California Court Loosens ‘Three Strikes’ Law

By Lyndsey Kelly
Desk Reporter, North America  

Washington D.C., United States of America – The California Supreme Court has loosened the states infamous “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law. The law was originally passed as a part of the national trend to get “tough on crime” in the 1990’s.

California Supreme Court rules that under the state’s “three strikes” law a defendant cannot be given two strikes from charges which stemmed from the same incident (Photo Courtesy of L.A. Times).

Under the three strikes law, an individual whom committed a violent crime and who had been convicted of two prior felonies was sentenced to a mandatory 25 years. The law was recently amended in 2012, as a result of a ballot vote, requiring the third strike to be a violent felony. Prior to this amendment the law allowed the third strike to be a misdemeanor.

The ruling came about in a case regarding a woman, Darlene Vargas, who had been charged with two prior felonies, car jacking and robbery. Both charges came out of the same incident. The Court decided that Vargas’ two prior felonies stemmed from the same act- taking a car by force. The unanimous decision by the court will overturn a 25-years-to-life sentence for the woman.

Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar likened the situation to America’s favorite pastime, baseball. “The voting public would reasonably have understood the ‘Three Strikes’ baseball metaphor to mean that a person would have three chances – three swings of the bat if you will – before the harshest penalty could be imposed,” “The public also would have understood that no one can be called for two strikes on just one swing,” Justice Werdegar wrote for the court.

In making their ruling, the judges stated that the legislature and the voters intended for criminal defendants to have three separate chances to redeem themselves before they are sentenced to 25-years-to-life.The Court’s decision marks the second time the rules regarding imprisoning career criminals have been softened in recent years.

The justices sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

 

For more information, please see the following:

CBS – State Supreme Court Rules On Three Strikes Law – 13 July 2014.

L.A. TIMES – Multiple Convictions From One Act Count As One ‘Strike,’ Court Rules – 13 July 2014.

REUTERS – California High Court Softens ‘Three Strikes” Law – 13 July 2014.

YAHOO – California high Court Softens ‘Three Strikes’ Law – 13 July 2014.

Papua New Guinea in the Midst of a Far Reaching Corruption Scandal

by Max Bartels 

Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania 

 

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 

Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been in the grips of a fraud scandal that goes to the very top of the country’s political structure. The Prime Minister Peter O’Neil himself has been accused of siphoning off millions of dollars of public money to a private law firm. The key evidence in the case against O’Neil is a letter he allegedly signed authorizing $31 million dollars to be sent to a prominent PNG law firm.

IW #7 PNG Corruption Photo
PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neil (left) shakes hands with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (right) in March.
(Photo curtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald)

In response to the growing corruption that runs rampant in PNG the government faced pressure from both the public and from international powers such as Australia and the United States to investigate the problem. The former Attorney General of PNG, Mr. Kua formed a task-force to investigate the corruption. When the task-force turned their attention to Prime Minister O’Neil he not only disbanded the task-force but fired Attorney General Kua and the police commissioner at the time. This reaction from Prime Minister O’Neil was not only in response to the investigation turning toward him but also because the task-force and the police issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister. O’Neil accused the task-force of being compromised by political and media ties.

O’Neil denies all allegations of corruption and obtained a court order to prevent his arrest. This order has been appealed in the PNG courts and the arrest warrant was upheld, O’Neil was told to cooperate fully with police. The Court also reinstated the corruption task-force to continue their investigations into the PNG Prime Minister and his government. Now that the Court has ruled on the arrest warrant O’Neil has said that he will cooperate fully with the investigation and police.

The former head of the task-force who was sacked by O’Neil, a Mr. Koim has visited Australia to leverage support against O’Neil.  He visited Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop as well several Australian newspapers in order to drum up support. There is support in PNG for the idea of appointing an Australian judge to oversee the investigation into the corruption as well as involving Australian police. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia is under increasing pressure to use Australian assets in the investigation to halt the flow of corrupt funds from PNG to Australia.

O’Neil has since appointed a new Attorney General, Mr. Pala. Mr. Pala has said recently that he believes all the transactions between O’Neil and the private law firm are legal and has advised the corruption task-force to drop the case against the Prime Minister. These statements have resulted in an outcry from supporters of the original investigation, who believe the new Attorney General is protecting Prime Minister O’Neil.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian — Papua New Guinea National Court Reinstates Anti-Corruption Task-force — 8 July 2014

The Sydney Morning Herald — Abbott Urged to Act on PNG Allegations — 24 June 2014

ABC Australia News Network — Court to Rule on Peter O’Neil Arrest Warrant Case — 27 June 2014

The Guardian — PNG Prime Minister to Co-Operate After Court Rejects Stay of Arrest Warrant — 1 July 2014

SBS News — Australians Join PNG Pm’s Fraud Probe — 17 June 2014

 

Afghan Presidential Candidate Abdullah Rejects Election Results

By Hojin Choi

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

KABUL,Afghanistan – The Afghan election commission announced that presidential candidate Ghani won 56.4% of the vote in the runoff contest, and another candidate Abdullah earned 43.6%. During the initial contest, Abdullah had won the first round getting 45% against Ghani’s 31.6%. Although Ghani received the majority of the votes in the runoff, the validity of results is still unknown because millions of ballots are suspected of fraud.

Abdullah and his supporters officially rejected the result of the election. “We consider this as a coup against people’s votes,” said a spokesperson for Abdullah’s camp. Abdullah said during a TV news conference that he will not accept the election’s result unless the fraudulent votes are separated from the clean votes. Abdullah also insisted that outgoing president Hamid Karzai, Ghani, and the election commission colluded together against him.

Millions of ballots may be subjected to review. The Independent Election Commission acknowledged that vote rigging had occurred. The commission said nearly 23,000 polling stations and 1,930 ballot boxes would be audited, and the audit includes regions where the turnout was estimated as 100%.

Ghani claimed his grass-roots mobilization got voters out, despite mounting violence during the runoff.

Supporters of Ghani dancing on the streets in Kabul (Reuters)

Some of Abdullah’s supporters warned of “widespread civil unrest” and suggested establishing “parallel governments.” Ghani rejected this suggestion and said “talk of parallel governments will remain in the level of talk, because the historic responsibility that his excellency Dr. Abdullah and I as people who have submitted ourselves to the will of the people of Afghanistan have is to ensure the stability of this country and the legitimacy of the regime to which we have devoted our lives.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned both camps against trying to seize power. “There is no justifiable recourse to violence or threats of violence, or for resort to extra-constitutional measures or threats of the same,” Kerry said. “Any action to take power by extralegal means will cost Afghanistan the financial and security support of the United States and the international community.” Kerry added that the suggestion of parallel governments is a grave concern.

The Independent Election Commission emphasized that the announcement of tentative results is not a declaration of winner. Afghan Chief Electoral Officer Ziaulhaq Amarkhil was accused by Abdullah’s camp of fraud, and Amarkhil resigned immediately after releasing the results. He has denied any wrongdoing.

 

For more information please see:

Impunity Watch – Afghan Presidential Runoff Peppered with Over 150 Terror Attacks – 16 June 2014

New York Times – Tentative Results in Afghan Presidential Runoff Spark Protests – 7 July 2014

Wall Street Journal – Ghani Leads Afghan Vote, But Fraud Charges Hang Over Results – 8 July 2014

CBS – Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah rejects election results – 8 July 2014

Washington Post – Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah preemptively rejects election results – 6 July 2014

CNN – Ghani leads Abdullah in Afghan election, officials say – 8 July 2014

Reuters – Afghanistan’s Abdullah rejects election result as ‘coup’ against people – 7 July 2014