It’s Worth Looking at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Actual Views on Punishing Sex Offenders
What makes the young Ketanji Brown Jackson remarkable is her challenge to legal interpretations of a system of control over people who were not only made a separate category of human being then but are still largely shunned by reformers now. In a Harvard Law Review Student Note titled “Prevention versus Punishment: Toward a Principled Distinction in the Restraint of Released Sex Offenders,” she placed the humanity of a despised class of people at center stage. Where might justice be, she asked in effect, if we begin by considering how state power affects the life and liberty of society’s most hated individuals?
The note goes on to harshly critique measures like the sex-offender registries that became popular in most states. Brown’s point was that the effect of these policies constituted further punishment for these individuals. And, as Wypijewski points out, the piece in which Judge Jackson made this criticism was anonymous, as is the case for all such HLR “notes.” Yet Judge Jackson outed herself as its author in a list of her published works.
Just read another article this morning discussing that further:
https://reason.com/2022/03/21/here-is-what-ketanji-brown-jackson-said-in-the-harvard-law-review-article-that-josh-hawley-found-alarming/
No one who looks at sex offender registries HONESTLY could ever conclude that they are not punitive. My time in prison talking with other convicted sex offenders showed me that they feared the registry more than they feared their years of incarceration, because they knew that the registry would expose them to a LIFETIME of stigmatization and legalized bullying by the state and the public. And despite the misinformation put out by politicians and others as to the character of sex offenders, most of them were so full of shame about their actions, that they admitted their guilt, often to spare any additional trauma to their victims. Most sex crime convictions do not call for lifetime punishment, yet sex offender registries accomplish that on their own.
I watched part of the hearing yesterday. They were downright twisting her words. The other side made a blanket statement that she was soft on Sex predators. And there again, some people use predator to cover ALL sex crimes and all people arrested for them.
For example, homeless person peeing in woods and a kid rides his bike by and see the guying relieving himself. The kid rides home and tells his parents, “I saw some creepy guy’s wiener in the woods”. The parents call the cops, they take the kid over to point out the guy and the next thing you know, the headline reads “Creepy sex predator nearly kidnaps young boy riding his bike”.
I will also say this not 100% law enforcement’s fault. Stick with me here. The news can and often does sensationalize headlines. Just go onto any news site. How many times have you read a headline and then the story had almost nothing to do with the story? Don’t know about you but I see it on a daily basis.
Also, the news also pretty much sentencing the person before they have even had a day in court. And depending on the “WOW” factor, they show up at your home, pushing cameras and mics into the faces of your relatives and neighbors. Going door to door planting seeds into your neighbors minds. “Hello sir we are doing a story about your neighbor Sal, did you know he was a sexual predator?”
All this because the person even got a say in court. Regardless, even if found not guilty, the neighbors will forever hate you. And yes I have to add our new nemesis, Nextdoor who thinks they have to do what they they the police are not doing. They forever 24 hours a day make sure everyone knows about you. And unlike the registry, people can comment and discuss you in forums and form war parties against you.
I’ve seen the same thing for years with the news media. A sex crime allegation seems to be the one thing where they give the public the suspect’s name before he is even arraigned. I watched part of her confirmation hearing this morning where a Senator tried to allege that she was in favor of releasing everyone in a federal prison because of the covid risk. But she caught him in a lie, as she actually ruled AGAINST an inmate who was trying to get early release because of the danger of covid in prison. Very likely one of the Senator’s aides simply read the preliminary part of her decision and wrongly assumed that she was in favor of releasing those inmates.
At one point, she was accused of being soft on crime because she only sentenced a man to 5 years for possession of child porn on his computer. Each Senator should try serving 5 years in prison before deciding that it is a light sentence. I wish that politicians would stop classifying judges on being soft or tough on crime. A judge’s duty is supposed to be to guarantee fairness to all of the parties, not to partner up with the prosecution. Unfortunately, too often that’s exactly what judges do, side with the prosecution regardless of the rules of court.
Gerald…
……Jurist Jackson Looks Thoroughly at The Rule of Law…..And Makes A Determination….of the 614 Cases She Has Decided, ONLY, 12 have been Dissented on…She Follows Federal Sentencing Guidelines as per The Facts Stated in Each Individual Case….There is NO LENIENCE…ONLY The Facts, The Truths, With No Drama!….
Wonder What RBG is thinking Right NOW”?!?!?
Excuse. Me but Josh Heh Hawley is nothing but big politician wanna be. He picks a subject that he knows the public is vastly misinformed about uses it to pound the pavement with insulting questions to Ms Jackson. Which she handled with remarkable integrity. He had the Gaul to try and condemn her for a stand of making decisions based on the constitution rather than emotional hype . Very few people would have been able to maintain composure against the demoralizing accusations they have put her through. May God bless her!
DavidM
One of Senator Harley’s law professor stated that’s not what he was taught in law school around Jan. 6 of last year. Senator Hawley is an embarrassment to Missouri and Missourians need to show him the door!!
In her Harvard Law Review note, then law student Ketanji Brown directly addressed the fundamental question regarding registration. That is whether it is punishment or merely pretentive regulation. Kudos to her where, in the conclusion, she advocates courts assessing the impact (that is the “in effect” question) of registration laws rather than splitting hairs to differentiate between punishment and regulation.
In all this time, the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the question of at precisely what point registration provisions become punishment. All it has done is to declare that the 2003 Alaska registration regimen was not punishment. For a number of reasons “Justice” Jackson will offer a refreshing perspective to the Court.
Ed C…
As A Kindly Reminder, Jurist Jackson, Thoroughly, Exam-ins, The Rule of Law and Applies Its’ Principles to Each INDIVIDUAL CASE
…would love to be the ‘fly on the wall’, when She and Jurist Amy Have Lunch Together, in the Coming Months……Doubt, That, That, Will Occur….But, You, Never KNOW?!?1?
…And, Oh, Jurist Clarence……Where, is Anita H, NOW?
I know where Clarence is located at a DC hospital for an infection. Maybe Conflictinitis got him after 30 years of not recusing himself for a conflict of interest case. Even though I disagree with him I wish for a speedy recovery and bless his heart.
Clarence’s Wife, Ginni, Seems to BE KNEE DEEP IN HOT, ‘WATA’
I bet if she wasn’t both, black and a woman that this wouldn’t even be such a huge issue for Republicans or make such headlines in the news. I apologize if I ruffle any political feathers with that comment. If it does ruffle some political feathers, then something in my comment is more than likely true. I personally believe she will be an excellent, fair and impartial Justice.
Tim P., it’s why they make such outrageous comments, so that they can make news headlines. It’s a foregone conclusion that she WILL be the next justice on the Supreme Court. Republicans are just using scare tactics to motivate their voters for the next elections. They know that if they can do nothing but keep the majority in the Court, it will be enough to hang onto some power. There is some indication that Donald Trump’s promise to only appoint Justices who will overturn Roe v Wade played a huge part in turning out his voters when he got elected. A person with a lifetime appointment can have much more power than a politician who serves only 4 years. And what politician can ignore the opportunity to perform for the camera?
Gerald
I think everyone in here is going to pin me to the wall on this, but have to give my honest opinion. I am not so sure “ANY” judge should serve for life. Once anyone, regardless of political party, knows there is almost no way they can be removed other than committing a serious crime, they have almost limitless power for life. That should really scare some people.
And to prove some people are hypocrites, if the entire supreme court was republicans, the dems would pray for the day one of them passes away, retires, removed or otherwise steps down. And the same if the majority or all were Democrats, it would have the same effect.
To be able to sit in power for 40 years is sort of scary. That is why the president of the U.S can only be in office for 4 years, with the “Opportunity” to sit for an additional four if re-elected. Imagine if president “Add your own hated president here” were in office for 16 years. Throw tomatoes at me all you want but I think that is too much power for any party or position.
Ok I will go take my meds and a bubble bath now LOL 🙂
Very true, Cherokeejack. Our Founding Fathers sought to keep politics out of the Court by assuming that a lifetime appointment would relieve them from any political pressure. But the fact that judges have to prove themselves from the bench to be either ultra liberal or ultra conservative in order to even be considered for appointment has rendered the job of Supreme Court Justice hyper political.
The founders also believed that judges would be wise enough to retire at a sensible age. They aren’t. It’s all about power.
Cherokeejack
I will neither agree or disagree. Sometimes the set up is good sometimes bad. The problem is people were not created to judge other people because there is no way you can get all the details of something and take all underlying information into account. Jesus was the only man that walked the earth that could do that. Scripture says he could read hearts. Nobody else can.
Supreme Court should not be a political party problem. In the 1990s 3 judges were appointed one unanimously the others with 5 and 6 opposing. This country has just gone down the tubes the last 25 yrs.
DavidM
Yeah, if they think being a Supreme court judge is tough, wait until we all stand at the final judgement. Much will be revealed and nothing will be hidden. Not just your heart will be looked into but your very soul.
For now we all have to answer to man, but one day we will all take a knee and answer before the thrown of the Almighty.
Not everyone!
You are right! Look at our Congress. And how does generation after generation keep putting these people in office? Fresh blood and ideas is the only way to move forward. There need to be limits in all elected positions.
DCG
Amen!
i agree but disagree. I agree on term limits for appointed positions as there is no recourse for there actions as there never go up for reelection. but as for elected officials that is the voice of the American people and voters. i have never agreed on term limits for any elected official as that is taking the voice away from voters. if you dont like your elected officials then go out and vote and if your like me and cant vote influence those around you with policy and facts to help educate those voting around you.
I really can’t agree with term limits and bringing in new blood. If you look at the new faces in Congress in recent years, Republicans have swung too far to the right, and Democrats have swung too far to the left. Neither the far right nor the far left are willing to compromise in the middle, so either nothing gets done, or one side is completely suppressed by the other. It’s why family members and friends have gone past having differences of opinions on political matters, and are now spewing hatred at each other. And the politicians are using the hatred to their advantage, at the expense of the country.
Supreme Court Judges, District Attorneys, members of Congress, and state legislators should have term limits. After their time is over they are banned from lobbying for life. I’ve been in support of term limits for a long time. When those in charge of our laws get to comfy that’s when they do whatever they want to get re-elected.
Tim P. I don’t think it is so much being a woman and black as she is simply the opposite party. When ever I watch any hearings of any kind it is each party taking a stance for the camera. They have their media blitz lined up already and they have to make the headline happen. It is disturbing really. Since “social media” they have to play to the cameras all day long, at least it use to be just for the nightly news and they found common ground from time to time back then. Not any more.
I still admire George Bush. I see him all the time hanging out with people who are democrats, Gay, and just whoever he wants to without worrying what the party thinks of him. He was criticized for hanging out with Ellen during a sports game recently. I also saw him with Bill Clinton last week both speaking at a Ukranian church in Chicago and the people there were very humbled by the sincerity and unity.
I hate that politics divides people. I try and not even discuss politics with people as it is worse than a Yankees fan against a Red sox fan. Why can’t we all just be human beings. Not defined by your past, your affiliations, what club you are a member of etc.
That is a very excellent point about the social media. I just brought up the black and woman thing due to all the Conspiracies that arised about Pres. Obama during Trumps campaign. Then even more so when Hillary ran for president. Both sides are just as bad. However and recently in the last 8 yrs. The outlandish conspiracies that seem to be mostly coming from the right are tearing this country apart all in the name of political science to scare people to vote right and not pursuay them with actual facts. Atleast that is my perspective or how I see it. I could list all the conspiracies and compare them from both sides but I don’t want to get to controversial here. I personally don’t really claim a side. I just go with who seems to be more mature, has common sense and doesn’t try to push fear on the public (fear mongering) for political gain. Though it seems that is what political science is turning to these days.
Frankly, IMO, some on the panel found a thinking person questioning the Congressional law repugnant because Congress thinks they know best being they are elected by their constituents. If believe this could have cut in any number of ways by anyone who wrote it, not just Judge Brown-Jackson. This really should be thrown back onto the panel members who shouted the loudest and made to question their thinking about why this line of written thinking is wrong when we want thinking people in critical positions.
Everyone,
Jurist Jackson is Approved by 58% of the Entire Congress!
-According to Various Polls-Google it!
The Highest Approval Rating for a Supreme Court Nominee in over 3 Decades!- Google It!
April 4th is the Day Of Her Approval….I would bet my Full Hand, on this One!
Corey Booker Went over the Edge…She Cant Comment, But Showed Human Emotion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NiPzEJ4po