Salon.com > Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate: Drones require new privacy laws

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:20:00 +0000

WASHINGTON -- Privacy laws urgently need to be updated to protect the public from information-gathering by the thousands of civilian drones expected to be flying in U.S. skies in the next decade or so, legal experts told a Senate panel Wednesday.

A budding commercial drone industry is poised to put mostly small, unmanned aircraft to countless uses, from monitoring crops to acting as lookouts for police SWAT teams, but federal and state privacy laws have been outpaced by advances in drone technology, experts said at a Senate hearing.

Current privacy protections from aerial surveillance are based on court decisions from the 1980s, the Judiciary Committee was told, before the widespread drone use was anticipated. In general, manned helicopters and planes already have the potential to do the same kinds of surveillance and intrusive information gathering as drones, but drones can be flown more cheaply, for longer periods of time and at less risk to human life. That makes it likely that surveillance and information-gathering will become much more widespread, legal experts said.

Senate panel OKs Dem gun background check bill

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:54:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic bill expanding required federal background checks for nearly all gun purchases.

The panel approved the measure by 10-8, supported by all Democrats and opposed by every Republican. Expanded background checks is the heart of President Barack Obama's proposals to curb firearms.

The sponsor is New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

He says the measure will reduce gun crimes. He also said he hopes he can strike a compromise on the measure with Republicans, which will enhance its chances of passing in the full Senate.

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is the top Republican on the panel. He says he believes the measure will ultimately lead to a federal registry of gun owners — which is illegal. Schumer said wouldn't happen.

Senate panel ready to OK gun background checks

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:36:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are ready to muscle expanded background checks and other gun curbs through a Senate committee, giving President Barack Obama an initial if temporary victory on one of his top priorities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was to debate a bill Tuesday that would broaden the requirement for federal background checks to nearly all firearms purchasers. It was also considering a ban on assault weapons and an increase in federal aid for school security, though senators may not consider the assault weapons measure until later in the week.

Requiring background checks for private gun transactions between individuals — they're currently mandatory only for sales by licensed dealers — is a centerpiece of Obama's proposal to reduce firearms violence. The system is designed to prevent criminals, people with severe mental problems and others from getting guns.

Tuesday's meeting comes five days after the panel approved Congress' first gun control measure since December's carnage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 students and educators dead. That bill, by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others, establishes long prison terms for illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers, people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.

Holder: Banks too big to prosecute

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:06:00 +0000

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that banks are simply too big to prosecute.

The Justice Department has not brought a single criminal conviction against a Wall Street executive four years after a financial crisis proven to have been precipitated by fraudulent behavior. On Wednesday, Holder admitted that the vast size of major banks and the structural integration in the economy makes criminal prosecutions basically impossible.

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to the Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Senate committee postpones work on gun bills

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:20:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed its work Thursday on writing bills curbing guns, probably until next week.

The committee is considering Democratic-sponsored bills that would ban assault weapons, strengthen federal laws against illegal gun trafficking, provide money for school safety improvements and expand the requirement for background checks for gun purchasers.

Such delays are common for the committee, which often grants them to give senators more time to work on legislation. As the panel began discussing the measures Thursday, top Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said he had questions about the constitutionality and cost of some of the measures and said senators needed more time to trying working out differences.

Senators clash over need to ban assault weapons

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:46:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — Recent mass shootings like the massacre of first-graders and staffers at a Connecticut elementary school and the increasing deadliness of assault weapons make a ban on those firearms more urgent than ever, the Senate author of a proposal to prohibit them said Wednesday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., made the remark as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on her proposal, which would also bar ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

But the bruising, difficult path through Congress that the proposal will have was illustrated when the Judiciary panel's top Republican challenged the need for the assault weapons ban. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned the ban's constitutionality and said it would take the weapons away from people who use them for self-defense.

Further underscoring the roadblocks that gun control legislation faces in Congress, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that he opposes universal background checks for gun purchases, a central piece of President Barack Obama's plan for curbing gun violence. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., told reporters that the proposal could lead to creation of a federal gun registry — which the Obama administration has said will not happen.

Senate reportedly drops “Zero Dark Thirty” probe

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:26:00 +0000

The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly dropped its investigation into contact between the CIA and the "Zero Dark Thirty" filmmakers, Reuters reports, citing an anonymous congressional aide.

The Committee began its investigation shortly after Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., condemned the film for depicting torture as key to uncovering the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. All three senators signed a letter to Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, calling the film “misleading” and “grossly inaccurate.”

From Reuters:

Senators take up immigration in first hearing

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:52:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators are weighing one of President Barack Obama's second-term priorities at the first Senate hearing on a comprehensive immigration overhaul. Many stubborn fault lines are sure to emerge.

Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which comes amid a concerted focus on immigration reform from the White House to Capitol Hill, was to feature testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and — in an unusual move for Congress — an illegal immigrant, Jose Antonio Vargas, a former journalist who founded the group Define American, which campaigns for immigration reform.

The former head of America Online, Steve Case, also was on the witness list, along with Chris Crane, president of the immigration and customs' workers union, which has opposed Obama's immigration policies.

The hearing comes a day after Obama, in his State of the Union address, renewed his call for sweeping immigration legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of eight senators has been meeting to develop a bill by next month that accomplishes eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants while also containing enough border security and enforcement measures to gain conservative support.

Watch Gabrielle Giffords testify at gun violence hearing

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:28:00 +0000

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords appeared at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on the importance of curbing gun violence. "We must do something," she said. "It will be hard. But the time is now."

Giffords was shot in the head during an event with constituents in Tucson, Ariz., in January, 2011. Her husband, Mark Kelly, was also among the witnesses at the hearing.

Giffords said:

"Thank you for inviting me here today. This is an important conversation, for our children, for our communities, for Democrats and Republicans. Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard. But the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you."

Watch:

Pro-gun groups take hard line ahead of Senate hearing

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:51:00 +0000

In Wednesday's hearings on gun violence, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from members of pro-gun groups who will continue to oppose any gun control measures, despite the renewed push for tougher gun laws in the wake of the Newtown school shootings.

On Tuesday, the NRA released a transcript of Executive Vice President LaPierre's planned opening remarks, which include opposition to universal background checks (”When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them"), a defense of gun owners (“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals") and a renewed call for armed security guards in schools (“It’s time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children. About a third of our schools have armed security already – because it works").

Wayne LaPierre: Why bother with background checks?

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:31:00 +0000

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Executive Vice President, plans to rail against universal background checks during his testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be 'universal' – because criminals will never submit to them," he plans to say.

LaPierre is one of several speakers set to testify before the Senate in a gun violence hearing on Wednesday, which will also include Mark Kelly, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' husband, Baltimore's Chief of Police, and other expert witnesses.

Minors getting life sentences

Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:00:00 +0000

When Dennis Epps learned in June that the Supreme Court had struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for kids convicted of murder, he was hopeful. His brother, David, was given such a sentence for home burglary-murder committed at 16 and has spent most of his 48 years behind bars.

"I was thinking he was going to get some kind of release, because he served 32 years on a life sentence," Epps told ProPublica.

But Epps's brother is unlikely going anywhere soon. A few weeks after the ruling, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced he would commute the life without parole sentences of38 juvenile offenders, and make them eligible for parole after 60 years. David Epps would be in his mid-seventies when he could first be released.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling, minors can still get life without parole sentences — just not automatically after a conviction; instead a judge will need to decide, taking into account the minor's youth.

For the roughly 2,500 juvenile offenders already sentenced to life in prison without parole, the upshot of the ruling — Miller v. Alabama — seemed clear: "They will all get another bite at the sentencing apple," Dan Filler, a professor at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law, wrote shortly after the ruling.

That may not happen if Iowa's governor or many other states get their way.

"Justice is a balance and these commutations ensure that justice is balanced with punishment for those vicious crimes and taking into account public safety," Gov. Branstad said in announcing his order.

The governor's action, which sidesteps any potential resentencing hearings, has sparked criticism and legal challenges.

Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta who teaches at Yale Law School, called the governor's order "questionable legally and bad public policy."

"The main point of the Miller decision — and the main concern of any sentencing — should be individualized sentencing based on factors about each human being," he said. "Obviously, nothing about any of the 38 individuals was taken into account, just as it was not when they were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole."

Yet Filler, the Drexel law professor who wrote about the ruling, said it actually leaves the details to states to iron out. "When you look at the decision closely, it implicitly leaves room for exactly what the governor of Iowa did," he told ProPublica. "It doesn't give us any guidance. You have to see this decision as entirely cloudy. Different states are going to try different things."

Indeed, some states have suggested they don't plan on rolling back minors' life without parole sentences, pointing out the Supreme Court left unclear whether its ruling should be applied retroactively to minors already sentenced. (Twenty-six states currently have mandatory life without parole statutes for juveniles. Here's a list and a map showing where.)

"It is the (Alabama) Attorney General's position that this rule does not apply retroactively," Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman Jr. told us. "Ultimately whether it will apply retroactively is going to be a question that will be litigated in, and decided by, the courts."

The ruling

In its June 25 decision, a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court ordered an individualized approach to sentencing for juveniles convicted of murder to consider proportionality of punishment to the nature of the crime and offender's history.

Sentencers are now required to "follow a certain process — considering an offender's youth and attendant circumstances — before imposing a particular penalty," wrote Justice Elena Kagan for the majority. Among the unique characteristics of youth cited were "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences."

While the opinion didn't impose a categorical ban on life without parole sentences for juveniles, it requires that authorities "take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison."

The decision follows in the steps of a recent line of Supreme Court cases stating that kids, by virtue of their youth and lack of fully matured brains, are different from adults and have greater capacity for rehabilitation. In 2005, the Court struck down the death penalty for those under 18. In 2010, it forbade life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes that aren't murder.

The patchy aftermath of the 2010 decision illustrates the challenges states have faced in implementing changes to their laws. Florida — which dispensed the lion's share of life without parole sentences to minors for non-homicides — is still grappling with how to address the ruling. Greater discretion in judges' hands has also led, in some cases, to 70- to 90-year sentences for minors — while not technically life, a comparable term of years.

What's next?

In the wake of Miller, some states around the country have already taken legislative action. North Carolina recently passed an amendment granting juvenile lifers parole review after 25 years. It also requires judges to consider such factors as age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health history, and the influence of familial or peer pressure when imposing punishment.

In Michigan, which boasts the second-highest number of juvenile lifers, criminal defense attorneys have begun mobilizing legal assistance for current inmates despite disagreement as to whether or not the court's decision is retroactive.

In Pennsylvania, the state with the most number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole (444), the state Senate Judiciary Committee recently solicited testimony from various stakeholders to decide how to proceed. The issue of retroactivity there, too, remains uncertain.

Iowa's recent executive order is not the first time a governor preemptively took action following a Supreme Court ruling: In 2005, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas commuted the death sentences of 28 juvenile offenders, changing them to life sentences with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Around the same time, he had also signed a mandatory life without parole statute for juveniles; Texas abolished the statute in 2009.

If the Iowa governor's order stands, 38 juvenile offenders — including David Epps — will not be eligible for parole until they reach their mid-70s, about the normal life expectancy of Americans. But of course prison can prematurely age people. The National Institute of Corrections designates an elderly or aging prisoner as age 50 and older.

Recidivism rates also decline the older a prisoner gets: In Iowa, statistics show these rates drop markedly once an inmate reaches age 45 and even more dramatically by the time he's 55.

In light of the governor's action in Iowa, any hope Dennis Epps had of ever seeing his brother get out of prison was short-lived. The governor "might as well have left them serving a life sentence, because that's pretty much what that is," he said.

Correction: A second reference to Dan Filler incorrectly stated that he is a Drake law professor. He is a Drexel law professor.