In United States v. Haymond, the justices will weigh in on a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that requires additional prison time for sex offenders who violate the terms of their supervised release. Full Article
Related posts
-
CA: CDCR Kicks Off ‘Operation Boo’ Halloween Safety Campaign
Source: cdcr.ca.gov 10/28/24 WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Halloween is fast approaching, and the California Department... -
CA: New CDCR Treatment Regulations Delayed
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reported today a delay of up... -
CA Survey: Did CDCR spend your parolee $200 release allowance for you?
Source: rootandrebound.org and prisonerswithchildren.org From: Claudia J. Gonzalez, cgonzalez@rootandrebound.org As advocates for justice and fairness, we...
Has this case, United States v. Haymond, been mentioned here yet? SCOTUS just granted cert to the petitioner (United States) on appeal from a 10th Circuit ruling that was in favor of the Haymond, the respondent.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in holding “unconstitutional and unenforceable” the portions of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke the respondent’s 10-year term of supervised release, and to impose five years of reimprisonment, following its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent violated the conditions of his release by knowingly possessing child pornography.
Haymond was sentenced by a district court to five additional years in prison and five more years of supervised release for violating the terms of his supervised release. He appealed to the 10th Circuit, and they vacated the sentence and sent it back for resentencing. They said that the federal law under which his supervised release was revoked and that required additional prison time was unconstitutional because it takes away a sentencing judge’s discretion (something Chris F has remarked on generally) and imposes additional punishment based on conduct for which he had not been convicted by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
I haven’t read any of the briefs yet, but based on the Issue on which the court granted certiorari, the district court’s decision that the 10th vacated had been based on a preponderance of evidence. The US Solicitor General appealed the 10th’s ruling.
More here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-haymond/
Yet another technical question riding on the back of a RC. From reading the SG’s petition and the 10th’s case, I don’t know that there’s much to be gained by most of us. It’s a tricky case that seems to hinge on the mandatory minimum applicable only to RCs who commit further minor-involved sex offenses while supervised. I see the 10th’s rationale, and the mandatory aspect sure seems punitive, but I tend to see it as conversion of the sentence from supervised release to prison time.
This guy sounds like he’s somewhere on the left side of the RC bell curve, but I certainly hope he prevails. Congress (read: Rep. Chr!s Sm!th) obviously singled out RCs for extra attention, so I’d like to see it struck for that reason alone.
I also have to say I was bothered by the SG continuing the lie of “the heightened rates of recidivism among” RCs. That’s irrelevant to this case, dude, never mind that it’s patently false according to your own Department’s studies. But why let truth get in the way when you can gin up fear and concern in the 9 Black Robes?
On another note, the petition highlights that the Feds, too, should have consulted here before acting. 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) says in part that “the defendant not commit another Federal, State, or local crime during the term of supervision.” Don’t those rubes in D.C. know there are no such things as local laws, thus there cannot be a “local crime”? Even a former sheriff in TX knows that.
This is a good read in the reasons from the defendant why SCOTUS shouldn’t take the case and let the 10th decision stand:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1672/63678/20180913165548346_HaymondUSSC2018Kannon5final.pdf
If you read page 19 you can see some arguments that could be used against a mandatory registry. Just like taking away a judge’s discretion in sentencing duration, the legislature taking away registration discretion for need and duration affects everything about a sentence and makes things way too complex.
Here is a quote of the Booker SCOTUS ruling referenced even if by the dissent: “The
constitutional jury trial requirement would nonetheless affect every case,”
the Court wrote. “It would affect decisions about whether to go to trial. It
would affect the content of plea negotiations. It would alter the judge’s role
in sentencing…” Id. “It would create a system far more complex than what Congress would have intended.” Id. Congress’ intent was that supervised
release was to provide post-release monitoring by a district court judge “to
assist individuals in their transition to community life.”
Don’t you think a mandatory registry that makes it so a defendant can have his sentence essentially changed by every city in the country at any time even after the judge decided period of government supervision ends would add complexity, ruin negotiations, and alter the judge’s role to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public?
I am very glad to see SCOTUS taking on another case involving a registered sex offender. As seen in Gundy, a number of the questions/comments by the justices appear to highlight an increasing understanding of the excessiveness of current registrirs (as opposed to the original Alaska-Roberts-Price Club Membership case.) The more they see of these cases – whether granting cert or not – the more this issue will increasingly come to their consciousness which I believe will be a good thing for all of us registrants. I believe they will ultimately realize “These registries have become far too overbroad and punitive. This is not what was initially intended. They are unconstitutional and must change.”
I would normally be happy about this, but I think this is a terrible case for the highest court to review, as this defendant was a poor representative of our community. He had multiple probation violations including CP possession, was not following the system at all, was defiant, and not a good example of someone I want winning in our defense. This guy clearly has not learned anything form his past errors and I am afraid he will be back at it if he wins which will be a bad mark on us, and the public and politicians can say, “See! We told you.” I fully agree with what is being appealed, additional sentencing for a violation of probation is a conviction without a trial. I just wish it was a case that reflected better on our community.
This is a waste of time for SCOTUS, not to mention a major blunder the the courts. He should have been charged with a new crime for once again possessing child porn.
I want to know from our more tech savvy forum contributors here about the placing of these said items that has gotten this person into the water they are in currently. It is allegedly through the online gaming these images have found their way onto the computer but have not been accessed to be viewed, as written.
1) How can one prevent such images or any images one does not want on their computer from being installed or placed by an outside entity into computer locations that one would never know of? The obvious answer is don’t access the outside world via a computer, but in reality that is not quite practical anymore even though possible if you choose. The other obvious answer is don’t access suspicious websites. So, but technically speaking given we know of those who are not so friendly to people and would do things like this to others, how can one protect themselves?
2) This will sound like a conspiracy theory but for those who would do this, why would they put them so far down into a system that user would not know they are there? How can someone see if they have been accessed to be viewed? Is it possible people are intentionally placing them specifically onto the computers of specific people, e.g. entrapment, who online game or other online entity? With Best Buy being a de-facto search agent for LE, I just have to wonder at times. No, I am not nuts, but do try to look at things from other angles that many would publicly dismiss, but privately wonder themselves.
3) Bottom line – He did not click on anything or receive anything suspicious according to the docs, but, to me, it appears suspect given the technical circumstances known.
Any positive words to the wise in our technical age would be helpful.