Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
Carissa Byrne Hessick
@CBHessick
Criminal law professor at the University of North Carolina. Director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project (@ppp_unc). Author of "Punishment Without Trial."
eDo Profile picture Diana Roby Profile picture 2 subscribed
Nov 14, 2023 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
This thread about the humanities seems to be getting some traction. It came to my attention because a high-profile academic reposted it.
Its message is not only based on false premises, but also deeply anti-intellectual. Let me explain. Image Let's start with the first claim in the thread--the idea that the humanities "aren't empirical."
Anyone who has spent any time on an American university campus knows that this is nonsense.
It confuses methodology with subject matter. Image
Oct 28, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
I know a lot of folks in the academy will disagree with this thread. But we have to grapple with the fact that much of what happens on campus right now is about enforcing a certain view of the world, not pursuing knowledge or educating students. Those who are pushing that worldview are doing so with the best of intentions. They see suffering and injustice in the world, and they want to use their position and limited power to change it.

But those good intentions have had some deeply unfortunate consequences.
Oct 26, 2023 • 14 tweets • 4 min read
I keep getting a bunch of folks in my mentions insisting I'm wrong to criticize the Trump motion for selective & vindictive prosecution on its merits because the motion is just preserving the argument for appeal
It's apparently a popular argument on MAGA Twitter, so let's discuss


Image
Image
Image
Image Let's start with the obvious point that, if you want the court of appeals or the Supreme Court to reverse an existing case or doctrine, then you have to file a motion on the issue in the trial court to preserve the issue

That's obviously true

But what should that motion say?
Oct 25, 2023 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
I study prosecutorial power, so I was very interested to see what Trump's attorneys were going to say in the selective & vindictive prosecution motion they filed on Monday.
I've now read the motion and it is quite awful.
Let me explain why . . .
lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-… First, let's start with the background idea that these motions almost always lose. Current case law gives prosecutors enormous amounts of discretion regarding criminal charging, and it basically tells judges not to review those decisions.
Aug 28, 2023 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Anyone who knows anything about prosecutorial power knows that Trump's motion to dismiss the J6 case on grounds of selective prosecution will fail.
And thanks to United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), there's basically a 0% chance he'll get an evidentiary hearing. A retaliation claim will go nowhere because of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019). There is no doubt that DOJ has probable cause to support its charges against Trump.
Sep 27, 2022 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
A few thoughts about this thread from Simon, who not only writes great fiction about crime, but also does an excellent job here showing how oversimplified the rhetoric about crime and punishment has become.
First, I'm glad to see him highlight clearance rates and crime rates. For all of the public attention on crime & crime spikes, I don't understand why police don't get more criticism when it comes to how awful they are at actually solving crimes. Less than 1/3 of robberies, burglaries, and rapes are solved, and only about 60% of homicides.
Jul 12, 2022 • 18 tweets • 4 min read
I love the opportunities for dialogue that Twitter offers, but I have a hard time with how many of the interactions on this platform are hostile, rude, and sometimes just downright awful.

The more this happens, the more it seems to normalize that behavior. For example, every time I read a tweet by @maggieNYT, no matter how innocuous, if I check the replies to that tweet, there are at least half a dozen people gratuitously insulting her.
Jun 30, 2022 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
I shouldn’t be surprised there are attack ads running against Senate candidate Cheri Beasley focusing on her NC Supreme Court record.

But I’ll never get used to the idea that a judge’s willingness to reverse a conviction because the law requires reversal is supposed to be bad. We have three branches of government. The judicial branch is supposed to be a neutral decision maker in criminal cases.

If the other branches violate the Constitution or make other errors, judges are *supposed* to step in.
That’s literally their job.
Jun 28, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
OK, so then how about this one:

The Supreme Court didn’t rule in favor of the Second Amendment. It ruled against federalism. I appreciate the instinct to try and defend the Court's recent opinions as application of neutral principles to controversial political topics.
But that's very difficult to do when they aren't applying those principles with equal weight across cases.
May 5, 2022 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
I know this isn’t Quinta’s point, but I do think it’s worth considering why people were less panicked about the increasing erosion of abortion rights that was expected from this Court as compared to the complete repudiation we see in the draft Dobbs opinion …. First, to clarify, I don’t think anyone expected the Trump Justices to hold the line on Roe/Casey. So, for example, a decision upholding a 15 week ban would obviously erode Roe, and that sort of erosion was expected despite reassurances during the confirmation process.
May 4, 2022 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I like Anthony’s frame of “enduring values in the American constitutional order” and I hope that the “all law is just politics by another name” crowd will take it seriously and agree it’s worth identifying and defending those values. Because if all law is just politics, then there are no illegitimate moves—just power to effectuate those moves.
If there are no enduring values, then “we have the votes” is the only defense ever needed.
Apr 7, 2022 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
Fascinating thread/article about the massive failures in Covid predictions.
This point about empirical research and advocacy groups makes me think about the relative benefits and drawbacks of traditional academic research that isn’t tied to or funded by advocacy groups…. First, there’s the obvious difference in mission between advocacy groups and academics. The former are trying to accomplish a particular agenda, while the latter are trying to answer questions about the world. Ideally academics publish those answers no matter what they find.
Apr 5, 2022 • 10 tweets • 7 min read
This new @propublica article on how criminal justice reform efforts have repeatedly failed in Arizona is worth a read.
It may help to explain a curious finding by @ppp_unc last year about legislative lobbying by prosecutors . . . propublica.org/article/the-in… @propublica @ppp_unc In a report released last year, the Prosecutors and Politics Project found that Arizona's prosecutors were relatively infrequent lobbyists as compared to other states: They lobbied on less than 15% of criminal justice bills that were introduced. law.unc.edu/wp-content/upl…
Mar 8, 2022 • 12 tweets • 7 min read
Trying to explain crime rates is always difficult, and explaining people's *perceptions* of crime rates is even harder. But there seems to be a pretty obvious logical flaw in this @assymetricinfo column on the subject, which points to a new study on opportunities for crime . . . @assymetricinfo Here's the problem, as McArdle frames it: With the exception of homicide (which is a very rare crime), crime rates were getting worse:
Nov 16, 2021 • 12 tweets • 4 min read
If you are wondering why the #Rittenshouse gun charge was thrown out just before the jury started to deliberate, Mike's got the relevant statutes below.
As for why it happened so late--that's because criminal procedure is TERRIBLE when it comes to resolving legal disputes . . . . Criminal cases--like other cases--are sometimes a dispute about law, rather than a dispute about fact. That is to say, the defendant argues that what he did isn't illegal, not that he didn't actually do what the prosecution accuses him of.
Nov 9, 2021 • 13 tweets • 6 min read
As someone who cares deeply about academic freedom, I've had a difficult time figuring out what to do about a problem that is related, but not identical to that issue: What to do about faculty who act in an unprofessional manner--especially those who do so repeatedly. Universities are important institutions in a democratic society, where faculty and students should be encouraged to ask difficult questions and offer unpopular answers.

Those questions and answers might make some people uncomfortable. And that's okay.
Oct 2, 2021 • 10 tweets • 7 min read
Today is #WrongfulConvictionDay and so I want to highlight the many ways that plea bargaining contributes to wrongful convictions in this country. @InnocenceNtwrk @InnocenceNtwrk First, it is important to keep in mind that the whole idea behind plea bargaining is that it makes the criminal justice system more efficient—not more accurate, but quicker at convicting people with minimum time and expense. #WrongfulConvictionDay
Sep 22, 2021 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
Fascinating story. What's especially interesting to me is that the policy involves whether to file gun charges in federal court, rather than DC Superior Court---and the decision is entirely in the prosecutors' hands because the US Atty handles both. If this were a story about anywhere else in the country, the decision to file in federal, rather than state court, would also change your prosecutor. The US Atty's office would handle a federal case, while the local prosecutor would handle a state case.
Sep 21, 2021 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Twitter--the place where someone is always here to tell you that you shouldn't speak. Seriously, I find it astounding how many people repeatedly trumpet the idea that it is somehow *bad* to explain why there are substantive problems with an argument or a policy that you don't like.
Sep 21, 2021 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
There is a lot to criticize about the Texas anti-abortion law, but trying to craft laws that subvert judicial review strikes me as something that people who call themselves "conservative" should not support.

Judicial review is a key component of our constitutional system. As my friends on the right often remind me, ours is not a pure democracy. There are many pieces of the government that are specifically designed to make sure that majority opinion does not carry the day.

That is their response to complaints about the Senate and the filibuster.
Sep 19, 2021 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
People are more comfortable interfering in the reproductive lives of single women. I imagine that’s why early contraception cases featured married couples

Imagine telling a married woman that she should simply stop having sex with her husband if she doesn’t want (more) children And in case you were wondering whether married women get abortions, the answer is yes. The rates are much lower than for single women, but still significant. statista.com/statistics/185…