[Orin Kerr, October 15, 2008 at 1:40pm] Trackbacks
The Apprendi Revolution to Expand?:
The most remarkable and surprising change in constitutional criminal procedure in the last few years was the decision of a set of Supreme Court Justices to try giving juries a greater role in determining the sentence of criminal defendants. The experiment has had its ups and downs, but based on the oral argument in Oregon v. Ice yesterday, it looks like it is set to expand again.
MR:
The experiment has had its ups and downs, but based on the oral argument in Oregon v. Ice yesterday, it looks like it is set to expand again.


Oh great. Nobody understands Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker as it is.
10.15.2008 3:11pm
Kent Scheidegger (mail) (www):
Orin, do you agree with Lyle's assessment of the argument, or are you merely reporting what he said? I had a very different impression after reading the transcript.
10.15.2008 5:13pm
SupremacyClaus (mail) (www):
The federal guidelines, and their state equivalents coincided with a 40% drop in crime victimization, after a suitable interval of percolation. The judges do not want criminals deterred because they would lose their cushy, do nothing judge government jobs.

Guidelines also meant a drop in lawyer jobs. Even the harshest, most hard right ideology on the court gets trumped by lawyer rent seeking, the Grand Unifying Theory of Appellate Decisions. Blakely had a three day hearing on aggravation. He got his justice.

Now, cities are enjoying the Scalia Bounce in their murder rates, as vicious predators are loosed by the leadership of this Gladstone quoting Justice.

Gladstone, Mr. "Better to Free 10 Guilty Men than to Convict an Innocent One," naturally lived in a low crime neighborhood in a foreign country. The 10 guilty men are clients of the lawyer. Their 1000's of victims are not, and may rot.
10.15.2008 5:18pm
Oren:
First of all, it's Blackstone, not Gladstone.

Second, the principle that acquitting the guilty is preferable to convicting the innocent is not a recent invention. See, e.g

Finally, crime could have also changed for a number of other reasons, including economic prosperity, legalized abortion, changes in social services/welfare, cultural changes or any number or combination of other things. Competent sociologist and criminologists disagree on the extent to which changes in punishment have any prospective deterrent effect at all.
10.15.2008 5:35pm
Felix Sulla:
However, speaking as a fan of Disraeli, I am all for criticism of Gladstone regardless of whether it has anything to do with the topic under discussion.
10.15.2008 6:12pm
Oren:
Or apparently regardless of whether the matter criticized is properly attributable to Gladstone at all!

Still, Gladstone has a special place in the villains of the USA for his recognition of the Confederacy as a legitimate nation.
10.15.2008 6:52pm
Nunzio:
This is definitely the decade of Apprendi.
10.15.2008 9:02pm