The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Guns

D.A.'s Office Letter That Opposed Parole for Man Now Arrested in Connection with Sacramento Killings of Six

The letter is dated April 29, 2021, when Martin was three years into a 10-year sentence for a brutal assault on his girlfriend; he was released in February.

|

The Parole Board initially denied Smiley Allen Martin parole but then released him in February—he has now been arrested (as have his brother Dandrae Martin and Daviyonne Dawson) in connection with the shootings that killed six and wounded twelve. Note that the letter's statement that the offense for which he was serving time was not "violent" simply reflects the definition of "violent felony" in a particular California sentencing enhancement statute, which generally doesn't include assault; in ordinary language, of course, the crime was highly violent. Here's the letter; the Sacramento Bee's Sam Stanton broke the story.

April 29, 2021
Non-Violent Parole Review Process
Board of Parole Hearings …

RE: Smiley Allen Martin CDC # AT8808 DOCKET # 17FE008296

Inmate Martin has, for his entire adult life, displayed a pattern of criminal behavior. While the current case on review may not be "violent" under the Penal Code, Inmate Martin's criminal conduct is violent and lengthy. Inmate Martin has committed several felony violations and clearly has little regard for human life and the law, which can be shown by his conduct in his prior felony convictions of robbery, possession of a firearm and prior misdemeanor conviction of providing false information to a peace officer.

In January of 2013, just six months after his eighteenth birthday, Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement officers. Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing. The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.

On November 25, 2013, just ten months after being placed on felony probation, Inmate Martin and three other suspects entered Walmart and asked a clerk in the electronics department to view a Samsung Galaxy Notebook which was secured in a theft-resistant glass case. As the clerk opened the case Inmate Martin physically pushed the clerk to one side and grabbed several Galaxy Notebooks, valued at approximately $2800, and fled from the store. Video surveillance captured the incident. During the investigation, law enforcement discovered additional robberies committed on November 29, 2013 and November 30, 2013, of similar electronics at other Walmart and Target stores. Witnesses positively identified Inmate Martin through surveillance photos at those subsequent robberies. Inmate Martin pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.

On November 29, 2016 Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement in a vehicle with three other passengers. When asked for his name he identified himself as Desean Dorsey and could not provide a birthdate. Officers informed Inmate Martin they were going to detain him until they could identify him. Inmate Martin pulled from their grasp and took off running. After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody. Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large. One of the passengers of the vehicle Inmate Martin had been with was found to have an unregistered, loaded, handgun in her purse. Inmate Martin was charged with and ultimately pled to giving false information to a peace officer.

Less than six months later, Inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend's residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. During the investigation information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept. Inmate Martin pled to two felony assault charges for a sentence of ten years state prison.

As shown by Inmate Martin's pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses. He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.

As we are given 30 days to respond, and we are not provided with any disciplinary history or any other information aside from the one-page notice of parole review, I cannot comment on Inmate Martin's prison conduct. However, from the records that are available it is clear that Inmate Martin should not be released as he poses a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community. Inmate Martin has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot follow the laws, or conditions the court places on him. His history indicates that he will pursue his own personal agenda regardless of the consequences and regulatory restraints placed upon him. On behalf of the District Attorney's Office, I ask that you deny his request for early release.

Respectfully,
Danielle Abildgaard
Deputy District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office

NEXT: Challenge to Prior Restraint on Critics of Police Officer Ends With a Whimper

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Soft on crime Democrats on Parole Board.

    Did not see that coming.

    1. Incapacitation is the sole mature goal of the criminal law to protect public safety. All others are failed lawyer quackery and rent seeking worthless make work for Democrat voters. The best is the death penalty. The deceased have a low recidivism rate. That is not operative today, and has become another lawyer scam, generating $billion in appellate business, and nothing else. It has been replaced by the overdose crisis.

      All immunities should end. The parole board failed the public. The victims of the released should be made whole for their carelessness.

      1. Those with Antisocial Personality Disorder are permanently impaired. They should not be dumped into poor neighborhoods like toxic effluvia. They represent 50% of prisoners, especially if violent. They respond to structure and should remain in prisons permanently.

        Who they are is known from age 3. They are like mini natural disasters. The cost of their destructiveness is similar to that of a tornado. That cost is as foreseeable as the sun setting in the West. It is 100% the fault of government if they are loosed and cause damage. Government should be made to pay. This released had all its features.

        1. "Those with Antisocial Personality Disorder are permanently impaired."

          Bonkers Behar knows from personal experience!

          1. Hi, Queenie. What is your preferred pronoun? Mine is, Fuck You. I will gladly include yours in my letter of support to help you get the job for which you are richly qualified.

            1. The vile, woke, pro-criminal Governor needs to resign over his prison reform directive. His sovereign immunity fully justifies violence against him by the bereaved families in formal logic. Formal logic is supreme over the failed vile, toxic lawyer system. Those victims were killed by lawyers as surely as if they had pulled the trigger.

              1. fuck you, what the hell is the matter with you?

                1. James. The contrapositive of a true assertion is always true. All bats are mammals is true (A then B). This animal is not a mammal, it cannot be a bat (the contrapositive, not B then not A) is true.

                  Legal liability was a great invention 8000 years ago to replace endless cycles of violent revenge for injuries, and hostage taking for future promises. Immunity then justifies violence in formal logic. Formal logic has more certainty than the laws of physics.

                  1. There is racism in the legal system. It is to undervalue the suffering of black crime victims, and to do nothing about it. This guy horribly attacked his girlfriend. Yet, that was not deemed a violent offense. He was streeted because of that.

                  2. You didn't answer the question, which was "what is the matter with you?"

                    I mean, obviously at some point, you were bullied by a lawyer who beat you up and took your lunch money. But is that the only trauma?

          2. Well, that comment was exactly as stupid as expected.

        2. "Those with Antisocial Personality Disorder are permanently impaired."

          That's right from the horse's mouth. Well, it came out of one end or the other of the horse, anyway.

            1. This the answer to my what the hell is wrong with you question from up above?

              1. Hi, James. I cannot respond to personal remarks. They are usually inflammatory, and come from the frustration and the mental state of the utterer responding to the facts and to the logic in my comments. I suggest you Mute User me if you are upset by them.

                1. If there was any logic in your comments, it might affect me.

  2. Tune in to the news for today's episode of: Prohibited people doing prohibited things with prohibited weapons.

    The machine gun (pistol) he used was already extremely highly illegal.

    But Kommiefornia needs more guns laws and taxes for sure.

    1. Well, they could solve this problem if they define a person of killing a white person to be a non-violent crime. In fact, think of how much better the violent crime statistic would be if killings by people of color were defined as non-violent crimes.

    2. Extremely! Highly illegal!

      Not on California's list!
      Fully Automatic!
      Illegally modified!
      Standard capacity magazines!

  3. "could not provide a birthdate"
    Brilliant.

    1. Probably doesn't remember. newborns don't have good memory, nor can they write things down.

  4. DA asks for maximum punishment. This is not news. In my opinion anybody who had an opportunity to be heard at sentencing should be kept out of the parole process except when offering evidence about later events.

    1. At sentencing, asks for maximum punishment. This puts the notch in their belt.

      At parole? He did it anyway, they didn't listen, and 6 people are dead.

    2. Seriously? Why bother with a hearing at all then - just have the boards staff rubber-stamp the applications.

      Not having anyone actually familiar with the crime at a hearing is insulting to those that have been harmed. Starting with society as a whole.

      1. If the convict is there, then isn't there somebofy familiar with the crime present

        1. Surprisingly, the convict has every motivation to downplay the seriousness of the crime under discussion. Heck, many convicts will even insist that they didn't do it, or it wasn't their fault!

          I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong, if we rely on the convict's recollection of the crime to be the deciding factor as to whether the convict should be released on parole.

          1. "I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong, if we rely on the convict's recollection of the crime to be the deciding factor as to whether the convict should be released on parole."

            Well, then, maybe we SHOULDN'T follow your suggestion that the convict's recollection of the crime be the deciding factor as to whether the convict should be released on parole.

  5. Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing.

    My first impression was the silly image of someone tucking a rifle down their pants leg.
    My second guess was that "assault rifle" was the California wacky legal definition, and it was actually something much shorter.
    Both are pretty silly.

    1. Well, good thing you haven’t bothered to find out just what the heck is going on there. This way you can keep imagining silly facts and laughing at them.

      1. It makes no difference to me. It's a curiosity thing of such low interest as to not matter.

        It's a joke, son!

        1. "It's a joke, son"

          No it isn't. jokes are funny.

  6. Some background info since Prof. Volokh doesn't care about the full story.

    California corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas said Tuesday afternoon that the parole board denied Martin parole in May 2021 but ended up being released less than a year later.

    “Prior to reaching a CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) facility, Martin had already received 508 days of pre-sentencing credits, and received a variety of additional post-sentencing credits,” she wrote in an email. “He was released to Sacramento County probation in February 2022.” The letter to the parole board came as Schubert’s office and 44 other DAs were preparing to sue the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation over policies that they say would result in the “early release” of 76,000 inmates statewide. “As shown by Inmate Martin’s pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses,” Schubert’s office wrote last April. “He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. “If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.” Prison officials dispute the characterization that its rule changes amount to “early releases,” arguing that changes they made in how good conduct credits are applied do not amount to such a policy.

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260131840.html?ac_cid=DM630001&ac_bid=-535928944

    1. None of this changes the story. Parole Board used its discretion to let out a violent criminal early, people died.

      1. No, they did not use discretion.

        1. where'd you get that idea?

          1. The article says that he was released not because the parole board used its discretion to release him early, but rather because the department of corrections implemented new regulations that allow everyone to get released early.

            1. We’ll I guess that makes it all ok then.

              1. I'd say it makes it quite a bit worse!

            2. So do away with the parole board, if they are only exercising minsterial function, not discretionary. Why waste money?

              1. Fine with me!

            3. Not quite. The dept. implemented new regulations, but there was still a parole board hearing.

              1. Blame the prison, they're the ones who had him, and actually let him out.

      2. Ha you're right. Thanks for the paragraph that basically changes nothing !

        1. Reading carefully just makes you soft on crime!

          1. Being able to read means you can be labeled as "soft on crime", regardless of your actual actions.

            Republicans are soft on crime, if the accused criminal happens to be a Republican.

            1. Meh. More often than not, Republicans eat their own when there's blood in the water, while Democrats will ignore governors who kill thousands of people with their policies, and only force them to resign because of dozens of inappropriate instances of kissing and touching -- and even then, Democrats will wonder if it's really necessary.

              1. "Democrats will ignore governors who kill thousands of people with their policies"

                You think that Democrats are ignoring DeSantis?

      3. "None of this changes the story. Parole Board used its discretion to let out a violent criminal early, people died."

        Keep in mind that Bob here isn't constrained by reality, so you wouldn't expect different facts to change his story. He'll stick to his preferred story, no matter what the actual facts are.

        1. Heh! That's funny, coming from you!

          1. Another witless boob has signed on.

    2. "Some background info since Prof. Volokh doesn't care about the full story."

      If you cared about the 'full story,' you'd link all of the other news articles about this story as well.

      I guess you just needed an excuse to be petulant this morning.

      1. Yes, if you don’t link to every news story ever written about a subject you are not serious about informing on that subject. Everybody knows that already so you don’t have to keep pointing it out.

        1. It would seem that you completely missed the point of my remark.

          Try again. This time, why don't you start with the comment to which I was responding first, and then read mine again.

    3. "California corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas said Tuesday afternoon its not our fault! Look over there, at lax gun laws!"

      lmao, I should take the opinion of the California corrections spokeswoman because, what, i feel like being a dumb doormat today?

    4. Thank the servants of the Chinese Commie Party, BLM, for these horrific deaths. Thank the collaborators of the CCP with their prison reform agenda. Why does the lawyer always protect, privilege, and empower evil? It is evil itself.

      1. Thank you Mr. Behar, and your friends at the Chinese Communist Party.

        1. James, you need to stop serving the interests of the CCP. Stop being a Commie running dog.

          1. Like I'd listen to you, Commie.

  7. I somehow knew the commentors here would be sympathetic to this guy, by way of beating up California & libs.

    1. Care to identify any such comments. So far I have not seen any.

      Always easy to be outraged by imaginary comments.

      1. "Care to identify any such comments. So far I have not seen any."

        Look now. You won't be disappointed.

  8. He is clearly a bad guy but the DA's letter has some real credibility problems. An "assault rifle" that can be "concealed in his waistband under his clothing"? And the fixation on the pistol grip and detachable magazine? The lengthy paragraph about the heinous crime of giving false information to a "peace" officer (and ignoring the fact that they are allowed to lie to us at will)?

    The DA's letter would have actually been more compelling if it had been about half as long and stuck to the criminal's actual behavior instead of the police/prosecutor moral grandstanding.

    1. I had the same reaction. However, it is unclear how much of that BS the DA actually believes (probably most if not all....), and how much was what she thought would influence the Parole Board. You and I may know that a "pistol grip" is pretty irrelevant to dangerousness and criminality, but if the decision maker thinks assault weapons with pistol grips and detachable magazines [sic] are the worst thing evah, it behooves one to hit those points.

    2. California has pretty weird and convoluted gun laws and regulations, and "assault rifle/weapon" as a legal term is one of the more muddied terms. I would not be surprised to find that any handgun with a too-large magazine is considered an assault weapon, and most non-gunnies are pretty unclear on the subtle distinction between rifle and weapon when their agenda depends on not showing any knowledge of guns.

      1. Since most pistols have rifled barrels, how clear is the distinction?

    3. < The lengthy paragraph about the heinous crime of giving false information to a "peace" officer (and ignoring the fact that they are allowed to lie to us at will)?

      Setting aside the fact that police officers aren't "allowed to lie to us at will", note that Mr. Martin was on parole at the time of this episode, which seems relevant to the question of whether to grant him parole again.

      1. Moreover, the 'giving false information' incident also seemed to involve a foot chase etc.

      2. "Setting aside the fact that police officers aren't "allowed to lie to us at will"

        They can lie any time they want, without consequence. But you're right, that's totally different from "allowed to lie to us at will".

      3. They absolutely can lie to us at will with no consequence. Prosecutors too.

        Take a look at Mansfield v Williamson County, decided last week by the 5th Circuit. Innocent dude went yo prison because the cops and prosecutors hid exculpatory information regarding statements from the primary witness and actually told the accused that the statements were inculpatory. Appeals court sees no problem with that at all.

        1. I didn't say that police officers are never allowed to lie (much less that they will always face consequences for lying); I said that they are not always allowed to lie whenever they want to. I'm not sure how a case that doesn't involve an allegation that the police lied about anything does much to rebut that.

          1. The counter-example you meant to provide, of a police officer who lied but faced consequences would have been...

            1. Surely you're not talking about cases where a cop lied (usually in a report and/or in court) and was later fired for that. Those cases are numerous, and easily findable (is that a word?). I take it that you want examples of a police officer lying to a suspect and later facing real consequences for that lying, yes?

              1. Yes. That’s the “to us” part.

                If they lie to their agency or to a court, that’s a completely different circumstance with a much higher chance of getting punished.

                Lying to a suspect is never a problem at all, even though it’s the most common cause for false confessions/guilty pleas.

                1. "If they lie to their agency or to a court, that’s a completely different circumstance with a much higher chance of getting punished. "

                  Going from 0% to .001% is higher, but it isn't "much higher".

              2. " Those cases are numerous, and easily findable"

                Yet still not provided. If you can't be bothered to provide examples to support your own claim(s), I'm not going to do it for you.

  9. Always loved the occasional "Dragnet" episode involving Mur-duh....
    with the last bit being "In a moment, the Results of that Trial" and you'd see the Perp fidgeting, with "Awaiting Execution at San Quentin" subtitled below...
    seems California used to have the largest Death Row in the US, now they're just contributing to the Global Warming that isn't happening (other than that due to the Precession of the Equinoxes, which isn't going away anytime soon no matter how much Greta Thornberg rends her garment.

    Frank

    1. If you want a TV program about murder, try Perry Mason or Law and Order instead. You get at least one murder victim per episode (AND the cops always get 'em)

      Dragnet was propaganda.

  10. He's black. Its OK. That seems to be the rationale. Kyle exercising self defense bad, an altercation that only involved white people, national news 24/7 and its racist or something. It was obvious self defense.

    Black dude mows down parade goers and we have "no evidence it was a hate crime". What? He ranted on social media about hating white folks. They'll sentence him to driving school?

    Folks are saying its soft on crime. No it's not . See above example. Its soft on black crime.

  11. 1. This guy was released because California has too many people in prison.

    2. Most people generally believe that our criminal justice system is broken in many ways; one of the ways in which it is broken is that it places too many people in prison (using the term to include jails) for too long for offenses that do not warrant it, while not devoting resources to actual dangers to the community.

    3. Some possible escape valves include sentencing reform and use of parole, probation, and pardons.

    4. However, you have to look at incentives. Currently, there is almost no incentive to allow people out (the three "Ps") unless you have to. Because if they stay in prison, who cares. But if you let them out and they do something terrible, then you will get the blame. It creates a tremendous ratcheting effect.

    5. Which means that for all of the lip service, actual reform is hard, and we end up just punting it to the future ... and things continue to get overcrowded (and/or situations deteriorate in prisons, which is its own problem).

    This was a bad guy. I wish he hadn't been let out - pretty obvious with hindsight. But maybe we should be looking at this holistically- in other words, why are the prisons so crowded that people like him are getting out early?

    Eh, whatever. Plus ca change.

    1. The Sentencing Reform Act is one of the greatest public policy achievements of the last century, and states would do well to look to it for guidance as they grapple with the current underincarceration crisis.

      1. I didn't mean this as a reply to loki13, but I guess it serves well enough.

    2. in other words, why are the prisons so crowded that people like him are getting out early?

      California's incarceration rate is below the national average. If it doesn't have enough space to house its prisoners, I suspect that's a product of unduly restrictive environmental regulations that make it too expensive to build new facilities, and unduly generous union contracts that make it too expensive to staff them.

      1. Nah, their sheriff union makes it too expensive to house prisoners and makes creating new prisoners a priority as well.

        the sad state of affairs is that in a country of over three hundred million, of which California has nearly forty million of them, even having below one percent in the number of violent people is still a large number.

        The percentage of drug offenses in state prison systems is near twenty percent having decreased over the years; Federal prisons are the higher; which means most of those in prison are not people you ever want out

        1. Cause or effect? Is putting people in harsh conditions in the state prison system what makes them criminals when they get out?

          1. Cause or effect? Is putting people in harsh conditions in the state prison system what makes them criminals when they get out?

            Maybe the majority of them wouldn't have been in the state prison system in the first place if they weren't already criminals? From a pure logic standpoint, it's hard to argue that being in prison is what causes people to turn to crime. If that were the case, there would be no prisons. No one would have committed the first crime that caused society to see a need for a place to hold criminals.

            We can argue about whether or not prisons are better at 'correcting behavior' than they are at teaching criminals new skills for use in their chosen profession. We can argue about whether prison terms are too long or conditions too harsh. We can also argue about whether or not prison populations contain large numbers of those who are innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

            But, whether prisons reduce or increase crime rates should be beyond dispute. Prisons reduce crime, if only because they keep large numbers of people who have the propensity to commit crimes where they cannot harm the general public.

            1. "But, whether prisons reduce or increase crime rates should be beyond dispute. Prisons reduce crime, if only because they keep large numbers of people who have the propensity to commit crimes where they cannot harm the general public."

              And we don't have to count the crimes that are committed in prison as crimes, since the victims are all convicts! The question is, do people come out of prison less likely to commit crimes. Allegedly, the reason we're putting them in the prison in the first place is so that they can sit there and think about what they've done and come out rehabilitated into law-abiding citizens.

      2. "California's incarceration rate is below the national average. If it doesn't have enough space to house its prisoners, I suspect that's a product of unduly restrictive environmental regulations that make it too expensive to build new facilities"

        It isn't environmental regulations that make it expensive to build prisons. The reason it's expensive to build prisons is that there are too many competing uses for the land, and that means more bidders for each piece of property.

      3. I suspect that's a product of unduly restrictive environmental regulations that make it too expensive to build new facilities, and unduly generous union contracts that make it too expensive to staff them.

        Do you have any basis for your suspicions?

        1. "Do you have any basis for your suspicions?"

          Doesn't like environmental regulations? Just a guess.

    3. Even if you let out the people locked up for victimless crime the incarceration rate in the US would still be very high compared to most of the world. Prison reform is not the magic bullet we like to pretend, though I wish it would happen.

  12. maybe we should be looking at this holistically- in other words, why are the prisons so crowded that people like him are getting out early?

    But if anyone did that they wouldn't be able to yell about soft-on-crime pedophile Democrats.

    "Soft on crime." I thought that went away in the 70's or so.

    1. It did go away for a while, as even the most radical of liberals realized that crime was, at the very least, unpopular. Unfortunately, we're the victims of our own success: when crime isn't part of the daily experience of most people, they start to wonder why we're really working so hard on preventing it. Sadly, the answer is revealing itself all too clearly.

      1. James Taranto likes to quote the Gods of the Copybook Headings who write headlines like "Crime Down Despite Record Number Of Prisoners".

        1. Is that you, Fox Butterfield?

      2. I'm old enough to remember apocryphal tales from 1970s California, with murderers getting out in as little as 7 years.

        It's interesting older pols who voted for stronger sentences, including Democrats, are now apologizing and hemming and hawing over it.

        Those who decry it, welcome to the reversal towards 1970s.

        The Freakonomics economist estimated the drop in crime since then was roughly 1/3 each longer sentences ("booo!"), more policing AKA increasing money for police ("booo!"), and availability of abortions, disproportionally used by poor women, and poor groups tend to have higher crime rates ("booooooooooo!" This one really riled people up.)

        Proceed at your own risk, woke. Many of you in your safe suburbs need not worry.

  13. But thank God protestors are being held for over a year in jail without a trial because they have "wrong think".

    When folks say judicial reform they have a pretty narrow focus of what that means.

    This guy fit that narrow definition. Folks who strolled thru the capitol on J6 don't meet that definition but BLM protestors do. Worked out great didn't it .

    1. Man it must absolutely suck to be you.

      1. I see you utilized all the facts and logic you have available on that reply.

    2. ". Folks who strolled thru the capitol on J6"

      You're forgetting about the looting, aren't you?

      1. you mean the looting by our "Elected Representatives"????
        I believe that's what the "Gallows" was for (pretty sorry excuse for a Gallows, but the thought was nice).

        1. No, I mean the looting of our "Elected Representatives".
          And the shitting on the walls.

      2. Was it $2 billion worth, by any chance?

        Asking for a friend.

        1. I don't know. there was plenty of Facebook content generated, by people bragging about participating. What's that worth in dollars?

    3. " But thank God protestors are being held for over a year in jail without a trial because they have "wrong think". "

      Knock, knock.

      Who's there?

      Not Ashli Babbitt. Not anymore.

      (A bunch of her fellow insurrectionists won't be around for a while, either, but eventually those clingers will be back on the streets. Unless they are dumb enough to express their right-wing racism in prison . . . )

  14. Prof. Volokh seems a dedicated law-and-order advocate -- except, curiously, with respect to cases involving people named Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, Kozinski, Trump, Eastman, Clark, Manafort, Meadows . . .

    1. Artie. You need to STFU until you resign and interview your diverse replacement. You have no credibility until that happens.

      1. Woke police!

  15. Are we expecting parole boards to be right every single time?

    If so, they will always say no.

    Is that what we want? If so, then say so.

    1. Just not expecting them to be so obviously wrong.

      1. 20/20 hindsight.

        1. I don;t think you understand the term 'hindsight'. The DA's letter was written before he was released.

          1. I don't think you understand the term 20/20 hindsight. Come back when you do, K?

    2. Consider this my saying so.

    3. Seems as if people that are have records consisting of no violent crimes should get the benefit of the doubt, while people with violent offenses like this guy should not, particularly when there are multiple violent offenses.

      The primary purpose of prison should be to neither punish or rehabilitate, but to simply keep the dangerous people away from the rest of us for as long as legally possible.

      1. If you write your statute so that "violent crimes" means "violent crimes", maybe.

        1. That would help. Actually violent people are very content to self identify through their history of actual violence. Not much guesswork involved.

          1. You can also spot them when they go on the Internet and whine about how oppressed they are, because straight white dudes can't get a break in this country.

  16. Why was Smiley even out to commit the assault in question given his prior violent felonies?

    I believe in criminal justice reform and am not a fan of incarceration but I recognize violent felons probably need to be removed from society. But at the same time, non-violence criminals have no business being behind bars for long or perhaps any period of time. I include jails and prisons together in this description.

    I know there are no quick solutions but that seems like a place to begin right along with eliminating victimless crimes and using alternatives to prison/jail for property crimes. Restitution and probation perhaps?

  17. I see you utilized all the facts and logic you have available on that reply.

  18. Liberalism is not only a mental disease but it also gets people killed.

    1. When have you ever gotten people killed?

  19. The takeaway seems to be that the California legislature needs to amend the definition of "violent crime" so that it means "violent crime".

  20. It makes me really glad when this stuff happens. People get what they deserve. Voting for Democrats or enabling Democrats to cheat and steal elections has consequences.

    People need to suffer from them. Severely. This is a good day.

    1. Getting stomped in the culture war by better Americans has made you cranky, BravoCharlieDelta. You and your fellow right-wing bigots will continue to lose ground in modern America. You get to bitch and whimper and whine about it as much as you like . . . but you will continue to comply with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, like all of the other wingnuts.

      1. I don't see us complying with your demands to groom our children and have sexual access to them.

        1. The Volokh Conspiracy -- where (misappropriated franchises of) academia and QAnon meet!

          You will comply, BravoCharlieDelta. Losing a culture war to better citizens has consequences.

          Clingers hardest hit.

          1. You can't have sexual access to my children, you Federal Class groomer creep.

            1. They've suffered enough already.

    2. Nothing cheers you up like six innocent people getting slaughtered? I’ll bet you’re jerking off all day to the pictures coming out of the formerly Russian held parts of Ukraine. It’s like nirvana.

    3. ". Voting for Democrats or enabling Democrats to cheat and steal elections has consequences."

      In this country, the side that got the most votes wins the election, and having more people vote for you is NOT "stealing an election", no matter HOW much the losers want to pretend that they won the election.

      1. It's funny, Democrats like Stacey Abrams have become millionaires grifting about stolen elections, yet when it actually happens and people call it out it's "harming our fragile Democracy" and is domestic terrorism according to the DOJ.

        1. It's funny that you probably really believe what you wrote although none of it is true.

          After all the lawsuits and all the audits, exactly nothing has been found to call into question the results of the 2020 presidential election. So, no, it didn't "actually happen."

          Falsely claiming a national election was stolen does harm our democracy. And democracy is fragile.

          DOJ has not called questioning election integrity or even claiming the election was stolen "domestic terrorism."

          Actually planning and/or using violence to overturn election results certainly can be domestic terrorism, which you seem to dispute.

          1. You haven't heard about the illegal ballot harvesting scandal in Wisconsin? Of course not, you're a Democrat and your mindmasters and braintenders in Silicon Valley and D.C. have forbidden it.

            Stacey Abrams still insists she lost from a stolen election, her recent filing shows her net worth to be over $3M, whereas her last filing when she last ran was $100k.

            You get rich "harming our fragile democracy" if you're a Democrat, you get thrown in a D.C. Democrat gulag if you're not.

        2. "Democrats like Stacey Abrams have become millionaires grifting about stolen elections, yet when it actually happens and people call it out"

          Ms. Abrams became a popular figure during the election she almost won, and gets to profit from being a popular figure. This is only scandalous to nimwits.
          Now the "it actually happens" discussion will have to wait until, you know, it actually happens.

      2. Except that most of the votes on the Democrat side come from people who should never have been allowed to vote in the first place.

        The founders sensibly realized that the only way to have a stable society is to limit voting to productive, mainly Christian, white men. Letting women and 85 IQ blacks vote is a recipe for the modern day disaster we have.

        1. "The founders sensibly realized that the only way to have a stable society is to limit voting to productive, mainly Christian, white men. Letting women and 85 IQ blacks vote is a recipe for the modern day disaster we have."

          These are your people, Volokh Conspirators -- racists, misogynists, Christian dominion kooks, xenophobes. These are the people you cultivate as a following at your white, male, right-wing blog.

          No wonder your deans regret hiring you. Had your employers foreseen that you would associate their schools with this flaming shitstorm of a blog, you'd all be teaching at Liberty, Ave Maria, Regent, and maybe George Mason or Chapman.

  21. Whole problem would be solved with a "Liberal" dose of Capital Punishment. I don't get it? we execute Dogs, Cats, Babies just for being inconvenient, surely it shouldn't be that hard to "Terminate" Smiley... And I mean in a legal way, not the "the Prisoners will take care of him"

    1. My God, Frank. People are executing babies!!!???!!! Why on earth are you not bringing this to the cops' attention? I'm picturing masked gunmen, going into parents' bedrooms and shooting these babies in their cribs. Or nefarious owners of child care centres feeding these babies poisoned fruit juice?

      I'm amazed that these cases are not making it into the conservative or liberal media . . . which usually are very good about reporting (extensively and breathlessly) whenever a baby is murdered or even accidentally killed. And your talking about executions. Gosh, I hope they are not state-sponsored, like executions of adults who have been convicted of horrific crimes.

      What are your sources, Frank?

      1. your = you're
        (obviously).

    2. If you have information concerning the execution of a single baby, the sole decent course would be to alert the appropriate law enforcement authority.

      If you have no such information, the only decent course would be to stop sputtering superstition-based nonsense and leave the public debates to competent adults.

      Illiterate clingers -- especially those who put the capital (randomly, like a second-grader) in capital offense -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.

    3. you're using an extremely loose "we" in your comment.

    4. We’ve got too high of a propensity to incarcerate and sometimes execute innocent people.

      A common logic bust among conservatives is that the government is universally incompetent (which is directionally true) but somehow the police and prosecutors are pillars of ability and competence. Turns out that ain’t so.

      The government should not have the power to take life because sure enough they’ll fuck it up.

      1. It's not that I don't think the government makes mistakes. It's that I don't care. 99% of the "innocent" people on death row were not innocent. They were almost always violent screwups. They just happened to be innocent of the one thing they were convicted of, but they're almost always young, criminal, screwup men from single mother households, who the world is objectively better off without.

        1. So do we get to execute everyone that fits that description, or only those that we can hang a bogus crime on?

          1. I'd be very happy if all 85 IQ career criminals raised by single mothers were executed.

            1. We'll miss you.

              1. Should we send flowers to the family?

  22. That's a bear of a headline to parse until you read the story.

Please to post comments