Real-time comments on legal news by newsmakers, activists, legal experts and special guests. http://jurist.org/hotline JURISTremove_this@pitt.edu Delphine Perrin [Research Fellow, Migration Policy Centre/CARIM Project at the European University Institute]: "In July 2010, the death of a young man killed by gendarmes when he was trying to break a roadblock was followed by two days of riots by members of the gypsy community to which he belonged. After the riots, French President Sarkozy announced a series of repressive measures against travelers and individuals in Roma communities. Whereas the events had their source in the actions of French citizens, they have then been instrumentalized by the French President and government to launch declarations and measures stigmatizing communities of French travelers, Roma migrants, and 'French people with foreign origin.' http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/france-deportation-of-roma-migrants-reflects-long-standing-policy.php 2010-09-06T19:24:36-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/france-deportation-of-roma-migrants-reflects-long-standing-policy.php Torrey Hullum Romana St. Matthew-Daniel [Press Secretary, International Bar Association Human Rights Institute]: "In its 2003 report on the administration of justice in Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea: At the Crossroads [PDF]) the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) uncovered little respect for the rule of law and separation of powers, torture, failure of proper trial processes and lack of an independent judiciary. It is disheartening to see that in the ensuing seven years little appears to have changed. Thus, the IBAHRI is gravely concerned about the news from Equatorial Guinea of the execution of four alleged coup plotters just an hour after they were sentenced. By denying them leave to appeal, http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/criminal-charges-necessary-in-equatorial-guinea-executions.php 2010-09-06T13:09:31-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/criminal-charges-necessary-in-equatorial-guinea-executions.php Torrey Hullum Sara Totonchi [Executive Director, Law Offices of the Southern Center for Human Rights]: "Wednesday, a federal judge upheld the murder conviction of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis. This ruling followed an unusual evidentiary hearing that was ordered by the US Supreme Court to examine evidence of Davis' innocence. Despite the ruling from Judge William T. Moore, Jr., questions and doubts about the Davis case remain. Given these uncertainties it would be a travesty of justice to execute Troy Davis. At the June hearing in District Court, testimony was provided from witnesses that their original testimony implicating Davis was built on lies. Four witnesses admitted in court that they lied http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/uncertainty-in-davis-highlights-problems-with-death-penalty.php 2010-09-06T08:26:41-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/09/uncertainty-in-davis-highlights-problems-with-death-penalty.php Torrey Hullum [Esther, Islam in Europe]: "Recently Amnesty International repeated its call to the British government to stop its "regime" of control orders. These orders, which allow the Home Secretary to restrict a person's freedom of movement, were introduced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders are supervised by the courts, but they allow admitting secret evidence against the suspects and this supervision is, as Amnesty puts it, 'limited'. Amnesty's critique is simple. The state has an obligation to protect its citizens, but this should be done without violating their human rights. Amnesty feels that despite Britain's efforts to protect their citizens' liberties, they are violating the European Human Right http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/uk-control-orders-only-part-of-the-problem.php 2010-08-23T12:32:15-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/uk-control-orders-only-part-of-the-problem.php Torrey Hullum [Julie Stewart, President of Families Against Mandatory Minimums]: "Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill to reduce the infamous 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The Senate approved the bill in March. Today, President Obama finished the job by signing the bill, ending a nearly 20-year campaign by sentencing reform advocates to undo this outrageous inequity in federal sentencing law. The word "historic" gets bandied around quite a bit in Washington, but it fits here. After all, the bill repeals a mandatory minimum sentence - for simple crack possession - for the first time since the Nixon Administration. Put another way, half of the http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/fair-sentencing-act-positive-model-for-bipartisan-reform.php 2010-08-04T12:00:51-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/fair-sentencing-act-positive-model-for-bipartisan-reform.php Torrey Hullum [Eric Sterling, President of The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation]: "Thursday's passage of the Fair Sentencing Act proved that I have been very wrong about this legislation. I was wrong in not believing that fairness in sentencing, fairness for convicted African-American crack dealers, fairness for any criminal defendant, had any political traction. I was wrong in believing that the intrepid coalition of sentencing reform advocates, civil liberties, civil rights and human rights supporters, and criminal justice reformers had failed to adequately sell the legislation to conservatives as a necessary refocus of the Department of Justice on high-level cocaine traffickers. I was sure that most House Republicans would fight this legislation. I http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/passage-of-fairness-in-sentencing-act-not-guarantee-of-change.php 2010-08-02T14:26:34-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/08/passage-of-fairness-in-sentencing-act-not-guarantee-of-change.php Torrey Hullum [Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign]: "With just four Republican Senators in play on the DISCLOSE Act its failure to reach closure Wednesday was no surprise. The original intent of the legislation was to blunt the impact of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Unfortunately, it became a political football for Republicans and Democrats alike. While the transparency and disclosure provisions included in the bill would let the American people know who is trying to buy our elections, Congress should have been bolder. The American electorate is not angry about a few bad apples--they want to throw out the whole moldy barrel. http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/senate-stalemate-indicates-larger-problems-in-campaign-finance-reform.php 2010-07-30T10:55:56-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/senate-stalemate-indicates-larger-problems-in-campaign-finance-reform.php Torrey Hullum [Serkan Yolcu, Uludag University Faculty of Law]: "On Wednesday July 7, 2010, the Turkish media was unexpectedly informed by the press office of Constitutional Court that the Court made its eagerly anticipated judgment on the constitutional amendment package that has been on the agenda for months. After 9.5 hours of debate in only one day, the eleven members of the Court decided to annul a few clauses of some articles of the package. The partially annulled articles rearrange the process of electing members to the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). The Court annulled the provisions that would have prevented members of the high judiciary http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/more-constitutional-amendments-by-turkish-high-court-are-unwarranted-and-unjust-on-the-merits.php 2010-07-19T10:34:58-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/more-constitutional-amendments-by-turkish-high-court-are-unwarranted-and-unjust-on-the-merits.php Torrey Hullum [Katie Belanger, Fair Wisconsin]: "On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality and civil unions in the McConkey v. J.B. Van Hollen et al. decision. In this case, William McConkey challenged the validity of the amendment, stating that it violates the single subject requirement for all constitutional amendments by addressing both marriage and civil unions. This decision was not about public policy, but rather about legal procedure. In the unanimous decision, liberal and conservative alike agreed that the amendment did not violate the single subject rule. Our highly politicized Supreme Court had the opportunity to use this case to make http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-decision-sets-stage-for-change.php 2010-07-09T04:39:22-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/07/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage-decision-sets-stage-for-change.php Torrey Hullum Richard Aborn [President, Citizens Crime Commission]: "What is most important to the gun control movement is the ability to pass reasonable laws designed to break up the illegal gun markets. While I disagree with this decision, as I do with District of Columbia v. Heller, these rulings do not deter us from pursuing laws that would close the gun show loophole and address licensing and registration. These laws are all vital to public safety and do not violate either the Supreme Court decisions or the rights of legitimate gun owners. Presented with two opportunities to do so, the Court declined to indicate that reasonable regulations of guns - and in http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/06/court-decisions-stifle-reasonable-gun-control-measures.php 2010-06-30T02:28:47-05:00 http://jurist.org/hotline/2010/06/court-decisions-stifle-reasonable-gun-control-measures.php Torrey Hullum