Maine has become the fourth state to require mandatory taping of police interrogations. Maine's Governor just signed the legislature's bill mandating recording of interrogations into law. Alaska (1985) and Minnesota (1994) have been required to tape by their supreme courts, and Maine now joins Illinois (2003) and the District of Columbia.

From an email by Maine State Senator Ethan Strimling, Senate Chair of the Criminal Justice Committee and lead sponsor of the bill:

Governor Baldacci today signed LD 891, An Act to Require the Recording of Certain Custodial Interrogations. The Act requires audio or videotaping of police interrogations for serious crimes. The purpose of LD 891 is to prevent investigators from violating the Maine and United States Constitutions by employing coercive techniques during an interrogation. Likewise, the Act reduces the number of frivolous claims of coercion by defendants. "It's important that we remain vigilant, attentive to the risks that can challenge civil liberties if we ever drop our guard. These new policies will be important to assure that we keep a balance in Maine between aggressive protection of public safety and aggressive protection of civil liberties," add Governor Baldacci.

We're told congratulations are due to the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for the success of their persistent efforts to shepherd this bill into law.

The conservative Democrat, Diane Feinstein, has coupled with uber-right Senator Orrin Hatch to create S. 1735, an ill-advised anti-gang bill which may make it to the floor of Congress for a vote this coming Thursday. We'll be arguing against this bill until then. We urge you to stand up for sane juvenile justice measures and oppose the political pandering and fear-mongering of S. 1735.
Here's why:

Less than 18 months after the Senate passed rational and balanced federal juvenile justice legislation, two Senators have introduced a harsh, punitive new bill that would expand the use of the death penalty and create new, ill-defined crimes.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have introduced the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 (S. 1735), a measure that includes dangerous provisions that would expand the use of the death penalty to additional crimes and create additional federal "gang" crimes that lack clear definition.

Under this proposed legislation, people could be convicted and sentenced to death for ill-defined illegal "participation" in a "gang," which could be as few as three people. The law’s loose definitions and expansion of the death penalty would increase the probability that people are wrongly convicted and possibly even executed. In addition, prosecutors, not judges, would have discretion to send juveniles into the adult correctional system, and experiment that's been tried with disastrous effects in California and Florida.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill has raised concerns from a wide variety of groups, including the ABA, death penalty and juvenile associations. Read why here. Their leading concerns are (1) the expansion of the federal role of prosecuting juveniles as adults and (2) the unnecessarily broad federalization of street crimes now generally prosecuted at the state level - including several provisions that make
state murder offenses death-eligible under federal law - and a provision (section 105(e)) that eliminates the "intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" requirement of the existing federal carjacking law (18 U.S.C. 2119) - thus making nearly every car theft a federal offense.

Read this letter sent to Hatch and Feinstein by the Children's Defense Fund, the National Urban League, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and scores of other groups

In an effort to address these and other concerns, Senators Durbin, Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy have introduced an alternative bill, S.2358, the ANTI-GANG Act. Some of the differences between the two bills are discussed in this section-by-section summary and Senator Kennedy's floor statement.

In light of President Bush’s new PATRIOT Act campaign, you may be interested in this statement made April 20 on the Senate Floor by Sen. Durbin, chief sponsor of the SAFE Act. We received it by email and are reprinting it below in it's entirety. John Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE Act. For those who just want Sen. Durbin's conclusion, here it is:

The President wants even broader powers than the PATRIOT Act now allows. Yesterday he called for a new law to let Federal agents obtain private records and conduct secret interrogations without the approval of a judge or even a Federal prosecutor. This goes way beyond anything that we have ever seen in terms of trying to make America safe. It really infringes on our basic rights. We all agree that law enforcement needs the tools to protect us, but President Bush cannot point to a single terrorism investigation in which officials had any problem obtaining the court orders they needed. Yet he is asking for expanded authority that would undermine civil liberties and judicial review. Frankly, our current laws are adequate to the task. We need to bring terrorism under control but not at the expense of our basic rights as citizens.

Should Congress be allowed to overrule Supreme Court decisions it doesn't like? Congressman Ron Lewis (R-KY) has introduced such a bill, "The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act." Today, the Las Vegas Review Journal calls it a "very bad idea."

Under this law, the Constitution would essentially be interpreted to reflect popular opinion -- a scary thought, given that many Americans confronted with an unlabeled copy of the Bill of Rights would likely consider many of the scribblings dangerous and subversive. Our system is designed to insulate federal judges from the transitory whims of the mob. Rep. Lewis' proposal would obliterate that important safeguard and leave our rights and freedoms at the mercy of public sentiment.

In fact, Congress already has many options when it comes to reining in activist judges. It has the power to impeach federal judges who egregiously overextend their authority. It has the power to pass legislation -- or, along with state legislatures, amend the Constitution -- to addresses the concerns of the judiciary. And finally, Congress can simply refuse to confirm judicial candidates deemed objectionable. Of course, Rep. Lewis' bill is itself inherently unconstitutional -- and would certainly be found so by any federal court.

[link via How Appealing].

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) Executive Director Rob Kampia testified before the the U.S. House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources on Friday, at a hearing about "Marijuana and Medicine: The Need for a Science-Based Approach." The Drug War Rant outlines Rob's powerful testimony. You can access his testimony here (pdf). The theme of his testimony was:

Current federal policies are not based on science; rather, they are based on
myths and lies. Worse yet, the federal government is currently blocking scientific inquiry into the therapeutic benefits of marijuana. This collusion in support of delusion is an outrage and must be stopped. State medical marijuana laws must be respected, and research into the therapeutic benefits of marijuana must be allowed to proceed expeditiously.

...In sum, the Marijuana Policy Project strongly supports a science-based approach to medical marijuana. We hope that Chairman Souder eventually abandons his reliance on myths and lies, stops the federal witch hunt for medical marijuana patients and doctors, and embraces an approach that is based on science.

Rob Kampia is one of the most committed marijuana activists around. We first met him in 1996 when we testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime on marijuana cultivation sentencing guidelines. We've stayed in touch with him and continually are impressed by his dedication to marijuana policy reform.

It is ridiculous that in this day and age, government officials are still claiming with a straight face that marijuana lacks any therapeutic benefit. The scientific and anecdotal evidence to the contrary is right in front of their faces.

Courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to overturn California's harsh three-strikes law that mandates a life sentence for third time offenders, including those whose third strike was a minor, non-violent offense. According to LA Weekly, a recent study by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) revealed these numbers:

...more than 42,000 prisoners — more than one-fourth of the state’s total — are serving doubled or 25-to-life sentences under Three Strikes. Nearly two-thirds of them are doing time for a nonviolent offense. That number includes more than 1,000 inmates serving 25-to-life for theft under $400 or drug possession. Some of their crimes practically define the word petty: One man is doing 31 years for stealing a pair of AA batteries; another got 25 years for shoplifting three packs of J.C. Penney T-shirts.

California's three-strikes law was enacted at a time when fear of crime was rampant. Like the unborn fetus protection bill that Congress passed yesterday, it was in large part a reaction to the death of one child who became a household name: Polly Klass.

The most organized, vocal group opposing three-strike laws is FACT--we have written about them a few times, including here. According to LA Weekly, the group just might get the issue on the ballot so voters can rethink the unjust law. They are seeking signatures for an initiative that:

... would make only violent and specific serious crimes count as strikes. It would also allow inmates convicted of minor offenses to appeal their second- or third-strike sentences, and would boost penalties for adults who molest children.

Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill. Tena at Atrios gets it right:

It takes another huge bite out of the right to choose, and is a set-up for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. They never rest.

The bill was pushed to passage after the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. It's even referred to as the "Laci and Connor law." Legislation should never be passed in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Act in haste, repent at leisure. It's a bad law, and now we have to live with it.

Update: The LA Times calls the law "a ploy in the abortion war."

DeWine's bill cynically capitalizes on Laci Peterson's murder to push his definition of personhood into federal law.

Here's how the bill defines a "child in utero":

Introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), the proposed Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines "a child … in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." In other words, the child exists from the moment of conception. The House passed similar legislation last month. As with nearly every aspect of the abortion debate, Americans are deeply divided on when human life begins. However, courts and most states generally accord more rights to a fetus considered viable outside the womb.

Your help is needed.

Please Tell Congress To Identify Impaired Drivers, Not Marijuana Smokers. Urge Your Congressman To Reject H.R. 3907 And H.R. 3922

NORML needs your help convincing Congress to reject a pair of bills that would criminally punish marijuana smokers for "drugged driving" simply if inactive marijuana metabolites are detected in their bodily fluids - even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive.

H.R. 3907, sponsored by Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), demands that state legislatures amend their DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) to enact mandatory minimum penalties for anyone convicted of driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Under the proposal, states have until 2006 to pass and enforce DUID laws "approved by the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," or lose portions of their federal highway funding.

H.R. 3922, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of legislators including Reps. Robert Portman (R-OH), Sander Levin (D-MI), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), Mark Souder (R-IN) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN), seeks to impose so-called "model" DUID legislation upon all 50 states - demanding they enact statutes sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance."

These bills represent an all out federal assault on the marijuana smoking community. Because inactive marijuana metabolites (inert compounds indicative of past drug use) remain detectable in the blood, and particularly urine, for days and sometimes weeks after past use, this legislation seeks to define sober drivers as if they were intoxicated. Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours; certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug's effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair.

Rep. Tom Feeney is back -- this time with an effort to draw adverse attention to the Supreme Court's use of foreign cases in their decisions .

Stick to U.S. law or risk impeachment, Rep. Tom Feeney is warning the Supreme Court. The Florida Republican and fellow House Judiciary Committee member Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., plan next week to propose a resolution that judicial decisions should not be based on foreign precedents. The lawmakers say they have 50 co-sponsors for the resolution, which will be non-binding, though Feeney warned that justices who flout it risk "the ultimate remedy ... impeachment" ...

Lawrence Goldman, past President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), has this reaction (received by email):

The latest Feeney bill, as amended today, would suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court not consider any legal rulings, statutes, declarations, edicts and regulations of any foreign nation, the United Nations or any international body, or any United States state or commonwealth court in which there is a Democratic majority or of which more than 3 members are judges or graduates of accredited law schools. Exceptions are made for the laws, etc. of South Africa during the apartheid area, Pinochet Chile, the Shah's Iran, Somoza Nicaragua or any other nation that is certified by the Department of Justice not to allow judges any sentencing discretion.

Skippy writes about last week's Senate vote to prevent federal civilian agencies from outsourcing American jobs. It sounds good, until you read the fine print:

in a last-minute deal, the senators made exceptions for the defense and homeland security departments, as well as intelligence agencies and security programs at the energy department. the amendment also allows agency heads to make exceptions for some security-related purchases and for items or services only produced or available outside of the country.

whew! that was close! good thing we can still send the work of homeland security and defense of this country overseas for foreign nationals to do!

We had such high hopes for the Innocence Protection Act. We didn't get it. We got a bill that will spend up to $800 million on DNA crime fighting -- mostly for testing old rape kits trying to solve uncharged crimes and updating computer resources.

Where's the money for DNA testing for inmates with claims of innocence?

One source of controversy in the administration's DNA spending is the omission of significant funding aimed at exonerating the innocent or preventing wrongful convictions. Such measures are key elements of a DNA bill stalled in the Senate since last fall.

Barry Scheck, a New York City lawyer who specializes in exonerating convicts through DNA evidence, said the administration's decision to bypass provisions that could free the innocent was "truly unfortunate." The Innocence Project, which Scheck co-founded, has used DNA tests to exonerate 142 convicts.

Tell your senators that we should not enact laws out of grief and passion, or in response to a singular criminal event, however horrific it might be. Cooler heads are needed where our fundamental liberties are at stake. The House of Representatives didn't get that message and passed a dangerous bill today. We have no doubt that the bill will have serious implications for abortion rights.