text:
United States incarceration rate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A map of U.S. states by adult incarceration rate per 100,000 adult population. State prisons and local jails. Excludes federal prisoners.
In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1] Corrections (which includes prisons, jails, probation, and parole) cost around $74 billion in 2007 according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.[2][3]
In 2016, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that in the United States that about 2,298,300 people were incarcerated out of a population of 323.1 million. This means that 0.71% of the population was behind bars. Of those who were incarcerated, about 1,351,000 people were in state prison, 646,000 in local jails, 211,000 in federal prisons, 34,000 in youth correctional facilities, 33,000 in immigration detention camps, 14,000 in territorial prisons, 5,500 in civil commitment, 2,400 in Indian country jails, and 1,400 in United States military prisons.[4]
Contents
[hide]
1 Prison and jail population
1.1 Growth
2 Comparison with other countries
3 Causes
3.1 Increased sentencing laws
3.2 Economic and age contributions
3.3 Drug sentencing laws
3.4 Racialization and Reform Error
3.5 Prison privatization
3.6 Editorial policies of major media
3.7 Citizenship statistics
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Prison and jail population[edit]
See also: List of U.S. states by incarceration rate
Total incarceration in the United States by year
Total US incarceration peaked in 2008. Total correctional population peaked in 2007.[5]
Total U.S. incarceration (prisons and jails) peaked in 2008. Total correctional population peaked in 2007.[5] If all prisoners are counted (including those juvenile, territorial, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (immigration detention), Indian country, and military), then in 2008 the United States had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners.[6][7][8]
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world, at 754 per 100,000 (as of 2009[update]).[9][10] As of December 31, 2010, the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) at King's College London estimated 2,266,832 prisoners from a total population of 310.64 million as of this date (730 per 100,000 in 2010).[11]
This number comprises local jails with a nominal capacity of 866,782 inmates occupied at 86.4% (June 6, 2010), state prisons with a nominal capacity of approximately 1,140,500 occupied at approximately 115% (December 31, 2010), and federal prisons with a nominal capacity of 126,863 occupied at 136.0% (December 31, 2010). Of this number, 21.5% are pretrial detainees (December 31, 2010), 8.7% are female prisoners (December 31, 2010), 0.4% are juveniles (June 6, 2009), and 5.9% are foreign prisoners (June 30, 2007).[11]
The imprisonment rate varies widely by state; Louisiana surpasses this by about 100%, but Maine incarcerates at about a fifth this rate. A report released 28 February 2008, indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prison.[12]
According to a U.S. Department of Justice report published in 2006, over 7.2 million people were at that time in prison, on probation, or on parole (released from prison with restrictions). That means roughly 1 in every 32 Americans are under some sort of criminal justice system control.[13][14]
Growth[edit]
A graph of the incarceration rate under state and federal jurisdiction per 100,000 population 1925–2008. (Omits local jail inmates. Top line = males. Bottom line = females. Middle line = combined.)
In the last forty years, incarceration has increased with rates upwards of 500% despite crime rates decreasing nationally.[15] Between the years 2001 and 2012, crime rates (both property and violent crimes) have consistently declined at a rate of 22% after already falling an additional 30% in years prior between 1991 and 2001.[16] As of 2012, there are 710 people per every 100,000 U.S. residents in the United States that are imprisoned in either local jails, state prisons, federal prisons, and privately operated facilities.[16] This correlates to incarcerating a number close to almost a quarter of the prison population in the entire world.[17] Mass incarceration is an intervening variable to more incarceration.[18]
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has released a study which finds that, despite the total number of prisoners incarcerated for drug-related offenses increasing by 57,000 between 1997 and 2004, the proportion of drug offenders to total prisoners in State prison populations stayed steady at 21%. The percentage of Federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses declined from 63% in 1997 to 55% in that same period.[19] In the twenty-five years since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the United States penal population rose from around 300,000 to more than two million.[20] Between 1986 and 1991, African-American women's incarceration in state prisons for drug offenses increased by 828 percent.[21]
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the growth rate of the state prison population had fallen to its lowest since 2006, but it still had a 0.2% growth-rate compared to the total U.S. prison population.[22] The California state prison system population fell in 2009, the first year that populations had fallen in 38 years.[23]
When looking at specific populations within the criminal justice system the growth rates are vastly different. In 1977, there were just slightly more than eleven thousand incarcerated women. By 2004, the number of women under state or federal prison had increased by 757 percent, to more than 111,000, and the percentage of women in prison has increased every year, at roughly double the rate of men, since 2000.[24] The rate of incarcerated women has expanded at about 4.6% annually between 1995 and 2005 with women now accounting for 7% of the population in state and federal prisons.
Comparison with other countries[edit]
Main articles: Comparison of United States incarceration rate with other countries and List of countries by incarceration rate
The stats source is the World Prison Population List. 8th edition. Prisoners per 100,000 population.[7]
Comparing some countries with similar percentages of immigrants, Germany has an incarceration rate of 76 per 100,000 population (as of 2014),[25] Italy is 85 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[26] and Saudi Arabia is 161 per 100,000 (as of 2013).[27] Comparing other countries with a zero tolerance policy for illegal drugs, the rate of Russia is 455 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[28] Kazakhstan is 275 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[29] Singapore is 220 per 100,000 (as of 2014),[30] and Sweden is 60 per 100,000 (as of 2014).[31]
Causes[edit]
Further information: Crime in the United States
Felony Sentences in State Courts, study by the United States Department of Justice.
Correctional populations in the United States 1980–2013
2009. Percent of adult males incarcerated by race and ethnicity.[32]
A 2014 report by the National Research Council identified two main causes of the increase in the United States' incarceration rate over the previous 40 years: longer prison sentences and increases in the likelihood of imprisonment. The same report found that longer prison sentences were the main driver of increasing incarceration rates since 1990.[33]
Increased sentencing laws[edit]
Further information: Three-strikes law
Even though there are other countries that commit more inmates to prison annually, the fact that the United States keeps their prisoners longer causes the total rate to become higher. To give an example, the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England.[34]
Looking at reasons for imprisonment will further clarify why the incarceration rate and length of sentences are so high. The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders is common in many countries but the three-strikes laws in the U.S. with mandatory 25 year imprisonment — implemented in many states in the 1990s — are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses and then commit a third.
Economic and age contributions[edit]
Crime rates in low-income areas are much higher than in middle to high class areas. As a result, Incarceration rates in low-income areas are much higher than in wealthier areas due to these high crime rates.[35] When the incarcerated or criminal is a youth, there is a significant impact on the individual and rippling effects on entire communities. Social capital is lost when an individual is incarcerated. How much social capital is lost is hard to accurately estimate, however Aizer and Doyle found a strong positive correlation between lower income as an adult if an individual is incarcerated in their youth in comparison to those who are not incarcerated.[36] 63 percent to 66 percent of those involved in crimes are under the age of thirty.[35] People incarcerated at a younger age lose the capability to invest in themselves and in their communities. Their children and families become susceptible to financial burden preventing them from escaping low-income communities. This contributes to the recurring cycle of poverty that is positively correlated with incarceration.[37] Poverty rates have not been curbed despite steady economic growth. Poverty is not the sole dependent variable for increasing incarceration rates. Incarceration leads to more incarceration by putting families and communities at a dynamic social disadvantage.[38]
Drug sentencing laws[edit]
The "War on Drugs" is a policy that was initiated by Richard Nixon with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and vigorously pursued by Ronald Reagan.[39] By 2010, drug offenders in federal prison had increased to 500,000 per year, up from 41,000 in 1985. According to Michelle Alexander, drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners between 1985 and 2000. 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans.[40][41] In contrast, John Pfaff of Fordham Law School has accused Alexander of exaggerating the influence of the War on Drugs on the rise in the United States' incarceration rate: according to him, the percent of state prisoners whose primary offense was drug-related peaked at 22% in 1990.[42] The Brookings Institution reconciles the differences between Alexander and Pfaff by explaining two ways to look at the prison population as it relates to drug crimes, concluding "The picture is clear: Drug crimes have been the predominant reason for new admissions into state and federal prisons in recent decades" and "rolling back the war on drugs would not, as Pfaff and Urban Institute scholars maintain, totally solve the problem of mass incarceration, but it could help a great deal, by reducing exposure to prison." [43]
After the passage of Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, incarceration for non-violent offenses dramatically increased. The Act imposed the same five-year mandatory sentence on those with convictions involving crack as on those possessing 100 times as much powder cocaine.[39][44] This had a disproportionate effect on low-level street dealers and users of crack, who were more commonly poor blacks, Latinos, the young, and women.[45]
Courts were given more discretion in sentencing by the Kimbrough v. United States (2007) decision, and the disparity was decreased to 18:1 by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.[46] As of 2006[update], 49.3% of state prisoners, or 656,000 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent crimes. As of 2008[update], 90.7% of federal prisoners, or 165,457 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent offenses.[6]
By 2003, 58% of all women in federal prison were convicted of drug offenses.[47] Black and Hispanic women in particular have been disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs. Since 1986, incarceration rates have risen by 400% for women of all races, while rates for Black women have risen by 800%.[48] Formerly incarcerated Black women are also most negatively impacted by the collateral legal consequences of conviction.[49]
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "Even when women have minimal or no involvement in the drug trade, they are increasingly caught in the ever-widening net cast by current drug laws, through provisions of the criminal law such as those involving conspiracy, accomplice liability, and constructive possession that expand criminal liability to reach partners, relatives and bystanders."[50]
These new policies also disproportionately affect African-American women. According to Dorothy E. Roberts, the explanation is that poor women, who are disproportionately black, are more likely to be placed under constant supervision by the State in order to receive social services.[51] They are then more likely to be caught by officials who are instructed to look specifically for drug offenses. Roberts argues that the criminal justice system's creation of new crimes has a direct effect on the number of women, especially black women, who then become incarcerated.
Racialization and Reform Error[edit]
It is important to understand the background of the war on drugs. The earliest influences can be seen in early Chinese immigration for railroad buildings. One of the first acts against drugs was the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. It prohibited the smoking of opium, ingested by a vast percentage of caucasian housewives in America, but smoked mainly by Asian American immigrants coming to build the railroads. These immigrants were targeted with anti-Asian sentiment as America had a stigma that they came solely to take away jobs. Experts say that the easiest thing to do if we can't remove our problems by killing them is to throw them in jail, and America found a way to do this by criminalizing aspects of ethnic traditions and practices.[citation needed] This continued with African Americans and cocaine and led to the cycle that we now see today.[citation needed]
The Sentencing Reform Act emerged as the ultimate culmination to this. By going tough on crimes, the United States federal government tried to increase consistency on federal sentencing. This stemmed from a tough on crime campaign headed largely by Ronald Reagan. The Crime rate was steadily dipping by upwards of an average of 8 percent each year, and 12 percent in violent crime in the years preceding the bill pointing to numerous questions at the true motive of the bill. Many experts, such as Michael C. Campbell, a doctorate in the department of criminology at the University of Missouri- St.Louis, declares that the scheme of a war on crime was used for political action. Fear was created among the citizens of the state and thus the country looked to him to keep their doors safe. The effects of this bill on the incarceration are shown in the diagram to the right. The effects on crime per 100,000 capita released by the department of homeland security states that violent crimes remained to steadily decrease; however, in the 10 years following the bill, crimes such as rape, theft, robbery, and murder grew by 6, 4, 3, and 2 percent, respectively. It is important to understand the political domination that a war on drugs and crime created, and thus shapes the prison industrial complex today. While incarceration stays at an all time high, crime was actually decreasing.
The motivation for these acts can also be looked at from an economical lens as well. Private prison companies have 3.3 billion dollars in yearly revenue, once growing by over 175% yearly. Buying and trading goods produced by those in prisons stems from exploiting prisoners as free labor. The running of prisons costs numerous sums of money for American tax payers: 31,087 dollars per year per prisoner, just 3 thousand shy of the national average salary. Companies benefit greatly from the use of these prisoners and the construction of prisons and their infrastructure. This causes more and more to be invested in prisons rather than reform programs to help guide individuals out of prison. Many towns have spawned as "prison-towns" in the last 70 years. These towns are run solely by the prison, and to keep its economy flourishing, jobs must be readily available. They solved this by building a prison and incarcerating more individuals for nonviolent crimes. With more prisoners comes more responsibility to hold the prisoners which creates more jobs. This scheme creates a vicious cycle of incarceration that is also duly responsible for the growth in the incarceration rate. Many experts believe the for-profit private prison expansion motivated by economic benefit, laid down by the foundation of the war on drugs, is the reason why the incarceration rate will remain to increase in the coming years.
It is important to analyze this from a logical perspective as well. Matthew De Michael (Ph. D from William Penn University) frankly states the issues with the American people regarding the recognition of the corruption hidden within the modern era of prisons. He states that the system has a fatal flaw, and though he believes parts are necessary, he notes that money is not invested in reform programs to help get prisoners out of jail and off with jobs. With prisoners coming out of prison with a felony, their chances of receiving a job, experts estimate, are reduced by 78%. To make ends meet, they will fall back into the cycle of drug dealing, and with laws continuing to become stricter and stricter, they will come back to prison. This makes for over-crowding and the ultimate expansion of jails.
Prison privatization[edit]
In the 1980s, the rising number of people incarcerated as a result of the War on Drugs and the wave of privatization that occurred under the Reagan Administration saw the emergence of the for-profit prison industry. Prior to the 1980s, private prisons did not exist in the US.[52][53][54]
In a 2011 report by the ACLU, it is claimed that the rise of the for-profit prison industry is a "major contributor" to "mass incarceration," along with bloated state budgets.[55] Louisiana, for example, has the highest rate of incarceration in the world with the majority of its prisoners being housed in privatized, for-profit facilities. Such institutions could face bankruptcy without a steady influx of prisoners.[56] A 2013 Bloomberg report states that in the past decade the number of inmates in for-profit prisons throughout the U.S. rose 44 percent.[57]
Corporations who operate prisons, such as the Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, spend significant amounts of money lobbying the federal government along with state governments.[55] The two aforementioned companies, the largest in the industry, have been contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which seeks to expand the privatization of corrections and lobbies for policies that would increase incarceration, such as three-strike laws and “truth-in-sentencing” legislation.[58][59][60][61][62][63] Prison companies also sign contracts with states that guarantee at least 90 percent of prison beds be filled. If these "lockup quotas" aren't met, the state must reimburse the prison company for the unused beds. Prison companies use the profits to expand and put pressure on lawmakers to incarcerate a certain number of people.[64][65] This influence on the government by the private prison industry has been referred to as the Prison–industrial complex.[60]
The industry is well aware of what reduced crime rates could mean to their bottom line. This from the CCA's SEC report in 2010:
Our growth … depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates … [R]eductions in crime rates … could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.[55]
Editorial policies of major media[edit]
Gallup polling since 1989 has found that in most years in which there was a decline in the U.S. crime rate, a majority of Americans said that violent crime was getting worse.[66][67][68]
A substantial body of research claims that incarceration rates are primarily a function of media editorial policies, largely unrelated to the actual crime rate. Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems is a book collecting together papers on this theme.[69] The researchers say that the jump in incarceration rate from 0.1% to 0.5% of the United States population from 1975 to 2000 (documented in the figure above) was driven by changes in the editorial policies of the mainstream commercial media and is unrelated to any actual changes in crime. Media consolidation reduced competition on content. That allowed media company executives to maintain substantially the same audience while slashing budgets for investigative journalism and filling the space from the police blotter, which tended to increase and stabilize advertising revenue. It is safer, easier and cheaper to write about crimes committed by poor people than the wealthy. Poor people can be libeled with impunity, but major advertisers can materially impact the profitability of a commercial media organization by reducing their purchases of advertising space with that organization.
News media thrive on feeding frenzies (such as missing white women) because they tend to reduce production costs while simultaneously building an audience interested in the latest development in a particular story. It takes a long time for a reporter to learn enough to write intelligently about a specific issue. Once a reporter has achieved that level of knowledge, it is easier to write subsequent stories. However, major advertisers have been known to spend their advertising budgets through different channels when they dislike the editorial policies. Therefore, a media feeding frenzy focusing on an issue of concern to an advertiser may reduce revenue and profits.[70]
Sacco described how "competing news organizations responded to each other's coverage [while] the police, in their role as gatekeepers of crime news, reacted to the increased media interest by making available more stories that reflected and reinforced" a particular theme. "[T]he dynamics of competitive journalism created a media feeding frenzy that found news workers 'snatching at shocking numbers' and 'smothering reports of stable or decreasing use under more ominous headlines.'"[71]
The reasons cited above for increased incarcerations (US racial demographics, Increased sentencing laws, and Drug sentencing laws) have been described as consequences of the shift in editorial policies of the mainstream media.[72]
Citizenship statistics[edit]
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 77.6% of Federal inmates are U.S. citizens (as of April 2016). 15.2% are citizens of Mexico, and the next three countries—Colombia, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic, contribute less than 1% each. 4.9% have other or unknown citizenship. The Bureau did not state how many had come to the U.S. legally.[73]
See also[edit]
Comparison of United States incarceration rate with other countries
Felony disenfranchisement in the United States
Incarceration in the United States
List of U.S. states by incarceration rate
Mass incarceration
Mentally ill people in United States jails and prisons
Prison–industrial complex
Race and the War on Drugs
Youth incarceration in the United States
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Roy Walmsley (November 21, 2013). World Prison Population List (tenth edition). International Centre for Prison Studies. Retrieved July 11, 2014.
Jump up ^ Direct expenditures by justice function, 1982-2007 (billions of dollars). Inflation adjusted to 2007 dollars. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Retrieved 1 Jan 2012 by the Internet Archive. See BJS timeline graph based on the data.
Jump up ^ Justice Expenditures and Employment, FY 1982-2007 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 236218). Published December 2011. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). By Tracey Kyckelhahn, Ph.D., BJS statistician. See table 2 of the PDF. "Total justice expenditures, by justice function, FY 1982–2007 (real dollars)". A total of around $74 billion for corrections in 2007.
Jump up ^ Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2016
^ Jump up to: a b Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (NCJ 248479). Published December 2014 by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). By Lauren E. Glaze and Danielle Kaeble, BJS statisticians. See appendix table 5 on page 13 in the PDF, for "Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 2000–2013."
^ Jump up to: a b Prisoners in 2008. (NCJ 228417). December 2009 report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. By William J. Sabol, Ph.D. and Heather C. West, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians. Also, Matthew Cooper, BJS Intern. Table 9 on page 8 of the PDF file has the number of inmates in state or federal prison facilities, local jails, U.S. territories, military facilities, ICE owned and contracted facilities, jails in Indian country, and juvenile facilities (2006 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement). Table 8 on page 8 has the incarceration rates for 2000, 2007, and 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b World Prison Population List. 8th edition. By Roy Walmsley. Published in 2009. From World Prison Population Lists. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. "The information is the latest available in early December 2008. ... More than 9.8 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world, mostly as pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or as sentenced prisoners."
Jump up ^ Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Click "National Crosstabs" at the top, and then choose the census years. Click "Show table" to get the total number of juvenile inmates for those years. Or go here for all the years. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Jump up ^ Entire world – Prison Population Rates per 100,000 of the national population. Highest to Lowest Rates. For more details about the figures of any country, click on the name of that country. World Prison Brief. International Centre for Prison Studies. See this page for breakdowns by region, whole world, prison population total, prison population rate, percentage of pre-trial detainees / remand prisoners, percentage of female prisoners, percentage of foreign prisoners, and occupancy rate.
Jump up ^ "Lauren E. Glaze and Errin J. Herberman, Ph.D., Correctional Population in the United States, 2012, Bureau of Justice Statistics (December 2013) Rates".
^ Jump up to: a b "World Prison Brief: Country - United States of America". International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ "One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008" (PDF). The Pew Center on the States. 28 February 2008.
Jump up ^ Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice.
Jump up ^ BJS. Correctional Population Trends Chart.[dead link]
Jump up ^ "Incarceration | The Sentencing Project". The Sentencing Project. Retrieved 2016-11-15.
^ Jump up to: a b "Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States | Brookings Institution". Brookings. 2014-05-01. Retrieved 2016-11-15.
Jump up ^ Hanna, Peter (2016-05-10). "Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science". Retrieved 2016-11-15.
Jump up ^ Schrager, Allison. "In America, mass incarceration has caused more crime than it’s prevented". Quartz. Retrieved 2016-11-15.
Jump up ^ Christopher J. Mumola: Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004, U.S. Department of Justice, October 2006, NCJ 213530
Jump up ^ Alexander, Michelle (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press. p. 6.
Jump up ^ Golden, Renny (2005). War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Families They Leave Behind. New York: Taylor and Friends. p. 46.
Jump up ^ "US DOJ Data Brief: Prisoners at Yearend 2009–Advance Counts" (PDF).
Jump up ^ Martelle, Scott (2010), US State Prison Population Falls for First Time in 38 Years, AOL, archived from the original on 2010-03-22
Jump up ^ Talvi, Silja J.A (2007). Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S Prison System. California: Seal Press. p. 3.
Jump up ^ Germany. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Italy. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Saudi Arabia. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Russia. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Kazakhstan. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Singapore. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Sweden. International Centre for Prison Studies.
Jump up ^ Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 230113). U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The rates are for adult males, and are from Tables 18 and 19 of the PDF file. Rates per 100,000 were converted to percentages.
Jump up ^ Travis, Jeremy (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. National Research Council. p. 40.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (2008-04-23). "Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-26.
^ Jump up to: a b "Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States | The Hamilton Project". www.hamiltonproject.org. Retrieved 2016-11-15.
Jump up ^ Aizer, Anna; Doyle, Joseph J. (2015-02-02). "Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges*". The Quarterly Journal of Economics: qjv003. ISSN 0033-5533. doi:10.1093/qje/qjv003.
Jump up ^ Mosley, Paul; Verschoor, Arjan (2005-03-01). "Risk Attitudes and the ‘Vicious Circle of Poverty’". The European Journal of Development Research. 17 (1): 59–88. ISSN 0957-8811. doi:10.1080/09578810500066548.
Jump up ^ Clear, Todd R. (2009-03-27). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199728237.
^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, Michelle (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindess. New York: The New Press. p. 52.
Jump up ^ Alexander, Michelle (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press. p. 60.
Jump up ^ SpearIt (2015-07-09). "Shackles Beyond the Sentence: How Legal Financial Obligations Create a Permanent Underclass". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN 2628977  .
Jump up ^ Neyfakh, Leon (6 February 2015). "Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2016.
Jump up ^ Rothwell, Jonathan (25 November 2015). "Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow". Brookings. Retrieved 1 September 2016.
Jump up ^ Lyons, John. "War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Children They Leave Behind". DVD. Peace Productions. Missing or empty |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Golden, Renny (2005). War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Families They Leave Behind. New York: Routledge. p. 45.
Jump up ^ "Fair Sentencing Act of 2010" Archived March 3, 2012, at the Wayback Machine., Families Against Mandatory Minimums, famm.org. Retrieved September 30, 2010.
Jump up ^ Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online (30th ed.). 2002. Cited in "Words From Prison - Did You Know...?", American Civil Liberties Union, June 12, 2006.
Jump up ^ Marc Mauer, Cathy Potler & Richard Wolf, Gender and Justice: Women, Drugs, and Sentencing Policy, The Sentencing Project. November 1997. Cited in "Words From Prison - Did You Know...?", American Civil Liberties Union, June 12, 2006 and "Caught in the Net: Impact of Drug Policies on Women and Families" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 15 April 2011.
Jump up ^ Ajunwa, Ifeoma (2015). "The Modern Day Scarlet Letter". 83 Fordham L. Rev. 2999 (2015). SSRN 2460898  .
Jump up ^ "Words From Prison - Did You Know...?", American Civil Liberties Union, June 12, 2006.
Jump up ^ Roberts, Dorothy (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage Books. p. 172.
Jump up ^ Khalek, Rania. How private prisons game the system. Salon.com. Dec 1, 2011.
Jump up ^ Harcourt, Bernard (2012). The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674066162 p. 235
Jump up ^ Selman, Donna and Paul Leighton (2010). Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 1442201738 p. xi
^ Jump up to: a b c Shapiro, David. "Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Chang, Cindy (29 May 2012). "Louisiana is the world's prison capital". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved 4 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Margaret Newkirk & William Selway (12 July 2013). "Gangs Ruled Prison as For-Profit Model Put Blood on Floor." Bloomberg. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
Jump up ^ Elk, Mike and Sloan, Bob (2011). The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor. The Nation.
Jump up ^ Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration. The Sentencing Project, September 2004. Archived July 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
^ Jump up to: a b Whitehead, John (April 10, 2012). "Jailing Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex". The Rutherford Institute. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
Jump up ^ Sullivan, Laura (2010). Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law. National Public Radio.
Jump up ^ Pat Beall (November 22, 2013). Big business, legislators pushed for stiff sentences. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
Jump up ^ Marie Gottschalk. Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics. Princeton University Press, 2014. p. 61
Jump up ^ Katy Hall and Jan Diehm (19 September 2013). One Disturbing Reason For Our Exploding Prison Population (INFOGRAPHIC). The Huffington Post Retrieved 20 September 2013.
Jump up ^ CRIMINAL: How Lockup Quotas and "Low-Crime Taxes" Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations. In the Public Interest. Retrieved 20 September 2013.
Jump up ^ Gallup, Inc. "Most Americans Believe Crime in U.S. Is Worsening". Gallup.com.
Jump up ^ Gallup, Inc. "Most Americans Still See Crime Up Over Last Year". Gallup.com.
Jump up ^ Gallup, Inc. "U.S. Crime Is Up, but Americans Don't Seem to Have Noticed". Gallup.com.
Jump up ^ Potter and Kapeller (1998)
Jump up ^ McCheney (2004, p. 81) wrote, "A five-year study of investigative journalism on TV news completed in 2002 determined that investigative journalism has all but disappeared from the nation's commercial airwaves."
Jump up ^ Sacco, Vincent F. (May 1995), "Media Constructions of Crime", Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Sciences, 539: 141–154 , reprinted as chapter 2 of Potter and Kapeller (1998, pp. 37-51, esp. p. 42)
Jump up ^ See also Sacco, Vincent F (2005). When Crime Waves. Sage. ISBN 0761927832. and Youngblood, Steven (2017). Peace Journalism Principles and Practices. Routledge. pp. 115–131. ISBN 978-1-138-12467-7.
Jump up ^ "BOP Statistics: Inmate Citizenship". Federal Bureau of Prisons.
References[edit]
Alexander, Michelle (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press. ISBN 1595586431
Gottschalk, Marie (2014). Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics. Princeton University Press. Book Hardcover ISBN 9780691164052, eBook ISBN 9781400852147.
Harcourt, Bernard (2012). The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674066162
McChesney, Robert W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communications Politics in the 21st Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 1-58367-105-6.
Potter, Gary W.; Kappeler, Victor E., eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9.
Selman, Donna and Paul Leighton (2010). Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 1442201738
SpearIt, How Mass Incarceration Underdevelops Latino Communities (April 2, 2015). U.S. Latinos and Criminal Injustice (Michigan State University Press 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2589112
External links[edit]
U. S. Crime and Imprisonment Statistics Total and by State from 1960 - Current
[show]
v
t
e
Incarceration of adults in the United States
This template pertains only to agencies that handle sentenced felons (with sentences over 1-2 years). In many states pre-trial, misdemeanor, and/or those sentenced under state law with sentences of fewer than one year are in county jails instead of state prisons.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
List of U.S. federal prisons
Federal Prison Industries
State correction agencies
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Federal District
Felons: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Misdemeanants: District of Columbia DOC
Insular Areas
American Samoa
Guam
Guantanamo Bay
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Military prisons
US state prisons
List of U.S. state prisons
Category
Commons
United States portal
Prisons portal
[show]
v
t
e
Incarceration of juveniles in the United States
Federal Bureau of Prisons
List of U.S. federal prisons
Corrections by U.S. state
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Federal District
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services
Insular Areas
Guam
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Military facilities
Guantanamo Bay
Category
Commons
United States portal
Prisons portal
[show]
v
t
e
Incarceration
Science
Correctional medicine
Criminology
Penology
Punishment
Stanford prison experiment
Prisoners
Criminal
Detainee
Hostage
Political prisoner
Prisoner of conscience
Prisoner of war
Slave
Prisons
Types
Black site
Dark
Debtors'
Extermination camp
Farm
Internment
Labor camp
Military
Penal colony
Corrective labor colony
Prisoner-of-war camp
Private
Ship
Youth detention center
Security levels
Administrative detention
Death row
Maximum security
Open
Supermax
Components
Cell
Solitary confinement
Commissary
Cemetery
Food
Library
Nursery
Officer
Warden
Sally port
Superintendent
Trusty system
Escape
List of prison escapes
Helicopter prison escapes
Prisoner-of-war escapes
Culture
Film
Gang (United States)
Handball
Literature
Blogs
American
Prison ring
Slang
Tattooing
Social issues
Abuse (United States)
Contemplative programs
Solitary confinement
Education
LGBT people
Mentally ill people in the United States
Mobile phones
Pay-to-stay
Overcrowding
Private prisons
Rape (United States)
Religion (United States)
Riots
Sexuality
Strikes
Suicide
Protective custody
Women in prison (United States)
Organizations
International Network of Prison Ministries
African Prisons Project
Florida Justice Institute
POA (trade union)
Prison abolition movement
Prison Advice and Care Trust
Prison Fellowship
Prison Fellowship International
Prison Legal News
Prison Officers' Association (Ireland)
Prison Radio
Prison Reform Trust
Prison University Project
The Prison Phoenix Trust
WriteAPrisoner.com
Leaving prison
Escape
Rehabilitation
Work release
Lists
Countries by incarceration rate
Prisons
By country
Australia
China
Chile
Estonia
Germany
India
Ireland
Jamaica
Japan
North Korea
Russia
Soviet Union
Gulag
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Imprisonment and detention
Commons
Criminal justice portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_incarceration_rate&oldid=798918375"
Categories:
Incarceration rates in the United States
Penal system in the United States
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from November 2010
Pages using web citations with no URL
Webarchive template wayback links
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2009
All articles containing potentially dated statements
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2006
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2008
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Italiano
தமிழ்
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last edited on 4 September 2017, at 15:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href class title

values: List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

attrs: class style

value: sup

values:
/wiki/U.S._Bureau_of_Justice_Statistics
mw-redirect
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

value: p

values: Edit section: Prison and jail population

values: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

values: Immigration detention in the United States

values:
plainlinks noprint asof-tag update
display:none;

values:
/wiki/Pretrial_detainee
mw-redirect
Pretrial detainee

values:
/wiki/Female_prisoners
mw-redirect
Female prisoners

values:
/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Justice
mw-redirect
U.S. Department of Justice

values:
/wiki/Criminal_justice_system
mw-redirect
Criminal justice system

values:
/wiki/Anti-Drug_Abuse_Act
mw-redirect
Anti-Drug Abuse Act

values: Incarceration of women in the United States

values: Edit section: Comparison with other countries

values:
/wiki/Russian_Federation
mw-redirect
Russian Federation

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values: National Research Council (United States)

values: Edit section: Economic and age contributions

values:
/wiki/Fordham_Law_School
mw-redirect
Fordham Law School

values:
/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act_of_2010
mw-redirect
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

values:
/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
mw-redirect
Conspiracy (crime)

values: Accomplice liability (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Criminal_liability
mw-redirect
Criminal liability

values:
/wiki/Dorothy_E._Roberts
mw-redirect
Dorothy E. Roberts

values: Edit section: Racialization and Reform Error

values: Sounds plausible, but I'd like to see the research. Which experts? (May 2017)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Reagan_Administration
mw-redirect
Reagan Administration

values: Edit section: Editorial policies of major media

values: Youth incarceration in the United States

values:
nofollow
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
external text

values: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

values:
/wiki/Pew_Charitable_Trusts
mw-redirect
Pew Charitable Trusts

values: United States Bureau of Justice Statistics

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/5

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0033-5533

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1093%2Fqje%2Fqjv003

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0957-8811

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=2628977

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/The_Sentencing_Project
mw-redirect
The Sentencing Project

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=2460898

values: International Standard Book Number (identifier)

values:
/wiki/The_Rutherford_Institute
mw-redirect
The Rutherford Institute

values:
/wiki/National_Public_Radio
mw-redirect
National Public Radio

values:
/wiki/The_Huffington_Post
mw-redirect
The Huffington Post

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/Rowman_%26_Littlefield_Publishers
mw-redirect
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

values:
nofollow
external free
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2589112

values:
nofollow
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
external text

values: Template:Incarceration in the United States

values: Template talk:Incarceration in the United States

values: List of United States state correction agencies

values: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

values: Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

values: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

values: Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

values: New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

values: North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

values: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

values: South Carolina Department of Corrections

values: Washington State Department of Corrections

values: District of Columbia Department of Corrections

values:
/wiki/Insular_Areas
mw-redirect
Insular Areas

values: American Samoa Department of Public Safety

values: Northern Marianas Department of Corrections

values: Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

values: United States Virgin Islands Department of Justice

values:
/wiki/Military_prisons
mw-redirect
Military prisons

values:
/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_prisons
mw-redirect
List of U.S. state prisons

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template:Incarceration of Juveniles in the United States

values: Template talk:Incarceration of Juveniles in the United States

values: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

values: Connecticut Department of Children and Families

values: Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families

values: Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections

values: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services

values: Massachusetts Department of Youth Services

values: Mississippi Department of Human Services

values: Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services

values: Nevada Division of Child and Family Services

values: New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services

values: New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department

values: New York State Office of Children and Family Services

values: North Carolina Department of Public Safety

values: Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

values: Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families

values: South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice

values: Tennessee Department of Children's Services

values: Utah Division of Juvenile Justice Services

values: Vermont Department for Children and Families

values: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

values: West Virginia Division of Juvenile Services

values: Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

values: U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Human Services

values:
/wiki/Dark_prison
mw-redirect
Dark prison

values: International Network of Prison Ministries

values:
/wiki/Prisons_in_Australia
mw-redirect
Prisons in Australia

values:
/wiki/Prisons_in_China
mw-redirect
Prisons in China

values:
/wiki/Prisons_in_Jamaica
mw-redirect
Prisons in Jamaica

values:
/wiki/Prisons_in_Japan
mw-redirect
Prisons in Japan

values:
/wiki/Prisons_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
Prisons in the UK

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: navigation navbox Incarceration padding:3px

values: Category:Incarceration rates in the United States

values: Category:Penal system in the United States

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from November 2010

values: Category:Pages using web citations with no URL

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2009

values: Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2006

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2008

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: Popolazione carceraria negli Stati Uniti d'America – Italian

values: ஐக்கிய அமெரிக்காவில் சிறைவைத்தல் விகிதம் – Tamil

values: อัตราการกักขังในสหรัฐอเมริกา – Thai

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-United_States_incarceration_rate rootpage-United_States_incarceration_rate skin-vector action-view


text:
Sawyer Sweeten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sawyer Sweeten
Born
Sawyer Storm Sweeten
(1995-05-12)May 12, 1995
Brownwood, Texas, U.S.
Died
April 23, 2015(2015-04-23) (aged 19)
Austin, Texas, U.S.
Cause of death
Suicide By Gunshot To The Head
Occupation
Actor
Years active
Start:1996–2015
Relatives
Sullivan Sweeten (Identical Twin Brother)
Madylin Sweeten (Older Sister)
Sawyer Storm Sweeten (May 12, 1995 – April 23, 2015) was an American child actor. He was best known for playing Geoffrey Barone on the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond.
Contents
1 Early life
2 Death
3 Filmography
3.1 Film
3.2 Television
4 References
5 External links
Early life[edit]
Sweeten was born in Brownwood, Texas, to Timothy Sweeten and Elizabeth Millsap.[1] He had a twin brother, Sullivan. The Sweeten family moved to California when the twins were six months old. When they were 16 months old they began working on Everybody Loves Raymond, along with their sister Madylin. Sawyer and Sullivan owned a house in Riverside, California.[2][3][dead link]
Death[edit]
On April 23, 2015, Sweeten died in Austin, Texas, at the age of 19. The cause of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. His death prompted public tributes by his Everybody Loves Raymond costars. His onscreen father Ray Romano was shocked by the news and said he was a "wonderful and sweet kid to be around".[2] Sweeten's on-screen mother Patricia Heaton said "a funny and exceptionally bright young man. He is gone from us far too soon."[4] Brad Garrett, who portrayed Sweeten's on-screen Uncle Robert, released a statement that "The Sweeten family was our family for those nine years on Raymond. My deepest condolences and love go out to them during this unimaginable time."[5] Sweeten's on-screen grandmother Doris Roberts remembered Sawyer as "a very sweet young man" and "Make sure your loved ones know how much you care about them. It's very important to keep in touch." Phil Rosenthal, creator of Everybody Loves Raymond and husband of co-star Monica Horan, remembers Sawyer and his twin brother Sullivan and his older sister Madylin as "children that never failed to make us laugh, or remind us of how we feel about our own children".[6] His on-screen/real life sister Madylin released a statement regarding her brother's death and pleaded for everyone "to reach out to the ones you love".[4][6]
Filmography[edit]
Film[edit]
Year
Title
Role
Notes
2002 Frank McKlusky, C.I. Young Frank McKlusky
Television[edit]
Year
Title
Role
Notes
1996–2005 Everybody Loves Raymond Geoffrey Barone Main & Recurring cast
2000 Even Stevens Milton Episode: "All About Yvette"
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Williamson, Marcus (May 1, 2015). "Sawyer Sweeten: Actor who made his name playing one of the cute twins on the comedy show 'Everyone Loves Raymond'". The Independent. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Steiner, Amanda (April 27, 2015). "Sawyer Sweeten's Family Speaks Out Following His Suicide: 'He Will Live On in Shared Moments Forever'". People. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
Jump up ^ https://pgoaamericanprofile2.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/sawyer-sweeten.jpg%3Fw%3D670%26h%3D405%26crop%3D1
^ Jump up to: a b "Sawyer Sweeten: 'Raymond' Mom Patricia Heaton Speaks Out On Tragic Death". hollywoodlife.com. 2015-04-24. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
Jump up ^ "Everybody Loves Raymond' Star Sawyer Sweeten Dead at 19 of Apparent Suicide". ETOnline.com. 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
^ Jump up to: a b "'Everybody Loves Raymond' cast pays tribute to Sawyer Sweeten: 'He is gone from us far too soon'". NYDailyNews.com. 2015-04-24. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
External links[edit]
Sawyer Sweeten on IMDb
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
ISNI: 0000 0000 7136 9914
LCCN: no2009137851
VIAF: 100739722
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sawyer_Sweeten&oldid=866195978"
Categories:
1995 births
2015 deaths
American male film actors
American male television actors
American male identical twin child actors
20th-century American male actors
21st-century American male actors
American male actors who committed suicide
Twin people from the United States
People from Brownwood, Texas
Male actors from Texas
Suicides by firearm in Texas
Hidden categories:
Articles with hCards
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from September 2018
Wikipedia articles with ISNI identifiers
Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
Asturianu
Deutsch
Español
Nederlands
Polski
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last edited on 28 October 2018, at 22:03 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: span

value: th

attrs: colspan style

value: tr

attrs: href title

value: td

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0842326/
external text

attrs: alt src width height style srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
http://isni.org/isni/0000000071369914

values:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/100739722

values: Category:American male television actors

values: Category:American male identical twin child actors

values: Category:20th-century American male actors

values: Category:21st-century American male actors

values: Category:American male actors who committed suicide

values: Category:Twin people from the United States

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from September 2018

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with ISNI identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Sawyer_Sweeten
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Sawyer_Sweeten rootpage-Sawyer_Sweeten skin-vector action-view


text:
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is part of the series on the
United States
Supreme Court
The Court
Decisions
Procedure
History
Court Building
Current membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy (retiring July 31, 2018)
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Retired Associate Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter
All members
List of all justices
by court
by seat
by time in office
by education
List of Chief Justices
List of Associate Justices
Specialty lists
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations late in presidency
Court demographics
Justices who served in Congress
Ideological leanings of justices
Court functionaries
Clerks
Reporter of Decisions
Marshal of the Court
Supreme Court Police
Other countries
Law Portal
v
t
e
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States and the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789.
This article is concerned with the process and procedures used by the modern court. For general discussion of the court's jurisdiction and composition, see Supreme Court of the United States; for discussion of the court's present and historical accommodations, see United States Supreme Court building; for discussion of the history of the court, see History of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Contents
[hide]
1 Terms and sittings
2 The Court's authority to hear cases
2.1 Appellate jurisdiction
2.2 Original jurisdiction
3 Selection of cases
4 Hearing cases
4.1 Filing briefs
4.2 Oral arguments
5 Forming opinions
5.1 The conference: assignment of opinions
5.2 Circulating draft opinions and changing of views
5.2.1 Tied votes and lack of quorum
5.3 Announcement of opinions
6 Reporting and citation of cases
7 See also
8 Footnotes and references
9 External links
Terms and sittings[edit]
A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.
The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]
Appellate jurisdiction[edit]
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.
Original jurisdiction[edit]
Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.
The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.
Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[1] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[2]
Selection of cases[edit]
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction has been discretionary.[3] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[4][5]
The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court's Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson's first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[6]
In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[7][8][9]
During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[10]
The votes of four Justices at Conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.
The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.
Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.
Hearing cases[edit]
Filing briefs[edit]
Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:
The rules direct what information must be included in a brief, describe the size of paper and type of print, and limit the number of pages. Even the colors of the covers of the briefs are specified: the petitioner's brief must have a blue cover and the respondent's must have a red cover. The Court also often receives briefs from amici curiae (friends of the Court) in particular cases, and these must have a green cover. This color-coding comes in very handy when you have a stack of eight or ten briefs in a particular case and can locate the brief you want by its color without having to read the covers of each.[11]
Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.
To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[12]
The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[13] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.
In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it is "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he has already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it is "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney can make the difference for him.[14]
Forming opinions[edit]
The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]
At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[15] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.
Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[16] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[17] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.
Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]
The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[18] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.
Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.
The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[19] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[20] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[21] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[22] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.
After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[23]
Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.
Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case. The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.
A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[24]
Announcement of opinions[edit]
Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[25]
The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.
Reporting and citation of cases[edit]
For more specific details on how cases are cited, see case citation.
Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[26]
The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.
See also[edit]
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
Footnotes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton , 3 U.S. 1 (1794).
Jump up ^ United States v. Louisiana , 399 U.S. 699 (1950).
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Originalism: The Lesser Evil". University of Cincinnati Law Review. 57: 849, 850. Archived from the original on February 21, 2006; Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Lazarus, Edward (June 14, 1998). "Closed Chambers". Booknotes (Interview). Interviewed by Brian Lamb. C-SPAN.
Jump up ^ "The Justices' Caseload" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
Jump up ^ Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Jump up ^ Mauro, Tony (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool". Law.com. Regarding the picking of cases, see generally, Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 224–238. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (May 1, 2017). "Gorsuch, in sign of independence, is out of Supreme Court's clerical pool". New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
Jump up ^ Thompson, David C.; Wachtell, Melanie F. (2009). "An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures". George Mason University Law Review. 16 (2): 237, 241. SSRN 1377522  .
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico; cf. "Part VII. Practice and Procedure. Rule 33. Document Preparation: Booklet Format; 8 1/2- by 11-Inch Paper Format". Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. April 19, 2013 – via Legal Information Institute, Cornell University.
Jump up ^ Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005). "Supreme Confidence: The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 3, 2005 – via New America Foundation. In his early years on the Court, Scalia's exuberant questioning was not well received by his colleagues ... In Scalia's first oral argument he asked so many questions that Powell whispered, 'Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?' The other Justices have since caught up with Scalia. Now all of them—with the exception of Clarence Thomas—are garrulous Linder, Doug. "Justices Brennan & Scalia Debate Creation-Science". On a bench lined with solemn gray figures who often sat as silently as pigeons on a railing, Scalia stood out like a talking parrot.
Jump up ^ "About the Oyez Project". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 24, 2011.
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin (June 19, 2009). "Justice Antonin Scalia" (PDF) (Interview). Interviewed by Susan Swain. C-SPAN. Retrieved November 6, 2010. [I]t is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral argument will change my mind. But it is quite common that I go in with my mind not made up. I mean a lot of these cases are very close, and you go in on the knife's edge. Persuasive counsel can make the difference. There are things you can do with oral argument that cannot be done in a brief. You can convey the relative importance of your various points.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. p. 253. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 285. ISBN 9780143035275. to call our discussion of a case a conference is really something of a misnomer. It's much more a statement of the views of each of the nine justices.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 254–58. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 271. ISBN 9780143035275.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Zimmerman, Carol (March 18, 2004). "Justice Blackmun's Papers Reveal Near Overturn of Roe". Catholic Herald. Catholic News Service. Archived from the original on April 19, 2004.
Jump up ^ Roberts, memo to Fred F. Fielding, June 4, 1985.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Claeys, Eric (June 24, 2005). "Did O'Connor Lose the Majority?". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on August 22, 2006.
Jump up ^ See Tushnet, Mark V. (2005). A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: Norton. ISBN 9780393058680.
Jump up ^ Savage, David G. (January 2002). "Adarand Didn't Add Up: Lawyers Now Wonder Which Affirmative Action Case Court Will Take". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 88: 26. Retrieved January 5, 2013.
Jump up ^ U.S.C. Title 28, Section 1; U.S.C. Title 28, Section 2109.
Jump up ^ Kessler, Robert. "Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
Jump up ^ "Opinions". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
External links[edit]
Court Rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2010 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rule revisions from the U.S. Supreme Court website (with "clerk comments" that clarify what's changing for 2013 and why)
hide
v
t
e
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court
Lists of cases
Procedures
Supreme Court Building
Court demographics
Ideological leanings
Appointment and confirmation
Current members
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Retired Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter
History
Jay Court (1789–1795)
Rutledge Court (1795)
Ellsworth Court (1796–1800)
Marshall Court (1801–1835)
Taney Court (1836–1864)
Chase Court (1864–1873)
Waite Court (1874–1888)
Fuller Court (1888–1910)
White Court (1910–1921)
Taft Court (1921–1930)
Hughes Court (1930–1941)
Stone Court (1941–1946)
Vinson Court (1946–1953)
Warren Court (1953–1969)
Burger Court (1969–1986)
Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
Roberts Court (2005–present)
Lists of justices
and nominees
Chief justices
Associate justices
All justices
court
seat
education
time in office
timelines
Justices who served in Congress
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations near end of presidency
Statutes affecting
Court size
Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1801
Judiciary Act of 1802
Seventh Circuit Act of 1807
Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837
Tenth Circuit Act of 1863
Judicial Circuits Act of 1866
Judiciary Act of 1869
Court functionaries
Clerk
Marshal
Supreme Court Police
Reporter of Decisions
Lists of law clerks
Chief Justice
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 3
Seat 4
Seat 6
Seat 8
Seat 9
Seat 10
All
Former locations
Old City Hall, Philadelphia
Old Supreme Court Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Old Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Related
United States Solicitor General
United States Reports
Lawyers' Edition
Amicus curiae
Article III, U.S. Constitution
Original jurisdiction
Burial places of justices
The Court in fiction
Other countries
Law Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&oldid=849892775"
Categories:
United States procedural law
Supreme Court of the United States
United States appellate procedure
Hidden categories:
Use mdy dates from May 2014
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 12 July 2018, at 03:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

attrs: href class

values: Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

value: li

values: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;text-align:left

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office

values: List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices

values: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency

values: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices who also served in Congress

values: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices

values: Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Marshal of the United States Supreme Court

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: thin solid #aaa

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/United_States_federal_courts
mw-redirect
United States federal courts

values:
/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Constitution of the United States

values: Edit section: The Court's authority to hear cases

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Writ_of_certiorari
mw-redirect
Writ of certiorari

values: United States v. Louisiana (1950) (page does not exist)

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Amici_curiae
mw-redirect
Amici curiae

values: Edit section: The conference: assignment of opinions

values: Edit section: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views

values:
/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
mw-redirect
Kelo v. New London

values: Edit section: Tied votes and lack of quorum

values:
/wiki/Slip_opinion
mw-redirect
Slip opinion

values: Edit section: Reporting and citation of cases

values: Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions

values:
/wiki/Supreme_Court_Reporter
mw-redirect
Supreme Court Reporter

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1377522

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.oyez.org/about

values: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
navbox-image
10
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 1)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 2)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 3)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 4)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 6)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 8)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 9)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 10)

values: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of burial places of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Supreme Court of the United States in fiction

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:Supreme Court of the United States

values: Category:United States appellate procedure

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States rootpage-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States skin-vector action-view