Category: Capital Punishment

0

To Sarat or Not Sarat

As in Austin Sarat, Law and Humanities scholar at Amherst College.  As in one of the leading figures within the Association of Law Culture and Humanities, which has become one of my favorite destinations over the years for engaging discussion across the disciplines.  (FYI, today is the deadline to submit abstracts to the Law Culture and Humanities Conference being held at Georgetown this year).
Glancing across Sarat’s scholarship one might notice a fascination with documenting the morbidity of law.  Images of war, death, and imprisonment filter the landscape of writings; the images are used to magnify their contrast. They create discourses in binaries.  We understand legal violence distinctive from non-legal violence; death distinctive from non-death; and imprisonment distinctive from non-prisoned life.  Sarat sums this up in his Article Violence, Democracy, Responsibility, and the Problem of Punishment.

 

Moreover, by equating the conditions of legal legitimacy with that masking, much of that jurisprudence promotes righteous indifference and allows law’s violence to continue unabated. I am neither so idealistic nor so naive as to imagine that a change in legal theory would in itself end violence done, authorized or approved by legal institutions and officials. Still the energy in much of my work on punishment comes from a desire to interrogate legal theory in order to understand how law, surrounded by so much pain, is, nonetheless, able to maintain its calm, bureaucratic facade.

 

Drawing on themes that prompt considerations of justice and violence, it’s no wonder that Sarat and Robert Cover were walking the same halls in New Haven in the early 1980’s.  I don’t know if Sarat and Cover interacted much.  Really, does it matter?  Sarat himself was a well accomplished scholar in the humanities prior to enrolling at Yale (I mean how many of us as one L’s had their professor begin a civil procedure class by reading and discussing our own work?) .  Perhaps he and Cover never interacted.  I’d like to think they didn’t but that the recursiveness of space, time and ideas latched on to them independently as they traveled the halls.

Besides violence, Sarat’s scholarship prompts me to think about similar themes in my own work.   Loneliness has been a particular theme of mine.  Robert Penn Warren, Fydor Dostovsky, and Flannery O’Connor have been shaping devices of this theme.  They play themselves out in a chorus of questions about space, roles, isolation, and time.  When Warren writes about the South as a Lonely place, he prompts me to wonder whether and how time shapes people.  For those three, time is the violence of memory, sometimes maintained through static relationships of property, law, family, and culture.  Sarat likewise prompts us to consider how time shapes our understandings of justice and violence.  He writes in the same article prompted above:

For me, democracy requires a particular orientation toward time. Democratic temporality is the time of change, of reconsideration. It is open-ended and open to a sense of the endlessness of time. Acts of punishment, even if we had a way of calculating what people deserve, are always in some sense the servants, not the masters, of time. Numerous authors have highlighted the problem of time in asking whether the person being subject to punishment, 2, or 12, or 20 years after the crime is really the same person as the one who committed the crime that justified the punishment in the first place. When, many years ago, Justice Brennan described the death penalty as taking away the right to have rights, he might well have said that no punishment that seeks to be timeless, or stop the movement of time, can be reconciled with a democratic theory of punishment.

The conception of time as a marker of change is one, I think Robert Penn Warren would greatly admire.  On May 15, 1961, The New Republic published a review of Warren’s essay The Legacy of the Civil War.  In the review essay, writer Peter d’a Jones aligned Warrens views with Robert Patterson of the Citizens Counsel of Mississippi, a group formed following the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  The group, put simply, was designed to use legal (and non-legal) violence to stymie desegregation.
Following the review of Warren’s essay, Warren wrote a letter to the New Republic editor:

Dear Sir,

This letter is promoted by a review of my essay the Legacy of the Civil War, which appeared in your issue of May 15.  I could wish that Mr. Peter d’a Jones had thought better of my essay or at least of my intellectual integrity, but I am not now writing in defense of either.  What I want to do here is disabuse those readers who may feel, from Mr. Jones’ review that I have much sympathy with Mr. Robert Patterson of the Citizens’ Committee of Mississippi, whom he cites with, perhaps, some effect of guilt by association.  

The quickest thing for me to do is state three things — things which it is strange for any citizen to feel constrained to state.

1 It is morally right, as well as politically and economically necessary, that all the rights and privileges of American citizenship be guaranteed to all citizens.  
2 A man’s worth should be judged by the qualities of his manhood.
3 Any official of any state who does not honestly and vigorously endeavor to punish, with full rigor, any violence against or coercion of any individual or group has violated his public trust and should be impeached.  

I suppose that a reader can easily infer from these statements my attitude in specific instances, as I had assumed one might from other writings of mine, including the Legacy of the Civil War; but I shall add that I think Dr. Martin Luther King a great man, and that the sit ins conducted according to his principles are morally unassailable, and will win.  One reason they will win is that they offer, even to the man howling from the sidewalk, an exhibition of courage, dignity, and self control.  

                        Very Respectfully Yours,

                        Robert Penn Warren

P.S.  One more thing: since Mr. Jones takes the trouble to quote from me in 1929, I wish he had taken the trouble in his researches to glance at my explicit repudiation some time back, of what I said in 1929.  In 1929, in my youth, I was wrong — and even now, I do not feel myself entirely above error.  

Warren’s reflection of change over time merges with his views of social responsibility.   For what its worth, Warren was also wandering around New Haven in the early 1980’s.  How I would enjoy sitting at a table amongst Warren, Sarat and Cover as they talked about these things.  How the walls in New Haven must have been ablaze with ideas in the early 80’s.

(P.S. Robert Patterson was also former Captain of the Mississippi State football team — ergo my promised college football reference, in case anyone needed an irrational reason to hate the number one ranked team).

0

Intellectual Disability and Uncertainty in Hall v. Florida

I’ve been meaning to post about the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Hall v. Florida—the case in which the Court struck down as unconstitutional Florida’s law for determining whether an offender is intellectually disabled and thus cannot be executed. In its 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, the Court concluded that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to execute a “mentally retarded” individual. (Thankfully, in Hall, the Court switched over to the term “intellectually disabled.” I’ll be using the terms interchangeably in this post.) In Atkins, the Court stated that it was leaving it up to individual legislatures to determine when a person is “mentally retarded”—in the Court’s words, it was “leav[ing] to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon their execution of sentences.” Now, other states and the medical community generally agree with Florida that a defendant is intellectually disabled if he has (1) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning,” (2) “deficits in adaptive functioning,” (3) and “onset of these deficits during the developmental period” (by age 18). The first prong—the one at issue in Hall—is ordinarily determined by a defendant’s IQ score. States have concluded that an IQ score that is 70 or lower meets the “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” standard. The Hall case raises the issue as to whether uncertainty in obtained IQ scores (or confidence intervals) ought to be included in determining the defendant’s true IQ score for the purpose of this first prong of the intellectual disability test.

In a 6-3 decision, the Hall Court concluded that Florida’s approach—of finding that an obtained IQ score greater than 70 may be determinative of the fact that the defendant is not intellectually disabled—is unconstitutional. In reaching this conclusion, the Court took a detour from its ordinary Eighth Amendment analysis, focusing heavily on the opinions of professional organizations. As in prior opinions, the Court was loose with the numbers in the state-counting aspect of its Eighth Amendment analysis, concluding that a “significant majority of States” have adopted procedures contrary to Florida’s approach. The dissent explains that, of the death penalty states, nine have adopted an approach similar to Florida, nine have not addressed the issue, and twelve take the approach that the Court finds to be constitutionally required. It is difficult to find a national consensus in these numbers. In finding a consensus, though, the majority includes the eighteen states that have abolished capital punishment. Whether to include non-death-penalty states in this calculus is an issue that the Justices have debated before. But the Court’s approach to finding a consensus in this case is especially interesting because of the metric it uses in doing so. Instead of looking at the number of states that have categorically prohibited a punishment—such as tallying the number of states that have banned executing the “mentally retarded,” the “insane,” or juveniles—the Court is counting the number of states that take into account standard errors of measurement (SEMs) in determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled. This metric accounts for the uncertainty inherent in obtained IQ scores and provides a range in which it’s likely the defendant’s true IQ score falls based upon his obtained score. In examining this metric, the Court frames the question as whether it is unconstitutional for a state to not take into account SEMs in determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled. But is it really this procedural matter that’s at issue here? Or do we instead care about whether individuals who actually have true IQ scores of 70 or below are being executed? For example, if a state were to conclude that a defendant is intellectually disabled if he has an obtained IQ score of 90 or below, and if the test used in the state has a SEM of 2.5—suggesting that it is quite unlikely that a defendant scoring above 90 on an IQ test would have a true IQ score of 70 or below—would it be unconstitutional for that state’s courts not to take into account the SEM in determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled? The dissent suggests that another way to probe the uncertainty is to admit multiple obtained IQ scores—a practice the Florida procedures in question allowed. While multiple obtained IQ scores are relevant to determining the reliability of the obtained scores, using this evidence, alone, means working with a fairly small sample size. In Hall, the defendant submitted nine obtained IQ scores, and two were excluded by the sentencing court.

The Court’s decision in this case continues to chip away at the death penalty, albeit quite slowly. The majority’s departure from its traditional Eighth Amendment framework for analysis—a step that is far from new for the Court—injects further uncertainty into the limits on punishments under the Constitution. The Court’s willingness to think more deeply about the methodologies, math, and science underlying some of its decisions, though, furthers the understanding that the meaning of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is evolving. Unfortunately, uncertainty remains about how the Court gathers information about these complicated aspects of law and fact, and how adept the Court is at understanding and employing these concepts.

There is much more that could be said about the Hall case, the Eighth Amendment, and judges’ uses of science and technology, but it has come time for me to sign off of Concurring Opinions for now. Thanks again to the Co-Op gang for asking me to visit, and I look forward to the next time!

15

Turning Back to Electrocution—Reversing the Eighth Amendment Ratchet?

A few days ago, the governor of Tennessee signed a law providing that scheduled executions could be carried out by electrocution rather than by lethal injection if lethal injection drugs were unavailable. This decision comes on the heels of states like Tennessee struggling with a shortage of lethal injection drugs. Also likely triggering this move are the allegationsthat states’ experimentations with new drugs and drug combinations in carrying out lethal injections are inhumane and constitute cruel and unusual punishments in violation of the Eighth Amendment. It’s understandable that states like Tennessee might try another strategy in carrying out death sentences. Moving to the earlier-practiced method of electrocution, though, is somewhat unexpected. Sure, several states have older methods of execution, like electrocution, as back-ups in case an individual requests it or lethal injection, in general, turns out to be unconstitutional. Alabama law, for example, provides that “[a] death sentence shall be executed by lethal injection, unless the person sentenced to death affirmatively elects to be executed by electrocution.” And Oklahoma law states that “[t]he punishment of death shall be carried out by the administration of a lethal quantity of a drug or drugs until death is pronounced . . . . [but] [i]f [lethal injection] is held unconstitutional . . . then the sentence of death shall be carried out by electrocution.” Providing for electrocution based only on the shortage of lethal injection drugs, though, is unprecedented.

Courts judge the constitutionality of a punishment by the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” While individuals have been punished by death for time immemorial, the method of carrying out this punishment has evolved from hanging, to electrocution, to firing squad, to lethal gas, to lethal injection. New York, seeking a more humane method of execution than hanging, built the first electric chair in 1888. I’ll spare you the details, but electrocution has been described as a pretty gruesome process. This is especially so, at least from the observer’s point of view, when compared with the ordinary process of lethal injection, in which the offender is first sedated and then his involuntary movements are masked by a paralytic. The century-long movement away from electrocution seems to be consistent with the sense that our standards of decency improve from generation to generation. Jurisdictions abandon old methods of punishment as new methods emerge, and the old methods then become unusual in practice and also statutorily unusual.

These evolving standards of decency of the Eighth Amendment have been described as a “one-way ratchet”; once the Court declares a particular punishment unconstitutional, jurisdictions are prohibited from authorizing the punishment, therefore it has no chance to move from unusualness to usualness. Indeed, in oral arguments in Atkins v. Virginia, Justice Scalia suggested that the Court should be extremely careful in determining that a punishment is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual because “once [the Court has] decided that you cannot legislate the execution . . . , there can’t be any legislation that enables us to go back.” Considering that unusualness is essential to the Punishments Clause prohibition, this one-way ratchet idea is also relevant even if the Supreme Court has not officially declared a particular punishment to be unconstitutional. Once a punishment becomes unusual enough, it is at risk of being unconstitutional.

Electrocution has in fact become rather unusual. Only eight of the thirty-four death penalty jurisdictions (and only eight of the fifty-three death- and non-death-penalty jurisdictions) authorize electrocution in any circumstance. And there have been just 158 electrocutions in the United States since 1976. This is in contrast to the 1,204 lethal injections that have taken place during this same period. Electrocutions account for just 11% (158/1379) of the executions carried out since 1976. However, as I’ve suggested before, the Supreme Court’s standard of unusualness is somewhat changeable. Still, it seems that the unusualness of electrocution makes it constitutionally suspect even though the Court has not declared it unconstitutional.

But note that we’ve neglected to measure the cruelty of the punishment. Indeed, the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that are cruel and unusual. I’ve argued elsewhere that each of these components is necessary before a punishment is unconstitutional under this Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, the Court’s assessment of how many jurisdictions employ or prohibit punishment might be considered a measure of unusualness, and the Court’s turn to its own judgment about the punishment at issue might be deemed an inquiry into the punishment’s cruelty. (The first inquiry of unusualness, however, may often be linked to a society’s determination of the punishment’s cruelty as well.) But others view the relevant language of the Punishments Clause as a term of art rather than as a dual requirement. The scope of the phrase is interpreted by looking at a consensus of jurisdictions (and sometimes juries), plus the individual judgments of the nine Supreme Court Justices. Even under this view, though, the unusualness of electrocution is significant in its constitutional fate.

In Baze v. Rees, the Court stated that “capital punishment is constitutional. It necessarily follows that there must be a means of carrying it out.” But does the shortage of lethal injection drugs make what might otherwise be considered an unconstitutional punishment constitutional? If execution could only be carried out by torturous means, would torture become tolerable under the Eighth Amendment? There must be limits to this statement by the Court. Under current constitutional analysis, executions need not be free of pain, but they cannot be carried out by barbarous, outdated methods because more humane methods are logistically difficult. Allowing such a turn back in time would be a reversal of the Eighth-Amendment ratchet that has been said to move in only one direction.

3

Is the Death of Capital Punishment Nigh?

Thanks, Danielle and the entire Co-Op gang, for having me this month. I cannot promise to be the most uplifting blogger, as one of my primary areas of interest is cruel and unusual punishments, but perhaps I can provide some relief with my other interests—torts and law & science. Today, however, I’m starting with capital punishment.

In the wake of the botched Oklahoma execution, several people have asked me whether this will mark the beginning of capital punishment’s demise. The thought behind this sentiment seems to be that the horror of Clayton D. Lockett—the subject of the botched execution—writhing and clenching his teeth after he was injected with midazolam might convince the general public that capital punishment is just gruesome and no longer compatible with our sense of fairness and justice. While some observers might certainly find this to be the case, here in Texas—the death penalty capital—I’ve heard people express frustration that anyone has shown sympathy toward Lockett. “Why isn’t anyone talking about his victim?” they ask. “Why should we care that he suffered a few minutes of pain after what he did?” While I’ve tried to explain that the Supreme Court has drawn the line of constitutionality at offenders suffering from wanton infliction of pain, and that we should care about what happened in Oklahoma because it could possibly be considered unconstitutional, this legal argument seems to find little resonance with these questioners. And this sentiment of frustration doesn’t emanate from just Texans; I’ve heard the same thing from people all over the country. Still, the botched execution in Oklahoma—and other botched executions—have been successful in placing a spotlight on some of the problems with capital punishment today. Most of the recent concerns with executions stem from European countries’ refusal to provide death penalty states with certain drugs that have traditionally been used to carry out lethal injection. This has led to death penalty states turning elsewhere for drugs, such as compounding pharmacies, over which there is very little oversight, or using more readily available drugs, such as the medazoline that was used in Oklahoma. States’ new uses of drugs seem to be shrouded in secrecy or largely untested, leaving questions as to how reliable they are in carrying out executions and how much pain they may be causing in doing so. But do we really know how much pain lethal injection with the traditional three-drug cocktail (sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride) caused offenders? Just because most states used similar lethal injection cocktails does not necessarily mean that they were the most humane way to carry out the punishment. There does not seem to be a realistic way to objectively measure the pain involved in execution. In fact, one of the drugs used in the traditional three-drug cocktail for lethal injection—pancuronium bromide—was employed to mask the body’s struggle as it descends into death; pancuronium bromide is a paralytic that keeps the offender’s body from flailing and twitching involuntarily as the body is put to death. Paralyzing the offender in this way may make the execution more palatable for observers to watch. It may also mask any errors in sedating the offender before he is killed, as was argued in Baze v. Rees.

Taking a step back, the Supreme Court has never found a particular method of execution unconstitutional. Although the Court has been continuously chipping away at the death penalty, it has done this from the directions of scrutinizing the classes of offenders that may be executed, limiting which crimes may be punished with death, and examining the procedures necessary to sentence an offender to death. In prohibiting capital punishment in some of these circumstances, the Court has looked primarily at (1) objective indicia of a consensus against a particular punishment, and (2) the Court’s own “independent judgment.”

With respect to the first consideration—the “objective indicia”—thirty-two states (plus the federal government and U.S. military) have retained the death penalty. While this does not seem to suggest that a consensus has been formed against the punishment in the United States, the Supreme Court has found such a consensus on less evidence. In Graham v. Florida, for example, the Supreme Court found that a consensus existed against imposing a sentencing of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile non-homicide offenders despite the fact that thirty-nine jurisdictions permitted the punishment for that crime. In that case, the Court focused on the fact that the punishment was relatively rarely imposed in those jurisdictions. In other cases, the Court has said that the “consistency of the direction of change” makes a difference. In Atkins v. Virginia, for example, the Court found it telling that sixteen jurisdictions had moved to prohibit executing “mentally retarded” offenders in the decade or so before Atkins was decided. In comparison, six jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment within the last eight years.

With respect to the Court’s second indicator of the constitutionality of a punishment—its own independent judgment—the Court has primarily looked to the penological purposes of punishment. This is a somewhat unpredictable and malleable inquiry, however, and the Court has also looked to factors as varied as the reliability of the evidence presented in the trial court and the risk of wrongful execution.

One distinguishing characteristic of capital punishment more generally, though, is its enshrinement in the text of the Constitution. It’s mentioned no less that four times, by reference to capital crimes and depriving someone of his life. The Supreme Court has adopted an evolving interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, but it seems that the Court could find this textual aspect of the Constitution a difficult hurdle to overcome.

0

Neurocriminology: The Monsters are in the Molecules

Is the brain indeed the prime suspect when it comes to horrific crimes? Does our molecular structure or DNA determine our destiny, for the benevolent best or the malovent worst?

Such questions and others are explored in Dr. Adrian Raine’s book titled The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime (Pantheon, 2013). This mind-opening book by a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychiatry and chairman of the department of criminology is the focus of an online symposium just posted on the Washington Independent Review of Books Gb4yObYARcACwebsite.

To help flesh out some of the instructive and provocative points raised in Dr. Raine’s illuminating book, NYU professor of Clinical Psychiatry Laurence R. Tancredi (who holds MD and JD degrees) and a University of Minnesota law professor Francis Shen (who specializes in neuroscience and the law) wrote commentaries. In the spirit of a free exchange of ideas, Dr. Raine authored a reply. I wrote the foreword to the symposium.

0

What do a Writ of Mandamus, 12(b)(6), the Death Penalty, and a Batson Challenge Have in Common?

The answer is Herbert Smulls, who Missouri executed late last night. The last few days of Smulls’ life were filled with a procedural mess involving an en banc Eighth Circuit judgment and a stay of execution by the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 24, by a vote of 7-3, the Eighth Circuit  issued a writ of mandamus on behalf of the Missouri Director of the Department of Corrections directed at the district court judge who the Eighth Circuit found had abused its discretion. The district court had ordered discovery so that Smulls could find out the doctor, pharmacist, and laboratory that were prescribing and supplying the drugs to be used in his execution (and thus, determine if the death penalty drug would cause excessive pain and suffering in violation of the 8th Amendment). The en banc Eighth Circuit granted the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus ordering the the district court to vacate its discovery order. The majority of the Eighth Circuit held that  the district court had abused its discretion by denying Missouri’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the underlying 8th Amendment claim. Notably, the Eighth Circuit reached its conclusion without mentioning 12(b)(6) at all and it isn’t until the dissent by Judge Bye that the underlying civil claim appellate posture is revealed.

Then, on Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay barring the execution of Smulls. Doug Berman heard, from a knowledgeable source, that the stay was issued not regarding the 8th Amendment claim, but based upon a Batson challenge (which wasn’t even before the en banc 8th Circuit as far as I can tell). If true, the stay was truly remarkable because Batson challenges (based upon racial exclusion of jurors by the prosecutor) are almost never granted, of little interest to the modern Supreme Court, and usually litigated far earlier in the appellate process. However, yesterday, the Supreme Court lifted its stay and it is unlikely that we will ever find out the details underlying the last minute Batson challenge (if there was one).

My first reaction from a procedural perspective is that there has to be a better way. It is a very strange world were 12(b)(6), mandamus, and the criminal death penalty appear in a single case. Yet, a quick Lexis search revealed 47 other opinions issued with those three legal issues. Notably, all of the recent cases involved litigation over drug cocktails for the death penalty. Significantly, none involved Batson and the Supreme Court was seemingly absent from those cases. In some part, this can be traced back to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which barred second or successive habeas petitions. As a result, defense counsel must exploit other procedures for relief once the collateral habeas appellate process has been exhausted. This case illustrates the bizarre legal gymnastics that result. I joked with my colleague that you could teach most of a federal courts class with just this case.

Reading the Eighth Circuit majority, concurring, and dissent opinions shows that the judges are essentially in the dark on how these disputes should be handled. The majority infers its abuse of discretion finding from dicta in Baze v. Rees. The dissent rightfully, in my opinion, points out that Baze has as much to do with abuse of discretion for denying 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss as does a hot dog. And yet, I can’t completely fault the majority because they have been left with so little guidance from Congress and the Supreme Court that any opinion they issue would have to invent “new” law. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and traditional standards of review are simply not well-designed to address death penalty appeals (particularly those on the eve of execution). Whatever one thinks of the value of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, someone has to clean up this mess or death penalty litigation will likely become even more procedurally absurd.

0

CELS VII: Data is Revealing Part 2

 

Shouldn't it be "data are revealing?"

Shouldn’t it be “data are revealing?”

[This is part 2 of my recap of the Penn edition of CELS, promised here. For Part 1, click here.  For previous installments in the CELS recap series, see CELS IIIIVV, and VIVII.]

Where were we?  I know: throwing stink-bombs at a civil procedure panel!

At the crack of dawn saturday I stumbled into the Contracts II panel. Up first was Ian Ayres, presenting Remedies for the No Read Problem in Consumer Contracting, co-authored with Alan Schwartz.  Florencia Marotta-Wurgler provided comments.  The gist of Ayres’ paper is that consumers are optimistic about only a few hidden terms in standard-form contracts. For most terms, they guess the content right. Ayres argued that should be concerned only when consumers believe that terms are better than they actually are.  The paper  proposes that firms make such terms more salient with a disclosure box, after requiring firms to learn about consumer’s knowledge on a regular basis. Basically: Schumer’s box, psychologically-calibrated, for everyone.  Florencia M-W commented that since standard-form contracts evolve rapidly, such a calibrated disclosure duty might be much more administratively complex than Ayres/Schwartz would’ve thought.  A commentator in the crowd pointed out that since the proposal relies on individuals’ perceptions of what terms are standard, in effect it creates a one-way ratchet. The more people learn about terms through the Ayres/Schwartz box, the weaker the need for disclosure. I liked this point, though it appears to assume that contract terms react fairly predictably to market forces. Is that true?  Here are some reasons to doubt it.

Zev Eigen then presented An Experimental Test of the Effectiveness of Terms & Conditions.  Ridiculously fun experiment — the subjects were recruited to do a presidential poll. The setup technically permitted them to take the poll multiple times, getting paid each time.  Some subjects were exhorted not to cheat in this way; others told that the experimenters trusted them not to cheat; others were given terms and conditions forbidding cheating. Subjects exhorted not to cheat and trusted not to cheat both took the opportunity to game the system significantly less often than those presented with terms and conditions. Assuming external validity, this raises a bit of a puzzle: why do firms attempt to control user behavior through T&Cs? Maybe T&Cs aren’t actually intended to control behavior at all! I wondered, but didn’t ask, if T&Cs that wrapped up with different formalities (a scan of your fingerprint; a blank box requiring you to actually try to sign with your mouse) would get to a different result.  Maybe T&Cs now signal “bad terms that I don’t care to read” instead of “contract-promise.”  That is, is it possible to turn online T&Cs back into real contracts?

Next, I went to Law and Psych to see “It All Happened So Slow!”: The Impact of Action Speed on Assessments of Intentionality by Zachary C. Burns and Eugene M. Caruso. Bottom line: prosecutors should use slow motion if they want to prove intent. Second bottom line: I need to find a way to do cultural cognition experiments that involving filming friends jousting on a bike. I then hopped on over to International Law, where Adam Chilton presented an experimental paper on the effect of international law rules on public opinion. He used a mTurk sample.  I was a concern troll, and said something like “Dan Kahan would be very sad were he here.” Adam had a good set of responses, which boiled down to “mTurk is a good value proposition!”  Which it is.

After lunch it was off to a blockbuster session on Legal Education. There was a small little paper on the value of law degrees. And then,  Ghazala Azmat and Rosa Ferrer presented  Gender Gaps in Performance: Evidence from Young Lawyers. They found that holding all else equal, young women lawyers tend to bill somewhat fewer hours than men, a difference attributable to being less likely to report being highly interested in becoming partners while spending more time on child care.  What was noteworthy was the way they were able to mine the After the JD dataset. What seemed somewhat more troubling was the use of hours billed as a measure of performance, since completely controlling for selection in assignments appeared to me to be impossible given the IVs available.  Next, Dan Ho and Mark Kelman presented Does Class Size Reduce the Gender Gap? A Natural Experiment in Law. Ho and Kelman found that switching to small classes significantly increases the GPA of female law students (eliminating the gap between men and women). This is a powerful finding – obviously,it would be worth it to see if it is replicable at other schools.

The papers I regret having missed include How to Lie with Rape Statistics by Corey Yung (cities are lying with rape statistics); Employment Conditions and Judge Performance: Evidence from State Supreme Courts by Elliott Ash and W. Bentley MacLeod (judges respond to job incentives);  and Judging the Goring Ox: Retribution Directed Towards Animals by Geoffrey Goodwin and Adam Benforado.  I also feel terrible having missed Bill James, who I hear was inspirational, in his own way.

Overall, it was a tightly organized conference – kudos to Dave Abrams, Ted Ruger, and Tess Wilkinson-Ryan.  There could’ve been more law & psych, but that seems to be an evergreen complaint. Basically, it was a great two days.  I just wish there were more Twiqbal papers.

 

 

1

Separation of Powers, Clemency, and Habeas in Arizona

That an inmate facing the death penalty is denied clemency is not unusual; what happened in Arizona this week was. Arizona has a clemency board that, as I understand it, was explicitly established to be a check on the executive in death penalty cases, but the Governor appears not to like that fact. As The Republic explained:

The clemency board, whose members are appointed by the governor, is supposed to make independent assessments of cases and make recommendations to [Governor] Brewer, who has final say in whether to grant a reprieve or a commuted sentence. But the former board members claim that Brewer, working through a top staff member, regularly “overtly attempted to influence” them not to grant clemency to state prisoners whose cases came before the board. (See also, Laird v. Sims, 147 P. 738 (1915).

The Board is a check and balance on the Governor under Arizona law, and it appears the Governor may be trying to get around that limit. I think that a recommendation by the Board for clemency does not mean the Governor has to grant it. Instead, it means that the Governor has more information from an independent group. But it may be that the Governor “is so concerned with appearing tough on crime that she ha[d] top aides bear down on the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency to ensure that it shows no mercy for prisoners in high-profile cases, according to former clemency-board members.” The Republic hints at possible job threats “Three of the board members were unseated for voting to recommend clemency, they said, and two resigned.” In other words, rather than make the tough call against a considered recommendation, an executive wants decisions that make certain policy stands easier.

Great power is something our country has tried to balance from its inception. We stray from checks and balances at our peril. Leaving aside whether the death penalty is OK (as that discussion is important but far too complex for this space), if one has the death penalty, a system that is cautious and considered about administering the ultimate sanction, death, shows understanding for the human condition. An extra check and evaluation, a system that requires anyone to take a stand before executing someone, matter. They invite reflection and debate. As part of the overall system of checks and balances, Arizona’s independent clemency board seems to have been born of wisdom, now undermined. That should not be the case.

6

Steinbeck’s Son on his Father’s Legacy and the Marvin Wilson Case

Last week, I blogged about Mr. Marvin Wilson’s capital sentence, scheduled for today, and the Texas Court of Appeals’ egregious replacement of science with literature to determine Mr. Wilson’s mental capacity.  John Steinbeck’s son, Thomas Steinbeck, has released the following statement about the Marvin Wilson case and the Briseño decision, which cites his father’s work:

 “On behalf of the family of John Steinbeck, I am deeply troubled by today’s scheduled execution of Marvin Wilson, a Texas man with an I.Q. of 61. Prior to reading about Mr. Wilson’s case, I had no idea that the great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication, i.e, Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men, as a benchmark to identify whether defendants with intellectual disability should live or die. My father was a highly gifted writer who won the Nobel prize for his ability to create art about the depth of the human experience and condition. His work was certainly not meant to be scientific, and the character of Lennie was never intended to be used to diagnose a medical condition like intellectual disability. I find the whole premise to be insulting, outrageous, ridiculous, and profoundly tragic. I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way.”

 Mr. Wilson’s scheduled execution has been condemned by numerous prominent groups and organizations, including the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Texas Senator Rodney Ellis, Texas Representative Lon Burnam, and others. The New York Times, and the Dallas Morning News have editorialized that the execution must be stopped.

Now, the Supreme Court needs to step in and stop the execution.

14

Only in Texas: the Grave Error of Using Literature Rather than Scientific Methodology to Assess Mental Retardation in a Capital Sentence Case

On August 7, Texas plans to execute Marvin Wilson, a man who received a 61 on the standard Wechsler full-scale I.Q. test, a score placing him below the first percentile of human intelligence and far below the I.Q. threshold for mental retardation (MR). His adaptive functioning registers at an even lower percentile. In 1998, a Beaumont jury convicted and capitally sentenced Mr. Wilson for the 1992 murder of Jerry Williams, which allegedly occurred after a fight at a gas station.

Despite enrolling in special education classes throughout his childhood, Mr. Wilson failed the 7th grade. He received mostly Ds and Fs when he repeated it, as well as when he was socially promoted to 8th and 9th grades. He dropped out of school for good in the 10th grade. Friends and family swore affidavits stating that, as a child, he frequently clamped his belt so tightly that he cut off blood circulation, that he couldn’t use simple toys such as tops and marbles, and that he sucked his thumb into adulthood. According to the MR expert who assessed him, Mr. Wilson continues to be unable to perform even the simplest tasks without assistance.

In 2002, Atkins v. Virginia categorically barred states from executing offenders with MR. The Supreme Court observed that people with MR are less culpable for their crimes and that they are not equipped to mount effective criminal defenses. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to wrongful convictions, inflated culpability assessments, and erroneous findings of leadership in multi-party crimes. In defining MR, Atkins relied on the scientific criteria set forth by the leading clinical authorities, including what was then known as the AAMR (the American Association on Mental Retardation). The AAMR thereafter changed its name to the AAIDD (the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities).

Texas has executed more than four times as many people as any other state in the modern era. It is now poised to carry out the particularly egregious execution of Mr. Wilson—one that underscores the jurisdiction’s ongoing status as this country’s most extreme outlier on all issues pertaining to capital sentencing. Mr. Wilson was diagnosed with MR by Dr. Donald Trahan, a court-appointed, board certified neuropsychologist with 22 years of clinical experience as an MR specialist. (See this addendum to his report as well).  At Mr. Wilson’s MR hearing, the state presented no evidence whatsoever; it has never offered any expert opinion, in any form, challenging Dr. Trahan’s clinical diagnosis. The state court actually reasoned that Mr. Wilson did not have MR because he “functioned sufficiently in his younger years to hold jobs, get a drivers license, marry and have a child.”  In the absence of judicial or executive intervention, Texas will execute Mr. Wilson next Tuesday, pursuant to the bizarre criteria that its state courts use to identify offenders with MR.

Utilizing the AAMR/AAIDD’s clinical criteria for mental retardation, Dr. Trahan met with Mr. Wilson for eight hours, reviewed his school and medical records, and administered or evaluated a battery of leading neuropsychological testing. He examined Mr. Wilson’s memory, language development, adaptive skills, conceptual reasoning, practical skills and other scientifically-recognized indicia of mental functioning. Taking into account all of that data, Dr. Trahan concluded that Mr. Wilson clearly had mild MR.

Texas, however, has translated the Supreme Court’s categorical ban on executing offenders with MR in a way that does not, in practice, exempt most offenders with that intellectual disability. Instead, Texas has improvised a set of “Briseño factors” (named after the Texas decision that announced them) to determine which defendants with MR actually receive the Atkins exemption. The Briseño factors are not used by any scientists or clinicians in medical practice, and they are not recognized by the AAMR/AAIDD. The Texas Court of Criminal appeals—the state supreme court for the purposes of criminal adjudication—has actually indicated that it formulated the Briseño factors with Steinbeck’s Lennie in mind.  Although literature can tell us much about society and  law, by my lights, it should not replace or disregard well-accepted scientific measures of evaluation.  That no doubt seems obvious to our readers, but no so to the Texas Court of Criminal appeals.

As the AAIDD wrote in their recent brief in Chester v. Thaler, another case involving the Briseño factors that is pending before the Supreme Court: “[The Texas] impressionistic ‘test’ directs fact-finders to use ‘factors’ that are based on false stereotypes about mental retardation that effectively exclude all but the most severely incapacitated.”

I’m thankful to my colleague Lee Kovarsky, an extraordinary habeas scholar and tireless advocate, who has been representing Mr. Marvin and for his incredibly hard work on Mr. Marvin’s cert petition.