Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P5 docx

Yale University with an engineering degree in 1954 and earned a law degree from the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh in 1957. After his admission to the Pennsylvania bar in 1958, he joined the Pittsburgh law firm of Kirkpa trick, Lockhart, Johnson, and Hutchinson. In 1969 President RICHARD M. NIXON appointed Thornburgh U.S. attorney for western Pennsyl- vania. He served as U.S. attorney until 1975, when President GERALD FORD designated him assistant attorney general of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.As head of the department’s criminal division, Thornburgh was instrumental in setting up the public integrity section that investigated alleged improprieties by department personnel. After leaving office in 1977, Thornburgh returned to the Kirkpatrick law firm in Pittsburgh, but he was intent on beginning a political career. In 1978 he w as elected governor of Pennsylvania, an office he held until 1987. In his early days as governor, Thornburgh was thrust into the national limelight. The nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island NUCLEAR POWER plant in the spring of 1979 set off a wave of panic in Pennsylvania. Thornburgh was credited with bringing calm to the state. Thornburgh also consolidated Pennsylvania’s state-owned postsecondary schools into the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, and left office with a budget surplus of $350 million. In July 1988 President RONALD REAGAN appointed Thornburgh U.S. attorney general, succeeding Edwin Meese. Meese had become a controversial figure in the Reagan administration. He had stressed social issues such as ABORTION and PORNOGRAPHY and had pushed for an end to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Meese also had come under scrutiny for possible criminal conflict-of-interest charges. He resigned only after an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL declined to file criminal charges. Taking office under these circumstances, Thornburgh sought to restore integrity and cre- dibility to the department. During the last months of the Reagan administration, he moved to revitalize management of the department, refo- cus its energies on prosecuting crimes involving guns or drugs, and aggressively pursue white- collar criminals. His early months in office convinced Pre- sident GEORGE H. W. BUSH to reappoint Thorn- burgh attorney general. His tenure in the Bush administration drew criticism from some con- servative groups for his prosecution of environ- mental crimes and for his strong enforcement of CIVIL RIGHTS protection for DISABLED PERSONS. Within the department, his management style provoked criticism. Career department officials called him aloof and alleged that he employed political partisanship in the administration of justice. Thornburgh resigned as attorney general in July 1991 to run for the U.S. Senate in a special election. Harris Wofford, his Democratic oppo- nent, had been appointed senator to fill the Pennsylvania seat until the special election. At the beginning of his campaign, Thornburgh enjoyed a 40-point lead in the opinion polls. Wofford, however, argued that the country needed a national HEALTH INSURANCE system and reminded voters of the economy, which was in recession. Thornburgh’s lead crumbled. Wofford easily defeated him, earning 55 percent of the vote to Thornburgh’s 45 percent. In 1992 President Bush appointed Thorn- burgh undersecretary general of the UNITED NATIONS , a position he held until 1993. Thorn- burgh then rejoined the Kirkpatrick law firm’s Washington, D.C., office and served as a legal commentator on several television network news and talk shows. An honorary special agent of the FBI, Thornburgh was appointed to the FBI Science and Technology Advisory Board in 2005 and chaired a National Academy of Public Administration panel examining the FBI’sactions after the SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS. As the father of a mentally disabled child, Thornburgh and his wife were recognized in 2003 by the American Association of Persons with Disabilities, which presented the couple the Henry B. Bet ts Award. The Thornburghs used the funds from this award to found the Thornburgh Family Lecture Series in Disability Law and Policy at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Also in 2003, Thornburgh’s autobiography, Where the Evidence Leads, was published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. FURTHER READINGS Ford, Daniel. 1986. Meltdown. New York: Simon & Schuster. Thornburgh, Dick. 2007. Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies. ———. 2003. Where the Evidence Leads: An Autobiography. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press. CROSS REFERENCES Affirmative Action; Meese, Edwin, III; Nixon, Richard Milhous. THIS COLLECTIVE AMNESIA THAT SEEMS TO AFFECT THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF WOULD CONCERN ME IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT. —RICHARD THORNBURGH GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 28 THORNBURGH, RICHARD LEWIS THREATS Spoken or written words tending to intimidate or menace others. Statutes in a number of jurisdictions pro- hibit the use of threats and UNLAWFUL COMMU- NICATIONS by any person. Some of the more common types of threats forbidden by law are those made with an intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage or to compel a person to act against his or her will. In all states, it is an offense to threaten to (1) use a deadly weapon on another person; (2) injure another’s person or property; or (3) injure another’s reputation. It is a federal offense to threaten to harm the president or to use the mail to transmit threatening communications. These laws must be balanced against FIRST AMENDMENT rights. Unlawful communications include, among other things, the use of thre ats to prevent another from engaging in a lawful occupation and writing libelous letters or letters that tend to provoke a breach of the peace. The use of intimidation for purposes of collecting an unpaid debt has been held to constitute an unlawful communication but might be prosecuted as EXTORTION. A mere threat that does not cause any harm is generally not actionable. When combined with apparently imminent bodily harm, how- ever, a threat is an assault for which the offender might be subject to civil or criminal liability. In most jurisdictions, a plaintiff can recover damages for the intentional infliction of severe mental or emotional suffering caused by threats or unlawful communications. In those jurisdictions that have statutes prohibiting unlawful communications, such as letters that tend to provoke a breach of the peace, a violation of the statute gives rise to a civil action for damages. THREE STRIKES LAWS Criminal statutes that mandate increased sen- tences for repeat offenders, usually after three serious crimes. Beginning in the early 1990s, states began to enact mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. These statutes came to be known as “three strikes laws,” because they were invoked when offenders committed their third offense. By 2009, 26 states and the federal government had enacted three strikes laws. The belief behind the laws was that getting career criminals off the streets was g ood PUBLIC POLICY. However, the laws have their critics, who charge that sentences are often disproportion- ate to the crimes committed and that INCARCER- ATION of three strikes inmates for 25 years to life would drive up correctional costs. Never- theless, the U.S. SUPREME C OURT has upheld three strikes laws and has rejected the argu- ment that they amount to CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT . The state of Washington passed the first three strikes law in 1993. Anyone convicted of three separate violent felonies must be sen- tenced to life in prison with no chance for PAROLE. The state of California followed in 1994, by enact ing a three strikes law that mandates a sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. Unlike Washington, the California law counts nonviolent felonies, such as BURGLARY and theft, as “strike” offenses. The popularity of the three strikes law in California has been pronounced. In 2008, 41,284 prisoners were serving time under the new law. Of those inmates, 3,629 had committed nonviolent felo- nies. This population makes up about 25 percent of California’s prison population. California’s law has drawn the most attention in the debate over three strikes statutes. The California law originally gave judges no discretion in setting prison terms for three strikes offenders. However, the California Supreme Court ruled in 1996, that judges, in the interest of justice, could ignore prior convictions in determining whether an offender qualified for a three strikes sentence. Prosecu- tors have the greatest discretion; they may decide whether to count certain crimes as strikes when they file their criminal complaint. Critics have charged that this system introduces the worst of both worlds: mandatory sentences for those charged under the law and unequal application of the law. The disparity in prose- cutorial use of the Californian law has meant that the law is rarely used in San Francisco but is used heavily in other parts of the state. The three strikes sentencing of offenders who have committed a number of violent crimes has rarely drawn much criticism. Con- cerns about the fairness and proportionality of the law have been raised when an offender is sent to prison for 25 years for shoplifting or some other minor property crime. Critics note that a 25-year sentence for a third strike GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THREE STRIKES LAWS 29 shoplifting offense is the same sentence meted out to those who commit MURDER. Long sentences for relatively minor offenses, they contend, amounts to cruel and unusual punish- ment, which is barred by the EIGHTH AMENDMENT. By the late 1990s a number of appeals had been raised in state and federal co urts based on the disproportionality argument. The case of Leandro Andrade became a focal point in the argument over the constitutionality of California’s three strikes law. Andrade was convicted of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two Kmart stores. The value of the tapes stolen amounted to $153.54. Under California law, a petty theft charge is usually a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. However, the PROSECUTOR had the discretion to elevate the charges to felony level offenses. Andrade, who was a heroin addict, had a string of burglary, theft, and drug convictions on his criminal record. The prosecutor charged him Have Three-Strikes Laws Worked to Reduce Recidivism? M ost state and federal laws impose stiffer sentences for repeat offen- ders, but they do not impose punish- ments as harsh as “Three Strikes and You’re Out” (TSAYO) laws. TSAYO laws mandate that a heavy sentence be imposed on persons who are convicted of a third felony. The minimum prison sentence required by such laws is typi- cally between 25 years and life. The federal government and 24 states passed TSAYO legislation between 1992 and 2009. TSAYO legislation is designed to protect society from dangerous indivi- duals who show a pattern of lawlessness, incapacitate repeat felony offenders by keeping them behind bars, and deter others from committing similar criminal offenses. National criminal justice statis- tics show that the number of violent crimes has dropped sharply over the last eight years. TSAYO legislation is not without its critics, however. Beginning in 1998, and continuing into the 2000s, studies have called into doubt the effectiveness of three-strikes laws. Con- stitutional challenges have been leveled against TSAYO laws at both the state and federal levels, but courts and legislatures have resisted overturning them. In 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA) ( PUBLIC LAW 103–322 September 13, 1994, 108 Stat 1796). This act imposes a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without PAROLE on defen- dants who are convicted of a serious violent federal felony when they have two or more prior serious violent felonies or one or more serious violent felony convictions and one or more serious drug offense convictions. The first two convic- tions may be for state or federal offenses, but the third conviction must be for a federal offense before the VCCLEA three- strikes provision applies. VCCLEA defines “serious violent felony” to include MURDER,voluntary MANSLAUGHTER, ASSAULT with intent to commit murder or RAPE,aggravatedSEXUAL ABUSE , KIDNAPPING,aircraftPIRACY, ROBBERY, CARJACKING, EXTORTION, ARSON, and firearms use or possession, among others (18 U.S. C.A. 3559). Offenses committed at the state level need not be deemed a felony by the state to trigger the VCCLEA three- strikes provision as long as the state offense is “seriously violent,” meaning the offense is similar to those specified by the VCCLEA. “Serious drug offense” is defined by the VCCLEA as knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense enu- merated controlled substances. Drug offenses committed at the state level are considered “serious” under VCCLEA if they would be punishable by the federal controlled substances laws. The impetus behind TSAYO laws came from a string of highly publicized cases in which a crime victim was viciously attacked by a repeat offender on parole. One of the most publicized cases was that of 12-year-old Polly Klaas from California. In 1993 she was kid- napped, molested, and murdered by Richard Allen Davis, a sex offender with a long history of criminal convictions. Polly’s father, Marc, appeared on a number of national television programs to attack the criminal justice system’s lenient treatment of repeat felony offen- ders and to advocate the enactment of three-strikes laws. Relatives of other victims, concerned citizens, prosecutors, and politicians followed suit. The Washington State Legislature was the first to respond, passing TSAYO legislation in 1993 (West’s RCWA 9.94A.392 et seq.) The law mandates life in prison after conviction on any three of about 40 felonies, ranging from murder to robbery and vehicular assault. Defen- dants convicted under this law are not eligible for parole, nor may their sen- tence be suspended or shortened. Cali- fornia and 11 other states passed similar laws in 1994. Nine more states were added to the list a year later. By 2000, 24 states had adopted TSAYO laws of their own; no other states have passed TSAYO since that date. Georgia took matters a step further, enacting a “Two Strikes and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 30 THREE STRIKES LAWS with two counts of felony theft and a jury convicted Andrade on both counts. These separate convictions, along with a prior first-degree burglary conviction, triggered the three strikes law. Because the two thefts were treated as separate incidents, the three strikes law was applied to both charges leading to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison. Andrade could not apply for parole until he served 50 years in prison, at which time he would be 87 years old. The California courts upheld this sentence as proportionate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Andrade’ssentence was unconstitutional because it was grossly disproportionate. Although the California law was unconstitutional as applied, the Ninth Circuit refused to hold that the three strikes law was generally unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, overturned the Ninth Circuit decision and upheld the constitutionality of the three strikes law as applied to Andrade (Lockyer v. Andrade, You’re Out” law (Ga. Code Ann. S 17- 10-6.1[b]). Felons convicted only twice of the state’s most serious crimes are sentenced to life in prison without parole. Known as “the seven deadly sins,” these crimes are murder, armed robbery, rape, kidnapping, aggravated SODOMY, aggra- vated CHILD MOLESTATION, and aggravated sexual BATTERY. Despite their popularity in the early 1990s, TSAYO began to be attacked by researchers in the late 1990s. In 1998, several studies were released that ques- tioned the effectiveness of such laws. Four studies were largely responsible for driving the debate: one by the Rand Institute, one by the National Institute of Justice, one by the Justice Policy Insti- tute, and one by the Campaign for Effective Crime Policy, a nonpartisan group comprised of wardens, prosecu- tors, and law enforcement officials. The studies revealed two kinds of results. In most states, little had changed. Washington had convicted 66 people under its TSAYO law. Arkansas had 12 convictions and Alaska, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Jersey had no more than six. Wisconsin had invoked its law only once, while no one in Utah, Virginia, Montana, Tennessee, New Mexico, or Colorado had ever been prosecuted for a third-strike offense. In- stead, the states that let their TSAYO laws lay idle were still seeking harsh punish- ments for dangerous recidivists, but under repeat-offender statutes that had been on the books for decades. In other words, for these states the TSAYO laws represented a symbolic measure that neither improved nor diminished a prosecutor’sabilityto keep dangerous recidivists off the streets. Similarly, the studies showed that only 35 offenders had been convicted of a third strike at the federal level through 1997. The results were vastly different in California and Georgia. California had imprisoned more than 4,800 criminals for 25 years to life on third strikes; the state also identified more than 40,000 second- strike offenders who would await such a sentence were they subsequently con- victed for any one of roughly 500 crimes. Georgia had sent approximately 1,000 defendants to prison for life without parole under its two strikes law and identified another 1,000 offenders eligible for that fate were they to subsequently commit one of the “seven deadly sins.” These studies did more than arm opponents of TSAYO laws with evidence of disparate results. They suggested that the laws had been enforced more often against minority offenders than against white offenders. In California only, 1,237 of the more than 4,800 defendants sentenced for a third strike were white; 2,138 were African American, 1,262 were Latino, and 201 were classified as “other.” The studies further indicated that these minority offenders were mostly being punished for nonviolent third strikes. Statistics demonstrated that more than twice as many defendants’ third-strike offenses were for drug pos- session or petty theft as for murder, rape, or kidnapping. Some of these nonviolent third strikes included seemingly innocu- ous offenses, such as shoplifting, stealing packages of steak, and drinking alcohol at a liquor store without paying for it. Proponents of TSAYO laws have not been dissuaded by these results. Prosecu- tors say that these laws remain a vital tool for them to hang over the heads of first- and second-time offenders. They contend that seemingly “harmless” third-strike offenses are often isolated from the first and second strikes that place the DEFENDANT in a less sympathetic context. For example, an individual who was prosecuted for a third strike after he stole a bottle of vitamins had eight prior convictions, one of which was for robbery. Another individ- ual who was prosecuted for bigamy under California’s TSAYO law had prior convic- tions for armed robbery. Prosecutors also point to statistics reflecting a dramatic decline in violent crime in California since the TSAYO law went into effect. A 2009 study estimated that three million fewer serious crimes had been committed in the 15 years since the law had been enacted. However, critics argued that other factors were at work besides the three-strikes law to explain the drop in crime. Opponents of TSAYO laws have argued that TSAYO laws increase prison populations and raise the costs of INCAR- CERATION . By 2008, more than 41,000 prisoners were serving mandatory 25- year terms in California prisons. Of these inmates, approximately 3,600 were serv- ing time for non-violent crimes. The annual cost of incarcerating all of these prisoners is about $500 million. How- ever, proponents of the law point out that projected large increases in the Californian prison population because of the TSAYO have not occurred. Although these figures have caused concern among even the staunchest GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THREE STRIKES LAWS 31 538 U.S. 63, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 [2003]). The court held that federal courts must give due deference to state court sentencing decisions. In a prior ruling the court had stated that legislatures must be given “broad discretion to fashion a sentence that fits within the scope of the proportionality principle.” The “precise” contours of this principle were “un- clear,” which meant that STATE COURTS had more latitude to uphold sentences such as Andrade’s. The court further held that Andrade’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate. Justice DAVID SOUTER, in a dissenting opinion, sided with the Ninth Circuit’s views. A prior Supreme Court decision had voided a life sentence given to a repeat offender for commit- ting a theft valued at $150 . Justice Souter argued that Andrade’s criminal background, coupled with the petty thefts, was strikingly similar. Though Andrade would be eligible for parole at Have Three-Strikes Laws Worked to Reduce Recidivism? (Continued) proponents of three-strikes legislation, as of late 2009 no TSAYO law had been repealed at the state or federal level. Even legislative proposals to study the law’s impact had been rejected in California, being vetoed first bya Republican governor and then by a Democratic one. In 2004, California voters by a narrow majority defeated Proposition 66, which sought to limit the application of the third-strikes law to violent crimes. In 2009 the state government’s dire budget crisis led to renewed calls to repeal the law as a cost- cutting measure. However, commentators questioned whether the law would ever be repealed by voters, dueto the emotionsthat surround crime and violent criminals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the first state or federal court to strike down a TSAYO law in Andrade v. Attorney General of State of California (270 F.3d 743 [9th Cir. 2001]). The defendant in that case, Leandro Andrade, received a prison sentence of 50 years to life for petty theft of $154 worth of children’s videotapes from two Kmart stores. Petty theft is a misdemeanor in California, punishable by no more than six months in jail. However, California law provides that petty theft by a person with a prior conviction for a property crime is a “wobbler” offense, meaning the crime can be prosecuted as either a misde- meanor or a felony. Andrade had no prior violent offenses, but because he had previously committed three burglaries in one day, his two instances of shoplifting were prosecuted as felonies, and the trial court imposed an indeterminate life sentence with no possibility of parole until after he had served 50 years of his sentence. Andrade was 37-years-old when he started serving his sentence. “The punishment raised an inference of gross disproportionality when com- pared to defendant’s crime,” the Ninth Circuit wrote. Even in light of the defen- dant’s six prior nonviolent felony and misdemeanor convictions, the sentence was substantially more severe than sen- tences for most violent crimes in California and was unusual even when compared to applications of TSAYO laws applied to violent felons in other states, the Ninth Circuit concluded. The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the California SUPREME COURT , in upholding the defendant’s sen- tence, failed togiveproper consideration to the U.S. Supreme Court’sdecisioninSolem v. Helm (463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 [1983]), a case holding that a life sentence under a South Dakota recidivist law for writing a bad check amounted to CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. The state of California appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision (Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 [2003]). Writing for the majority, Justice SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR noted that the Ninth Circuit overturned the California Supreme Court’s decision pursuant to a HABEAS CORPUS petition. However, O’Con- nor wrote, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1) only gives federal courts authority to overturn state court decisions in habeas proceed- ings if the state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable applica- tion of clearly established federal law. Although O’Connor agreed that Solem and Lockyer were similar cases, she emphasized that a decision may only be deemed “contrary to clearly established precedent” if the state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court’s cases or confronts facts that are materially indis- tinguishable from a Supreme Court deci- sion and the state court nevertheless arrives at a different result. This did not happen here, O’Connor said. The defen- dant in Solem was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, while the defendant in Lockyer became eligible for parole after serving 50 years of his sentence. This fact made the two cases materially different, O’Connor said, and justified the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Andrade’s sentence. FURTHER READINGS Walsh, Jennifer E. 2007. Three Strikes Laws. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. CROSS REFERENCES Cruel and Unusual Punishment; Determinate Sentence; Recidivism; Parole. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 32 THREE STRIKES LAWS age 87, it constituted “the practical equivalence of a life sentence without parole.” Souter was also troubled by the state’s use of the two minor theft charges, just weeks apart, as the second and third strikes. In his view, “Andrade did not somehow become twice as dangerous to society when he stole the second handful of video- tapes.” A 25-year sentence would have been reasonable but 50 years was disproportionate. In 2004 California voters defeated Proposi- tion 66, which would have limited the applica- tion of the three strikes law to violent felonies. The defeat came despite the rising costs of incarceration. By 2009 it cost $31,000 per year to house an inmate and the total cost of incarcer- ating three-strike prisoners had risen to $500 million. Inmates over the age of 55 cost over $50,000 per year to incarcerate. Critics of the law believe rising costs will eventually lead the state to change or repeal the three strikes law. FURTHER READINGS Kieso, Douglas. 2005. Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in America’s Golden State. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. Walsh, Jennifer. 2007. Three Strikes Laws. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Zimring, Franklin E., Sam Kamin, and Gordon Hawkins. 2003. Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Determinate Sentence; Prisoners’ Rights. THRIFT SUPERVISION, OFFICE OF See OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION. v THURMOND, JAMES STROM James Strom Thurmond began his service as a U.S. senator from South Carolina in 1954; when he died at the age of 100 in 2003, he was the oldest sitting senator in U.S. history. An outspoken opponent of federal CIVIL RIGHTS legislation for most of his career, Thurmond is known for conducting the longest FILIBUSTER ever by a U.S. Senator, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond softened his views in the 1970s but remained a controversial political figure until the end. Although he later moderated his position on race, Thurmond continued to defend his early segregationist campaigns on the basis of STATES’ RIGHTS, never fully renouncing his earlier viewpoints. Strom Thurmond. ROBERT GIROUX/GETTY IMAGES James Strom Thurmond 1902–2003 ❖ 1902 Born, Edgefield, S.C. ◆ 1914–18 World War I 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ▼▼ ▼▼ 1925 1900 1950 1975 2000 ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1923 Graduated from Clemson University ◆ ◆ ◆ 1924–29 Worked as a teacher in Edgefield County, S.C. 1929 Served as superintendent of education, Edgefield County ◆ 1930 Admitted to S.C. bar 1932 Elected to S.C. Senate 1938 Appointed state circuit judge 1942–45 Served in U.S. Army 1964 Switched to Republican party 1954–2003 Served in U.S. Senate 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decided by Supreme Court ◆ 1951 Returned to private law practice 1947–51 Served as governor of South Carolina 1948 Presidential candidate, Dixiecrat Party 1995–99 Chaired Armed Services Committee ◆ 2002 Became first sitting U.S. senator to turn 100 2003 Retired from Senate; died, Edgefield, S.C. ❖ 1981–87 Served as Senate president pro tempore Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THURMOND, JAMES STROM 33 Thurmond was born on December 5, 1902, in Edgefield, South Carolina. Thurmond’s father, John William Thurmond, was an attor- ney who served as county PROSECUTOR and later as U.S. district attorney. He was also a powerful political leader in Edgefield County. Strom, as he preferred to be called, graduated from Clemson University in 1923. He was a teacher and athletic coach in several South Carolina school districts before becoming superintendent of education for Edgefield County in 1929. While serving as superintendent, Thurmond studied law under his father, who had become a state judge. In 1930 , Thurmond was admitted to the South Carolina bar. He became a full-time attorney in 1933 and soon became county attorney. It was then that Thurmond decided to pursue a political career. He was elected as a state senator in 1932, serving until 1938, when he gave up his office to accept an appointment as a state circuit judge. He took a leave of absence in 1942 to serve with the 82nd Airborne Division during WORLD WAR II. On his return to South Carolina, Thurmond resumed his political career. He was elected governor in 1946, serving until 1951. Thur- mond believed, as most southern Democrats did, that state-enforced racial SEGREGATION was legitimate PUBLIC POLICY and that the federal government had no authority to end it. At the 1948 national DEMOCRATIC PARTY convention, southern Democrats on the platform committee removed President HARRY S. TRUMAN’s proposals for civil righ ts legislation. When the convention, under the leadership of HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, restored Truman’s proposals, many southern Democrats, including Thurmond, walked out of the convention and started a splinter party, the States’ Rights Democratic party. It was popu- larly known as the Dixiecrat party. The Dixiecrats nominated Thurmond to run for president in the 1948 election. President Truman won the election, winning 28 states. Republican nominee THOMAS E. DEWEY won 16 states, and Thurmond won four southern states, the third largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history. Thurmond left the governorship in 1951 and resumed the PRACTICE OF LAW in Aiken, South Carolina. In 1954, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate, the first person ever to be elected to the Senate or any other major office by this method. He took the unusual step of resigning in April 1956 to fulfill a 1954 campaign promise that he would allow a REFERENDUM on his service in two years. He was reelected in November 1956 and again in 1960, 1966, 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, and 1996. During the 1950s and 1960s, Thurmond was a leading opponent of federal civil rights legislation and social WELFARE programs. His opposition to the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a et seq.) and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s policies led Thurmond in 1964 to switch to the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Changing political parties is always unusual for political leaders, but it was especially so for Thurmond. The Democratic Party dominated the southern states, making them virtually one-party states. Thurmond’s defection to the Republican Party was a significant act, signa ling a major shift in political power in the South that would accelerate in the 1970s and 1980s. For much of his Senate career, Thurmond served on the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. From 1981 to 1987 he was chair of the Judiciary Committee, where he helped President RONALD REAGAN secure Senate confir- mation of his judicial appointments. During this period he was also president pro tempore of the Senate. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the VICE PRESIDENT is absent. From 1995 to 1999 Thurmond chaired the Armed Services Committee. Thurmond served as adjunct professor of political science at Clemson and distinguished lecturer at Clemson’s Strom Thurmond Insti- tute. His name has been attached to many public buildings, highways, and other public works in South Carolina. After Thurmond’s 1996 reelection, he an- nounced he would not run again but would finish out his term, during which he served as president pro tempore and later as president pro tempore emeritus. In 1997, at age 94, Thur- mond, who had served in office during the terms of ten U.S. presidents, became the longest- serving senator in U.S. history, a record he held until 2006. In 2001, Thurmond, who had been hospitalized several times, took up permanent residence at Washington’s Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In 2002 South Carolinians elected Republican Lindsey Graham to replace Thurmond, whose term expired in January 2003. A nostalgic reference to Thurmond’spast became the subject of controversy when staffers and friends held a 100th birthday party for him I DON’TKNOWHOWI GOT SUCH A REPUTATION AS A SEGREGATIONIST . I GUESS IT WAS BECAUSE WHEN I WAS THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA IT WAS MY DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THE LAW REQUIRED SEGREGATION , SO I WAS JUST DOING MY DUTY . —STROM THURMOND GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 34 THURMOND, JAMES STROM in December 2002. At the party, which was attended by numerous current and former staff, legislators, and lobbyists, Republican Majority Leader TRENT LOTT hailed Thurmond and stated that if others had followed the example of Mississippi and voted Thurmond president in 1948, the country “wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.” Lott’s remark about the days of the Dixiecrats and the platform of segregation proved so controversial that Lott was forced to resign his position as majority leader. Thurmond was in such frail health that it was unclear whether he was aware of the impact of the event. His health failed to improve over the next several months, leading to his death on June 26, 2003, in Edgefield, South Carolina. FURTHER READINGS Bass, Jack, and Marilyn W. Thompson. 1998. Ol’ Strom: An Unauthorized Biography of Strom Thurmond. Atlanta: Longstreet. Butterfield, Fox. 1995. All God’s Children. New York: Knopf. Cohodas, Nadine. 1994. Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change. Atlanta: Mercer Univ. Press. “Strom Thurmond.” 2003. CNN.com: Special Report. Available online at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/spe- cial.strom.thurmond (accessed December 16, 2003). v TILDEN, SAMUEL JONES Samuel Jones Tilden was a New York lawyer, political reformer, governor, and Democratic candidate for president in the famous disputed election of 1876. Tilden’s acceptance of his defeat in the election may have prevented civil unrest. Tilden was born on February 9, 1814, in New Lebanon, New York. He attended Yale University and studied law at New York University before being admitted to the New York bar in 1841. Although Tilden suffered frequent illnesses during his life, he soon became a successful corporate attorney, repre- senting powerful railroad and business entities. In the 1840s Tilden became active in New York DEMOCRATIC PARTY politics. He served in the New York Assembly in 1846 and was a member of the state constitutional conventions in 1846 and 1847. Opposed to SLAVERY, he actively sup- ported the Union during the U.S. CIVIL WAR. In 1848, primarily due to his firendship with MARTIN VAN BUREN, he joined the Free-Soil faction of the New York Democratic Party, also known as the “Barnburners.” In 1855, Tilden was chosen as the anti-slavery faction’s candi- date for Attorney General of New York. In 1868 Tilden began his rise to political prominence. He presided over the New York ▼▼ ▼▼ Samuel Jones Tilden 1814–1886 1800 1850 1875 1900 1825 ❖ 1814 Born, New Lebanon, N.Y. 1812–14 War of 1812 ◆ 1841 Admitted to New York bar 1846 Served in New York Assembly 1846–47 Member of N.Y. constitutional conventions ◆ 1861–65 U.S. Civil War ◆ 1868 Served as chair, New York State Democratic Committee ◆ 1874 Elected governor of New York ◆◆ 1876 Democratic nominee for president 1877 Republican Rutherford Hayes won presidency in disputed election ❖ 1886 Died, Yonkers, N.Y. Samuel J. Tilden. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION TILDEN, SAMUEL JONES 35 State Democratic Committee and led a reform movement that collected evidence and prose- cuted the notorious Tweed Ring, the corrupt Democratic political machine that controlled and defrauded New York City. Tilden’s reforms led to his election as governor of New York in 1874. He continued to enhance his reputation as reformer when he exposed the Canal Ring, a CONSPIRACY of politicians and contractors who had defrauded the state of money intended to pay for the construction of canals. In 1876, as a result of his accomplishments in New York, Tilden won the Democratic nomination for preside nt and ran against the Republican candidate RUTHERFORD B. HAYES. The campaign was close and heated. Tilden won a majority of the popular votes, and preliminary returns showed that he had 184 of the 185 electoral votes needed to win. Hayes had 165 electoral votes. The electoral votes for Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, however, were in dispute, and the status of one of Oreg on’s three electors also was in question. Republicans quickly calculated that if Hayes received every one of the disputed votes, he would win the presidency by a vote of 185 to 184. Congress was charged under the Constitution with resolving the electoral claims. It created an electoral commission, composed of five members from the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, four from the SENATE, and five justices from the SUPREME COURT. The legislative membership was evenly divided between Democratic and Republican members. The commission voted to award all the disputed votes to Hayes. Tilden, who had shown no leadership during this crisis and had made no effort to marshal support, acquiesced, fearing that any further efforts to fight the result would lead to violence. Southern Democrats also went along with the commission’s result in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South and the end of RECONSTRUCTION.Hayesremovedthe troops by the end of April 1877. After his defeat, Tilden retained influence in the Democratic party. He was considered for the party’s presidential nomination in 1880 and 1884, but he declined the opportunity on both occasions. Tilden died on August 4, 1886, in Yonkers, New York. A wealthy man, Tilden left the bulk of his estate in trust for the establishment of a free public library for New York City. This bequest eventually was used to help build the New York City Library in Manhattan. FURTHER READINGS Morris, Roy, Jr. 2003. Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rehnquist, William H. 2004. The Disputed Election of 1876. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. TIME Time is legally recognized as being divided into years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds. The time kept by a municipality is known as “civic time.” A local government may not use a system of time different from that adopted by its state legislature. During daylight saving time, the customary time system is advanced one hour to take advantage of the longer periods of daylight during the summer months. In 2007 daylight time was changed to begin in the United States on the second Sunday in March and to end on the first Sunday in November. These dates were established by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. no. 109-58, 119 Stat 594 (2005). Time Zones In the past, the states followed var ious standards of time until the railroads of the nation cooperated in establishing a standard time zone system, which was then adopted by federal statutes. Under the standard time zone system, the continental United States is divided into four different zones. The time in each zone is based upon the mean solar time at a specified degree of longitude west from Greenwich, England. The Royal Observatory in Greenwich began transmitting time telegraphically in 1852, and by 1855 most of Britain used Green- wich time. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) subsequently evolved as an important and well-recognized time reference for the world. Eastern Standard Time is based on the mean solar time at 75  longitude west; Central Standard Time, on 90  longitude west; Mountain Stan- dard Time, on 105  longitude west; and Pacific Standard Time on 120  longitude west. Calculations A year is the period during which the earth revolves around the sun. A calendar year is 365 days, except for every fourth year, which is 366 days. The year is divided into twelve month s. A week ordinarily means seven consecutive days, either beginning with no particular day, or from a Sunday through the following Saturday. A day NEW YORK [CANNOT] REMAIN THE CENTER OF COMMERCE AND CAPITAL FOR THIS CONTINENT , UNLESS IT HAS AN INDEPENDENT BAR AND AN HONEST JUDICIARY . —SAMUEL J. TILDEN GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 36 TIME is twenty-four hours, extending from midnight to midnight. When distinguished from night, however, a day refers to the period from sunrise to sunset. In calculating a specified number of days, it is customary to exclude the first and include the last. As a consequence, when a lease provides that it shall continue for a specified period from a particular day, that day is excluded in computing the term. This rule is applied in calculating the time for matters of practice and procedure. The rule governs, for example, the period in which a lawsuit may be commenced, so that the day the CAUSE OF ACTION accrues is excluded for statute-of-limitations purposes. Other The general rule is that when the last day of a period within which an act is to be performed falls on a Sunday or a holiday, that day is excluded from the computation. The act may rightfully be done on the following business day. This rule has been applied in figuring the deadline for conducting a meeting of corporate shareholders; for filing a claim against a deceased person’s estate; for filing a statement proposing a new ordinance for a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; for recording a mortgage; and for redeeming prop- erty from a sale foreclosing a mortgage. Time is also often usedinformally in legalterms related to imprisonment or jail (“to do time”). TIME DRAFT A written order to pay a certain sum in money that is payable at a particular future date. Time drafts, sometimes called time bills or time loans, are frequently used by me rchants to finance the transportation of goods. Time drafts can also be used as a means of legally ensuring that conditions needed to trigger a payment are met . Hence, in order to receive payment, the payee is motivated into completing other elements of the draft that are mandated to initiate the payment. CROSS REFERENCES Commercial Paper. WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRADING COMPANY Troy/Deckerville, Michigan USA Draft No.: Date: / / Reference: Advising Bank: For Value Received, At_____________________________ (_____) Days after the Sight of this Bill of Exchange Pay against this Bill of Exchange to the Order of Ourselves the Sum of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and 00/100 U.S. Dollars (US$ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx) effective payment to be made in U.S. Dollars only without deduction for and free of any tax, import levy or duty, present or future, of any nature under the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof or therein. Drawn under Issuing Bank, Xxxxx, Xxxxx, Documentary Credit LC No.: Dated : / / TO: ISSUING BANK WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRADING COMPANY Street Address City Country by: _______________________________________________ _ (Authorized Signature) Time Draft South Pacific Ocean Ocean North A Arctic Ocean United States of America U.S.A. Canada Mexico Brazil Argentina Uruguay Paraguay Chile Bolivia Peru Ecuador Colombia Venezuela French Guiana (Fr.) Suriname Guyana The Bahamas Cuba Dominican Republic Panama Costa Rica Nicaragua Honduras Guatemala El Salvador Trinidad and Tobago Jam. Haiti Puerto Rico (US) Greenl Belize Barbados Dominica Banks Island Victoria Island Baffin Island Ellesmere Island Island of Newfoundlan Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) (ad Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) 120˚ 60˚ 60˚ A sample time draft. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION TIME DRAFT 37 . matters a step further, enacting a “Two Strikes and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 30 THREE STRIKES LAWS with two counts of felony theft and a jury convicted Andrade on both. population because of the TSAYO have not occurred. Although these figures have caused concern among even the staunchest GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THREE STRIKES LAWS 31 538 U.S Strikes Laws. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. CROSS REFERENCES Cruel and Unusual Punishment; Determinate Sentence; Recidivism; Parole. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 32 THREE STRIKES LAWS age