Thanks to Craig Cheslog of Political Parrhesia for sending us to Pat Nolan's commentary in today's Washington Times, Prison Rape: It's No Joke.

With Congress back in session, another bill needs your support. "Sens. Kennedy and Sessions and Reps. Wolf and Scott have teamed up to sponsor the "Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002," S. 2619 and H.R. 4943, which would establish standards for investigating and eliminating rape, and hold the states accountable if they fail to do so. " Here is TalkLeft's earlier description of and support for the bill.

Mr. Nolan, president of the Justice Fellowship, a non-profit group based in Reston, Va., also sums the situation up quite well:

"Experts estimate that at least one in 10 inmates is raped in prison. Because 95 percent of prisoners will eventually be released back into our communities, the horrors that occur inside prison have consequences for the rest of us, too."

"As troubling as the incidence of rape is, equally disturbing is the attitude of many government officials who are indifferent to it. When asked about prison rape, Massachusetts Department of Correction spokesman Anthony Carnevales said, "Well, that's prison . . . I don't know what to tell you." In that offhand remark, he was expressing what many feel in their hearts but are loathe to admit — "they deserve it."

"But they don't deserve it. Regardless of the crimes they have committed, no offender's sentence includes being raped while in the custody of the government."

"Winston Churchill said that the manner in which a society treats criminals "is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country." As Congress rushes to complete its work before the election recess, it is important that they take the time to deal with the scandal of prison rape, and, in doing so, meet Churchill's test of a civilized society."

Rave Act Action Alert: September 6, 2002
Please call your Senators on Friday, September 6th:

The RAVE Act would give the DEA the power to raid property owners who host events where marijuana and other drugs might be used.

On September 6th, call your Senators and tell them to oppose S. 2633, the RAVE Act. Tell them that innocent business owners shouldn't be punished for the activities of their customers. Tell them this bill has dangerous anti-civil liberties provisions that they need to be aware of, and that it's a threat to public health.

Here is more information on the Rave Act protest campaign. Here is more from TalkLeft on what's wrong with the bill. Here is law professor Glenn Reynolds' Fox News column "Raving Lunacy" decrying the proposed Act.

This is an ill-advised piece of legislation. Get on the horn today. Congress is back in session and this day has been targeted as the day to make these protests. Emails are not as effective as phone calls and faxes.

Santa Cruz officials are fuming over yesterday's pot club bust in which DEA agents arrested the clubs' founders and confiscated plants used by terminally ill patients. The club has operated with the support of the local authorities for years.

After the seizures, a few dozen people blocked the road demanding the return of the plants as DEA agents tried to depart. DEA called in the local cops to help.

"... some local police officers were irritated by the federal agents' actions. 'What a bunch of babies these DEA guys are,' said one disgusted Santa Cruz officer, who did not want to be identified. 'They're up there with all these agents, but they see a bunch of pot-smoking sick people on the road, and they have to call us for help.' "

Cincinnati is a nice place to visit, but we'd think twice now about moving there. The New York Times today reports that the city has put all of its county records on the Internet--details of divorces, tax liens, traffic tickets, arrest warrants, bond information and more.

Is this really necessary? Or even desirable? We don't think so. Trials, for example, are public but that doesn't mean all of them are televised. And the defendant must have an opportunity to address the court on the issue before a final decision is made. Trials should take place in courtrooms, not living rooms. Being open to the public should mean the public has the right to attend the proceeding, not that the public has a right to have all the details brought into their homes.

The same should apply to public records. If someone is interested, let them take a trip to their county courthouse and look through those that interest them. At a minimum, give someone notice and a chance to object before broadcasting the intimate details of their personal, financial and family lives to the world.

Privacy rights are indeed eroding in this country and we must do more to stem the tide. State and local governments increasingly are confronting this issue with little or no legal precedent. It's time to take a stand, and here's one you can take locally and make a difference.

More bad news on the immigration law front. According to Deidre Davidson in today's Legal Times article Into the Line of Fire,

"The court of last resort for many immigrants is about to undergo a radical transformation that lawyers say will result in more deportations and fewer grants of asylum. Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced new regulations that will slash jobs from the Board of Immigration Appeals and require the board to eliminate its entire backlog of cases by next March. The immigration rights community is outraged."

Among the new changes:

The size of the Board of Immigration Appeals will be slashed from 19 to 11 members. This is important because the Board handles 30,000 cases a year of people seeking asylum or fighting deportation.

"The Board of Immigration Appeals is not a federal court. It is part of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is itself a division of the Justice Department. The judges and board members are DOJ employees -- not administrative law judges, who by law are given a level of independence from the agency whose decisions they review."

It is also separate from the INS which has the authroity to arrest, detain and prosecute illegal immigrants. But both the INS and the Board report to Ashcroft, and he can overule them at his pleasure.

According to immigration law specialists, the slashing of the size of the Board will result in less due process for those trying to establish a permanent home here and "scanty" review of deportation decisions.

"In addition to cutting the board's size, Ashcroft's new rules expand the streamlining efforts and require that almost every appeal be reviewed by a single judge, rather than a panel. Only cases that present "difficult or novel" issues will get a three-judge review. "

"By going to the single-board-member review, one board member would have much more power. The only way [Ashcroft] can neutralize the liberals on the board while going to a one-board-member system is to get rid of them."

"Ashcroft also is eliminating the board's power of de novo factual review, except in cases where lower-level judges are "clearly erroneous" in their finding of facts in a case. Other changes include shorter time limits for filing appeals and briefs and for issuing decisions. "

Critics charge that fewer judges will mean "cases will get more-cursory looks, and more lower-level decisions, most of which side with INS initiatives to seek deportation or deny asylum, will be upheld....They also say immigrants may find it more difficult and more expensive to get a lawyer willing to handle their appeals due to the shortened time frames for filing appeals and briefs. About 36 percent of the aliens who appealed to the board in 2001 did not have legal counsel, DOJ statistics show. "

The largest outcry is against the reduction of judges. "[The board's] legitimacy in the eyes of the public and among the immigrant community is based on its ability to act in an independent and fair-minded way," says T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and former INS general counsel. "If the attorney general uses his authority to pack and stack the board with members who tend to agree with the immigration service, that is not impartial justice."

Can a death row inmate waive his right to a jury trial on the issue of his mental capacity when the decision could possibly save his life?

The Georgia Supreme Court will tackle that question in oral arguments Monday.

"Lawyers for the inmate, James Randall Rogers, contend that he may not waive the trial because it is in the public interest to make sure that the government does not execute someone who is mentally retarded. The state's lawyers respond that Rogers made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to waive the trial and that a judge -- after resolving that the inmate was not retarded -- may grant the waiver. "

Both the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Marijuana Policy Project are abuzz with news that the Canadian Senate Special Committee has released a 600 page report recommending the legalization of marijuana.

Proceedings, testimony, research, general information and the full report can be found on this website of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.

Thanks to fellow lawyer/blogger Sam Heldman for this compliment to TalkLeft: "I love reading all the people on the left-hand side of this page. But this morning I am especially loving TalkLeft because the site is chock-full of actual information and factual support for their opinions."

Sam is a left-leaning blogger and labor lawyer in Alabama who writes on law and politics and we enjoy reading him.

This just in from NORML....the DEA is raiding a center for terminally ill women:

"Sept. 5, 2002: We are outraged to report that the DEA is currently raiding the Women's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz, a collective serving 300 seriously ill patients. WAMM Director Valerie Corral and Mike Corral are in handcuffs, and the DEA is destroying their garden.

WAMM is a non-profit collective representing the most severely ill (mainly terminal) patients....

D. Gieringer, Cal NORML"

Update: AP article on the raid.

Instapundit today highlights a new law enforcement weblog called Guardman. We took a look, and were not thrilled to learn the following about those who post comments on blogs:

"When you post a comment, you should keep in mind that IP addresses are recorded and if there is any question that a comment is in any way illegal (remember, harassment and stalking statutes are very broad in some states) this information may be used by a subpoena-wielding, irate police management type, to track down the author of the comment. Trust me, it can be done. And, it is done all the time. You might be surprised at how easy it is to track down 'anonymous' posters when necessary. "

Chisun Lee of the Village Voice suggests the Justice Department is subverting its own secrecy arguments with respect to the detainees in Open-and-Shut Cases.

If the Justice Department is so concerned about the need for secrecy, so concerned it must keep the detainees' cases out of U.S. federal courts, then why all the detail in last week's six indictments out of Detroit and Seattle?

"Last week's indictments seemed to reveal exactly the sort of information the government said it wanted to protect in a recent court fight with civil liberties organizations seeking the names of more than 750 September 11 detainees...."

"...for the government's critics, last week's events called for some serious explaining: If national security and significant amounts of public information can coexist—as the recent court papers in Detroit and Seattle indicate—then why is the government fighting to keep secret hundreds of detainee cases and hearings?"

Good question, don't you think?

Priscilla Owens has been rejected for a position on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 10 to 9 vote, see the breaking AP article .

Here's why we are pleased.