What We Read, April 11-15, 2011

Each week, we round-up the links which were of interest to staff at Chicago Appleseed this week.

• Monica Youn’s (Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law)  testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on “The Fair Elections Now Act: A Comprehensive Response to Citizens United”: video, text, .pdf (annotated).

• The 9^th Circuit Order in USA v Arizona, denying a request to lift the preliminary injunction, staying implementation of Arizona’s controversial immigration law (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act .pdf) until a final decision is made about its constitutionality. Lower court documents are available at Justia; additional Appellate court documents are available at the 9^th Circuit website.

• Jamelle Bouie at The Nation on “Why Judicial Elections are a Bad Thing.” This post, and Julian Sanchez’s response build upon our long-stated position that “Judges Should Be Evaluated For Performance, Not Politics”.

• Adam Serwer writes “How Do You Cut Prison Populations and Costs?” at The American Prospect on cutting prison expenditures by improving/utilizing parole and probation. Chicago Appleseed has been examining the Cook County Adult Probation system, and will be focusing on it more closely in the coming months.

• “White House Scratches its Head Over Some ABA Ratings of Judicial Nominees” at the Blog of the Legal Times. The research process (.pdf) for our Judicial Performance Commission strives for transparency, trying to strike a careful balance between protecting the confidences of attorneys interviewed in the process while promoting integrity in our investigations. More on federal judicial nominations at the American Constitution Society’s Judicial Nominations site.

• Reaction to This American Life’s March 25, 2011 episode on Georgia’s punitive drug court, which is run contrary to the rehabilitative, restorative philosophy of the drug court model. An unusual in-depth investigative report, the program frequently identifies how this particular drug court deviates from the standard drug court model. At roughly minute 58, page 20 in the transcript, host Ira Glass states that according to the National Association of Drug Court Programs, approximately 150 drug courts don’t apply the model correctly and do not have good outcomes as a result.

Reaction included:

• The National Association of Drug Court Programs (.pdf) noticed that This American Life repeatedly mentioned how the particular drug court profiled was “run very differently than any other drug court in the court”. Look at the National Association of Drug Court Programs for more information about the drug court model.
• ATLaw responded as well. ATLaw is the blog about Georgia’s legal community, published by the Daily Report.
• In 2009, the Sentencing Project released a report (.pdf) concluding that drug courts reduce recidivism and generally reduce costs in the criminal court. However, they also note a fear that drug courts may bring in more offenders than would otherwise enter the court system. This concern is noted at approximately minute 31 in the This American Life podcast, page 11 in the transcript.
• Law Professor Cynthia Alkon notes that “this extreme example of misuse of alternative processes runs contrary to the goals of therapeutic justice and could work to undermine the development of legitimate drug courts.”
• We also found this story about a Will County Assistant State’s Attorney who herself graduated from drug court and was able to go on to college and eventually graduate from law school.

Finally!

• It was National Volunteer Appreciation Week and we saw this report from Pro Bono Net: Why Lawyers Give Back (.pdf).  Thank you to all our court-watching volunteers and pro bono attorneys. We simply could not do our work without you!