration."

Here is the University of Maryland's press release on the study.

This new progressive weblog, Political Strategy, which its authors refer to as the "Sun Tzu Files" looks very good to us. They are looking for feedback, so go over and read and then give them some.

We think this news, which came out just before Christmas got buried. We wrote about it on December 26, having found out about it on one of our legal discussion list-servs, when lawyers started hearing from their clients they had received a notice they were going to be moved from a halfway house to prison. Since the Washington Post has revived it with this informative article in today's paper, we are reprinting our prior post:

The business section of today's New York Times has an article on Ashcroft's directive to the Bureau of Prisons that white collar offenders with short sentences must serve their time in federal prison, not half-way houses. For the past decade, the BOP has been allowing such offenders to go directly to a halfway house.

"In a memorandum last week to Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Ashcroft said that the practice violated federal sentencing laws that require imprisonment and that it offered favorable treatment to white-collar criminals. The directive from the attorney general was first reported by Newsweek."

Because of Ashcroft's new policy, about 125 white collar offenders now in halfway houses will return to federal prisons.

The New York Times article also addresses in detail the proposed sentencing guideline changes for white collar offenders under the newly enacted Sarbanes-Oxley Act --changes with which the Justice Department is not happy.

When a law is enacted that increases penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to draw up new sentencing guidelines. They send them out for public comment. Then they vote on them. After that, unless Congress affirmatively takes action, the new guidelines automatically become law.

The Commission promulgated new guidelines on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and sent them out for comment. In two weeks, the Commission will vote on them. The Justice Department strongly objects to the proposed guidelines because they are not tough enough for low level fraud offenders. The two agencies have been feuding for months over this issue.

"Justice Department officials said in recent interviews that they plan to broaden their corporate investigations to focus more intensely on the professional "gatekeepers" - lawyers, accountants and others - who may have facilitated frauds."

Maybe now that Aschroft's actions are going to affect some prospersous people, some of whom undoubtedly must have "connections", we'll hear louder protests of Ashcroft and his brand of non-compassionate conservatism.

NCADP UNVEILS NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO END JUVENILE EXECUTIONS

"Jan. 7, 2003 - The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty today launched a campaign to end juvenile executions at a time when the United States is one of only two countries actively engaged in the barbaric practice of executing people for crimes committed before they turn 18 years old.

NCADP said it will focus its campaign on state legislatures in the 22 states that still allow people who commit crimes before they turn 18 to be sentenced to death. Approximately 80 juvenile offenders are on death row, primarily in Texas and in the Deep South.

"No civilized society executes juvenile offenders," said Steven W. Hawkins, NCADP executive director. "We do not let juveniles sign contracts, serve in the military, marry, purchase alcohol or cigarettes or even vote. Yet we somehow deem them eligible for the death penalty. The double standard is appalling."

Announcement of the campaign comes one day after Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove announced he is granting a stay of execution to Ron Chris Foster, a juvenile offender. Foster's execution, which had been scheduled for 6 p.m. Central Standard Time Wednesday, has been indefinitely delayed, pending review of Foster's case before the Mississippi Supreme Court and review of another case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Tapped, one of our very favorite blogs, comments on our recent post criticizing Rangel for suggesting a military draft as a means of garnering congressional opposition to a war on Iraq. Tapped acknowledges that Rangel's proposal is ..."clearly a political gambit and not a serious policy proposal," and agrees with us that "drafting people in order to sap support for a war in Iraq is a terrible idea."

That's really the only point we were making. As we said in a follow-up post, "we cannot support risking the lives of this country's youth to make a political point. They should not be used as pawns in the war debate."

Tapped says it disagrees with us that the draft itself is a terrible thing. But, we haven't taken a position on the draft as a concept by itself. We were criticizing Rangel for using it as a political ploy - relying upon our experience with the draft during Vietnam to show how traumatic it is to the kids who are forced to go. What kind of person suggests such a thing when they don't believe the war is necessary or in the best interest of our country? Since Rangel opposes the war, we think it is a cheap political stunt to offer up a draft as a solution, when a draft would be so risky to the lives of all American youth.

If Rangel opposes the war, let him do the job he was elected to do--confer with and convince other congresspersons to see it his way and oppose the war because the war is a bad idea. We were calling on liberals not to let him get away with treating the youths of this country as expendable pawns in the debate.

Were we not on the precipe of a war we oppose, we would sit down and contemplate the issues that Tapped addressed today: Is a draft ever legitimate or desirable? Should we have a compuslory national service plan for those who object to serving in the military? Chances are, we might answer yes, in some instances. World War II would be a good example. But drafting and enacting that kind of legislation is a huge undertaking that should be done over time, after careful reflection and consideration of all aspects. We haven't done that and either has Congress.

However, we can't agree with Tapped that all conservatives (and impliedly, Republicans) are opposed to a draft or compulsory national service. Certainly, not all Democrats are in favor of them.

First, take a look at H.CON.RES.368, introduced on March 20, 2002 by Rep. Ron Paul ® and co-sponsored by Rep John Conyers, Jr. (D), Rep John J. Duncan, J ®, Jr. , Rep Cynthia McKinney (D), Rep George Miller (D), Rep Patsy Mink (D), and Rep Pete Fornay Stark (D). [All references to this bill and the one that follows are available on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Service, just type in the bill numbers.]

The title of the bill states "Expressing the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft or implementing any other form of compulsory military service in the United States would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence."

On March 20, 2002 the bill was referred to the House Armed Services Committee, and on April 5, to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. No further action was taken.

[Yes, we know that Rep. Conyers has now joined Rangel's call for a draft, but you'll have to ask him about his abrupt change of position--we have no explanation.]

The text of the resolution reads:

Whereas the Armed Forces have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States for almost 30 years solely on the basis of voluntary service;

Whereas the Department of Defense issued a report in 1993 titled `A Review of the Continued Requirement for Draft Registration', which stated that draft registration could be suspended without irreparable damage to national security;

Whereas each branch of the Armed Forces has traditionally been able to meet or exceed its recruitment targets;

Whereas the recent success of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan has once again demonstrated the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States;

Whereas a military draft introduces tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted, thus undermining the cohesiveness of military units, which is vital to military effectiveness;

Whereas those individuals who are forced to serve in the military are unlikely to choose the military as a career or to share the same enthusiasm for military service as those who volunteer;

Whereas the most effective method of meeting the personnel needs of the Armed Forces is to increase the pay and benefits of veterans and members of the Armed Forces; ....

Whereas the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States is opposed by leaders and organizations of various political affiliations, including former President Ronald Reagan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Noble laureates Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, former Senator Bill Bradley, the American Civil Liberties Union, Minnesota Governor and former Navy SEAL, Jesse Ventura, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Veterans for Peace, the Libertarian Party, the Mennonite Church, and the Conservative Caucus;

Whereas the military draft violates the principles of liberty on which the United States was founded; and

Whereas compulsory military service is a form of involuntary servitude: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft or implementing any other form of compulsory military service in the United States would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Example Two: Now take a look at H.R. 3598, The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, introduced by Republicans Smith of Michigan and Weldon of Pennsylvania on December 28, 2001 and later referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Rep Roscoe Bartlett ® is a co-sponsor.

The Title of the bill states it is "To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year."

Here is the official summary of the bill:

Makes it the obligation of male citizens and residents between 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless otherwise exempt under this Act. Permits female citizens and residents between such ages to volunteer for enlistment in the armed forces, with acceptance at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned. Limits the period of training to between six months and a year. Permits transfers after basic training of such conscripts/volunteers to national and community service programs to finish the term of service. Provides educational services and Montgomery GI benefits to persons upon completion of their national service.

Uses the existing Selective Service System and local boards for induction. Sets forth criteria for deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including high school, hardship, disability, and health.

Entitles inductees to request a particular service branch. Excludes conscientious objectors from combatant training, but otherwise requires them to take basic training before a permitted transfer to a national service program.

Both of these legislative proposals were introduced after Sept. 11. The one introduced by Republicans calls for mandatory military training/service and compulsory national service for objectors and has no Democratic co-sponsors. The resolution introduced by a Republican but co-sponsored by several liberal democrats opposes a draft.

Frankly, the whole issue seems to be too politicized to make heads or tails of. But we stand by our criticism of Rangel for suggesting, and promising to introduce, legislation that puts all kids at risk simply to make a poltical point and grab a soundbite.

We've talked a lot about the dangers of using what we call "purchased testimony," by which we mean the testimony of informants or cooperating individuals that is obtained by the Government through promises of leniency in their own criminal cases. After all, given a chance at a reduced sentence or no sentence at all through immunity, who among that group do you think would not lie or stretch the truth, or at least provide the prosecutor's or FBI's version of the truth, to save their own hide?

As we've often said, freedom is a far more precious commodity than money, and the snitch system makes it too easy for untrustworthy, unreliable wrong-doers to fabricate or embellish a story to get someone else in trouble and thereby cut themselves some slack.

And now we have a great example. ABC News is reporting that the FBI alert for five men thought to have entered the U.S. from Canada on Christmas Eve was based on a hoax by an informant who was trying to get leniency in his own criminal case in exchange for the information.

"The FBI has concluded the information that led to a hunt for five men thought to have entered the United States illegally on Christmas Eve was fabricated by an informant, ABC News reported on Monday."

"Citing unnamed sources, the report said the informant identified as Michael John Hamdani, who was arrested in Canada, made up the story about 19 men who sought false passports in an attempt to get himself off the hook on criminal charges he was facing in the United States."

Case closed.

Democratic Presidential Nomination contender Dick Gephardt has announced that win or lose his presidential bid, he will not seek re-election to Congress.

He must have another job already lined up. We'll go out on a limb and say that right now, he's probably not even in the top three and his chances are not likely to improve. He's already had his turn and came up short. He's not inspirational. He doesn't instill confidence. He lacks a distinguishing vision for the future of the Democratic party. And he, along with Daschle, helped broker the deal for support of the war. We have nothing against him personally, we just don't see him as the winning candidate.

He brings nothing new to the table.

Via How Appealing, we learn that the California Supreme Court ruled today that a male commits forcible rape if his female partner consents to intercourse, intercourse begins, and then she changes her mind and wants to stop. Here's the full opinion which begins with:

We granted this case to settle a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions as to whether the crime of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) is committed if the female victim consents to an initial penetration by her male companion, and then withdraws her consent during an act of intercourse, but the male continues against her will. (Compare People v. Vela (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 237 (Vela) [no rape committed] with People v. Roundtree (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 846 (Roundtree) [rape committed].) We agree with Roundtree and the Court of Appeal in the present case that a withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse."

The male in question was a juvenile at the time of the crime. His female partner was 17. The Lone dissenting Justice , Janice Rogers Brown, wrote:

"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?"

In her dissent, Justice Brown accused the majority of ignoring "critical questions about the nature and sufficiency of proof in a post-penetration rape case" and argued that 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.

"The majority finds Laura's 'actions and words' clearly communicated withdrawal of consent in a fashion 'no reasonable person in defendant's position' could have mistaken," Brown wrote. "But Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted. And none of her statements are unequivocal."

[comments now closed]

Alan Drazek, a former political aide to Illinois Governor George Ryan, pleaded guilty to tax fraud today in a plea deal, a component of which is that he will testify against Gov. Ryan's former Chief of Staff Scott Fawell and Ryan's campaign committee, whose trial on charges they used "state employees and tax money to wage political campaigns going back to 1991" begins this week.

"Drazek is expected to get a reduced sentence of less than 10 months in return for his cooperation. A sentencing date wasn't immediately set."

"Ryan, a Republican leaving office Jan. 13, has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing, although recent court papers said he knew of the destruction of documents to keep them out of the hands of federal agents."

Why do we put so much trust in cooperating individuals whose testimony is purchased with promises of leniency, a commodity far more precious than money?