Environmental Sentencing: Its Bark Is Worse Than Its Bite — Should We Care?

I have a new paper on SSRN about the sentencing of environmental offenders.  The title is “Bark and Bite: The Environmental Sentencing Guidelines after Booker.”  Using date collected by the United States Sentencing Commission, I show that judges sentence below the range recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines in an unusually high percentage of environmental cases, approaching sixty percent in some years.

Many environmentalists are apt to bristle at the apparent demonstration that federal judges are “soft” on environmental crime.  Given how little the government must prove to get an environmental conviction, however — prosecutors need not show either harm to the environment or an intent to harm the environment — I am not convinced that judges really are devaluing the environment through their sentencing decisions.  Still, I think the data warrant a rethinking of the environmental guidelines in order to give them more credibility with judges.

Here is the abstract: 

Continue ReadingEnvironmental Sentencing: Its Bark Is Worse Than Its Bite — Should We Care?

Repairing the Harm From Clergy Sex Abuse

For the last ten years I have worked in the field of restorative justice. My students, community members, and I, along with the survivors of crimes of severe violence, regularly participate in intensive three-day healing circles we conduct in maximum-security prisons. Our MULS Restorative Justice Initiative (RJI) also facilitates victim/offender dialogues in very serious cases. My students help teachers, social workers, and students in central-city schools to develop restorative processes which address bullying and other harmful behaviors. Each experience reminds me that when serious harm has occurred, it is important to afford victims a safe environment to be able to tell others what has happened to them. People need to understand how some of their decisions and actions can send out negative ripples that have far-ranging effect. One of the most effective ways to promote that conversation is to create a facilitated talking circle in which a symbolic “talking piece” is passed from person to person. One can only speak when in possession of the “talking piece.”  These circles succeed in getting everyone present to deeply listen to each other and provide a safe environment in which to speak from the heart. I have participated in hundreds of circles through the years and still am amazed at what I learn from people through this process.

A few years ago, I started thinking about how the Catholic Church, as a community of people, really needed to look  from different perspectives at the deep-seated and far-ranging effect of the sex abuse scandal. So the RJI, with the assistance of Amy Peterson, Victim Assistance Coordinator of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, began the project of gathering people for a circle. 

Continue ReadingRepairing the Harm From Clergy Sex Abuse

Correlation Between Number of Questions the Justices Ask and Losing Your United States Supreme Court Case

The New York Times has published a story about some studies showing a strong correlation between the number of questions the Supreme Court justices ask a particular litigant during oral argument and an increased likelihood that that side will lose.  In the words of the attorney who did some of the first work on this question while she was a still a law student,

“The bottom line, as simple as it sounds,” said the student, Sarah Levien Shullman, who is now a litigation associate at a law firm in Florida, “is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.”

Shullman only studied ten cases, but, the article reports, Chief Justice Roberts confirmed the result in his own, larger study while he was a circuit court judge.  

A recent, much more thorough study, accepted for publication in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, seems to prove the correlation exists.  From the abstract,

This paper tests whether Supreme Court justices tip their hands at oral arguments. Specifically, we test whether, when justices ask more questions of one side, that side is more likely to lose their case. The findings support the theory; namely, when justices ask more questions of the petitioner’s attorney the Court is significantly less likely to reverse the lower court decision.

The NYT remarks that Chief Justice Roberts “sounded both fascinated and a little deflated by the results of his experiment. ‘The secret to successful advocacy,’ he said playfully, ‘is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.'” 

The result seems obvious.  It is human nature, at least among lawyers, to want to interrupt and ask questions of someone you disagree with, especially if the person’s answers are not satisfactory.  In other words, the side that has a sound, convincing answer for every question has created a better argument.

Now, if only a study could show how to have a sound, convincing answer for every question in every argument.  That would be a real secret to successful advocacy.

Continue ReadingCorrelation Between Number of Questions the Justices Ask and Losing Your United States Supreme Court Case