 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, January 12, 2005 |
 |
|


Russian parliament supports ban on 'disrespectful' foreign visitors
Matt Lubniewski on January 12, 2005 12:36 PM ET

[JURIST] The Russian Duma [official site in Russian], the lower house of parliament, approved a bill Wednesday which allows the government to ban foreign visitors who show "disrespect" to the country. Anyone found by a court to have offended Russia's "generally accepted spiritual, cultural and social values" may be barred from entering the country, although the bill does not state what those values are. Additionally, the bill would prevent people with infectious diseases, such as HIV, from obtaining long-term visas to stay in the country. Rights groups have objected that such a ban could be used to keep government critics out of Russia. The bill must still pass an additional two readings in the Duma before it can be ratified. The bill was initially approved, without debate, by a vote of 353-44. BBC News more. From Russia, MosNews provides local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US officially ends search for banned weapons in Iraq
Matt Lubniewski on January 12, 2005 12:18 PM ET

[JURIST] The White House announced Wednesday that the US has officially ended its search for biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in Iraq. White House press secretary Scott McClellan stated that while there is no longer an active search for weapons, "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that," but that "a lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now." The Iraq Survey Group [Wikipedia entry], made up of about 1,200 military and intelligence specialists, spent nearly two years searching for weapons-producing installations, and found no substantial evidence of banned weapons. Chief US weapons inspector Charles Duelfer [CSIS profile] is expected to deliver his final report on the weapons search next month, but McClellan stated that it would be substantially the same as the preliminary findings [report text] from last September. The Washington Post has the initial report here [registration required]. The AP story is available from the Boston Globe here [official website].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

International brief ~ Venezuelan leader jump-starts controversial land reform law
D. Wes Rist on January 12, 2005 10:45 AM ET

[JURIST] Leading Wednesday's international brief, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez [official website in Spanish] issued a presidential decree Tuesday creating a presidential and national land commission to implement the provisions of Venezuela's four year old land reform law. The law, called Plan Zamora [Wikipedia article], focuses on breaking up the large estates owned by a minute percentage of the overall Venezuelan population. The law has been viewed as critical to the domestic political success of Chavez's administration, and the delay in implementing its provisions has been a sore spot among the leader's normally loyal lower class supporters. Chavez pledged that landowner concerns about constitutional rights and private property interests would be addressed on an individual basis, but remained firm in his assertion that Venezuela's land must be more equitably distributed to its entire population. BBC News has more.
In other international legal news... - The European Union [official website] will open talks Wednesday with Iran on a formal trading partnership now that EU, US, and UN officials have finished negotiations over Iran's planned refinement of nuclear materials [JURIST Hot Topic]. Included as incentive in the negotiations is the promise of support from the EU for Iran's bid to gain membership in the World Trade Organization [official website]. The negotiations require equal response from Iran on key issues such as human rights, regional security in the Middle East, the fight against terrorism, and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Guardian has more.
- The African Union [official website] concluded its annual Meeting of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) on Tuesday, pledging a stronger level of involvement in ending the numerous conflicts currently occurring on the continent. The body discussed easing the eligibility requirements for the office of president in Cote d'Ivoire, which would pave the way to allowing popular leader Alassane Ouattara [Wikipedia profile] to be a candidate in the upcoming elections. The PSC also recommended that the rebels in western Sudan use the recent peace agreement between the northern and southern regions as a model for its own peace process, and encouraged the Sudanese government to enter peace talks with the rebels. The PSC has also authorized the use of AU troops to help the Democratic Republic of the Congo disarm Hutu rebels currently sheltering in its territory near the Rwandan border. Rwandan President Paul Kagame [official profile] has warned that he will use massive troop movements to draw out the rebels if they are not taken care of internally. Read the official resolutions of the PSC. Voice of America has more. In a related story, the chairman of the PSC, Gabon's President Omar Bongo Ondimba [Wikipedia profile], called for the creation of an African humanitarian organization that would be capable of dealing with disasters, such as the recent Indian Ocean tsunamis, as well as the fall out from the many civil wars and violent unrest that occur on the continent. Ondimba said that while the AU cannot currently fund the equipment and resources needed for such a body, the organizational structure and support systems should be designed and reviewed so that the implementation of the Humanitarian relief agency could occur as quickly as possible. South Africa's Sunday Times has more.
- Acting Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, Luigi R. Einaudi [official profile] and Juan Gabriel Valdés, the Chief of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti [official website], reported to the OAS Permanent Council [official website] Tuesday on progress being made to prepare Haiti for general elections, scheduled for sometime in 2005. Valdez expressed optimism about the process, and noted that the next undertaking would be the creation of a national registry to ensure that elections would be fair and legal, laying the framework for a stable Haitian government. The report prefaced Wednesday's discussion of the situation in Haiti by the UN Security Council [official website], which will examine election preparations and will most likely discuss increasing funding for the project. Read the OAS press release.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

BREAKING NEWS ~ Supreme Court rules on sentencing guidelines
Bernard Hibbitts on January 12, 2005 10:28 AM ET

[JURIST] AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has ruled that federal judges have been improperly adding time to criminals' sentences, a decision that puts in doubt longtime sentencing rules.
10:32 AM ET - The ruling is in the consolidated cases of US v. Booker and US v. Fanfan [Duke Law backgrounder]. The questions presented to the Court were: 1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the sentencing judge's determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," the following question is presented: whether, in a case in which the Guidelines would require the court to find a sentence-enhancing fact, the Sentencing Guidelines as a whole would be inapplicable, as a matter of severability analysis, such that the sentencing court must exercise its discretion to sentence the defendant within the maximum and minimum set by statute for the offense of conviction. From DC, the Supreme Court litigation firm of Goldstein & Howe has posted these early details on their SCOTUSblog.The Supreme Court ruled today that the federal Sentencing Guidelines must satisfy the standards of the Sixth Amendment as applied in the Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion on that point, and Justice Breyer wrote a separate opinion saying that the Guidelines can no longer be mandatory, but can continue to operate "in a manner consistent with congressional intent."
Justice Breyer's opinion declares, in key parts: "The District Courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing....The courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for unreasonableness. These features of the remaining system, while not the system Congress enacted, nevertheless continue to move sentencing in Congress' preferred direction, helping to avoid excessive sentencing disparities while maintaining flexibility sufficient to individualize sentences where necessary.
"...Ours, of course, is not the last word: The ball now lies in Congress' court. The National Legislature is equipped to devise and install, long-term, the sentencing system, compatible with the Constitution, that Congress judges best for the federal system of justice." The full text of the Court's ruling should be available online shortly. Review the Court's root ruling from last year in Blakely v. Washington, invalidating on Sixth Amendment grounds a Washington state statute authorizing a judge to impose a sentence above the "standard range" specified if aggravating factors justified the increase. In a JURIST Forum column this past September University of Pittsburgh law professor Sandra Jordan reflected on the Supreme Court's possible application of Blakely to federal sentencing:The trouble is that over 44% of sentences in federal court are based on sentencing enhancements that are not proven to a jury or admitted by the defendant. These enhancements, also known as "relevant conduct" in federal court, have the practical effect of increasing, even quadrupling, federal prison time to be served. Relevant conduct can increase a sentence many years, and it need never be proven to a jury or established beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, thousands of federal sentences are based on information that may be determined to be unconstitutional in light of the Blakely ruling. If the Court holds the federal guidelines to the same standard as it applied to the Washington sentencing scheme, as expected, then Blakely review can potentially disrupt the sentences of thousands of federal prisoners.
Besides the logistical problems that will result if the federal guidelines are struck down or held to the Blakely microscope, legal observers are watching closely to discern what guidance the Court will lend to the sentencing process. If the Court elevates the role of the jury to include fact-finding obligations, jurors could then assume much more power in the trial of criminal cases. This result brings its own set of problems, notably the consideration of information that would otherwise be excluded during the guilt phase of a trial.
The current interpretation of the federal sentencing guidelines allows the government to enhance the defendant's sentence by incorporating "relevant conduct" information that would otherwise be excluded from the trial and use this same information at the time of sentencing. This strategy, condoned by the courts until now, has contributed to our swelling prison population in the United States. Blakely's rationale is sound and founded on the principle that punishment should be based only on the facts of the case under deliberation....
Perhaps for the first time since the passage of the federal guidelines in 1987, there is an opportunity to re-evaluate their actual effectiveness as they currently operate. Granted, the guidelines standardized the sentencing process. However, one unanticipated result of the guidelines was that they shifted sentencing power from the judicial branch to the executive branch. Prosecutors now control the entire criminal prosecution, including sentencing, by negotiating the plea and any crime-specific or extraneous factors which determine the ultimate sentence. Most observers would agree that the result has been a skewed sentencing jurisprudence which certainly was not contemplated by the drafters of the guidelines system. Judges have resigned themselves to the reality that the guidelines leave no room for debate or compromise. Now Blakely opens the dialogue on sentencing once again, something that is certainly overdue. If the guidelines do not survive in their entirety, it presents an opportunity to revamp sentencing policy and to factor out all of the troubling concerns with the guidelines. With an open and inclusive dialogue, change can reflect that which is desirable in sentencing and ferret out the overly formulistic approach that troubled so many guidelines experts. This is a welcome scenario." Read the full text of Jordan's JURIST op-ed entitled A Time for Reasoned Sentencing Policy.
10:59 AM ET - Read the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion in Booker, now online from Cornell.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|