At Sentencing Law & Policy, Doug Berman posted about a truly fascinating situation developing in Rhode Island.  The post contains a lengthy excerpt from Providence Journal :

Governor Chafee is refusing to turn over a suspected murderer in state custody to the federal government, declaring that doing so would expose prisoner Jason Wayne Pleau to the death penalty, a penalty he says has been “consciously rejected” by Rhode Island, even for the most heinous of crimes.

Rhode Island does not have a death penalty, and Chafee states that as his state has concluded execution to be an unacceptable punishment, he cannot hand over Pleau on a silver platter to the feds to have them do what his state has determined should not be done.

At the same time, he said Rhode Island would not impose the death penalty.  “In light of this long-standing policy, I cannot in good conscience voluntarily expose a Rhode Island citizen to a potential death-penalty prosecution.  I am confident that Attorney General [Peter F.] Kilmartin and Rhode Island’s criminal justice system are capable of ensuring that justice is served in this matter.”

The issue is solely a matter of punishment, not unlike foreign countries who refuse to extradite people to the United States unless the death penalty is taken off the table, as they will not turn over people to be executed when they have determined it to be wrong.  Here, however, it’s not a fight between sovereign nations, but between a state and the federal government.  This is a question of federalism at its finest.

Given that Berman is the foremost scholar on issues of criminal sentencing, and this is one of the most fascinating sentencing issues to come down the pike, well, ever. I desperately wondered what he thought about this?

And I’m still wondering.

Berman updated his post to include Peau’s  intention to plead guilty in state court in order to invoke double jeopardy to prevent the feds from frying him.

And I’m still wondering.

This has long been an issue that troubles me deeply, whether described as aggregation or curation.  A paragraph of introductory words coupled with a lengthy excerpt of a story or a decision, but without any meaningful commentary.  Thoughts?  Where is the insight that illuminates the problems, examines the issue?  And who is right or wrong?

This isn’t just a Doug Berman issue, though it smacked me in the face with this particular post as it seems incomprehensible to me that any lawprof, any scholar, would take the time to post about something so interesting and yet offer absolutely nothing, no insight, no commentary, no thoughts at all, to the mix. 

As law professors want to be recognized as experts and scholars, particularly when they’ve staked out a specialized niche for themselves and seek to be the “go to” guy.  But then they have to back it up with the goods. 

Some lawprofs, Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, come immediately to mind, invariably state their positions and provide their rationale.  Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant; they always add insight to their posts and, at a minimum, provide their readers with something to ponder.  One never reads a post of either Eugene or Orin and doesn’t come away better for the effort.

Is it enough to call a news report “interesting” or “fascinating” and leave it at that?  I think not.  And it’s certainly not reflective of scholarship.  Anyone can scour the internet for reports about “sentences” and cut and paste.  It’s bad enough that most lawprofs are so mealy in their views that you can barely discern what they heck they’re talking about.  But at least they try to say something.

Add value.  Add insight.  Take a position.  Say something meaningful.  Isn’t that the point?

Or is it just about putting fodder on the internet without any having any thoughts at all?