Via Politics in the Zeros we've learned that sixty inmates at California's Pelican Bay Prison are on their third week of a hunger strike.

"Lawyers for the inmates say they are protesting the Department of Corrections' practice of isolating prisoners believed to be gang members in harsh segregation units, where they are denied most privileges and are rarely let out of their windowless cells."

"Under state regulations, male convicts determined to be gang members or associates may be sent to a security housing unit at Pelican Bay or at prisons in Corcoran and Tehachapi."

"Their term of isolation in the unit is indefinite, and the only routes out are to be released on, to inform on other gang members through an elaborate debriefing process or to demonstrate no evidence of gang activity for six years."

Some inmates have been wrongly identified as gang members. Once placed in the unit as a gang member, it is very difficult to get out. Attorneys complain that under current rules, the gang member doesn't have to engage in any illegal activity but can be punished for mere association with a gang member.

"They want the state to change its policy to require that only an inmate who engages in overt gang-related misconduct be labeled a member and punished with an indefinite term in a security housing unit."

"The way it is now, you don't actually have to do anything wrong ... you just have to associate with the wrong people," said Charles Carbone, a San Francisco attorney aiding the hunger strikers."

The conditions at Pelican Bay border on the intolerable, according to one federal judge.

"The 1,154 unit inmates spend about 23 hours a day in 8-by-10-foot cells, released only to exercise daily and to shower three times a week. Contact with other inmates and guards is almost nonexistent. The doors are opened by remote control and meals are pushed through slots in the wall."

For more on the conditions, read Visit to Pelican Bay State Torture Chamber.

In an unusual action, the Supreme Court summarily reversed three Ninth Circuit decisions on Monday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered to be the most liberal appeals court in the country. Two of the decisions involved habeas corpus petitions in murder cases.

The article quotes Howard Bashman of How Appealing:

"Summary reversals are an extraordinary result in the U.S. Supreme Court, because they are usually reserved for cases in which the result below was unquestionably wrong," said Philadelphia appellate attorney Howard Bashman. "And three on one day, directed at the same federal appellate court, could be understood as sending a strong message of disapproval."

But Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little, also an appellate lawyer, disagreed. "[The Supreme Court] knows how to write a strong rebuke," Little said. "It's not a strong rebuke."

"Significantly, two reversed the 9th Circuit in habeas corpus appeals from California state courts. In each case, the high court said the circuit decision "exceeds the limits imposed on federal habeas review." Judge Harry Pregerson, one of the 9th Circuit's most liberal jurists, was the principal author of each opinion."

For the record, we have a great deal of respect for Howard Bashman and read his blog almost daily. But we think Judge Pregerson is a fine jurist and agreed with his decisions.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings Law Professor "also said the 9th Circuit has nothing to hang its head about. "

University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Arthur Hellman, who follows the 9th Circuit's record at the Supreme Court, acknowledged that three reversals are rare, but pointed out that the Court let another Ninth Circuit decision stand Monday--one in which the Circuit Court had ruled logging protesters could sue the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department for swabbing pepper spray in their eyes. We agree with that Ninth Circuit decision as well.

The three cases are: Early v. Packer, 02 C.D.O.S. 10897; Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Ventura, 02 C.D.O.S 10898; and Woodford v. Visciotti, 02 C.D.O.S. 10900.

Nelson Rockefeller's grandaughter was arrested while protesting the drug laws that bear her family's name.

Meile Rockefeller was arrested along with two state senators and eight other people outside Gov. Pataki's office.

"Prosecutors strongly support them, but a broad political consensus has formed that they have failed to work as intended — that they are too inflexible, too costly and too harsh when applied to low-level offenders who might do better with treatment and counseling than with long prison sentences. In Albany, political leaders have talked for years about change. But that's where it always ends, with talk."

The protest was sponsored by Correctional Association of New York, an organization that seeks repeal of the drug laws and uses the slogan "Drop the Rock."

Meile's brother Stuart Rockefeller was also at the protest but did not get arrested. Their uncle, Laurance Rockefeller, also opposes the drug laws. In a letter to the New York Times in June he wrote "Overly harsh laws and punishments have reduced faith in government, which is essential to the functioning of a democracy."

Meile, who has been a lawyer and a real estate developer, wants the drug laws repealed so that judges can "regain the power to decide whether a prison term or a treatment program works better for an offender and for society, because they "are the ones right there on the front lines."

Findlaw presents another free, valuable online resource for the U.S. Supreme Court Cases - November 2002 .

The page includes the issues for each case, the decisions of the lower courts and the briefs of each party. For those of you without access to Lexis or Westlaw, free legal research doesn't get much better than this.

Get out and vote today. Your vote can count only if you cast it. Don't let others decide your future, your children's future and our nation's future. You have an opinion, today is your chance to express it. If you don't think much of either candidate in a race, cast your vote against the one you think is the worst and help defeat that candidate.

For the best election video we've seen, check out Revolution from Blah3.com. Someone ought to hire this guy for 2004, now.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has endrosed Mondale for the Senate , calling him a great Minnesotan with Great Vision.

By this time tomorrow, except for possibly a few sqeakers, it will all be over. Then what? Taegan Goddard of Political Wire has a book out, entitled You Won - Now What?, that provides some relevant answers.

You Won, Now What?
How Americans Can Make Democracy Work from City Hall to the White House
by Taegan D. Goddard, Christopher Riback (Contributor)

Buy the Book Today!

From the Introduction:

"This book's premise is straightforward: to successfully take over government, public officials must first learn how to govern. Instead of reinventing government or turning to the latest management fad, new public officials must learn how to succeed in a world unlike any other. They must show voters that their election day choices really matter. They must follow through on their promises. For only through better governing will America get better government. "

Some reviews:

"Americans entrust their government to novices," Riback and Goddard remind us. "Every November they elect a bunch of people who have never done this before." You Won, Now What? offers practical tips on the task of governance, drawing upon real-life examples to illustrate how elected officials can do an effective job in their first--and in some ways most critical--days on the job. Their scope is broad--the authors consider state and local governments to be just as important as the federal government in maintaining quality of life for citizens--but the case studies keep the book from sliding into generalizations."

"In YOU WON - NOW WHAT?, Taegan D. Goddard and Christopher Riback argue convincingly that public disillusionment with government stems less from weariness with scandals and 'inside politics' than from elected officials' failure to deliver the results they promised. Many citizens, the authors correctly observe, 'have simply given up on a government which cannot solve today's urgent problems."

"Is government the problem or the solution? Both, say Goddard, who has held both federal and state appointed positions, and Riback, an investigative reporter. Novice elected and appointed officials bring valuable energy and new ideas to government agencies, but most of these folks don't know how to get things done in government, so they often can't keep campaign promises, and public cynicism rises. The authors hope to make the new-government-official transition easier by challenging cliches ("reinventing government," "run government like a business") and analyzing effective approaches."

(Available in hardcover and paperback)

Election predictions abound. We've read several. These are the ones we think might be closest to the actual results. First up is Jason Rylander on the House and Senate races.

Senate -- Democrats 51-48-1
House -- Republicans 219-215-1

Here is Jason's reasoning:

"As for the Senate, here's how I see it coming out. The Democrats will pick up Arkansas and New Hampshire, while maintaining seats in Georgia, South Dakota, Iowa, New Jersey, and Louisiana. The GOP will pick up Missouri, while maintaining South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. That would give the Dems a one seat pick-up, but there's more: The two wild card races are Minnesota and Colorado. I really think these two are too close to call. Odds are good these races will split, but the question is how. Although this may buck the conventional wisdom, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Minnesota will go GOP and Colorado will go to the Democrats."

Second is Matt Yglesias: "Democrats pick up New Hampshire, Colorado, and Arkansas in the Senate but lose Missouri, going up 52-47-1. When Chafee sees that the GOP's not getting it's majority back he switches, either to the Democrats or, like Jeffords, becomes an "independent." (Posted in Daily Kos' comment section to this post.

Next is Daily Kos, who lists his predictions a little further down in the comments section of the same post:

Senate: Total: 54D-45R-1I, +4D

Arkansas: Pryor (+D)
Colorado: Strickland (+D)
Georgia: Cleland
Iowa: Harkin
Minnesota: Mondale
Missouri: Talent (+R)
New Hampshire: Shaheen (+D)
New Jersey: Lautenberg
North Carolina: Bowles (+D)
South Carolina: Graham
South Dakota: Johnson
Tennessee: Alexander
Texas: Kirk (+D)

Governor Total: 32D-18R, +11D

Alabama: Riley (+R)
Alaska: Ulmer
Arizona: Napolitano (+D)
Arkansas: Fisher (+D)
California: Davis
Florida: Bush
Hawaii: Hirono
Illinois: Blagojevich (+D)
Iowa: Vilseck
Kansas: Sebelius (+D)
Maine: Baldacci (+D)
Maryland: Townsend
Massachusetts: O'Brien (+D)
Michigan: Granholm (+D)
Minnesota: Moe (+D)
New Hampshire: Benson (+R)
New Mexico: Richardson (+D)
Oklahoma: Largent
Oregon: Kulongoski
Penn: Rendell (+D)
Rhode Island: York (+D)
South Carolina: Sanford (+R)
Tennessee: Bredesen (+D)
Texas: Perry
Vermont: Racine
Wisconsin: Doyle (+D)
Wyoming: Freudenthal (+D)

As for MyDD, who ran a contest on election results, his predictions, as well as those of the contest entrants, are here:

218-216-1 DEM 53-46-1 DEM 29-21-0 DEM

His reasons are here, here and here.

For live blogger coverage of the elections, we highly recommend Atrios/Eschaton and Daily Kos who both report they will be on duty. If MyDD or Political Wire are online, we recommend them too.

Here are the key races for crime issues according to The Justice Coalition. The urls are next to or under the names rather than embedded blog style because it came via email and we don't have the time to retype it.

Please note: the candidates with bolded names are our choice. The Justice Project did not make recommendations.

Here's the email:

"Following are the candidates in some key elections from across the country, the winners of which can make significant impacts on the death penalty at both the state and federal levels. Please take a moment to research your candidates' positions on the issues and vote! This is certainly not a comprehensive list, and only those statewide candidates with web pages have been listed. Write-in candidates have also been excluded. Among the many places to get information on all the national campaigns is Politics1.com and the Moratorium Campaign's excellent compilation on their website as well.

Governor Florida

Jeb Bush (incumbent, R) http://www.myflorida.com/b_eog/owa/b_eog_www.html.main_page

Bob Kunst (I)
http://www.kunstforgov.com/

Bill McBride (D)
http://www.mcbride2002.com/

Governor Idaho

Jeff Brady (D)
http://www.bradyforidaho.com/

Dirk Kempthorne (incumbent, R)
http://www2.state.id.us/gov/index.htm

Governor Maryland

Bob Ehrlich ®
http://www.bobehrlich.org/intro.html

Spear Lancaster (L)
http://www.spear2002.com/

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D)
http://www.friendsofkathleen.com/

Governor, Texas

Rahul Mahanjan (G)
http://www.rahulmahajan.com/

Rick Perry (incumbent, R)
http://www.rickperry.org/

Tony Sanchez (D)
http://www.tonysanchez.com/default.php

US Senate, New Jersey

Doug Forrester ®
http://www.forrester2002.com/

Ted Glick (G)
http://www.glickforsenate.org/

Frank Lautenberg (D)
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/templ/display.cfm?id=178&dis=3

Elizabeth Macron (L)
http://www.macron4senate.com/

Greg Pason (S)
http://www.votepason.org/

US Senate, South Carolina

Lindsey Graham ®
http://www.lindseygraham.com/

Victor Kocher (L)
http://www.votekocher.com/

Alex Sanders (D)
http://www.sanders2002.com/

US Senate, Minnesota

Norm Coleman ®
http://www.colemanforsenate.com/

Walter Mondale (DFL)
http://www.fritzmondale.org/

Miro Drago Kovatchevich (Constitution)
http://www.manidest.com/

Jim More (IP)
http://www.mooreforsenate.org/

Ray Tricomo (G)
http://www.raytricomo.org/

US Senate, Missouri

Jean Carnahan (incumbent, D)
http://www.jeancarnahan.com/

Tamara Millay (L)
http://www.tamaramillay.org/

Daniel "Digger" Romano (G)
http://www.mogreens.org/romano.htm

Jim Talent ®
http://www.talentforsenate.com/

You can register to vote and find out more about the candidates through an interactive map on the Justice Project's website.

We like the Moratorium Campaign's list of key races. It has snippets on the various candidates' positions.

Wayne Allard has an abysmal voting record on crime and civil liberties issues. You can check it out at Wayne Allard on the Issues. Allard

The Washington Post reports that senior officials are now saying the U.S. may let Virginia try the two sniper suspects first. A second option is letting Maryland go first. The reason is Ashcroft's "fervent" support for the death penalty.

In Virginia, both suspects are eligible for the death penalty. In Maryland and in federal courts, 17 year olds cannot be put to death.

We think deciding where to prosecute by the likelihood of the success of the death penalty is wrong and makes us look barbaric. The assignment should be made on the basis of which jurisdiction has the best evidence against the pair and was the most affected by the case. In addition, it's unseemly to be talking as if death is a foregone conclusion. Doesn't anyone remember that the two defendants have not yet had a trial or been found guilty? This is like a scene out of Alice in Wonderland: "No, No" said the Queen. "First the punishment, then the verdict."

We'll be discussing the options and likely scenarios on Fox News Monday around 2:30 p.m., ET

Update:

We noticed that a New York Times Editorial also makes an analogy to Alice in Wonderland but uses slightly different words. We looked up the original quote and found this:

"'Then the words don't fit you,' said the King looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an angry tone, and everyone laughed. 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved'".

Instapundit takes issue with our statement that deciding the place of prosecution based on where the likelihood of getting a death sentence is greatest makes us look barbaric. We respect Professor Reynold's views a great deal, but we point out that one of these defendants is 17 years old. Only the United States, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo have reported executing juvenile offenders since 1990. Human Rights treaties do not allow for execution of juveniles. We believe the rest of the civilized world regards executing juveniles as barbaric and will view us as barbaric if we use the death penalty as the yardstick for where the juvenile should be prosecuted.

A few weeks ago, four Justices of the Supreme Court wrote in a dissenting opinion in Florida v. Foster that the practice of executing juveniles is "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.... We should put an end to this shameful practice." The justices also noted, "like the mentally retarded, adolescents lack the impulse control of adults, and are thus neither deterred by the threat of death nor fully morally culpable for their actions. Society recognizes the immaturity of adolescents by forbidding them to vote, marry, drink or serve on juries."

Now it seems like our Attorney General is determined to choose a jurisdiction to try a 17 year old based on where he is most likely to be sentenced to death. The decision to seek the death penalty should not be made on the basis of the heinousness of the crime alone. Consider also that the Attorney-General is not supposed to make a decision to seek the death penalty until the Justice Department has given the defendant's lawyers a meeting at which they can argue against it. The Justice Department must consider factors concerning the character and history of the accused in addition to that of the severity of the crime before making a decision to seek the death penalty. That process has not even begun. For the Attorney General to call for the death penalty before being presented with this information is just plain wrong, not to mention in violation of the Justice Department's own guidelines.

Also, thanks to Instapundit, we noticed that our original post incorrectly identified Alice In Wonderland as Alice and Wonderland and we have corrected it.

Amid Doubts About Competency, Mentally Ill Man Faces Execution in today's New York Times:

"Barring an unexpected reprieve, James Colburn will be executed on Wednesday for the 1994 strangulation and stabbing death of Peggy Murphy. He admits he committed the murder, just as prosecutors admit the other salient point in the case: that Mr. Colburn is severely mentally ill."

Mr. Colburn was given copious amounts of anti-psychotic drugs during his trial. He slept through most of it. That is the issue now before the Supreme Court--"whether it matters that he dozed through his own murder trial because he was so heavily medicated with antipsychotic drugs. His lawyers argue that the trial was unconstitutional, because his condition rendered him incompetent to stand trial. The federal appeals courts, so far, have disagreed, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court."

We recommend reading the article for the details of his mental illness, and the jurors' reactions to learning about it after the trial.