# data[].attributes.headline
Does murder rate go up without the death penalty?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does murder rate go up without the death penalty?

# data[].attributes.body
Beth Kassab discusses evolved perspectives and points about the death penalty over the years with the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, Robert Dunham. They talk about how the death penalty is often times looked at a negative aspect of the justice system, but in certain times of chaos and terror, can
be favored by crowds to be used. For example, when the Orlando police officer was shot and killed by Markeith Loyd, the community was all in for issuing the death penalty to Loyd. Contradictory to that, most of the individuals prior to that incident in Orlando would have voted against the death penalty if it were debated about.

Beth Kassab, "Does murder rate go up without the death penalty?", March 23, 2017, [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/92872422-132.html]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The death penalty no longer seems to be a pragmatic policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sentinel's Beth Kassab talks to the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center about the shifting politics of death.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rule Of Law: Criminal Justice And Property Rights- Full Chapter

# data[].attributes.subject
Rule Of Law: Criminal Justice And Property Rights- Full Chapter

# data[].attributes.body
In the Capital Punishment section of the article, it displays the United States history of the death penalty, and why we discontinued using it federally. One of the main uses for the death penalty was to help America to be viewed as no joke, and that crime will be punished on a severe level if needed. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the death penalty because "it began to be considered inhumane."  Well a big question to consider is: What is more inhuman?  A large felony list, or dehumanizing a negative aspect to the United States.

"Rule Of Law: Criminal Justice And Property Rights- Full Chapter", Freedom House, 2017, [https://freedomhouse.org/report/todays-american-how-free/rule-law-criminal-justice-and-property-rights-full-chapter]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rule of law requires that laws be adopted in accordance with established procedures, that they be made known to the public, and that they be enforced consistently and even-handedly. The rule of law is intended to ensure that a government exercises its authority fairly, and it is crucial to securing liberty and justice for the people of any nation.

No country is perfect in this respect, but overall and as compared to other countries, the United States conforms to the rule of law. In America, those accused of breaking the law have the right to fair, speedy trials, and convicted criminals are protected by rules intended to ensure that they are treated humanely. Civil courts exist to remedy breaches of administrative and civil law and to enforce private contracts, and courts are generally considered fair and impartial (judges tend to fare better in public opinion polls than do members of Congress). Both the federal and state constitutions protect property rights. Federal law protects women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other historically oppressed groups from governmental discrimination and in some cases from discrimination by private actors as well.

U.S. law is derived from four sources: the Constitution, statutes passed by legislative bodies, administrative decisions by executive agencies, and common law based on the English legal tradition. The United States also divides the responsibility for enforcing the law among the federal, state, and local governments.

The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and establishes the authority of the federal Congress and the president to make laws and treaties. Federal and state judges are bound by the Constitution, and no state law may be passed in contravention of federal law or the federal Constitution.

The U.S. Congress has the power to pass laws for certain constitutionally limited purposes, such as regulating interstate commerce and protecting the rights of citizens from state power. Additionally, Congress may authorize the creation of executive branch agencies, which establish legally enforceable regulations and administrative rules. Federal laws and rules are published in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

The rule of law must be evaluated in two distinct realms: criminal and civil.

American criminal law defines acts that are deemed to threaten the safety and security of society and punishes those who commit them. Murder, rape, and robbery are covered by criminal law because they are considered threats to the entire society, not merely to the individual victims, and they are among the most serious of crimes. Offenses such as reckless driving and selling marijuana are also believed to threaten society as a whole, and are categorized as criminal.

Civil law is used to settle disputes arising either among individuals or between individuals and governments. Civil law also governs the political process by which lawmakers are chosen and laws are made.

In the United States, most criminal and civil law is made and enforced by state and local governments. Each state retains a degree of sovereignty, with its own constitution, legislature, and legal codes, and states have wide powers to legislate matters not preempted by the federal Constitution or federal laws. The various states generally have similar laws on crimes such as rape and murder, but the treatment of lesser crimes and misdemeanors varies widely from state to state. States also establish their own laws governing the right to hold and dispose of property, the regulation of consumer products and services, business and corporate law, torts, and other civil matters. In short, the rights and responsibilities of citizens are not entirely uniform across the country.

Critics of the American system tend not to allege that the rule of law is stronger in other countries. Rather, they protest the ways in which they believe America fails to live up to its own ideals as expressed in its Constitution, its laws, and the rulings of its courts. Some critics cite disparities in the law's treatment of racial and other minorities as evidence of continuing institutional prejudice. Others note unequal access to high-quality (and high-cost) lawyers. They argue that overburdened courts and overcrowded jails and prisons result in the substandard treatment of suspected and convicted criminals. Many find fault in laws that severely punish nonviolent drug offenders, or object to recent legal and administrative decisions that have limited the rights of individuals to hold and use their property.
Criminal Justice
Incarceration. Today more than 7 out of every 1,000 residents of the United States are in jail or prison,1 giving America the highest reported incarceration rate in the world. More than 5.6 million people in the United States, or one of every 37 residents, have spent time behind bars.

Other countries with comparable rates of incarceration include Russia, Belarus, and Bermuda. However, some experts suggest that actual rates of incarceration in more repressive countries are higher than reported. Cuba, for example, reports a rate of only 4 in 1,000,2 but keeps lists of prisoners secret, making this number impossible to verify. Most Western European nations report incarceration rates of between 0.5 and 1.5 per 1,000 residents.

The rate of incarceration in the United States has risen steeply in the last 20 years, from 1.39 per 1,000 residents in 1980 to a high of 7.35 per 1,000 residents in 2005. Critics accuse the United States of using incarceration to deal with social problems, such as drug use, that many countries handle through treatment programs and other less drastic means. However, the U.S. system's defenders note that crime has declined sharply as prison sentences have increased; incarceration, they argue, is an effective way to reduce crime.

Rates of incarceration in the United States are not uniform across all segments of the population. Women are incarcerated at one-ninth the rate of men, although the rate of incarceration for women is rising more rapidly than the rate for men. Six of every 10 prison inmates is a member of a racial or ethnic minority. A black male in the United States has a 1 in 3 chance of being imprisoned at some point in his lifetime, while a white male has only a 1 in 17 chance of going to prison.

The United States is one of only a handful of countries that bar prisoners from voting. Furthermore, people convicted of felonies in most U.S. jurisdictions are stripped permanently of their right to vote in local, state, and federal elections. Because of this, some critics argue that inequalities in the justice system contribute to political inequality by disenfranchising large groups of people, primarily minority men. At any one time, more than 4 million Americans-or 1 in 50 adult citizens-are ineligible to vote due to a past criminal conviction. Of those, 1.4 million are black men, comprising 14 percent of the nation's black male population.4 Recently, however, following years of advocacy by civil liberties and prisoner rights organizations, a number of states have restored voting rights and other civil rights to former prisoners.

Capital Punishment. Federal law permits the imposition of the death penalty for certain violent crimes and treason. Capital punishment is legal in 38 states as well. Since colonial times, about 13,000 people have been executed in the country.

The death penalty was widely used in the United States until the twentieth century, when it began to be considered inhumane. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court suspended use of the death penalty, ruling that because of the variation in state laws and the wide discretion given to judges and juries in its application, capital punishment was "arbitrary and capricious" and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In a series of cases in 1976, the court reversed itself and permitted use of the death penalty for specified crimes and with appropriate procedures.

Death penalty cases are now conducted using bifurcated trials in which juries must first determine defendants' guilt or innocence and then, in a second stage, consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances in deciding whether to recommend a death sentence.5 Since 1976, more than 1,050 death sentences have been carried out. Some 3,370 people are currently on death row nationwide, although only about 10 percent of death-row inmates are ever executed.

The United States is unusual among democracies in permitting capital punishment. Most European and Latin American states have abolished the death penalty, although Guatemala, many Caribbean nations, and some African and Asian democracies retain it. In undemocratic countries the death penalty is common but not universal. In 2005 at least 80 percent of executions recorded worldwide took place in China, which reported executing 1,770 people (Amnesty International estimates that the actual number of Chinese executions might have been as high as 8,000).6 Iran reported 94 executions in 2005, and Saudi Arabia at least 86, while the United States executed 60 people.

U.S. courts have proscribed capital punishment for criminals with a diminished mental capacity. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing mentally retarded criminals violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In the ruling, the court affirmed that the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The justices cited the fact that a growing number of state legislatures had banned execution of the mentally retarded as evidence of a shift in the national consensus on the matter.

In the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court again used the "evolving standards of decency" test to limit the use of the death penalty, holding that capital punishment could only be imposed on defendants who were at least 18 years old at the time of their crimes. Here the court cited sociological and scientific evidence suggesting that juveniles' incomplete brain development mitigates their responsibility for their actions. Despite this evidence, minors may still be tried as adults for certain crimes, and 41 states allow life sentences without the possibility of parole for minors. In 2005, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found that at least 2,225 American children were serving sentences of life without parole.

Opinion polls have consistently found that a substantial majority of Americans want to retain the death penalty. However, critics cite the abolition of the death penalty by other democracies as evidence that prevailing moral standards now preclude execution as a punishment.

Death penalty opponents also argue that courts are not able to determine guilt to the degree of certitude that would justify execution. Between 1973 and 2005, 122 people in 25 states were released from death row after new evidence or new testing of old evidence revealed that they were innocent of the crimes for which they had been sentenced.8 In 2006, Virginia Governor Mark Warner authorized the testing of DNA evidence in the case of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed by the state in 1992. The evidence confirmed Coleman's guilt, and indeed no other case of wrongful execution has ever been proven in the United States. Nonetheless, the Coleman case may have set a precedent for the posthumous testing of evidence in other capital cases, and opponents of the death penalty say this could one day expose wrongful executions.

Some 42 percent of all death-row inmates are black men, and scholars have debated whether this reflects discrimination. In the 1987 case McCleskey v. Kemp, convicted murderer Warren McCleskey argued, ultimately without success, that Georgia's use of the death penalty constituted impermissible race discrimination under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. McCleskey relied on a study-led by University of Iowa professor David Baldus-on capital sentencing in Georgia in the 1980s, which found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70 percent of cases where a black defendant was accused of murdering a white victim, but in only 15 percent of cases where a white defendant was accused of murdering a black victim.

In another study by Baldus and his colleagues, blacks in Philadelphia were found to be sentenced to death at four times the rate of nonblack defendants convicted of similar crimes. More than 89 percent of prisoners sent to death row in Philadelphia since 1976 have been people of color.10 Similar reports have found significant sentencing disparities in other states. In Saldano v. Texas in 2000, the Supreme Court found that an expert witness had recommended the death penalty to a jury based on a calculus that included the defendant's race; the court overturned the death sentence in that case.

However, other studies have shown that black defendants in capital cases are no more likely to receive the death penalty than are whites. A 2004 article by John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, and Martin T. Well argued that because of the reluctance to impose death sentences in cases of black-on-black crime, blacks convicted of murder are actually less likely than white defendants to end up on death row.11 Similarly, after adjusting data to account for the circumstances of each crime, such as level of brutality or premeditation, a 2006 RAND Corporation study of 652 federal cases involving capital offenses found that federal prosecutors were no more likely to seek the death penalty for black defendants than for whites.

Several states have placed formal or de facto moratoriums on capital punishment until concerns about bias and wrongful convictions can be resolved. Maryland declared a moratorium on capital punishment between 2002 and 2004 pending the completion of a study on racial and geographic disparities in sentencing. Although the report found significant disparities, Republican governor Robert Ehrlich lifted the moratorium in 2004, and two prisoners have since been executed. New Jersey, which allows capital punishment but has not carried out an execution since 1963, passed a legislative measure halting capital punishment in January 2006.

The most discussed moratorium, though, was declared in 2000 by Illinois governor George H. Ryan. Between the reinstatement of Illinois' death penalty in 1977 and 2000, the state executed 12 people but freed 13 from death row because of new evidence. Ryan, a Republican, said he could not support a system that was "so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life. Before leaving office in 2003, he emptied the state's death row in a historic mass commutation.

Fairness in Sentencing. Punishments for the most serious crimes, such as rape and murder, are generally similar across jurisdictional lines. However, sentences for less severe crimes vary widely by jurisdiction. To ensure fairness, federal and state governments have implemented guidelines that mandate sentence ranges based on the crime and the mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The guidelines are meant to protect defendants from sentences influenced by their (or judges') personal characteristics, and from other potentially discriminatory judgments.

However, sentencing guidelines have been challenged in recent years, and the Supreme Court has limited them in several cases. Many of these rulings have reduced the sentencing authority of judges by stressing defendants' right to have the facts of their cases decided by juries.

In the 2000 case Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court invalidated a statute that allowed judges to exceed the legislatively determined maximum sentence if they found that a crime had been committed because of racial bias. The court said that allowing judges to consider bias as an aggravating factor violated defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. In Blakely v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that giving judges the power to increase sentences based on their own determinations of facts not presented to a jury violated the defendant's due process rights. Defendant Robert Blakely had pleaded guilty to murdering his wife. During the sentencing phase of his trial, the judge had determined that Blakely acted with "deliberate cruelty," an aggravating factor that significantly increased the mandatory minimum sentence for his crime. The Supreme Court's ruling in the case invalidated most state sentencing guidelines that gave judges the discretion to increase sentences based on aggravating factors. Two subsequent decisions by the high court in 2005, United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, overturned mandatory federal sentencing guidelines on the same Sixth Amendment grounds cited in Blakely and Apprendi.

Some 55 percent of all federal prisoners and more than 21 percent of inmates in state prisons are incarcerated for drug crimes.14 Although the percentage has declined, the absolute numbers of drug offenders in prison has risen steadily in recent years. This is due both to an increase in criminal prosecutions and to longer prison sentences for inmates convicted of drug crimes.

As of 2002, the average sentence for a federal inmate convicted of a drug-related felony (where the drug crime was the most serious offense for which the defendant was convicted) was 76 months, while overall the average felony sentence was 58.4 months.15 More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population between 1985 and 1995 was due to drug convictions.16 The number of prisoners incarcerated for nonviolent crimes is now larger than the combined populations of Alaska and Wyoming.

Most drug sentences under both federal and state law are based on legislatively determined guidelines that recommend minimum sentences based on the type of drug in question, the weight or amount of the drug entered into evidence, and the prosecutor's assessment of the defendant's intent to distribute or traffic the drug.

Even the form of the drug a defendant is convicted of possessing can affect his or her sentence. Notably, under current federal law, a person convicted of possessing five grams of crack cocaine would be subject to a five-year minimum sentence, while a defendant would have to be convicted of possessing at least 500 grams of powder cocaine in order to trigger the same sentence. Harsh sentences for the possession of crack cocaine were enacted during the 1980s in an effort to stem what the federal government and many urban community leaders believed was an epidemic linked to violent crime and unrest. However, the measures disproportionately affected poor and black defendants, since wealthier white drug users tended to use powder cocaine, leading to charges of racial bias. The Senate is currently considering a bipartisan bill that would bring the penalties for the two forms of cocaine closer together, although a significant gap would remain.18 Black Americans represent 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 53 percent of those convicted of such charges, and 67 percent of people imprisoned for drug crimes.

More than 90 percent of prisoners are eventually released into society. However, the rate of re-arrest for criminal offenders is 67.5 percent in the three years following release.20 Frustrated by this recidivism, states in the 1990s began passing laws aimed at habitual offenders, known colloquially as "three strikes and you're out" laws. Washington State passed the first such law by referendum in 1993. The measure mandated that any criminal convicted of a "most serious offense" three times be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. By 2004, the federal government and 26 states had passed similar laws.

Some "three strikes" laws have had unforeseen results. California's law, for instance, applies to any third felony conviction, even if it is nonviolent. In 1995, California felon Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years in prison for stealing four chocolate-chip cookies.21 Defendants in the state may also be convicted of two "third strikes" in a single case, resulting in two consecutive life sentences.

Police Methods. According to federal statistics, the racial breakdown of those arrested nationwide does not correspond to the racial breakdown of the general population. Black Americans in particular are arrested in disproportionate numbers. In 2005, blacks made up 12.8 percent of the U.S. population, but 27.8 percent of those arrested.

With this disparity in mind, some police departments informally include race in the set of characteristics, or profile, that officers use to help distinguish likely law-breakers from the general population. Opponents of racial profiling argue that it creates a vicious circle, with heightened police scrutiny of certain groups reinforcing the racial disparity in arrest and conviction figures. Critics have also refuted the notion that racial profiling always targets likely criminals. When San Diego released statistics on traffic stops in 2000, it was found that blacks and Hispanics had a 10 percent chance of being searched, while whites had a 3 percent chance. However, 13 percent of both whites and blacks were found to have had contraband, while Hispanics were found to have contraband only 5 percent of the time.

The most notorious recent case of alleged racial profiling began in 1986, when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began a program known as "Operation Pipeline." As part of the program, some 27,000 law enforcement officials were trained to recognize what the DEA termed "key characteristics, or indicators, that are shared by drug traffickers."24 Although the DEA maintained that "the program does not advocate such profiling by race or ethnic background," studies of police officers who received the training found that they were significantly more likely to stop minority drivers than white drivers. For example, a study of police behavior in Maryland between 1995 and 1999 found that African Americans constituted63 percent of the motoristssearched by state policeon Interstate 95, even though only 18percent of motorists onthe highway were black.

In the late 1990s, events in New Jersey began to reverse the widespread use of racial profiling. State troopers there were alleged to be detaining black motorists based on their race alone, and many troopers testified that their supervisors had ordered them to engage in racial profiling. A federal lawsuit on Fourteenth Amendment grounds ended with the placement of a federal monitor in the state police department and a consent decree in which the state police agreed not to detain individuals based on race unless they matched descriptions of specific criminal suspects.26 Since then, other states and municipalities have adopted bans on profiling, and President George W. Bush has spoken out against the practice.

In 2005, approximately 7,000 of America's 18,000 police departments used tasers or stun guns, up from 1,000 in 2001. Reports that these weapons have led to approximately 160 deaths since 2000 have raised questions about their safety and the situations in which they should be used. In notable cases, stun guns have been used against handcuffed suspects and children who have committed minor offenses. Proponents of stun guns argue that they save lives, as they provide police officers with an alternative to lethal force. Critics have called for greater regulation of the weapons, with detailed reporting and monitoring procedures.

The use of police lineups has also received increased scrutiny in recent years. After several exonerations of inmates following DNA testing, a number of states began to change lineup procedures in the 1990s. Witnesses were shown each person individually, rather than as part of a group, with the reasoning that the witness could more objectively and accurately identify a suspect alone than in comparison to other individuals. However, subsequent studies have shown that the new lineups lead to more inaccurate identifications than the old system, and no uniform system of lineups is currently in place in the United States.

Legal Services for Indigent Defendants. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of each defendant in a criminal prosecution "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Since 1938 the Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in federal proceedings applies to all defendants. Many states have extended this right to misdemeanor cases and to appeals, although federal jurisprudence does not require it. Under federal law, all defendants also have the right to have an attorney present during any custodial interrogation by police, and evidence collected from interrogations during which that right was denied is generally inadmissible in court.

States and localities historically called upon attorneys to represent indigent defendants pro bono and enacted a patchwork of laws to help ensure that counsel was available to them. While some legal-aid organizations were present in large cities, in most venues the provision of free and low-cost legal assistance was inadequate. In 1963, however, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required state courts to provide lawyers at no cost to defendants in criminal cases.

That decision sparked the creation of government-funded programs to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in most jurisdictions. Some smaller jurisdictions pay private criminal defense attorneys to represent indigent defendants on a case-by-case basis. Others provide legal services through private, nonprofit legal-aid offices, which contract with the courts to accept cases. Many larger jurisdictions provide legal services through public defender's offices, which employ full-time attorneys at the expense of the government.

Although the right to counsel in the United States is far stronger than in most other countries, some say the government has not done enough to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Attorneys and advocates for the poor complain that representation for the indigent is systematically underfunded and constitutionally inadequate. The American Bar Association has set standards for appropriate caseloads for criminal defense attorneys, but public defenders' caseloads frequently exceed the recommendations. In many jurisdictions, public defenders and prosecutors receive equal pay, but in others the pay for public defenders lags far behind compensation for prosecutors. Public defenders frequently complain that their resources-such as access to forensic testing, investigators, administrative support staff, and expert witnesses-are not comparable to those of prosecutors.

In 2005, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in State v. Citizen that a judge should "prohibit the State from going forward with prosecution" unless "adequate funds become available to provide [for the] constitutionally protected right to counsel." Louisiana and other states have since allocated more resources to criminal defense. In 2005 Texas passed the Fair Defense Act, which created a task force to study the need for indigent-defense reform. As cases challenging the adequacy of criminal defense counsel make their way through state and federal courts, states may be compelled to devote more resources to reforming legal defense services.

Prison Conditions. Prisons in the United States are operated both by the federal government and by individual state governments. For less serious crimes, offenders may be sentenced to short terms in local jails-which also hold defendants awaiting trial-or to alternative forms of punishment such as community service, probation, or restitution.

Conditions in American prisons are better than those in most other nations. In the United States and other industrialized democracies, prisoners are guaranteed adequate housing, nutrition, exercise, and medical care. Inmates have the right to practice their religions, to send and receive mail, to use exercise facilities, and to be free from unnecessary intrusions on their dignity and privacy. Many prisons also offer educational, work, and other opportunities that are designed both to keep inmates occupied and to train them to play productive roles in society when they are released. Coerced prison labor, common in some other countries, is prohibited in the United States. American prisoners have access to legal information to assist in their appeals, and to procedures for filing grievances about prison conditions.

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, passed in 1996, curtailed the courts' authority in responding to prisoners' complaints amid a perceived excess of cases-in 1993 these suits made up 23 percent of all civil filings in federal court. The act ordered that prisoners exhaust all administrative remedies available before filing in federal court, and mandated that all federal court orders in response to complaints would expire after two years.

Many American prisons are now overcrowded, as more criminals are sentenced to longer terms and prison construction fails to keep pace with demand. In 2005, state prisons nationwide housed between 101 and 116 percent of the prisoner capacity for which they were originally designed. Federal prisons operated at 131 percent of capacity.

Although prison conditions in the United States are generally superior to conditions in many other countries, human rights advocates often criticize the system for failing to live up to standards prescribed by U.S. law. In particular, violence in prisons, which has been linked in several studies to overcrowding, is commonplace.

More than 20 percent of all prison and jail inmates report having been sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate or guard.30 In 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 8,210 allegations of staff or inmate sexual violence. Many advocates for prison reform note that additional assaults may go unreported because of fear of reprisal, shame, or mistrust of prison staff. Although America generally treats rape as a serious crime, some experts assert that the public has become desensitized to prison rape.31 In September 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which called for an in-depth survey of sexual violence in state and federal prisons. Congress in 2005 established the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to monitor prison conditions.

Prisoners frequently complain that they receive inadequate nutrition and medical treatment. The Supreme Court set the standard for prison medical care in Estelle v. Gamble (1976), finding that "deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment." State courts have held this decision to require diagnosis and treatment of major medical conditions by qualified medical personnel. Nonetheless, medical care continues to be a frequent subject of prisoner lawsuits.

Because some of their illnesses cause them to become disruptive or threatening, the mentally ill are often imprisoned. One in six prisoners in the United States has a diagnosed mental illness, and there are three times as many mentally-ill people in prisons as in hospitals. Human Rights Watch reported in 2003 that prisons are ill-equipped to treat mental illness, and that additional funding is necessary to ensure the proper treatment of inmates.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed in 1970 as part of a larger crime bill, was designed to prosecute individuals to whom no specific crime could be attributed, but who headed an organization that engaged in illegal acts. Any individual found to be operating an organization guilty of a "pattern of racketeering activity," such as extortion, bribery, homicide, or drug dealing, could be prosecuted under the act.33 Throughout the 1970s, RICO was primarily used against the Mafia, its intended target.

In the 1980s, however, the use of RICO increased as prosecutors and litigants were attracted by a clause that tripled damages in civil cases for anyone found to have been injured as a result of violations of the act. The broad interpretation of "racketeering activity" allowed prosecutors to use the act in cases involving corporate mail and wire fraud that were unrelated to organized crime in the traditional sense. A 1988 Supreme Court decision in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. found that RICO need not apply only to Mafia cases, but could be used against legitimate corporations or businesspeople. From the 1980s onward, RICO has been applied to white-collar criminals, abortion protesters, and corrupt politicians. A RICO case brought against a business employing illegal immigrants is currently in the federal courts. Civil libertarians have objected to the expansive employment of the act, saying it has been stretched far beyond its intended scope.
Property Rights
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment protects the right to own and use private property, stating, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Property rights are also protected by precedent inherited from English common law and by state and federal laws that govern the use of private property.

Property rights are generally well respected in the United States. In most circumstances, property owners may use, sell, and develop their property without fear of government interference. However, the government may tax property to provide funding for public programs, and in limited cases it can compel the sale of private property or circumscribe the purposes for which the property may be used.

Property Takings. Under common law in America, the state retains an inherent power to exercise eminent domain, the right to expropriate private property without the owner's consent, either for the government's own use or for delegation to a third party who will develop it for public use. Common law systems in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and other countries also retain this right, which has historically been used to provide public amenities such as roads, bridges, and military installations.

However, in a controversial 2005 ruling, Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court extended the government's right to take private property for public use. Suzette Kelo, a homeowner in New London, Connecticut, was notified by her city in 2000 that the area in which she lived had been declared economically depressed, and that the city would be buying her home and the homes of 115 of her neighbors as part of a comprehensive revitalization plan. The homes would be razed to make way for a resort, a park, and various new residential and commercial buildings. Kelo and several of her neighbors sued the city, arguing that the plan misused eminent domain because the seized property would benefit private developers rather than the general public. Under the provisions of the Williams County v. Hamilton Bank ruling in 1984, the plaintiff in a property-taking case must exhaust all other avenues of redress before appealing to the federal courts. After making its way through the Connecticut courts, Kelo's case reached the Supreme Court in 2005.

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in favor of the city, finding that economic development for a public purpose-in this case, to revitalize the city and broaden its tax base-met the public-use standard. The court said local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing property because land-use decisions are best made at the local level by individual communities. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue."

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the plain meaning of "public use" included only uses of land by public entities or for amenities open to the public. She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Immediately after the decision, opinion polls found overwhelming opposition to the use of eminent domain for private development.34 Representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) testified before Congress about the historical use of eminent domain to evict racial and ethnic minority homeowners from their property in the name of urban renewal, and predicted that Kelo would have a disparate impact on African Americans.

The court's decision applied only to the rights of property owners under the federal Constitution and left open the possibility that both state and federal laws could limit the use of eminent domain. Eight states-Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington-already prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development, except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, 35 state legislatures have passed laws or constitutional amendments to limit the use of Kelo-style takings. And in November 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would prevent the federal government from using eminent domain for private development as well as deny federal economic development funds to state and local governments that used eminent domain for such purposes. However, the bill was placed on hold in the Senate in December 2006, effectively halting its legislative progress.

Regulatory Takings. Federal and state governments in the United States may also limit otherwise lawful uses of private property for zoning, environmental protection, public accommodation, and other reasons. These limitations can substantially burden landowners by prohibiting some profitable uses of their land.

For example, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Water Act prohibit the development of federally designated "wetlands" in ways that would jeopardize animal or plant habitats. If an entire piece of property is classified as wetland, the law prohibits any development of it. In 2005 and 2006, the court heard two cases, Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States, which challenged the extent of federal power under the Clean Water Act. The cases sought to establish whether tributaries close to wetlands, but not part of the navigable waters to which the law refers, are under federal jurisdiction. A divided court found that the water on the property in question needed to have a "significant nexus" with a navigable body of water, but failed to provide a clear definition of the term, leaving the lower courts to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

In some cases, local authorities have rezoned land from commercial to residential use, or prohibited particular types of business from operating in specific areas. Owners who buy land with the intention of developing it in a way that is subsequently prohibited by regulation can lose much of their investment. These losses are therefore sometimes called "partial" or "regulatory takings." Partial takings often occur as a result of the Endangered Species Act, under which it is illegal to kill or harm any plant or animal listed as endangered. Private property that is identified as the habitat of an endangered species can be subject to development restrictions. Development is banned in large sections of forest in the Pacific Northwest due to the act.

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council that the state was not required to compensate a landowner whose anticipated property development had been barred by state environmental protection law. The decision distinguished between takings, which deprive a landowner of the entire value of a piece of property by transferring ownership to another party, and regulations, which merely deprive the owner of part of the expected value of his or her property by precluding some of its valuable uses. To be eligible for compensation, the court said, the taking must render the property valueless, which environmental regulations do not do.

While Lucas held that the Constitution does not require federal and state governments to compensate owners for the regulatory devaluation of their land, states may pass laws offering such compensation. Opponents of such measures say this amounts to paying landowners to obey the law and could undermine environmental protection efforts. States have responded in various ways. A 2004 Oregon law mandated that landowners be reimbursed for regulatory takings, and Arizona voters approved a November 2006 referendum to the same effect. However, voters in California, Washington, and Idaho rejected similar initiatives that month.

Taxation. Residents of the United States are subject to a variety of taxes on their property, expenditures, and importantly, income. The federal government gained the power to tax individual income in 1913 with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. Today the United States has a graduated, progressive income-tax system, wherein wealthy taxpayers shoulder a greater proportion of the tax burden than poorer taxpayers. Federal income-tax rates range from zero to 35 percent. Each individual's overall income-tax payments depend on his or her income, family status, spending, and eligibility for a variety of tax breaks and credits.

The federal government also taxes the estates of deceased persons before their assets may be passed on to their heirs. In recent years this estate tax has grown controversial and its status has become complex. Today, the rate of the tax ranges from 18 to 55 percent of an estate's value, but the first $2 million is exempt from taxation. However, the exempt portion of the tax is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. The tax itself is scheduled to expire in 2010, and then to return at a higher rate with fewer exemptions in 2011. This confusing state of affairs-with its bizarre incentives to die or to hope for death in particular years-has led to agitation for congressional action.

Opponents of the estate tax, which they pejoratively call the "death tax," believe that it unduly burdens heirs and supersedes the wishes of decedents. They note that inheritors of family-owned businesses such as farms or stores, the value of which is tied up in nonliquid assets, are sometimes forced to sell off the businesses to pay the tax.

Proponents of the estate tax argue that it helps to prevent the perpetuation of class distinctions through inherited wealth. They argue that current exemptions protect family farms and small businesses, and that lowering or repealing the tax would only benefit wealthy families who seek to avoid paying their share.

Consumer Products and Services Regulations. Most states have laws designed to protect consumers from dangerous products and low-quality services. These measures include mandated health and safety inspections of businesses, labeling requirements for consumer products, and occupational-licensure requirements for certain professions.

While many of these laws enjoy wide support, some analysts argue that they restrict commerce and increase prices. Most local governments, for example, impose building codes and zoning restrictions on business owners to ensure that buildings are safe and businesses do not disturb the communities around them. However, the rules limit some freedoms and impose costs on owners.

Since the mid-1980s, some states and localities have banned smoking in many businesses. The first smoking bans applied to offices and other nonpublic workplaces, but since 1993, the District of Columbia and 21 states have banned smoking in most bars, restaurants, and other workplaces open to the public. These laws are intended to protect customers and staff from the danger of environmental tobacco smoke. However, some argue that property owners should be able to decide whether to allow a legal activity such as smoking on their premises.

State and local governments require licenses for professions ranging from medicine to hair braiding and fortune telling. These licenses can be expensive and difficult to obtain. Courts have ruled that states may regulate certain professions, but that these laws must be enforced fairly. The Supreme Court's 1976 decision in New Orleans v. Dukes, for example, held that a state could not prevent new street vendors from operating if it allowed existing vendors to continue. Recently courts and legislatures have eliminated or relaxed requirements for licensure in cosmetology, coffin selling, weed control, sign hanging, and interior design.

Under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the federal government is empowered to regulate products and services that are provided across state lines. However, these regulations often require states to permit the free movement of goods. For instance, in 2005 the Supreme Court overturned statutes in New York and Michigan that forbade direct shipments from out-of-state wineries to consumers. The court held that states may not treat interstate commerce in alcohol differently from intrastate commerce.

The federal government has traditionally controlled certain forms of interstate travel, including air travel. In recent years, however, it has deregulated air travel to spur innovation and efficiency. Since 1969, the government has moved from directly allocating takeoff and landing rights to overseeing self-regulation by the commercial airline industry, and then to allowing the private ownership of transferable property rights in airport slots.41 In the aftermath of this deregulation, which was completed in 1985, prices have fallen and available flights have dramatically expanded. A 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) found that between 1976 and 1990, passenger fares had declined about 30 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, and the number of miles flown had grown and was continuing to grow.

Some experts compare the federal government's deregulation of air travel to its management of the airwaves used for television and radio broadcasts and wireless communication. The government asserts that the airwaves are publicly owned, but issues licenses to private companies for their use. Since 1943, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued analog broadcast licenses to television and radio stations and required them to broadcast content of public interest. The FCC also has the authority to revoke licenses or levy fines against media outlets that broadcast content it considers indecent or inappropriate.

Until 1994, the FCC allocated commercial spectrum-a range of frequencies designated for commercial use-based on its view of the "best public use." Since then, however, the FCC has awarded licenses to the highest bidders in competitive auctions. This change has allowed wireless technology to proliferate and has catalyzed the creation of several new digital media outlets.

Copyright and Intellectual Property. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The result has been a system of federal copyrights and patents that guarantees inventors and those who generate intellectual property the exclusive rights to sell, license, and use their creations during a specified term.

U.S. courts have found that because copyright is intended to encourage the production of creative works, the public's interest in gaining access to those works may supersede the interests of their creators. These rulings have been formalized into a system of "fair use" laws which allow some copyrighted materials to be used in related or derivative works. For example, under the Copyright Act of 1976, an author may copy portions of another author's work without permission in order to critique the work or make a related argument. Additionally, the owner of a copy of a copyrighted work may make copies for his or her personal use, such as a backup copy of a compact disc (CD).

Digital reproduction has made the enforcement of copyrights more difficult. To protect themselves, many producers of digital video discs (DVDs) and CDs now incorporate digital-rights management (DRM) technology that prevents the unauthorized copying of movies and songs. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which criminalized the production and distribution of technology designed to circumvent DRM and increased penalties for internet copyright infringement. The law has prevented the sale of some technologies, such as specially designed DVD-copying machines, and critics say it has also chilled the legitimate use of copyrighted materials.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster that an online service that allowed users to download unlicensed copies of copyrighted materials could be sued for inducing copyright infringement. The ruling caused several online file-sharing services to either close or alter their business practices to discourage the sharing of copyrighted materials.

Also debated is the matter of what information may be copyrighted. The Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act, now pending in Congress, would permit the copyrighting of aggregated factual data, such as databases of names and addresses. This measure would make it easier for the creators of databases to earn money. However, by preventing the copying of such aggregations, the measure would also restrict the use of publicly available information.
Rights of Gays, Lesbians, and Sexual Minorities
Federal law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, an executive order bars the federal government from such discrimination in hiring. In addition, 17 states, the District of Columbia, and more than 180 cities and localities prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation in private employment.

Battles are underway in many states to determine whether the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriages or similar civil contracts are currently recognized in 20 countries and eight U.S. states, though in most cases civil unions, and not marriage, have been sanctioned. Twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments that explicitly ban recognition of same-sex partnerships, and 43 states, including some of those that allow same-sex civil unions, define marriage by statute as a union between a man and a woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex or polygamous marriages and allows states where such marriages are illegal to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976); and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, October 12, 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/.

"There's No Justice in the War on Drugs," New York Times, January 11, 1998.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States 2005," September 2006, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/; U.S. Census Bureau, "Population Estimates by Race," http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.

John Knowles, Nicola Persico, and Petra Todd, "Racial BiasinMotor VehicleSearches:TheoryandEvidence," Journal of Political Economy 109, no.1 (2001).

See Gary J. Andres, "The Kelo Backlash," Washington Times, August 29, 2005; John Harwood, "Poll Shows Division on Court Pick," Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2005; Quinnipiac University, "Connecticut Voters Say 11-1 Stop Eminent Domain, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Saving Groton Sub Base Is High Priority," news release, July 28, 2005; Americans for Prosperity, "Public Opinion Poll on Eminent Domain," February 2006.

Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, HR 4128, 109th Cong., 2nd sess.; and Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2006, S 3873, 109th Cong., 2nd sess.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rule Of Law: Criminal Justice And Property Rights- Full Chapter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rule of law requires that laws be adopted in accordance with established procedures, that they be made known to the public, and that they be enforced consistently and even-handedly. The rule of law is intended to ensure that a government exercises its authority fairly, and it is crucial to securing liberty and justice for the people of any nation.

# data[].attributes.headline
North Korea: The tragic fate of American student Otto Warmbier

# data[].attributes.subject
North Korea: The tragic fate of American student Otto Warmbier

# data[].attributes.body
Otto Warmbier is a student from the University of Virginia that had traveled to North Korea on school trip with other classmates. Along with his classmates, they were staying in a hotel and Otto stumbled across one of North Korea's propaganda hanging up in the halls. As a trophy, he wanted to steal the poster and take it back home to his buddies in college. He was caught by enforcement for trying to steal, and has been left behind by his friends and help responsible for certain duties and an extended period of time to stay in NK as punishment. As most United States citizens would agree, those punishments are insane and not necessary, but it represents the strength of North Korea has when it comes to deterrence. Knowing the outcome of committing a crime in NK should reflect onto the U.S., as we should increase the punishments on circumstances like terrorist acts.

Ray Starmann, "North Korea: The tragic fate of American student Otto Warmbier", Fox News, April 24, 2017, [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/24/north-korea-tragic-fate-american-student-otto-warmbier.html]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note: The following column originally appeared on the website US Defense Watch.
University of Virginia student, Otto Warmbier, is a prisoner somewhere in the Orwellian hell hole known as North Korea. Otto Warmbier may be suffering a fate tantamount to an inmate of Dachau. At this very moment, Otto Warmbier may be starving, performing slave labor, being beaten or in fact, he may very well be dead.

The tragic fate of Otto Warmbier, is the tragic fate of the millions of North Koreans living in the Gulag Archipelago of Kim Jong Un's totalitarian nightmare world.
Warmbier, 23, was convicted of conducting "hostile acts against the DPRK."
Mr. Warmbier was not an intelligence officer working for the CIA and his 'hostile act' was not sabotage or espionage.

The so-called hostile act against North Korea committed by college student Warmbier, (who was travelling with a tour group called Young Pioneer Tours), was purloining a propaganda poster off the wall of the Yanggakdo Hotel in Pyongyang with the inscription, "Let's arm ourselves strongly with Kim Jong-il's patriotism!"

If you are a religious person, you might want to say a prayer for Otto Warmbier.

Stealing or harming a poster or other items with the name or image of one of North Korea's past or present lunatic asylum leaders is considered a serious crime against the state.

On January 2, Warmbier was arrested while in the process of departing North Korea from the Pyongyang airport. The other guests in his tour group all left the country without incident. On February 29, 2016, he "confessed" to stealing a piece of North Korean propaganda to take back to the United States as a "trophy" for someone from his home-town church who offered to pay him for it with the gift of a car worth $10,000.

On March 16, 2016, Otto Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for committing what Warmbier thought was a harmless college prank that could provide him with a new car.

Warmbier was allowed to speak to the kangaroo court that sentenced him. He stated, obviously under emotional and perhaps physical duress:
"I never, never should have allowed myself to be lured by the United States administration to commit a crime in this country, I wish that the United States administration never manipulate people like myself in the future to commit crimes against foreign countries. I entirely beg you, the people and government of the DPRK, for your forgiveness. Please! I made the worst mistake of my life."
As tensions with North Korea rise and the war drums beat, the State Department continuesto make efforts to one, find out Warmbier's current location in North Korea, two, meet with him and three, to secure his release with the assistance of the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang.

The State Department released the following statement today:
The welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad is one of the highest priorities of the State Department. The Embassy of Sweden continues to request information on the exact location of Mr. Warmbier, and to request access for consular visits with him. However, representatives from the Swedish Embassy have not been granted consular access to Mr. Warmbier since the visit on March 2, 2016. The Department believes Mr. Warmbier's sentence of 15 years hard labor is unduly harsh for the actions Mr. Warmbier allegedly took. Despite official claims that U.S. citizens arrested in the DPRK are not used for political purposes, it is increasingly clear from its very public treatment of these cases that the DPRK does just that. Mr. Warmbier has gone through the criminal process and has been detained for more than a year. We continue to urge the DPRK to pardon him and grant him special amnesty and immediate release on humanitarian grounds.
The question remains: where is Otto Warmbier? Most distressingly, it is likely Warmbier is being incarcerated in one of North Korea's penal labor camps for political prisoners known as the Kwalliso.

The internment camps are located in central and northeastern North Korea. They comprise many prison labor colonies in secluded mountain valleys, completely isolated from the outside world. The total number of prisoners is estimated to be 150,000 to 200,000. Yodok camp and Bukchang camp are separated into two sections: One section for political prisoners in lifelong detention, another part similar to re-education camps with prisoners sentenced to long-term imprisonment with the vague hope of eventual release.
The prisoners are forced to perform hard and dangerous slave work with primitive means in mining and agriculture. The food rations are very small, so that the prisoners are constantly on the brink of starvation. In combination with the hard work this leads to huge numbers of prisoners dying. An estimated 40% of prisoners die from malnutrition. Moreover, many prisoners are crippled from work accidents, frostbite or torture. There is a rigid punishment in the camp. Prisoners who work too slowly or do not obey an order are beaten or tortured. In cases of stealing food or attempting to escape, the prisoners are publicly executed.
As inprisonment in North Korea's gulag archipelago is life threatening, it is imperative that the State Department continues to lobby for Warmbier's release, even as tensions continue to rise on the Korean Peninsula.

If you are a religious person, you might want to say a prayer for Otto Warmbier, who at this very moment may be suffering a fate worse than most can imagine.

Ray Starmann is the founder of US Defense Watch. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and veteran of the Gulf War. He was a contributing writer for several years at SFTT.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea: The tragic fate of American student Otto Warmbier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note: The following column originally appeared on the website US Defense Watch. University of Virginia student, Otto Warmbier, is a prisoner somewhere in the Orwellian hell hole known as North Korea. Otto Warmbier may be suffering a fate tantamount to an inmate of Dachau.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and revised for modern times?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and revised for modern times?

# data[].attributes.body
Debate. Org simply provided a poll for Americans to diversely respond to, and majority of the poll participants agree that the government should revise or even produce a new written set of laws that govern us. The 21st century has too many updated topics and focuses that deal with loop holes in our foundation to continue dealing with the old Constitution and not change it. The amount of time spent trying to clarify what the founding fathers had written in 1787 during their time could be used to writing a new outline for our country. We have too many issues going on that would have never crossed the minds of people during that time period, so trying to apply what they wrote into today's world seems unnecessary.

"Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and revised for modern times?", Debate.Org, 2018, [http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-u-s-constitution-be-updated-and-revised-for-modern-times]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and revised for modern times?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today's hottest issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump tweets that suspect in NYC terrorist attack 'should get death penalty'

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump tweets that suspect in NYC terrorist attack 'should get death penalty'

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump mentioned in November in a tweet that he believes the guilty terrorist should receive the death penalty after his actions. Sayfullo Saipov, the NYC suspect, pleaded guilty after killing 8 people with a truck and also harming 12. One of the worst things about this case is that Saipov was publicly happy about his "accomplishments" and requested to hang an ISIS flag in the hospital room. Trump pushed for his execution, or at least that he be sent to the military grade prison
located at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Travis M. Andrews, "Trump tweets that suspect in NYC terrorist attack 'should get death penalty'", The Washington Post, November 2, 2017, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/02/trump-tweets-that-suspect-in-nyc-fatal-terror-attack-should-get-death-penalty/?utm_term=.e2ca608bb8ea]

# data[].attributes.headline
Frequently Asked Questions About International Crime

# data[].attributes.subject
Frequently Asked Questions About International Crime

# data[].attributes.body
This question answer scenario brings up a strong point that regards terrorists not receiving constitutional rights.  The question was:  "Will the U.S. government help me if I am arrested in a foreign country?" This is a loaded question because it has different answers for a variety of scenarios. The United States has treaties with several surrounding countries that ensures their protection from inhumane activity, and that the country an individual is arrested in must contact the U.S. even without a request. The bad thing about being arrested in another country is that even if a lawyer is sent to the person arrested in an attempt to resolve the issue, the country's enforcement does not have to comply, and they can issue whatever punishment they see fit.

Frank A. Rubino, "Frequently Asked Questions About International Crime", Federal And International Criminal Defense, 2018, [https://www.frankrubino.com/Federal-Crime/International-Law/FAQ-About-International-Crime.shtml]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FAQ about International Crime | Frank A. Rubino, Esq.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Questions about international crimes? Contact Frank Rubino for answers at 866-718-3994. Serving clients through the US and the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
MAP: States Where Convicted Felons Can't Vote

# data[].attributes.subject
MAP: States Where Convicted Felons Can't Vote

# data[].attributes.body
This question answer scenario brings up a strong point that regards terrorists not receiving constitutional rights.  The question was:  "Will the U.S. government help me if I am arrested in a foreign country?" This is a loaded question because it has different answers for a variety of scenarios. The United States has treaties with several surrounding countries that ensures their protection from inhumane activity, and that the country an individual is arrested in must contact the U.S. even without a request. The bad thing about being arrested in another country is that even if a lawyer is sent to the person arrested in an attempt to resolve the issue, the country's enforcement does not have to comply, and they can issue whatever punishment they see fit.

"Felon Voting Rights", National Conference of State Legislators, November 28, 2017, [http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please note: The following information is provided for background information only. NCSL is unable to assist in or offer advice on the restoration of voting rights. We recommend that anyone interested in obtaining specific information on how to regain voting rights contact election officials in the jurisdiction where the person wishes to register and vote. To find contact information for your local election official click here.

Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice. (See Recent State Action below for a chronology.)

Currently, state approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. NCSL has divided states into four categories, as detailed in Table 1 below.

In all cases, "automatic restoration" does not mean that voter registration is automatic. Typically prison officials automatically inform election officials that an individual's rights have been restored. The person is then responsible for re-registering through normal processes. Some states, California is one example, require that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.

In summary:

In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

In 16 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.

In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.

In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor's pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.

Never Lose Right to Vote

Lost Only While Incarcerated | Automatic Restoration After Release

Lost Until Completion of Sentence (Parole and/or Probation) | Automatic Restoration After

Lost Until Completion of Sentence | In Some States a Post-Sentencing Waiting Period | Additional Action Required for Restoration (1)

(1) Details on the process for restoration of rights is included in Table 2 below.

(2) In 2016, California passed legislation allowing those in county jails to vote while incarcerated, but not those in state or federal prison.

(3) In Maryland, convictions for buying or selling votes can only be restored through pardon.

(4) An initiated constitutional amendment in 2018 restored the right to vote for those with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, who must still petition the governor for restoration of voting rights on a case by case basis. In July 2019, SB 7066 was signed by the governor of Florida which defined "completion of sentence" to include: release from imprisonment, termination of any ordered probation, fulfillment of any terms ordered by the courts, termination of any ordered supervision, full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs.

(5) New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order removing the restriction on parolees voting. New York already allows those on probation to vote. The order may be challenged in court.

State

Details on Policies for Restoration of Rights

Alabama

The Alabama Constitution states that "No person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, or who is mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights or removal of disability" (Ala. Const. Art. VIII, § 177). Before 2017 there was no comprehensive list of felonies that involve moral turpitude which would disqualify a person from voting. In 2017, HB 282 defined which crimes fit this category (Ala. Code § 17-3-30.1).

Arizona

A conviction for a felony suspends the rights of the person to vote (A.R.S. § 13-904) unless they have been restored to civil rights (Ariz. Const. Art. 7 § 2). First-time offenders have rights restored upon completion of probation and payment of any fine or restitution (A.R.S. § 13-912). A person who has been convicted of two or more felonies may have civil rights restored by the judge who discharges him at the end of the term of probation or by applying to the court for restoration of rights (A.R.S. § 13-905).

Delaware

People who are convicted of disqualifying felonies (murder, bribery, sexual offenses) are permanently disenfranchised. Those disqualified as a voter because of another type of felony shall have the disqualification removed upon being pardoned or after the expiration of the sentence, whichever comes first (Del. Const., Art. 5, § 2). In 2013 (HB 10) Delaware removed its five-year waiting period, allowing those convicted of non-disqualifying offenses to vote upon completion of sentence and supervision.

Florida

Felons must have completed all terms of sentence, which includes probation and parole, and must pay any oustanding fines or fees before they can get their voting rights restored (Flor. Stat. §98.0751).

Iowa

A person convicted of any infamous crime shall not be entitled to the privilege of an elector (Iowa Const. Art. 2, § 5). In 2016 the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the ban on felon voting, finding that all felonies are "infamous crimes" resulting in permanent disenfranchisement ( Griffin v. Pate, 2016). The ability of the governor to restore voting rights to persons convicted of infamous crimes through pardoning power was upheld in State v. Richardson, 2017. In 2005 Governor Tom Vilsack restored voting rights to individuals with former felony convictions via executive order. Governor Terry Branstad reversed this executive order in 2011.

Kentucky

"Persons convicted of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the General Assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage, but persons hereby excluded may be restored to their civil rights by executive pardon" (KY Const. § 145). Governor Steve Beshear restored voting rights to individuals with former non-violent felony convictions via executive order in 2015. Governor Matt Bevin reversed this executive order shortly after taking office in 2015. The Department of Corrections is required to promulgate administrative regulations for restoration of civil rights to eligible felony offenders (KRS §196.045).

Mississippi

"A person convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy is no longer considered a qualified elector" (Miss. Const. Art. 12, § 241). If an individual hasn't committed one of these offenses, rights are automatically restored. If an individual has been convicted of one of these, he or she can still receive a pardon from the governor to restore voting rights (Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-41) or by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature (Miss. Const. Art. 12, § 253).

Nebraska

In felony cases, there is a two-year waiting period after completion of probation for the restoration of voting rights (Neb. Rev. St. § 29-2264).

Tennessee

The Tennessee Constitution denies the right to vote persons convicted of an infamous crime (Tenn. Const. Art. 1, § 5). Any felony is considered an "infamous crime" and disqualifies a person from exercising the right of suffrage (T.C.A. § 40-20-112). Those convicted of infamous crimes may petition for restoration upon completion of the sentence or be pardoned by the governor (T.C.A. § 40-29-101, § 2-19-143). Proof of restoration is needed in order to register to vote (T.C.A. § 2-2-139).

Virginia

No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority (VA Const. Art. 2, § 1). The Department of Corrections is required to provide persons convicted of felonies with information regarding voting rights restoration, and assist with the process established by the governor for the review of applications (VA Code Ann. § 53.1-231.1 et seq.). Individuals with felony convictions may petition the courts in an attempt to restore their voting rights (VA Code Ann. § 53.1-231.2). In 2016, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced an executive order automatically restoring voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their prison sentence and their term of supervised release (parole or probation) as of April 22, 2016. The Virginia Supreme Court subsequently ruled that rights restoration needs to take place on an individual basis, rather than en masse.

Wyoming

A person convicted of a felony is not a qualified elector unless his rights are restored (W.S. § 6-10-106). For persons convicted of nonviolent felonies or a first-time offender, rights are restored automatically (W.S. § 7-13-105). Persons who do not meet the above qualifications must be pardoned (W.S. § 6-10-106).

Recent State Action

In 2019 Nevada enacted AB 431, restoring the right to vote to anyone convicted of felony upon release from prison. Previous to this legislation, first-time, non-violent offenders could have rights restored upon completion of sentence but those that had committed a violent crime or two or more felonies had to petition a court to grant the restoration of civil rights.

In 2019 Colorado enacted HB 1266 giving voting rights to individuals on parole, putting it in the category of states that only disenfranchise those who are in prison.

In 2019 Washington enacted SB 5207 requiring that inmates are notified in writing of the process for restoration of voting rights before leaving the authority of the department of corrections.

In 2019 Illinois enacted SB 2090 to require election authorities in a county with a population over 3 million to collaborate with the primary county jail where eligible voters are confined or detained to facilitate an opportunity for voting by mail for eligible voters. Illinois also enacted HB 2541 requiring the departments of corrections and juvenile justice to provide nonpartisan peer-led civics programs throughout the correctional institutions on voting rights, governmental institutions, current affairs, and simulations of voter registration, election and democratic processes.

In 2019 Oklahoma HB 2253 clarified that persons convicted of a velony shall be "eligible to register to vote when they have fully served their sentence of court-mandated calendar days, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by the court."

In July 2019, SB 7066 was signed by the governor of Florida which defined "completion of sentence" to include: release from imprisonment, termination of any ordered probation, fulfillment of any terms ordered by the courts, termination of any ordered supervision, full payment of any ordered restitution and the full payment of any ordered fines, fees or costs.

In 2018 Florida passed a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to automatically restore the voting rights of felons after completion of their sentences (including parole and probation). Those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense must still apply to the governor for voting rights restoration on a case by case basis. Before the amendment, anyone convicted of a felony had to have voting rights restored by a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of civil rights by the governor. The Executive Clemency Board set the rules for restoration of civil rights, which at the time the amendment passed, included a 5- or 7-year waiting period and a list of crimes for which an individual could never apply for rights restoration.

In 2018, Colorado SB 150 permitted an individual on parole, who is otherwise eligible, to pre-register to vote. When the secretary of state receives notification that the individual has been released from parole, he/she is then registered to vote.

In 2018, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order removing the restriction on parolees voting. New York already allows those on probation to vote. The order may be challenged in court.

In 2017, Alabama HB 282 provided a list of felonies that involve "moral turpitude" that disqualify a person from exercising his or her right to vote. Previously there was no comprehensive, authoritative source for defining a disenfranchising crime in Alabama.

In 2017, Wyoming enacted HB75 automatically restoring the rights of nonviolent felons.

In 2017, Louisiana enacted HB 168 improving reporting requirements between The Department of Public Safety and Corrections and the Department of State.

In 2016, California passed legislation allowing those in county jails to vote while incarcerated, but not state or federal prison. In 2017 California passed additional legislation requiring information be provided about voting rights restoration on the internet and in person to felons exiting prison.

In 2016, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced an executive order automatically restoring voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their prison sentence and their term of supervised release (parole or probation) as of April 22. This decision was a source of contention with the legislature. In July 2016, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the order.

In 2016, Maryland's legislature enacted HB 980 and SB 340 (overriding a veto) so that voting rights are automatically restored after completion of the term of incarceration.

In 2015, outgoing Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed an executive order to automatically restore the right to vote (and to hold public office) to certain offenders, excluding those who were convicted of violent crimes, sex crimes, bribery, or treason. The order was reversed by incoming Governor Matt Bevin.

In 2015, Wyoming enacted HB 15 requiring the department of corrections to issue a certification of the restoration of voting rights to certain non-violent felons after completion of sentence.

In 2013, Delaware eliminated the five-year waiting period before voting rights are restored.

In 2013, Virginia Governor McDonnell signed an executive order creating new rights restoration processes for persons with prior felony convictions.

In 2012, South Dakota mandated that felons on probation would not have voting rights restored. Previously, only felons on parole or incarcerated had their voting rights suspended.

In 2011, the Florida Board of Executive Clemency (comprised of the governor and three cabinet members) reversed a 2007 policy change that automatically restored voting rights to non-violent offenders upon the completion of their sentence. The new policy requires that all ex-felons wait between five and seven years depending on the crime before applying to regain voting rights.

In Iowa, the governor in 2011 reversed an executive order issued in 2005 under the previous governor. The 2005 order automatically restored the voting rights of all ex-felons, but under the 2011 order, they will now have to apply to regain rights.

In 2011 in Tennessee, HB 1117 was enacted, adding to the list of felons who are not eligible for automatic restoration.

In 2009, Washington restored the right to vote to felons who completed their sentences, while requiring them to re-register to vote.

Between 1996 and 2008, 28 states passed new laws on felon voting rights.

Seven repealed lifetime disenfranchisement laws, at least for some ex-offenders.

Two gave probationers the right to vote.

Seven improved data-sharing procedures among state agencies.

Nine passed requirements that ex-offenders be given information and/or assistance in regaining their voting rights at the time they complete their sentence.

Twelve simplified the process for regaining voting rights, for instance, by eliminating a waiting period or streamlining the paperwork process.

Additional Resources

For more detailed information on state legislation dealing with the voting rights of convicted felons, visit NCSL's 2011-current Election Legislation Database and select the subtopic "Voters-Felon Voting Rights." For legislation from the period 2001-2010, visit NCSL's 2001-2010 Election Legislation Database.

If you're looking for information on how you or someone else can regain the right to vote, NCSL is unable to help with or offer advice on this process. We suggest that you contact election officials in the appropriate jurisdiction to get the most current and accurate information available.

If you're seeking general information on state policies regarding felon voting rights, please contact NCSL's elections team for more information by email or at 303-364-7700.

The U.S. Department of Justice has a webpage listing links for each state's process of restoring the right to vote.

The Sentencing Project is an advocacy group that offers information on felon disenfranchisement in the states. Its page Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer contains a state-by-state chronology of state action on felony disenfranchisement laws since 1997.

The Restoration of Rights Project, from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, also provides assistance on felon disenfranchisement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national conference of state legislatures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please note: The following information is provided for background information only. NCSL is unable to assist in or offer advice on the restoration of voting rights. We recommend that anyone interested in obtaining specific information on how to regain voting rights contact election officials in the jurisdiction where the person wishes to register and vote.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials?

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenor portrays his opinion publicly about how America is being weird about the punishments for terrorists. He keeps saying throughout the video that we have pathways that help give law-breakers punishments, so why do we need to make a separate path for people that we call terrorists. "We either live up to our responsibilities as being a leader in human rights and commitment to our Constitution, or we shouldn't profess to be what we say we are.  He said that yes, we do have complications in the foundation of our government, but does not agree with trying to find a separate route to deal with terrorists.

"Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials?", FORA.tv, February 1, 2010, [https://youtu.be/N9LweI_hsj8]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials? - John Coughenour

# data[].attributes.body
In Massachusetts, there was a terrorist occurrence that has led to fear in the public eye. These terrorists has been treated in a new way when compared to other cases, however. The FBI did not read this individual his Miranda rights, and was not even being called by his original name. He was called Suspect #2 in court because the legal enforcement refused to. The media and local community agreed to go along with the name #2 because they believe that he should be treated like a number, and not like an American citizen.

Jim Moret, "What Rights Should Terrorists Have?", Huffington Post, April 20, 2013, [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moret/what-rights-should-terror_b_3123290.html]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What rights should a terror suspect have when taken into custody? Should it matter if the suspect is an American citizen (Suspect #2 -- I refuse to use his name here, so I shall simply refer to him by the number used by the media: #2)?

Too often, we take our hard-fought constitutional rights for granted and lament their loss or infringement when it appears we are on the verge of finding them threatened or eroded. Such is the case with the ubiquity of cameras in our daily lives and their use as a tool for social networking and as the eyes and ears of law enforcement in capturing criminals and, in this case, a potential enemy of the state. The last of two suspects has been captured and the good people of Massachusetts are experiencing a deep relief, if not exhausted euphoria, layered with sadness and overwhelming loss. So, how far do we as a people want authorities to go in questioning #2?

It's being widely reported that #2 will not be read his Miranda warnings before the FBI questions him. He will not be told he has the right to an attorney or that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law (forget that he has been judged guilty in the court if public opinion and, perhaps, rightly so). The FBI has invoked the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement. Should we care?

Look at what Boston has lived through. Authorities took the unprecedented step of locking down an entire city on Friday to corner a single suspect. This hub of business and education came to a halt for a day while the manhunt for #2 intensified. Think of those victims of the marathon bombers' cowardly, unprovoked and unspeakable acts. Think of the victims' families, their friends, their futures. I don't condone a mob mentality and, in fact, we haven't seen one, not among the citizens and not among the various city, state and federal authorities.

This manhunt was not launched over the simple robbing of a convenience store (although that is apparently what helped authorities locate the two suspected bombers). Theirs was a terrorist act, indiscriminately targeting innocent men, women and children, sentencing some to death and others to maiming and trauma. Countless lives and dreams were senselessly shattered.

I recognize, as a lawyer, that when you infringe the rights of one citizen you threaten the rights of all citizens. But #2 arguably abandoned and disavowed those rights when he (allegedly) declared war against his people and his country. I am generally repulsed by "ends justify the means" arguments but I suggest that the national interest demands that in this case, authorities strive to get information to prevent future attacks.

I don't pretend to have the answers. In am just a lawyer and a reporter. Yet, despite my passion for the law, our right as citizens to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, I find myself angry and, perhaps, too easily swayed by emotion, especially for those poor victims and their families. That side of me says that this 19-year-old should be questioned vigorously and treated like what most of America believes he is: #2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What rights should a terror suspect have when taken into custody? Should it matter if the suspect is an American citizen (Suspect #2 -- I refuse to use his name here, so I shall simply refer to him by the number used by the media: #2)?

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's mindless insult to the American judicial system

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's mindless insult to the American judicial system

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump spoke shortly about how the treatment of terrorists, or "animals", is not quick enough or strong enough to actually do anything big enough to fight terrorism. He said that it is no wonder we have so much going on, and it is because the judicial system is not making a big enough effort to fight terrorism through quicker justice and strengthened punishments.  Jennifer Rubin, "Trump's mindless insult to the American judicial system", The Washington Post, November 2, 2017, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/02/trumps-mindless-insult-to-the-american-judicial-system/?utm_term=.fa4ee3269743]