Letters
The Wisconsin Lawyer publishes as many
letters in each issue as space permits. Please limit letters to 500
words; letters may be edited for length and clarity. Letters should
address the issues, and not be a personal attack on others. Letters
endorsing political candidates cannot be accepted. Please mail letters to "Letters to the Editor," Wisconsin
Lawyer, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158, fax them to (608)
257-5502, or email them.
Delay Truth in Sentencing Enactment for Six Months
The Milwaukee Bar Association (MBA) Board of Directors unanimously
voted in October to support a six-month delay of the effective date of
the Truth in Sentencing Law (1997 Wis. Act 283) and delay its
implementation pending under AB 465.
At the time AB 465, and
its companion bill SB 237,
were scheduled for hearing before the Senate Judiciary and Consumer
Affairs Committee. The bills are the result of the recommendations made
by the Criminal Penalties Study Committee regarding the implementation
of Wisconsin's Truth in Sentencing Law. In October, amendments were
being "floated" proposing a six-month delay (from the Jan. 1, 2000,
effective date) of the implementation of Truth in Sentencing, AB 465.
The MBA Board of Directors, unanimously voted, rather, to support a
six-month delay of the effective date of the Truth in Sentencing Law,
altogether.
The MBA board received input from its Courts Committee and Criminal
Law Section. The legislation raised particular concerns for Milwaukee
County and for its circuit court system, for example, Wisconsin's prison
population statistically is highly Milwaukee-based as are
probation/parole resources and needs.
Given the delay in the issuance of Criminal Penalties Study Committee
recommendations and now in their legislative adoption, questions were
raised whether prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and
others involved in the criminal justice system would be adequately
prepared to fairly learn and implement Truth in Sentencing before Jan.
1, 2000. Court forms and procedures were not expected to be in place.
Some concerns were raised regarding the potential for criminal court
system administration issues, capacities, and inefficiencies, created by
likely increases in post-conviction motions and appeals.
The concerns of the MBA board, however, were beyond these particular
issues: the board opined that the implementation of these systemic
changes - affecting the administration of justice, public safety, and
public policy - would only be as successful as the system that
implements them. That system should be driven by reasonable timelines by
which justice can be confidently carried forth. The legislative
initiative of Truth in Sentencing is enacted; a six-month delay would
have served to benefit the principles on which it was based.
Hannah C. Dugan,
Milwaukee
Electronic Reporting Improves Civility
The cover
story in the December Wisconsin Lawyer was once again on
lawyer civility. Because I have a professional interest in this topic, I
note that in the four years since your last cover article on civility,
not much progress seems to have been made, except in one area: audio or
video reporting of court proceedings and depositions. When circuit court
proceedings and depositions are reported electronically, incivility
disappears.
I have run a video court reporting business for the last 20 years.
Our computer records go back to 1985, and in that time we have
officiated at more than 5,000 depositions and 2,000 Wisconsin state
administrative hearings. We also have transcribed about 500 proceedings
audiotaped by the Western District federal court in Judge Shabaz's
court. In all those years, I have observed and recorded only two
instances of demonstrable incivility.
In seminar presentations to lawyers' groups on the advantages of
electronic reporting, I include the two instances where a lawyer acted
uncivilly on tape. I also provide a copy of the judge's order
sanctioning the attorney in one of the two cases, noting the attorney's
raised voice and condescending tone of voice, things that would not have
been demonstrable with stenographic reporting.
Electronic reporting is not permitted as yet in the Wisconsin circuit
courts. Still, I would be interested in hearing from any attorney who
has participated in any proceeding electronically recorded by videotape,
as to whether you remember any other instance in which attorneys raised
their voices or were otherwise uncivil. I suspect that a majority of the
attorneys who have attended video depositions know how effective
electronic reporting can be in recording, and hence eliminating,
incivility.
I firmly believe that the simple technology of recording has
contributed and will contribute more to "civil procedure" than have all
the admonitions and articles appearing in professional publications. The
profession should seriously consider opening up circuit court
proceedings to electronic reporting.
Frank J. Wiener,
Madison
Immigrants Fleeing Human Rights Violations Deserve Better
Treatment
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) jailed Bi Meng
Zheng after he missed his first immigration court hearing. He was
ordered deported, but China refused to repatriate him. Zheng, who never
committed a crime, spent four years in jail. The INS released him only
after human rights advocates campaigned zealously for his freedom.
INS policy regarding "lifers" (indefinite detainees) came into the
public spotlight when detained Cubans took hostages and threatened to
kill their Louisiana jailers. After nearly a week, they released their
unharmed hostages and surrendered, but only because the U.S. had
negotiated an unusual agreement with Cuba to accept their return.
Nationally the INS warehouses about 4,000 "lifers" - immigrants who
have been ordered deported but cannot be removed for various reasons.
Some have completed their criminal sentences, but remain jailed because
their native countries have no diplomatic relations with the U.S. Some,
with no criminal history, languish in jail because their countries
refuse to accept their return. Others are stateless.
How did the U.S. become a country that indefinitely locks up people
who have committed no crime, or if they did have already served their
sentence?
The answer lies partially in the tough 1996 Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, which awarded the INS
unprecedented powers to detain and deport individuals. The answer also
lies partially with the INS, which consistently chooses to detain people
who could be released.
The INS continues to hold "lifers" despite a mandate requiring a
review of anyone with a final order of deportation who has not been
removed within 90 days. INS figures show that 34.6 percent of lifers
whose cases have been reviewed have warranted supervised release. Still,
many local INS district directors operate independently and often do not
convene review panels. Reviews, when they do occur, often are only
rubber-stamped denials that cannot be appealed. Thirteen courts now have
ruled that the INS review process is inadequate.
The INS must establish rules for reviews in legally enforceable
regulations, which will ensure uniform application nationwide. The
decisions must come from an impartial fact finder, with an independent
review of negative decisions.
We should never be a nation that indefinitely jails those seeking
freedom.
William G. Paul, President,
American Bar Association
Wisconsin
Lawyer
