Alliance for Justice assails Third Circuit nominee Stephanos Bibas for his criminal justice work and writings
As revealed in this post from June, I was stoked when sentencing scholar (and my occasional co-author) Stephanos Bibas was nominated by Prez Trump for an open seat on the Third Circuit. But, though Prof Bibas has gotten lots of support from lots of folks across the political aisle, the folks at Alliance for Justice have released this critical new report his record and AFJ President Nan Aron say that in his coming confirmation hearing the "onus is on him to alleviate concerns about his approach to the rights of individuals who might find themselves before him in court."
I surmise that AFJ releases a critical report about every one of the nominees put forward by AFJ, but my professional connections to Prof Bibas and his working in the sentencing arena prompted me to review this particular AFJ report about his work and writings. This AFJ press release summarizes the report's articulated concerns:
Among other things, AFJ’s report notes:
Bibas has written about the treatment of prisoners in ways that are unsettling and raise questions about his respect for their constitutional rights. In a 2012 book, he praises colonial-era punishments such as public whippings that inflict pain and humiliation on convicted persons, suggesting that public shaming is not practiced enough today. This philosophy regarding punishment would be seriously harmful in a federal judge charged with reviewing countless sentencing decisions that will have enormous and lasting impacts on the lives of real people. Bibas also argues that prisoners could be forcefully conscripted into the military.
In an article, Bibas insisted that while over-incarceration is real, it is not reflective of racial disparities in the justice system or society as a whole as the “liberal” “narrative” maintains. He also argued that the growth in the prison population was “driven mainly by violent and property crime, not drugs.”
Bibas has shown a serious misunderstanding about the nature of drug addiction, having argued that it is not a disease but something that addicts can choose to overcome.
Bibas signed an open letter criticizing the University of Pennsylvania’s adoption of new procedures for investigating and resolving sexual assault complaints on campus. The letter made troubling statements suggesting that victims are in part responsible for assaults, and advocated for the university to adopt an adjudicative system for these cases that closely mirrors the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court has discouraged schools, which are supposed to provide safe learning environments for all students, from attempting to replicate criminal investigations and prosecutions on campus.
While serving as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bibas used federal prosecutorial, law enforcement, and court resources to bring charges against a cashier at a veterans’ hospital cafeteria for allegedly stealing seven dollars. On the morning of the trial, he turned over evidence corroborating the defense that records suggest he may have withheld for some time. The cashier was acquitted, and the prosecution faced scorching media criticism.
For a host or reasons, I am disinclined to engage with the particulars of the AFJ report. But I am inclined to predict that Prof Bibas, based on his past criminal justice work and writings, will be much more inclined to respect criminal defendants' rights than many other past and future judicial nominees.
Prior related post:
Comments
Post a Comment