Marijuana Possession and Incarceration Cross-Post

Photo Credit: Hossam el-Hamalawy

I was over at the Reality Based Community, as I often am when I'm not here, when I got into an interesting discussion about the nationwide prison population. The big news from Keith Humphrey's original post is that 2010 saw the largest decline in the prison population in the last 40 years. Actually, it was the only decline in the prison population in the last 40 years. It had been on a steady upward trajectory for the last four decades. So what happened?

Mr. Humphreys credits some changes in federal policy:

The president’s administration would have to roll back the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity and end “drug war” rhetoric, creating change at the federal level and also inspiring individual states to re-evaluate their drug sentencing guidelines. The Administration would also have to invest in re-entry programs and highlight more effective methods of parole and probation. Marijuana possession cases make far less contribution to incarceration than Gopnik asserts in his article, but some marginal reductions in the number of people under criminal supervision could come from a White House reversing past practice and not opposing state-level marijuana decriminalization laws in places such as California and Massachusetts.

Prosser Is Begging for Impeachment

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, according to court sources, attacked fellow Justice Ann Bradley over an argument about the Walker's union-busting bill. He reportedly placed her in a chokehold, but did not exert obvious force, when she asked him to leave her chambers after an informal discussion became heated. Four other justices were in the room. Prosser has denied the allegation, releasing this statement to the Journal Sentinel newspaper:

"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

A proper review should certainly be made into workplace violence whenever it is alleged to have occurred, whether it's encouragement of hazing in an athletics program, an altercation between cubicle neighbors, or a mock-choking in the chambers of the Supreme Court. In an office or university environment, there is a process in place, managed by human resources or an established group to deal with these inevitable, though rare, instances of workplace violence. In the Supreme Court there is not.

Prosser asks for a "proper review," but the truth about the judiciary (and the Wisconsin constitution) is that there is no HR department for the high court. The only body that could provide a "proper review" for the allegations is the legislature, by instantiating an impeachment proceeding. As I understand it, the Wisconsin impeachment proceedings mirror the federal template. The state assembly draws up articles of impeachment, acting as a grand jury in deciding whether there is enough evidence to begin a trial phase. If there is, the articles of impeachment are approved by a majority vote, and the process moves to the state senate for trial, where Prosser would either be removed for his offense or acquitted. This is the only possible "proper review" that Prosser could be asking for, if he actually wanted such a review.

The alleged behavior is certainly criminal, so William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection asks, why not file criminal charges against the attacker? First of all, if your coworker put you in a chokehold, do you think your first reaction would be to file charges? The criminal prosecution route is onerous for the victim. Any workplace or institution has internal discipline committees to deal with these problems precisely because treating these incidents as a criminal justice matter (and explaining minute details of the institution's daily functioning to external investigators) is taxing and creates enormous disruption for the institution. It's obvious that Jacobsen is a law professor; the question he asks is provocative, but the actual substance and assumptions of his "Weiner test" is laughable.

David Prosser wants to be impeached for this incident. He's confident that he will be acquitted by the majority Republican Senate, so the majority Republican House should go ahead and give him a chance to clear his name. "A proper review" requires impeachment, and Prosser knows it.