CREED in Action’s Post

Having written about the importance of judicial diversity myself, I am so thrilled to see this topic getting more research attention. The research continues to affirm the connection between judicial diversity and case outcomes, i.e. greater racial diversity on the bench = reduced racial disparities in case outcomes. In order to continue to #DefendDiversity, we have to demonstrate the case - both normatively and empirically - for its importance to our democracy and to our justice system. #DailyDiversityMoment, #RepresentationMatters, #WeWontGoBack.

Members of the White & Case Racial Justice Task Force recently secured their 20th record-sealing win for New Yorkers seeking to seal decades-old criminal records that can pose obstacles to obtaining jobs, housing, benefits, and more. Read more about the Firm’s efforts to fight racial inequity and other Task Force initiatives here: https://ow.ly/Sy3650Smyft #RacialJustice #CriminalJustice #RecordSealing #ProBono

MCCURDY, R. (2021). Did Slavery Ever Really End? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull). Abstract: The United States of America was founded on the exploitation of African slaves ’labor, and that exploitation continued far after their emancipation. Instead of plantations, the method of labor exploitation is the prison industrial complex. Private corporations work with the government to exploit prisoners ’vulnerable position in society, making them work long hours for low pay to maximize their profit. Despite politicians ’claims of America’s progressive nature relating to racial discrimination against black Americans, the country’s criminal justice institutions have not substantially changed in terms of their functioning on racial prejudices; they have just learned to mask them with racially coded language, shifting to a ‘colorblind ’presentation in which the legislation will target black Americans without explicitly saying so, but criminalize certain behaviors commonly associated with black communities. Understanding the historical background and evolution of systemic racism is crucial to grasping how firmly established it is within the modern institutions of America and why the public accepts the mass incarceration of black Americans. Today’s criminal justice institutions function on implicit racial biases, including law enforcement, prosecutors, criminal courts as well as landmark United States Supreme Court decisions that have upheld systemic racism. This has resulted in the drastic overcriminalization and overrepresentation in the prison population of black Americans. The legislation of the War on Crime and War on Drugs enacted after the 1964 Civil Rights Act permits the legalized discrimination against people with felony convictions which disproportionately affect black communities, including limiting their right to vote, access to government financial assistance and public housing, mirroring many of the policies that were repealed along with Jim Crow laws in the 1960s. The caption below was taken in the maximum-security prison of the state of Louisiana the infamous Angola State Penitentiary.

In her latest Texas Law Review article, “Misdemeanor Declination: A Theory of Internal Separation of Powers,” Alexandra Natapoff, Harvard Law School’s Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law, explains the power of declining cases to reduce harmful outcomes. She writes, “The prompt decision to decline charges means that an arrestee, their family, and their community do not bear the costs and stigma of formal criminal justice involvement. At the same time, the criminal system itself is spared the expense of processing the case. This opportunity for equitable efficiency, however, is routinely missed. Prosecutors often put off the substantive decision about whether to dismiss a case, reflexively charging arrests upfront and then deciding later to dismiss them. This gap—between the initial failure to decide and the ultimate decision to dismiss—is wildly expensive. It means that defendants whose cases are ultimately dismissed can languish in jails for weeks; incur financial burdens and criminal records; lose their jobs; and undergo the prolonged trauma of being marked and treated as criminals. It is also costly for the criminal system, forcing courts, jails, and public defenders to expend resources on cases that will eventually be dismissed. Put differently, the prosecutorial decision to skimp on declination imposes enormous externalities throughout the criminal process.” You can read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eek3yZay #prosecutor #justiceresources Jared Fishman Donald Braman Jarvis Idowu Daniel Davis Joanie W. Kelli Ross Metz Lily Grier J.J. Naddeo Sean P. Rogers Vanessa Edkins Kevin Himberger Lily Gleicher, Ph.D. Vincent Liu Marc Levin Robert Geibler Kristy Pierce Danford Lori Brown Jackie Dunn Rebecca Brown Laurae A. Caruth Rory Pulvino

Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is a crucial provision within South African legislation, aimed at addressing the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for certain serious offenses. This provision underscores the government's commitment to combatting crime and ensuring the safety and security of its citizens. Let's delve into the context and implications of Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act: 1. Overview of Section 51(1): Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act provides for mandatory minimum sentences for specific serious offenses, including crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and drug trafficking. Under this provision, individuals convicted of these offenses are subject to prescribed minimum sentences, regardless of mitigating circumstances or individual factors. 2. Purpose and Objectives: The primary objective of Section 51(1) is to deter individuals from committing serious crimes by imposing harsh penalties and mandatory minimum sentences. By establishing clear and stringent sentencing guidelines, the provision aims to send a strong message that criminal behavior will not be tolerated and that perpetrators will face severe consequences for their actions. 3. Impact on Sentencing Practices: Section 51(1) has significant implications for sentencing practices within the South African criminal justice system. It limits judicial discretion in sentencing and requires judges to impose minimum sentences as prescribed by law, even in cases where mitigating factors may warrant leniency or alternative sentencing options. 4. Criticisms and Controversies: Despite its intended objectives, Section 51(1) has faced criticism and controversies over its effectiveness and fairness. Critics argue that mandatory minimum sentences may disproportionately affect marginalized communities and individuals, perpetuating social inequalities and contributing to overcrowding in prisons. 5. Considerations for Legal Professionals: Legal professionals, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, play a crucial role in navigating the complexities of Section 51(1) and ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law. It is essential for legal practitioners to stay informed about the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and to advocate for fair and equitable sentencing practices within the parameters of the law. In conclusion, Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act represents a significant aspect of South African legislation aimed at addressing serious crimes and ensuring public safety. While the provision serves as a deterrent against criminal behavior, it also raises important questions about sentencing practices, judicial discretion, and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation. #CriminalLaw #Sentencing #LegalContext ⚖️🔍

Members of the White & Case Racial Justice Task Force recently secured their 20th record-sealing win for New Yorkers seeking to seal decades-old criminal records that can pose obstacles to obtaining jobs, housing, benefits, and more. Read more about the Firm’s efforts to fight racial inequity and other Task Force initiatives here: https://ow.ly/PxGZ50Smxxp #RacialJustice #CriminalJustice #RecordSealing #togetherwemakeamark

Such a pivotal decision carries lasting consequences. It will shape legal precedents, influence future rulings, and affect the judiciary’s crucial role in balancing legal principles with societal evolution. These decisions don’t just resolve cases; they chart the future of legal norms and societal values. #madoc #doc #ma #mytern #teji

The paradox of public service: You can be a public servant and not serve the public; you can be a private attorney and do great public service. I am a government attorney. Six of my seven years of practice have been in public service. I love serving the people of this great nation. As agency counsel for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I get to help uphold the rule of law and protect the public. As a Special Assistant United States Attorney, I get to stand up in court on behalf of my country and seek to hold criminals accountable for their crimes. In all this, I get to seek justice. We need attorneys who are willing to work for the government. Prosecutors, public defenders, agency counsel, legislative attorneys, city, state, and federal attorneys—there are countless ways to serve. And one of those ways to serve is private practice. The law is not for lawyers. It is for all people. Laws exist to order public relations within society. And lawyers help apply the law to specific circumstances within the system that the people have established. And so all lawyers are, therefore, in the words of Chief Justice Warren Burger, “quasi-public servants.” Taking this a step further, just because someone works for the government, it does not follow inevitably that they serve the good of the public. A lazy or incompetent public attorney may do far more harm to the community than a competent and industrious attorney in private practice. There’s this mistaken idea out there that only public attorneys are public servants. And like all false ideas, this one is dangerous. It lends itself to an inflated sense of self-importance in its holders just by the mere fact of who they work for. Calling oneself a public servant then becomes just another form of virtue signaling and yet another way to look down on others. This is profoundly problematic. How ironic for a servant to look down on the public he serves! As Saint John wrote, “a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.” John 13:16. Being a public servant is a privilege. We get to devote our efforts to helping others. And the people are worthy of our best efforts. But all of law is about ordering public relations within society. And all lawyers are, therefore, in the words of Chief Justice Warren Burger “quasi-public servants.” As attorneys, we all play a role in ensuring that we are “a government of laws, not men.” And we do so both on behalf of our clients (public or private) and the people who established our laws for our liberty, safety, and prosperity. So public attorneys should look upon their private-practice counterparts as fellow servants of the public good. And we should all recognize the value of the American people that we have the honor to serve. #RuleofLaw #PublicService #LawyersofLinkedIn #LegalProfession

https://lnkd.in/e2xY4DHR check out this month's awareness piece: Spotlight on National Women's History Month and National Criminal Justice Month!

#TODAY at 12 PM join us for @DC_Bar upcoming CLE “Guidelines 101”. Learn more about the D.C. Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines Manual and get your questions answered. Click the link to register https://lnkd.in/eujqqArn