Our goal is simple: to help teachers better educate students about the role law and lawyers have played in creating a penal system defined by mass incarceration and excessive police power.🧵
We come to the project motivated by a frustration, which we know many share, with course materials that center moral philosophy, statutory interpretation, and doctrinal brain teasers – but that treat mass incarceration and police power as at best secondary themes.
For the first time in history, our students are coming to law school having lived through two massive, nationwide protests (in 2014 and now 2020) about the penal system’s failings. They rightly want to understand and engage those failings. We think we owe them that understanding.
A year ago, the local US Attorney adopted a new charging policy that doubled the prison time for 100s of affected defendants.
They said the policy applied citywide.
It didn't.
🚨It only ever applied in the Blackest parts of the city🚨
When the U.S. Attorney announced the new policy at a press conference back in February of 2019 she said it applied to "essentially all" of the city.
There's no polite way to say this: That was a lie.
And she knew it was a lie when she said it.
How do I know this? My students and I have been fighting the policy for a year. And as the @washingtonpost now reports, the DOJ, responding to our briefs, recently admitted that they've been targeting the three Blackest precincts in the city from the start.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…
Reminds me of the federal "surge" in #PDX to suppress what the administration called "violent mobs," which led to maybe two dozen federal charges over the course of a three week operation? So, like, a charge a day? (Not sure the latest count.) justice.gov/usao-or/pr/18-…
C.J. Srinivasan: "Are you aware of any situation in which a district court has been compelled under mandamus to grant or deny a motion before a district court itself has decided whether to grant or deny the motion?"
Thoughtful article about 911 reform from @voxdotcom. But it makes an empirical claim that made me scratch my head: Basically, it suggests that 911 calls account for half of all incidents where the police approach civilians.
Looking under the hood, I don't think that's right.
Here's the claim in the article. The implication is that half of "officer-civilian interactions" that might conceivably end in "aggression" or "violence" are "the result of citizen-requested police services, usually through an emergency call number."
But that's not what the cited source says. It takes as its denominator people who had *any* contact with law enforcement... including *calling* 911.
People who call the police account for half of all law enforcement interactions.