There has been much discussion over Atul Gawande's expose' on the health care costs in McAllen, Texas. Allow me to add some back-story.

Back in 2001 the factory I worked in for over a decade relocated to Reynosa, Mexico. A group of us were sent down to train our replacements. We stayed just across the border at, guess where, McAllen, TX. I was there for just over a month

On the heels of President Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter in the US Supreme Court, this seems like a good time as any to bring up some criminal justice-related issues. More specifically, the current Court has not been kind in protecting the rights of those accused of committing a crime. Here are a few examples:

Arizona v. Johnson: Allows police to perform a stop-and-frisk search during a traffic stop whether or not the suspect has committed or is committing a crime.

Kansas v. Ventris: Allows testimony gathered in violation of the Sixth Amendment admissible at trial for the purpose of impeaching a witness.

Herring V. US: Allows illegally seized evidence to be presented as evidence at trial if the illegality was caused by police error.

And today, the New York Times reports this gem out of Michigan:

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present.

 

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.

 

In a nutshell, the old law held that if you had a lawyer on retainer or invoked your right to counsel the police could not question you any further even if you wanted to make a statement.

Some may say that this is common sense, that if a guy wants to talk to the police without his lawyer he should be able to. But there are a couple of things wrong with this argument:

First, a person that has retained or requested counsel must have done so for a reason. Any set of circumstances, from police coercion (which is illegal) to police deception (which is perfectly legal) could be used to cause the person to speak without counsel against his own interests.

Second, in the heat of the moment a person may make statements under duress. Police have all the incentive to use this fear, confusion, etc to extract a statement without counsel. Counsel is obligated to ensure that his client is capable of making a statement based on the client's interest.

Now, I will admit that there have been some good decisions related to criminal justice issues (Arizona v. Gant comes to mind). But criminal justice cases tend to fly under the radar while topics like abortion, religious expression, and gun rights get top billing.

Most people accept this fact. It's just people accused of crimes, after all. Remember, though, that the Constitution is like a sweater. You can only pick at it so much before it completely unravels. Also keep this in mind: you, too, could one day be accused of committing a crime and Amendments 4-6 become real important real fast.

In the current economy everyone is looking for ways to cut costs, including the criminal justice system. One very good idea floating around is the decriminalization of certain illegal narcotics. But while this may keep future citzens out of the penal system, there is an issue that can prevent currently incarcerated prisoners from returning.

Most people have heard the term "expungement," the process by which an offender's record will be erased after sentence compliance and a term of good behavior. What most people do not know is the the process is cumbersome and in many states not an option at all.

Let's say you live in my state, North Carolina. If you commit a crime when you are 18 (or 16-17 if tried as an adult, prosecutor's discretion), that crime is on your record for the rest of your life. When you are 90 years old with decades of work and public service with children and grandchildren, the record remains for all to see. And these are not just major crimes. Mismeanors and felonies alike, from vandalism to shoplifting, continue to hang over your head. Even a gubernatorial pardon does not clear the record.

Now imagine you have just gotten out of jail for writing a bad check because you came up short one month and your family needs groceries. You did the crime and the time. But for the rest of your life, on every job application, or in some cases credit and rental applications you fill out you must list this offense under penalty of perjury.

This scenario admittedly puts a better light on the offender than most cases. But when someone is released from jail or prison with no job, no credit, and no home, how can we expect anything less than massive recidivism? Even if the offender gets a minimum wage job, his chances of ever moving past that are slim because of this stigma.

Of course we need options in place to make the parole system better equipped to provide treatment and job placement rather than to act as 24/7 baby-sitters over adults. But that is just the first step.

Once an offender is released from incarceration and has paid all fines, restitution, etc, their record should be expunged after 1-3 years of clean living for misdemeanors and 5-7 years for felonies. There should also be a process for early expungement for exceptional cases, possibly tied to a set amount of community service.

Finally, I need to mention that expungement should mean full expungement. In some cases employers (or others) attempt to loophole the system by asking prospective employees to also list expunged offenses. This should be disallowed.

So the next time you hear your state representatives complaining that they are running out of ways to cut costs and stimulate the economy, send this idea along. It can simultaneously reduce jail and prison populations, extend the credit market, and give citizens the ability to get higher paying jobs thereby increasing consumer spending.

Now that summer is almost upon us, I am putting together my must-read list of books that are collecting dust on my bookshelf. Here is what I have so far:

Angels and Demons, Dan Brown

The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama

American Lion, Jon Meacham

Heads in the Sand, Matthew Yglesias

The Great Derangement, Matt Taibbi

Nixonland, Rick Perlstein

So, is there anything I am missing here that I should add to my list? Is there one title that I should get to before the others? What's on your list?