Criminal Law & Process – Page 47 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Murder and Milwaukee

Post author:Mike Gousha
Post published:August 15, 2013
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Milwaukee Public

Sunday on my statewide television show UpFront, I asked Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn a simple question. Given the recent rash of shootings and homicides in Milwaukee, what would he say to out-state residents who might be wondering whether the city is safe?

“As long as they’re not coming here to engage in crime,” the Chief responded, “they’re safe.” Flynn said Milwaukee has one of the safest big-city downtowns in the country, but it also has a well-armed criminal community. According to the chief, 85 percent of Milwaukee’s victims and 95 percent of its offenders in gun-related cases have significant criminal records.

To address the spike in violent crime, Flynn and Mayor Tom Barrett asked the state to kick-in $500,000 for additional police overtime. But their suggestion didn’t get a warm reception from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. In an interview with WisconsinEye’s Steve Walters, Vos criticized how city officials were running the department, and said the strategy to combat violence in Milwaukee isn’t working.

Nearly two dozen shootings in a week. Seven gun-related murders in seven days. The recent events have led to a fierce public debate. Was Milwaukee well on its way to becoming Detroit? Had police strategies to combat violent crime failed? Or was Milwaukee no different from many other big cities which have experienced similar spikes in crime?

Earned Release From Prison: Judges Not Necessarily the Best Deciders

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:August 12, 2013
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Judges & Judicial Process Marquette Law School Public Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process

In 2009, Wisconsin expanded release opportunities for prisoners and established a new Earned Release Review Commission to handle the petitions. Just two years later, however, the legislature reversed course, largely repealing the 2009 reforms and abolishing the ERRC. The 2011 revisions effectively returned authority over “early” release to judges. Critics of the ERRC, an appointed body, maintained that it was more appropriate to give release authority to elected judges.

However, last month’s Marquette Law School Poll indicates that Wisconsin voters would actually prefer to put early release into the hands of a statewide commission of experts rather than the original sentencing judge.

Among the 713 randomly selected Wisconsin voters who participated, a 52% majority stated that release decisions should be made by a commission of experts, as opposed to only about 31% who favored judges. An additional 13% stated that both options were equally good. The Poll’s margin of error was 3.7%.

We asked several questions to try to identify more specifically the perceived strengths and weaknesses of both options.

Second Chance for Juveniles: Raising the Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction in Wisconsin

Post author:Kelli Thompson
Post published:July 31, 2013
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Public

Under current Wisconsin law, an individual charged with a crime is under the jurisdiction of juvenile court only if he or she is younger than 17. For several years, legislation intended to increase this age to 18 has been introduced, but has not been passed by the legislature . . . yet.

This legislative session, a new effort is underway to treat children under 18 as juveniles if they have not been previously adjudicated delinquent, they have not been convicted of a crime, or they are presently charged with a non-violent offense. Research and experience has shown that harsher criminal sanctions do not break the cycle of recidivism and that the consequences of a criminal record are detrimental to the future development and success of children. Returning 17-year-olds to the juvenile justice system is more likely to have a better outcome for both the child and our society as a whole.

The biggest impediment to making this change has been the fiscal impact to counties, which pay the costs of juvenile detention. The current draft legislation seeks to mitigate the fiscal impact while beginning the process of more appropriately treating juveniles in the criminal justice system.