In lieu of a regular blog post, I figured I’d leave a sample of the illustrated guide to crimlaw I’m doing on Tumblr (a link to the full series is over there on the right). Regular writing will resume shortly. Enjoy.

The January 30 issue of the New Yorker has an intriguing article by Adam Gopnik, “The Caging of America: Why do we lock up so many people?” Perhaps we’ve grown a bit cynical, but we expected yet another inane media whine about increasing rates of imprisonment “despite” fewer crimes being committed. We were surprised to find a thoughtful — at times insightful — look not only at the reality of American incarceration, but also at what causes crime to go up and down. It’s rare enough for a news or magazine writer to do even that much. To his credit, Gopnik goes one further, making a creditable attempt at objectivity — dismissing, debunking and blaming both the right and the left — though his apparent left-ish leanings still come through from time to time.

-=-=-=-=-

Gopnik’s main points are these:

Incarceration is happening on an unprecedented scale in our history. It’s been growing ever faster since the 1970s. Its ubiquity and brutality have become accepted parts of the culture. Northern and Southern thinkers have come up with different explanations and solutions. Northern thinkers like William J. Stuntz see prison as a place for rehabilitation, and the injustices as the result of our system’s reliance on procedural correctness rather than individual justice, from the Bill of Rights through the present day — a problem to be solved by letting common sense and compassion be the focus on a case-by-case basis. Southern thinkers like Michelle Alexander see prison instead as a means of retribution, and the injustices of the system are part of its design to trap and control young black men.

As incarceration rates more than tripled between 1980 and 2010, the crime rate itself went down. “The more bad guys there are in prison, it appears, the less crime there has been in the streets.” The huge growth in imprisonment, and the policies that led to it (such as harsher drug laws, zero-tolerance policies, restricted sentencing discretion, etc.) were a reaction to the big-city crime wave of the 1960s ad 1970s — a crime wave that owed its existence to liberal policies that had crossed the line from mercy to abdication. Meanwhile, research began to reveal that rehabilitation doesn’t work, and bad guys weren’t getting better, and so all you could do was lock them up to keep them off the streets.

Starting in the 1990s, crime rates began to drop — by 40% nationwide, and 80% in New York City. Demographic shifts don’t account for it. Neither do broken-window policing, keeping the really bad guys behind bars, welfare reform, or other right-wing explanations. The left’s insistence that crime comes from poverty, discrimination and social injustice didn’t work, either, as none of those things changed enough to account for the drop in crime. The economy didn’t have an effect.

What did have an effect in New York City, however, was CompStat — the NYPD’s use of statistical analysis to focus police presence in places where it was needed most — with significant results on the occurrence of crime in those “hot spots.” The NYPD also began aggressively stopping and frisking people who fit the profile — not a racial profile, as everyone where it was happening were of the same race, but instead a “social” profile of “the thousand small clues that policemen recognized already.” Poor communities had to put up with more police intrusion, but they benefited from “a disproportionate gain in crime reduced.” (And though the NYPD uses stop-and-frisks of low-level offenders to identify them in the system in case they commit a real crime later, the other police forces around the country use it to actually lock up marijuana possessors — an offense that’s been decriminalized in New York since forever, but that still gets you jail everywhere else, it seems.) The result in New York City has been criminals being forced to stop committing crimes brazenly in public — many have either taken their activities indoors (and thus ended much need for violent turf wars) or stopped altogether.

Preventing criminals from doing their thing in place A did not lead others to do it in place B, but rather to nobody doing it at all. People stopped getting used to crime happening, stopped seeing people they knew committing crimes, and THAT was the biggest factor of all.

So what really happened was a cultural shift. Crime stopped being so much “something everyone’s doing,” and so much less likely to be something an individual would consider. Conservatives don’t like this, because it means it’s pointless to get tough on criminals. Liberals don’t like this, because it means it’s pointless to be nice to criminals.

So back to prison. If it doesn’t rehabilitate anyone, and it has hardly any deterrent effect whatsoever, then nobody should be in prison for a nonviolent crime. Locking up marijuana dealers and Ponzi schemers is pointless. They’d be just as deterred by the threat of lost reputation and assets, and having to do community service as their new full-time job — and if that won’t deter them then prison won’t either. Instead, prison should be reserved for that one person in a thousand who is a violent threat, or who has committed a truly awful crime.

-=-=-=-=-

 It’s a lovely bit of writing, and our TL;DR précis doesn’t do it justice. Longtime readers of The Criminal Lawyer will note some common ideas, so it’s no surprise that we think so highly of it.

There’s a lot of scholarship going on right now about what’s wrong (and what’s right) with the American criminal justice system. Gopnik does a good job of summarizing what’s being published out there right now, and putting his own spin on it. Of course there are things we’d say differently, things we disagree with, points we think unrealistic. We could add plenty of things like how poor minority communities in the late ’90s actually teamed up with law enforcement, voluntarily and expressly waiving some of their Fourth Amendment rights to enable the cops to catch the drug dealers who were destroying their neighborhoods. We could argue that the whole “Northern/Southern” thing is a load of hogwash on both sides. We could take issue with the characterization of what conservatives actually believe. Still, we’re here not to bury Gopnik, but to praise him. This one’s not about what we think, for a change.

So give it a read. You won’t regret it.

Andrei Chikatilo was serial killer who murdered at least 56 young women and children starting in 1978 until his capture in 1990. The details are as bad as one might expect, and apparently the murders and mutilations were how he achieved sexual release. His killings seemed unpredictable to investigators at the time, and even in retrospect there appears to be no clear pattern.

Now, however, UCLA mathematicians Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury have published a paper where they see not only a pattern, but one that is meaningful to those who might want to stop other serial killers. In their paper, “Stochastic Modeling of a Serial Killer,” published a couple of days ago, Simkin and Roychowdhury discovered that the killings fit a pattern known as a “power law distribution.” One of many kinds of statistical distribution (the bell curve being another), power law distributions are often found for out-of-the-ordinary events like earthquakes, great wealth, website popularity and the like.

First, they looked at a timeline of his killings. They saw apparently random periods of inactivity. Each time Chikatilo started killing again, however, the next murder would come soon after. And the one after that even sooner. And so on and so on until the next period of no killing.

The study doesn’t take account of the reasons for two of the longer pauses — Chikatilo’s first arrest and detention on suspicion of being the killer, and the period where the media started reporting on the investigation — but the reasons aren’t important. What’s important is being able to make some kind of sense out of the seemingly random events.

What they noticed was that, when these ever-increasing murders were plotted on a logarithmic scale, they came out in almost a straight line — indicating the possibility that a power law might be at work here. What’s more than that, they noticed that the curve’s exponent of 1.4 was pretty darn close to the 1.5 found for the power curve of epileptic seizures. What if (they wondered) the killings fit a neurological pattern? What if, like epileptic seizures, psychotic events like these killings came about when an unusually large number of neurons in the brain started firing together?

So they plugged in some givens of what is known about how neurons work, modeled on how epilepsy works. They made the model a little more realistic — seizures come unbidden when the conditions are met, but killers probably need some time to plan once their brain is ready for the next attack. Then they ran a simulation.

The simulated probabilities for the length of time between murders tracked the real-life data almost perfectly.

In other words, if you know when the last murder took place, you can calculate the probability that another killing will happen today. And the more time has passed since the last one, the less likely another will happen.

-=-=-=-=-

Fascinating stuff, but so what? The so what is that statistical analysis has become a big part of modern crimefighting. CompStat has gone from an attempt to see where crime was happening in early 1990s NYC, to a tool used by police forces across the country to predict where to post their officers tomorrow. Homeland Security has a new thing they call FAST (for Future Attribute Screening Technology) they claim to be 70% accurate in the lab, that is said to calculate the probability a given individual is planning to commit a crime. “Predictive policing” has gone from science fiction to routine in the blink of an eye.

An appreciation of what statistics can — and cannot — do is becoming a big factor in law enforcement. Stats can’t tell you who the perp is, but they’re getting better and better at figuring out where and when the next crime might happen. Police departments that react responsibly, by focusing surveillance and manpower on those points where they are most likely to do some good, have a better chance of reducing crime rates with a more efficient use of their resources.

This latest study provides yet another tool, perhaps, for better and more accurate use of statistics by law enforcement. Catching a serial killer by focusing resources based on when and where he’s likely to strike next is a hell of a lot better than relying on the junk science of behavioral profiling.

Of course there’s always the risk that the numbers will be misjudged, that the models will be faulty, that the probabilities will be turned into junk science justifications for injustice. That’s a risk any time law enforcement meets math & science.

But when the numbers aren’t used to point the finger of guilt at a particular person, but rather as a guide to help catch whoever it might be (or prevent him from striking again), then it’s not a bad thing. If it helps law enforcement protect the rest of us, without violating our rights or punishing the wrong people, then hooray for numbers.

In this Information Age, it is hard to grasp sometimes that everybody does not know everything. And yet it is so. It is common knowledge, for example, that dinosaur fossils are the bones of creatures that lived scores of millions of years ago, that terrorist hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that eyewitness identification testimony is statistically as reliable as a ’78 Chevy. And yet there are tons of people who sincerely believe that fossils are just a few thousand years old, that the U.S. government conducted 9-11, and that an eyewitness I.D. is the be-all-and-end-all of Truth.

Actually, it’s not fair to lump the I.D. believers in with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Genesis literalists, truthers and the like. The others are sort of fringe-y. But if you put 12 ordinary citizens in a jury box, of good intelligence and sound common sense, and the victim points dead at the defendant and says “there is no doubt in my mind, THAT is the man who raped me…” you can almost hear all twelve minds slamming shut. They’ve heard all they need to hear. So far as they’re concerned, this case is over.

This despite the fact that study after study after study reinforces the fact that eyewitness testimony sucks.

And innocent people go to jail — or worse — because of it.

So you can imagine how keen the legal world was to get the Supreme Court’s decision in Perry v. New Hampshire, which came down yesterday. Perry, identified by an eyewitness as someone she’d seen breaking into cars, argued that Due Process required a judicial hearing on the reliability of that testimony before it could be admitted at trial.

Which was the exact wrong thing to argue.

Due Process requires that the government makes sure that it does not do things that make its identification procedures unreliable. It does not require that a judge do the jury’s job. Particularly when that job — weighing the reliability of a given bit of testimony — is incredibly fact-specific.

And especially given all the evidence of all the various factors that go into making eyewitness testimony unreliable — racial differences, time lapse, focus of attention, lighting, familiarity, stress, presence of a weapon, etc. — what judge in his right mind is going to want to be the one deciding whether this particular eyewitness’s memory is good enough?

So it’s hardly any surprise that the Supreme Court balked at Perry’s Due Process argument. By a vote of 8-1 (former prosecutor Sotomayor as the lone dissenter, none better to know the power of the EW ID) the Supremes held that, unless law enforcement is alleged to have gotten the I.D. under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, there’s no Due Process issue and certainly no reason for a pre-trial hearing on reliability.

-=-=-=-=-

No, what Perry could have argued for is either (1) a rebuttable presumption, as a rule of evidence, that eyewitness testimony is inadmissible; or (2) allowing defendants to provide jurors with all the reasons why eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as they might think.

The first option is, frankly, stupid. But it’s the logical conclusion from the givens presented in his argument and those of the various amici, that eyewitness testimony is about as per se unreliable as it gets. If we can be forgiven a straw man here, it’s akin to the proscription against most hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted unless it’s deemed exceptionally reliable. So why not have the same rule for eyewitness testimony? Because hearsay is not prohibited because of its unreliability. It is prohibited because it cannot be tested, cross-examined, challenged. It’s a confrontation issue, not a reliability issue. Hearsay that is allowed comes in because it is so reliable that confrontation just isn’t an issue (in theory). Evidence is not precluded because it is unreliable. If something is unreliable, it is up to the other side to make sure the jury sees how unreliable it is.

As Justice Scalia implied during oral argument, unreliable eyewitness testimony is no different from any other unreliable evidence. But in practice, it is treated very differently. Sure, a judge might let the defense attorney cross-examine the witness on the lighting conditions, whether she had a gun in her face, and whatnot. And maybe the judge will let him make common-sense arguments to the jury in his closing about why that identification was wrong. But few if any will allow the defense to put on expert evidence demonstrating why this particular testimony might be wrong.

Eyewitness testimony is almost unique in this regard. Any other evidence the government might put on, the defense gets to put on its own evidence of why the government’s was wrong. Their expert says the stolen trade secret was worth a billion dollars? Your expert can testify why it was worth $12.98. Their witness says the bullet was fired from the apartment across the street? Your expert can show that it came from down the block and was deflected on striking the window. But if their witness testifies that she recognizes your client as the guy what done it, can you put on an expert to show that people of her race distinguish faces by looking at features that aren’t all that variable in people of the defendant’s race? Or that almost nobody with a gun shoved in their face in a dark alley for five seconds is going to form a clear memory of what the shover’s face looked like? Or that now, three years later, after countless retellings and waking nightmares and reassessments, the witness’s memory is nowhere near as accurate as it seems?

In most states, the answer is No. It’s either prohibited, or it’s up to the discretion of a trial judge, who’s likely to say no. (And the usual reason for prohibiting such testimony, irony of ironies, is that it’s such common knowledge that expert testimony is unnecessary.)

What Perry should have argued for, then, is to do exactly what Scalia suggested: treat eyewitness testimony like any other kind of testimony. Give defendants a chance to pry open those minds that snapped shut during the in-court I.D. Give defendants a chance to confront the evidence against them in a meaningful manner. When everyone in the world except for jurors, apparently, knows that eyewitness memory is godawful, give defendants the chance to educate them, at least to the extent that it applies to that particular case. While you’re at it, let jurors be instructed on factors affecting reliability if you like (as suggested by the majority opinion), but if you believe jury instructions make a difference one way or the other…

It’s not a Due Process issue. It’s a Confrontation issue. Allowing the defense to confront eyewitnesses and challenge their presumed accuracy is the issue. It’s not about shifting the fact-finding role to a pre-trial hearing, to assess things beyond the government’s process. Perry’s argument strikes us as not only stupid, but a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to have made some progress in this area. As it is, we may now be stuck in the status quo a few years longer than we might have been.

Thanks a lot.

We haven’t gone anywhere.

Well, actually we did. We spent a couple of weeks visiting family for Christmas and New Year’s. And then took a week getting back on top of work. In the meantime, a dozen great post topics have come to mind only to be forgotten (or, if we happened to have a pencil handy, rapidly jotted down for later rejection).

Still, we’ve managed to put out some more installments in our illustrated guide to criminal law. Part 8 on actus reus just went up, and you can click the link at the right to see the whole series. Next up is attempt, then we’ll cover strict liability, liability for the acts of others, defenses, where the law comes from, examples of crimes, the rule of law, terrorism… and then we’ll get to the procedural, constitutional and policy stuff. Enjoy!

But we’re not neglecting the blog. We’ll be back shortly.

Any SEO guru worth his fee will tell you that, once your blog gets some mention or award or whatnot, you need to pump out a lot of content right away. Otherwise, people who come to visit out of curiosity will stop coming back when they don’t see updates. And I have no reason to doubt that they’re right.

Nevertheless, we don’t write this for the hits. So after the ABA Journal very kindly put us on their blawg list a couple of weeks ago, we didn’t start churning out more posts — on the contrary, we’ve only had one substantive post since then. There has been plenty to write about, but we just haven’t gotten to it.

The reason, of course, is that we started doing our illustrated guide to criminal law about the same time, and the response has been so unexpected and overwhelming that we’ve felt obligated to get at least the introductory sections finished before the holidays. Starting off with first principles, we’ve covered what crime and punishment are, and the various purposes of punishment, and now we’re working on a sixth installment on mens rea and culpability. With any luck, we’ll have that out this week.

And then we’re taking a break with the family, which usually means even less time to write than usual, so there might not be another update here until after New Year’s.

So if we don’t get a chance to rap at ya before then, here’s wishing you a merry Christmas, happy Hannukah, cool Kwanzaa, super Solstice, and a very happy New Year!

Best wishes,

Nathan

Injustice is what we’re getting. The newspapers are starting to pick up on it lately, but it’s been building for a long time. People getting prosecuted for federal felonies, when all they did was unwittingly violate some obscure regulation, without any intent to break any law.

Harry Morgan died this week. When we were in grade school, we knew him as Col. Potter on M*A*S*H and as the Sheriff in “The Apple Dumpling Gang,” two characters that seemed to our young eyes to be the most “real” on either show. But of course he did a lot more than that. Plenty of excellent eulogies have been written elsewhere, but we thought we’d share a clip from his old “Dragnet” days that seems as appropriate now as it did then.

So now we have a Tumblr.

It was bound to happen, really. There are plenty of questions, issues and misconceptions about criminal law; we like explaining things; we like drawing things (poorly); people like learning stuff with pictures… So doing a webcomic sort of guide to criminal law just seemed natural.

And making a Tumblr out of it makes more sense than posting them here on the blog. The voices are just too different to put them both in the same place. And Tumblr’s more of a visual medium.

We’re calling it “The Criminal Lawyer’s Guide to Criminal Law (with pictures!)” We are very creative with titles, as you probably are aware.

We’ve got several posts already planned out, and the first one is up here. They’re going to be very rudimentary at first, but soon we expect to have worked through to some tougher concepts.

It’s silly, sure… but it’s fun. We’ll get a kick out of it, even if nobody else does.

The Criminal Lawyer made the ABA Journal Blawg 100 today, much to our surprise. We are quietly proud.

Be sure to check out the list, there are a lot of excellent blogs there that might be new to you. And weren’t you just saying to yourself how you need some fresh stuff in your RSS reader?

During the month of December, the ABA Journal is having people vote for their favorites in each category. If you’re so inclined, you can give us an upvote in the “Criminal Justice” category here.

More importantly, we’d like to thank those who nominated us (whoever you are), and especially thank all of our sexy sexy readers. You guys are awesome, and not just because you have excellent taste in blogs.

Thanks!