CALENDAR:      The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the first floor conference room of 44 South Clinton Avenue (3 Station Plaza), Trenton. The meeting is open.

April 26, 2006
The Star Ledger
Unfilled Beds For Addicts Cost Jersey $1.6 Million

April 18, 2006
Asbury Park Press
Editorial: Penalties Fail to Mete Justice

April 16, 2006
Courier-Post
Editorial: N.J.’s Drug-Free Zones Must Be Reformed

April 7, 2006
Asbury Park Press
Court OK’s Online Sex-Offender Data

April 5, 2006
Star Ledger
Court Eyes Kid Games In Age Of Sex Crimes

April 2, 2006
Star Ledger
Justices To Decide Who Must Contribute To The DNA Databank

April 24, 2006
Newsweek
The Dawn Of A New Movement [Reentry]

April 24, 2006
Newsweek
Addiction: A ‘Meth Prison’ Movement

April 23, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Parole In California: It's A Crime

April 23, 2006
New York Daily News
Editorial: Break Addiction To Senseless War On Drugs

April 20, 2006
The Economist
The Charm of Rehab: A Humane And Sensible Policy Slashes the Prison Population

April 18, 2006
Forbes
Jailhouse Blues

April 18, 2006
Forbes
Ten Alternatives to Prison

April 18, 2006
DenverPost.com
Throwing Away Money: Colorado Faces Prison Spending Crisis

April 17, 2006
Phillynews.com
How Long is Too Long?

April 15, 2006
CNN
Was Eric Clark Insane or Just Troubled?: Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense

April 13, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Drug Treatment Program Lowers Jail Population: Taxpayers Are Saving Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars Because Of Prop. 36’s Success, Study Says

April 9, 2006
Pioneer Press
Going Easy On DWI?: Minnesota’s Worst Drunken Drivers Are Not Being Sent to Prison

April 2, 2006
The Birmingham News
Habitual Offender Laws Often Fail

Drug Policy

Evaluation Of The Substance Abuse And Crime Prevention Act: Cost Analysis Report
University of California Los Angeles

Proposition 36: Improving Lives, Delivering Results: A Review Of The First Four Years Of California’s Substance Abuse And Crime Prevention Act of 2000
Justice Policy Institute

General Sentencing Policy

Introduction to Federal Sentencing – Ninth Ed.
Office of the Federal Public Defender

Three Critical Sentencing Elements Reduce Recidivism: A Comparison Between Robbers And Other Offenders
Wisconsin Sentencing Commission

New Jersey

In The Matter Of the Forfeiture of Public Office of Francois D. Nunez, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2006)
Docket No. A-6187-04T1
Held: In this appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enforce a public
employer’s belated application to seek the forfeiture of an employee’s position based on the
employee’s conviction after it was expunged. The Appellate Division specifically concluded that the expungement foreclosed forfeiture of the employee’s position because the purpose of expungement is the elimination of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction, and forfeiture of public employment is a collateral consequence of a criminal conviction.

State v. Chretien Brown, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2006)
Docket No. A-4885-03T4
Held: In this appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s application for a modification of his custodial sentence pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(1) to permit his entry into a substance abuse treatment facility. Specifically, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because defendant had yet to complete the ten-year period of parole ineligibility of his twenty-year sentence. The period of parole ineligibility was imposed pursuant to the Graves Act, which requires that a trial judge fix a period of parole ineligibility, i.e., a minimum term, at, or between, one-third and one-half of the sentence upon a finding that the defendant committed the underlying offense with a firearm. The Appellate Division concluded that any period of parole ineligibility fixed above one-third of the base sentence was “discretionary” rather than “required” notwithstanding the mandatory application of the Graves Act itself. Consequently, the trial court possessed jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s motion for change of sentence.