Kudos to Denver officials for rejecting a proposed restaurant smoking ban. Colorado has the lowest obesity rate in the country. It is filled with "physically fit, health-conscious hikers and bikers."

So why the objection to smoking which is definitely an unhealthy habit?

''Western individualism is often a strength in this region,'' said Daniel Kemmis, director of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana and a former Missoula, Mont., mayor. ''I'd be surprised if any interior Western state would pass a statewide smoking ban.''

Enough already with governmental regulation of our bodies. And with feel-good plans that will further hurt the economy by driving people out of major cities forcing bars and restaurants to lay people off or close.

Opponents of a ban say the measure would have sent smokers to the suburbs and is the last thing Denver's struggling economy needs. The city is facing a $50 million budget deficit and expects to lay off scores of workers.

''There's a lot of people who are on the edge and we don't want to push these people over the edge and out of business,'' said Cindy Weindling of the Colorado Restaurant Association.

June's unemployment rate was the highest in nine years--6.4%. Unemployment rose by 913,000 in the past three months alone. The private sector, which includes bars and restaurants, has been especially hard hit. Smoking bans just add to the problem.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced H.R. 2585, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The caption of the bill reads:

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit certain long-term permanent resident aliens to seek cancellation of removal under such Act, and for other purposes.

What a welcome idea. We'll report more when we've had a chance to read the whole thing. For information, go to Thomas, the federal legislation server.

Three new criminal justice bills have been introduced in Congress:

S 1322 (Schumer, D-NY), to require states to make certain information regarding sexually violent predators accessible on the Internet, to Judiciary. S8439, CR 6/24/03.

HR 2574 (Kucinich, D-OH), to abolish the death penalty under federal law, to Judiciary. H5813, CR 6/24/03.

And -- just for kicks:

HJ Res 61 (Johnson, Sam, R-TX), proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to abolish the federal income tax, to Judiciary. H5814, CR 6/24/03.

You can get more information on any of the bills at Thomas, the Federal Legislation Server.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2003 in the House of Representatives, as a companion to S. 609, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, to restore aspects of the Freedom of Information Act modified by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2003 would clarify that the Homeland Security Act only covers certain records the government does not already have a legal right to obtain. The bill would also remove restrictions on the government’s ability to act in response to information it receives. Finally, the Frank bill would restore whistleblower protections by removing criminal penalties on disclosure.

States are increasingly eliminating theirstatutes of limitations on crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court will tell California by June 30 whether a 205-year-old standard allows the state to prosecute a 74-year-old man on 48-year-old child molestation charges.

At least 10 states will be debating the removal of the statute of limitations on offenses in which DNA evidence is found at the crime scene. Another 20 states have passed similar laws since 2000. Eighteen states are deciding whether to remove time bars to pursue old child abuse cases. Another 12 states have done so.

On the federal level, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, which amends the USA Patriot Act of 2001, eliminates or extends the statute of limitations on a wide variety of crimes.

A statute of limitations is essentially a time bar that prevents prosecution for crimes that were committed before a certain date. For example, in federal drug crimes, the statute of limitations is five years. If the police search your house and find drugs today, they have five years from today to charge you with a crime. After that, they are time-barred from prosecuting you.

The time bars ensure that law enforcement resources are efficiently used: when eyewitness memories are clearest and defendants' abilities to defend are most favorable. It is a common law concept that grew out of efforts by British royalty in the 1600s to persecute political dissenters by resurrecting old crimes and by criminalizing previously acceptable behavior.

The move by states to eliminate statutes of limitations corresponds to the advent of DNA testing. While DNA databases are being built, there are over 1 million untested samples. Many are from crimes in which the statute of limitations has expired.

We strongly object to the removal of statutes of limitation, on legal grounds. On a more gut level, we concur with this statement, quoted in the article:

"Are we so bloodthirsty that we have to right every conceivable wrong?" asked Lawrence S. Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"....Has our society become so victim-oriented that we concede to the government fundamental civil liberties so that we can have vengeance every day of every week?"

Senate Judiciary Committee likely to vote on the Victims' Rights Amendment VRA) to the U.S. Constitution (S. J. Res. 1) this week. Ask your local prosecutor to call their Senators and oppose.

The latest version of this joint resolution (the term given to all proposed constitutional amendments) would give victims of violent crimes: (1) the right to notice of proceedings involving the crime and of prisoner release or escape; (2) the right not to be excluded from proceedings involving the crime and, with respect to certain proceedings, the right to be heard; and (3) the right to "adjudicative decisions" that consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding delay, and claim to restitution.

While the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) agrees that victims must be treated with respect, we have always maintained that the VRA would dangerously abrogate the rights of those accused of crime and tie the justice system in knots. The amendment is equally problematic for prosecutors. The unfunded mandates and potential unintended consequences that would be enshrined by this proposal would wreak havoc on the administration of prosecutor's offices. Specifically --

1. Interference with prosecutorial discretion. To be sure, the amendment would be used to call into question the judgment of prosecutors about how a case is to be handled. Allowing victims to protest against what they perceive to be lenient plea bargains, to force cases to trial before either side is prepared, and to interfere in other prosecutorial and judicial decisions every step of the way would tie up the courts and perhaps derail important investigations.

2. Increased workload without increased resources. As victims scuttle proposed plea deals, the number of cases going to trial will increase. And the right to "adjudicatory decisions" on issues like restitution, even when the defendant is penniless, will consume scarce resources with no benefit. Moreover, the proposed amendment is vague and confusing and will be litigated without end; for example, is the "victim" in a murder case the deceased or the family? Questions like these will become the focus of judges and practitioners for generations to come. Aside from the additional litigation costs and workload, whenever parole or release is to be considered, prosecutors' offices will share the onerous burden of identifying and tracking down victims years after the offenses were committed. These mandates are completely unfunded.

Senator Joe Biden has introduced the Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2003. Co-sponsors are the Chair of the newly formed Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, Senator GRAHAM, and Senator MCCONNELL and Senator BUNNING.

It's a bill to give cops more rights. Biden refers to the intent of the bill as creating a "law enforcement officers' bill of rights." Here is the statement Biden made in Congress yesterday when introducing the bill.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the bill. Biden says he thinks they can work it out.

It is my view that without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials on this issue, enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. It is my hope that the newly-constituted Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, on which I serve as ranking member, will hold a hearing on this measure. That subcommittee is the proper forum in which to debate the merits of our approach to guaranteeing basic procedural safeguards to the men and women of law enforcement.

Biden also touts the bill as one giving greater rights to citizens. We haven't read all the fine print but this makes us skeptical:

Beyond benefiting those on the front lines of local law enforcement, this bill would enhance the ability of our citizens to hold their local police accountable if they do transgress while on the job. (emphasis supplied)

"If" they do transgress? Shouldn't that read "when" they transgress? The bill is S 1277. Congressional record cite is S8125, remarks and text S8127, CR 6/18/03.

First the Rave Act, now this. Biden can't sink any lower in our estimation--he's hit bottom.

Update: We just started reading the bill. Here's part of the preamble:

5) there are serious implications for the public safety of the citizens and residents of the United States which threatens the domestic tranquility of the United States because of a lack of statutory protections to ensure--

(i) the due process and political rights of law enforcement officers;

The Senate Commerce Committee is voting tomorrow on whether or not to recind the June 2 F.C.C. giveaway to Big Media. This is an unprecedented opportunity to participate, go over to Ruminate This where Lisa English has all the details on how you can participate. It will only take two minutes. The petition Lisa asks us all to sign will be walked over to the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow before the vote.

According to Eli Pariser of Moveon.org, "This bipartisan bill would keep a single company from owning broadcast outlets that reach more than 35% of American households (as opposed to 45% post-rule-change). A crucial amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Snowe would keep newspapers and TV stations from merging."

Here's all you need to do:

1) Go to the petition campaign. It's easy and self-explanatory.
2) Personalize the message to your Congressional delegation
3) Enter email addresses of friends and colleagues in your state
4) Send your message. It will be printed out and walked to your members of Congress, and this message will be forwarded to your contacts. Your friends will not receive spam as a result of this petition.

Neal Pollack reports on the new Rave Act in The Right to Party.

Daniel Forbes writes in The Nation about how the Rave Act is being used to stifle political dissent.

NORML reports on how the DEA is using the Rave Act to trample the First Amendment.

A scheduled concert to raise funds for a local NORML/Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) affiliate was shut down last week after the venue's management was informed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that they could potentially be fined $250,000 under provisions of the newly enacted "RAVE Act." The law, formally known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, permits federal law enforcement to prosecute business owners and event organizers if they make their property available for "the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." The incident is believed to be the first time the law has been used to prohibit a public event since it was enacted in April as an amendment to the Child Abduction Prevention Act, also known as the "Amber Alert" bill.

Don't forget who we have thank for this unnecessary, oppressive piece of legislation, sneakily tacked onto the Amber Alert bill at the last minute: It's Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Just in case he decides to throw his hat in the ring for President, we want everyone to know.

Welcome to the autocracy in Congress. This is infuriating. Read how the Republicans under the leadership of Chair David Dreier (R-CA) are using the House Rules Committee to block Democrats from having their legislation come to a vote:

Dreier now rules the House Rules Committee with an iron fist and routinely prevents Democrats from getting votes on their more liberal ideas.

On many high-profile issues, Dreier, whose committee decides the rules for each debate, has refused to allow Democrats an opportunity to offer a substitute amendment on the House floor. He has infuriated Democrats by denying them votes on their plans for everything from unemployment insurance to tax cuts.

This may sound like inside baseball, but it has a huge impact on what bills pass the House and become laws....By preventing Democrats from offering amendments, Republicans virtually eliminate the possibility of the House passing legislation not endorsed or written by GOP leaders.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the GOP's "autocratic" rule is thwarting the will of the estimated 140 million people represented by the 206 Democrats in Congress.

Albuquerqe, New Mexico passed what has been called the toughest sex offender registration law in the country. It was struck down as unconsitutional Friday.

[the law] banished pedophiles, rapists and other former sex criminals from the city.
The law required sex offenders to register with police and notify employers and landlords of their criminal history. The measure also prevented sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school and required them to give police DNA samples and imprints of feet and teeth, if asked.

The law had been passed by the Albuquerque city council and signed by the mayor. It will not go into effect.

[comments now closed]

Matt Yglesias tackles hate crime legislation, and having read something written by blogger Matt Singer, says Singer makes a strong case in favor of them. Since we oppose hate crime legislation, and a few years ago chaired a task force for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on the issue of federal hate crime legislation, we'll chime in with some arguments against such legislation at the federal level--they come from an article we wrote in 2000, and from the last paragraph, we assume it was sometime after the murder of Matthew Shephard:

Arguments Against Hate Crime Laws:

• The federal judiciary released a statement recently expressing constitutional and practical concerns about hate crime laws. The underlying criminal activity of a hate crime, such as robbery, assault, or murder, traditionally falls under state jurisdiction. The concern is that by passing federal hate crime laws, there will be a mass federalization of crime which should and could be adequately handled at the state level instead of overburdening our already overwhelmed federal courts.

• There is no evidence to suggest that hate crime laws will have a deterrent effect upon hate crimes.

• In many cases, it is very difficult to prove a hateful motivation for the criminal act. The decision to charge a hate crime as such should not be left to law enforcement. The F.B.I., for example, includes gestures and other body language in its hate crime statistics. Prosecutions to date in some cases have been based upon bigoted statements made several years before the act in question.

• There are already sufficient criminal laws and penalties on the books to punish hate crimes. We should punish the act, not the thought process of the actor. If these acts are inadequately prosecuted and punished when the victim is of a minority or disadvantaged class, the answer lies in increased education and sensitization of law enforcement and the judiciary.